Prescriptions Help Kick Smoking

Every year, nearly half smokers try to quit, but only 10% succeed. If you've tried to stop smoking on your own or with over-the-counter remedies and haven't had much luck, there are two prescription medications that have proven effective for many people.

[Sheri]

"It's important to note the FDA recently issued a warning on Zyban and Chantix. They FDA advises doctors to closely watch patients taking these drugs for signs of depression, suicidal thoughts and hostility.' The article also notes that people should stay on this "medicine" for a long time. Why would anyone do that? Chanix and Zyban both have black box warnings for the 100 plus sucidies and the 1000 plus psychotic breakdowns from taking this prescription. Why would any doctor continue to prescribe such poison?

[Sez Who]

Sheri wrote:

The article also notes that people should stay on this "medicine" for a long time. Why would anyone do that? Chanix and Zyban both have black box warnings for the 100 plus sucidies and the 1000 plus psychotic breakdowns from taking this prescription. Why would any doctor continue to prescribe such poison?

Maybe because smoking is estimated to kill 6 MILLION a year?

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/health/20...

[Free_America]

Sheri wrote:

"It's important to note the FDA recently issued a warning on Zyban and Chantix. They FDA advises doctors to closely watch patients taking these drugs for signs of depression, suicidal thoughts and hostility.' The article also notes that people should stay on this "medicine" for a long time. Why would anyone do that? Chanix and Zyban both have black box warnings for the 100 plus sucidies and the 1000 plus psychotic breakdowns from taking this prescription. Why would any doctor continue to prescribe such poison?

Not to mention that cold turkey is by far the most successful means of quitting. This is nothing but propaganda put forth by big pharma. Surprise Surprise!
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2009/...

[Sheri]

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe because smoking is estimated to kill 6 MILLION a year?
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/health/20...

Really? How old are they? If they are mostly below 70, then there is an argument. If those smokers who die are at anything between 70 and 90, then they are not premature deaths. Just because people who die are smokers does not mean that smoking killed them. However, in this thwarted view of "science" they will be counted as smoking related deaths whatever their age or cause of death.

[Sez Who]

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? How old are they? If they are mostly below 70, then there is an argument.

A study that tracked smokers and nonsmokers for 30 years found that 41% of the pack-a-day men died before they were 70. Only 14% of non-smoking men died before they were 70.

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/2...

"Vollset's study included about 24,500 women and 25,000 men in rural Norway born between 1925 and 1941.

Participants reported their smoking habits in the 1970s, when the study started, and again five and 10 years later. They were followed until 2000.

A total of 2,333 women and 4,680 men in the group died in middle age, with smokers at the highest risk in every decade of middle age. Middle age ran from age 40 to 70, by the researchers' definition.

Among nonsmokers, 9% of women and 14% of men died in middle age. So did 26% of women and 41% of men who smoked at least 20 daily cigarettes throughout the study."

[Ouch]

TRUE, the Prescriptions will Kill you and that for sure will help you stop smoking..

[Sheri]

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
A study that tracked smokers and nonsmokers for 30 years found that 41% of the pack-a-day men died before they were 70. Only 14% of non-smoking men died before they were 70.
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/2...
"Vollset's study included about 24,500 women and 25,000 men in rural Norway born between 1925 and 1941.
Participants reported their smoking habits in the 1970s, when the study started, and again five and 10 years later. They were followed until 2000.
A total of 2,333 women and 4,680 men in the group died in middle age, with smokers at the highest risk in every decade of middle age. Middle age ran from age 40 to 70, by the researchers' definition.
Among nonsmokers, 9% of women and 14% of men died in middle age. So did 26% of women and 41% of men who smoked at least 20 daily cigarettes throughout the study."

The truth is that smoking-related deaths, even under the generous definitions used by CDC, are associated with old age. Nearly 60 percent of the deaths occur at age 70 or above; nearly 45 percent at age 75 or above; and almost 17 percent at the grand old age of 85 or above! Nevertheless, without the slightest embarrassment, the public health community persists in characterizing those deaths as "premature." Regrettable, yes; premature, no.

Suppose for a moment that all tobacco-related deaths occurred at age 99. Surely the gravity of that problem would be tempered by the fact that the decedents would have died soon from some other cause. Actually, tobacco-related deaths occur at an average age of roughly 72, an age at which mortality is not unusual among smokers and non-smokers alike.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php...

[generalsn1234567]

Cyanide works a lot faster than Chantix, but there are no repeat customes. It would be a poor marketing strategy.

[Sez Who]

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
The truth is that smoking-related deaths, even under the generous definitions used by CDC, are associated with old age. Nearly 60 percent of the deaths occur at age 70 or above....
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php...

