Cigar Case Studies

[Geaux]

  Anybody happen to have any of these case studies anywhere? I can't find them on the interwebs.

 

Table 1. Relative Risk Estimates For All-Cause Mortality Among Men Who Smoke Cigars
Publication, Year	Relative Risk (95% Confidence Interval, CI)
Best, 1966	1.06 (0.92 – 1.22)
Kahn, 1966	1.10 (1.05 – 1.16)
Cole, 1974	1.15 (0.70 – 1.90)
Carstensen, 1987	1.39 (1.16 – 1.65)
Lange, 1992	1.60 (1.30 – 2.00)
Ben-Schlomo, 1994	0.48 (0.25 – 0.93)
Shanks, 1998	1.08 (1.05 – 1.12)

More concerning than cigar related illness is the technocracy we are dealing with... I remember easy access to these studies 5-10 years back, and now I'll be danged if they ain't scrubbed from the internet... You catch the occasional reference to one of the studies, but I want to read them for myself again. He who controls the search engines controls thought.... Scary really. 

 

If I remember right the Kahn study was the gold standard, and may still be... And the Ben-Schlomo study was a good one also.  But I'd settle for any of them at this point. Thanks.

[NSXCIGAR]

Ben-Schlomo may have been the gold standard at one time but it has been harshly criticized by both pro and anti-cigar groups. This meta-analysis is the new gold standard:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1617-5

[Bijan]

I like this monograph for its accessibility and its liberal use of common sense:

https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/m09_1.pdf

 

[Geaux]

Thanks NSX  & Bijan- But the meta-analysis is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I want to read the data - not extrapolated data and what it meant to somebody else... or more likely, what somebody else wants me to think. And yes - I know some of those studies were politically slanted. I am just looking for the source - not the interpretation.

 

Anybody have the actual studies?

[Shrimpchips]

Is this the Shanks (1998) chapter? 

https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/m9_4.pdf
 

Ben-Schlomo (1994):

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.84.8.1235

Third edit:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1617-5/tables/1

I think this table covers all your identified studies and more.  Usually a free link can be found through pubmed or google scholar.  The really old papers/studies you’re unlikely to find online, but might be possible with some extra google-fu and Institutional access to publishers/archives.

[PuroDan]

These case studies are like all others. So i laugh at "the gold standard". If the standard keeps changing how does it deserve the gold? One thing all these case studies have in common, they keep changing. For instance the DSM 's in psychology, the age of the earth, global warming having to change to "climate change" The list goes on and on. Its quite exhaustive. I smoke cigars because i enjoy them. We all take death for granted anyways. Enjoy this life, it may be the best one you will have. Smoke up Johnny

[Fosgate]

Much easier to find if you use a VPN like NordVPN, Brave for a browser and DuckDuckGo for a search engine. No tracking and no tailored filters. Just raw links for search topic to sort through. 

[PuroDan]

22 hours ago, Geaux said:

  Anybody happen to have any of these case studies anywhere? I can't find them on the interwebs.

 

Table 1. Relative Risk Estimates For All-Cause Mortality Among Men Who Smoke Cigars
Publication, Year	Relative Risk (95% Confidence Interval, CI)
Best, 1966	1.06 (0.92 – 1.22)
Kahn, 1966	1.10 (1.05 – 1.16)
Cole, 1974	1.15 (0.70 – 1.90)
Carstensen, 1987	1.39 (1.16 – 1.65)
Lange, 1992	1.60 (1.30 – 2.00)
Ben-Schlomo, 1994	0.48 (0.25 – 0.93)
Shanks, 1998	1.08 (1.05 – 1.12)

More concerning than cigar related illness is the technocracy we are dealing with... I remember easy access to these studies 5-10 years back, and now I'll be danged if they ain't scrubbed from the internet... You catch the occasional reference to one of the studies, but I want to read them for myself again. He who controls the search engines controls thought.... Scary really. 

 

If I remember right the Kahn study was the gold standard, and may still be... And the Ben-Schlomo study was a good one also.  But I'd settle for any of them at this point. Thanks.

I would say that a lot has to do with genetics

 

22 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Ben-Schlomo may have been the gold standard at one time but it has been harshly criticized by both pro and anti-cigar groups. This meta-analysis is the new gold standard:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1617-5

In five years there will be a new gold standard. And on and on and on it will go

[Bijan]

2 hours ago, Geaux said:

Thanks NSX  & Bijan- But the meta-analysis is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I want to read the data - not extrapolated data and what it meant to somebody else... or more likely, what somebody else wants me to think.

I'll try to find the originals for you.

