Study: Higher blood levels of vitamin B6, certain proteins, mean lower risk
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comWhy some smokers avoid lung cancer
Seeded on Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:53 PM EDT (msnbc.com)
- msnbc.com sites & shows:
- TODAY
- Rock Center
- Nightly News
- Meet the Press
- Dateline
- Morning Joe
- Hardball
- Ed
- Maddow
- Last Word
- msnbc tv
Leave a Comment:
Is there vitamin B6 in beer? Just wondering as I’m a health addict. Just kidding.
I drink loads of V8 I'll probably live until 100. So 70 more years of putting up with the Bush morons and the Obama retards. What a great 70 years to look forward to.
China, North Korea or Islamic fanatics will turn America into a vast nuclear wasteland long, long before you are eligible for social security, Patrick, not like there was gonna be any money for ya in the fund anyway.
...so unless you are a cockroach....you're toast along with the rest of us...
social security will be gone before long, so start hording gasoline a la mad max. in the meantime, what's a few smokes?
typical reuters, bad facts only10%of lun cancer are smokers///
proamerica, These facts are true I've read this in several reports.
Actually, it's fact. Of all the cases of lung cancer in the world, only 10% can be attributed to smoking cigarettes. This is from the evidence used by the government in the hearings against the cigarette companies. It's also a little cited fact in mainstream media, because it's hard to paint these companies as the new Hitler when you realize it's such a small factor. Just think of all the ads and laws going on the books about second hand smoke. If actually sucking a cigarette into your lungs increases your chances by 10%, then being in warehouse with a smoker probably increases it by a statistically insignificant amount. If you watch the news, you'd think being in a restaurant with a smoker would make you drop dead on the spot 100% of the time. To sum up, good luck figuring out how to prevent lung cancer in the 90% of cases it doesn't play a part in. Just lock yourself in a sterile room and eat vitamins and drink water so you will never get cancer and die... oh, wait... you'd still die... nm
This is true, oncology nurse once told me 90% of their patients are non-smokers. Seems they have this reversed. Not only that, funny how cancer is still so prevalent now that most have quit smoking. Oh yeah, blame it on second and third hand smoke! Idiots.
And since they have banned smoking virtually everywhere, what excuse for all the cancer are they going to use now?
Have you ever heard of synergistic effects? That is, two things can independently contribute to cancer or some other disease, but when you put them together, they don't merely add, they multiply. We know, for instance, that asbestosis is caused by exposure to asbestos, but if the person also smokes, their risk increases enormously. (It doesn't just double.) The same is true for many other known environmental toxins. You may not be able to eliminate your exposure completely, but smoking will make you far more vulnerable to the same toxins.
"You may not be able to eliminate your exposure completely, but smoking will make you far more vulnerable to the same toxins."
Once again, I'm far more concerned with what's causing the 90% of lung cancers you can't blame on smoking. That's actually a lie. I don't really care what's causing them, since we all die anyways. Grats on the extra 10 years not smoking will net you. It's such an immense span of time in a universe that's billions of years old. If people had infinite lifespans, I'm sure you'd see a lot more people taking care of themselves. We get a measly 70 years. You can be a raging alchoholic, who chains smokes and takes a bath nightly in gasoline, and you'd probably only cut 15 years off your life.
[[You can be a raging alchoholic, who chains smokes and takes a bath nightly in gasoline, and you'd probably only cut 15 years off your life.]]
Whew, what a relief. It's always been my ambition to be all of those things, along with being a heroin addict while I'm at it. Except that I really can't afford the gasoline baths.
I'm 65 years old, and I've been smoking non-filter cigarettes for 47 years, since I was 18, and I feel just fine. These experts don't know they're brains from their butts - and I don't mean the cigarette kind. Ha,ha,ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, who brought you filtered cigarettes? Why? I smoke rollies now for a couple of years and I notice the difference. A pack of Marbs clogs me up now. I have my ideas about why rollies or unfiltered a not as harmful as filtered.
Eddie please be careful about being healthy and smoking ....the last time I heard of someone bragging that they smoke and are healthy died 6 months later from smoking related problems
I don't wish this on anyone...
I love the ones who say its ok because they can do it and have no health problems ...How the HE!! do you know whats in your lungs?? Building up...
