Re: Re: Lance Armstrong &amp; physical abilities

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap13.htm

----------------------------

July 27, 2005

>An extreme overreaction to some personal comments from Sally, NOT an

>official WAPF position, IMO.

>

It may not be official, but at least three WAPF health providers agree

with me on the ill effects of smoking. Smoking is bad news for health.

Just like soy formula. Are you going to allow passive or active smoke

into your world if and when you get pregnant?

Deanna

" It is common knowledge that regular long-term cigarette use can lead to

destruction of the lung tissue, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease) and what used to be called emphysema. " - S. Cowan, MD

July 27, 2005

On 7/27/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

> >An extreme overreaction to some personal comments from Sally, NOT an

> >official WAPF position, IMO.

> >

> It may not be official, but at least three WAPF health providers agree

> with me on the ill effects of smoking. Smoking is bad news for health.

> Just like soy formula. Are you going to allow passive or active smoke

> into your world if and when you get pregnant?

>

> Deanna

> " It is common knowledge that regular long-term cigarette use can lead to

> destruction of the lung tissue, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary

> disease) and what used to be called emphysema. " - S. Cowan, MD

I just posted a reply in respect to the destruction of lung tissue.

Below is some info on smoking and emphysema. Common knowledge doesn't

necessarily mean correct knowledge (although it could), only that a

lot of people agree, rightly or wrongly. But I'm sure you (and Dr.

Cowan) already know that.

######

Smoking and Emphysema

On July 13, 1994, an obituary in the Washington Post reported the

death, at age 60, of Reynolds, III, an heir to the

founder of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company. The headline and an

accompanying photograph showed the deceased smoking a cigarette and

implied that Reynolds died from emphysema, caused by smoking. Reading

the obituary in detail, however, it turned out that he had quit

smoking eight years prior to his death; and that there was a family

history of emphysema, the deceased's own father having died from the

disease at the age of 58. Furthermore, the obituary disclosed that the

deceased's own doctor was unable to state the " immediate cause " of his

death.

Medical opinion concerning emphysema has had an interesting history.

My 1973 edition of " Diagnosis and Treatment " (a standard medical

textbook), states that emphysema is a disease which involves

destruction of the alveolar (lung) tissue but that the cause is

unknown, although " many doctors " think it is caused by " cigarette

smoking " . In 1973, Chromic Pulmonary Obstructive Disease (COPD) had

not yet been invented. COPD, while now discussed at length in modern

medical textbooks, did not exist in 1973.

Some time subsequent to 1973, a genetic cause of emphysema was

discovered. In an article in the latest on-line edition of Grolier's

Encyclopedia, Buechner, M.D., explains that a significant

number of the people with the disease lack a gene that controls the

liver's production of a protein called alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT). This

protein controls or degrades an enzyme called neutrophilelastase,

produced by the white blood cells. When the enzyme is left unchecked,

it destroys alveolar tissue.

Evidently, the Reynolds, father and son, had genetic cases of

emphysema, which may or may not have killed the younger Reynolds, even

thought he had not smoked for eight years prior to his death. But this

raises the question: if there any proof that there is any cause of

emphysema other than genetics?

The politically correct medical establishment dances around that

question with all of the skill of a lawyer. In the Merck Manual, 14th

Edition (1982), we are introduced to a new disease, Chronic

Onstructive Pulmonary Disease, or COPD, and, at page 629, we are shown

a diagram, showing that the disease is combination of emphysema and

bronchitis, and that some patients may have one disease and some the

other, but many will have both. Cigarette smoking is said to

" presumably " play a role in COPD. At page 630, we told about AAT

deficiency, but this is described as a " rare condition " ; it is not

clear whether the authors mean that AAT is a " rare condition " that

causes emphysema, or that emphysema is rarely caused by AAT

deficiency. The language is, I think, deliberate vague.

By 1992, it becomes still more politically imperative to blame smoking

for COPD and emphysema. In the 16th Edition of the Manual (1992), it

is explained that, yes, emphysema is caused by destruction of lung

tissue, caused by an unchecked enzyme. We are told, however, that

smoking lowers the body's defenses to the enzyme. No evidence or

authority is cited for that proposition.

