Ecigs May Affect Genes in Airways

[r055co]

Another thing that makes believing smoking related death numbers tricky is that we're all going to die one way or another regardless of smoke. We're also each as unique as a fingerprint on how we respond to consuming things over time and also our genetic predisposition. Some people sunbathe their whole life and never get skin cancer while others get a couple bad burns in their youth and have to get basal cell carcinomas removed in their 30's.

Me for example. I've always had high normal blood pressure. Even going back to when I was a teenager. That progressed to state 1 hypertension by the time I was 43. I'm pretty confident that blasting through thousands of marlboros over many years sped that process up but it was going to happen to me regardless at some point. Luckily it's being easily controlled by a small dose of meds and I get annual physicals. My doc had to make a small reduction in my meds within 8 months after I started vaping. My doc tried to take me off all together but that was a no go.

So there lies the question. If I never went on meds and never smoked would I have lived longer than being a life long smoker? I would say the odds say yes on that one. If I was a smoker and died of a stroke or heart attack @ 65 it would go down as smoking related. If I was a non-smoker and died of a stroke or heart attack @ 70 it would be natural causes. But I died the same way either way.

The point I'm trying to make is that measuring "smoking related deaths" isn't really that important because we're all going to die. I think we can all agree that smoking most likely shortens a persons lifespan for a myriad of reasons and a lot of those reasons are decided at birth. Sure, there are some folks who are born with insane genes and can live a long life regardless of anything they do. How many of us are one of those? I'm probably not one of those people. Smoking or heavy drinking or whatever vice someone has is playing roulette with your chemistry. I started really getting nervous in my mid 40's before vaping saved me from those thoughts.

I remember talking about my uncle who smoked unfiltered chesterfields for 70 years and died at 85 of COPD complications. I used that as an excuse to not care about smoking because you can live to 85 and smoke like a chimney. Thinking about it now my uncle was blessed with an incredibly resilient body and probably would have lived to 90 or 100 had he never smoked.

Yep, let me give you something to think about too. My Uncle my Father's oldest brother smoked Camel unfiltered since he was 12 and also loved his beer lived to be 92. He died of just old age, no cancer, heart disease etc. My father who never smoked, drank, etc was a health food nut died of cancer @ 87. While I believe you can speed things up like being overweight, smoking, etc I really think it's already coded in your genes

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Chill]

Yep, let me give you something to think about too. My Uncle my Father's oldest brother smoked Camel unfiltered since he was 12 and also loved his beer lived to be 92. He died of just old age, no cancer, heart disease etc. My father who never smoked, drank, etc was a health food nut died of cancer @ 87. While I believe you can speed things up like being overweight, smoking, etc I really think it's already coded in your genes

Yep. We all have embedded weak spots. Unfortunately we only find out what they are as they are happening. We can guess of course with family history but that can only help so much.

My family is split between early deaths (pre 70) and late ones (post 80). I can't think of any one of my relatives who died in the their 70's. Weird. My uncle is 85 and kicking even though he drank like a fish his whole life. His father dropped @ 61 of a heart attack and was in great shape.

For me, the most important part of quitting wasn't avoiding an early death. It was the risk of seriously jeopardizing quality of life down the line. I've seen enough emphysema and COPD to know that's not how I want to go. My best friend's dad had it so bad that he could barely get from the couch to the table. He lived for a good while with it but it was hard to watch. He developed it at 61 and passed at 68. Those last 7 years were rough though.

 

[r055co]

Yep. We all have embedded weak spots. Unfortunately we only find out what they are as they are happening. We can guess of course with family history but that can only help so much.

My family is split between early deaths (pre 70) and late ones (post 80). I can't think of any one of my relatives who died in the their 70's. Weird. My uncle is 85 and kicking even though he drank like a fish his whole life. His father dropped @ 61 of a heart attack and was in great shape.

For me, the most important part of quitting wasn't avoiding an early death. It was the risk of seriously jeopardizing quality of life down the line. I've seen enough emphysema and COPD to know that's not how I want to go. My best friend's dad had it so bad that he could barely get from the couch to the table. He lived for a good while with it but it was hard to watch. He developed it at 61 and passed at 68. Those last 7 years were rough though.

Yep, you nailed it. I quit smoking mostly as a promise to my father, secondly for my own health. Since then my general health has vastly improved. To me it's a quality of life. I much rather enjoy an active life than one racked up with poor health. Both my father and my Uncle were very active until the last few years. I believe a sedentary lifestyle is the biggest factor.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Kent C]

There are 'confounding factors' in many illnesses. Sometimes it's smoking, sometimes it's not. Here's the Pierce study on diketones/diacetyl/popcorn lung where smoking wasn't a factor.

"They also appear to believe that, because most of the alleged cases of bronchiolitis obliterans in their cohort (8/9) were not current smokers, then smoking was not a confounder in their study. They have unintentionally reinforced our point. Cigarette smoke contains high levels of diacetyl, therefore workers who smoke have much higher diacetyl exposures than the non-smoking food/flavoring workers. More importantly, even though smokers arguably have the highest peak and cumulative diacetyl exposures of any definable cohort, smoking is not a risk factor for bronchiolitis obliterans. These observations argue against a relationship between diacetyl exposure and bronchiolitis obliterans. Finally, they have confused “controlling for the effects of smoking on respiratory function” (which they did do) versus “accounting for the relatively large diacetyl exposure from smoking when assessing the exposure-response relationship between diacetyl inhalation and respiratory function in food/flavoring workers” (which they certainly did not do)."

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[skoony]

As the subject is being discussed I thought i'd link to a article that
explains the problems concerning CDC's SAMMEC.

FORCES International - Forces Archive

Regards
Mike

 

[choochoogranny]

That was a very good read, skoony. Thank you.

