to join group
Ben Simen-Falvy
b...@uniserve.com
Bruce Watson
Ben Simen-Falvy <b...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>Address and instructions to join grop please, Ben
>b...@uniserve.com
Congratulations, you are a member in good standing.
_ Lilith_
rumik
> "_ Lilith_" <no45...@nor45etun.net> wrote:
> >anon...@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> >
> >>Ben Simen-Falvy <b...@uniserve.com> wrote:
> >>>Address and instructions to join grop please, Ben
> >>>b...@uniserve.com
> >>
> >>Congratulations, you are a member in good standing.
> >
> >Unlike you ... !
>
> Oh? A little trouble in paradise between you two kids? What a shame.
Of course. Remember, Watson is still a smoker.
Ben Franklin VI
We welcome you to the Alt.support.non-smokers Group and hope you will find in
this fellowship the help and friendship we have been privileged to enjoy.
There are no dues or fees for membership, the only requirement is a desire to
be a nonsmoker and support nonsmoking.
We who live or have lived with the problem of tobacco smoke understand much
better than most and perhaps better no others can.
We aren't perfect. The welcome we give you may not show the warmth we have in
our hearts for you. After a while, you'll discover that though you may not
like all of us, you'll love us in a very special way -- the same way we already
love you.
Whatever your problems, there are those among us who have had them too. If you
try to keep an open mind and stay away from that first smoke, you will find
help, health and happiness in clean air. You will come to realize that there
is no situation too difficult to be bettered and no unhappiness too great to be
lessened.
Talk to others here, reason things out with someone else, but let here be no
gossip or criticism of one another. Instead let the understanding, love and
peace of clean air grow in you one day at a time.
current working email eddress is: F2an...@aol.com
Paul Lenz
> Better still, to support the truth and facts about smoking,
> and not allow yourself to be steamrolled and controlled by
> anti-smoker bigots and zealots.
Keep cool, man. Nobody fights against smokers.
They only fight against smoking.
Paul Lenz
--
## CrossPoint v3.12 D R ## http://www.lenz-online.de
Ben Franklin VI
Man? ie adult male human? NOT! Man as opposed to coward? NOT!
Perhaps a counterfiet man who signs to legal authority as follows:
Barbara Aucoin, Woburn Mass
=============
>rom: pa...@lenz-online.de (Paul Lenz)
>Date: 5/4/01 12:27 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <80E0Z...@lenz-online.de>
Smoking addicts in their crave
like rabid skunks do behave
Addiction drives their bus
not safe for them not safe for us
Burma Shave
Bruce Watson
>kyo...@mindspring.com (kyoteee) wrote on 03.05.01:
>
>> Better still, to support the truth and facts about smoking,
>> and not allow yourself to be steamrolled and controlled by
>> anti-smoker bigots and zealots.
>
>Keep cool, man. Nobody fights against smokers.
>They only fight against smoking.
Depends on how wedded the smoker is to his cigarette.
To some smokers, the cigarette is the most important thing in life.
Ask Kyoteee about the favorite restaurant she abandoned solely
because it went smoke free.
Billy Goat Gruff III
a smoke.... but sometime a light is harder to come by. ;-)
Mike
On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:56:38 GMT, anon...@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson)
wrote:
>Depends on how wedded the smoker is to his cigarette.
>
>To some smokers, the cigarette is the most important thing in life.
>
>Ask Kyoteee about the favorite restaurant she abandoned solely
>because it went smoke free.
All opinions expressed are mine unless otherwise noted.
Copyright ©2001 Michael Cummings All Rights Reserved
=================================
Leah's Body Sugaring Recipe
Remove unwanted hair
http://www.for-romance.com/sugar
==================================
For the Billy Goat Gruff song visit
http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/bill_goats_gruff.htm
Note: This page is not owned by me
Omega95
time and it has nothing to do with smoking. The only time I go to
McDonald's is when I'm on the road and want iced tea.
--
Omega95 -
"kyoteee" <kyo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jhq8fts62g9e2bp3o...@4ax.com...
> anon...@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
> >
> >Ask Kyoteee about the favorite restaurant she abandoned solely
> >because it went smoke free.
>
> You can't remember ANY of your lies right. The "restaurant" I
refused
> to give my money to was McDonald's on Colorado Boulevard. Even
though
> it's been one of yours, it has never a 'favorite' of mine.
>
Marky
"Omega95" <Ome...@email.com> wrote in message
news:g1_I6.23646$2U.95...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> Hell Ky, I've refused to give McDonald's any of my money for a long
> time and it has nothing to do with smoking. The only time I go to
> McDonald's is when I'm on the road and want iced tea.
Do they ask "would you like fries and heart disease with that?" still?
The biggest purveyor of death and diseases has a clown for a
representative...go figure...
Bruce Watson
Biggest? That's not what it says here:
Deaths from Preventable Causes, US, 1990
N % | Cardiovascular 180,000
Tobacco 400,000 19 ----------> | Lung cancer 120,000
Diet 300,000 14 | Other cancer 31,000
Alcohol 100,000 5 | Respiratory 84,000
Microbes 90,000 4 | 425,000 *
Toxins 60,000 3 <-- includes air pollution
Firearms 35,000 2
AIDS 30,000 1
Motor vehicle 25,000 1
Illicit drugs 20,000 <1
Total 1,060,000 49
* Figures disagree due to different sources.
[1] McGinnis & Foege, "Actual causes of death in the US", JAMA:270:2207 (1993)
[2] Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, "Cigarette smoking-attributable
mortality and years of potential life lost", MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep:
42:645 (1993).
Alex W.
>
Well....
there are some sponges which science thinks live forever.
Do they count?
And with an IQ of 0.1, would Bruce qualify as a sponge?
David MacLean
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9d5uj2$r9q$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
You insult all sponges everywhere.
Kevin Gavitt
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9d5uj2$r9q$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
A couple of points here I suppose. Sponges are very peculiar creatures over
which there is still considerable argument over whether they can be
considered a single entity or not. If not, then it is the colony that may
live forever, much as a species lives on after the individual members die.
If a sponge can indeed be considered a single entity than all I can say is "
forever" is a long time, and I'll believe a sponge can live that long when I
see it.
Regeneration does not equal immortality.
KFG
Alex W.
Kevin Gavitt <kga...@NYCAP.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CAyJ6.39535$%K2.55...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
As an aggregate lifeform, regeneration might very well constitute
immortality. The Great Barrier Reef is considered by some to be such,
with an estimated age of several hundred thousand years already.
For that matter, how would you define immortality in a human? As having
an immortal soul? Perfect and infinite regeneration of the cells?
Immortality of each and every cell in the body? If you pick the unique
genetic signature of a person as a criterion, then cloning must be
considered to confer immortality. Personally, I think I'd prefer the
sort of immortality granted a Shakespeare or Buddha. I'm modest.....
"To om mani padme om or not to om mani padme om."
Alex
Kevin Gavitt
Well, you already have the sort of immortality granted by the Buddha, so
that's an easy one, you meerly need to awaken yourself to the fact.
I will still believe in the immortality, whatever that means, of colony, or
other, creatures when I see it. Again, forever is a long time. Much, MUCH
longer than ,say, the earth itself will exist. Entire galaxies 'live' and
'die'.
Of course, what does 'exist' mean, eh?
As a Zen Buddhist who has actually seen the Buddha's promised immortality
with my own 'eyes', and as a physicist, I have little use for overly wishy
washy philosophical concepts. " I think, therefore I am."
Buddhism and physics came together for me one day when I discoverd a
mathmatical formalism in S-matrix quantum theory which, translated into
linguistic terms, amounted to " everything is connected to everything else,
we are all one process from the beginning of time, ( whatever the hell THAT
is, although it appears to be nothing more than a side effect of the second
law of thermodynamics ), until its end."
Of course that sort of result tends to put an end to whole kaboogie dance of
theoretical physics and leaves you a bit short of employment.
What did the employed physicist say to the unemployed physicist?
" Would you like fries with that?"
KFG
rumik
Regardless of his IQ, he *is* a sponge.
Remember, he lives off the public dole.
Alex W.
Awaken or delude?
>
> I will still believe in the immortality, whatever that means, of
colony, or
> other, creatures when I see it. Again, forever is a long time. Much,
MUCH
> longer than ,say, the earth itself will exist. Entire galaxies 'live'
and
> 'die'.
If you apply such exacting standards, then nothing can ever be truly
immortal (assuming that the heat death theory is correct).
If you insert 'to all intents and purposes', you do get a different
answer. Colonial entities such as sponges or reefs make a good start.
Then there are the posited spores/bacteria which are theorised to have
colonised the Earth from space (not as science-fiction a concept as you
might think): travel through space with solar winds as your only means of
propulsion would indicate lifespans in the millions of years.
>
> Of course, what does 'exist' mean, eh?
>
> As a Zen Buddhist who has actually seen the Buddha's promised
immortality
> with my own 'eyes', and as a physicist, I have little use for overly
wishy
> washy philosophical concepts. " I think, therefore I am."
Considering our propensity for hallucinations and self-delusion, 'cogito
ergo sum' is pretty indefensible an argument.
>
> Buddhism and physics came together for me one day when I discoverd a
> mathmatical formalism in S-matrix quantum theory which, translated into
> linguistic terms, amounted to " everything is connected to everything
else,
> we are all one process from the beginning of time, ( whatever the hell
THAT
> is, although it appears to be nothing more than a side effect of the
second
> law of thermodynamics ), until its end."
Which is the long version of the answer.
The short answer is '42'.
Your answer also requires a very linear definition of time. Which I am
not sure is appropriate.
>
> Of course that sort of result tends to put an end to whole kaboogie
dance of
> theoretical physics and leaves you a bit short of employment.
>
> What did the employed physicist say to the unemployed physicist?
>
> " Would you like fries with that?"
I thought that was Bruce's line?
Kevin Gavitt
Dis-illusioned. Believiing oneself to be without illusion is itself an
illusion.
>
>
> >
> > I will still believe in the immortality, whatever that means, of
> colony, or
> > other, creatures when I see it. Again, forever is a long time. Much,
> MUCH
> > longer than ,say, the earth itself will exist. Entire galaxies 'live'
> and
> > 'die'.
>
> If you apply such exacting standards, then nothing can ever be truly
> immortal (assuming that the heat death theory is correct).
I tend to apply such exacting standards within the framework of the topic at
hand. Living for really, really long time is not the same as living forever.
On the flip side saying that "everything dies" is, to all intents and
purposes, correct. Even for sponges.
> If you insert 'to all intents and purposes', you do get a different
> answer. Colonial entities such as sponges or reefs make a good start.
> Then there are the posited spores/bacteria which are theorised to have
> colonised the Earth from space (not as science-fiction a concept as you
> might think): travel through space with solar winds as your only means of
> propulsion would indicate lifespans in the millions of years.
Is stasis life?
What's more, as someone who used to hang out with Carl Sagan a bit and whose
undergraduate college professors considered the resident expert on astronomy
I'm not prone to confuse science fiction with cosmology.
Strictly scientifically speaking we are stardust, we are billion year old
carbon.
>
>
> >
> > Of course, what does 'exist' mean, eh?
> >
> > As a Zen Buddhist who has actually seen the Buddha's promised
> immortality
> > with my own 'eyes', and as a physicist, I have little use for overly
> wishy
> > washy philosophical concepts. " I think, therefore I am."
>
> Considering our propensity for hallucinations and self-delusion, 'cogito
> ergo sum' is pretty indefensible an argument.
And the only one that can be applied by an ego.
>
>
> >
> > Buddhism and physics came together for me one day when I discoverd a
> > mathmatical formalism in S-matrix quantum theory which, translated into
> > linguistic terms, amounted to " everything is connected to everything
> else,
> > we are all one process from the beginning of time, ( whatever the hell
> THAT
> > is, although it appears to be nothing more than a side effect of the
> second
> > law of thermodynamics ), until its end."
>
> Which is the long version of the answer.
> The short answer is '42'.
But what is the question?
>
> Your answer also requires a very linear definition of time. Which I am
> not sure is appropriate.
You should go back and read my brief statement on time again. I made no
overt statement as to its linearity, or lack thereof, professed a certain
ignorance as to what it even is, and my position is time independent, as is
every single mathmatical model in physics * with the exception of the second
law of thermodynamics*.
The previous paragraph is profound. Entire careers in science could be based
on it alone.
>
>
> >
> > Of course that sort of result tends to put an end to whole kaboogie
> dance of
> > theoretical physics and leaves you a bit short of employment.
> >
> > What did the employed physicist say to the unemployed physicist?
> >
> > " Would you like fries with that?"
>
> I thought that was Bruce's line?
>
I'm sorry, I didn't realize he had reached that level of basic human
competence.
KFG
_ Lilith_
>
Brilliant StinkyOtee ...so manslaughter and murder don't matter ...
Care to sacrifice yourself?
Idiot.
Alex W.
I hold no such illusions.
I am content to be aware of the existence of illusion and the nature of
some specific delusions and preconceptions.
That is as much wisdom and enlightenment as any man could hope for.
Being totally without illusion is, I believe, impossible for Man. We are
incapable of even approaching such a state.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I will still believe in the immortality, whatever that means, of
> > colony, or
> > > other, creatures when I see it. Again, forever is a long time.
Much,
> > MUCH
> > > longer than ,say, the earth itself will exist. Entire galaxies
'live'
> > and
> > > 'die'.
> >
> > If you apply such exacting standards, then nothing can ever be truly
> > immortal (assuming that the heat death theory is correct).
>
> I tend to apply such exacting standards within the framework of the
topic at
> hand. Living for really, really long time is not the same as living
forever.
> On the flip side saying that "everything dies" is, to all intents and
> purposes, correct. Even for sponges.
You are demanding an absolute. That is impossible.
Or rather, you are demanding a proof for God: nothing else could possibly
meet your standards.
>
> > If you insert 'to all intents and purposes', you do get a different
> > answer. Colonial entities such as sponges or reefs make a good
start.
> > Then there are the posited spores/bacteria which are theorised to
have
> > colonised the Earth from space (not as science-fiction a concept as
you
> > might think): travel through space with solar winds as your only
means of
> > propulsion would indicate lifespans in the millions of years.
>
> Is stasis life?
In that life is the absence of death, yes.
Eternal stasis would also qualify as immortality (albeit of a rather
limited sort).
>
> What's more, as someone who used to hang out with Carl Sagan a bit and
whose
> undergraduate college professors considered the resident expert on
astronomy
> I'm not prone to confuse science fiction with cosmology.
One's as valid as the other, at least as far as hard proof of the origins
of life is concerned.
>
> Strictly scientifically speaking we are stardust, we are billion year
old
> carbon.
With a little help from aminoacids.....
