cigarettes

Smoking Tobacco Plus Weed Greatly Raises Odds for Emphysema

Posted by

0


News Picture: Smoking Tobacco Plus Weed Greatly Raises Odds for EmphysemaBy Dennis Thompson HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Nov. 28, 2023 (HealthDay News)

Folks who smoke weed along with cigarettes are doing serious damage to their lungs, a new study warns.

People who do both are 12 times more likely to develop emphysema than nonsmokers, due to the damage they’re doing to the lung’s air sacs, researchers report.

“There is a common public misconception that marijuana smoking is not harmful,” said researcher Dr. Jessie Kang, a cardiothoracic radiologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada.

“With our study, we show that there are physical effects of marijuana smoking on the lungs and that cigarette smoking and marijuana smoking may have a combined damaging effect on the lungs,” Kang added.

Even though weed is one of the most widely used psychoactive substances in the world, little is known about the effects of smoking cannabis on a person’s lung health, researchers noted.

Tons of research has linked cigarette smoking to lung cancer, emphysema and COPD, but “currently not much research exists on the effects of marijuana smoking on the lungs,” Kang noted.

For their study, Kang and her colleagues examined chest CT images of four patient groups – nonsmokers, cigarette smokers, marijuana smokers and combined tobacco and weed smokers.

Weed smokers included in the study had toked at least four times a month for at least two years, researchers said.

In addition to increased risk of emphysema, combined weed and cigarette smokers also were three to four times more likely to have airway wall thickening, researchers said. This thickening can contribute to infections, scarring and further airway damage.

The association with emphysema and airway wall thickening was not as significant for people who smoked either weed or cigarettes alone, results show.

This could mean that weed and cigarette smoke might somehow interact with each other to have even worse effects on the lungs and airways, the researchers said.

The findings were to be presented Tuesday at the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) meeting in Chicago. Research presented at a medical meeting should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

“The [average] number of marijuana smoking years was less than compared to cigarette smokers and combined marijuana and cigarette smokers,” Kang said in a meeting news release. “However, marijuana that is smoked is often unfiltered, which can potentially lead to more damaging particles entering the airways and lungs.”

“More research needs to be done in this area, so the public can make an informed decision on their recreational usage of marijuana,” Kang added.

Vaping Can Be More Damaging Than Smoking Cigarettes, Study Finds

Posted by

0


A man blows vapor from an e-cigarette in South San Francisco, Calif., on Jan. 23, 2018. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

A man blows vapor from an e-cigarette in South San Francisco, Calif., on Jan. 23, 2018.

Vaping can cause more damage to DNA compared to smoking regular cigarettes, according to a new study which also found that both vapers and smokers had more than twice the DNA damage of nonusers.

The study, published in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research on Feb. 14, collected samples of epithelial cells from test participants’ mouths, testing them for genetic damage. The researchers found that vapers had 2.6 times more DNA damage compared to nonusers while smokers had 2.2 times the DNA damage compared to nonusers. This indicates that vaping can be more damaging to the DNA than smoking cigarettes.

DNA damage to the oral epithelial cells lining the mouth is a change that is associated with a higher risk for several chronic diseases, including cancer.

The e-cigarette industry came into prominence on the premise that vaping is a safer alternative to smoking regular cigarettes, a claim that has never been proven. The results of the study counter such claims.

When checking the effect of devices used by vapers in the study, those who used pods were found to have the highest DNA damage, followed by participants who resorted to mods. Sweet-flavored vapes were linked with the highest level of DNA damage, followed by mint-menthol flavor and fruit flavored variants.

“For the first time, we showed that the more vapers used e-cigarettes, and the longer they used them, the more DNA damage occurred in their oral cells,” said Ahmad Besaratinia, the study’s senior author and a professor at the Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, according to a Feb. 13 post by the university. “The same pattern held up in smokers.”

“The devices and flavors that are most popular and highly consumed by youth vapers, as well as adults, are the ones that are associated with the most DNA damage,” Besaratinia said. “Clearly these results have significant implications, both for public health and regulatory agencies.”