When my mom had throat cancer and I went to the hospital to visit her, there was this huge pump on the floor with slimey substance looking like thick black coffee...when I asked the dr.what this was he told me it's from her lungs being cleaned out...and she was only smoking for 20 yrs...it made me sick...
none of her 8 children smoke.. but what the dr. did tell us is that all the girls in the family have a high risk of problems in the throat area because of second hand smoke and guess what????
I have thyroid problems and sinus problems and the list goes on..
so next time all you who tinks it is no problem ...go get bent and STOP BEING SO DEFENSIVE IF I DO NOT WANT TO SMELL YOUR BAD HABBIT OF SMOKING...
why are ppl who smoke so defensive?????
why do firefighters wear air masks to fight a fire if they will be fine???????
Hey Eddie, here's a thought/question for you that a friend of mine thought up. It seems like it is a little more these days for smokers, and younger people, to get cancer (if you believe the "statistics" which I don't really. Anyway, his thought was about butane lighters, the disposable ones. People that have smoked for a long time like you grew up with matches and Zippos. Wonder if some problems can't be traced to disposable lighters?
Uninsured, I worked at a fire station for a number of years. You'ld be amazed at the number of fire fighters that take of their Scott pack (Air) and fire up a smoke. A LOT of them.
Your case is purely anecdotal, and cannot be generalized to the population as a whole. Even if you outlive your life expectancy, your risk of suffering from smoking-related illness is substantially higher than that of a nonsmoker. And feeling just fine doesn't mean you don't have undiagnosed subclinical cancer, heart disease, or impending stroke from carotid artery atherosclerosis.
Other examples of anecdotes: "I text when I drive all the time and have never had an accident." "I have unprotected sex with multiple partners and have never caught HIV."
Well what do you expect from the british. Look at the gulf of Mexico
...my Dad smoke Pall Mall unfilters too, Eddie, for 45 years or so. When he was 65, he also looked 10 years younger...
...when he was 67, he looked 15 - 20 years older and died of cancer on Nov. 17, 2001.
...after 30 years of smoking, I finally quit for good 3/6/2009.
Hey didn't we all have this same conversation about 3 months ago? It's almost word for word.
Actually alcohol deprives you of your b vitamins
I remember reading about a study in Cali I think, where records were examined on smokers and non smokers and weed and tobacco smoker where they expected that weed and tobacco smokers should show a statistical trend toward lung cancer (more smoking) what they found was a contravention weed and tobacco smokers had less statistical incidence of developing cancer. They surmised that someting about marijuana perhaps makes the cells in the lung lining shed faster and not be around long enough to mutate. Not that it matters.
Since the lung cancer rate among smokers is 10-15%, shouldn't the headline be titled, "Why most smokers avoid lung cancer."
hahahaha, good point.
Association is not the same as cause and effect.
More likely, some patients have increased genetic resistance to smoking-induced lung cancer. No vitamin supplementation study has ever shown reduced lung cancer rates, and I fear that an uneducated lay public and alternative medicine practitioners will start recommending vitamin supplementation to prevent lung cancer in smokers. The real effort should be to not start smoking in the first place, and to quit once started smoking.
While "only 10-15%" of smokers get lung cancer, about 90% of lung cancer cases are in smokers or ex-smokers, not to mention the numerous other smoking-related illnesses that cause substantial morbidity and mortality, and increase health care costs.
While I agree that nobody should smoke, in general you're assuming a false dichotomy between "genetics" and "environment". Actually nothing is entirely caused by one or the other; environmental factors including nutrition strongly affect how genes are actually expressed. In other words, Lamarck wasn't entirely wrong. Please Google "epigenetics" if you don't believe me. Things are no longer as simple as they were when you were taking biology. I have a biology degree (1983) and I wasn't even taught much about this either; the science is very new, but very important.
OomYaaqub -
Agree mostly. I am a physician. No vitamin supplementation study has ever conclusively shown a reduction in cancer risk.
So science has been wrong again. In the mean time science has made it hell on earth for the person who enjoys smoking. Thanks a lot. The other false science fact, noted just yesterday, was the shortage of snakes. I have lived on the same property for 13 years and have counted, even killed more snakes this year alone, then I have seen totaled up for the past 12 years. Money is being wasted on poor science, just so they can get a grant and not work, just watch and tell lies, and give out false information. New idea and challenge, take on the auto polluting and big oil industry, I know, you can not do that, they are the ones who give you all your free money.