Thus, we are left with confusing conclusions. We have a new disease,

COPD, the exact cause of which is unknown (indeed, the definition of

the disease is vague; it seems to be a case of " this patient has

something wrong with his lungs, but we don't know exactly what " ).

Cigarette smoking is thought to play a role; yet the 16th Edition

makes it clear that many cigarette smokers never develop the disease,

and the authors do not know why. I submit that the reason is very

simple: smoking does not cause emphysema.

######

July 27, 2005

> Re: Re: Lance Armstrong & physical abilities

>

>>An extreme overreaction to some personal comments from Sally, NOT an

>>official WAPF position, IMO.

>>

>It may not be official, but at least three WAPF health providers agree

>with me on the ill effects of smoking.

And? Probably most of the WAPF community thinks it's bad for you.

Smoking is bad news for health.

>Just like soy formula. Are you going to allow passive or active smoke

>into your world if and when you get pregnant?

It's a little premature to be thinking about that, I'm not even married yet.

>

>Deanna

> " It is common knowledge that regular long-term cigarette use can lead to

>destruction of the lung tissue, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary

>disease) and what used to be called emphysema. " - S. Cowan, MD

Have you asked Dr. Cowan if this is in reference to regular

chock-full-o-toxic-crap cigarettes, which it undoubtedly is? Until someone

does long term studies on additive-free cigarettes on different populations

(ie; SADers vs. WAPFers), quoting second hand or even firsthand accounts of

the dangers of smoking doesn't mean much in terms of the effects of smoking

*per se*.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

July 27, 2005

Deanna-

>All I am saying is that if we health promoters are to accept

>that smokers can't quit, then why not soy eaters, alcohol guzzlers and

>other behaviors/practices that one finds release in? Slippery slope.

>Let in smoke, and why not white flour and sugar for the same reasons?

I don't agree that they can't quit, though apparently nicotine is up there

among the most addictive substances known to man, but many people more or

less just choose not to quit, and I do think we owe them reasonable

courtesy -- just as they owe it to us not to force us to breathe their fumes.

-

July 27, 2005

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

>I don't agree that they can't quit, though apparently nicotine is up there

>among the most addictive substances known to man,

Has this been tested with NON regular

chock-full-o-toxic-crap-AND-addicting-additives-cigarettes? Or is this based

on regular 'ol cigs?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap11.htm

----------------------------

July 27, 2005

Suze-

>Has this been tested with NON regular

>chock-full-o-toxic-crap-AND-addicting-additives-cigarettes? Or is this based

>on regular 'ol cigs?

I think it's been tested with isolated nicotine, on rats, but I don't have

the refs at hand. Since I'm not a smoker and could never smoke anything

without radically awful consequences, it's not something I maintain an

arsenal of current research on.

-

July 27, 2005

On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Deanna-

>

> >All I am saying is that if we health promoters are to accept

> >that smokers can't quit, then why not soy eaters, alcohol guzzlers and

> >other behaviors/practices that one finds release in? Slippery slope.

> >Let in smoke, and why not white flour and sugar for the same reasons?

>

> I don't agree that they can't quit, though apparently nicotine is up there

> among the most addictive substances known to man,

Is it? There is a question if nicotine is even the *active* ingredient

in tobacco.

######

Is Nicotine Addictive?

Much of the rhetoric of the anti-smoking movement seeks to demonize

tobacco smokers as " nicotine addicts " . In the past, of course, the

term " addict " has been generally applied only to mind-altering drugs,

e.g., heroin and cocaine. Even alcohol, which is mind-altering, is not

generally referred to as " addictive " . So, the argument is one of

semantics. If nicotine is addictive, so are chocolate candies, pies

and cakes, etc. Indeed, if " addiction " is defined as dependence upon

some chemical, everyone is addicted, to air!

I am not going to engage in a philosophical debate over the definition

of " addiction " . There is a question in my mind, however, as to whether

nicotine is really the active ingredient in tobacco smoke..