 

[Ipster]

https://www.sciencedaily.bom/releases/2016/06/160620141317.htm

Not sure if it's junk science but doesn't appear to be on the face. I broke the link anyways. Change .bom with .com.

Not sure if it's junk science is the best sentence in the post. What utter tripe! C'mon, pps...U of North Carolina? arent the red flags raging your bull? or just spreading it?

Just in case the big tobacco origin is not enough to raise your ire, let me state Im not simply whistling angry Dixie out me ..... It's my understanding via peer reviewed research in the area as of late 2015; "the transcriptional response of human alveolar type II epithelial cells was still unclear."...(if you dont understand transcriptional response's role in genetics..look it up)
First thing I did was send it along to some good pps at U of Coventry in UK, there's good bio-genetics group there=- I hope to let you know what I hear (though IM fairly confident it'll be debunked)

Cheers

 

[CarolT]

Yep. We all have embedded weak spots. Unfortunately we only find out what they are as they are happening. We can guess of course with family history but that can only help so much.

My family is split between early deaths (pre 70) and late ones (post 80). I can't think of any one of my relatives who died in the their 70's. Weird. My uncle is 85 and kicking even though he drank like a fish his whole life. His father dropped @ 61 of a heart attack and was in great shape.

For me, the most important part of quitting wasn't avoiding an early death. It was the risk of seriously jeopardizing quality of life down the line. I've seen enough emphysema and COPD to know that's not how I want to go. My best friend's dad had it so bad that he could barely get from the couch to the table. He lived for a good while with it but it was hard to watch. He developed it at 61 and passed at 68. Those last 7 years were rough though.

Such credulity to believe that the anti-smokers would never lie. They're criminals running a giant Tuskegee Experiment - falsely blaming smoking for COPD that's really caused by cytomegalovirus. Poorer people are more often exposed to CMV and at younger ages, and smokers are more common among the less wealthy.
Cytomegalovirus Is Implicated in COPD

And it explains why 23% of COPD patients are never smokers, contrary to their lie that it's vanishingly rare among them. Airway obstruction in never smokers: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. - PubMed - NCBI

And their blindness to the role of infection is a clue to why the USPSTF says that early detection "does not alter the course of the disease or improve patient outcomes."
USPSTF Recommendation: Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

The bottom line is that studies based on lifestyle questionnaires, that ignore the role of infection, are fraudulent. At the very least, any idiot should be able to figure out that studies based on lifestyle questionnaires are designed ONLY to blame peoples' lifestyles!! Is this a job for Captain Obvious or what?

 

[Semiretired]

Thanks for the articles. I am interested.

I have always been concerned about the dehydrant properties of PG and VG. Suppressing actually makes sense if you think about the other properties of juice and we all know the real missing link is the different flavors and mixes of those flavors we use...

If you want to call it fake science - so be it, but testing does need to be done (good or bad)... While we may have committed to this or not is a mute point, but future generations need to know.

I know I am not going back to smoking and that is all I care about, but there is more to this and it needs to be known...

 

[CarolT]

Thanks for the articles. I am interested.

I have always been concerned about the dehydrant properties of PG and VG. Suppressing actually makes sense if you think about the other properties of juice and we all know the real missing link is the different flavors and mixes of those flavors we use...

If you want to call it fake science - so be it, but testing does need to be done (good or bad)... While we may have committed to this or not is a mute point, but future generations need to know.

I know I am not going back to smoking and that is all I care about, but there is more to this and it needs to be known...

But studies like that shed absolutely no light on health risks of vaping, and they know it. There are mountains of this kind of dreck, all unsupported by any evidence of health risks in actual humans. That would require prospective studies, which take many years, especially when most of the exposed subjects are young. And in the meantime, even if there are no health effects, the charlatans will have managed to outlaw vaping, purely based on deceitful FUD like this.

Those people doing the studies are not scientists. They get their funding because of their hatred of smoking and vaping. And their subject matter is selected to help the Surgeon General/FDA/CDC et al. compile a dossier of false charges that look convincing to stupid people.

 

[VNeil]

But studies like that shed absolutely no light on health risks of vaping, and they know it. There are mountains of this kind of dreck, all unsupported by any evidence of health risks in actual humans. That would require prospective studies, which take many years, especially when most of the exposed subjects are young. And in the meantime, even if there are no health effects, the charlatans will have managed to outlaw vaping, purely based on deceitful FUD like this.

Those people doing the studies are not scientists. They get their funding because of their hatred of smoking and vaping. And their subject matter is selected to help the Surgeon General/FDA/CDC et al. compile a dossier of false charges that look convincing to stupid people.

You mean FUD like this?
Kerala: Govt decides to ban e-cigarettes

 

[CarolT]

You mean FUD like this?
Kerala: Govt decides to ban e-cigarettes

That is the desired result of FUD.

 

[Ipster]

Yep, you nailed it. I quit smoking mostly as a promise to my father, secondly for my own health. Since then my general health has vastly improved. To me it's a quality of life. I much rather enjoy an active life than one racked up with poor health. Both my father and my Uncle were very active until the last few years. I believe a sedentary lifestyle is the biggest factor.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Activity is far more important a factor than anyone will talk about here. The argument is just getting old.
anyone with a lick of Horse Sense realizes the role of heredity and family genetics preempts environmental and lifestyle factors. Im one that's so angry/sick of the "civilized" nations attempts to shove concepts of a healthy lifestyle down our throats in place of individual choices. its common enough to find individual samplings of families who drank, smoked, and lived more than 100yrs as well as those that did everything "healthy" and wound up a "Jim Fixx". Just treat citizenry with dignity and intelligence, free to make our own choices based on our own knowledge base.