Bottom line: My mom would still be alive today if it weren't for that nasty, smelly, poisonous habit. My brother and I spent our childhoods begging her to quit, and we were always dodging the smoke. We were lucky to have upstairs bedrooms with windows. I spent much of my childhood riding my bike around the neighborhood just to escape that stench. Believe me, you don't want lung cancer -- it's more than nasty. Her death was beyond borrific. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone. There is still an ugly, non-removeable stain on the kitchen floor where she'd dropped a cigarette back around 1980. Stark reminder. But it's a great deterrent for her grandsons, my teenage nephews, when they see it there. It's ugly, and Grandma isn't here anymore--all for years of that self-destructive self-gratification. NOT WORTH IT. "Some" smokers may avoid lung cancer, but there are a bunch of other equally debilitating diseases one could end up with. Smokers, ask yourself if you really WANT to RISK horrible side effects, being hooked up to breathing machines or an ugly death? Or all of the above? It's a crap shoot, folks, and you never know when that ugly disease will rear its ugly head. You may think you've escaped it, only to have it pop up when you least expect it. Smokers, you've been warned. Expose yourself to those thousand poisons in cigarette smoke at your own risk. And ask yourself if it's fair and just for you to drag others down with you? Smokers who live in that "it'll never happen to me" dream world are DELUDING THEMSELVES, BIG TIME. Teens, if you're considering taking up that habit, think about this: You not only risk killing yourselves with that habit, but everyone I've ever known who smokes has ended up being overweight, while they're still smoking. They don't have to quit. Those thousand poisons MESS WITH METABOLISM. Don't believe any of this? It's sad -- you'll find out the hard way. What a waste of life. If you have children or other family members who love you and you smoke, SHAME ON YOU.
Those who are not genetically prone will never be inflicted with the disease.
Circular reasoning at its most pathetic.
No one is arguing the fact that smoking isn't good for you but the proof is NOT there for second hand smoke but when does that stop our govt. from taxing because of it? I hear people go on about the second hand smoke studies but does anyone question who funded the study and how was the study conducted? Non smokers just don't like the smell of it so they are quick to jump on the second hand and third hand nonsense. Personally I think people with type A personalities are more likely to die earlier then someone who smokes and if it is in your genetics and you get cancer and don't smoke then it's in your genetics. As for the healthcare debate when it comes to smoking, hate to break the news to you but we are all going to die of something. So if you don't smoke why should I have to pay for your bad genetics when your time comes? It's fuzzy science just like global warming that is now renamed Global Change. Wake up people and honestly question the information that is given to you.
How could second hand smoke NOT have an effect? Who needs a study to prove that? It's the same smoke you're enhaling, moron! Firemen die from smoke inhilation. Guess they'd better study that, before issuing gas masks to firefighters!
Love your magical thinking. Keeps the tabacco companies going. The US needs those jobs, man! lol
[[and if it is in your genetics and you get cancer and don't smoke then it's in your genetics.]]
That just isn't how genetics works. Contrary to popular opinion, genes aren't like the draft lottery during Vietnam; they aren't factors "out there" that control your fate but that you can do nothing about. You could be born with the biochemistry of an alcoholic, but if you simply never drink, or if you give it up immediately after your first bad episode, then you will never have a problem with alcohol. You could have the genes of an Einstein, but if you grow up in the wrong environment and never do anything subsequently to cultivate your mind, you could end up being a janitor. Genes represent nothing but POTENTIAL. Some people have more efficient immune systems and are therefore less likely to develop cancer, but there is probably no such thing as a person who is entirely immune. In any case, smoking contributes to many serious health problems, not just cancer. You are highly unlikely to be immune to all of them, unless you simply die young of something else.
Actually, Tim W., there's as much evidence that second hand smoke does not cause cancer than there is that it does. But, because it's such an easy target, i.e. your comment, it's politically correct to ignore embrace the latter. The original WHO claim as to the dangers of second hand smoke were tossed out in court because it was ruled that they cherry picked the results they wanted and ignored the ones that they didn't like.
Dead on Brewster. However, you should have realized that Tim was a simpleton based on the analogy he made regarding Firefighters dying of smoke inhalation.