Nicotine is a chemical, C10H 14N 2, which is found in the tobacco

plant. Anti-smokers are quick to point out that pure nicotine is a

poison, used as a pesticide. And it's true that pure nicotine (a

colorless, odorous liquid), is poisonous. According to the mens that

to kill a 180 lb man, he'd have to drink about 80 mg of the stuff.

Many other common substances, however, also have minimum lethal doses.

According to the same source, ingesting a gram of caffeine is fatal.

In fact, many substances which are beneficial in small quantities are

toxic in large quantities. My mother suffered a stroke some years ago.

Her life was saved, and she recovered, by taking a blood thinner, so

he doubled it. My mother began hemorrhaging, and almost died from loss

of blood. The blood thinner, which is life saving in small quantities,

proved toxic in large quantities.

Of course, most of the nicotine in tobacco is lost in the process of

smoking. Only a little finds its way into the smoker's bloodstream.

That small quantity may account for some of the beneficial effects of

smoking, e.g., improved mental concentration. Strangely, fine Havana

cigars, when they were available, contained only 2% nicotine. If, in

fact, nicotine is the reason why people smoke, it seems strange that

people would pay enormous amounts of money for Havana cigars, which

contain so little nicotine.

I question, however, whether nicotine is the active ingredient in

tobacco. If it were, nicotine patches should satisfy a smoker's

craving for tobacco; they don't! In prisons, where, as a part of the

punishment, smoking is sometimes forbidden, the inmates take to

smoking corn silk, paper, string, etc., none of which contain any

nicotine.

When I was a young man, there was a chain of tobacco stores which sold

cheap cigars. They were made almost entirely from brown paper, with

only one outside wrapper made from tobacco. I doubt they contained any

significant amount of nicotine. Yet, they were a satisfying smoke.

Recently, anti-smoking forces have suggested taking the nicotine out

of cigarettes, to discourage smoking. This assumes, of course, that

smokers smoke to get nicotine. In their book, " Life Extension " , health

writers Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, take a different approach.

Believing that smoke is bad for health but that nicotine is not,

Pearson and Shaw suggest that cigarettes be spiked with extra

nicotine, so that smokers will consume fewer cigarettes.

It is not universally accepted, however, that nicotine is the active

ingredient in tobacco smoke. The authors of the widely respected

" Merck Manual " say only that it is " probably " the active ingredient.

If, in fact, the anti-smokers finally succeed in getting the tobacco

companies to remove the nicotine from cigarettes, we will finally find

out the truth. My own bet is that a cigarette without nicotine will

probably be almost as satisfying as one with nicotine. The active

ingredient in smoke is smoke.

Recent studies, reported by the National Institute on Drug Addiction

(NIDA), seem to bear out my hunch. These studies suggest that tobacco

contains a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI). MAOI's are

anti-depressants, which work by increasing serotonin levels in the

brain. They are used in medicine to treat Parkinson's disease, which

may explain why a number of studies have shown that smokers have a far

lower rate of Parkinson's than non-smokers. In any event, the MAOI in

tobacco smoke may play as great a role in smoking as nicotine.

#######

July 27, 2005

-

>I question, however, whether nicotine is the active ingredient in

>tobacco. If it were, nicotine patches should satisfy a smoker's

>craving for tobacco; they don't! In prisons, where, as a part of the

>punishment, smoking is sometimes forbidden, the inmates take to

>smoking corn silk, paper, string, etc., none of which contain any

>nicotine.

This is extremely poor logic for two reasons. First, smoking a cigarette

delivers a detectable hit with an obvious peak. A patch delivers a small,

steady trickle. Not the same thing at all. Second, though I'm blanking on

the technical terminology for this, behaviours which accompany the

fulfillment of an addiction become tied to the addiction. IOW people get

used to holding a cigarette in their hand, to lighting up, etc., and those

become imprinted in the mind. That's why smokers are sometimes given fake

plastic cigarettes to hold when they're trying to quit. Both reasons also

account for the increased success of nicotine inhalers compared to patches.

>In their book, " Life Extension " , health

>writers Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, take a different approach.