The study was conducted on 72 healthy adults split into three groups: current vapers who had never smoked cigarettes, current smokers who had never used a vape, and individuals with no history of either vaping or smoking.

Vaping Among US Adults and Youth

According to a Gallup poll published on Aug. 17, 2022, 8 percent of Americans reported using e-cigarettes in the previous week. Vaping was found to be more common among Americans who had a history of smoking cigarettes than among those who had never smoked.

Data from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found a high prevalence of vaping among minors.

“E-cigarette use among youth remains a top concern for the FDA. In 2022, about 1 in 10 or more than 2.5 million U.S. middle and high school students currently used e-cigarettes (past 30-day),” the FDA said, adding that 14.1 percent (2.14 million) of high school students and 3.3 percent (380,000) of middle school students reported current e-cigarette use.

More than 1 in 4 youth e-cigarette users used the product every day while more than 4 in 10 reported using it in at least 20 of the previous 30 days. Almost 85 percent used flavored e-cigarettes.

Vaping Dangers

In an interview posted at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Irfan Rahman, who studies biological mechanisms involved in e-cigarette and tobacco toxicity, said that vaping delivers nicotine to the lungs in ways that might seem safe but are actually dangerous to lung health.

“During vaping, e-cigarette vapors, which include toxic chemicals, are inhaled into the lungs. Beyond nicotine, vaping can deliver substances such as vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol, volatile organic chemicals, anti-freezing agents, metals, and many other compounds,” he said.

“There are also many flavorants [flavoring chemicals] used in various e-cigarettes. All of these substances get into users’ air sacs, where oxygen transfer occurs. The chemicals replace oxygen, and they can cause irritability in the lung as well as breathing difficulties.”

The use of nicotine, a key ingredient in vapes, can be damaging to the brains of teenagers. According to the CDC, nicotine usage during adolescence can harm the part of the brain associated with attention, learning, mood, and impulse control.

E-Cig Use Tied to Higher Odds of Prediabetes

Posted by

0


As in regular cigarettes, nicotine may play a role, researcher says

A photo of a stylish man smoking an e-cigarette.

Use of e-cigarettes may be linked to higher odds of prediabetes, according to an analysis of survey data from over 600,000 U.S adults.

Current e-cigarette users had 20% higher odds of having prediabetes compared with those who never used e-cigarettes (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.37), reported Shyam Biswal, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, and colleagues.

In addition, former e-cigarette users had lower but still elevated odds of prediabetes (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.19), they noted in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“With both e-cigarette use and prevalence of prediabetes dramatically on the rise in the past decade, our discovery that e-cigarettes carry a similar risk to traditional cigarettes with respect to diabetes is important for understanding and treating vulnerable individuals,” Biswal said in a press release.

According to the CDC, people who smoke traditional cigarettes are 30% to 40% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. They also have more difficulty managing their diabetes, regardless of the type.

“In the case of cigarette smoking, nicotine has a detrimental effect on insulin action, and it appears that e-cigarettes may also have the same effect,” Biswal added.

In this study, current e-cigarette users had higher odds of prediabetes compared with people who never smoked either e-cigarettes or combustible cigarettes (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.17-2.04), the researchers reported. When comparing former e-cigarette users and dual users (both e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes) with never smokers, the results did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00-1.29 and OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97-1.34, respectively).

The team also found that current occasional e-cigarette users had 25% higher odds of prediabetes compared with never e-cigarette users (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.43), but in current daily e-cigarette users, the results did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00-1.44).

Overall, the prevalence of prediabetes among the smoking groups was as follows:

  • Never e-cigarette user: 10.9%
  • Current e-cigarette user: 9.0%
  • Former e-cigarette user: 9.2%
  • Sole e-cigarette user (never used combustible cigarette): 5.9%
  • Never combustible cigarette user: 9.3%
  • Current combustible cigarette user: 13.4%
  • Former combustible cigarette user: 10.2%
  • Dual smokers 10.2%

“E-cigarettes remain the most controversial smoking-cessation intervention,” Biswal and colleagues noted. Health officials worry that the rise in e-cigarette use, especially among non-smokers, may “outstrip the potential utility of e-cigarettes as quit devices among tobacco smokers.”