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Of course, what does 'exist' mean, eh?
> > >
> > > As a Zen Buddhist who has actually seen the Buddha's promised
> > immortality
> > > with my own 'eyes', and as a physicist, I have little use for
overly
> > wishy
> > > washy philosophical concepts. " I think, therefore I am."
> >
> > Considering our propensity for hallucinations and self-delusion,
'cogito
> > ergo sum' is pretty indefensible an argument.
>
> And the only one that can be applied by an ego.
Can you prove that you have an ego?
Ultima ratio, we cannot prove our own existence.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Buddhism and physics came together for me one day when I discoverd
a
> > > mathmatical formalism in S-matrix quantum theory which, translated
into
> > > linguistic terms, amounted to " everything is connected to
everything
> > else,
> > > we are all one process from the beginning of time, ( whatever the
hell
> > THAT
> > > is, although it appears to be nothing more than a side effect of
the
> > second
> > > law of thermodynamics ), until its end."
> >
> > Which is the long version of the answer.
> > The short answer is '42'.
>
> But what is the question?
The white mice say: "give us some time."
>
> >
> > Your answer also requires a very linear definition of time. Which I
am
> > not sure is appropriate.
>
> You should go back and read my brief statement on time again. I made no
> overt statement as to its linearity, or lack thereof, professed a
certain
> ignorance as to what it even is, and my position is time independent,
as is
> every single mathmatical model in physics * with the exception of the
second
> law of thermodynamics*.
You referred to a beginning and an end. That implies linearity.
Moreover, your reference to "one process" implies progression.
Oh, and before we get too deep: what I know about physics wouldn't fill a
small thimble. I am looking at this from a philosophical perspective.
At these far reaches of theoretical thought, everything becomes
philosophy.....
>
> The previous paragraph is profound. Entire careers in science could be
based
> on it alone.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Of course that sort of result tends to put an end to whole kaboogie
> > dance of
> > > theoretical physics and leaves you a bit short of employment.
> > >
> > > What did the employed physicist say to the unemployed physicist?
> > >
> > > " Would you like fries with that?"
> >
> > I thought that was Bruce's line?
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't realize he had reached that level of basic human
> competence.
If you can train a monkey to do the job.....
Alex
Kevin Gavitt
I am demanding nothing, and applied such weasel words as 'tend' and 'to all
intents and purposes', (which I stole from you).
>
>
> >
> > > If you insert 'to all intents and purposes', you do get a different
> > > answer. Colonial entities such as sponges or reefs make a good
> start.
> > > Then there are the posited spores/bacteria which are theorised to
> have
> > > colonised the Earth from space (not as science-fiction a concept as
> you
> > > might think): travel through space with solar winds as your only
> means of
> > > propulsion would indicate lifespans in the millions of years.
> >
> > Is stasis life?
>
> In that life is the absence of death, yes.
I'm not sure that I accept that life is the absence of death. Indeed it
seems circular logic to me. I would prefer that it is the absence of
process.
>
> Eternal stasis would also qualify as immortality (albeit of a rather
> limited sort).
I see no way to distinguish eternal stasis from death. Perhaps if we wait a
little longer than eternity to see if it "wakes up?"
>
>
> >
> > What's more, as someone who used to hang out with Carl Sagan a bit and
> whose
> > undergraduate college professors considered the resident expert on
> astronomy
> > I'm not prone to confuse science fiction with cosmology.
>
> One's as valid as the other, at least as far as hard proof of the origins
> of life is concerned.
Perhaps it might be a bit more accurate to say that both are as INvalid as
the other? Proof requires facts. In the absence of facts everything is just
made up.
>
>
> >
> > Strictly scientifically speaking we are stardust, we are billion year
> old
> > carbon.
>
> With a little help from aminoacids.....
Which are built around a core of billion year old carbon, and begin to
appear to be ubiquitous in the universe. It's certainly easy enough to get
them to form spontaneously in the lab.
Whether life on Earth was 'seeded' from outside or not seems a bit of a moot
issue to me. It seems perfectly plausible, in fact just about as plausible
that it arose spontaneously here. The real question still remains how do
amino acids end up becoming life? Arguing about whether it happened on Earth
or in space seems a convient way of sidestepping the difficult question of
HOW.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, what does 'exist' mean, eh?
> > > >
> > > > As a Zen Buddhist who has actually seen the Buddha's promised
> > > immortality
> > > > with my own 'eyes', and as a physicist, I have little use for
> overly
> > > wishy
> > > > washy philosophical concepts. " I think, therefore I am."
> > >
> > > Considering our propensity for hallucinations and self-delusion,
> 'cogito
> > > ergo sum' is pretty indefensible an argument.
> >
> > And the only one that can be applied by an ego.
>
> Can you prove that you have an ego?
>
> Ultima ratio, we cannot prove our own existence.
The pain in my stubbed toe is " to all intents and purposes" proof enough to
myself. Proving it to YOU is another issue and you can make up your own mind
on that one with my blessing. Assuming you have one of course.
I don't hold too dearly to this opinion though, as I've caught myself being
wrong from time to time. It seems a valid working hypothosis for the non
though, and one that seems to work better for me than others.
I was speaking colloquially, and included the cited modifiers to the
statement.
The one process itself seems to care little for time, or space, or even
'process'.
I will amend one of my statements though. Most physical events seem to be
time independent only in the sense that they don't seem to care which
'direction' time goes in. They seem to care very much that things happen in
a particular order. They just don't care which event is the 'cause'.
The second law of thermodynamics is the only physical property which not
only cares that things have an order but cares which event is the causitive
and which is the reactive.
So long as the second law applies time would appear to have linearity AND a
prefered direction.
>
> Oh, and before we get too deep: what I know about physics wouldn't fill a
> small thimble. I am looking at this from a philosophical perspective.
> At these far reaches of theoretical thought, everything becomes
> philosophy.....
You know, you just don't know you know. I assume you can walk down the
street without falling over, usually? Perhaps what you mean is that you know
little about the mathmatical quatification of physics?
To the extent that physics relies on mathmatics it must either be incomplete
or not wholely consistent. Godel has some interesting ramifications for the
metaphysical foundations of physics.
I have little hope for a valid Grand Unification Theory.
>
>
> >
> > The previous paragraph is profound. Entire careers in science could be
> based
> > on it alone.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course that sort of result tends to put an end to whole kaboogie
> > > dance of
> > > > theoretical physics and leaves you a bit short of employment.
> > > >
> > > > What did the employed physicist say to the unemployed physicist?
> > > >
> > > > " Would you like fries with that?"
> > >
> > > I thought that was Bruce's line?
> > >
> >
> > I'm sorry, I didn't realize he had reached that level of basic human
> > competence.
>
> If you can train a monkey to do the job.....
>
> Alex
>
>
Hire the monkey based on superiour qualifications?
KFG
Marky
"_ Lilith_" <no45...@nor45etun.net> wrote in message
news:osBJ6.566$fU6.2...@news.uswest.net...
Eh? lol
> Care to sacrifice yourself?
You'd make a better offering...lol
> Idiot.
That's the way you should sign all your posts...lol
Daniel Peduzzi
kyoteee wrote in message ...
>anon...@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>Ask Kyoteee about the favorite restaurant she abandoned solely
>>because it went smoke free.
>
>to give my money to was McDonald's on Colorado Boulevard. Even though
>it's been one of yours, it has never a 'favorite' of mine.
>
Kyoteee, your selective memory is showing:
On 27 Nov 1996 21:23:51 GMT, bau...@ix.netcom.com(Sheep) wrote:
>
>Whenever I see a business establishment that displays a "no smoking"
>sign, I will not enter it or give them any of my money. I've been
>doing that for more years than I can count. When a local favorite
>restaurant (not a chain) suddenly, and without warning, went 100%
>nonsmoking about two years ago, I vowed never to go there again. I sent
>them a letter stating why but, of course, they didn't have the decency
>or courtesy to reply. My smoking and non-smoking friends won't go
>there either because this restaurant is pandering and catering to only
>one portion of the general population.
Perhaps nicotine does absolutely nothing to prevent the onset
of Alzheimer's? Or will you now deny that you never wrote the
above?
Bruce bests you, yet again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel C. Peduzzi
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights http://www.no-smoke.org
Action on Smoking and Health http://www.ash.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ Lilith_
StinkyOtee always lies ... she's a deluded nitwit addicted woman smoker ...
how much worse can it be?
Daniel Peduzzi <ped...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:oaKJ6.18949$e85.6...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
Paul Lenz
> Perhaps nicotine does absolutely nothing to prevent the onset
> of Alzheimer's?
Not at all. This result of wrongly evaluated statistics
is outdated since a long time.
Paul Lenz
--
Ich lese alle öffentlichen Antworten - bitte _keine_ PM-Kopien!
http://www.lenz-online.de ** XP v3.12d R **
_ Lilith_
Paul Lenz <pa...@lenz-online.de> wrote in message news:80YHN...@lenz-online.de...
> ped...@mediaone.net (Daniel Peduzzi) schrieb am 08.05.01:
>
> > Perhaps nicotine does absolutely nothing to prevent the onset
> > of Alzheimer's?
>
> Not at all. This result of wrongly evaluated statistics
> is outdated since a long time.
So they'll be completely clear of mind and thought when they
rot away from smoking induced cancer ...
Marky
And all those non-smokers with cancer will simply have to believe that they
did something bad other than smoking...like posting hate on newsgroups that
has no basis other than a government funded propaganda machine in full
swing..
Speaking of swinging, have they included the death penalty for hate crimes
as a suitable punishment?
What size rope would they need to hang an idiot with a tiny brain like
yours?
Alex W.
Marky
Is that like dental floss?
Alex W.
Thinner.
A lot thinner.
Goes through flesh and gristle and fat like a hot knife through butter.
It's just the ticket....
Dave Hitt
>ped...@mediaone.net (Daniel Peduzzi) schrieb am 08.05.01:
>
>> Perhaps nicotine does absolutely nothing to prevent the onset
>> of Alzheimer's?
>
>Not at all. This result of wrongly evaluated statistics
>is outdated since a long time.
Please provide proof.
----
How to make sure the bureaucrats make the right decision
about dredging the Hudson River.
http://www.davehitt.com/april01/bottomfishing.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Paul Lenz
> >> Perhaps nicotine does absolutely nothing to prevent the onset
> >> of Alzheimer's?
> >
> >Not at all. This result of wrongly evaluated statistics
> >is outdated since a long time.
>
> Please provide proof.
(dpa) Raucher sind nach einer Studie aus Holland doppelt so
stark gefährdet, an Alzheimer zu erkranken wie Nichtraucher.
Selbst ehemalige Raucher werden eineinhalbmal so häufig von
der schweren geistigen Demenz eingeholt wie Menschen, die nie
zum Glimmstengel gegriffen haben. Das berichteten Alewijn Ott
und Kollegen von der Erasmus-Universität in Rotterdam auf der
Jahrestagung der Amerikanischen Akademie für Neurologie in
Boston im US-Staat Massachusetts. Die Forscher untersuchten
fast 7000 Holländer im Alter von 55 bis zu 106 Jahren.
Unter den Rauchern fanden sie nicht nur mehr
Alzheimer-Kranke, sondern die Gruppe war verstärkt von
anderen Formen geistiger Demenz betroffen. Ursache dürfte der
schädliche Einfluß des Rauchens auf die Blutgefäße sein,
sagte die Wissenschaftlerin Monique Breteler. Die Blutgefäße
von Rauchern seien häufig durch den Effekt von Nikotin
verhärtet und verengt. Dadurch könnten sie den Blutfluß in
das Gehirn und dessen Versorgung mit Sauerstoff verlangsamen.
Einige ältere Studien hatten dagegen ergeben, daß Zigaretten
vor der Alzheimer-Krankheit schützen. Die Holländer erklären
diesen Widerspruch damit, daß die früheren Studien Menschen
mit Herz- und Kreislauferkrankungen von der Teilnahme
ausgeschlossen hatten. Damit hätten aber die Kandidaten mit
den schlimmsten Raucherschäden bei der Ermittlung für
Alzheimer gefehlt.
I hope somebody can translate this. I have no time, sorry.
Kevin Gavitt
There would be no need for translation had you included any data, i.e.,
proof.
KFG
Paul Lenz
> > > >> Perhaps nicotine does absolutely nothing to prevent the
> > > >> onset of Alzheimer's?
> > > >
> > > > Not at all. This result of wrongly evaluated statistics
> > > > is outdated since a long time.
> > >
> > > Please provide proof.
> >
> >
> > (dpa) Raucher sind nach einer Studie aus Holland doppelt
> > so stark gefährdet, an Alzheimer zu erkranken wie
> > Nichtraucher. Selbst ehemalige Raucher werden
> > eineinhalbmal so häufig von der schweren geistigen
> > Demenz eingeholt wie Menschen, die nie zum Glimmstengel
> > gegriffen haben.
> There would be no need for translation had you included any
> data, i.e., proof.
There ARE data included:
doppelt = twice, eineinhalb = 1.5 times
Alex W.
> kga...@NYCAP.rr.com (Kevin Gavitt) schrieb am 15.05.01:
>
> > > > >> Perhaps nicotine does absolutely nothing to prevent the
> > > > >> onset of Alzheimer's?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all. This result of wrongly evaluated statistics
> > > > > is outdated since a long time.
> > > >
> > > > Please provide proof.
> > >
> > >
> > > (dpa) Raucher sind nach einer Studie aus Holland doppelt
> > > so stark gefährdet, an Alzheimer zu erkranken wie
> > > Nichtraucher. Selbst ehemalige Raucher werden
> > > eineinhalbmal so häufig von der schweren geistigen
> > > Demenz eingeholt wie Menschen, die nie zum Glimmstengel
> > > gegriffen haben.
>
>
> > There would be no need for translation had you included any
> > data, i.e., proof.
>
> There ARE data included:
> doppelt = twice, eineinhalb = 1.5 times
twice what?
Bananas?
If I buy two lottery tickets instead of one, my chances of winning have
doubled. What are my chances of winning?
Kevin Gavitt
> kga...@NYCAP.rr.com (Kevin Gavitt) schrieb am 15.05.01:
>
> > > > >> Perhaps nicotine does absolutely nothing to prevent the
> > > > >> onset of Alzheimer's?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all. This result of wrongly evaluated statistics
> > > > > is outdated since a long time.
> > > >
> > > > Please provide proof.
> > >
> > >
> > > (dpa) Raucher sind nach einer Studie aus Holland doppelt
> > > so stark gefährdet, an Alzheimer zu erkranken wie
> > > Nichtraucher. Selbst ehemalige Raucher werden
> > > eineinhalbmal so häufig von der schweren geistigen
> > > Demenz eingeholt wie Menschen, die nie zum Glimmstengel
> > > gegriffen haben.
