FDA Study: Cancer Risks Nearly Nil for 1-2 Cigars Per Day

[Professor Twain]

I've been following the blog of this physician/tobacco researcher, Brad Rodu, for some time. Most of his posts are about the exaggeration of the risks of smokeless tobacco. He posted this very nice brief summary of a recent scientific publication on his site. The scientific article is not presenting new information, it is a review of previous studies on the health effects of cigar smoking. His blog post is a very good summary of the research showing that there are little or no negative health effects of moderate levels of cigar smoking.

Here is the link to his blog post. http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2016/08/fda-study-cancer-risks-nearly-nil-for-1.html

For those of you interested in digging a bit deeper, the research article was published in an open access journal and is available at this link: http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1617-5

While the authors are employed at the FDA, they note that their paper is not official FDA policy. Also noteworthy is that although their results clearly show that there is nearly zero risk associated with smoking 1-2 cigars per day, they avoid saying this in their article. They do this by emphasizing the overall effects (cigar smokers as a group, when lumped together as a group, have higher health risk) and that risks are dose dependent (those who smoke more have higher risk). In my view this is scientific cowardice, an unwillingness to take on the tobacco control establishment.

Dr. Rodu has no such hesitation and promises a follow up blog post.

[Smoking Ninja]

Now I just need to make my wife read those articles...  I wonder if this will change her perspective... probably NOT.

[TheMonk]

I saw the same article, it somewhat make sense to me, I guess in the same way that moderate levels of alcohol consumption are also regarded as having minor negative effects on your health.

[PigFish]

Thanks for sharing.

One should understand that the growing of government and the administrative state is a business. It is not without motivation for money and power like any other business. The key difference is in the production of a product verses the reduction of freedom and the redistribution of wealth. These are inherently corrupt entities regardless of the stated goals and objectives.

I do believe that there is little difference, from a monetary perspective, from the tobacco giant hell bent on defending their income to the administrative giant, hell bent exactly the same thing!!!

My 2 cents! -the Pig

[JohnS]

I agree with Ray (Pigfish). In Australia, we get bombarded with constant alcohol and gambling advertising, especially during sports broadcasts...so many I just get flabbergasted when anti-smoking ads pop up during these broadcasts. Due to the excessive taxes in our country, cigar consumption for most Aussies would be closer to 1 or 2 a week so I'm heartened when I read articles like this.

[ErikB]

So I'm alright then


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

[yhomas]

The studies need to count cigars per week rather than cigars per day as (per recent threads), a large fraction (if not a majority) of cigar smokers consume less than one cigar per day.

[Zigatoh]

The real enemy is statistics... 

We all have a pretty good idea what's 'good' and what's 'bad' for us these days. But even that's all just about playing the odds, exercise + go vegan + eat whole foods in variety and you might move your odds one way, smoke + drink + couch potato and you might move it the other. It's your choice.

Either way, statistically speaking, I think the odds in the UK have swung over 50%, so likelihood is you will get cancer,  just hope it's one of the 'good' ones!

Here's hoping for a cure.

[lafabrica]

 

did i miss the olfactory data or is this area not researched?
i wonder if the test subjects retrohale when smoking and were included in the data.

[gweilgi]

There's lies, there's damned lies, and there's statistics...

 

Over all, this does make sense to me (although I may be biased, being a cigar aficionado  ).  One thing that I did take on board when I looked into the health risks myself is the issue of catalysts, risk factors that compound the original risk.  Thus, I do try to avoid mixing alcohol with my cigars.  In my entirely unscientific opinion, the combination of booze and tobacco greatly magnifies any risk we might have.  

Plus, SWMBO keeps telling me the perhaps I could do with cutting back on my efforts to save small Australian winemakers and Scottish distillers from bankruptcy...

[Waah954]

Who funded his research?
Need that answered before i read his work.

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

[srbbones]

http://www.rstreet.org/op-ed/fda-study-cancer-risks-nearly-nil-for-1-2-cigars-per-day/

 

 

 

Important!   Science is more important than fear and propaganda!

[mi000ke]

I had the pleasure last year at  my local cigar bar of sitting next to Sanjiv Chopra (brother of Deepak) professor and former Dean at Harvard Medical School, a noted researcher on health issues,  and author of several books on health and nutrition. After a long and enlightening conversation about what things contribute most to good health and longevity, I asked him how someone as learned as he about the factors promoting healthy living could be sitting here smoking a cigar. He smiled and replied that right now his wife was out shopping and he was relaxing over a great cigar and conversation.  The final factor, he explained, was the lack of stress he was experiencing and how that may trump all the other factors.  I now use that as my excuse to keep smoking. Clearly it is contributing to my long term health and well -being.

[TBird55]

So 1 or 2 a day, how about the njght?

[Nino]

7 hours ago, mi000ke said:

After a long and enlightening conversation about what things contribute most to good health and longevity, I asked him how someone as learned as he about the factors promoting healthy living could be sitting here smoking a cigar. He smiled and replied that right now his wife was out shopping and he was relaxing over a great cigar and conversation.  The final factor, he explained, was the lack of stress he was experiencing and how that may trump all the other factors.

The above .... :-)

[polarbear]

On ‎1‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 3:54 PM, JohnS said:

I agree with Ray (Pigfish). In Australia, we get bombarded with constant alcohol and gambling advertising, especially during sports broadcasts...so many I just get flabbergasted when anti-smoking ads pop up during these broadcasts. Due to the excessive taxes in our country, cigar consumption for most Aussies would be closer to 1 or 2 a week so I'm heartened when I read articles like this.

Advertising in Australia:
"Drink heavy beers after a hard days work. Have a punt on the footy, you could get lucky. Eat sugar for breakfast, carbs for lunch and fat for dinner, but don't smoke. That's bad for your health"

[JohnS]

Just now, polarbear said:

Advertising in Australia:
"Drink heavy beers after a hard days work. Have a punt on the footy, you could get lucky. Eat sugar for breakfast, carbs for lunch and fat for dinner, but don't smoke. That's bad for your health"

Exactly...well said!

[spicycorona]

Seeing those tables full of numbers relating to risk, and any cancer risk evaluation for that matter, always just highlights to me that we don't know. I applaud the medical industry in their industrious efforts. But please, pump the brakes. Tongue in cheek of course but I do a lot of reading on healthy lifestyle and I am up to my ears in contradictory reporting. Again all signs point to *we don't know*.

I'm in the middle of a long term experiment using the scientific method on alcohol and tobacco use. I'll let you know my findings if possible.  

[spicycorona]

 

I have most recently been researching the ramifications of exposure to certain chemicals such as malathion, 2,4d, TCDD, PCBs, etc. We know they're bad for you in some way. But terms like, likely, may, possibly always come up with the big C word.

How about this one,

"TCDD may in some conditions potentiate the carcinogenic effects of other compounds."

You don't know. That's and F in grade school. Get back to me with an answer.

 

We're jumping to conclusions. And throw in the previously mentioned corrupt aspect of the tobacco situation and I'm, personally, checking out.