Tony Gwynn got salivary gland cancer but won't denounce 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 http://www.golocalprov.com/health/brown-researche… 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.

Tony Gwynn got salivary gland cancer but won't denounce 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.

Tony Gwynn got salivary gland cancer but won't denounce chewing tobacco

The more a discussion delves into fact and information, the quicker Gilbert Ross will leave. Oh sure, he'll stick around to talk about his e-cigs, but when it comes to real information about chemicals and propaganda, or better yet, all of the chemicals that his organization has deemed safe over the years, he's outta here with brilliant repartee like "Brainfan, you're an idiot." This is because Ross is accustomed to printing his piece and having it passed on without serious discussion, or more important, without the inquisitive treatment that should come with genuine reporting. This would include a look at just who these "experts" are and what information they include, and EXCLUDE. A "scientific" organization that cherry-picks information is an oxymoron. A great example would be an article called "Nocebo Effect: Think Sick and You’ll Be Sick". It's not only a classic of cherry-picking, but it's amusing in the way they present its author, Jack Dini. This is his byline: "Jack Dini is a scientist and science writer living in Livermore, CA." The implication is that this "scientist" has a background in healthcare, as opposed to electroplating, which is his real background.
— March 17, 2012 4:41 p.m.

Tony Gwynn got salivary gland cancer but won't denounce 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.

Tony Gwynn got salivary gland cancer but won't denounce chewing tobacco

"However,the sad but true fact is that 45 000 000 smokers ARE addicted and a goodly segment of them will get cancers of all types, heart disease, emphysema, and will suffer prolonged agonies and die prematurely--because of their addiction to nicotine!! What shall we do about that, I ask you?? Ignore it?" That is what the ACSH does regarding harm from the many hazardous chemicals that have been shown to harm people, so why the sudden concern here? Shoot, I forgot: I answered my own question above. Because you get paid by the e-cig companies.
— March 14, 2012 4:04 p.m.

Tony Gwynn got salivary gland cancer but won't denounce chewing tobacco

You get paid to perpetuate harm and as such, you deserve to be targeted. You can hypocritically complain that disagreements with your stance on this issue will keep people addicted to smoking, yet you turn around and do your best to ensure that hazardous chemicals are not afforded the study and treatment they need to avoid catastrophic illnesses. The issue is one of credibility, or a lack thereof. Your blatant conflicts of interest need to be known by all.
— March 14, 2012 4:01 p.m.

Tony Gwynn got salivary gland cancer but won't denounce chewing tobacco

Mr. Ross can cry his crocodile tears over smokers all he wants. The truth of the matter is that his record gives lie to any true concern as he is perfectly fine with the rampant harm and death due to the chemicals manufactured by the companies he shills for. The ACSH has its puff pieces along the lines of "be careful with razor blades, research shows they can cut you", just to establish credibility by actually speaking truth occasionally. As far as smoking cessation products goes, the recent past has shown the ACSH in high gear in support of e-cigs. They probably ARE a good way to quit, but the amount of SPAM the ACSH has put out on the subject makes it very clear that they are getting paid for what essentially are promotion pieces.
— March 14, 2012 3:40 p.m.

Tony Gwynn got salivary gland cancer but won't denounce chewing tobacco

Gilbert Ross would have us believe that the American Council on Science and Health just coincidentally comes down on the side of the industries that pay them. In addition to fraud, the convicting judge also cited him for perjury. After having served time in federal prison, the American Council on Science and Health felt that this felon was uniquely suited to be their medical director. No, ad hominems may not in and of themselves be sufficient arguments, but sometimes you just have to use your sense as an intelligent being and dismiss the allegations of known frauds.
— March 14, 2012 11:42 a.m.