Home User CP Browse Members Calendar Register Today!  
Get New posts Faq / Help? Community Menu

Go Back   Hookah Pro - Hookah Forum > Hookah Stuff > Hookah Discussion

Hookah Discussion General discussion related to hookah ...

Anti-Tobacco Research Refuted

Hookah Discussion

Reply Share
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 25th, 2008, 02:19 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Anti-Tobacco Research Refuted

This is a truly amazing article by Lauren Colby which utterly demolishes a supposedly scientific study about the dangers of cigarette smoking. This is a must read for anyone even remotely interested in tobacco.
__________________________________________________ ___
October 27, 1996
In mid-October, tobacco stocks took a hit on the New York Stock exchange, on the announcement that a team of researchers had found the exact mechanism by which smoking "causes lung cancer". Tobacco industry executives were even reported, by the Wall Street Journal, to be ready to concede that there was a direct cause and effect relationship between smoking and lung cancer.

All of this panic was based upon a single article, published in Science magazine under the title, "preferential Formation of Benzo[a]pyrene Adducts at Lung Cancer Mutational Hotspots in P53", and authored by Dennisenko, Pao and Tang. Apparently, nobody read the original article with a critical eye because, if they had done so, it would be apparent, to put it charitably, that the study described in the article is underwhelming.

The authors of the article start out by pointing out that, in about 60% of lung cancer cases, there is mutational damage to the p53 gene, the so-called "guardian angel gene", which is thought by some to prevent cancer from developing. This is another way of saying, of course, that in 40% of lung cancer cases, there is no damage to the gene, meaning that people can get lung cancer even if their p53 genes are in perfect condition.

The authors did not study any actual human lung cancers. Rather, they studied cultured human cells. They exposed these cells to a "metabolite" of benzo(a)pyrene (BAP), benzo(a)pyrene diolepoxide (BAPDE). They then tested the cells for mutational damage, and claim to have found mutations at certain locations on the genes, similar to the ones found in 60% of lung cancer cases.

Before going any further, let's look at that word "metabolite". A metabolite is a substance produced by the process of metabolism in the human body. Metabolisis takes place in the gut and the liver, and the products of metabolisis flow into the bloodstream where they reach the lungs, during the process of re-oxygenation. BAP is a ubiquitous substance, produced by the combustion of vegetation and fossil fuels, and by burnt food. Earlier studies have shown that better than 90% of the BAP consumed by humans, even human smokers, comes from the food supply. The authors of the study apparently concede that BAP, in and of itself is not terribly carcinogenic (although, like any irritating substance, it will produce skin cancers in specially bred "nude mice"); it must be converted to BAPDE. There is no evidence that the lungs, themselves, can metabolize BAP into BAPDE. Even if they could, the amount of BAP reaching the lungs from cigarette smoke is dwarfed by the amount reaching the lungs in the blood supply (and already metabolized into BAPDE) from consumption of burnt food. Thus, at the outset, the study appears flawed. However, it gets worse!

Not having any humans to work with, the authors of the study compared the mutations which they had induced with specimens of DNA taken from a gene data base, compiled by others. Now, if the goal of the study was to prove that BAP from smoking causes lung cancer (and that was, indeed, the goal), it would seem to be scientifically necessary to compare the genes of smokers who fall victim to lung cancer with those of non-smokers who fall victim to the disease. Such a comparison would show whether lung cancer in smokers has a different etiology (cause) than in non-smokers.

The authors of the study, however, deliberately excluded from the study any DNA samples obtained from non-smokers or from "radon associated cancers". They did not say how they knew whether any particular samples came from non-smokers or were "radon associated"; apparently they took the word of the people who complied the data base. The point is, however, that while all experiments should always be controlled, these authors deliberately threw out the controls!
The authors make the astonishing statement that "This study provides a direct link between a defined cigarette smoke carcinogen and human cancer mutations". I say "astonishing", because the study dealt with BAPDE, not BAP, and there is no BAPDE in cigarette smoke. Thus, at best, the study could claim only an "indirect link". But, because the of the failure to take into account the BAP consumed in food, it isn't possible to claim even an "indirect link". The study could just as well be said to prove an indirect link between the consumption of burnt food and lung cancer. However, it doesn't prove even that, because (a) it does not explain lung cancer in the 40% of victims who have no p53 gene damage and (b) the authors compared their results with DNA samples which they selectively picked and chose, throwing out which they deemed to be "radon associated" or from non-smokers (free translation: throwing out those that would not have validated their conclusions).
Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2008, 02:22 PM
uglybiker's Avatar
Status: Offline
Quantum Bubblenautics,PhD

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Dread Pyramid of Itzilichlitlichlitzl
Posts: 7,366
Default Re: Anti-Tobacco Research Refuted

Science, logic and reason are irrelevent to the agenda.

Mein life sucks! Zat much iss true!
I vill noot shtop 'till yours sucks, too!
FroYo = Phatt Azzd Kaloudz Yo!

Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2008, 04:44 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Anti-Tobacco Research Refuted

You have good point there. I would also suggest that the stark reality is that health research funding also tailors the conclusions to meet the agenda rather then conform to the data.
Reply With Quote
Old November 25th, 2008, 04:49 PM
pswami's Avatar
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 162
Default Re: Anti-Tobacco Research Refuted

I think it says something that this article is from 1996 and most people here probably hadn't read this until you posted it. Just that this kind of stuff gets suppressed in favor of anti-smoking "research."
Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2008, 01:05 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Anti-Tobacco Research Refuted

Good point. I recall that when the original article in Science Magazine came out the media had all of these hysterical pieces about how the evils of tobacco are irrefutable and how the whole industry should be banned.

Not a dissenting opinion was allowed to be heard and the authors the Science Magazine article Dennisenko, Pao and Tang had their careers launched into high gear.

The end result of the media actively promoting pseudo-science, suppressed the truth and the public accepted it like it was the gospel hook line and sinker.
Reply With Quote
Reply Share
Share with your friends on facebook


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anti-tobacco lawyer reports to Ky. prison uglybiker Hookah In The News 10 September 1st, 2009 11:09 AM
Gazillion Hookah/anti-aircraft bubbles AIMS Homemade Hookah Stuff 6 September 15th, 2008 08:12 PM
The world's oldest jokes revealed by university research uglybiker General Yada-Yada 0 August 1st, 2008 01:37 PM
Hookah Lounge research......Opinions please! Blu_Fox Hookah Discussion 25 June 14th, 2008 08:32 PM
Anti-Tobacco Lobby Funded by Big Government and Pharmcaeutical Inc. Hajo Flettner Hookah Discussion 0 August 20th, 2007 03:32 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:30 PM.

Skin Design By vBSkinworks

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 - 2012, Hookah Pro Inc.