But all these monographs and meta analyses etc all have the mortality data from all the studies in a table. It's mortality risk for each type of cancer or disease for 1-2 a day cigars, 3-4 and 5+ and also for cigarette smokers of various degrees. They all show single digit increase in all cause mortality for 1-2 cigars a day and double (or triple) digit increases in mortality for oral, oesophageal and laryngeal cancer for same (total mortality is only single digits because these cancers are so rare in non smokers to begin with). That is for those that don't inhale. For those that inhale or smoke 5+, lung cancer and heart disease come in and risks start to resemble cigarette smoking.

I mean that's the conclusion to be drawn from the data from the studies. If you doubt the methodology of the studies it would be worth it to read them I guess.

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, PuroDan said:

These case studies are like all others. So i laugh at "the gold standard". If the standard keeps changing how does it deserve the gold? One thing all these case studies have in common, they keep changing.

Well, I'm not sure what you're suggesting but the nature of science is that it is never settled and new data and new analysis on every subject from medicine to particle physics appears all the time. There is the best data or most comprehensively conducted research at any given time and that is typically referred to as the "gold standard" at that particular moment. Newton was the gold standard until Einstein came along. Just the nature of science.

1 hour ago, PuroDan said:

In five years there will be a new gold standard. And on and on and on it will go

Yes, that's how it works! 

I know you're kind of taking a doesn't matter approach, but if the data showed that cigars caused cancer at exactly the same rate as cigarettes (assuming "regular smoking") I can tell you I would personally cut back. I always had a pretty good idea (because I have two eyes and a brain) that there was virtually no way cigars could possibly be anywhere near as cancerous as cigarettes, and sure enough the best data supports that.

[PuroDan]

10 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Well, I'm not sure what you're suggesting but the nature of science is that it is never settled and new data and new analysis on every subject from medicine to particle physics appears all the time. There is the best data or most comprehensively conducted research at any given time and that is typically referred to as the "gold standard" at that particular moment. Newton was the gold standard until Einstein came along. Just the nature of science.

Yes, that's how it works! 

I know you're kind of taking a doesn't matter approach, but if the data showed that cigars caused cancer at exactly the same rate as cigarettes (assuming "regular smoking") I can tell you I would personally cut back. I always had a pretty good idea (because I have two eyes and a brain) that there was virtually no way cigars could possibly be anywhere near as cancerous as cigarettes, and sure enough the best data supports that.

Yeah i get ya NSXCIGAR and appreciate the feedback.  When i think of the case studies my first thought is variables. . For instance. Did every person tested eat the same food during the study,  breath the same quality air, have the same stress levels, have a healthy heart and lungs to start? Does cancer run in the family, were the cigars treated with pesticides? Did they all smoke the same cigars? Did they all hold the smoke in their mouth for the same amount of time? Did they retrohale? Do any combinations stated above cause cancer that we know of?  I could go on for days. You see what i mean on the variables? This is why i dont pay much attention to them. Now, obviously if you breath in smoke with chemicals (like cigarettes) its not good, especially if it is excessive. You have to breath to live. But i would say that if you breath in smoke from organic tobacco with no chemicals (from science, created in a lab) you would be much better off. Just common sense.

[Shrimpchips]

2 hours ago, PuroDan said:

These case studies are like all others. So i laugh at "the gold standard". If the standard keeps changing how does it deserve the gold? One thing all these case studies have in common, they keep changing. For instance the DSM 's in psychology, the age of the earth, global warming having to change to "climate change" The list goes on and on. Its quite exhaustive. I smoke cigars because i enjoy them. We all take death for granted anyways. Enjoy this life, it may be the best one you will have. Smoke up Johnny

They still run the 100m dash every 4 years, and the times keep getting faster and faster as athletes push the bounds of what we thought is humanly possible.  Research is the same. Every few years, something comes along that makes us re-evaluate things.    
 

Ultimately, it’s up to you to decide how to live your life.  Personally, the incremental potential risks to health are worth the short term enjoyment.  Like @NSXCIGAR said, if research that was convincing to me came out said that a cigar or two a day was guaranteed to kill you, I’d probably reconsider.  But for now, I’ll keep enjoying habanos like all the fellow B/SOTLs here.  

[Bijan]

27 minutes ago, PuroDan said:

Yeah i get ya NSXCIGAR and appreciate the feedback.  When i think of the case studies my first thought is variables. . For instance. Did every person tested eat the same food during the study,  breath the same quality air, have the same stress levels, have a healthy heart and lungs to start? Does cancer run in the family, were the cigars treated with pesticides? Did they all smoke the same cigars? Did they all hold the smoke in their mouth for the same amount of time? Did they retrohale? Do any combinations stated above cause cancer that we know of?  I could go on for days. You see what i mean on the variables? This is why i dont pay much attention to them. Now, obviously if you breath in smoke with chemicals (like cigarettes) its not good, especially if it is excessive. You have to breath to live. But i would say that if you breath in smoke from organic tobacco with no chemicals (from science, created in a lab) you would be much better off. Just common sense.

