There is nice article (along with a discussion) about some little known health benefits of smoking, reviewing the pharmaceutial industry research, done quietly and seriously at the hard science level (in sharp contrast with their usual overpublicized antismoking "science"), seeking to replicate, without much success so far, some of these benefits.
The above research also illustrates the real motive$ of the Big Pharma, which is the chief sponsor ("investing" over a billion a year in USA alone) of antismoking "science", "grass roots" antismoking organizations, smoking bans and taxes... -- the nicotine replacement and other cessation "therapies" are relatively minor component of their motives.
nightlight wrote: > There is nice article (along with a discussion) about some little > known health benefits of smoking, reviewing the pharmaceutial industry > research, done quietly and seriously at the hard science level (in > sharp contrast with their usual overpublicized antismoking > "science"), seeking to replicate, without much success so far, some of > these benefits.
> The above research also illustrates the real motive$ of the Big > Pharma, which is the chief sponsor ("investing" over a billion a year > in USA alone) of antismoking "science", "grass roots" antismoking > organizations, smoking bans and taxes... -- the nicotine replacement > and other cessation "therapies" are relatively minor component of > their motives.
== Potential Therapeutic Applications of Nicotine and Nicotine Analogues == SRNT Vol 1, No 4, 1995 [1] John Baron (Dartmouth Medical School), Edward Levin (Duke University Medical Center), Alexandra Potter and Paul Newhouse (University of Vermont)
Cigarette smoking has a well-deserved bad reputation; it is among the leading causes of mortality and morbidity throughout the world, largely because of its strong effects on the risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and chronic lung disease. Nevertheless, nicotine is one of the most widely used drugs in the world, most commonly by chewing the leaves or inhaling the smoke from the leaves of a plant that synthesizes nicotine, tobacco. In spite of health warnings, hundreds of millions of people continue to use tobacco.
Why is tobacco so widely used? Addiction to nicotine is a common explanation for the persistence of nicotine use, once established. Because nicotine has multiple neural and functional effects, however, the simple addiction model may be too narrow to account for nicotine use.
A multifactorial model including a variety of nicotine effects, such as
* improved attentiveness and * memory, * quickened reaction time, * reduced appetite, and * lessening of anxiety and * stress,
may be needed to explain why the drug is so widely sought after. These effects also suggest possible therapeutic uses of nicotine when delivered without hazardous compounds present in tobacco tar, as well as of novel nicotinic ligands.
For example, there is evidence to suggest that these agents may be useful in preventing or treating a wide variety of central nervous system (CNS) disorders, including
other conditions for which nicotinic agents could theoretically be helpful include
* obesity, * depression, and * anxiety.
In addition to its effects on CNS disorders and functioning, cigarette smoke seems to exert a protective or beneficial influence on some
* immunological and * inflammatory disorders and on certain
* hormone-related and * reproductive problems.
Although the moiety in cigarette smoking that underlies the effect of smoking on immunological or inflammatory disturbances is not clear, there are indications that it may be at least in part related to nicotine. If so, a role for nicotine therapy for those disorders could usefully be investigated. For the hormone-related disorders, the effects of smoking may well not be due to nicotine.
This article will highlight recent work examining the epidemiological and clinical evidence for the inverse association between cigarette smoking and a variety of disorders and review what is known about the mechanisms underlying these relationships. For a number of these diseases, the potential therapeutic value of nicotinic agents represents a particularly promising area of research. Even for conditions for which the smoke components responsible for the beneficial effects are unknown and/or unlikely to be nicotine, a better understanding of the relationship with smoking may help to clarify the etiology and suggest treatments and preventive measures that will likely be far safer than cigarettes.
Central nervous system functioning
Mental functioning in nonimpaired individuals. Smoking may affect CNS performance in non-diseased individuals. Smoking or nicotine clearly ameliorates the impairments associated with nicotine withdrawal; among smokers, cigarettes seem to provide modest improvements in vigilance and information processing, facilitation of some motor responses, and perhaps enhancement of memory. The use of smokers in much of the cognitive research has necessarily involved individuals with chronic nicotine exposure; this may well have played a role in the effects observed through withdrawal, tolerance or changes in receptors. Nonetheless, there are data suggesting that non-smokers may experience nicotine-related benefits in performance and information processing. Consistent with these findings, studies in animals have indicated that nicotine may improve learning and memory, although some investigations have also shown evidence of nicotine-associated impairments.
Parkinsons disease
An inverse association between smoking and Parkinsons disease (PD) is well established; ever smokers have about half the risk of never smokers. The association is not explained by defects in study design or analysis, although the possibility that individuals destined to be at high risk for Parkinsons disease have an aversion to smoking has not been completely excluded.
Nicotine is thought to activate the nigrostriatal dopaminergic pathway and increase the release of dopamine in the striatum. Smoking or nicotine can reduce drug-induced parkinsonism, ameliorate Tourettes syndrome, and neuroleptic tardive dyskinesia, effects that all point to a substantial impact of nicotine on the dopaminergic motor systems. Chronic nicotine dosing has also been shown to protect against degeneration of central dopamine neurons induced by mechanical lesions. Thus, the positive effects of nicotine on the movement disorders of PD are not surprising.
Other human and animal evidence also support a protective effect: Cigarette smoke or nicotine can ameliorate experimental parkinsonism in rodents.9,10 Two case studies by Fagerstrom and colleagues using nicotine gum and nicotine patch demonstrated diminished bradykinesia and increased energy in one patient, and diminished tremor and disorganized thinking in the other.11 Case studies by Ishikawa and Miyatake show reduced tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, and gait disturbances which lasted 10-30 minutes after cigarette smoking in 6 patients with early onset PD.12
Alzheimers disease
The epidemiological data regarding a possible inverse association between cigarette smoking and Alzheimers dementia (AD) is certainly suggestive, although less compelling than that for PD.13 Deficits in short- and long-term memory, impaired attention, liberal response bias, and slowing of reaction times are hallmarks of the dementing picture seen in AD.
Nicotine has also been found in various studies to nicotine improve attentiveness, memory or learning in patients with Alzheimers disease.14-17 These effects may be related to direct nicotinic stimulation, which may be useful because Alzheimers patients have been consistently found to have decreased numbers of nicotinic receptors compared with age-matched controls.18-23
The potential effects of the loss of these receptors was examined by administering the nicotinic antagonist mecamylamine to young and elderly normals, AD and PD patients. Mecamylamine produced a dose-related impairment in acquisition of both verbal and non-verbal information, slowing of reaction times, and liberalizing of response bias.24 PD patients did not show the sensitivity that AD patients did, despite a prior finding that PD patients also show loss of nicotinic receptors. Studies with intravenous nicotine in AD patients have shown that nicotine can improve cognitive function in many of these same cognitive domains with a dose-related decline in errors on verbal learning tasks and increase in long-term recall.25,26 These results suggest that nicotinic modulation may alleviate cognitive impairments in various dementing disorders which show loss of nicotinic receptors.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Individuals diagnosed as having ADHD also have higher rates of cigarette smoking than the general population.27 Nicotine administration has been shown to improve attentiveness, and nicotine also promotes the release of dopamine as does current pharmacologic treatments of ADHD. A study by Levin and colleagues showed significant reduction in reaction time, reaction time variability, and increased accuracy on several cognitive tasks with nicotine administration in 11 adults diagnosed with ADHD.28 Additionally, these subjects rated themselves as having significantly more vigor than when they were administered placebo. Further studies are continuing with chronic administration. Currently used treatments, methylphenidate, amphetamine and pemoline have this mechanism of action.
Tourettes syndrome
Tourettes (TS) is a disorder characterized by multiple motor and vocal tics. Some patients with TS do not fully respond to standard treatments and/or experience significant side effects with high doses of neuroleptics. Animal studies have found that nicotine dramatically potentiated the cataleptic effects of neuroleptics, while not producing these effects when administered alone.29 These studies have lead to open trials in adults and children to examine the possible benefit of augment nicotine treatment. Administration of nicotine gum or patch to patients showing incomplete responses to haloperidol produced dramatic relief of symptoms as soon as 20 minutes after administration. Improvement was seen in both the frequency and severity of motor and vocal tics as well as improved concentration and attention.