Yes, according to the study I cited in the previous message, 59% of smoking men will make it to age 70. And that may sound OK until you compare those numbers to nonsmokers.

86% of nonsmoking men will live past 70.

Do you really not understand that smoking has been proven to have serious health consequences? How do explain the disparity in life span between smokers and nonsmokers?

"41% of the pack-a-day men died before they were 70. Only 14% of non-smoking men died before they were 70."

[Sez Who]

That last question should be:

"How do you explain the disparity in life span between smokers and nonsmokers?

[Free_America]

Sez Who wrote:

That last question should be:
"How do you explain the disparity in life span between smokers and nonsmokers?

How do you explain that the oldest have all been smokers?
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2008/...

http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2008/...
Not a study funded by Tobacco Control just a plain old fact!

[Sez Who]

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>How do you explain that the oldest have all been smokers?
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2008/...
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2008/...
Not a study funded by Tobacco Control just a plain old fact!

Among the very oldest, a smoking history is not typical and active smoking is very rare. You have pointed to two exceptions to the general rule. Multiple studies of centenarians have demonstrated this.

http://cat.inist.fr/...

"Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 &#8242; 1.8 years (&#8242;SD), 83.8 % of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are former smokers, and 2.7 % are active smokers."

[u cannot own me]

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, according to the study I cited in the previous message, 59% of smoking men will make it to age 70. And that may sound OK until you compare those numbers to nonsmokers.
86% of nonsmoking men will live past 70.
Do you really not understand that smoking has been proven to have serious health consequences? How do explain the disparity in life span between smokers and nonsmokers?
"41% of the pack-a-day men died before they were 70. Only 14% of non-smoking men died before they were 70."

41% and 14% does not equal 100% so less than half the men who smoked died and so did the more than half the men who did not smoke.

41% smoked and 59% did not smoke

[u cannot own me]

Sez Who wrote:

That last question should be:
"How do you explain the disparity in life span between smokers and nonsmokers?

Everybody will die whether they smoke or not and no specific age or smoking or not smoking determines the date or age. You might ask yourself why nonsmokers die before smokers and why they die younger than the smoker. You get a birth certificate at birth but you do not get a death date, therefore any claims of premature deaths is a joke.

One thing for sure, there are smoking related and non smoking related deaths so if you don't wake up tomorrow morning, can smokers attend your funeral?

[u cannot own me]

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
Among the very oldest, a smoking history is not typical and active smoking is very rare. You have pointed to two exceptions to the general rule. Multiple studies of centenarians have demonstrated this.
http://cat.inist.fr/...
"Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 &#8242; 1.8 years (&#8242;SD), 83.8 % of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are former smokers, and 2.7 % are active smokers."

You could very well worry yourself into an early grave with so much worrying about what other people do and do not do, weigh an do not weigh..calm down, relax and live life instead of worrying about it

[u cannot own me]

Sez Who wrote:

"How do you explain the disparity in life span between smokers and nonsmokers?

you might ask this gentleman

101 year old marathon runner that doesn't drink water, opting for beer and cigarettes instead

http://mypathtotheironman.blogspot.com/2008/0...

[Sez Who]

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text>41% and 14% does not equal 100% so less than half the men who smoked died and so did the more than half the men who did not smoke.
41% smoked and 59% did not smoke

You misunderstand the numbers. Let me try to explain.

A large group of people was followed for 30 years, and then divided into two comparison groups: the smokers and the nonsmokers. 41% of the male smokers had died by age 70 (which means 59% of the male smokers were still alive at age 70.) If you add those two numbers together it accounts for 100% of the male smokers.

Only 18% of the nonsmoking males had died by age 70.(which means that 82% of the male nonsmoker were still alive at age 70.) If you add those two numbers together it accounts for 100% of the male nonsmokers.

[u cannot own me]

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
You misunderstand the numbers. Let me try to explain.
A large group of people was followed for 30 years, and then divided into two comparison groups: the smokers and the nonsmokers. 41% of the male smokers had died by age 70 (which means 59% of the male smokers were still alive at age 70.) If you add those two numbers together it accounts for 100% of the male smokers.
Only 18% of the nonsmoking males had died by age 70.(which means that 82% of the male nonsmoker were still alive at age 70.) If you add those two numbers together it accounts for 100% of the male nonsmokers.

that is evidence that smokers and nonsmokers both die regardless of the many causes including old age and genetics

[u cannot own me]

BTW, everybody's death will involve the heart and lungs

[Sez Who]

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text>
You could very well worry yourself into an early grave with so much worrying about what other people do and do not do, weigh an do not weigh..calm down, relax and live life instead of worrying about it

This is pretty funny advice coming from someone who has posted 13,423 messages to Topix. It seems you are "worrying" more about these issues far more than anyone else here. Why don't you "relax and live life" instead of obsessively posting here?