The findings in this study are “critical information because the prevalence of e-cigarette use among young adults and adolescents is rising rapidly,” they added.

The study included 600,046 adults interviewed by landlines or cell phones in the 2016-2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey. Respondents were excluded if they had a history of diabetes, were pregnant, or had missing data for covariates, such as BMI, physical activity, and medical conditions that may impact their risk of diabetes.

Of the study population, 28.6% were older than age 35, two-thirds were white, 12.2% were Black, and just over half were women. Current e-cigarette users were more likely to be men and have lower education levels.

Biswal and team noted that since the study used self-reported data from a survey, “a causal relationship between e-cigarette use and prediabetes cannot be inferred.”

In addition, the study “could not rule out diet-related information, which would reduce the observed association to the null,” they wrote.

FDA to Lower Nicotine in Cigarettes

Posted by

0


The FDA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to explore lowering nicotine levels in combustible cigarettes to non-addictive levels, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced Thursday.

“This new regulatory step advances a comprehensive policy framework that we believe could help avoid millions of tobacco-related deaths across the country,” Gottlieb explained in a written press statement.

The proposal to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes is the centerpiece of a comprehensive tobacco regulatory strategy announced by FDA officials last July.

The FDA will conduct a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence involving nicotine’s role in cigarette addiction and seek input from the public. At this time, however, no specific nicotine limit has been set.

“We’re interested in public input on critical questions such as: What potential maximum nicotine level would be appropriate for the protection of public health? Should a product standard be implemented all at once or gradually? What unintended consequences — such as the potential for illicit trade or for addicted smokers to compensate for lower nicotine by smoking more — might occur as a result?” Gottlieb said in the statement.

He added that the FDA will soon issue two additional ANPRMs: one to seek data and comment on the role that flavors — including menthol — play in the initiation, use and cessation of tobacco products, and another to further explore the regulation of premium cigars.

The FDA commissioner also vowed to jump start efforts to speed development and regulation of novel nicotine replacement therapies to give smokers who want to quit more options to help them do so.

“When I returned to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last year, it was immediately clear that tackling tobacco use — and cigarette smoking in particular — would be one of the most important actions I could take to advance public health,” the statement said.

“With that in mind, we’re taking a pivotal step today that could ultimately bring us closer to our vision of a world where combustible cigarettes would no longer create or sustain addiction — making it harder for future generations to become addicted in the first place and allowing more currently addicted smokers to quit or switch to potentially less harmful products.”

In an early afternoon press briefing, Gottlieb discussed finding from an analysis estimating the public health benefit of lowering nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels, published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine in conjunction with the FDA announcement.

The analysis suggested that about 5 million additional adult smokers would kick the habit within a year of reducing nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels. By the year 2100, according to the model, more than 33 million people — mostly youth and young adults — would have avoided becoming smokers and smoking rates would drop from the current 15% to 1.4%.

“All told, this framework could result in more than 8 million fewer tobacco-caused deaths through the end of the century,” Gottlieb said. “These estimates underscore the tremendous opportunity to save so many lives and forge a new path forward to combat the overwhelming disease and death caused by cigarettes.”

Roughly 40 million people in the U.S. smoke cigarettes, and tobacco use is estimated to contribute to more than 480,000 deaths each year.

FDA Center for Tobacco Products director Mitch Zeller, JD, said establishing a maximum nicotine level that would make cigarettes non-addictive has the potential to get adult smokers to quit and keep future generations of kids who experiment with cigarettes from becoming addicted.

A spokesman for tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds vowed to work with federal officials as they move forward.

“As this process gets underway, we look forward to working with FDA on its science-based review of nicotine levels in cigarettes and to build on the opportunity of establishing a regulatory framework that is based on tobacco harm reduction and recognizes the continuum of risk,” said R.J. Reynolds executive vice president James Figlar.

But Erika Sward of the American Lung Association said the FDA can expect challenges from tobacco companies.

