Wouldn't be surprised. This is a propaganda war and has nothing to with health. It's about industries removing competitors by way of purchasing legislation to do it.
There have been several clinical trials involving rodents that reported serious negative effects on health associated with nicotine consumption. What I have been saying is that:
a) You can get whatever result you like from a clinical trial. It is a science in and of itself. I am a layman and have never been involved with clinical trials or anything similar, but even I know 4 ways to pre-rig a clinical trial that won't be mentioned in the results (drug washouts, placebo washouts, group deselections, individual deselections) - basically you pre-run a trial and then eliminate any subject who doesn't give you the result you want. Then the full trial's results are already skewed toward your preferred result. I expect there are 100 more ways to get the result your funders paid for.
b) The huge mountain of data from smoke-free nicotine consumption in Sweden - about 30 years of national health statistics, epidemiology, and more than 150 clinical studies - tells us that ad lib long-term nicotine consumption has no significant effect. The national health stats are unique in many respects, all good; large-scale meta analyses of the hundreds of studies reports no reliably identified elevation of risk for any disease.
There are two or three studies that report an association with pancreatic cancer, but another 100 that don't; in this circumstance the minority results are regarded as outliers. This is also the case with the similar studies that report a negative effect (therefore a protective effect against cancer); all such studies are disregarded as the whole picture is considered more important. Prof Lee's studies show no reliably-identifiable health risks (there is a small elevation of risk for stroke that is just above the background noise). As far as the studies that reported an association with pancreatic cancer go, he took one as an example and shredded it (Boffetta et al), essentially describing the study as incompetent rubbish (you can find this by googling 'pn lee boffetta' or something similar).
Naturally everyone has an agenda, and this must be recognised; but I would tend to believe what Rodu and Phillips say about these issues rather than the version presented by people who I know to be associated with murderously corrupt liars.
Animal nicotine models don't transfer to humans. At least, the ones reporting negative health effects don't: we have 30 years of facts and data that tell us so.
There have been several clinical trials involving rodents that reported serious negative effects on health associated with nicotine consumption. What I have been saying is that:
a) You can get whatever result you like from a clinical trial. It is a science in and of itself. I am a layman and have never been involved with clinical trials or anything similar, but even I know 4 ways to pre-rig a clinical trial that won't be mentioned in the results (drug washouts, placebo washouts, group deselections, individual deselections) - basically you pre-run a trial and then eliminate any subject who doesn't give you the result you want. Then the full trial's results are already skewed toward your preferred result. I expect there are 100 more ways to get the result your funders paid for.
b) The huge mountain of data from smoke-free nicotine consumption in Sweden - about 30 years of national health statistics, epidemiology, and more than 150 clinical studies - tells us that ad lib long-term nicotine consumption has no significant effect. The national health stats are unique in many respects, all good; large-scale meta analyses of the hundreds of studies reports no reliably identified elevation of risk for any disease.
There are two or three studies that report an association with pancreatic cancer, but another 100 that don't; in this circumstance the minority results are regarded as outliers. This is also the case with the similar studies that report a negative effect (therefore a protective effect against cancer); all such studies are disregarded as the whole picture is considered more important. Prof Lee's studies show no reliably-identifiable health risks (there is a small elevation of risk for stroke that is just above the background noise). As far as the studies that reported an association with pancreatic cancer go, he took one as an example and shredded it (Boffetta et al), essentially describing the study as incompetent rubbish (you can find this by googling 'pn lee boffetta' or something similar).
Naturally everyone has an agenda, and this must be recognised; but I would tend to believe what Rodu and Phillips say about these issues rather than the version presented by people who I know to be associated with murderously corrupt liars.
Animal nicotine models don't transfer to humans. At least, the ones reporting negative health effects don't: we have 30 years of facts and data that tell us so.
