Big Tobacco's Conspiracy To Hide Health Risks & Deceive, They Knew & Documents Show They Knew - Here

[Carol Thompson]

Will post a few like this .....as I have time.....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...acco_smoke

What is your point? Are you attempting to pretend that merely because polonium 210 may be present, that proves it causes lung cancer? What about the fact that there are an estimated 10,000 carcinogens in ordinary food, including polonium 210? But the bottom line is that it does not entitle you to ignore the fact that there is a known huiman carcinogen called human papillomavirus present in at least a quarter of non-small cell lung cancers. What you're doing is called a smokescreen.

And are you expecting everyone to be indignant merely because someone suggested disputing the anti-smoker claims? That's the nature of a religious inquisition, and it has no place in science.

[Carol Thompson]

All,

This is a classic iteration -- laughable if it weren't so tragic -- of all that I referenced in the above-quoted section.

I'm convinced. "Thompson" is "Colby." Even the "cite examples" language is lifted verbatim from dozens upon dozens of "Colby" posts.

"Cite examples," to reiterate, is in service to the need to engage, engage, engage. All the enemy wants is to prolong the long-settled arguments. Such is the brief of "Colby" and "Thompson."

It is clear to me that one or more of the individuals posting as "Colby" is/are at it here. Let's let it go a bit longer so as to draw them out. Then let's enjoy their "The DPF doesn't allow dissent" posts on the Ef.

I guess that if you have all the material resources in the world, you can afford to employ idiots.

"Thompson," you are exposed.

Charles

This argument is not "long-settled," because in science, unlike ideological dogmas, arguments are opened by new evidence. You clearly believe that censorship, stonewalling, and evasion are legitimate scientific arguments, which they are not.

And to pretend that merely saying "cite examples" is proof that I'm someone I never heard of called Colby is clinical paranoia. There are more than 385,000 Google hits on the phrase "cite examples." And you think they're all "Colby," and they're all out to get you!

[Carol Thompson]

Everyone knows the Surgeon General's warning about cigarette smoking but what about cigarette eating? Nicotine poisoning is a very real concern anywhere that a pet may find cigarettes, cigarette butts, chewing tobacco, or even nicotine gum or patches. Dogs, particularly puppies, tend to chew things up first and ask questions later. Cats may find a cigarette butt to be a nicely sized pouncing toy worthy of chewing.

[One thing they failed to mention and I will, is that cigarette butts on the sidewalks and streets, especially in rain/snow will cause Nicotine to be absorbed into the pads on the bottom of dogs paws]

Luckily for pets and small children, tobacco tastes terrible. Even chewing tobacco must have flavorings added to make it something worthy of oral enjoyment. Still, cigarettes have plenty of nicotine and even a small cigarette butt can mean serious illness or even death for a small pet.

The toxic dose for nicotine in pets is 1/2 -1mg per pound of pet body weight while the lethal dose is 4mg per pound of pet body weight. A cigarette contains 9-30 mg of nicotine depending on the type of cigarette; while a cigarette butt contains about 25% of the nicotine of the original cigarette despite its deceptively small amount of tobacco. (Smoking seems to concentrate some of the nicotine in the tail end of the cigarette.) Cigars can contain up to 40 mg. Chewing tobacco carries 6-8 mg per gram while the gum is 2-4 mg per piece and patches 8.3-114 mg. Smoking a cigarette yields only 0.5-2 mg of nicotine but eating one is a different ballgame as all of the nicotine becomes available for absorption into the body. One way to rephrase this is that a 40lb dog would get very sick after eating one cigarette but would need 11 cigarettes to actually die from nicotine poisoning.

Some good news is that nicotine is not absorbed directly in the acid environment of the stomach; the nicotine must move past the stomach into the small intestine for absorption. One of the first things nicotine does in the body is stimulate the vomit center of the brain, thus inducing vomiting which may save the patient's life if there is more cigarette material in the stomach.

