• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Anti-cigar lobby gets another article published today.

Doc Wylie

Doc Wylie

Curmudgeon
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
848
If PARADE magazine comes in your sunday paper, you'll see a scholarly article by a renowned medical expert telling us how dangerous cigars are. It even alleges that there are more mortal toxins in cigars than cigarettes.

Geez...I sure wish I had seen an article like this before I got addicted to cigars. Woe is me. :whistling:
 
link

That was truely a pleasure to read. Why not an article on the risks of getting skin cancer from being in the sun?? No one seems to give a rats @$$ about that now do they?!?

edited to comment.
 
So, if I understand the article correctly; smoking cigars can kill me. But I also have it on good authority that not smoking cigars can kill me as well.

What a conundrum. No matter what I do, I'm going to die!

Guess I'll need to light up a cigar and ponder this some more. Got a light??
 
What a great and scientifically-backed article. :rolleyes: Here is my favorite part, and the only claim made in the article that is actually backed by any data (although it is presented at such a slant):

Finally, because of the way cigars are wrapped, the smoke has higher concentrations of toxins and irritants than cigarettes. A Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology study found higher levels of the toxin carbon monoxide at two cigar social events in San Francisco than on a busy California freeway.

Now, the article this "journalist" is referencing is HERE. The study starts on page 170. The article claims that the herfs have more toxins present than on a busy freeway. Well, here is another way to look at that fact: In a building where up to 50 people were smoking cigars, the level of the toxin carbon monoxide is .3ppm higher than that of the inside of a car in traffic in a major US city. That bares repeating, 50 people smoking cigars is .3ppm higher than riding in your car in traffic. WOW!!! Are there any movements afoot that is talking about banning riding in cars?

I would be interested in hearing the basis for some of the "facts" presented in this article, especially the cigars increasing the risk of pancreatic cancer and other cancers. This guys is a doctor so surely he should know the importance of supporting data vs. populist tripe.
 
MoeCizlak said:
What a great and scientifically-backed article. :rolleyes: Here is my favorite part, and the only claim made in the article that is actually backed by any data (although it is presented at such a slant):

Finally, because of the way cigars are wrapped, the smoke has higher concentrations of toxins and irritants than cigarettes. A Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology study found higher levels of the toxin carbon monoxide at two cigar social events in San Francisco than on a busy California freeway.

Now, the article this "journalist" is referencing is HERE. The study starts on page 170. The article claims that the herfs have more toxins present than on a busy freeway. Well, here is another way to look at that fact: In a building where up to 50 people were smoking cigars, the level of the toxin carbon monoxide is .3ppm higher than that of the inside of a car in traffic in a major US city. That bares repeating, 50 people smoking cigars is .3ppm higher than riding in your car in traffic. WOW!!! Are there any movements afoot that is talking about banning riding in cars?

I would be interested in hearing the basis for some of the "facts" presented in this article, especially the cigars increasing the risk of pancreatic cancer and other cancers. This guys is a doctor so surely he should know the importance of supporting data vs. populist tripe.
Click to expand...

Excellent points, Moe. I wonder is the ACS takes into account the ppm in a normal day outside in Los Angeles or on the days when the wildfires are burning?
 
MoeCizlak said:
What a great and scientifically-backed article. :rolleyes: Here is my favorite part, and the only claim made in the article that is actually backed by any data (although it is presented at such a slant):

Finally, because of the way cigars are wrapped, the smoke has higher concentrations of toxins and irritants than cigarettes. A Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology study found higher levels of the toxin carbon monoxide at two cigar social events in San Francisco than on a busy California freeway.

Now, the article this "journalist" is referencing is HERE. The study starts on page 170. The article claims that the herfs have more toxins present than on a busy freeway. Well, here is another way to look at that fact: In a building where up to 50 people were smoking cigars, the level of the toxin carbon monoxide is .3ppm higher than that of the inside of a car in traffic in a major US city. That bares repeating, 50 people smoking cigars is .3ppm higher than riding in your car in traffic. WOW!!! Are there any movements afoot that is talking about banning riding in cars?

I would be interested in hearing the basis for some of the "facts" presented in this article, especially the cigars increasing the risk of pancreatic cancer and other cancers. This guys is a doctor so surely he should know the importance of supporting data vs. populist tripe.
Click to expand...

populist tripe...that is exactly what this article consists of and nothing more. What a crock of pure crap.
 
Never forget that while we enjoy our lives, and the simple pleasures in which we choose, as ADULTS, to partake, someone, somewhere, is lying awake at night fretting that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.

Bastiges. :angry:

~Boar
 
Indeed, a poorly written article. I really don't know either way. I suspect he doesn't either.
 
The data in the article linked may be ok. the journal they reference may in and of itself be a decent journal, impact factor 2.88, and it is a nature publication. However, the relevance to human health vs. cigarettes is completely unbased. The study measures emissions, which means little compared to uptake. Cigars contain more nicotine than cigarettes, yes, and I can measure the total amount chemically, but what is the daily dose of a cigar smoker vs a cigarette smoker. The mouth is a vascularized tissue but the surface area of the lungs dwarf what there is in the mouth. When they base there opinions on "facts" I wish they would use relevant facts. It's like saying that I'm going to kill myself with tylenol just because the bottle contains a lethal dose, but I'm not going to take it all at once. This is my little scientific rant on the subject. I wish people wouldn't distort science for agendas. The data is what the data is and making it fit your hypothesis or agenda is not good science.
 
I couldn't help myself. I registered and posted a comment. I f'ed up and posted it three times...Oops!

