Study: Smoking cessation harder for women

Full story: Newsday 16
Women appear to have a tougher time quitting smoking than men, according to researchers at Women's Health Research at Yale. Full Story
confederate_1989

Bethpage, TN

#1 Jul 9, 2009
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s.

Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.

Federal Government Reports

A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984.

A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.

In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).

The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.

Flawed Assumptions

EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.

For its 1992 report, EPA arbitrarily chose to equate SHS with mainstream (or firsthand) smoke. One of the agency's stated assumptions was that because there is an association between active smoking and lung cancer, there also must be a similar association between SHS and lung cancer.

But the problem posed by SHS is entirely different from that found with mainstream smoke. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."

Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.

Low Statistical Association

Another major problem is that the epidemiological studies on which the EPA report is based are statistical studies that can show only correlation and cannot prove causation.

One statistical method used to compare the rates of a disease in two populations is relative risk (RR). It is the rate of disease found in the exposed population divided by the rate found in the unexposed population. An RR of 1.0 represents zero increased risk. Because confounding and other factors can obscure a weak association, in order even to suggest causation a very strong association must be found, on the order of at least 300 percent to 400 percent, which is an RR of 3.0 to 4.0.

For example, the studies linking direct cigarette smoking with lung cancer found an incidence in smokers of 20 to around 40 times that in nonsmokers, an association of 2000 percent to 4000 percent, or an RR of 20.0 to 40.0.
confederate_1989

Bethpage, TN

#2 Jul 9, 2009
Scientific Principles Ignored

An even greater problem is the agency's lowering of the confidence interval (CI) used in its report. Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.

Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.

EPA Study Soundly Rejected

In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data.... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association.... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.

Propaganda Trumps Science

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.

In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.

The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr.
Helper Dude

Plano, TX

#3 Jul 9, 2009
I have something they can smoke. No nicotine here, baby.

Hey, I'm here to help.
Karl King

Minneapolis, MN

#4 Jul 9, 2009
I don't smoke.
And I don't chew.
And I don't go
With the girls that do!
Misael

France

#6 Aug 7, 2013
http://inhousegeneric.com is an honest and genuine online pharmacy. We were not sure at first because this was our first order of generic medication from this pharmacy. Although it takes a bit long because it got stuck with custom, we are completely sastisfied with this online pharmacy.
You won't be disappointed with them. Their customer service is great too although they need to improve their phone system a bit more. If you need to call them just be sure to call during their working hours. Other than that we highly and sincerely recommend this online pharmacy to everyone.
Poppycock

Massapequa Park, NY

#8 Aug 7, 2013
I quit over 15 years ago. I smoked 2 packs a day for a long time. Wrong again hog breath.
Ricky

Romania

#9 Aug 17, 2013
Naturally, I am skeptical of everything online. http://inhousegeneric.com is legitimate. I placed my first order for the smallest amount possible. It arrived sooner than expected. I didn't pay the extra money for speedy air mail. I placed another order that was much larger and it came right on time. I will definitely use this company again for even larger orders now that I trust them. They also give you discounts every time you place an order which is cool. One thing to keep in mind is if you place a larger order, they will send half in one shipment, and then the other half after that to avoid customs scrutinizing your package. I am very happy, I no longer need to pay tons of money to see a doctor and therapist (and have them tell me a bunch of stuff I already know) in order to get my medication.
Casper

Graz, Austria

#10 Sep 12, 2013
have been researching for months and reading reviews for each pharmacy and finally decided to take the plunge and order from one. After coming to the conclusion http://goo.gl/9Me2E1 seemed the most safest and had the best feedback I ordered my pills. Was very apprehensive at first due to cc fraud, ell and they are good i would definetely recommend and purchase againspam and being generally ripped off (have not received one spam email and no cc fraud) order process and checkout was simple.
placed my order on my debit card and was charged straight away and received confirmation email immediately. choose the speedy del trackable and was advised del would be 7-9 days and order was placed on the 08/01. was just about to email them today to chase up as now 15 days but behold package had been posted through my door. packaging seems as shown on webiste. apart from small delay on advertised shipping time i have been generally please with the pharmacy.
wont be taking the pills for another few weeks yet but all going well and they are good i would definetely recommend and purchase again from them.
Cody
#11 Sep 23, 2013
I have ordered 2 times from this website PILLSMEDSHOP. COM . I called yesterday the customer care and asked for a discount as i was about to order twice the regular amount.
Shaboom