SYMPTOMS OF NICOTINE POISONING

Signs begin as quickly as one hour post-ingestion. Symptoms include:
Tremors

Constricted pupils

Drooling

Auditory and Visual Hallucinations

Excitement

Vomiting and Diarrhea

Twitching possibly progressing to Seizures

Racing heart rate but slow heart rate with small doses

High blood pressure but at higher doses there is a circulatory collapse

It is easy to confuse nicotine poisoning with other poisonings such as strychnine, chocolate, organophosphate insecticide, and certain molds. Hopefully, there will be cigarette materials in the vomit to give away the diagnosis.

TREATMENT

Washing out the stomach to get rid of any remaining cigarette materials is helpful but is likely to require sedation. Since most patients are agitated, this is often a good thing anyway. Seizures are treated with seizure suppressing
drugs. It is tempting to use antacids to protect the stomach but as it is the stomach acid that is inhibiting the nicotine absorption, it is best to avoid this therapy. If the pet survives the first 4 hours, prognosis is felt to be good. Nicotine is inactivated by a healthy liver and its metabolites are excreted in urine. After 16 hours, the nicotine ingested should be gone.

And how does this refute the charge that the anti-smokers deliberately use defective studies based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, to falsely blame smoking and passive smoking for lung cancers that are really caused by human papillomaviruses?

This is nothing but an attempt to change the subject.

[Carol Thompson]

Using Smokeless Tobacco is gambling with your health!

http://www.quittobacco.com/facts/effects.htm

Guess what! HPV causes oral cancer, too!

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvoral.htm

Incidence trends for human papillomavirus-related and -unrelated oral squamous cell carcinomas in the United States. AK Chaturvedi, EA Engels, WF Anderson, ML Gillison. J Clin Oncol 2008 Feb 1;26(4):612-619. 17,625 potentially HPV-related and 28,144 HPV-unrelated diagnoses from nine Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program registries (1973 to 2004). "HPV-related OSCCs were diagnosed at younger ages than HPV-unrelated OSCCs (mean ages at diagnosis, 61.0 and 63.8 years, respectively; P < .001). Incidence increased significantly for HPV-related OSCC from 1973 to 2004 (annual percentage change [APC] = 0.80; P < .001), particularly among white men and at younger ages. By contrast, incidence for HPV-unrelated OSCC was stable through 1982 (APC = 0.82; P = .186) and declined significantly during 1983 to 2004 (APC = -1.85; P < .001)." [caveat - they do not explain in the abstract how they determined whether tumors were HPV-related or not]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18235120

[Peter Lemkin]

Sidestream smoke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sidestream smoke is smoke which goes into the air directly from a burning cigarette, cigar or smoking pipe.[1] Sidestream smoke is the main component of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), also known as passive smoking [2] The chemical constituents of sidestream smoke are different from those of directly inhaled ("mainstream") smoke. Evidence has shown that sidestream smoke may be more harmful than mainstream smoke.[3] Sidestream smoking has been classified as a Class A carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Sidestream smoke in enclosed box by Clnord.Contents [hide]
1 Contents of sidestream smoke
2 Risks
3 Social effects
4 In Children
5 In Vitro
6 Toxicological Experiments
7 References
8 External links

[edit]
Contents of sidestream smoke

Sidestream smoke is made up of many components. Some of the constituents of which are carbon monoxide, tar, nicotine, ammonia, benzene, cadmium and 4-aminobiphenyl. [4] [5] [6] Some of the other compounds found in sidestream smoke are: vinylchloride, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, catechol, cresol, hydroquinone, lead, methyl ethyl ketone, nitric oxide, phenol, styrene, toluene, and butane. Exposure to sidestream smoke yields higher concentrations of these compounds as well as increased concentrations of carboxyhemoglobin, nicotine, and cotinine in the blood. When comparing sidestream and mainstream condensate, side stream has 2-6 times more condensate per gram than mainstream smoke.[7] [8] [9]Combustion of these carcinogens in less complete and not diluted like it would be if it were inhaled directly.
[edit]
Risks