Where's the data or at least the citing of the studies backing up these claims? Here is the link to the one study cited. cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/9/m9_5.PDF The nuts and bones are that a room with 50 cigar smokers measured .3ppm higher in carbon monoxide than the inside of a car in rush hour. I would hate to see the studies comparing opperating a charcoal grill vs. driving. But then again, a populist movement to outlaw grilling.

The science in this article may be good, and may be bad. The problem is, it is impossible to tell without the requisite back-up of the studies. When reported like this, it is at best propaganda, and at worst irresponsible journalism.
Click to expand...
 
I always wonder about the lifestyles of the groups being compared in reports like these. My guess is that smokers in general lead less healthy lives compared to non-smokers. Since pretty much by definition smokers are not as health conscience as non-smokers, what are they really comparing? As a group smokers probably do not eat as healthy as non-smokers, nor are they likely to exercise as much. So are the incidents of cancer and other health issues the result of only smoking cigars, or do other lifestyle issues play a greater role? I would like to see a study comparing health nuts who happen to smoke cigars compared to the general population. I would bet the cigar smoking health nuts would be healthier. And by using the same logic in this report, you could conclude that cigar smoking lowers incidents of risk to your health (which would be just as an invalid conclusion as made by the article).
 
Taken from one of Robert Benfer's YouTube videos:

Some day, we're all gonna die; Our bodies will rot and magots will live in us, so lets be happy, be happy, be happy, be happy.
Some day, everything we own will be sold off or destroyed, so be happy, be happy, be happy, be happy.

Hah! Twisted but true. There isn't a chance in chiggers that we are going to get out of life alive, so we might as well enjoy our stay.



Post Scriptum: That article is utter propaganda. Just like most of the others they release. Problem is: people are gullible as all hell.
 
mmburtch said:
I couldn't help myself. I registered and posted a comment. I f'ed up and posted it three times...Oops!

Where's the data or at least the citing of the studies backing up these claims? Here is the link to the one study cited. cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/9/m9_5.PDF The nuts and bones are that a room with 50 cigar smokers measured .3ppm higher in carbon monoxide than the inside of a car in rush hour. I would hate to see the studies comparing opperating a charcoal grill vs. driving. But then again, a populist movement to outlaw grilling.

The science in this article may be good, and may be bad. The problem is, it is impossible to tell without the requisite back-up of the studies. When reported like this, it is at best propaganda, and at worst irresponsible journalism.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well done Matt, and you posted it 4 times!!! :laugh: :thumbs:
 
I hadn't realized that Parade had become a scholarly journal. I guess I'll have to stop wrapping up the entrails from the animals I eat in it.

Doc.
 
MoeCizlak said:
mmburtch said:
I couldn't help myself. I registered and posted a comment. I f'ed up and posted it three times...Oops!

Where's the data or at least the citing of the studies backing up these claims? Here is the link to the one study cited. cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/9/m9_5.PDF The nuts and bones are that a room with 50 cigar smokers measured .3ppm higher in carbon monoxide than the inside of a car in rush hour. I would hate to see the studies comparing opperating a charcoal grill vs. driving. But then again, a populist movement to outlaw grilling.

The science in this article may be good, and may be bad. The problem is, it is impossible to tell without the requisite back-up of the studies. When reported like this, it is at best propaganda, and at worst irresponsible journalism.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well done Matt, and you posted it 4 times!!! :laugh: :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Fuggers deleted three of my four posts.
 
Alright Matt, you talked me into it. I signed up and posted a reply as well. Hopefully we'll hear something back from the good people at Fish Wrap, er, I mean, Parade.
 
These people will not stop until we are servants to our wives Monday through Saturday and praising Jesus on Sunday.

It's an age old war.
 
Oh, and big shocker. Dr. Mishori is a female. One list of her 'published' articles (this is the Internet, afterall) shows nothing on cigars. In fact, it looks like she's an expert on just about everything, including pain, stomach folds, heart disease, patient in-house care, the mouth, plastic, antibacterial soap, quick care and working out.

Wow. Thank you for sharing your insightful, respected 'perspective' on cigar smoking Dr. Mishori.
 
After reading some of her other articles, I think Dr. Mishori suffers from the confusion of the meaning of the words correlation and causation. In her article that is talking about the link between gum disease and a myriad of other health related issues, such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer, the good doctor actually thinks gum disease is the cause:

"In diabetes, however, the body-mouth connection is clear-cut. Diabetics who have uncontrolled gum disease, Cram said, "have a much harder time (than other diabetics) controlling their blood sugar levels."

You would think that physicians would be telling their diabetic patients to make regular dental visits to head off gum disease and that dentists would be advising patients who develop persistent gum disease to be tested for diabetes. But neither group of practitioners has been especially good at making the connection.

I get the feeling that people who don't give a flying intercourse about their gums, also don't give a flying intercourse about regulating the blood sugar levels. This, however, apparently never crosses the good doctor's mind. To her it is gingivitis that is the cause of other ills. Another segment I enjoyed:

"In gum disease (called gingivitis in the early stages, before it develops into full-blown periodontal disease), the tissue that surrounds the bones supporting the teeth become inflamed or infected.

Often this results from the accumulation of bacteria in the plaque under the tissue holding the teeth. The bacteria release toxins and other chemicals that begin to destroy the bone. Scientists believe they circulate and cause damage elsewhere in the body; exactly how remains unclear. "

In the case of malaria, weren't doctors at the time convinced the air around swamps and marshes caused the disease? They knew the "bad air" was the causing all these people to become ill, exactly how probably remained unclear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top