>
>
> > There would be no need for translation had you included any
> > data, i.e., proof.
>
> There ARE data included:
> doppelt = twice, eineinhalb = 1.5 times
>
>
> Paul Lenz
>
"And how many bagel would you like today sir?"
"Doble"
"Excuse me sir?"
"Doble, that's Spanish for twice"
"Ummmm, ok. So how many is that?"
"Twice"
"Maybe you should just hold up some fingers sir."
"Ok, ok, I'll make it easier on you, just give me 1.5 times."
"With all due respect, piss off sir, NEXT!"
Paul, twice and 1.5 times are not data. Here's a hint so that you may
recognize data when you see it. In Germany data is recorded in the form of
Arabic numerals, such as '42'.
What you posted contained no data, it was a statement of opinion and does
not constitute anything even vaguely resembling proof. It can be countered
with 100% effectiveness thus:
"Is not. Phbbbbbbbt!"
KFG
Paul Lenz
> > There ARE data included:
> > doppelt = twice, eineinhalb = 1.5 times
>
> twice what?
Translate it yourself, I have no time.
Alex W.
> ing...@yahoo.co.uk (Alex W.) schrieb am 18.05.01:
>
> > > There ARE data included:
> > > doppelt = twice, eineinhalb = 1.5 times
> >
> > twice what?
>
> Translate it yourself, I have no time.
>
I don't need to translate it, I read German, thank you so much.
And it doesn't help.
The question remains: "twice what?"
The article does not specify; it does not cite numbers or percentages.
Paul Lenz
> > There ARE data included:
> > doppelt = twice, eineinhalb = 1.5 times
> Paul, twice and 1.5 times are not data.
*sigh*
doppelt = 200 percent, eineinhalb = 150 percent.
BTW: Try "Alewijn Ott" in a search engine, if you like
to learn, but I doubt about this.
Kevin Gavitt
So far I have learned that the reports can't even get the data on how many
were included in the study right. Every report on the study I have found
cites a different number for the same study, ranging from 6000 and something
to 8000. Oh, with the exception of ASH which in its usual manner goes
everyone thousands better and reports the number as 9000.
The study cited "dementia", which we learn is a leading cause of disability
and death among the elderly, like that's big surprise, that of the thousands
studied 146 develop " dementia", ( which is never defined), of which 88
MIGHT have been Alzheimer's.
So we know by this that the study is essentially worthless regarding
Alzheimer's, although it might have some other usefulness.
I have yet to find any data.
Once again, an abstract or a report of an abstract citing double/200% is
not data.
Double/200%, ( which mean the same thing, although your original translation
was more accurate than your second), is NOT DATA. The trick of turning
double into 200% to simulate data does not work.
If you wish to learn something yourself go learn what data is, then come
back with some.
KFG
Paul Lenz
> I don't need to translate it, I read German, thank you so much.
> And it doesn't help.
> The question remains: "twice what?"
Maybe you read German, but you did not understand.
"Smokers have the double risk to get Alzheimer compared
with non-smokers."
Sorry, perhaps "double" is better than "twice".
Kevin Gavitt
> ing...@yahoo.co.uk (Alex W.) schrieb am 21.05.01:
>
> > I don't need to translate it, I read German, thank you so much.
> > And it doesn't help.
> > The question remains: "twice what?"
>
> Maybe you read German, but you did not understand.
>
> "Smokers have the double risk to get Alzheimer compared
> with non-smokers."
>
> Sorry, perhaps "double" is better than "twice".
>
>
> Paul Lenz
>
And perhaps you did not understand that the only references I have been able
to find relating to this study claim a sample of *somewhere* between 6000
and 9000 persons aged 55 of whom, over the course of 2.5 years, 146 came
down with "dementia", which is left undefined, of which 88 MIGHT have been
Alzheimer's.
This is, to say the least, rather underwhelming even as a casual report
seeing as there appears to not even be a single case of actually confirmed
Alzheimer's in the lot.
Nowhere could I find the actual study or actual reference to its DATA or
methodolgy.
KFG
Alex W.
> ing...@yahoo.co.uk (Alex W.) schrieb am 21.05.01:
>
> > I don't need to translate it, I read German, thank you so much.
> > And it doesn't help.
> > The question remains: "twice what?"
>
> Maybe you read German, but you did not understand.
>
> "Smokers have the double risk to get Alzheimer compared
> with non-smokers."
>
> Sorry, perhaps "double" is better than "twice".
>
Double of WHAT?
What is the non-smoker's risk? One in 10,000? One in a million?
Saying "double the risk" is meaningless without a frame of reference.
But all that may be academic anyway:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010522/ts/health_japan_alzheimers_dc.ht
ml
Paul Lenz
> If you wish to learn something yourself go learn what data is,
> then come back with some.
OK, if you don't accept "200%" as data, I can not help you.
But this is not my point. Much more interesting and important
is the last paragraph which explains why the rumor "smoking
protects against Alzheimer" was set into the world:
Einige ältere Studien hatten dagegen ergeben, daß Zigaretten
vor der Alzheimer-Krankheit schützen. Die Holländer erklären
diesen Widerspruch damit, daß die früheren Studien Menschen
mit Herz- und Kreislauferkrankungen von der Teilnahme
ausgeschlossen hatten. Damit hätten aber die Kandidaten mit
den schlimmsten Raucherschäden bei der Ermittlung für
Alzheimer gefehlt.
David MacLean
http://www.freetranslation.com/
(Dpa) smokers are twice as strongly jeopardized after a study out of
Holland, at Alzheimer to erkranken as well as non-smoker. Even former
smokers are never overtaken grasped have eineinhalbmal so frequently by the
heavy intellectual Demenz like persons, that to the glimmer stalk. The
reported Alewijn Ott and colleagues of the Erasmus-university in Rotterdam
on the year conference of the American academy for neurology in Boston in
the US-country Massachusetts. The researchers examined almost 7000 Dutchmen
in the age from 55 to 106 years.
Under the smoker, they found not only more Alzheimer-sick, but rather the
group be concerned reinforced by other Demenz intellectual form. The
injurious influence of the smoking on the blood containers would be allowed
to be cause, said the scientist Monique Breteler. The blood containers of
smoker would be hardened frequently by the effect of nicotine and verengt.
Through it they could slow down the blood river into the brain and its
provision with oxygen.
Some older study on the other hand had yielded that cigarette protect
against the Alzheimer-illness. The Dutchmen explain this contradiction
therewith that the earlier studies persons with heart and circulation
disease of the participation ausgeschlossen had. Therewith however the
candidates with the worst smoker damage would have been absent from the
ascertainment for Alzheimer.
-------------------------------------
This may be in a form that would make your high school English teacher pale,
but the meaning is clear.
David MacLean
> kga...@NYCAP.rr.com (Kevin Gavitt) schrieb am 22.05.01:
>
> > If you wish to learn something yourself go learn what data is,
> > then come back with some.
>
> OK, if you don't accept "200%" as data, I can not help you.
*ANY* percentage is a dimensionless quantity, an expression of a ratio
between like qualities. It is used as a *COMPARISON*. However, in order to
be a *meaningful* comparison, the context in which the comparison is made
must be taken into account.
Let me give you an example. Let's say that you and Kevin are in business.
The year before last, after expenses (including his salary), Kevin's
business earned $1,000 US profit. Last year, it earned $3,000 US profit.
This is, as I am sure you realize, a 200% increase in profit.
Your business, earned in the year before last after expenses (including your
salary), $100,000 US profit. Last year, your business earned $300,000 US
profit after taxes. Again, this is a 200% increase in profit.
Now, if an impartial bystander was given ONLY the fact that Kevin's business
increased its profits by 200% and your business increased its profits by
200%, what basis has this bystander for determining which business, yours or
Kevin's, is the better business to invest in?
The answer is, the potential investor has NO rational basis for determining
which business is the better of the two. He needs the context from which
the percentages were derived in order to make an informed decision.
Just given the percentages, you don't even know if the percentages were
calculated correctly. Take into account rounding, for instance. Suppose
that your business earned *exactly* $100,000 US and $300,000 US, where as
Kevin's business earned $1,499 US and $2,500 US. That's roughly a 167%
increase in profit. However, rounded to 1 significant figure (all there is,
after all, in YOUR results), its $1,000 US and $3,000 US and the 300% figure
holds.
Do you know what rounding went on to derive your touted 200% figure?
And this just from basic arithmetic. We could talk about experiment design,
margins of error, significant results vs insignificant results, etc., etc.,
etc.
Kevin's cry for data is justified, Mr. Lentz, as ratios (which percentage
are) are *derived* quantities. They are calculated results, NOT raw data.
>
> But this is not my point. Much more interesting and important
> is the last paragraph which explains why the rumor "smoking
> protects against Alzheimer" was set into the world:
>
> Einige ältere Studien hatten dagegen ergeben, daß Zigaretten
> vor der Alzheimer-Krankheit schützen. Die Holländer erklären
> diesen Widerspruch damit, daß die früheren Studien Menschen
> mit Herz- und Kreislauferkrankungen von der Teilnahme
> ausgeschlossen hatten. Damit hätten aber die Kandidaten mit
> den schlimmsten Raucherschäden bei der Ermittlung für
> Alzheimer gefehlt.
>
>
-- Translation Results by SDL International --
Some older study on the other hand had yielded that cigarette protect
against the Alzheimer-illness. The Dutchmen explain this contradiction
therewith that the earlier studies persons with heart and circulation
disease of the participation ausgeschlossen had (NB had been excluded).
Therewith however the candidates with the worst smoker damage would have
been absent from the ascertainment for Alzheimer
Only a true anti-smoker like you, Mr. Lentz, could attempt to pass off pure
supposition across as if it were cold, hard, proved beyond a reasonable
doubt fact.
Alex W.
"David MacLean" <david....@I.hate.spam.com> wrote in message
news:uH8P6.2426$rA2.4...@news-rep.ab.videon.ca...
Want to know something scary?
This bloke works in a company that builds bridges.
Unless he's the janitor, he could reasonably be expected to know about
figures and statistics....
Alex W.
> kga...@NYCAP.rr.com (Kevin Gavitt) schrieb am 22.05.01:
>
> > If you wish to learn something yourself go learn what data is,
> > then come back with some.
>
> OK, if you don't accept "200%" as data, I can not help you.
>
> But this is not my point. Much more interesting and important
> is the last paragraph which explains why the rumor "smoking
> protects against Alzheimer" was set into the world:
>
> Einige ältere Studien hatten dagegen ergeben, daß Zigaretten
> vor der Alzheimer-Krankheit schützen. Die Holländer erklären
> diesen Widerspruch damit, daß die früheren Studien Menschen
> mit Herz- und Kreislauferkrankungen von der Teilnahme
> ausgeschlossen hatten. Damit hätten aber die Kandidaten mit
> den schlimmsten Raucherschäden bei der Ermittlung für
> Alzheimer gefehlt.
Meaning that this new "study" included people with heart and circulatory
diseases.
So what was done to exclude a correlation between heart disease and
Alzheimer's as opposed to the correlation with smoking? Off the bat, I
could very easily assume that a reduced blood flow to the brain could
affect the onset and course of a disease of the brain.
But that would not be to the liking of the antismokers, would it...
Winza of Oz
David MacLean
"Winza of Oz" <brian_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b0d67b2$0$25504$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> thank G i'm not a dutchman with hardened blood containers
and
<an...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:2lhrgtso1v73bf4c4...@4ax.com...
>
> "glimmer stalk"
> Gotta love it!
Might I be allowed to point out that, unless you read German to begin with,
you had no idea of what Paul Lentz was talking about. Paul was using a
standard pseudo-intellectual trick - quote something in a language that you
think that your audience will not understand in the hopes that your audience
will feel inadequate, thus upgrading your stature. The same garbage is
applied when using highly technical language to a lay audience.
You may not grasp every nuance of the original through mechanical
translation, but that mechanical translation serves to show that what Paul
has done is posted a newspaper/newsmagazine article in the original German
in the hopes that lack of understanding on our parts would make it seem more
authoritative.
The byplay between Paul and Kevin is what aroused my curiosity. German is
not a language that I know, but I do know that Paul's smugness is a mask for
mediocrity.
What this mechanical translation does is invite everyone to the party - why
should Kevin alone have all the fun?
Kevin Gavitt
Come on it, the water's fine.
Here's an orginal publication of the orginization under whose auspices the
study was actually done:
http://www.eur.nl/ieb/persberichten/1997/pb971302.html
Note that it's in Dutch. Mr. Lenz's report is in fact a report on the
report. i.e., a newspaper clipping.
Here's an interesting one, in English:
http://www.aafp.org/afp/970915ap/conferen.html
And another:
http://www.physweekly.com/archive/97/06_02_97/itn3.html
And so on:
http://www.neurologyreviews.com/feb00/nr_feb00_litmon.html
And an ASH site:
http://www.physweekly.com/archive/97/06_02_97/itn3.html
I found all of these sites by following the advice of Mr. Lenz and searching
on "Alewijn Ott."
This implies that Mr. Lenz had done the same and was just as capable of
posting a report in English as German. Spanish as well, for that matter, and
Dutch, the language of the * original * study.
His choice of German was clearly deliberate. One might argue it was done
with a certain maliciousness of intent.
Mr. Lenz?
I'm still looking for any link to the *actual* study without success, all we
have here are reports on the study, and reports on the reports on the
reports on the. . .
As it is the reports give enough to have fun playing around with but are
essentially worthless when it comes to determining the actual results and
the possible merits of those results.
I will point out one thing. The results for men and women seem to be
different by an order of magnitude.
This is not biologically plausible.
KFG
Paul Lenz
> Kevin's cry for data is justified, Mr. Lentz,
Lenz. Simply Lenz.
> as ratios (which
> percentage are) are *derived* quantities. They are calculated
> results, NOT raw data.
What is your problem, David?
Many years you believed that smoking protects from Alzheimer.
Now a Dutchman found out that this is not true. He found out
that smoking increases the risk of Alzheimer. And he also
found out why older studies had leaded to a wrong result.
These are the results and the facts.
The Dutch study was published somewhere, and a journalist
wrote an article about this study. It was just an article
for everybody in an every-day-newspaper. So he wrote about
the results and left the data away because the assumed that
the readers are only interested of the results and nothing
else. This article is my source.
But when the journalist left the data away, this does not
affect the results of the study.
Your blow against missing data only hits the air.
> Only a true anti-smoker like you, Mr. Lentz, could attempt to
> pass off pure supposition across as if it were cold, hard,
> proved beyond a reasonable doubt fact.