Although a person may not be smoking the cigarette, the risks from inhaling sidestream smoke are still pertinent. There are over 250 toxins and carcinogens in cigarette smoke. The risks of getting lung cancer, brain tumors, acute myeloid leukemia, incidence of heart disease, and benign respiratory diseases increase by inhaling the sidestream smoke.[10] The chance of getting breast cancer and cervical cancer also increases with inhaling sidestream smoke. The relative risk of cardiovascular disease is 1.2-1.3 with exposure to sideastream smoke due the cyanide present in the smoke. There is also evidence that sidestream smoke causes negative effects both behaviorally and cognitively in children. One study on cotinine levels in children found that higher levels of cotinine in children were correlated with a decreased ability to perform in reading and math. [11][12]

Such factors as age, gender and different occupations put a person at risk for bladder cancer. Apart from these factors, smoking is the only other known risk cancer for bladder cancer. 4-aminobiphenyl (4-ABP) is an integral component in tobacco smoke, as well as a risk factor for bladder cancer. Sidestream smoke puts individuals at an increased risk of bladder cancer because the 4-ABP concentrations are over ten times that of mainstream smoke.[13] [14]
[edit]
Social effects

A non-smoker who is inhaling sidestream or secondhand smoke has a 30% greater risk of getting lung cancer at some point in their lives.[15] Exposure to second hand or sidestream smoker has been associated with people who have not smoked before. The Surgeon General reported there was no safe level of smoke exposure at all.[16]

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates sidestream smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 62,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers every year in the United States.[17]
[edit]
In Children

Following birth, a child's exposure to contaminants in the air can have detrimental health effects including a heightened risk for respiratory track infections, an increase in the likelihood of childhood asthma, as well as behavioral problems and reduction in neurocognitive abilities. Exposure to mainstream and sidestream smoke in children poses an increased risk of coughing, wheezing, and mucus production. Studies on rats have shown that those who were exposed to sidestream smoke while in utero and following the period directly after, had differences in airway sensitivity in comparison to those that had been exposed to sidestream smoke only while in utero or only following the period after. This led experimenters to conclude that early childhood exposure to sidestream smoke. [18] [19] [20]
[edit]
In Vitro

A reduction in glutathione levels was observed following exposure to sidestream smoke in vitro. Glutathione is an antioxidant that resides in the lung after development. Following as little as a 20 minute exposure to sidestream smoke can lead to an increase in contaminant particles within human small airway epithelial cells (SAEC). Cells exposed to sidestream smoke experienced oxidative stress, which further allowed for DNA damage as well as cell transformation and an uncontrolled cell proliferation. Cancer could be the outcome for DNA mutations, while tumors could the outcome for the cell transformation and uncontrolled cell division which would be a result of direct exposure to sidestream smoke. [21] [22]
[edit]
Toxicological Experiments

