WHO-onderzoek uit 1998 toonde al aan dat er geen verband bestaat tussen meeroken en schade aan de gezondheid bij niet-rokers.
Het WHO-onderzoek uit 1998 toonde ook aan dat er geen verband bestaat tussen meeroken en schade aan de gezondheid bij niet-rokers. Overigens werden de resultaten pas na lange aarzeling (meer dan een jaar), door de WHO naar buiten gebracht. Het is duidelijk dat de uitkomst niet in de lijn der verwachting lag, iets dat de WHO duidelijk niet zinde. Het WHO onderzoek laat zien, dat meeroken bij kinderen en partners van rokers een beschermende werking heeft (RR is kleiner dan 1,0). Meeroken op het werk laat een RR lager dan 2,0 zien. Niet relevant dus.
Andere onderzoeken die op dit gebied werden uitgevoerd lieten telkens een RR lager dan 2,0 zien. Dit betekent concreet dat meeroken onschadelijk is en dat rokers hun omgeving niet vergiftigen, in tegenstelling tot wat door diverse organisaties beweerd wordt. Zie hiervoor:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/who/index.htm (Forces International: Engelstalig)
http://www.forces-nl.org/analyses/who_rapport.htm (Forces Nederland)
Er kan dus met zekerheid gesteld worden dat de plannen ten aanzien van rookverboden op de werkplek en de horeca omwille van schadelijke effecten op de gezondheid van meerokers, niet op hun plaats zijn, een geldige wetenschappelijke onderbouwing ontbreekt.
Wat betreft de ‘schadelijkheid’ van roken, hierbij slechts twee van de vele onderzoeken die het tegendeel aantonen:
|
||||||||
|
Collections under which this article appears: |
(Circulation. 2001;104:773.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
Impact of Smoking on Clinical and Angiographic Restenosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Another Smoker’s Paradox?
David J. Cohen, MD, MSc; Michel Doucet, MD;; Donald E. Cutlip, MD; Kalon K.L. Ho, MD, MSc; Jeffrey J. Popma, MD; Richard E. Kuntz, MD, MSc
From the Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Harvard Medical School (D.J.C., M.D., D.E.C., K.K.L.H., R.E.K.); Cardiovascular Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (D.J.C., M.D., D.E.C., K.K.L.H.); and Divisions of Cardiology (J.J.P., R.E.K.) and Clinical Biometry (R.E.K.), Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass.
Correspondence to David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, Cardiovascular Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215. E-mail djc@hsph.harvard.edu
Background— Recent studies have suggested that smokers may require less frequent repeated revascularization after percutaneouscoronary intervention (PCI) compared with nonsmokers. However, the mechanism of this phenomenon is unknown.
Methods and Results— We examined the association between smoking and restenosis using pooled data from 8671 patientstreated with PCI in 9 multicenter clinical trials. Clinicalrestenosis was examined in the cohort of 5682 patients who were assigned to clinical follow-up only. Angiographic restenosis was evaluated in the subset of 2989 patients who were assigned to mandatory angiographic restudy. Among those patients assigned to clinical follow-up only, target lesion revascularization(TLR) occurred in 6.6% of smokers and 10.1% of nonsmokers (P<0.001).After adjustment for baseline clinical and angiographic differences,the rate of TLR remained significantly lower in smokers with an adjusted relative risk of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88). Among the angiographic cohort, there were no differences in the rates of angiographic restenosis or follow-up diameter stenosis in either univariate or multivariate analyses. This dissociation between clinical and angiographic restenosis was explained in part by reduced sensitivity to restenosis on the part of smokers and by the greater reluctance of smokers to seek medical attentiondespite recurrent angina.
Conclusions— In patients undergoing contemporary PCI,cigarette smoking is associated with a lower rate of subsequent TLR without affecting angiographic restenosis. These findings have important implications for the follow-up of smokers after PCI and suggest that cross-study comparisons of rates of clinicalrestenosis must account for the potential confounding effect of smoking.
Key Words: angioplasty • stents • smoking • restenosis
Nicotine Fights Tuberculosis | Saleh Naser
Article Published: 2001
Details:
Type: Experimental and Technical
Published By: Various media sources
When this news came about in 2001, both the medical class and the mass-media rushed to warn that “no one is suggesting that people with TB take up the potentially deadly habit of smoking.” Ideology (and pharmaceutical industry money) had to be protected by both parties. In the same articles it was said that nicotine is “poisonous” and “addictive.” Both pieces of information are false and distorted.
The definition of addiction is lose and contradictory, and it has been diluted so much to fit a variety of political agenda, that it has become meaningless.
The fact that nicotine is “poisonous” (“it is used as insecticide!”, scream the propaganda ideologues) distorts reality. Nicotine is not poisonous at all – not at the doses experienced even by heavy smokers. Again, it is useful to remember one of the fundamental principles of toxicology: “It’s the dose that makes the poison.” At excessive dosages even the most harmless substance becomes a “poison”; conversely, most medicines are made of potent poisons administered at low dosage. It follows that antitobacco propaganda that states that nicotine is a poison is to be ignored.
In fact, at the doses experienced by smokers, nicotine is not only harmless, but also beneficial. For those who rely on “authoritative” sources rather than on their own intelligence and common sense, here is one that confirms our statements. How about the Institute of Medicine of the United States, considered the highest medical authority in the world?
Nicotine is harmless, beneficial, and non-addictive. If it was harmful and addictive, in fact, would it be sold in drug stores to make you quit smoking? How can an addictive substance remove addiction? Yet, this glaring contradiction flies right over the heads of the smokers themselves as many of them, unfortunately, rush to drug stores to remove their “addiction” to nicotine with nicotine!
Be that as it may, this study – the last of a long series on this issue – demonstrates once again that nicotine has yet another extremely beneficial use: it fights tuberculosis. So, when it is all said and done, perhaps people with TB should take up smoking, because it is the only “deadly” habit in the world for which not even one disease or death (out of the millions claimed) can be scientifically demonstrated to be caused by smoking – yet another reality that flies right over the heads of people inundated by propaganda and false information.
(Bron: http://www.forces.org/Scientific_Portal/evidence_viewer/215-Nicotine+Fights+Tuberculosis.html)