“We can expect to see them put forward illegitimate and faulty studies during the fact-finding process,” she told MedPage Today. “An immense amount of political will will be needed to get this across the finish line.”

Sward called on the FDA to consider reducing nicotine levels to non-addictive levels in all combustible tobacco products.

This sentiment was echoed by Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids president Matthew Myers in a written statement.

“For this proposal to have maximum impact, the FDA should reduce nicotine levels in all combustible tobacco products and not just cigarettes, to prevent switching to other harmful products,” he said. “It is encouraging that the FDA recognizes this concern, noting in today’s regulatory notice that ‘if a standard were to apply to cigarettes only, it could be substantially less effective.’”

American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown called the FDA action “a commendable move in the right direction.”

“We encourage the agency to not stop here but move forward quickly with a proposed rule on nicotine levels — not just for cigarettes, but for every combustible tobacco product on the market.”

Which causes cancer more quickly: cigarettes, diet soda or GMOs?

Posted by

0


Some people believe that regularly smoking the 7,000 chemicals in commercial cigarettes is the quickest way to get cancer in the world. Other folks believe that artificial sweeteners, because they taste so sweet, trick the body into ingesting them and are the “Trojan horses” of the food industry, causing breast cancer and prostate cancer faster than any other food, drink or consumable chemical-laced product on the market. But then again, there’s GMOs. Genetically modified organisms contain pesticides that can kill nearly any living thing that consumes them, including insects, rats and, yes, humans. Pesticide is the umbrella name for herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, algaecides and even fertilizers meant to kill “pests” — hence the name.

Cancer

There is really NO MEASUREMENT right now for how many GMOs are in foods, drinks and even cigarettes. Scientists who modify organism through gene insertion are apt to promote the corresponding pesticides, no matter whether humans are dying from them or not. Cigarettes, diet soda and GMOs — are you guilty of “consuming” all three daily? Then your clock is ticking!

Most foods labeled “diet,” “light” or “zero” are toxic to humans. They are carcinogenic and cause free radicals to warp your good cells, strangulating mitochondria and multiplying uncontrollably. Eventually, cancerous cells find damaged tissue or an organ to suffocate. This is when most doctors and oncologists in America first “discover” cancer, after it is fully manifested, and for many, it’s too late. More than 50 percent of people who getcancer die from it, and one-third of all Americans get cancer at some point in life. Who gets it first and who gets it the worst — the diet soda drinkers, the pesticide-laden GMO food eaters or the smokers?

Smoking commercial cigarettes – a “compound” problem!

The “Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement” or “MSA” was entered in November of 1998 between the four largest US tobacco companies, which include Philip Morris Inc., Brown & Williamson, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard. Tobacco-related healthcare costs (detriment) were settled (covered), and Big Tobacco agreed to “curtail” marketing practices (were told not to market to kids so much). Plus, they were adding ammonia to the manufacturing process and got busted red-handed by a whistleblower in court. This is how “crack” nicotine was discovered by the general public, via a settlement made for marketing restrictions. So what’s really in a commercial cigarette? Can you mix ammonia, bleach and pesticide? Doesn’t that create a form of mustard gas? How can this be a legal form of “recreation”?

Hazards of consuming toxic “diet” sweeteners – aspartame, sucralose and sorbitol

We are decades into diet soda frenzy and addiction, and nothing has changed! At least one of the evil “fake sugars” can be found in every popular diet soda across the nation — they’re the Trojan horses of the cancerous conventional food and beverage industry. The sweet tastes fools your body into ingesting it, trying to use it, and THAT is how your cells mutate and cancer begins to “take root.” Do you have IBS, general anxiety, muscle pain for “no reason,” arthritis “flare ups,” ringing in the ears, daily fatigue or, even worse, fibromyalgia? Cut out all artificial sweeteners for ONE WEEK and see how you feel. Guess what caused most of the “Gulf War Syndrome” — artificial sweeteners.

Did you know that aspartame alone accounts for 75 percent of all complaints to the FDA about side effects from food toxins? Also watch out for acesulfame potassium (more FDA-approved “cancer” sweetener) found in many protein shake mixes and sugar-free gums. It’s just a cousin of the evil aspartame!