Preliminary studies by Sanberg and co-workers have found transdermal nicotine patches to be effective in reducing tic frequency in Tourettes syndrome.30,31 Nicotine significantly facilitates the effectiveness of haloperidol and other dopamine receptor blockers which are the usual treatment for this disorder. This effect of nicotine is paradoxical since it causes dopamine release. Sanberg and coworkers have hypothesized that nicotine-induced GABA release in the striatum may be important for its effectiveness in Tourettes syndrome. Unexpectedly, some patients showed sustained improvement in symptoms after a single exposure to nicotine, with suppression of symptoms lasting up to several weeks.32
> nightlight wrote: > > There is nice article (along with a discussion) about some little > > known health benefits of smoking, reviewing the pharmaceutial industry > > research, done quietly and seriously at the hard science level (in > > sharp contrast with their usual overpublicized antismoking > > "science"), seeking to replicate, without much success so far, some of > > these benefits.
> > The above research also illustrates the real motive$ of the Big > > Pharma, which is the chief sponsor ("investing" over a billion a year > > in USA alone) of antismoking "science", "grass roots" antismoking > > organizations, smoking bans and taxes... -- the nicotine replacement > > and other cessation "therapies" are relatively minor component of > > their motives.
A Smart troll wouldn't make claims of poor health or bad effects of smoking right behind this post.
** Smoker Kurt Vonnegut Dies **
NEW YORK (AP) -- Kurt Vonnegut, the satirical novelist who captured the absurdity of war and questioned the advances of science in darkly humorous works such as "Slaughterhouse-Five" and "Cat's Cradle," died Wednesday. He was 84.
Vonnegut, who often marveled that he had lived so long despite his lifelong smoking habit, had suffered brain injuries after a fall at his Manhattan home weeks ago, said his wife, photographer Jill Krementz.
Only an Idiot could see fit to do that.
"„ UltraMan „" <===== SIGN of an IDIOT individual.net
Trolling's no good, I know you want to try, but I won't let you....
Thanks for links Nightlight, especially the new stuff on imminst.org. Your writing, reasoning, and knowledge on this subject is of the highest quality. Please continue posting links to your debates on other sites. I regularly search alt.smokers and speakeasyforum for your stuff.
You've been sucking his cock for years and he still won't tell you, what's that say about his opinion of your character ? ...you nym-changing lowlife child-molesting scumbag.
Trellane = dejaQ = radium ant farm = Colossus = Len Tropy = thundercrow = Phantom 309 = sam bam = King Samuel et. al.
From: Phantom 309 (a.k.a Sam Bam) wrote: <3glne.117227$Yr4.93...@fe07.news.easynews.com>
"No, on your knees child - NOW!!!!!!! You will be my little slut puppy. I will have you down on your knees, willing to suck cock or a strap on."
You've been sucking his cock for years and he still won't tell you, what's that say about his opinion of your character ? ...you nym-changing lowlife child-molesting scumbag.
Trellane = dejaQ = radium ant farm = Colossus = Len Tropy = thundercrow = Phantom 309 = sam bam = King Samuel et. al.
From: Phantom 309 (a.k.a Sam Bam) wrote: <3glne.117227$Yr4.93...@fe07.news.easynews.com>
"No, on your knees child - NOW!!!!!!! You will be my little slut puppy. I will have you down on your knees, willing to suck cock or a strap on."
>>>>>> 1-888-271-9378 >>>>> You've been sucking his cock >>>> Shaddup, forger, your days here are numbered. >>> You repeating your posts from 1996 ? >> You think Daryl will cover for you indefinitely?
>>>>>>> 1-888-271-9378 >>>>>> You've been sucking his cock >>>>> Shaddup, forger, your days here are numbered. >>>> You repeating your posts from 1996 ? >>> You think Daryl will cover for you indefinitely?
>> Another 10 years at least,
> I wouldn't bet on it.
