How Smokeless Tobacco Can Save Your Life
- Thread starter jdw89
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
No, it hasn't been proven.
FDA Tobacco Product Health Fraud
The FDA claims there is no such thing as a reduced harm tobacco product, in spite of the fact that there are products with reduced tar and nicotine that would reduce TSNAs and products known to have lower TSNAs. Yet ANTZ have criticized tobacco companies for NOT reducing TSNAs enough. So, on one hand they claim lowering TSNAs reduces cancer risk, yet on the other hand claim that tobacco with reduced levels cannot make claims because the claim is not proven.
FDA quote from that link:
Think about it. If there is no scientific proof that the existing tobacco products with reduced tar, nicotine or TSNAs are actually reduced risk, then how can they know that reduced TSNAs in tobacco actually reduce risk?
Additional reading: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/anti-smoking-researchers-tell-public.html
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-fallacious-assertions-about-low.html
These articles are about smoking, but the TSNA facts apply just as much to ST.
Last edited:
Well then if they aren't sure if the TSNAs are the cause of cancer then why market the products (such as snus) as safer if essentially it's still a tobacco product and could relate in a 'tobacco related death'? Maybe I'm confused lol
Because the ANTZ claim TSNAs are a problem, so it's good marketing to mention lower TSNAs (and to counter ANTZ objections.)
It's a "catch 22." The ANTZ demand lower TSNAs to reduce cancer risks yet prohibit tobacco companies from telling people that lower TSNAs in their products reduce risk. Read those two last links I posted. Dr. Siegel explains the silliness of the whole thing quite well.
So that is a good question. If there is no scientific evidence that lower TSNAs reduce cancer risk, why do the ANTZ keep insisting that they do? It just proves how few of the ANTZ claims are actually based on science.
It's a "catch 22." The ANTZ demand lower TSNAs to reduce cancer risks yet prohibit tobacco companies from telling people that lower TSNAs in their products reduce risk. Read those two last links I posted. Dr. Siegel explains the silliness of the whole thing quite well.
So that is a good question. If there is no scientific evidence that lower TSNAs reduce cancer risk, why do the ANTZ keep insisting that they do? It just proves how few of the ANTZ claims are actually based on science.
Thanks again Kristin for your posts. So how do they even know for sure that ST is responsible for all of those mouth cancer deaths? Just doesn't make all that much sense to me. I mean we can determine thru science that smoking is bad, but it seems there are a lot of factors that determine mouth cancer in and of itself so there's really no way to prove it one way or the other.
I believe Offroad is a V2 product. So it would be made in Denmark.
I honestly believe the sugars and artificial flavorings in American products account for a lot of the dental problems folks tend to think were caused by the tobacco itself. The studies of cancer rates in Swedes who use snus was very enlightening to me. Could the reduced rates be due to better diets, better air quality, better living? Sure. But that also tends to prove that there are other causes for cancer when tobacco is being blamed. Is inhaling a superheated brew of smoke and chemicals good for you? Of course not. I would never go in a burning building without my SCBA. Why? Because it would cause me significant IMMEDIATE harm and might even result in instant death. But I smoked 1 - 2 packs a day for years without much thought.
I know smokers who never got sick until they simply got very old and died. I know many non smokers who died young, horrible deaths from cancer and cardiac issues. Not every smoker gets sick, and not every non smoker will be cancer free. One of my classmates lost a parent to oral cancer. He never dipped. He never smoked. He was however an alcoholic.
The rate of cancer among Swedish snus users is virtually equal to non smokers. If I get cancer, it will be from the cigarettes I smoked, or the diet and environment I was exposed you for years. I surely would not blame it on Snus because the science simply does not support that conclusion and the people who proclaim from the rooftops that ST causes cancer are the same idiots who are screeching about vapor. NOTHING is 100% safe. No one knows what inhaling flavorings and PG/VG for years will do to us. But I bet it's a whole h**l of a lot less than smoking and eating charred red meat. I will continue to occasionally indulge in those things because I enjoy them, and I refuse to be bullied into living how anyone else wants me to because they know what's best for me. What happened to taking the consequences for one's own decisions. Do not ask me why I consumed these things when I have should have known that I would one day suffer for it. Ask me how that steak was.
