Today I called 1-866-658-8367 and complained about cigarette smoking and the RJReynolds company. Becky the CSR said she could not speak with me as I was not a smoker. hmmmmmmmmmm there is an article below that I would think gives me the right to be talked to. My parents both smoked when I was growing up and my 2nd husband was a smoker. Read about second hand smoke and female fertility below.

My father died of lung cancer and now, my son smokes as he was brainwashed by his father's family that smoking was cool. I HAVE A RIGHT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, eh? If you have a hankering to call the number, please do and do a better job than I did, k? It's time we stand up for people that can't seem to stand up for themselves and I damn well believe this is a good place to start.

On the package of my son's Pall Mall package there is a $1.00 off coupon for Camel SNUS. (Pleaure packed in a pouch cleaner, neater, drama free. Warning: This product can cause gum disease and tooth loss.)

Republicans make secret deals with tobacco
EXCERPT:
Nicole Maschke makes a good point. Although the tobacco companies gave far more money to the Democratic for many years, and although Al Gore and many Democratic got rich on tobacco money, times have changed. People vote with their feet and their pocketbook.

Arthritis drug database nsaids
EXCERPT:
Arthritis is an inflammation of the joints. Doctors combat inflammation in several ways, most commonly with the use of non-steroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) or steroids such as prednisone.

For extreme flare-ups your doctor may give you a shot of prednisone directly into your joint, but this has many side effects.

Non-steroidal anti inflammatory agents also have many side effects, particularly gastrointestinal ones but they are easier to take and are generally well tolerated as long as the patient takes them with food.

What is a Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug (NSAID) ?

As their name implies, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (or NSAIDs, as they are commonly called) are medicines that block or inhibit the body's inflammation process without the use of cortisone or other steroid drugs. The most commonly used NSAID's are aspirin, ibuprofen and naproxen.

Rheumatoid arthritis and smoking
EXCERPT:
There is a Connection between Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and Smoking – what are the Reasons?

Smoking might be a trigger for rheumatoid arthritis.
That smoking is unhealthy really isn’t a secret any more. However, it may be less well known that smoking is especially damaging to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or people with a genetic predisposition towards this autoimmune disease.

Until a few years ago, a coherent explanation of how smoking triggers the break in immunotolerance and why tobacco smoke promotes the onset of autoimmune disease was still missing. A group of Swedish researchers has found one of the missing links in the pathogenic chain between tobacco smoke and rheumatoid arthritis (Makrygiannakis et al., 2008). The scientists from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm showed that cigarette smoke is directly involved in the development of rheumatoid arthritis.

Rheumatoid arthritis and tobacco
EXCERPT:
In this issue of the Annals, Freemer et al report an association between smoking and dsDNA autoantibody production in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).1 The authors note that exposure to tobacco smoke has previously been associated with several autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and SLE. In RA, cigarette smoking has been associated with rheumatoid factor (RF) positive but not RF negative disease when these two groups of subjects were evaluated separately.2,3,4 Likewise, smoking has been associated with anti‐cyclic citrullinated antibody (anti‐CCP) positive but not anti‐CCP negative RA.5 In affected subjects, exposure to tobacco has also been associated with several measures of disease severity such as the presence of radiographic erosions, nodules, pulmonary disease, RF, and anti‐CCP antibodies.5,6,7,8

Tobacco and vascular disease
EXCERPT:
From Apply Now, Former Health Topics A-Z Guide
Tobacco and vascular disease
Tobacco use and exposure may cause an acceleration of coronary artery disease and peptic ulcer disease. It is also linked to reproductive disturbances, esophageal reflux, hypertension, fetal illness and death, and delayed wound healing.

Secondhand smoke affects fertility
Secondhand Smoke Affects Fertility
Living With a Smoker as Damaging to IVF Success as Being a Smoker

WebMD Health NewsMay 25, 2005 -- It's known that smoking can affect a women's fertility, but now a study shows living with a smoker is as damaging as being a smoker.

"Our data demonstrate that the effects of [secondhand smoke] are equally as damaging as [firsthand] smoke on fertility," Michael Neal, PhD, and colleagues write.

Researchers say the effect is so clear they are already warning their patients to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke.

The study appears in the May issue of the journal Human Reproduction.

Smoke Affects Fertility
In the study, 225 women undergoing infertility treatments were asked whether they were nonsmokers, smokers, or living with a partner who smoked regularly. The researchers then compared success rates of the fertility treatments for the three groups.

The women had undergone either in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), an enhanced form of IVF in which a single sperm is injected into the egg.

"Despite similar embryo quality there was a striking difference in implantation and pregnancy rates," they write.

