The Battle over Chewing Tobacco

"Does that even matter in the calculation of harm?" Aside from the fact that a nicotine addiction, one of the most addictive substances known to man, keeps one in NEED of using a delivery device of some sort, YES, it does in and of itself matter in the calculation of harm. Brown Researchers Find New Dangers in Nicotine And this. Yeah, it's wikipedia, but it lists its citations: "While no epidemiological evidence supports that nicotine alone acts as a carcinogen in the formation of human cancer, research over the last decade has identified nicotine's carcinogenic potential in animal models and cell culture.[59] [60] Nicotine has been noted to directly cause cancer through a number of different mechanisms such as the activation of MAP Kinases.[61] Indirectly, nicotine increases cholinergic signalling (and adrenergic signalling in the case of colon cancer[62]), thereby impeding apoptosis (programmed cell death), promoting tumor growth, and activating growth factors and cellular mitogenic factors such as 5-LOX, and EGF. Nicotine also promotes cancer growth by stimulating angiogenesis and neovascularization.[63][64] In one study, nicotine administered to mice with tumors caused increases in tumor size (twofold increase), metastasis (nine-fold increase), and tumor recurrence (threefold increase).[65] Though the teratogenic properties of nicotine may or may not yet have been adequately researched, women who use nicotine gum and patches during the early stages of pregnancy face an increased risk of having babies with birth defects, according to a study of around 77,000 pregnant women in Denmark. The study found that women who use nicotine-replacement therapy in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy have a 60% greater risk of having babies with birth defects, compared to women who are non-smokers."
— March 17, 2012 6:10 p.m.

The Battle over Chewing Tobacco

“BUT THAT'S NOT MY BEEF” Well it IS how you opened your post. He was convicted of defrauding Medicare and lying about it. This wasn't the end of his questionable behavior and it is justifiably brought up in light of his current job. It isn't as though he is working for a charitable organization providing affordable healthcare for the needy or the like. He's working for an organization that has a history of denying that harmful products hurt people, getting paid by the companies who make those products. So when someone like Don Bauder does his readers the favor of letting them know about these conflicts of interest, he should be commended for it. People like Ross would like for us to wait decades for the medical field to find the reasons why certain products cause the harm that they do before we do anything about them. This is what was done with tobacco and we all know the consequences. Unfortunately, it leaves us with American Council on Science and Health proclamations that burning PVC is no worse than burning wood, or arsenic in pressure treated wood is okay, or that lead paint is okay, or asbestos should not be removed from schools, or that people who have been injured by chemicals are “chemophobes”. Ross and his organization are truthophobes. They fear the truth about the companies that they serve. The take-away point of Bauder's article is that NO form of nicotine is good. Teen use of smokeless tobacco is on the rise and this trend needs to be fought. They know that smoking is bad; they need to know that smokeless tobacco is bad as well, in all its forms.
— March 17, 2012 5:56 p.m.

The Battle over Chewing Tobacco

"Brainfan so inaptly nicknamed, you are an idiot," Here Ross shows his true colors. It didn't take long. "as the "toxic chemicals" you so fear have killed few since Bhopal," First off, that is a blatant lie. People have been dying from toxins absorbed from the Persian Gulf War, the 911 clean-up, and the Corexit spraying in the Gulf, along with innumerable smaller scale exposures. Second, and if you were truly in a position to study health problems you would know this, fatalities are not the only measure of human harm. Many illnesses and deaths from chemicals have extremely long, insidious incubatory periods, but coming from an organization that still denies the dangers of Agent Orange, you wouldn't be interested in that. "But you keep railing about hypothetical toxins and "endocrine disrupters"," "Hypothetical" toxins? These things are toxic on their own MSDS sheets. By their own design and admission, the airborne variations MUST be used in well-ventilated areas. Why? Because they are toxic. Your premature dismissal of endocrine disrupters is telling considering those of us who are most prone to harm from them. "while the cigarette makers rejoice in your distracting the public and the media from the real problem," LOL. Like people don't know that cigarettes cause cancer, and *I* am responsible for that. Philip Morris take note: I'm serving the role of the American Council on Science and Health for you. Please forward large sums of money to me. "as they did in the 1950s when the "cancer epidemic" was blamed on DDT." Good grief, did you not grow up during this period? Did you not see the warnings about cigarette smoking? I know you did because your organization has learned from what is called "tobacco science", which is used to establish doubt about the irrefutable harm caused by products in order to keep the profits going for as many decades as possible, at the expense of millions of people's health. "So, thanks to Rachel Carson and people like you, millions of African children die of malaria without it." Um . . . the EPA banned DDT in AMERICA. The EPA has no jurisdiction elsewhere. It has continued to be used elsewhere. And as it happens, the inappropriate, profligate use of it has rendered it ineffective. Learn your propaganda if you must shill for poison. "Anyway, I am off this thread now, stew in your own juices." Another lie. I see you posted after this.
— March 15, 2012 6:37 a.m.

Win a Pair of Tickets to
the Del Mar Races

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!