See my signature.
So do you think (in your opinion) as long as I brush regularly, take care of my teeth type of thing, that might help with the dental issues? And as far as cancer, honestly, I enjoy the American ST products just fine, but if there is a huge jump in risk between the two, then well...I believe Offroad is a V2 product. So it would be made in Denmark.
I honestly believe the sugars and artificial flavorings in American products account for a lot of the dental problems folks tend to think were caused by the tobacco itself. The studies of cancer rates in Swedes who use snus was very enlightening to me. Could the reduced rates be due to better diets, better air quality, better living? Sure. But that also tends to prove that there are other causes for cancer when tobacco is being blamed. Is inhaling a superheated brew of smoke and chemicals good for you? Of course not. I would never go in a burning building without my SCBA. Why? Because it would cause me significant IMMEDIATE harm and might even result in instant death. But I smoked 1 - 2 packs a day for years without much thought.
I know smokers who never got sick until they simply got very old and died. I know many non smokers who died young, horrible deaths from cancer and cardiac issues. Not every smoker gets sick, and not every non smoker will be cancer free. One of my classmates lost a parent to oral cancer. He never dipped. He never smoked. He was however an alcoholic.
The rate of cancer among Swedish snus users is virtually equal to non smokers. If I get cancer, it will be from the cigarettes I smoked, or the diet and environment I was exposed you for years. I surely would not blame it on Snus because the science simply does not support that conclusion and the people who proclaim from the rooftops that ST causes cancer are the same idiots who are screeching about vapor. NOTHING is 100% safe. No one knows what inhaling flavorings and PG/VG for years will do to us. But I bet it's a whole h**l of a lot less than smoking and eating charred red meat. I will continue to occasionally indulge in those things because I enjoy them, and I refuse to be bullied into living how anyone else wants me to because they know what's best for me. What happened to taking the consequences for one's own decisions. Do not ask me why I consumed these things when I have should have known that I would one day suffer for it. Ask me how that steak was.
See my signature.
Good dental care is important if you dip or not. Flossing is a PITA, but it works. Getting a good cleaning once or twice a year prevents a lot of problems. A good antiseptic rinse goes a long way, too. Older versions of dip/chew may have been higher than newer version. Or maybe, just maybe, the risk was never high and the anti propoganda was the only info available. The science is proving that use of oral tobaccos is significantly safer than smoking. If there is any difference between Swedish and American it is very low. Would you smoke if you weren't chewing? If the answer is yes, then chew is obviously a safer bet no matter what country it came from.
I found this study while doing a bit of research to send the FDA with the their request for information on changing the warnings on ST products
Smokeless tobacco safer than smoking | e! Science News
As you can see there is simply not a whole lot going on as far as oral cancer (or cancer of any kind) and smokeless tobacco. All those oral cancers don't exist. If you have been following this for a while what you find is almost always the same
Some poor guy get's oral cancer who used smokeless tobacco some time in the past
This is used as absolute proof that smokeless tobacco causes oral cancer, complete with scary pictures
End of story
What you never see are actual numbers as in, what is the actual percentage of ST users who get oral cancer?
What is the rate of oral cancer for ST users compared to non-tobacco users?
What is the rate of oral cancer for ST users compared to smokers?
What is the rate of heart disease for ST users compared to non-tobacco users?
Etc..... you get the idea.
You never see these numbers because they would clearly show the risk for ST use is very low. The problem is, that information doesn't fit into the agenda of a whole lot of interested parties from tobacco control groups and BP. They're to busy making a nice fat living of the backs (and death) of smokers.
- Status
Similar threads