Per embryo transferred:

48% of nonsmokers became pregnant
19% of smokers became pregnant
20% of women living with a smoker became pregnant

The authors note that the study was limited by its reliance on self-reported exposure to secondhand smoke. Although the findings are important, these results will need to be confirmed in another study with more objective measures of cigarette smoke exposure, such as looking at a dose-related effect on fertility, they write.

Despite the need for further study, the researchers say they are already advising patients about the impact of secondhand smoke on fertility. According to researcher Warren Foster, "the findings from our study already warrant a warning to women to reduce or, if possible, prevent exposure to cigarette smoking, especially if they are trying to conceive."

Smokers
Description
An in-depth report on the causes, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of stomach and GI ulcers.
Alternative Names
Duodenal Ulcers; Gastric Ulcers; H. Pylori; Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs, or NSAIDs
Risk Factors
About 25 million American are expected to have peptic ulcers at some point in their lives. Peptic ulcer disease affects all age groups but is rare in children. Men have twice the risk for ulcers as women. The risk for duodenal ulcers tends to rise at around age 25 and continues until age 75; gastric ulcers peak in people between the ages of 55 and 65.

Risk Factors for H. pylori
H. pylori grows and colonizes only in the intestinal tracts of primates and in no other animals. The bacteria is most likely transmitted directly from person to person. Still, little is yet known about its transmission.

Who Harbors H. Pylori? About half of the world's adults are infected with H. pylori. The bacteria, however, are nearly always acquired during childhood and persist throughout life if not treated. The prevalence in children ranges from under 10% to over 80%, depending on where they live. The highest infection rates (3% to 10%) are in developing countries and the lowest (0.5%) are in industrialized nations, where the rates continue to decline. Even within industrialized countries, however, the infection rates in regions that have crowded unsanitary conditions are equal to those in developing countries.

How Does the Bacteria Pass from Person to Person? It is not entirely clear how the bacteria is transmitted. A 2001 Swedish study, for example, did not find that infected students posed any risk for their classmates. Transmission within families may be the most important route for H. pylori. A 2002 study reported that spouses of people with peptic ulcers are at significantly higher risk for ulcers, suggesting that the bacteria may be transmitted from intimate contact. Some evidence suggests that it is transmissible during gastrointestinal tract illness, particularly when vomiting occurs. The bacteria also may be passed in stools. Since H. pylori can live in water, but not apparently in food, then the bacteria may also be spread by sewage-contaminated water.

Who is at Risk for Ulcers from H. Pylori? Although H. pylori infection is very common, ulcers are very rare in children and only a minority of infected adults develops ulcers. Some known risk factors include smoking, being male, and the presence of the cytotoxin-associated gene A (CagA). Experts are unable to determine, however, any single factor or group of factors that could determine which infected patients are most likely to develop ulcers.

Risk Factors for NSAID-Induced Ulcers
Between 15% and 25% of patients who have taken NSAIDs regularly will have evidence of one or more ulcers, but in most cases they are very small. According to a 2000 study, 3. 8% of regular NSAID users develop serious gastrointestinal conditions. Given the widespread use of these drugs, however, the total number of people with serious problems may be considerable. One medical center reported that between 50% and 80% of people who were hospitalized for gastrointestinal problems were taking NSAIDs.

High-Users of NSAIDs. Anyone who uses NSAIDs regularly is at risk for gastrointestinal problems. Even low-dose aspirin (81 mg) used to protect the heart may pose some risk (although lower than standard doses). In one study, over a four-year period, 4.5% of regular uses were hospitalized for GI bleeding. The highest risks, however, are in people who require long-term use of very high doses, notably people who suffer from arthritis, particularly rheumatoid arthritis. Others that have a high intake of NSAIDs, include, but are not limited to, people with chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia, and repetitive stress injuries (such as carpal tunnel syndrome).

Contributing Factors. Certain factors add to the risk for ulcers in NSAID-users. They include the following:

Cancer Network
EXCERPT:
A 48% reduction in oral cancer risk was seen in those using NSAIDs daily for at least 5 years, and a 70% reduction in those using NSAIDs for 15 years or more. "Long-term oral NSAID use reduced risk of oral cancer by about 50%, as did smoking cessation," Dr. Sudbø told ONI, noting that 216 persons quit smoking before oral cancer development or last follow-up, and moderate (and not significant) additional effects were seen when smoking cessation and NSAID use were combined in a multivariate analysis.

"The problem was, the 50% reduction in oral cancer incidence did not translate into increased overall survival," he said. "We started mining the database and, to our surprise, found that long-term use—daily for at least 6 months but in this cohort for several years or more—was associated with double the risk of cardiovascular death" (hazard ratio = 2.06).

Among the 263 users of NSAIDs, 42 died of cardiovascular death (about 16%). Among 562 never-users of NSAIDs, 41 died of CV death (about 7%). Yet all were also at risk for CV disease, because they were heavy smokers, Dr. Sudbø said. For example, even in the cohort of 263 NSAID users, "about 20 [8%] would have died of cardiovascular disease regardless of whether they used NSAIDs."

Jon Sudbo wikipedia
EXCERPT:
Jon Sudbø (born May 3, 1961) is a dentist and formerly a consultant oncologist and medical researcher at The Radium Hospital in Oslo, Norway. Having earlier been licensed as a dentist and a physician, he earned a doctorate (dr. med) in 2001. Until February 2006 he was an associate Professor at the University of Oslo. A research fabrication scandal surfaced in 2006; as a result of this his license to practice medicine and dentistry were revoked and the faculty board at the faculty of medicine at the University of Oslo decided to revoke his doctorate. [1][2] Recently he gained a limited authorization to work as a dentist, and is currently working in Seljord, Telemark.

Scientific misconduct—is there a need for policing the profession

by Vainio H

At the beginning of January this year, Dr Jon Sudbo, a cancer researcher and chief medical officer at The Norwegian Radium Hospital, was found to have published an article in The Lancet in October 2005 describing work that had not been done (1, 2). The paper claims to be the report of an analysis of several Norwegian health surveys and registries showing that the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs can reduce the incidence of oral cancer. The material was fabricated. The article was accepted for publication in The Lancet through a fast-track editorial process because the results were particularly striking.

It was not until the end of the year, when the Director of the Division of Epidemiology at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Camilla Stoltenberg, questioned the stated use of data from CONOR, a Norwegian cohort managed by her institute. This query initiated an investigation, as a result of which Jon Sudbo has now admitted that he fabricated the data in the paper. A special committee is investigating whether other articles by Jon Sudbo, including a paper in The New England Journal of Medicine, were also based on fraudulent or fabricated data. One feature that should have alerted at least those involved in the analysis of the data is the fact that 250 of the sample of 908 people in the study were reported to have the same birthday!

Earlier last year, Dr Eric T Poelhman, in the state of Vermont in the United States (US), admitted to scientific misconduct in falsifying and fabricating research data published in numerous articles between 1992 and 2002 in the international scientific literature (3). During this period, Dr Poelhman had also submitted 17 research grant applications to federal agencies in the United States—for millions of dollars—again based on false and fabricated research data. The published results included those of a study showing beneficial effects of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on various health parameters of postmenopausal women. How many physicians around the globe prescribed HRT to women on the basis of these fabricated results, not to mention the financial burden on the many women who used these drugs for up to decades in the belief that they were beneficial? Given what we know today about the association between the use of HRT and cardiovascular disease and cancer (4–6), publication of this fraudulent study is particularly disturbing.

The researcher Hwang Woo-suk of the Republic of Korea resigned from his university in December 2005 after it was found that he had fabricated the results from stem-cell research, which had raised hopes of new cures for hard-to-treat diseases. According to a panel of researchers at the Seoul National University, Hwang published faked results for at least 11 stem-cell lines that he claimed to have created in a paper published in Science (7).

In many societies, people have grown accustomed to believing that science is to be trusted, that, if something is published in a prestigious high-impact scientific journal like Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, or The Lancet, then it must be true, especially if the list of authors includes leading scientists in the field. The paper by Jon Sudbo et al was signed by 13 co-authors, some from stellar research institutions such as the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, the Cornell University in New York, and Biomedicum Helsinki at the University of Helsinki. In the article in The Lancet, which requires that the contribution of each author be stated, four of the authors (including Jon Sudbo) were listed as having contributed equally to the paper. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of which The Lancet is a member, has published the following criteria for authorship: “Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for the important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.” Thus each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content.

With its 13 competent knowledgeable co-authors submitting a paper to a high-impact journal and its able editors, one might wonder how the fabricated study got through the peer review process, which is supposed to prevent the publication of bad science.

The articles by Jon Sudbo, Eric T Poehlman, and Hwang Woo-suk are not the first fraudulent papers to be published, and probably not the last. It is unrealistic to expect a journal to be able to detect fraud consistently, but at least in this case, The Lancet does not appear to have put up as many barriers as they might have. One epidemiologist, Dr Michael Thun at the American Cancer Society, did raise a warning sign. He was asked to write an editorial on the Sudbo study for The Lancet but withdrew it when he was not given time to resolve questions over whether the analysis was correct and properly presented. Finally, however, the Editor in Chief decided that the paper, which appeared to have exceptional findings, should be published rapidly for quick publicity. Did the increasing competition among journals and a desire to raise the impact factor of the journal play a role in this decision?

Any journal can be the victim of fraud. In a bid to reduce the probability of such events, Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor of JAMA, proposed several years ago that 1 in every 1000 papers submitted undergo a simple editorial audit in which checks would be made on whether the records exist, whether the laboratory tests were done, and what the role of each author was? This sounds like a good idea and could be a step forward. The objection that additional monitoring will discourage scientists from starting research is clearly overridden by the increasing need for policing the profession.

The other aspect that the Sudbo affair brings to light is gift authorship—the practice of conferring authorship as a reward or as a spurious stamp of credibility, rather than as a certificate of responsibility. Many people accept or confer gift authorship, detection is unlikely, and the rewards are obvious: tenure, promotion, research grants, and fame. In the Sudbo case, the contribution of each author was described in the paper, but how was co-authorship attributed if the work was never done? How many of the authors fulfilled the three criteria outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors? How many fulfilled only the last: approval of the final version for publication? Nevertheless, there were explanations in The Lancet paper as to why their names were included. Of all the abuses of scientific research, gift authorship is the most common and the most lightly regarded.

The Sudbo affair raises questions concerning research management. Finally, as also stated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, “it is not ordinarily the task of editors to conduct a full investigation or to make a determination; that the responsibility lies with the institution where the work was done or with the funding agency”. We must first accept that fraud exists, even in Nordic countries, although its prevalence is unknown. The universal lesson is that institutions are not good at policing themselves, and several countries have set up bodies specifically for this purpose, such as the Office of Research Integrity within the US Department of Health and Human Services. The recent case of scientific misconduct from Norway should be taken seriously by research organizations and institutions, which should implement the necessary precautions. The time has come also for the Nordic countries to abandon the lax approach to scientific fraud.

Key terms letter to the editor; scientific misconduct

Swedish Match SNUS rocked by another scandal
Swedish Match Snus Rocked by ANOTHER Scandal!

Written by Larry Waters
Tuesday, 17 November 2009 00:00

0diggs
digg



vote
nowBuzz up!

Share
Swedish Match AB, the largest snus manufacturer in Sweden, is about to get hit with its second scandal in less than 30 days. Most communications from Stockholm have been cut off. SnusCIA Agents in Stockholm and Gothenburg report panic among SMAB executives who are drinking fine alcoholic beverages and passing around a couple boxes of Kardus. Our agents discount their laughing and good spirits to nervous breakdowns. This behavior is quite understandable considering the pounding Swedish Match has taken over the last month.

The First Scandal was revealed on October 25, 2009. The Swedish hard-hitting news show Kalla Fakta on TV4 released an explosive broadcast which proved that Swedish Match snus has nicotine in it!!! Aside from reading the label, Kalla Fakta raided Swedish Match with investigative journalists.....who were given total access, all information requested, an an inordinate amount of Swedish Match's Executives time without even asking for it.

Kalla Fakta's blockbuster conclusion: Swedish Match used a 'secret ingredient', E500, to boost the bio-availability of the nicotine in all Swedish Match snus! Somehow, the fact-checkers at Kalla Fakta missed the fact that E500 (sodium carbonate) is used as acidity regulator in not only Swedish Match snus, but virtually all Swedish Snuses. More shocking was Kalla Fakta missing the fact that E500 has been used by Swedish Snus makers for years and is an approved food additive by the Swedish Government's equivalent of America's FDA.

Harvard researcher, Greg Connolly (an anti-all-tobacco zealot) even lamented in the few portions of the broadcast in English that "this will make it harder/impossible for people to quit using snus!" Wow! I guess my question is "so what"? Swedish snus is at least 98% less harmful to smokers than cigarettes are. Snus, tobacco and nicotine are all legal substances, much safer for smokers than cigarettes, and are completely discreet when used. So Dr. Connolly would rather millions more will die needlessly of smoking related illnesses than use Swedish Snus? I fail to follow the logic, but since he is at Harvard, it must be valid, right?

THE SATANIC BLOODLINES
Introduction

1.1. The Astor Bloodline
2.2. The Bundy Bloodline
3.3. The Collins Bloodline
4.4. The DuPont Bloodline
5.5. The Freeman Bloodline
6.6. The Kennedy Bloodline
7.7. The Li Bloodline
8.8. The Onassis Bloodline
9.9. The Reynolds bloodline
110. The Rockefeller Bloodline
11. The Rothschild Bloodline
12. The Russell Bloodline
13. The Van Duyn Bloodline