During the 1980's the Philip Morris Tobacco Company did research on sidestream smoke at Institut für Biologische Forschung that was never published. The study found sidestream smoke is nearly four times more toxic than mainstream smoke per gram. They also found that sidestream condensate was nearly three times more toxic than mainstream smoke as well as 2-6 times more tumourigenic per gram than mainstream condensate when applied to the skin of a mouse. Results also showed that sidestream smoke hinders an animals weight gain to reach a point that is considered normal. The research team concluded that the only way to protect ourselves from sidestream smoke is to be in smoke free public places and workspaces. [23]
[edit]
References
^ [gage.he.net/~cheforg/uploads/.../grat_updates_6-9_sidestream.pdf,"Sidestream Smoke."
^ . "Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace." National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1991. Web. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/91108_54.html#Reports
^ Schick, S; Glantz S (Dec 2005). "Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke". Tobacco Control 14 (6): 396404. doi:10.1136/tc.2005.011288. PMID 16319363.
^ C Schlaggar-Lessov and G Swan (2007). "The effects of tobacco smoke and nicotine on cognition and the brain." Neuropsychology Review. Volume 17, 2007, pg. 1-3.
^ J Bernet, J Pirkle, Y Xia, R Jain, D Ashley, and E Sampson (2010). "Urine concentrations of a tobacco-specific nitrosamine carcinogen in the U.S. population from secondhand smoke exposure." Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Vers. 7.3b, pg. 4-5.
^ "Environmental tobacco smoke." Children's Environmental Health Centers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ncerqa/childrenscenters/smoke.html.
^ C Schlaggar-Lessov and G Swan (2007). "The effects of tobacco smoke and nicotine on cognition and the brain." Neuropsychology Review. Volume 17, 2007, pg. 3.
^ J Bernet, J Pirkle, Y Xia, R Jain, D Ashley, and E Sampson (2010). "Urine concentrations of a tobacco-specific nitrosamine carcinogen in the U.S. population from secondhand smoke exposure." Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Vers. 7.3b, pg. 4-5.
^ "Environmental tobacco smoke." Children's Environmental Health Centers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ncerqa/childrenscenters/smoke.html.
^ [Johnston, Lorraine (2001). Lung Cancer: Making Sense of Diagnosis, Treatment & Options O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA. ISBN 0596500025
^ C Schlaggar-Lessov and G Swan (2007). "The effects of tobacco smoke and nicotine on cognition and the brain." Neuropsychology Review. Volume 17, 2007, pg. 2-9
^ "Background and environmental exposures to cyanide in the United States." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Page 2-8. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp8-c2.pdf
^ M Hemelrijk, D Michaud, G Connolly, and Z Kabir. "Secondhand smoking, 4-aminobiphenyl, and bladder cancer: two meta-analyses." Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 2009. Pg. 1-8.
^ "Health consequences of tobacco use among women." Women and Smoking. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pg. 1-8.
^ American Cancer Society (2007). Lung Cancer: What You Need to Know--Now American Cancer Society/Health Promotions, Atlanta, Georgia. ISBN 0944235697
^ [Robb-Nicholson, Celeste (2006). "By the way, Doctor". Harvard Women's Health Watch. Vol 14, Iss 2.
^ [Smith, Jimmie (2004). Environmental Tobacco Smoke: An Analysis of State and Local Policies To Reduce Exposure
^ Pinkerton Kent and Wang Lei (2007). "Air pollutant effects on fetal and early postnatal development." Birth Defects Research Part C: Embryo Today: Reviews 2007, Volume 81, pg. 3-8.
^ "Health consequences of tobacco use among women." Women and Smoking. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pg 74-75.
^ L Mbulo (2008). "Changes in exposure to secondhand smoke among youth in Nebraska, 2002-2006. Preventing Chronic Diseases: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy, Volume 5. Pg. 2-5.
^ S Faux, T Tai, D Thorne, Y Xu, D Breheny, and M Gaca. "The role of oxidative stress in in the biological responses of lung epithelial cells to cigarette smoke." Biomarkers, 2009; 14(SI): 90-96. Pg. 1-6.
^ "Background and environmental exposures to cyanide in the United States." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Page 4. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp8-c2.pdf
^ Schick, S., and S. Glantz 2005. "Philip Morris toxicological Experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke." National Center for Biotechnology Information. Vol 14 pg. 1-9. Web. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.silk.library.umass.edu:2048/pmc/articles/PMC1748121/pdf/v014p00396.pdf>.
[edit]
External links
Toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke
Environmental Protection Agency website

[Carol Thompson]

Sidestream smoke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links
Toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke
Environmental Protection Agency website

The EPA report is worthless because its hysterical claims are based on lifestyle questionnaire studies that ignored the role of HPV infection. Even then, there had been at least half a dozen studies implicating HPV as a cause of lung cancer. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus for socioeconomic reasons. Since then, there have been more than 50 studies of HPV and lung cancer. So the EPA report is completely obsolete.