Cancer’s HOV lane: eating GMO!

Shocking new research reveals that a GM corn approved in Europe for use in food and (animal) feed, and Roundup (weed killer) used with it, can cause increased tumors, premature death and organ damage at levels previously claimed by EU regulatory authorities to be perfectly safe. This information was not made public. Want to get in the high occupancy lane for cancer and drive really fast? It’s dangerous. Don’t mess with your health. Don’t flirt with disaster.

Conclusion: Don’t eat cancer. Don’t drink it and don’t smoke it! The carcinogens can only win the battle if you feed them their necessary fuel — more carcinogens. Try to NEVER drink soda or diet soda or eat GMOs. If you smoke, you can quit starting today using the natural method called 14AndOut, recommended by Health Ranger Mike Adams.

Most recent data from UK points to substantial public health benefits of electronic cigarettes.

Posted by

0



While most anti-smoking organizations continue to oppose electronic cigarettes (e-cigarretes), warning of the hypothetical risks of these products, new data from the UK suggest that in real life, e-cigarettes are producing substantial public health benefits.

Recent data (monthly tracking of key performance indicators; e-cigarettes in England – latest trends) from the Smoking Toolkit Study (Cancer Research UK, UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies) reveal the following critical points:

The use of e-cigarettes has increased dramatically, ever since the fourth quarter of 2011.
Precisely coincident with the rise in e-cigarette use in the UK has been a significant increase in quit smoking attempts.
E-cigarettes have surpassed nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and other drugs as the most commonly used smoking cessation method.
Overall motivation to quit has increased since the dramatic rise in e-cigarette use.
The majority of dual users (e-cigarettes and cigarettes) are using e-cigarettes every day, and half are using at least two cartridges/disposables per day.
Very few non-smokers or long-term ex-smokers are using e-cigarettes.
Report STS140122 (Electronic cigarettes in England – latest trends) draws the following conclusions:

The increase in e-cigarette use prevalence may have stalled;
There is no evidence that e-cigarettes are undermining motivation to quit or reduction in smoking prevalence; and
Use of e-cigarettes by never smokers or long-term ex-smokers is extremely rare.
The rest of the story
Based on these most recent data from the UK, it appears that there just is not evidence to support the wild contentions that anti-smoking groups, advocates, and health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and WHO are disseminating to the public. Contrary to what Stan Glantz [Professor, Department of Medicine, and Director, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, US] is telling the press, there simply is no evidence that the use of e-cigarettes is undermining smoking cessation or impeding the decline in smoking prevalence. Nor is there evidence that e-cigarettes are causing non-smokers or ex-smokers to return to cigarette smoking. Moreover, there is no evidence that dual use is decreasing the motivation of smokers to quit or precluding these smokers from reaping any health benefits.

In contrast, however, to the lack of evidence that e-cigarettes are having any negative public health effects, there is strong evidence to suggest that these products are having a substantial positive public health impact. In particular, there is evidence that not only do these products help many smokers quit smoking, but more generally, they increase population interest in smoking cessation, enhance levels of motivation to quit smoking, and lead to increased quit attempts among current smokers.

The only bad news coming out of the actual data is that the efforts of anti-smoking groups and advocates appear to be working: they are being successful in discouraging smokers from trying to quit smoking using e-cigarettes. Ironically, the results of public health efforts have been to impede smoking cessation, lower the overall motivation of smokers to quit, and decreasing the number of quit attempts among current smokers.

In other words, the anti-smoking movement is violating the first principle of public health practice by doing public health harm.

While it is difficult for me to have to criticize anti-smoking groups because these are groups with which I have had a career-long collegial relationship, it appears that these groups are substantially harming the health of the public by impeding smoking cessation. Sadly, this means that their efforts are going to result in a significant amount of unnecessary disease and death.

This is not the way public health is supposed to be. But this is what happens when an abstinence-only mentality takes over in any area of public health, whether it be nicotine addiction or heroin addiction.