That's what you said 10 years ago, pedophile scumbag.
Trellane = dejaQ = radium ant farm = Colossus = Len Tropy = thundercrow = Phantom 309 = sam bam = King Samuel et. al.
From: Phantom 309 (a.k.a Sam Bam) wrote: <3glne.117227$Yr4.93...@fe07.news.easynews.com>
"No, on your knees child - NOW!!!!!!! You will be my little slut puppy. I will have you down on your knees, willing to suck cock or a strap on."
>>>>>>>> 1-888-271-9378 >>>>>>> You've been sucking his cock >>>>>> Shaddup, forger, your days here are numbered. >>>>> You repeating your posts from 1996 ? >>>> You think Daryl will cover for you indefinitely? >>> Another 10 years at least, >> I wouldn't bet on it.
> That's what you said 10 years ago,
Nope, I said no such thing 10 years ago, you lie again.
>>>>>>>>> 1-888-271-9378 >>>>>>>> You've been sucking his cock >>>>>>> Shaddup, forger, your days here are numbered. >>>>>> You repeating your posts from 1996 ? >>>>> You think Daryl will cover for you indefinitely? >>>> Another 10 years at least, >>> I wouldn't bet on it.
>> That's what you said 10 years ago,
> Nope, I said no such thing 10 years ago, you lie again.
Trellane = dejaQ = radium ant farm = Colossus = Len Tropy = thundercrow = Phantom 309 = sam bam = King Samuel et. al.
From: Phantom 309 (a.k.a Sam Bam) wrote: <3glne.117227$Yr4.93...@fe07.news.easynews.com>
"No, on your knees child - NOW!!!!!!! You will be my little slut puppy. I will have you down on your knees, willing to suck cock or a strap on."
> I wonder if Eric Ross wants to talk.
After you wrongfully slandered him for the last 8 years in spite of being told repeatedly of your errors ...?
Sure, he'd probably be as willing to help a gutless cowardly fascist weasel like you as Daryl would be, you repugnant piece of shit ...
> Trellane wrote: >> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote: >>> Trellane wrote: >>>> I wonder if Eric Ross wants to talk. >>> After you wrongfully slandered him >> After you reposted his ads and impersonated him...
On Apr 16, 6:15 pm, Trellane <squ...@gothos.org> wrote:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> > Trellane wrote: > >> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote: > >>> Trellane wrote: > >>>> I wonder if Eric Ross wants to talk. > >>> After you wrongfully slandered him > >> After you reposted his ads and impersonated him...
> Your writing, reasoning, and knowledge on this subject is of the > highest quality. Please continue posting links to your debates on > other sites. I regularly search alt.smokers and speakeasyforum for > your stuff.
Thanks. There were few more posts in that thread, including a nice example of pharmaceutical company making drugs that compete with tobacco, while churning antismoking "science":
On Apr 17, 8:59 am, nightlight <nightlight.s...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
> Thanks. There were few more posts in that thread, including a nice > example of pharmaceutical company making drugs that compete with > tobacco, while churning antismoking "science":
Thanks. I've been following the thread from start to finish. Your final posts on 18 Apr 2007 on imminst.org are extremely cogent. (I'm a logician by trade, and a smoker too, so you can imagine my interest.)
It is interesting that cnorwood's penultimate post ends with this:
"Others and yourself can do what you want, but with the evidence I have seen on smoking and heart disease and AGEs, I will keep away. It may be that I require a lower threshold of evidence before I reject something as too risky."
This remark embodies a gross misrepresentation of your arguments. For you showed *not* that the evidence from that study is flawed to some or other degree, but rather, that it is *worthless* for its intended purpose. Furthermore, your discussion of the relative merits of H1 and H2 showed that, in light of the evidence under consideration, it is more probable that smoking is *protective* in this context.
Thus, in the absence of further counter-argument, the inevitable conclusion is that it is *norwood* who is engaging in the risky behavior, i.e., the risky behavior of *not* smoking.
norwood's remark quoted above *should* have been written like this:
"It may be that I require a HIGHER threshold of evidence before I reject something as too risky."
|