I am not an anti-smoker because I never say "only dead smokers
are good smokers." Smokers are no culprits, they are victims
of the tobacco companies. I don't fight against smokers, I fight
against tobacco companies and against their lies which they tell
to keep their customers.
David MacLean
> david....@I.hate.spam.com (David MacLean) schrieb am 24.05.01:
>
> > Kevin's cry for data is justified, Mr. Lentz,
>
> Lenz. Simply Lenz.
My apologies.
>
> > as ratios (which
> > percentage are) are *derived* quantities. They are calculated
> > results, NOT raw data.
>
> What is your problem, David?
>
> Many years you believed that smoking protects from Alzheimer.
If you are going to go claim that I believe something, shouldn't you take
the time to confirm that I hold that belief? Or is that part of your
exercise regimen - jumping to conclusions?
>
> Now a Dutchman found out that this is not true. He found out
> that smoking increases the risk of Alzheimer. And he also
> found out why older studies had leaded to a wrong result.
>
> These are the results and the facts.
Correction, Mr. Lenz (or should that be, "Correction, Lenz"?). The
published figures from this particular study showed an increased risk of
Alzheimers. Far from finding out why older studies had lead to a different
conclusion, he offered supposition and hypothesis. Contrary to what you
might want to belief, supposition and hypothesis is not the same as proven
fact.
In essence, Mr. Lenz, what the Dutchman is claiming is that all researchers
before him are guilty of carelessness, whereas he is the only careful
researcher in the field. And all *you* have to go on (and all *any* third
party has to go on) is his word.
But not personally knowing either this Dutchman nor the other researchers,
who, by implication, gave their word that they did careful research, who's
word are we to accept.
Of course, you've made up your mind, since the Dutchman's paper caters to
your prejudices. But agreeing with what you accept on faith does not make a
paper "scientific".
>
> The Dutch study was published somewhere, and a journalist
> wrote an article about this study. It was just an article
> for everybody in an every-day-newspaper. So he wrote about
> the results and left the data away because the assumed that
> the readers are only interested of the results and nothing
> else. This article is my source.
>
> But when the journalist left the data away, this does not
> affect the results of the study.
>
> Your blow against missing data only hits the air.
Sorry, but it was not my blow against the missing data. More correctly, it
was Kevin's blow against the missing data. My "crime" is that I support his
view.
Your "crime", however, is much more serious. You have offered a conclusion
as if it were fact, and then ducked and dodged and evaded when the very
reasonable request was made that you support, with evidence, that
conclusion.
Mr. Lenz, just because at one time, most people believed that the world was
flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, and that a heavier
object fell faster than a lighter object, and that they were supported in
those beliefs by "authorities" does not make those beliefs true.
>
>
> > Only a true anti-smoker like you, Mr. Lentz, could attempt to
> > pass off pure supposition across as if it were cold, hard,
> > proved beyond a reasonable doubt fact.
>
> I am not an anti-smoker because I never say "only dead smokers
> are good smokers." Smokers are no culprits, they are victims
> of the tobacco companies. I don't fight against smokers, I fight
> against tobacco companies and against their lies which they tell
> to keep their customers.
>
<sarcasm>Mr. Lenz, why should the tobacco companies lie to keep us? After
all, haven't they hooked us on, according to Koop, the most addictive
substance on the planet? And why would their supposed lies, being
restricted by law in distribution, be more effective than the bright light
of truth that the anti-smoking lobby waves from every available advertising
facility?</sarcasm>
Mr. Lenz, you are very quick to see the so-called lies of the tobacco
companies; why is it, then, that you are totally blind to the lies of the
anti-smoking lobby?
Dave Hitt
>david....@I.hate.spam.com (David MacLean) schrieb am 24.05.01:
>
>> Kevin's cry for data is justified, Mr. Lentz,
>
>Lenz. Simply Lenz.
>
>> as ratios (which
>> percentage are) are *derived* quantities. They are calculated
>> results, NOT raw data.
>
>What is your problem, David?
>
>Many years you believed that smoking protects from Alzheimer.
The evidence that smoking reduces the risks of Alzheimers and
Parkinson's is just a little more than a year old. It doesn't
*protect*, which implies that it's a perfect shield, but it does
reduce the risk substantially. This pisses off the nannies to no end.
>Now a Dutchman found out that this is not true. He found out
>that smoking increases the risk of Alzheimer. And he also
>found out why older studies had leaded to a wrong result.
>
>These are the results and the facts.
>
>The Dutch study was published somewhere,
Where? Give us a link to the study, or at least the abstract, so we
can see if it's legitimate. Several of us are literate enough in the
science of epidemiology to spot a bogus study rather quickly.
>and a journalist
>wrote an article about this study. It was just an article
>for everybody in an every-day-newspaper.
Where? And what are the journalists qualifications? Considering how
horribly most journalists report on most studies, this doesn't prove a
damn thing.
>So he wrote about
>the results and left the data away because the assumed that
>the readers are only interested of the results and nothing
>else. This article is my source.
Your source, then, is worthless. As completely, utterly worthless as
an article in the Weekly World News. (How is Bat Boy doing these
days?) The fact that you accept it says much about your own
gullibility, but nothing at all about the validity of the study.
We need to know:
Who conducted this study? What are his/her
credentials/background/known biases, etc.
What was the method used? Case-control, cohort, meta analysis, etc.
How was the data gathered? Survey's, for instance, are notoriously
inaccurate.
How big was the sample size?
Who funded the study?
>But when the journalist left the data away, this does not
>affect the results of the study.
Unless you can answer *all* of these questions, or point us to a
source that does, you are the one blowing hot air.
>I am not an anti-smoker because I never say "only dead smokers
>are good smokers." Smokers are no culprits, they are victims
>of the tobacco companies.
That is a statement of an anti-smoker.
----
It was a nice amendment while it lasted. Read Slouching Toward Singapore:
http://www.davehitt.com/may01/slouching.html
Paul Smith
>the nannies to no end.
Good Lord! Why would anyone be upset that any activity reduces the risk of
a terminal disease such as Alzheimer's? OTOH, there has to be a
significantly safer way to administer the chemical responsible for such
benefit over smoking a weed with its inherent risks.
Paul
****************
FREE Credit Card Referral Program. Quick money
AND residual, lifetime income! CHECK IT OUT !!
http://smithecomservices.tripod.com
***************************************
"Dave Hitt" <Boy....@Hate.spammers> wrote in message
news:3b191bef....@news3.newscene.com...
> pa...@lenz-online.de (Paul Lenz) wrote:
>
> >david....@I.hate.spam.com (David MacLean) schrieb am 24.05.01:
> >
> >> Kevin's cry for data is justified, Mr. Lentz,
> >
> >Lenz. Simply Lenz.
> >
> >> as ratios (which
> >> percentage are) are *derived* quantities. They are calculated
> >> results, NOT raw data.
> >
> >What is your problem, David?
> >
> >Many years you believed that smoking protects from Alzheimer.
>
> The evidence that smoking reduces the risks of Alzheimers and
> Parkinson's is just a little more than a year old. It doesn't
> *protect*, which implies that it's a perfect shield, but >
>
Bruce Watson
>
>Smokers are no culprits, they are victims of the tobacco companies.
Right on, brother.
But there are some smokers who still spout the tobacco company
line recently abandoned by them. Many of those smokers post
here. They are not blameless.
Alex W.
"Paul Smith" <prs...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:786ACCEB91ADCDEE.A25F170B...@lp.airnews.net...
> >it does reduce the risk substantially. This pisses off
> >the nannies to no end.
>
> Good Lord! Why would anyone be upset that any activity reduces the
risk of
> a terminal disease such as Alzheimer's? OTOH, there has to be a
> significantly safer way to administer the chemical responsible for such
> benefit over smoking a weed with its inherent risks.
The "why" is easy: in a sentence like "Tobacco may reduce the risk of
contracting Alzheimer's", the anti-smoker's brain stops working after
"tobacco" and goes into full Pavlovian mode.
ANd yes, I am sure there is a safer way of achieving the same effect.
What a shame that tobacco is so vilified that no respectable researcher
would want to blight his career by working with the Devil Weed.
Paul Lenz
[stuff deleted]
> Unless you can answer *all* of these questions, or point us to
> a source that does, you are the one blowing hot air.
I don't believe that you are too stupid to find the source
yourself.
> >I am not an anti-smoker because I never say "only dead smokers
> >are good smokers." Smokers are no culprits, they are victims
> >of the tobacco companies.
>
> That is a statement of an anti-smoker.
Vituperator.
Paul Lenz
> > Many years you believed that smoking protects from Alzheimer.
>
> If you are going to go claim that I believe something,
> shouldn't you take the time to confirm that I hold that belief?
Oh... if you did not believe this, than you should not
have any problems with the Dutch study.
> > Now a Dutchman found out that this is not true. He found out
> > that smoking increases the risk of Alzheimer. And he also
> > found out why older studies had leaded to a wrong result.
> >
> > These are the results and the facts.
>
> Correction, Mr. Lenz (or should that be, "Correction, Lenz"?).
What about "Correction, Paul"? The usenet isn't that stiff and
polite, specially this newsgroup where flamers seem to rule.
But if it is important for you that I call you Mr. MacLean,
just tell me.
> In essence, Mr. Lenz, what the Dutchman is claiming is that all
> researchers
All resaerchers? How many?
> before him are guilty of carelessness
They were not careless, they made a mistake.
> whereas he is the only careful researcher in the field.
No, he only avoided the same mistake.
> But not personally knowing either this Dutchman nor the other
> researchers, who, by implication, gave their word that they did
> careful research, who's word are we to accept.
Well, if the Dutchman was wrong, than the earlier researchers
should have protested against his results. Did they?
> Mr. Lenz, just because at one time, most people believed that the world
> was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, and that a
> heavier object fell faster than a lighter object, and that they were
> supported in those beliefs by "authorities" does not make those beliefs
> true.
Yawn.
> > I am not an anti-smoker because I never say "only dead
> > smokers are good smokers." Smokers are no culprits, they are
> > victims of the tobacco companies. I don't fight against
> > smokers, I fight against tobacco companies and against their
> > lies which they tell to keep their customers.
>
> <sarcasm>Mr. Lenz, why should the tobacco companies lie to keep
> us? After all, haven't they hooked us on, according to Koop,
> the most addictive substance on the planet?
They have two reasons to lie:
1. There are too many helpers (nicotine patches, Zyban ...)
which make smokers able to quit if they want. So it is
much better they don't want to quit.
2. The more they lie, the more young non-smokers begin
to smoke.
> Mr. Lenz, you are very quick to see the so-called lies of the
> tobacco companies;
Do you think it was the truth when seven tobacco bosses
said on 14th of April 1994 that nicotine is not addictive?
> why is it, then, that you are totally blind
> to the lies of the anti-smoking lobby?
Why should they lie? They would lie useless because
the would not make money with these lies.
Alex W.
> david....@I.hate.spam.com (David MacLean) schrieb am
> > <sarcasm>Mr. Lenz, why should the tobacco companies lie to keep
> > us? After all, haven't they hooked us on, according to Koop,
> > the most addictive substance on the planet?
>
> They have two reasons to lie:
>
> 1. There are too many helpers (nicotine patches, Zyban ...)
> which make smokers able to quit if they want. So it is
> much better they don't want to quit.
> 2. The more they lie, the more young non-smokers begin
> to smoke.
The success rate of these quitting aids is around 20%. Tobacco companies
have nothing to fear from quitting aids.
Young smokers do not begin to smoke because of scientific arguments or
statistical analysis. They smoke because of peer pressure, because of
rites of passage and because it is perceived as cool. The comments of a
tobacco company on this study or that statistic do not enter into the
teenage decision-making process.
>
>
> > Mr. Lenz, you are very quick to see the so-called lies of the
> > tobacco companies;
>
> Do you think it was the truth when seven tobacco bosses
> said on 14th of April 1994 that nicotine is not addictive?
I smoke cigars.
Cigars contain nicotine.
Some days I smoke three or more cigars, sometimes I don't smoke any for a
fortnight.
I ingest nicotine.
I am not addicted.
Further, if nicotine were the addictive agent, what business have the
pharmaceutical companies selling quitting aids laced with an addictive
substance?
>
>
> > why is it, then, that you are totally blind
> > to the lies of the anti-smoking lobby?
>
> Why should they lie? They would lie useless because
> the would not make money with these lies.
Research grants.
Academic tenure (i.e. perpetual salary).
Book sales.
Sales of quitting aids.
Lecture circuit fees.
Consultancy fees.
Government-funded quitting campaigns.
Legal fees and damages.
Donations and other voluntary contributions to anti-smoking
organisations: go to http://www.ash.org and browse. They offer you
information -- for sale. It's available elsewhere on the web, but they
still expect you to pay for it. They also urge you to include them in
your will.
David MacLean
> david....@I.hate.spam.com (David MacLean) schrieb am 27.05.01:
>
> > > Many years you believed that smoking protects from Alzheimer.
> >
> > If you are going to go claim that I believe something,
> > shouldn't you take the time to confirm that I hold that belief?
>
> Oh... if you did not believe this, than you should not
> have any problems with the Dutch study.
>
That does not follow, Mr. Lenz. Let me see if I can put this in terms that
you will understand. Just because I do not use marijuana does not mean that
I have no problem with anti-marijuana hysteria. Just because I am in a
happy monogamous relationship does not mean that I have no problem with the
current anti-polygamy trial in Utah. Just because I am Canadian does not
mean that I have no problem with rabid anti-Americanism.
And just because I do not have an opinion either way about whether or not
smoking prevents Alzheimer's does not mean that I do not have a problem with
the Dutch study.
You seem to believe, whole-heartedly, that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend", whereas history shows that more often than not, the enemy of my
enemy is merely my future enemy.
>
> > > Now a Dutchman found out that this is not true. He found out
> > > that smoking increases the risk of Alzheimer. And he also
> > > found out why older studies had leaded to a wrong result.
> > >
> > > These are the results and the facts.
> >
> > Correction, Mr. Lenz (or should that be, "Correction, Lenz"?).
>
> What about "Correction, Paul"? The usenet isn't that stiff and
> polite, specially this newsgroup where flamers seem to rule.
> But if it is important for you that I call you Mr. MacLean,
> just tell me.
Mr. Lenz, I really do not care what you call me. As for what I call you, I
feel it to be important to maintain formality when dealing with those who
believe themselves to be wise enough to be the final arbiter of what I may
or may not do. Such people are certainly not my friends, but telling them
what I really think about their attitudes closes the door on any possibility
of dialog.
Sir, their have been at least half a dozen studies that showed a negative
correlation between smoking and Alzheimers (ie, more smoking, less
Alzheimers). You have cited just ONE study that shows the opposite. The
authors of that study hypothesize as to why their results vary from the
rest, and you swallow that untested hypothesis with glee.