Well that's the beauty of statistics it averages out if there are no other factors (when there are other factors is when it gets complicated, that's often the case when comparing statistics from different countries, these studies I believe looked at similar people from the same country).

These studies look at a large group of people, some of which smoke cigars, some of which smoke cigarettes. Then they look at how many of each group die of what kinds of cancer, and they compare that to what they expect for non-smokers. All those factors you list only come into play if smokers in general eat worse (or better) food, or breathe worse (or better) air than non-smokers, otherwise it averages out over the large number of people considered.

[PuroDan]

23 minutes ago, Shrimpchips said:

They still run the 100m dash every 4 years, and the times keep getting faster and faster as athletes push the bounds of what we thought is humanly possible.  Research is the same. Every few years, something comes along that makes us re-evaluate things.    
 

Ultimately, it’s up to you to decide how to live your life.  Personally, the incremental potential risks to health are worth the short term enjoyment.  Like @NSXCIGAR said, if research that was convincing to me came out said that a cigar or two a day was guaranteed to kill you, I’d probably reconsider.  But for now, I’ll keep enjoying habanos like all the fellow B/SOTLs here.  

I totally agree

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, PuroDan said:

For instance. Did every person tested eat the same food during the study,  breath the same quality air, have the same stress levels, have a healthy heart and lungs to start? Does cancer run in the family, were the cigars treated with pesticides? Did they all smoke the same cigars? Did they all hold the smoke in their mouth for the same amount of time? Did they retrohale?

You're not wrong about any of this. The best studies do as much as they can to eliminate as many variables or reduce as much "noise" as possible. There's always a margin for error which is why the best studies involve large samples over many years and preferably decades.

Of course, the same thing can be said about studies showing cigarettes cause lung cancer. Sure, some people in the study who smoked and got cancer could have been regularly huffing diesel fuel for fun and some people in the control group who never smoked and lived healthy could develop lung cancer. That's why lots of data involving lots of people in different areas over decades is essential.

[Cigar Surgeon]

I have these bookmarked.

• https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2672576
• https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1617-5
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25033140
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28972007

[BrightonCorgi]

19 hours ago, Fosgate said:

Much easier to find if you use a VPN like NordVPN, Brave for a browser and DuckDuckGo for a search engine. No tracking and no tailored filters. Just raw links for search topic to sort through. 

How would a VPN effect search results (assuming using Brave and DuckDuckGo)?

[NSXCIGAR]

8 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

How would a VPN effect search results (assuming using Brave and DuckDuckGo)?

Because big tech can now run algorithms simulating our brains and know what we're going to try and search for, and can now censor on an individual basis.

[BrightonCorgi]

7 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Because big tech can now run algorithms simulating our brains and know what we're going to try and search for, and can now censor on an individual basis.

What does that have to do with being on a VPN or not?

[Bijan]

3 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

What does that have to do with being on a VPN or not?

I guess the idea is that your original IP address might be tracked as a form of gross tracking or used to figure out your location.

[Fosgate]

5 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

What does that have to do with being on a VPN or not?

VPN is another layer of security that ensures nobody tracks you. Including browsers and search engines. Tracking you is free data you willfully provide for free for someone to sell your infomation about you to other entities. https://www.vpn.com/faq/should-i-get-a-vpn/

Good watch is the social dilema when they discuss how many contact points about every person on the planet that a company can sell about you to another company. Info like that is the new digital gold rush. 

[BrightonCorgi]

1 hour ago, Fosgate said:

VPN is another layer of security that ensures nobody tracks you. Including browsers and search engines. Tracking you is free data you willfully provide for free for someone to sell your infomation about you to other entities. https://www.vpn.com/faq/should-i-get-a-vpn/

Good watch is the social dilema when they discuss how many contact points about every person on the planet that a company can sell about you to another company. Info like that is the new digital gold rush. 

VPN prevents geo-location tracking, but doesn't prevent cookies or potentially unwanted applications from executing.  There is a lot of useful information, easily gathered on the end point beyond location.  Using something other than Google for DNS is another good tip to limit tracking beyond what is mentioned. 

The most easily effective method is to run internet activity on a non-persistent VM with all methods previously recommended.  Every day or every login is a new machine.

[NSXCIGAR]

8 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

What does that have to do with being on a VPN or not?

Because your IP reveals your identity...

you know that was a joke right?