Another reason to quit smoking

Attention!
He serves as Co-Director of a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation National Program Office, Addressing Tobacco in Managed Care.
One guess who paid for this study!

History Buff wrote:

Attention!
He serves as Co-Director of a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation National Program Office, Addressing Tobacco in Managed Care.
One guess who paid for this study!

Buffy, you need to read more carefully. Michael Fiore was not involved in the study described.

The study was written by Stacey Kenfield, and published in the current issue of JAMA. You need to start paying attention to this stuff, or people may begin to think that you're just an angry old crank.

Here's a link to the abstract:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/29...

And here's a link to an article that describes the study in more detail:

http://www.curetoday.com/breaking_news/052008...

"Smoking-related deaths are substantially reduced within 5 years after smoking cessation, according to long-term prospective follow-up of the Nurses' Health Study cohort, reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association for May 7th.

"Because there is a rapid decline in risk for some diseases, it's never too late to quit smoking," Dr. Stacey A. Kenfield of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston told Reuters Health. "However, a former smoker's risk for other diseases does not decline to the level of nonsmokers for 20 or more years, so it is never too early to quit smoking, either."

Dr. Kenfield and her team analyzed outcomes for 104,519 women who were 34 to 59 years old in 1980. Subjects' information was updated every 2 years through 2004.

A total of 12,483 deaths occurred. Compared with never smokers, the risk of all-cause mortality was nearly 3-fold higher among current smokers, and the risk of mortality from smoking-related cancers was increased 7-fold."

History Buff wrote:

Attention!
He serves as Co-Director of a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation National Program Office, Addressing Tobacco in Managed Care.
One guess who paid for this study!

Isn't it funny how people like history buff never mentions how much big tobacco spends? It turns out the tobacco companies spend more than RWJ, Amarican Cancer society, and all the other health organizations COMBINED!
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116044...

Jeff Larson wrote:

It turns out the tobacco companies spend more than RWJ, Amarican Cancer society, and all the other health organizations COMBINED!
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116044...

Dunno, the article you posted doesn't necessarily bear that out. There are some big numbers by BT but what compared to what. Include Big Pharma too, who knows. Most of the dollar figures were talking about fighting tax's not bans. It that case it was $3mil in AZ...
We know apples/apples that pharma clearly outspent tobacco on campaign contributions in the year leading up to IL enacting our ban.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateG...
The pols down in Springfield that pushed for it were rewarded handsomely.....

Jeff Larson wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't it funny how people like history buff never mentions how much big tobacco spends?

BT doesn't spend NEARLY ENOUGH. BT needs to UP the anti, in order to up the rANTIS without a jar of Vaseline.

KHartman wrote:

The study was written by Stacey Kenfield, and published in the current issue of JAMA.

Hmmm something interesting in there tho...
"Approximately 64% of deaths among current smokers and 28% of deaths among former smokers were attributable to cigarette smoking."
A bit over half and less than a 3rd, the others died anyway........of something else.
Can't get to the whole study free, but it does reference a Richard Doll paper alot.

You know,
I'm loathe to pay for the whole study but i bet TWO beers it is also dose dependent. Cutting back will reap benefits too...

PicassoIII wrote:

You know,
I'm loathe to pay for the whole study but i bet TWO beers it is also dose dependent. Cutting back will reap benefits too...

Maybe you can find this one. In the world of the anti smoker there really isn't any thing new under the sun. They call it new because one more set of eyes have looked at it.

The study, an analysis of data from the Nurse's Health Study (NHS), found that women who smoked were at a higher risk for death overall, and that that risk increases with the number of cigarettes smoked per day and the earlier a woman started smoking.

The Nurses' Health Study began in 1976 when 121,700 US registered nurses aged 30 to 55 first filled out a questionnaire detailing their medical history and health-related behavior, and it has since been updated and expanded every 2 years. For this study, lead author Stacy A. Kenfield, Sc.D., of the Harvard School of Public Health, and colleagues looked specifically at the relationship between smoking and mortality among the majority of the never smokers, current smokers, and former smokers who took part in NHS.

PicassoIII wrote:

You know,
I'm loathe to pay for the whole study but i bet TWO beers it is also dose dependent. Cutting back will reap benefits too...

Doll's research would support that. The heaviest smokers were the first to suffer the health consequences, and the first to die (referring to mean GROUP differences --- the individual smoker's mileage may vary.)

So it's good to cut back, and better to stop.

Awareness is the key....Ignorance the Killer…

www.cancervids.com
www.cancervids.com