The problem is, sir, that either way, the differences are small and could
very well be the result of the randomness of sampling. You have no rational
basis for deciding, but you do, however, have an emotional one.
>
>
> > In essence, Mr. Lenz, what the Dutchman is claiming is that all
> > researchers
>
> All resaerchers? How many?
At least half a dozen that I have read personally, more than likely more.
And did you really have to interrupt the sentence to make your point?
Surely if your point was strong, it could have waited until the end of the
sentence.
>
>
> > before him are guilty of carelessness
>
> They were not careless, they made a mistake.
Sir, if there are two identical containers except for labels, one containing
salt and the other sugar, the three year old stirring salt into his lemonade
made a mistake. You stirring salt into your lemonade also made a mistake.
The child's mistake can be excused for lack of understanding. Your mistake,
on the other hand, is pure carelessness. The difference, Mr. Lenz, is that
you have enough knowledge (your ability to read) in the above situation to
differentiate between the two containers. The child, since he cannot read,
does not.
A mistake made through not applying knowledge that you have is a mistake
made through carelessness, and sir, medical researchers are presumed to have
sufficient knowledge to know that if a condition occurs in members of a
population, people who have that condition should have a chance of being
included in a random sample of that population. The Dutch hypothesis is
that the probability of inclusion in the sample was substantially less than
the probability of occurance in the population, which violates the random
nature of the sampling technique. Since those researchers are presumed, a
priori, to have that knowledge, the ONLY explanation for the "mistake"
(presumed by the Dutch author, but NOT subjected to test) is carelessness.
>
>
> > whereas he is the only careful researcher in the field.
>
> No, he only avoided the same mistake.
If you are sitting with salty lemonade, but I read the labels and sweeten my
lemonade with sugar, was I not more careful than you were?
>
>
> > But not personally knowing either this Dutchman nor the other
> > researchers, who, by implication, gave their word that they did
> > careful research, who's word are we to accept.
>
> Well, if the Dutchman was wrong, than the earlier researchers
> should have protested against his results. Did they?
*IF* they knew about his study, and *IF* read his results and *IF* they had
sufficient time to compare his results with theirs and *IF* their was a
journal willing to print the protest in today's anti-smoking climate, and
*IF* the popular press picked up the protest, *THEN* you or I might have
heard about it.
NB the big "IF"s
>
>
> > Mr. Lenz, just because at one time, most people believed that the world
> > was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, and that a
> > heavier object fell faster than a lighter object, and that they were
> > supported in those beliefs by "authorities" does not make those beliefs
> > true.
>
> Yawn.
>
>
Narcolepsy got you down? Or did you stay up all night thinking of this
brilliant reply?
> > > I am not an anti-smoker because I never say "only dead
> > > smokers are good smokers." Smokers are no culprits, they are
> > > victims of the tobacco companies. I don't fight against
> > > smokers, I fight against tobacco companies and against their
> > > lies which they tell to keep their customers.
> >
> > <sarcasm>Mr. Lenz, why should the tobacco companies lie to keep
> > us? After all, haven't they hooked us on, according to Koop,
> > the most addictive substance on the planet?
>
> They have two reasons to lie:
>
> 1. There are too many helpers (nicotine patches, Zyban ...)
> which make smokers able to quit if they want. So it is
> much better they don't want to quit.
Sorry, but the effectiveness of those "helpers" is in putting profit into
the pockets of their manufacturers, not in helping people quit.
> 2. The more they lie, the more young non-smokers begin
> to smoke.
>
The trouble with you anti-smokers is you listen to each other so much that
you don't have the time to go out and do a reality check every now and then.
Especially during the nineties, you anti-smokers were very successful in
reducing the conduits through which the tobacco companies could pipe their
(as you call them) lies to "young non-smokers". Not satisfied with
excluding the tobacco companies from the most effective advertising medium
to youth yet devised (TV), you have succeeded in controlling billboards,
radio ads, magazines, in-store ads and every other advertising medium. At
the same time, YOUR message makes the scene everywhere, including, I might
add, places where cigarette manufacturers never utilized - the mouths of
kids' teachers.
The result? Increased youth smoking.
Oh, I hear anti-smokers say that cigarette companies have just become more
sneaky and effective, but that is a bigger lie than any cigarette
manufacturer ever told.
The truth of the matter is (or, in this case, TheTruth.com of the matter
is), it is you uptight, obnoxious anti-smokers and your zeal that is the
prime cause of the increase in youth smoking. Your basic message - be good
little boys and girls and don't smoke. The trouble is, not all kids desire
to be "good little boys and girls". Adolescence is a time of breaking
boundaries, not hiding behind them.
>
> > Mr. Lenz, you are very quick to see the so-called lies of the
> > tobacco companies;
>
> Do you think it was the truth when seven tobacco bosses
> said on 14th of April 1994 that nicotine is not addictive?
Correction: they said that they did not think nor believe that nicotine is
addictive.
Now, I know many people who sincerely believe that Jesus Christ is the Son
of God. I don't happen to share that belief, but it takes a particularly
twisted mind to claim that I am *lying* when I say that I do not believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Besides, Mr. Lenz, no less an august authority than the Surgeon General has
stated in the past that nicotine is NOT addictive. Check out the 1964
Surgeon Generals Report, where it says:
"CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TOBACCO HABIT
The habitual use of tobacco is related primarily to psychological and
social drives, reinforced and perpetuated by the pharmacological actions
of nicotine on the central nervous system. Nicotine-free tobacco or other
plant materials do not satisfy the needs of those who acquire the tobacco
habit (Chapter 13, p. 354).
The tobacco habit should be characterized as an habituation rather than
an addiction. Discontinuation of smoking, although possessing the
difficul-ties
attendant upon extinction of any conditioned reflex, is accomplished best
by reinforcing factors which interrupt the psychogenic drives. Nicotine
substitutes or supplementary medications have not been proven to be of
major benefit in breaking the habit (Chapter 13, p. 354)."
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_1964/1964%20SGR%20Chapter%204.pdf
Let me quote again: "The tobacco habit should be characterized as an
habituation rather than
an addiction." This states that tobacco is habit forming, but NOT
addictive.
Tell me, Mr. Lenz, was the Surgeon General *LYING* when he published this
statement? Or is this simply a statement of belief?
Or, does anything that goes against your beliefs held, by you, to be a lie?
>
>
> > why is it, then, that you are totally blind
> > to the lies of the anti-smoking lobby?
>
> Why should they lie? They would lie useless because
> the would not make money with these lies.
>
>
As if money were the only motivator in the world. Please, Mr. Lenz, I
assume that you are not so stupid as to believe that everything in the world
is done solely for financial gain; why is it that you feel the need to
assume that I am so stupid as to believe that it is?
Bruce Watson
Alex W. <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Paul Lenz" <pa...@lenz-online.de> wrote in message
>news:81kHx...@lenz-online.de...
>> david....@I.hate.spam.com (David MacLean) schrieb am
>
>> > <sarcasm>Mr. Lenz, why should the tobacco companies lie to keep
>> > us? After all, haven't they hooked us on, according to Koop,
>> > the most addictive substance on the planet?
>>
>> They have two reasons to lie:
>>
>> 1. There are too many helpers (nicotine patches, Zyban ...)
>> which make smokers able to quit if they want. So it is
>> much better they don't want to quit.
>> 2. The more they lie, the more young non-smokers begin
>> to smoke.
>
>The success rate of these quitting aids is around 20%. Tobacco companies
>have nothing to fear from quitting aids.
If your business lost 20% of its revenue would that not bother you?
David MacLean
"Bruce Watson" <anon...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
news:99114275...@irys.nyx.net...
Bruce, I've told you and told you and told you, never, ever try working with
figures; you lack even basic arithmetic skills.
For example, a 20% success rate does NOT translate into 20% revenue loss.
Firstly, not every smoker wants to quit.
Secondly, not every smoker who wants to quit attempts to do so.
Thirdly, not every smoker who attempts to quit uses such aids.
Your oft cited ASH reported figures about the number of smokers who want to
quit notwithstanding, the number who make a serious attempt total less than
10% of all smokers each year. Of those, 40% attempt to use aids.
That's 10% * 40% * 20% = 0.8% loss in customers attributible to those
smoking aids.
But does that mean a 0.8% loss in revenue? Not if the companies can get
away with a greater than 0.8% price increase each year - which they can
easily do because they can hide that increase inside the tax increases that
your side keeps imposing.
Paul Lenz
> > Do you think it was the truth when seven tobacco bosses
> > said on 14th of April 1994 that nicotine is not addictive?
>
> I smoke cigars.
> Cigars contain nicotine.
> Some days I smoke three or more cigars, sometimes I don't smoke
> any for a fortnight.
> I ingest nicotine.
> I am not addicted.
>
> Further, if nicotine were the addictive agent, what business
> have the pharmaceutical companies selling quitting aids laced
> with an addictive substance?
Because it depends of the way how you ingest nicotine. If you
inhale it, it floods your brain very fast and turns you
addicted. If you ingest it slowly through your skin, it isn't
addictive.
Ask somebody who has experiences with hashish. He will tell
you that smoking hashish is completely different from eating
hashish.
Nicotine or THC - it is not only the drug, it is also the
way how it is ingested.
Paul Smith
>business have the pharmaceutical companies selling
>quitting aids laced with an addictive substance?
They don't and Congress and the Supremes should bite the bullet by getting
out of bed with big industry and classifying nicotine where it belongs with
cocaine, heroin, etc.
-- Happy Hunting!! -- Paul
Houston, TX, USA
ICQ #73314929
Researching: VA - WHITE,LIPSCOMB,HILL,JOHNSON,SAUNDERS,
TALBOT,TATE,EVANS
NC - SMITH, BOSWELL, RHODES, CAPEHART,MORRIS,
MARSHE, BRITT,SHAW
View my American Ancestry at:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~paulrsmith
Bruce Watson
>ing...@yahoo.co.uk (Alex W.) schrieb am 29.05.01:
>
>> > Do you think it was the truth when seven tobacco bosses
>> > said on 14th of April 1994 that nicotine is not addictive?
>>
>> I smoke cigars.
>> Cigars contain nicotine.
>> Some days I smoke three or more cigars, sometimes I don't smoke
>> any for a fortnight.
>> I ingest nicotine.
>> I am not addicted.
>>
>> Further, if nicotine were the addictive agent, what business
>> have the pharmaceutical companies selling quitting aids laced
>> with an addictive substance?
>
>Because it depends of the way how you ingest nicotine. If you
>inhale it, it floods your brain very fast and turns you
>addicted. If you ingest it slowly through your skin, it isn't
>addictive.
>
>Ask somebody who has experiences with hashish. He will tell
>you that smoking hashish is completely different from eating
>hashish.
>
>Nicotine or THC - it is not only the drug, it is also the
>way how it is ingested.
Alex's cigarette smoking cousins are green with envy that
he can go two weeks without smoking. They can't go 4 hours.
Cigars are not as addictive as cigarettes.
Think of cigars as analogous to cocaine and cigarettes
to crack.
Carli613
>inhale it, it floods your brain very fast and turns you
>addicted. If you ingest it slowly through your skin, it isn't
>addictive.
Sorry, Paul, but that is simply not true. Addictive substances are addictive no
matter how they are digested, and regardless of the the time it takes to hit
the brain.
That is the exact reason nicotine replacement therapy exists in different mg.
The idea is, when you switch to say, the patch, instead of smoking, you receive
your nicotine at a lower does and sans the chemicals in the cigarette. Studies
have shown that the additional chemicals are just as addictive, if not more so,
than nicotine itself. Then, once you get used to that doseage of nicotine, and
break some of the psychological "hand to mouth" and behavioral habits (which is
*alot harder than the three day "creepy crawlies" that come with actual
nicotine withdrawl), you can step down to less mg. You keep doing this until
you can "wean" yourself completely.
BUT you are still receiving nicotine in the same form (just without additional
chemicals). That would be why people sometimes get "stuck" when they get down
to the lowest mg...they still get withdrawls when they stop.
Carli
"Once you accept the Universe as being something expanding into an infinite
nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy."---Albert
Einstein
Billy Goat Gruff III
wrote:
>> Further, if nicotine were the addictive agent, what
>>business have the pharmaceutical companies selling
>>quitting aids laced with an addictive substance?
>
>They don't and Congress and the Supremes should bite the bullet by getting
>out of bed with big industry and classifying nicotine where it belongs with
>cocaine, heroin, etc.
Paul if they did that then the anti concerns would turn into crimes.
ADA frowns highly on the punitive measures taken against addicts.
Think of it. The govt would have to fund stop smoking clinics. Or job
training for the recovering addict. Or better still SSI benifits for
smokers. Do you really want to fund that?
BTW if you are worried about your health.. leave Houston. All the
pollution in that place is worse than any second hand smoke you could
ever get in your life.
Mike
All opinions expressed are mine unless otherwise noted.
Copyright ©2001 Michael Cummings All Rights Reserved
=================================
Leah's Body Sugaring Recipe
Remove unwanted hair
http://www.for-romance.com/sugar
==================================
For the Billy Goat Gruff song visit
http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/bill_goats_gruff.htm
Note: This page is not owned by me
Carl Drud
"Bruce Watson" <anon...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote:
>
> Alex's cigarette smoking cousins are green with envy that
> he can go two weeks without smoking. They can't go 4 hours.
> Cigars are not as addictive as cigarettes.
Do you know any of Alex's cousins?
--
Carl
Paul Smith
>clinics. Or job training for the recovering addict. Or
>better still SSI benifits for smokers. Do you really
>want to fund that?
Not really. I'm actually not in favor of our current drug policy. My
opinion is that if an individual is stupid enough to do drugs, then we have
no business interferring. We also have no business paying. Carry that on
to alcoholics, suicidal individuals, AIDS and more.
On the other side of that coin, no individual should be allowed to do things
that harm others. e.g. smoke at home where your pollutants won't compound
current problems (unless, of course, there are minors present) or outside
and well away from others so that the pollutants will have adequate time and
space to disperse.
> BTW if you are worried about your health.. leave Houston.
>All the pollution in that place is worse than any second hand
>smoke you could ever get in your life.
I live in far Northwest Houston, well away from the major traffic, downtown
and bay area pollution sources. I am here by necessity but will be
returning to central California when I can. Until then, I suffer but I
certainly don't need tobacco smoke compounding the situation.