Merrick, NY

#12 Sep 23, 2013
Misael wrote:
http://inhousegeneric.com is an honest and genuine online pharmacy. We were not sure at first because this was our first order of generic medication from this pharmacy. Although it takes a bit long because it got stuck with custom, we are completely sastisfied with this online pharmacy.
You won't be disappointed with them. Their customer service is great too although they need to improve their phone system a bit more. If you need to call them just be sure to call during their working hours. Other than that we highly and sincerely recommend this online pharmacy to everyone.
Well, whatever you're taking is working. You are on a totally unrelated topic.
Shaboom

Merrick, NY

#13 Sep 23, 2013
Cody wrote:
I have ordered 2 times from this website PILLSMEDSHOP. COM . I called yesterday the customer care and asked for a discount as i was about to order twice the regular amount.
Are you high? You're on the wrong topic.
Shaboom

Merrick, NY

#14 Sep 23, 2013
Cody wrote:
I have ordered 2 times from this website PILLSMEDSHOP. COM . I called yesterday the customer care and asked for a discount as i was about to order twice the regular amount.
Yes, the pills work. You're in the wrong place. You've had enough.
Shaboom

Merrick, NY

#15 Sep 23, 2013
Casper wrote:
have been researching for months and reading reviews for each pharmacy and finally decided to take the plunge and order from one. After coming to the conclusion http://goo.gl/9Me2E1 seemed the most safest and had the best feedback I ordered my pills. Was very apprehensive at first due to cc fraud, ell and they are good i would definetely recommend and purchase againspam and being generally ripped off (have not received one spam email and no cc fraud) order process and checkout was simple.
placed my order on my debit card and was charged straight away and received confirmation email immediately. choose the speedy del trackable and was advised del would be 7-9 days and order was placed on the 08/01. was just about to email them today to chase up as now 15 days but behold package had been posted through my door. packaging seems as shown on webiste. apart from small delay on advertised shipping time i have been generally please with the pharmacy.
wont be taking the pills for another few weeks yet but all going well and they are good i would definetely recommend and purchase again from them.
I don't think you need any more pills. You're on the wrong forum.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#16 Sep 23, 2013
Cody wrote:
I have ordered 2 times from this website PILLSMEDSHOP. COM . I called yesterday the customer care and asked for a discount as i was about to order twice the regular amount.
Hey, limpdick! QUIT SMOKING!!!! Then you will not have to post spam to a company that will steal other limpdick smokers money when they buy the fake medication to get wood.
Elbertina

UK

#18 Jan 30, 2014
I've been on Effexor from http://goo.gl/LXY9gr only one week but am cautiously very optimistic. Prior to this I was on citalopram but still feeling very low and sleeping poorly, feeling like I needed to be in bed 12-16 hours a day. Now I am waking naturally after only 8 hours sleep and finding it much easier to concentrate at work. I can hardly believe it is working so quickly but I feel so much better. I've had no side effects.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#19 Jan 30, 2014
Elbertina wrote:
I've been on Effexor from http://goo.gl/LXY9gr only one week but am cautiously very optimistic. Prior to this I was on citalopram but still feeling very low and sleeping poorly, feeling like I needed to be in bed 12-16 hours a day. Now I am waking naturally after only 8 hours sleep and finding it much easier to concentrate at work. I can hardly believe it is working so quickly but I feel so much better. I've had no side effects.
Another limpdick smoker trying to get other stupid smokers to give their financial information to a bunch of crooks. Way to go, LIMPDICK. Quit smoking and you won't have to work at a crappy assed job like this. Maybe you will even get a woman once you stop stinking like a smoky turd.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Depression Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Around half of cases of depression and anxiety ... 19 hr Smack Down 1
How long before feeling the effects of Zoloft (... Oct 17 DeniseT 46
Utah universities seek to help students struggl... Oct 10 AngelsandGhosts 1
Mental health issues: Still a lot of work to do Oct 9 HumanSpirit 1
Foods That Make You Happy - Literally (Oct '13) Oct 7 sicknigr47 3
Trazodone as a Fibromyalgia Treatment (Nov '10) Oct 7 Helen 10
Drugs for depression, anxiety tied to preterm b... (Feb '10) Oct 7 Helen 17

Depression People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE