Illinois Smoking Ban

[Drolefille]

Smoking Doubles Alzheimer's Risk

SMOKERS ARE more than twice as likely to develop Alzheimer's disease as non-smokers, according to a new study.

The researchers, who report their findings in the Lancet medical journal, found that smokers who carry the Apoe 4 gene, which has been linked with Alzheimer's, were at no greater risk of developing the disease than non- smokers. However, those without the gene were at four times the risk. One explanation of why Apoe 4 might protect smokers is that smoking alters brain chemistry in a way that counters some of the effects of Alzheimer's disease. However, it is also possible that smokers with Apoe 4 die young, so do not live long enough to develop the disease, the researchers say.

So you know, it might lower your risk if you're genetically predisposed, but they don't know why and it might be because you're already dead.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...BrandChannel=0

"It is not our intent to promote smoking as a protective measure against Parkinson's disease," Evan L. Thacker from Harvard School of Public Health emphasized in comments to Reuters Health. "Obviously smoking has a multitude of negative consequences. Rather, we did this study to try to encourage other scientists...to consider the possibility that neuroprotective chemicals may be present in tobacco leaves."
Compared to people who had never smoked and were considered to have "normal" Parkinson's disease risk, former smokers had a 22-percent lower risk of Parkinson's disease and current smokers had a 73-percent lower risk.
Studies to determine if, in fact, there are neuroprotective compounds in tobacco are warranted, the researchers say. "The observation that smokeless tobacco users also have a lower risk of Parkinson's disease suggests that the most likely candidates are not compounds generated by combustion, but rather constituents of the tobacco leaves.

They believe it is something in the tobacco, not smoking itself that reduces your risk of Parkinson's and no one is recommending it to prevent the disease. Claiming that somehow this negates the known negative effects of smoking is silly. As is claiming that second-hand smoke does not negatively effect the passerby but somehow might positively do so.

People's minds aren't going to change on this because no matter if smoke is truly dangerous or not it is uncomfortable, smells bad, and ruins the taste of food. So you could tell me tomorrow that second hand smoke cures the common cold and I wouldn't sit next to a smoker in a restaurant or go to a smoke-filled bar, pub, or bowling alley.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

More information can be found at Science Daily.

Science Daily is NOT a true trade journal for biomedical and biotech sciences. It is interesting factoids relatively based in science. I typically have to read, Science, Nature and all the compendium journals, JAMA and NEJM; then cross reference them grants submitted to NIH to get full facts.

Now if the top US scientists at Harvard, Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, UMDNY, Cornell, NYU, MIT, Duke Southwestern, UCB, UCSF, UCLA, UW, UColorado, Northwestern, Chicago, and may others etc. are lying about their research, then all have completely had the wool pulled over our eyes.

I just go by what my physician friends in the ER have to see on a daily basis. And since the Baby Boomers are aging, they will be the ones that are coming in with these combined complications--diabetes + cancer, heart attack + cancer, stroke + cancer. That chit is not funny when you have it... Till you are walking through wards or deal with a loved one who suffering these problems or yourself hooked up to 0.5% Saline + morphine drip easing your pain 'cuz your case is terminal up in hospice, then do not come to us crying about this reality... Based on population alone, this healthcare fiasco is going to get worse...

Originally Posted by jmagnus

Monet,
I have to admit that your science talk confuses the hell out of me. You are uber-smart...I get it. If you wouldn't mind though, I would appreciate it if you could "dumb it down" a little. I'm sure you make good points but if I have to google every 3rd word...It's just not worth it. Also, we all know smoking isn't good for you. Thats not the argument...at least for me. I just think it's not as bad as everyone wants us to think. In fact, smoking is related to lowered risks of alzheimers and parkensens. Don't quote me on that but the info is out there if you want to look it up yourself.

There are several other GC'ers much more smarter than me. Shinerbock, macallan, Drolefille, 33girl, valkyrie, Professor, AKA2D'91, DSTChaos, Jubilance.

OtterOX and Epchick are in medical school right now. As well as quite a few others. Apparently AlphaFrog is a former EMT. So when we are telling you these things, these are not only our professional opinions, these are all our professional experiences--on rounds or runs to help folks out. Why would we lie?

Originally Posted by Drolefille

They believe it is something in the tobacco, not smoking itself that reduces your risk of Parkinson's and no one is recommending it to prevent the disease. Claiming that somehow this negates the known negative effects of smoking is silly. As is claiming that second-hand smoke does not negatively effect the passerby but somehow might positively do so.

To add:

What has been shown in animal models and pathologic autopsy reports in humans is that the additives combined with highly reactive nicotine--classified as a drug substances binds various receptors in the brain: nicotinoids, opiods, cannabinoids and NMDA receptors. Each of these receptors regulate neurotransmitter release and regulation, namely norepinephrine, dopamine and possibly seratonin. Depolarization and hyperpolarization down the axons are what is at stake here. In Parkinson's, there is a problem with neuronal health as well as other cells in the brain, I think stellates and astrals, but I could be wrong. Glial cells are always an issue, too.

Why nicotine has some protective effect has not been examined. Then again, why THC decreases pain also has not been examined. Moreover, a lot is not known about many drugs we take or abuse: Cocaine or aspirin, etc.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

There are several other GC'ers much more smarter than me. Shinerbock, macallan, Drolefille, 33girl, valkyrie, Professor, AKA2D'91, DSTChaos, Jubilance.

LOL. If you insist.

I agree with jmangus that some of your posts do confuse the helloutta me when you're in your "zone."

I guess the same can be said for some of my posts for certain topics. Not because any of us are "ohhhh soo smart" but because we are typing within our fields of specialty/expertise and sometimes forget that we're presenting the info to the public (I don't like to refer to that as "dumbing down," though ).

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Apparently AlphaFrog is a former EMT.

I think you're thinking of centaur/pfr/AlexMack.

I was never an EMT (I just played one on TV ).