-- Happy Hunting!! -- Paul
Houston, TX, USA
ICQ #73314929
Researching: VA - WHITE,LIPSCOMB,HILL,JOHNSON,SAUNDERS,
TALBOT,TATE,EVANS
NC - SMITH, BOSWELL, RHODES, CAPEHART,MORRIS,
MARSHE, BRITT,SHAW
View my American Ancestry at:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~paulrsmith
****************
FREE Credit Card Referral Program. Quick money
AND residual, lifetime income! CHECK IT OUT !!
http://smithecomservices.tripod.com
***************************************
"Billy Goat Gruff III" <Troll...@for-romance.com> wrote in message
news:3b17a502...@news.mfi.net...
Dave Hitt
>Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) schrieb am 27.05.01:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>> Unless you can answer *all* of these questions, or point us to
>> a source that does, you are the one blowing hot air.
>
>I don't believe that you are too stupid to find the source
>yourself.
Bzzt! You loose! Thanks for playing, we have lovely parting gifts.
You made the claim, by repeating something that someone wrote
somewhere. *You* get to back up your claims. It isn't my job. My
job is to point out that you're an ass, and you've made it very easy.
Thank you.
Until and unless you can point us to at least an abstract of the
study, you've proven nothing except your own gullibility, and that you
are a nanny. (Making outrageous claims, being unable to back them up,
and then demanding that the people on the other side of the debate do
the research, is typical nanny behavior.)
>> >I am not an anti-smoker because I never say "only dead smokers
>> >are good smokers." Smokers are no culprits, they are victims
>> >of the tobacco companies.
>>
>> That is a statement of an anti-smoker.
>
>Vituperator.
You think "anti-smoker" is harsh? You better back out of this
discussion quick, because that's just a warm up phrase.
Dave Hitt
>Well, if the Dutchman was wrong, than the earlier researchers
>should have protested against his results. Did they?
Do real scientists rally against the Flat Earth Society, or do they
just shrug them off and ignore them?
>1. There are too many helpers (nicotine patches, Zyban ...)
>which make smokers able to quit if they want. So it is
>much better they don't want to quit.
Those devices have a horrible success rate. If they were for anything
other than quitting smoking, they never would have been approved by
the FDA.
OTOH, there are now more ex-smokers in the US than smokers, and most
of them quit without any nicotine replacement therapy. The key to
quitting isn't chemicals. A person can and will quit the moment their
desire to quit exceeds their desire to smoke.
>2. The more they lie, the more young non-smokers begin
>to smoke.
Everyone knows the dangers of tobacco, in great detail, smokers and
non-smokers alike. Young people start smoking because it's cool.
What makes something cool? Several things, but some of the biggest
are danger, pissing off authority, and doing something un-cool people
are afraid of. Every authority figure who rails against the danger or
smoking makes it cooler. Every uncool person (i.e. you) who whines
makes it a bit more attractive. So knock it off, unless you want to
see more kids smoking.
>> Mr. Lenz, you are very quick to see the so-called lies of the
>> tobacco companies;
>
>Do you think it was the truth when seven tobacco bosses
>said on 14th of April 1994 that nicotine is not addictive?
What they said was they didn't believe it was addictive. Stating what
you believe is entirely different from stating the facts. For
instance, you believe that the little dutch boy's study is accurate,
despite the fact that you don't know anything at all about it except
that you like the conclusions. That's a belief. A fact would be the
actual results of the study, including the methodology, sample size,
time frame, actual RRs and CIs, etc. But you are completely
unable/unwilling to supply them. You are no more credible than they
were.
Dave Hitt
>ing...@yahoo.co.uk (Alex W.) schrieb am 29.05.01:
>
>> > Do you think it was the truth when seven tobacco bosses
>> > said on 14th of April 1994 that nicotine is not addictive?
>>
>> I smoke cigars.
>> Cigars contain nicotine.
>> Some days I smoke three or more cigars, sometimes I don't smoke
>> any for a fortnight.
>> I ingest nicotine.
>> I am not addicted.
>>
>> Further, if nicotine were the addictive agent, what business
>> have the pharmaceutical companies selling quitting aids laced
>> with an addictive substance?
>
>Because it depends of the way how you ingest nicotine. If you
>inhale it, it floods your brain very fast and turns you
>addicted. If you ingest it slowly through your skin, it isn't
>addictive.
Absolute nonsense. Nicotine is nicotine is nicotine. If you want to
spew on this subject, at least learn some basic facts so you don't
embarrass yourself every other post.
The key here is the *amount* of nicotine ingested. A big fat stogie
containing as much tobacco as an entire pack of cigarettes will still
deliver far less nicotine into your system than a single cigarette.
By comparison, Skoal is addictive, even though the nicotine is
absorbed through the skin, (just like cigars) because of the *amount*
that's absorbed is high.
>Ask somebody who has experiences with hashish. He will tell
>you that smoking hashish is completely different from eating
>hashish.
Is that what you've been smoking, Paul? Or is your brain naturally
fuzzy?
Paul Smith
> Those devices have a horrible success rate. If they were for anything
> other than quitting smoking, they never would have been approved by
> the FDA.
I disagree, David. If a smoker truly wants to quit (more than they want to
continue smoking), they will do so. OTOH, quitting is NOT a pleasant
experience. I'm not sure I could have succeeded if I hadn't had Nicorette
gum in my pocket for the first six weeks (I only actually used two pieces in
the first five days). e.g. Without the gum, I well might still be a smoker
(or dead) today and I'll bet there are many more ex-smokers out there who
can relate to that.
The nicotine delivery systems cannot do the job - only you can do that.
They can, however, make the job easier. For example, you CAN have a tooth
filled without local anesthetic but it is a MUCH more pleasant experience
with the novocaine. Further, the novocaine injection is a much more
pleasant experience if preceded with a topical.
-- Happy Hunting!! -- Paul
Houston, TX, USA
ICQ #73314929
Researching: VA - WHITE,LIPSCOMB,HILL,JOHNSON,SAUNDERS,
TALBOT,TATE,EVANS
NC - SMITH, BOSWELL, RHODES, CAPEHART,MORRIS,
MARSHE, BRITT,SHAW
View my American Ancestry at:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~paulrsmith
****************
FREE Credit Card Referral Program. Quick money
AND residual, lifetime income! CHECK IT OUT !!
http://smithecomservices.tripod.com
***************************************" to reply)
Paul Smith
> >> >are good smokers." Smokers are no culprits, they are victims
> >> >of the tobacco companies.
> >>
> >> That is a statement of an anti-smoker.
> >
> >Vituperator.
>
> You think "anti-smoker" is harsh? You better back out of this
> discussion quick, because that's just a warm up phrase.
No, Dave, not harsh - stupid and childish. There is a difference between
anti-smoker and anti-tobacco. They are NOT the same. From your posts, I
know that you are intelligent enough to understand (and to have known) the
difference.
Since most of us (anti-tobacco) have close friends and relatives who are
smokers and since we don't know each other in this NG, it's really stupid to
call people names or accuse them of being things of which you have
absolutely no knowledge. e.g. Kyotee, Rumik, Steve and others here who just
love to call us all kinds of nasty names. Do you think that bother's us?
Hell no. It demeans them and obviates their arguments. Are we anti-Rumik
or anti-Kyotee? Hell no. We don't know them. They may be very nice
people. We don't like some of the things they say but that's a whole
different thing. I don't like some of the things my non-smoking friends and
relatives say either.
We do not hate or revile these people for their habit, we pity them. What
we do hate and condemn are the tobacco companies who peddle the poison and
the government for allowing that to continue.
Bruce Watson
Carli613 <carl...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Because it depends of the way how you ingest nicotine. If you
>>inhale it, it floods your brain very fast and turns you
>>addicted. If you ingest it slowly through your skin, it isn't
>>addictive.
>
>Sorry, Paul, but that is simply not true. Addictive substances are addictive no
>matter how they are digested, and regardless of the the time it takes to hit
>the brain.
"Nicotine passes easily though living tissue only when it is in an
alkaline medium. Under even slightly acid conditions, virtually every
molecule of nicotine carries an electric charge that prevents it from
crossing membranes. Pipe and cigar tobaccos, cured by age-old methods,
yield an alkaline smoke, from which nicotine can be gradually
absorbed in modest quantities through the mucous membranes of the
mouth. The alkalinity itself makes the smoke irritating and deters
inhalation.
By contrast, the slight acidity of cigarette smoke is not readily
neutralized by saliva, so relatively little nicotine can
be absorbed if the smoke is just held in the mouth. But because
cigarette smoke is not highly irritating, it can be drawn into the
lungs--indeed it must be for absorption to occur. On the lungs'
vast surface the acidity is neutralized; the nicotine loses its
electric charge and passes rapidly into the bloodstream.
From the lungs, nicotine-loaded blood is carried back to the heart,
which gives a squeeze and sends about 15 percent of the inhaled
dose directly, and undiluted, to the brain. The brain, in turn,
takes up on the first pass virtually all of the nicotine
carried to it. The whole journey takes seven seconds. In
comparison, heroin injected into the forearm takes about 14
seconds to reach the brain, and on its way, the dose becomes
diluted by blood from other parts of the body."
--William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard Medical
School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
<and>
"When a smoker inhales, once absorbed in the bloodstream, nicotine is
carried to the brain in only 7-9 seconds, setting off a biological chain
reaction that is critical in establishing and reinforcing addiction."
Statement on Nicotine-Containing Cigarettes by David A. Kessler, M.D.,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs, House Subcommittee on Health and the
Environment, March 25, 1994.
Carli613
is addictive in either form. You have failed to prove otherwise. All you have
proven with your quotes is that not as much nicotine is absorbed in other ways
as by inhalation and that is does not reach the brain as quickly by other
means. I didn't disagree with that in the first place, and neither fact has any
bearing on whether or not the nicotine is addictive in either means of
injestion.
Carli
Paul Lenz
> >Because it depends of the way how you ingest nicotine. If you
> >inhale it, it floods your brain very fast and turns you
> >addicted. If you ingest it slowly through your skin, it isn't
> >addictive.
>
> Sorry, Paul, but that is simply not true.
Yes, it is. Exactly this is the result of a study, which
researchers in the Philip Morris laboratories made. They
tried to make rats addicted and compared several drugs:
heroin, coffeine, nicotine and others. They simply injected
the drugs into the rats' veins. This was enough to make
the rats addicted - only nicotine did not work. Than they
changed the system: they did not give the rats simple
injections, they gave them several injections with very
small doses of nicotine and with short breaks between the
injections (just the way like somkers take nicotine).
This way made the rats addicted very fast.
> That is the exact reason nicotine replacement therapy exists in
> different mg. The idea is, when you switch to say, the patch,
> instead of smoking, you receive your nicotine at a lower does
How much nicotine a smoker absorbes from 20 cigarettes and
how much from a 25 mg patch?
> and sans the chemicals in the cigarette. Studies have shown
> that the additional chemicals are just as addictive, if not
> more so, than nicotine itself.
OK, I agree in this point.
Ben Franklin VI
Doctor Barns Brady, the addictions expert, who has helped many other Doctors
recover from addictions says that the method of ingestion of the drug (any
drug) makes a great difference.
And I have noted that he pipe smokers who smoke pipes and are not addicted to
cigarettes have a totally different personality than the addicted cigarette
smoker. It appears the addiction to the pipe is much gentler and more easily
overcome. Pipes seem to attract those who were not addicted to cigarettes near
the age of 13.
Nearly all pipe smokers are abhorred at the suggestion of teaching a grandchild
to smoke at an early age.
The postings on alt.smokers.pipes speaks to this.
I believe from my experience that cigars are also less addictive than
cigarettes.
The hope is with our youth. If we can keep them from smoking cigarettes until
they reach the age of reason, I believe we will have very few addicted to
nicotine.
>rom: pa...@lenz-online.de (Paul Lenz)
>Date: 6/2/01 6:12 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <82Bbl...@lenz-online.de>
Carli613
>And I have noted that he pipe smokers who smoke pipes and are not addicted to
>cigarettes have a totally different personality than the addicted cigarette
>smoker. It appears the addiction to the pipe is much gentler and more easily
>overcome.
Of course it is a bit different, they don't tend to overload pipe tobacco with
miscellaneous chemicals. Also, pipe smokers dont tend to light up as often as
cigarette smokers. Though I have seen pipe smokers having just as difficult
time quitting as cigarette smokers.
Carli613
>> >inhale it, it floods your brain very fast and turns you
>> >addicted. If you ingest it slowly through your skin, it isn't
>> >addictive.
>>
>> Sorry, Paul, but that is simply not true.
>
>Yes, it is. Exactly this is the result of a study, which
>researchers in the Philip Morris laboratories made. They
>tried to make rats addicted and compared several drugs:
>heroin, coffeine, nicotine and others. They simply injected
>the drugs into the rats' veins. This was enough to make
>the rats addicted - only nicotine did not work. Than they
>changed the system: they did not give the rats simple
>injections, they gave them several injections with very
>small doses of nicotine and with short breaks between the
>injections (just the way like somkers take nicotine).
>This way made the rats addicted very fast.
>
Soory, honey, but are arguing a different argument from the one you started.
You said "If you inhale it, it floods your brain very fast and turns you
addicted. If you ingest it slowly through your skin, it isn't
addictive.", which has nothing to do with injecting anything, anywhere, at any
rate. Apples and oranges.
I also find it humorous when people negate studies made by the tobacco
industries and label them "liars" (which I do not disagree with, BTW) only to
embrace the studies when they produce what they desire to hear! Regardless, I
remain unconvinced at the argument of absorbed nicotine NOT being addictive. It
simply doesn't compute.
>
>How much nicotine a smoker absorbes from 20 cigarettes and
>how much from a 25 mg patch?
That, I have no idea. I was actually just wondering that myself.
Rumik
> The hope is with our youth. If we can keep them from smoking cigarettes until
> they reach the age of reason, I believe we will have very few addicted to
> nicotine.
Sorry, but that's not going to happen.
Fortunately, smoking among the young is on the rise.
But then, today's youth is nobody's hope.
Paul Lenz
> You made the claim, by repeating something that someone wrote
> somewhere. *You* get to back up your claims. It isn't my job.
> My job is to point out that you're an ass, and you've made it
> very easy. Thank you.
Yes, I knew, this is all you wanted to do. So why should I
waste my time with you and make a job for you, where you
NEVER NEVER NEVER would admit that it could satisfy you?
Paul Lenz
> OTOH, there are now more ex-smokers in the US than smokers, and
> most of them quit without any nicotine replacement therapy. The
> key to quitting isn't chemicals. A person can and will quit the
> moment their desire to quit exceeds their desire to smoke.
Ah really? And where does this desire to smoke come from?
Paul Lenz
> > > > Now a Dutchman found out that this is not true. He found
> > > > out that smoking increases the risk of Alzheimer. And he
> > > > also found out why older studies had leaded to a wrong
> > > > result.
> > > >
> > > > These are the results and the facts.