Furthermore, the EPA's own scientists were against call ETS a human carcinogen. But they didn't write the report! It was written by handpicked anti-smoker cronies of Jonathan M. Samet (who was on the EPA board, as well as being a major author in every Surgeon General report since the 1980s, including the latest one). They used illegal pass-through contracts, which went through a subcontractor, to conceal their role. And on the board of directors of the crooked EPA contracting firm, ICF Inc., sat a major crony of President George H.W. Bush, Fred Malek, campaign manager of the Bush-Quayle campaign in 1992 and a partner in the Texas Rangers. A prominent Democrat was on the board of ICF as well.

http://www.smokershistory.com/etslies.htm

[Charles Drago]

C'mon over to the L and M side.*

"L" for liars.

"M" for manipulators.

And no, I'm not calling anyone posting on this forum a liar or a manipulator.

I'm just taking a stroll down memory lane ...

C'mon over to the L and M side ...

In the world we study, that's known as an invitation to defect.
_________________________________

*From an old American TV cigarette commercial jingle.

[Peter Lemkin]

Carol Thompson apparently was/is her real name, best I can tell...or she uses it consistantly on the internet. She is a member of a pro-tobacco lobby group called Force http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol2.htm

It seems she is the founder or main person on the smokers history website http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol2.htm

She can also be seen behaving much as here on this website http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol2.htm and here http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol2.htm

Lastly, she posted an article 'In Defense of Smokers by a Lauren Colby' here http://www.uth.tmc.edu/ama_tma/20050927_handout3.pdf Is Lauren related to Len's father in some way?!!!!

I had no hand in the decision to ban her, and had she not acted in such a provocative and combattive manner, maybe she'd not have been.

She certainly is a person with a one issue quest!.....Carol, I feel sorry for you....but you were making provocative, illogical, angry attacks and defending the indefensible. I suggest you enjoy your Cuban cigars, chewing tobacco or nicotine patches and stick to your own website. That kind of behaviour you were engaging in here was obviously not appreciated by those in power [I'm not]. We had much material on another Colby who worked as a chemist for Big Tobacco and was on a committe to 'sell the Big Lie' that it was not harmful. His son is a member on the EF and Charles thought [as did I] that you were he.....but I'll think you might know each other via this Lauren Colby connection......:phone: The possibility [as yet unproven] exists, however, that Len Colby of Brazil uses your 'name' as a psydonym to defent the work efforts of his father. Time will tell. Sure are a lot of Colby's who are involved in things related to Big Tobacco.....and Big LIes [IMHO - Consitutionally protected, if that old piece of paper is still in effect]

[Dawn Meredith]

She probably sells tobocco products. I have a cousin in Nova Scotia who sells tobacco products and he says all this same bs.

I too find the timing of this person very suspect.

If it is not "Colby" it is someone of the same mindset.

Why would this entity even want to post on this forum? Pro tobacco talk hardly fits
into any definition of "deep political" thought. In fact it is really advertisement; commercial speech.

Stating that smoking tobacco is not unhealthy is akin to saying that
drinking poison is beneficial. They called cigs "coffin nails" when I was a kid.

There is a good reason for that.

Say goodnight Gracie.

Dawn

[Keith Millea]

From post 22:

As for Colby, he's a perfect example of a strawman who works for the anti-smokers. All he does is snivel that he doesn't believe, while his fanatical inquisitors froth at the mouth with rage at a mere refusal to submit unquestioningly to their religious dogma. At no time do Colby or any of his ilk attack anti-smoker scientific fraud. Their only purpose is to serve as theater, to deceive the public that the pro-smoker side has no strong arguments to present.

And then this:

And to pretend that merely saying "cite examples" is proof that I'm someone I never heard of called Colby is clinical paranoia.

The lady lies............