Second hand smoke can definitely give someone an asthma attack and it contributes to respiratory illness in children. That's reason enough to avoid it, even if it doesn't cause cancer. I don't agree with telling people how to run their businesses, though.
Secondhand smoke actually is more harmful since the smoke coming off the end of the cigarette contains MORE carcinogens due to lower combustion temperatures and incomplete combustion.
My patients who never smoked but whose parents did generally have more cardiopulmonary problems than those who lived in smoke-free homes. Yes, this is anecdotal. But at this point, the medical community has plenty of conclusive data on the topic.
Smokers tend to hang out together so wouldn't a smoker be exposed to plenty of second hand smoke from other people anyway?
Yes.
"Marlboro, now with B6!" Great marketing tool!
I think it involves weed.Studies have shown that THC has anti-tumor properties.I wonder
how many of these people were stoners and how many were straight.
Only 10-15% of smokers die from lung cancer? I thought it'd be more like 50%, shows how much I know.
Wow, how exciting, just got back from buying a carton of those wonderful smokes. I know for sure that science is never wrong. They smell good, they taste good and they look good. Of course this may hurt the California wacky weed sales. Now maybe we can all act like human beings, instead of being stupid and predjudice against smoking.
Just becuse you are to lazy to feed your kids right, does not mean they can not smoke, they already are smoking wacky weed, probably home grown at that.
That's interesting. In my community there are quite a few 7th Day Adventists who are vegetarians, but yet I know of 3 who died of lung cancer. Still, I strongly believe it's mostly genetic and partly the environment in which we live. It's also interesting to note that a study done 20 years ago showed non-smokers who live near highways or freeways in big cities had a higher rate of lung cancer than smokers who live near forest preserves or large parks.
So, if I read this correctly, only 10-15% (more than likely closer to 10%) get lung cancer from smoking cigarettes. If you follow the liberal media you would think that 100% of smokers get lung cancer. Now, let's talk about another fallacy, second hand smoke. Simply by using logic, if only 10% of everyday smokers get lung cancer, what are the chances of anyone, and I mean anyone, developing lung cancer from some residual smoke floating in the air? More liberal blather and demagoguing by the media created both of these hyesterias.
fact:::: half of all cases of lung cancer are cotracted by people that do not smoke, that have not smoked. that is a tidbit that very , very few people know about. merlin olson died recently from mesothelioma. you know the lung cancer that "only" comes from asbestos exposure. at what point was merlin olson exposed to asbestos. college football. pro football, broadcasting sports, acting. when was he exposed to asbetos????
The most defensive people you will ever meet are smokers. They will defend their habit voraciously. Personally, I will defend a smokers right to smoke. But, I will not defend rude behavior where smokers impose their habit on others, i.e. secondhand smoke, etc.
This just in. Everyone in this thread is dying. Smokers. Non-smokers. Vegetarians. Drinkers. Non-drinkers. Doctors. Lawyers. Walmart cashiers. Those of you that live the party lifestyle might check out at 60. Those of you who are uptight and boring are just delaying the inevitable. You'll join them 14 years later. This type of "journalism" is just nonsense.
This has been around for years and the best b-vitamins are b15 b17 but because bankers and the government believe in controlling your lives and not curing cancer. Which b15 and 17 will prevent and practically cure it, but you will have to get it out of food because it is illegal in the US and almost every other NATO country(except a few) to produce, sell, or even talk about it. This is why smaller economically strong or emerging countries-(Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Ukraine, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, China, and Vietnam) have much lower cancer rates and higher cancer survival rates.
We evolved eating food, not taking pills. If you want B15, why not just eat plenty of the foods that contain it naturally like brown rice, nuts, pumpkin seeds and sesame seeds? Those things are good for you anyway. I'm more skeptical about B17, but if you want it in your diet, just eat millet, lima beans, and remember to eat the seeds along with the rest of the apple. I'd skip the apricot pit, though.
What will extend everybody's lives is to stop reading these articles and getting stressed out.Stress kills more people over time than tobacco,alcohol etc.Stress makes the body go into defenee mode and being in defense mode all the time is very bad for the body.Eat,drink, be merry and be happy.
It may lower your risk, but there is still a risk. Give it up, and live a healthy, productive life.