> > >
> > > Correction, Mr. Lenz (or should that be, "Correction, Lenz"?).
> >
> > What about "Correction, Paul"? The usenet isn't that stiff and
> > polite, specially this newsgroup where flamers seem to rule.
> > But if it is important for you that I call you Mr. MacLean,
> > just tell me.
>
> Mr. Lenz, I really do not care what you call me. As for what I
> call you, I feel it to be important to maintain formality when
> dealing with those who believe themselves to be wise enough to
> be the final arbiter of what I may or may not do. Such people
> are certainly not my friends, but telling them what I really
> think about their attitudes closes the door on any possibility
> of dialog.
The more should I appreciate that you, esteemed Sir, still
address your word to me. And it should be an obligation to me
to write at least as politely as you, Mr. MacLean, regardless
of the fact that this habit is unknown in Germany.
I really love the usenet. People can learn so much from
eachother. One learns about nicotine, and the other learns
about American habits.
> > > In essence, Mr. Lenz, what the Dutchman is claiming is that
> > > all researchers
> >
> > All resaerchers? How many?
>
> At least half a dozen that I have read personally, more than
> likely more.
Glad to see that you have personally read them, Sir.
> > > before him are guilty of carelessness
> >
> > They were not careless, they made a mistake.
> Sir, if there are two identical containers except for labels,
> one containing salt and the other sugar [...]
Mr. MacLean, would you please avoid to invent examples which don't
match. Thank you very much in advcance.
I only dare to ask you humbly, well-read Sir: Did these
researchers leave people with heart-diseases away as the Dutchman
claims? Or are you absolutely sure that people with heart-diseases
(that means also strongest smokers) are among the results?
> > Well, if the Dutchman was wrong, than the earlier researchers
> > should have protested against his results. Did they?
>
> *IF* they knew about his study, and *IF* read his results and
> *IF* they had sufficient time to compare his results with theirs
> and *IF* their was a journal willing to print the protest in
> today's anti-smoking climate, and *IF* the popular press picked
> up the protest, *THEN* you or I might have heard about it.
>
> NB the big "IF"s
Oh yes, Sir. Because each IF means a lack of your knowledge,
not a lack of facts, if I may humbly comment.
> Especially during the nineties, you anti-smokers were very
> successful in reducing the conduits through which the tobacco
> companies could pipe their (as you call them) lies to "young
> non-smokers". Not satisfied with excluding the tobacco companies
> from the most effective advertising medium to youth yet devised
> (TV), you have succeeded in controlling billboards, radio ads,
> magazines, in-store ads and every other advertising medium. At
> the same time, YOUR message makes the scene everywhere,
> including, I might add, places where cigarette manufacturers
> never utilized - the mouths of kids' teachers.
>
> The result? Increased youth smoking.
Oh yes, Sir, I understand this point. All the years the
tobacco companies spent a big lot of money to publish tobacco
ads just to prevent youth smoking. How could we anti-smokers
stop this? Shame on us!
We should at once allow Joe Camel continue preventing children
from smoking. And Nintendo should very fast design some new
Pokémons with cigarettes in their mouth, this will be very
successful against smoking.
> > Do you think it was the truth when seven tobacco bosses
> > said on 14th of April 1994 that nicotine is not addictive?
>
> Correction: they said that they did not think nor believe that
> nicotine is addictive.
I am glad, esteemed Mr. MacLean, that you know this story very
well.
> Besides, Mr. Lenz, no less an august authority than the Surgeon
> General has stated in the past that nicotine is NOT addictive.
> Check out the 1964 Surgeon Generals Report, where it says:
> [...]
> "The tobacco habit should be characterized as an habituation
> rather than an addiction."
> Tell me, Mr. Lenz, was the Surgeon General *LYING* when he
> published this statement? Or is this simply a statement of
> belief?
Neither - nor, Sir. He only didn't know better.
Sir, let me quote a wise man: "At one time, most people
believed that the world was flat, that the earth was the
center of the universe [..]"
Mr. MacLean, the Surgeon General's statement was 1964. In that
time even most people still believed when the tobacco companies
told that smoking has nothing to do with cancer. Good old days...
But the years went by, Sir. People learned more and more. They
learned that the earth is round, and they learned what addiction
is and how addictive substances work and how they affect the
system of dopamine in the brain. First of all the researchers of
the tobacco companies learned:
DeNoble and his lab partner worked on rats, trying to determine
the addicting nature of nicotine. They ran tubes to the rats'
veins that fed them with a hit of nicotine every time they hit
a button in their cages.
At first, they gave the rats the equivalent of an entire
cigarette of nicotine in one hit. "Not one rat pressed the
switch a second time," DeNoble said.
Then DeNoble and his partner remembered that smokers get a
portion of a cigarette's nicotine with each puff. After they
adjusted the switch to account for the smaller dose of
nicotine, the rats were taking the equivalent of 90 cigarettes
a day within three weeks.
"Nicotine is absolutely no different from any other drug," said
DeNoble. "It begins to take over your brain."
http://www.studentadvantage.lycos.com/lycos/article/0,4683,c5-i54-t0-a11922,00.html
The study is called "Nicotine as a Positive Reinforcer for
Rats: Effects of Infusion Dose and Fixed Ratio Size," by Victor
J. DeNoble, Paul C. Melc, and Francis J. Ryan; Philip Morris
Research Center, Richmond, Va.
http://www.kickbutt.org/learn/addiction.html
Let me please condense:
1964 statement of the Surgeon General
1984 DeNoble's study
1994 statement of the tobacco bosses
The tobacco bosses could not say "nicotine is addictive" because
they could not kick themself. And they could not say "nicotine
is not addictive" because they were under oath. That's why they
said, as you, Sir, corrected helpfully, "I believe..." So you saw
through the trick of the tobacco bosses already. My respectful
congratulation, esteemed Mr. MacLean.
David MacLean
> david....@I.hate.spam.com (David MacLean) schrieb am 29.05.01:
>
> > > > > Now a Dutchman found out that this is not true. He found
> > > > > out that smoking increases the risk of Alzheimer. And he
> > > > > also found out why older studies had leaded to a wrong
> > > > > result.
> > > > >
> > > > > These are the results and the facts.
> > > >
> > > > Correction, Mr. Lenz (or should that be, "Correction, Lenz"?).
> > >
> > > What about "Correction, Paul"? The usenet isn't that stiff and
> > > polite, specially this newsgroup where flamers seem to rule.
> > > But if it is important for you that I call you Mr. MacLean,
> > > just tell me.
> >
> > Mr. Lenz, I really do not care what you call me. As for what I
> > call you, I feel it to be important to maintain formality when
> > dealing with those who believe themselves to be wise enough to
> > be the final arbiter of what I may or may not do. Such people
> > are certainly not my friends, but telling them what I really
> > think about their attitudes closes the door on any possibility
> > of dialog.
>
> The more should I appreciate that you, esteemed Sir, still
> address your word to me. And it should be an obligation to me
> to write at least as politely as you, Mr. MacLean, regardless
> of the fact that this habit is unknown in Germany.
I lived for two years in the Schwartzwald, Mr. Lenz. If formal courtesy is
unknown in Germany, then I did not live in Germany. Unfortunately for your
assertion, Mr. Lenz, formal courtesy is NOT unknown in Germany. Perhaps it
is just unknown in your minute corner of Germany?
>
> I really love the usenet. People can learn so much from
> eachother. One learns about nicotine, and the other learns
> about American habits.
>
>
> > > > In essence, Mr. Lenz, what the Dutchman is claiming is that
> > > > all researchers
> > >
> > > All resaerchers? How many?
> >
> > At least half a dozen that I have read personally, more than
> > likely more.
>
> Glad to see that you have personally read them, Sir.
>
Mr. Lenz, you seem surprised that I have read the studies concerning smoking
and health. Not everybody in the world accepts as gospel anything that a
person in a white lab coat tells them.
>
> > > > before him are guilty of carelessness
> > >
> > > They were not careless, they made a mistake.
>
>
> > Sir, if there are two identical containers except for labels,
> > one containing salt and the other sugar [...]
>
> Mr. MacLean, would you please avoid to invent examples which don't
> match. Thank you very much in advcance.
Please, sir, explain how the analogy does not hold. I'd love to see you
attempt explanation instead of assertion.
>
> I only dare to ask you humbly, well-read Sir: Did these
> researchers leave people with heart-diseases away as the Dutchman
> claims? Or are you absolutely sure that people with heart-diseases
> (that means also strongest smokers) are among the results?
>
Each of the six studies claims to have used standard case study sampling
techniques, ie, random sampling. If you are aware of what random sampling
is, then you will know that no recognizable group is precluded from
inclusion.
Now, there is a small but visible chance that heart disease patients were
excluded from one case study, but the possibility that they were excluded
from six is vanishingly small.
Now, what have you got on your side? The unproven assumption of a
researcher who is seeking to explain why his results differ from the results
of studies in the same area done before him?
Tell me, sir; do you rush off to buy a product just because the manufacturer
claims that his product is better than all the others?
>
> > > Well, if the Dutchman was wrong, than the earlier researchers
> > > should have protested against his results. Did they?
> >
> > *IF* they knew about his study, and *IF* read his results and
> > *IF* they had sufficient time to compare his results with theirs
> > and *IF* their was a journal willing to print the protest in
> > today's anti-smoking climate, and *IF* the popular press picked
> > up the protest, *THEN* you or I might have heard about it.
> >
> > NB the big "IF"s
>
> Oh yes, Sir. Because each IF means a lack of your knowledge,
> not a lack of facts, if I may humbly comment.
>
IF means a lack of knowledge, PERIOD. You, sir, do not have the knowledge.
You do have faith, I'll grant you, but belief is not a replacement for fact,
not matter how emotionally satisfying it may be at the moment.
>
> > Especially during the nineties, you anti-smokers were very
> > successful in reducing the conduits through which the tobacco
> > companies could pipe their (as you call them) lies to "young
> > non-smokers". Not satisfied with excluding the tobacco companies
> > from the most effective advertising medium to youth yet devised
> > (TV), you have succeeded in controlling billboards, radio ads,
> > magazines, in-store ads and every other advertising medium. At
> > the same time, YOUR message makes the scene everywhere,
> > including, I might add, places where cigarette manufacturers
> > never utilized - the mouths of kids' teachers.
> >
> > The result? Increased youth smoking.
>
> Oh yes, Sir, I understand this point. All the years the
> tobacco companies spent a big lot of money to publish tobacco
> ads just to prevent youth smoking. How could we anti-smokers
> stop this? Shame on us!
>
Your claim that you understand the point is rendered nugatory by your
comment. Big tobacco's ability to advertise to youth has been in decline
for DECADES. The youth of today faces LESS tobacco advertising than the
youth of ten years ago, and faces MUCH more anti-smoking advertising than
the youth of ten years ago. Yet the youth of today is MORE likely to start
smoking than the youth of ten years ago.
Yet you still blame tobacco advertising.
Do you also blame the increase in the amount of manure in the cities to the
decline in the number of animals?
> We should at once allow Joe Camel continue preventing children
> from smoking. And Nintendo should very fast design some new
> Pokémons with cigarettes in their mouth, this will be very
> successful against smoking.
Joe Camel disappears, youth smoking goes up. Explain it; don't bother
making pronouncements. Stick to the facts.
>
>
> > > Do you think it was the truth when seven tobacco bosses
> > > said on 14th of April 1994 that nicotine is not addictive?
> >
> > Correction: they said that they did not think nor believe that
> > nicotine is addictive.
>
> I am glad, esteemed Mr. MacLean, that you know this story very
> well.
I'm glad that one of us does, Mr. Lenz. Depending on your objectivity to
steer us in the correct direction would be like depending on a broken rudder
in a gale.
>
>
> > Besides, Mr. Lenz, no less an august authority than the Surgeon
> > General has stated in the past that nicotine is NOT addictive.
> > Check out the 1964 Surgeon Generals Report, where it says:
> > [...]
> > "The tobacco habit should be characterized as an habituation
> > rather than an addiction."
>
> > Tell me, Mr. Lenz, was the Surgeon General *LYING* when he
> > published this statement? Or is this simply a statement of
> > belief?
>
> Neither - nor, Sir. He only didn't know better.
>
> Sir, let me quote a wise man: "At one time, most people
> believed that the world was flat, that the earth was the
> center of the universe [..]"
>
> Mr. MacLean, the Surgeon General's statement was 1964. In that
> time even most people still believed when the tobacco companies
> told that smoking has nothing to do with cancer. Good old days...
>
You miss the point, Mr. Lenz. In 1964, the common knowledge was that
smoking was not correlated adversely with health. If the Surgeon General
was merely parroting what most people believed, then the report would NOT
have been adverse to tobacco - it would have been essentially neutral.
Mr. Lenz, the physical effects of nicotine have not changed in the slightest
in the 47 years since the 1964 Surgeon General's report. Perhaps the
understanding of just how nicotine changes the biochemistry of the body to
produce those effects is a little better, but the effects remain the same.
One of the doctors on the Surgeon General's panel was recognized as one of
the leading experts on addiction at the time, so it was not as if the
Surgeon General didn't know any better.
The ONLY thing that has changed is the definition of addiction, and that
change is NOT universally accepted amoungst pharmacologists and addictions
researchers, because the change makes such things as chocolate, and
scratching one's butt "addictive".
Mr. Lenz, 1964 the Surgeon General did not believe that tobacco was
addictive. In 1994, tobacco executives did not believe that tobacco was
addictive.
Neither belief holds with your own. However, you have claimed that because
your belief differs from the beliefs held by tobacco executives, that they
are "lying". Yet when the Surgeon General of the United States said that
tobacco was not addictive, a belief that differs from your belief, you claim
that the Surgeon General is NOT lying.
It must be difficult for you, talking different trash out of both sides of
your mouth like that. I'm concerned that you may hurt yourself.
2001 Vector Group, Inc.
Vector is testing a cigarette made from a genetically modified tobacco
plant. They are attempting to hype it as a stop smoking aid.
Unfortunately, none of the test subjects has quit smoking.
This experience certainly contrasts with the claim made at your above cited
URL about DeNoble's study.
But even you, once it is pointed out to you, will begin to question the
veracity of DeNoble's claims. At the cite pointed to by your URL, it
states:
And Thus Begins the Conspiracy...
When interviewing with Phiip Morris, DeNoble was told, "We know exactly what
you do." They wanted him to discover a man-made substitution for nicotine;
they wanted something as addictive, but less harmful to a smoker's heart and
lungs.
"I was essentially cleaning up the cigarette," DeNoble said. "I began
working for them on the notable date of April 1, 1980."
DeNoble found an addictive molecule in 1981, and in 1982, they designed a
cigarette with two filters that specially filtered the nicotine out of the
cigarette.
The new cigarette was designed to cut down on heart and lung disease, but
the tobacco company realized consumers would no longer use the old
cigarettes. The company told him to stop the research, because they "made
160 other kinds of cigarettes to this one brand, and [they]'ll lose money."
Now let's think about this rationally. I know that it is difficult for you,
but bear with me.
The thing is that nicotine is not carcinogenic and there was little if any
evidence that it was the nicotine that was responsible for heart disease.
Reponsibility for cancer and heart disease is STILL thought to lay in the
"three to four thousand" other chemicals in tobacco smoke. If it were the
nicotine, then pipe and cigar smokers, exposed to higher levels of nicotine,
would have a higher mortality rate, which they do not.
It is YOUR belief that tobacco company executives KNOW that nicotine is
addictive, and in fact, nicotine is the ONLY reason that they have as high a
repeat business as they do.
Yet, here you are, citing a web page that claims that DeNoble was hired by
Philip Moris to make a substitute for a chemical that was not held
responsible for increased mortality and, you believe, the tobacco companies
KNEW was at the heart of their business, and he was NOT hired to make a
substitute for the OTHER chemicals in tobacco smoke that WERE suspected in
the suspected increased mortality.
In other words, Mr. Lenz, you are claiming vast knowledge on the part of
tobacco companies by citing the example of tobacco companies hiring someone
to deliberately shoot them in the foot.
> The tobacco bosses could not say "nicotine is addictive" because
> they could not kick themself. And they could not say "nicotine
> is not addictive" because they were under oath. That's why they
> said, as you, Sir, corrected helpfully, "I believe..." So you saw
> through the trick of the tobacco bosses already. My respectful
> congratulation, esteemed Mr. MacLean.
Mr. Lenz, your congratulations would be much more timely if you admitted
that your question, "Do you think it was the truth when seven tobacco bosses
said on 14th of April 1994 that nicotine is not addictive?" was, in fact,
just an attempt at emotional trickery designed to obfuscate the truth rather
than enhance it.
I certainly can understand that you can have honestly held opinions that
differ from mine and I do not call you a liar because your opinions differ
from my own. Such treatment of yourself by not only me but others is
something that you can, in normal discourse, expect from other people.
But if you expect that treatment from others, I would recommend that you at
least be aware of what the Golden Rule is.
Bruce Watson
>
>But the years went by, Sir. People learned more and more. They
>learned that the earth is round, and they learned what addiction
>is and how addictive substances work and how they affect the
>system of dopamine in the brain.
I had a revelation recently. For the last two decades I thought
the tobacco companies knew all about nicotine addiction from way
back and hid that knowledge from the public for the better part
of the century. I didn't have much more respect from the Surgeon
General for not making the facts about it better known. I thought
that had I known what could happen (and did), I might not have
started.
I read the Royal College of Physician's Tobacco Advisory Group's report
Nicotine Addiction in Britain.
http:\\www.rcplondon.ac.uk\pubs\books\nicotine\index.htm
It is an excellent brief on the state of the art knowledge of nicotine
addiction. Everyone should read it.
What I found out was that the tobacco companies' efforts to enhance
nicotine delivery--based on their knowledge of it--didn't occur
until some 5 years after I quit. Researchers outside the tobacco
companies didn't know much about it either until then.
I can be outraged on behalf of smokers who took it up after the
early 1980's but not so much for myself. No one knew.
What I fear is that because the tobacco companies researched
the matter and found ways to hook smokers--and keep them hooked--
far more efficiently than with the former unaltered cigarette, it is much
harder to quit smoking--and avoid starting--now than when I smoked.
It was very hard for me to quit then. It must be much harder for
smokers to quit now. The only thing today's smokers have going for
them is that the incentives--price, restrictions, humiliation--are
far greater today.
Paul Lenz
> Soory, honey, but are arguing a different argument from the one
> you started. You said "If you inhale it, it floods your brain
> very fast and turns you addicted. If you ingest it slowly
> through your skin, it isn't addictive.", which has nothing to
> do with injecting anything, anywhere, at any rate. Apples and
> oranges.
Please try to think a little bit. If you inhale nicotine, it
floods your brain very fast. Why? Because it comes from your
lungs into your blood very fast. Same like an injection.
Emphasize "fast", not "inhale". "Inhale" does not exclude
other ways how nicotine arrives the blood *FAST*.
> I also find it humorous when people negate studies made by the
> tobacco industries and label them "liars" (which I do not
> disagree with, BTW) only to embrace the studies when they
> produce what they desire to hear!
The tobacco companies found out that nicotine *IS* addictive.
The result: they kicked the reasearcher out and closed his
laboratories. And they kept on telling that nicotine is
not addictive. I don't find this humorous.
> Regardless, I remain unconvinced at the argument of absorbed
> nicotine NOT being addictive. It simply doesn't compute.
I can not do more then explain what DeNoble found out.
> >How much nicotine a smoker absorbes from 20 cigarettes and
> >how much from a 25 mg patch?
>
> That, I have no idea. I was actually just wondering that
> myself.
I can only guess. The smoke of 20 cigarettes may contain
20 mg, maybe a smoker absorbes 10 mg because he exhales
the half of the nicotine. Maybe he absorbes also 10 mg
from the patch because a part of the nicotine remains in
the patch. If this all is true, this would prove that
DeNoble was right.
Carli613
>floods your brain very fast. Why? Because it comes from your
>lungs into your blood very fast. Same like an injection.
>Emphasize "fast", not "inhale". "Inhale" does not exclude
>other ways how nicotine arrives the blood *FAST*.
Yes, I understand that part. You are still leaving out the part about what the
rate of reaching the brain has to do with addiction or non addiction.
Even if we consider your injection arguments, all you have proved ( well,
proved if it is in fact, true, anyway)is *how* it is administered affects
addiction. Since the study was conducted entirely on injection basis, the RATE
at which it reached the brain would not be altered, since the constant and
intermittent dosages were BOTH injected. Only duration is the issue in that
particular study. You still have not proven your original point.
And if continuity vs intermittence matters, then on that basis, nicotine gum
would be addictive since it is administered in intermittent dosages. I've
never tried the patch, nor read how they work, so I can't argue any point with
them, but don't some offer continuous nicotine, while others are "time
release"?
>
>The tobacco companies found out that nicotine *IS* addictive.
>The result: they kicked the reasearcher out and closed his
>laboratories. And they kept on telling that nicotine is
>not addictive. I don't find this humorous.
>
Well, it wouldn't be if it were true. Wasn't there just a big blow out a couple
years ago where Brown and Williamson (or maybe Lorrilard ot Ligget...it was one
of the comparatively small companies) came out that nicotine was addictive? As
though we didn't already know that!! *I* find it humorous that we still need
the tobacco companies to tell us what is already common knowledge.
>I can not do more then explain what DeNoble found out.
Hm, and which study was this? Sorry, there have been so many articles posted on
this thread, and I am not sure which is contributed to him. I reserve judgement
on it until I read it and refresh my memory on what it was about.
>
>
>> >How much nicotine a smoker absorbes from 20 cigarettes and
>> >how much from a 25 mg patch?
>>
>> That, I have no idea. I was actually just wondering that
>> myself.
>
>I can only guess. The smoke of 20 cigarettes may contain
>20 mg, maybe a smoker absorbes 10 mg because he exhales
>the half of the nicotine.
Ok, that sounds reasonable.
Maybe he absorbes also 10 mg
>from the patch because a part of the nicotine remains in
>the patch. If this all is true, this would prove that
>DeNoble was right.
Sorry, again, I need to be refreshed on what DeNoble was actually saying. I do
hope he actually addresses the issue in terms of addiction and means of
introduction to the system, lol.
It still seems to me that if nicotine in NRTs were nonaddictive then they would
not be effective. I used the gum when I was first quitting. I don't know if you
have ever had to quit smoking, but those first three days are hell. I had the
"creepy crawlies" and was pretty spastic. The gum, while it didnt eradicate the
symptoms, did take the edge off. And since it is the physical addiction that
causes the initial agony, I would have to assume, given what I have so far and
relying predominantly on reason, that it takes the edge off because it is, in
fact, feeding the addiction. And because it does not completely eradicate the
symptoms, I am more than willing to agree that NRTs are LESS addictive (I would
think because of the lack of additional chemicals, while the method of
ingestion would also impact this), but that in no way makes them NON addictive.
I agree completely that if nicotine reaches the brain at a slower rate such as
via skin absorbtion rather than inhalation or injection, that the nicotine
would be LESS effective. I *assume* (and may of course be wrong, not an expert
by far) that the body would absorb some of the nicotine before it had a chance
to actually get to the ol' dopamine receptors. But again, that does not make
them non addictive by default.
Paul Lenz
> Since the study was conducted entirely on injection basis, the
> RATE at which it reached the brain would not be altered, since
> the constant and intermittent dosages were BOTH injected. Only
> duration is the issue in that particular study. You still have
> not proven your original point.
Because I don't know. Maybe even DeNoble himself doesn't
know, because he only found out THAT it works, but not
HOW it works. Maybe he was curious to find out, but he
had no time because his boss kicked him out.
> And if continuity vs intermittence matters, then on that basis,
> nicotine gum would be addictive since it is administered in
> intermittent dosages.
I don't think so, it goes slowly through the mucous membrane.
> *I* find it humorous that we still need the tobacco companies
> to tell us what is already common knowledge.
We don't need them. We only realize that they quit lying
little by little.
> >I can not do more then explain what DeNoble found out.
>
> Hm, and which study was this?
I only found some summaries, but I did not see something
about intermittent dosages. I heard this only in the
German TV, where reporters interviewed DeNoble.
If you only search for "DeNoble" in the internet, you
will find a lot.
> It still seems to me that if nicotine in NRTs were nonaddictive
> then they would not be effective.
I must admit: this is a point I am not sure of. Maybe it is
only a placebo.
> I agree completely that if nicotine reaches the brain at a
> slower rate such as via skin absorbtion rather than inhalation
> or injection, that the nicotine would be LESS effective.
Did you ever have a nicotine flash when you chewed the gum?
Dave Hitt
>Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) schrieb am 03.06.01:
>
>> You made the claim, by repeating something that someone wrote
>> somewhere. *You* get to back up your claims. It isn't my job.
>> My job is to point out that you're an ass, and you've made it
>> very easy. Thank you.
>
>Yes, I knew, this is all you wanted to do. So why should I
>waste my time with you and make a job for you, where you
>NEVER NEVER NEVER would admit that it could satisfy you?
I gave you a complete list of what is needed to verify the study.
Provide that, and I'll have nothing to complain about.
You come in here with some vague reference to some study somewhere,
claiming it proves something, but are completely unwilling and unable
to provide the simplest verification. You are wasting our time, not
the other way around.
Now, put up or shut up.
Carli613
>know, because he only found out THAT it works, but not
>HOW it works. Maybe he was curious to find out, but he
>had no time because his boss kicked him out.
Ok, fair enough. Im curious as to why you would state it as a fact if you
didn't know, but I have respect for the fact you admit you don't!
>> And if continuity vs intermittence matters, then on that basis,
>> nicotine gum would be addictive since it is administered in
>> intermittent dosages.
>
>I don't think so, it goes slowly through the mucous membrane.
We still haven't proved that rate affects anything, remember?
>
>
>> *I* find it humorous that we still need the tobacco companies
>> to tell us what is already common knowledge.
>
>We don't need them. We only realize that they quit lying
>little by little.
Yeah, but you have to admit there are people everywhere now yelling "But gee, I
didnt know that! Why didn't they say so before?!?" and then sue, sue, sue. And
we both know it is simply a bullshit cop out.
>> >I can not do more then explain what DeNoble found out.
>>
>> Hm, and which study was this?
>
>I only found some summaries, but I did not see something
>about intermittent dosages. I heard this only in the
>German TV, where reporters interviewed DeNoble.
So in other words you actually CAN'T explain that!
>
>If you only search for "DeNoble" in the internet, you
>will find a lot.
I'll probably do that, I am quite curious.
>
>
>> It still seems to me that if nicotine in NRTs were nonaddictive
>> then they would not be effective.
>
>I must admit: this is a point I am not sure of. Maybe it is
>only a placebo.
I don't think so..it just works for too many people. And the people it doesn't
work for, are the ones that cave to the psychological aspects (such as the hand
to mouth motion, or the big one for me personally, the actual act of inhaling
the smoke).
>> I agree completely that if nicotine reaches the brain at a
>> slower rate such as via skin absorbtion rather than inhalation
>> or injection, that the nicotine would be LESS effective.
>
>Did you ever have a nicotine flash when you chewed the gum?
What do you mean? Are you refering to a "rush"? Actually, i didnt with the gum,
though it did burn my gums.I did use the LOWEST level rather than as a "step
down". My mother reported getting a "rush" and nausea from the patches though.
Paul Lenz
> >Yes, I knew, this is all you wanted to do. So why should I
> >waste my time with you and make a job for you, where you
> >NEVER NEVER NEVER would admit that it could satisfy you?
>
> I gave you a complete list of what is needed to verify the
> study. Provide that, and I'll have nothing to complain about.
I am sure, you will always search for something to complain.
You wrote "My job is to point out that you're an ass", this
is your aim, and all my efforts would not change this job.
> You are wasting our time
Nobody forces you to read my message.
Paul Lenz
> >Because I don't know. Maybe even DeNoble himself doesn't
> >know, because he only found out THAT it works, but not
> >HOW it works. Maybe he was curious to find out, but he
> >had no time because his boss kicked him out.
>
> Ok, fair enough. Im curious as to why you would state it as a
> fact if you didn't know, but I have respect for the fact you
> admit you don't!
Everybody knows that the earth and the moon attract eachother,
but nobody knows exactly how it works. So I better should not
believe it?
> >We don't need them. We only realize that they quit lying
> >little by little.
>
> Yeah, but you have to admit there are people everywhere now
> yelling "But gee, I didnt know that! Why didn't they say so
> before?!?" and then sue, sue, sue. And we both know it is
> simply a bullshit cop out.
They all started smoking on the fifties or sixties. In this
time tobacco companies did not warn, and the denied every
danger of smoking.
> >I only found some summaries, but I did not see something
> >about intermittent dosages. I heard this only in the
> >German TV, where reporters interviewed DeNoble.
>
> So in other words you actually CAN'T explain that!
If I could, I would have done.
I find this theory more logical than the theory that
DeNoble or somebody else only invented this story.
> >If you only search for "DeNoble" in the internet, you
> >will find a lot.
>
> I'll probably do that, I am quite curious.
Please tell me, if you find something.
jodie...@gmail.com
please log onto http://www.bonanzameditour.com/ and enjoy your privileges.