Interesting study report.

[paladinx]

I just was bored and I always see how swedish match is advertising the harm reduction stuff, and i see how they have power in Sweden and are in cahoots with the FDA over there. Like how the pharm companies here have power, or how the tobacco companies used to be in this country, and it got me thinking, so i looked up some reports on the harm reduction crap.

http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/publications/smokeless_tobacco.pdf

To summarize that long report, what struck my attention the most is the the most comprehensive study ever done in 1994, which analyzed about 100 thousand people or so for decades concluded that snus users had a 40 percent increase risk for death. Most of it being risks to cardiovascular disease. Other studies after that contradicted this study and said there were no strong relations. But the study that was the most negative had the largest number of people and seemed to be the more accurate study. Now they say the reason could be that the study started in the 70s before the tobacco was pasterurized etc, But i mean, 100 k people and they got those results, There has to be some kind of association and now is probably being covered up by studies funded by swedish match. Plus I think the cardiovacular risks for men middle aged using snus was even higher then smoking. That really caught me off guard.

So just makes you think twice.

 

[frogbmth]

Nice post, I like it when people question things presented as fact.

The thing about cigarettes is that so many studies have been done around the world by so many different bodies, the results while up for technical debate cannot be disputed. Smoking cigarettes has a good chance of killing you.

While there is a lot more info about snus than ecigs or even shisha tobacco, its still a very little amount of info to be drawing conclusions from.

I'm willing to wager that the health risk of eating Burger King every day is likely to be higher

 

[sherid]

Did anyone ever question why the anti-smoker/tobacco people use percentage of risk rather than numbers? I did and found this excellent article to explain why that may be so. BBC - h2g2 - How To Understand Statistics
Here's an example from the explanation
"Common sense can cloud statistical results. For instance, a technology firm discovered that 40% of all sick days were taken on a Friday or a Monday. They immediately clamped down on sick leave before they realised their mistake. Forty per cent represents two days out of a five day working week and therefore is a normal spread, rather than a reflection of swathes of feckless opportunists trying to extend their weekends."

 

[paladinx]

thats a great point sherid. And you are right, statistics can be swayed and be very misleading. For example that study I was telling you about that talks about the risks of snus. What i found weird and dont really understand, they said the risk for cardio vascular death in the age range 35-54 was more significant then for ages 54+, with a higher percentage risk. So could that mean because if there 500 people in that age range and 3 of them head heart attacks and 2 of which were blamed on snus, then the risk average would be higher then lets say 300 heart attacks by people age 54+ and only five percent of them were blamed on snus? something to that effect?

but the thing with the studies, the one in 94 didnt seem to have anything to prove or disprove, i could be wrong. But future studies done I can definitely see in the fine print that they were either fully or partially sponsored by the tobacco companies. So all these reports being made after 94 stating how safe snus is could really be swayed. I mean the 94 report had high statistical power cause they analyzed over 100 thousand people. I have to give that report some merit.

 

[katink]

What I have learned is to always look very closely into: 'percentage of WHAT??'. Look for instance at the percentages given (by certain groups...) for success of patches and gums... you might read 'the patch had a 50% success-rate'. Then if you go hunt for the 'what'... you find that the patch had 50% of the chance for success that the gum had... (these are made up numbers, so just an example). Or... 'patch is twice as successful as cold turkey'... without telling how successful the cold turkey is (and that then shows to be 1.6%, meaning the patch has a 'staggering' success of a whole 2.6%...)

Always try to hunt down the point from which they started, is what I learnt from these examples... don't know if that helps with your questions of course, maybe these numbers are solid; but perhaps these high figures are along these lines?

 

[Kitabz]

To summarize that long report, what struck my attention the most is the the most comprehensive study ever done in 1994, which analyzed about 100 thousand people or so for decades concluded that snus users had a 40 percent increase risk for death.

I remember reading somewhere (sorry, I don't have a link) that unless something has at least a 2x (100%) increased risk of causing something else, it's best just to ignore it.

The increased risk of lung cancer in smokers (compared with never-smokers) is something like 1000% so we can be fairly sure of cause and effect. With a lower increased risk however one or more other factors may come into play, for example, snus users may tend to be heavier alcohol drinkers or be overweight (there is just an made up possibilities) so separating out the snus from other lifestyle factors is less clear.

EDIT - I've just remembers an interesting abuse of statistics to do with the ever popular "five pieces of fruit/vegetables a day" mantra. I don't have the exact numbers to hand but it was something like this: people who don't eat many/any fruit & vegetables have an 35% increased risk of developing bowel cancer before a certain age. The actual numbers however were 12 out of 10,000 for those who eat lots of F&V versus 16 out of 10,000 for those who did not. Not really worth losing any sleep over IMHO.

 

[paladinx]

I wouldnt believe that study either way, I think those who eat a lot of fruits and vegetables are going to be much healthier overall. This can be proven by individual cases as well as whole populations who eat diets rich in this and consume the least red meats etc, Which sucks for me, I eat like **** rofl.


yeah you guys make a lot of sense and I completely agree with you. I think somewhere overall they said the increase was more then doubled for risks of snus in that report. but who really knows. They say cigarettes are the worst worst of the worst, and it usually takes people to smoke a trillion cigarettes to cause any significant damage, so the damage per cigarette must be really really low.

regards

 

[sherid]

In the past, I just sort of believed that smokers got lung cancer at a rate of 50% or more. Listening to the constant barrage of anti smoking doomsday news, one would believe that is so. It is not, however. Although we all know that smoking greatly enhances one's chances of getting the dreaded LC, in reality, the chance of getting lung cancer for smokers is 8%. When one reads the news, then one is led to believe that lung cancer is a leading cause of death. However, it accounts for only about 2% of the mortality rate. If one happens to be among the unfortunate 8%, then that is perhaps enough of a risk to make one a non-smoker. My point is that the risk of smoking is large, but I would love to see a more honest assessment of it rather than the hyped up barrage of news. That hype actually makes me less likely to listen to the real dangers because it is so easy to dispute in real life.

 

[sherid]

I remember reading somewhere (sorry, I don't have a link) that unless something has at least a 2x (100%) increased risk of causing something else, it's best just to ignore it.

.

That fact is what makes most of us non-believers in the dangers of shs since the RR for shs is under 1.5.

 

[paladinx]

Sherid i agree with you 100 percent. You make sense.

what exactly does that mean anyway?

That fact is what makes most of us non-believers in the dangers of shs since the RR for shs is under 1.5.

 

[blueeyekelly]

cuteness gone sorry for KILLING you thread!

 

[TropicalBob]

How to Kill an Interesting Thread: Get cute. Lesson One above.

 

[blueeyekelly]

How to Kill an Interesting Thread: Get cute. Lesson One above.

sorry my humor Killed an intresting thread it has been removed!