Smokers have lower risk of developing Parkinson's Disease

[jdizzle113]

Hi All,

I'm currently performing a year of medical research and thought some of you might be interested to hear one of my findings.

Smoking has been shown to be a negative risk factor for the development of Parkinson's Disease. That is, smokers have lower rates of Parkinson's Disease than non-smokers. Your first reaction may be that smokers die before they have the chance to develop Parkinson's Disease - but the numerous studies have taken this possibility into account during their statistical analysis and it is not the case.

The difference in risk is pretty substantial - a smoker has 60% less risk than the non-smoker of developing Parkinson's Disease.

These studies have been comparing cigarette smokers to non-smokers. But the physiological models are based upon the effect of nicotine on the body, so I don't see why this same effect would not also be true of cigar smokers.

Anyway, for those interested in further reading here some of the studies that support this finding:

Abbott RD, Ross GW, White LR, Sanderson WT, Burchfiel CM, Kashon M, Sharp DS, Masaki KH, Curb JD, Petrovitch H, Abbott RD, Ross GW, White LR, Sanderson WT, Burchfiel CM, Kashon M, Sharp DS, Masaki KH, Curb JD, Petrovitch H (2003) Environmental, life-style, and physical precursors of clinical Parkinson's disease: recent findings from the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. Journal of Neurology 250 Suppl 3:III30-39

de Lau LML, Breteler MMB (2006) Epidemiology of Parkinson's disease. The Lancet Neurology 5:525-535

Miguel A. Hernán BTFC-IJJG-O (2002) A meta-analysis of coffee drinking, cigarette smoking, and the risk of Parkinson's disease. In, pp 276-284

[anacostiakat]

Nicotine. The new wonder drug!!!

[thechenman]

Looks like maybe Jean Nicot de Villemain...was not totally off in thinking that tobacco served a medicinal purpose.

[bolivr]

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

It is heartening to see researchers not flinching from conclusions like this. Unfortunately our society gives too much attention to the anti-smoking morons who may seize on this as 'irresponsible' findings. I hope not.

All robust research should be welcomed but I fear that science is slowly self-censoring on tobacco. Witness the hero status of any researcher who discovers a new danger brought on by smoking however sloppy the science.

Now will we see the drug companies promoting nicotine patches to prevent PD? My cynicism knows no bounds

[Warren]

You ever tried clipping a cigar when the Parkinson's kicks in.

[jdizzle113]

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

It is heartening to see researchers not flinching from conclusions like this. Unfortunately our society gives too much attention to the anti-smoking morons who may seize on this as 'irresponsible' findings. I hope not.

All robust research should be welcomed but I fear that science is slowly self-censoring on tobacco. Witness the hero status of any researcher who discovers a new danger brought on by smoking however sloppy the science.

Now will we see the drug companies promoting nicotine patches to prevent PD? My cynicism knows no bounds

Funny you say that, because there are dozens of papers that have evidence to support the lower risk of PD in smokers - but few of the authors have the balls to make that leap to say that smoking reduces the risk of PD. The key difference between saying that "smokers have a lower risk" vs "smoking lowers your risk" is causation.

Many of the researchers out there try to come up with the most convoluted explanations as to why smokers have a lower risk. One such ridiculous explanation is that people who are born with a lower risk of PD will take up smoking because the neurotransmitter involved in PD: dopamine, is also part of the addictive behavior part of your brain - the reward pathway - so since PD involves a shortage of dopamine, people with more dopamine (who should intrinsically have a lower risk of PD) will take up behavior such as smoking.

How BS is that explanation! Scientists usually love Occam's razor - where the simplest explanation is the most likely. Yet in this case - because they don't like the result - rather than the simple explanation that smoking reduces the risk of PD - many scientists choose that hectic explanation that involves genetics, brain chemistry and psychology - and there is no evidence to support that theory. It's just massive hypocrisy that since they don't like the result, they start from the theory that "smoking is always bad" and try to make the results fit that theory. It's really bad science.

You might also be interested to know that smokers have a lower risk of ulcerative colitis - a type of inflammatory bowel disease.

[smk819]

I find that nicotine potentiates Gabapentin in relieving my neuropathic pain. Of course the enjoyment of the cigar just might take my mind off of pain. What the hell do I know?

[bolivr]

Funny you say that, because there are dozens of papers that have evidence to support the lower risk of PD in smokers - but few of the authors have the balls to make that leap to say that smoking reduces the risk of PD. The key difference between saying that "smokers have a lower risk" vs "smoking lowers your risk" is causation.

Many of the researchers out there try to come up with the most convoluted explanations as to why smokers have a lower risk. One such ridiculous explanation is that people who are born with a lower risk of PD will take up smoking because the neurotransmitter involved in PD: dopamine, is also part of the addictive behavior part of your brain - the reward pathway - so since PD involves a shortage of dopamine, people with more dopamine (who should intrinsically have a lower risk of PD) will take up behavior such as smoking.

How BS is that explanation! Scientists usually love Occam's razor - where the simplest explanation is the most likely. Yet in this case - because they don't like the result - rather than the simple explanation that smoking reduces the risk of PD - many scientists choose that hectic explanation that involves genetics, brain chemistry and psychology - and there is no evidence to support that theory. It's just massive hypocrisy that since they don't like the result, they start from the theory that "smoking is always bad" and try to make the results fit that theory. It's really bad science.

You might also be interested to know that smokers have a lower risk of ulcerative colitis - a type of inflammatory bowel disease.

Dang, JD, you just confirmed my greatest fear. Absolutely it is BS. They call themselves scientists, what an insult to the profession and an insult to the honest scientists who put the hard work into research and call it as they see it. These candy-assed fakes should be exposed for what they are.

But thanks for the info on ulcerative colitis. I will add it to the list I am making on the advantages of smoking fine cigars

Also, Stephen, I reckon you are on to something there. Surely there has to be more attention on how relaxing with a fine cigar can give us a great sense of well-being. It is real to me and I am convinced it is an important part of being a healthy human being, mind and body. I don't think its all due to nicotine but to the overall experience, the meditative quality of a good smoke that makes you rest easy for an hour or so. I am sorry to hear you have such bad pain but glad you notice an improvement with the smoke.

What's sad is that there would be a number of people scared off from smoking due to the constant warnings we are bombarded with; people who may actually benefit like in your case. Everything in moderation is sure, a cliche, but its never been truer especially with the things we enjoy.

Have a good weekend guys

[Professor Twain]

Interesting research. Scientists have not ignored these findings. In fact there are drug companies that have worked to develop nicotine oriented therapies for Parkinson's.There has also been interest in the role of nicotine therapies (no, not delivered via smoking) in Alzheimer's disease.

But I would not get too enthusiastic about the health benefits of smoking. There is no question that cigarette smoking is a deadly habit, raising rates of heart disease and lung cancer (as well as other major causes of death) substantially. While moderate levels of cigar smoking seems to pose few serious health risks, everything I have read says that cigar smokers take in far less nicotine than cigarette smokers, because of the inefficiency of having to absorb nicotine through the mouth (as opposed to the rapid increases in nicotine levels that come from inhaling and absorbing through the lungs).

I'm willing to live with the bit of risk that I get from enjoying cigars, but I don't believe it is going to have much health benefit besides promoting relaxation and an opportunity to spend time with good friends.