>Believing that smoke is bad for health but that nicotine is not,

>Pearson and Shaw suggest that cigarettes be spiked with extra

>nicotine, so that smokers will consume fewer cigarettes.

Not wise. Increasing the spike will just increase the amount needed for

the physiological effect, as with all other addictive substances, caffeine

included.

BTW, it's certainly possible that there are addictive compounds in

cigarettes in addition to nicotine, but this article conveniently ignores

the rat studies which I'm all but positive used pure nicotine, not cigarettes.

-

July 27, 2005

Suze,

>It's a little premature to be thinking about that, I'm not even married yet.

>

Well, hurry up, lol. I hope you do have a child. So eat that good

diet, like you already are, I'm sure.

>Have you asked Dr. Cowan if this is in reference to regular

>chock-full-o-toxic-crap cigarettes, which it undoubtedly is? Until someone

>does long term studies on additive-free cigarettes on different populations

>(ie; SADers vs. WAPFers), quoting second hand or even firsthand accounts of

>the dangers of smoking doesn't mean much in terms of the effects of smoking

>*per se*.

>

No I haven't asked him, but yes, you are probably right about the

studies. Aren't there any marijuana studies anywhere about lungs and

such? That might be an alternative to look at anyway.

Deanna

July 27, 2005

>>No I haven't asked him, but yes, you are probably right about the

>>studies. Aren't there any marijuana studies anywhere about lungs and

>>such? That might be an alternative to look at anyway.

>>

>

>With marijuana being illegal, and the probable impossibility of

>getting an intervention study past an ethics board, I suspect it's

>worse. You really have no idea if your pot's been dosed wit

>

Open your mind and your world beyond the US. Then do please offer what

y'all have information on via Netherlands and other places where it is

legal and perhaps even organic choices are available.

Deanna

July 27, 2005

,

>>All I am saying is that if we health promoters are to accept

>>that smokers can't quit, then why not soy eaters, alcohol guzzlers and

>>other behaviors/practices that one finds release in? Slippery slope.

>>Let in smoke, and why not white flour and sugar for the same reasons?

>>

>I don't agree that they can't quit, though apparently nicotine is up there

>among the most addictive substances known to man, but many people more or

>less just choose not to quit, and I do think we owe them reasonable

>courtesy -- just as they owe it to us not to force us to breathe their fumes.

>

Okay, let me clarify. Smokers *can* quit. People *can* adopt a better

diet. They *can* cook, clean the cookware *properly*, and go out for a

*walk* before or afterwards. What people can't do is get off heroine

and Xanax without risking death as part of withdrawal symptoms iirc (and

the list may be bigger now, faik). I have quit smoking tobacco twice

myself, but yes, nicotine is up there on the list of physically and

psychologically substances. Much more so than sugar or white flour. I

can see no good in it, but certainly I am a better candidate for smoking

than Mr. Masterjohn as far as present health is concerned. But if he

were to start running 6-16 miles at a shot, I would suspect even he

wouldn't be so interested in it. Certainly smoking wasn't part of the

reproductive diet Price found prevalent, was it?

In any case, I have given up coffee until at least the autumnal equinox

in solidarity with Masterjohn, staring now. It is easy when you have a

young dude in the house to hide or disassemble the machinery responsible

for coffee making, heee. I am doing organic green and black Earl Grey

and herbal teas from Stash Teas in the interim. I need not go caffeine

free, as I might die from low blood pressure if I am not too lively.

Deanna, a pitta and a PITA, no matter how you slice it

July 27, 2005

Miss B,

>What I hear, in her comments, is a show of compassion to smokers; I'm

>all for compassion in any form. She is not so sympathetic re: alcohol

>and even chocolate.

>

Are these personal biases, do you think? Is it that smoking was a part

of life, but alcohol and chocolate weren't daily indulgences in her family?

Deanna

July 27, 2005

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of TB

>>What I hear, in her comments, is a show of compassion to smokers; I'm

>>all for compassion in any form. She is not so sympathetic re: alcohol

>>and even chocolate.

Actually, the WAPF literature states that UNpasteurized beer and wine in

moderation are OK.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics