Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Anti-oxidants, oxidative damage and tobacco



Hello and Happy New Year!

Here are a couple of studies that I stumbled across while surfing around on Google the other day, followed by an article about the EU Commission and its continued support of, well, keeping smoking as dangerous as possible:


Vitamin C prevents cigarette smoke-induced oxidative damage in vivo

Protein damage and lipid peroxidation are also observed in cigarette smoke-exposed pair-fed guinea pigs receiving 5 mg vitamin C/animal/day. However, complete protection against protein damage and lipid peroxidation occurs when the guinea pigs are fed 15 mg vitamin C/animal/day. Also, the cigarette smoke-induced oxidative damage of proteins and lipid is reversed after discontinuation of cigarette smoke exposure accompanied by ascorbate therapy. The results, if extrapolated to humans, indicate that comparatively large doses of vitamin C may protect the smokers from cigarette smoke-induced oxidative damage and associated degenerative diseases.

Good to know, though I won't thank the health establishment for willfully forking over this information. If you crave this type of information like I do, you are going to have to seek it out yourself. The beauty is that if you've got the imagination, chances are that the information is there.


Antioxidant vitamins and prevention of lung disease.

The oxidation of lung lipids can be prevented by both vitamins C and E. Vitamin C is more effective in preventing oxidation by NO2, and vitamin E is more effective against O3.
...isolated human cells are protected against oxidative damage from NO2 and O3 by both vitamins C and E.

I take this to mean that both vitamins C and E harbor great potential for smokers and thus, both should be utilized in the field of tobacco harm reduction asap.

I wonder how the FDA and the EU Commision would feel about vitamin additives to tobacco....?

Of course, I'm being sarcastic, for we all know that to propose such an idea would be blasphemous!


Commission sticks to ‘quit-or-die’ policy with TPD revision proposals

The European Commission seems once again to have come down in favour of a quit-or-die approach to tobacco consumption, rather than a harm reduction approach.

..No real surprise there.... There goeth my hopes of any vitamins in my cigarette.

 The Commission’s proposals would include a ban on cigarettes, roll-your-own and smokeless tobacco products with characterising flavors, including menthol, and a ban on products with additives that increase toxicity and ‘addictiveness’.

Translation: We will ban it if it tastes good, thereby taking away the incentive for smokers to switch to less risky products.

..the proposal would significantly limit consumer access to, and information about, products that have the very real potential to reduce the harm caused by conventional tobacco products. In doing this the Commission has chosen not only to stifle innovation but also to ignore the potential these products have to improve public health.

I am getting quite tired of bureaucrats deciding on what's best for us against our will, aren't you? We have the right to know what the varying risks are with regards to all tobacco products.

We smokers are individuals with varying needs and wants. The choice to smoke (or not to smoke) is a decision that is ours; thus, no political actor, lobbyist, or bureaucrat in this world has the right to deny us the information that is required for us to make the informed choices that will ultimately affect our lives and our health.

As individuals, we also reserve the right to make the "wrong" choice. That means that if I choose to smoke a cigarette with vitamin C as an additive, that is my choice and my right to do so. Yeah, it's not as good as total abstinence, but it's my life and a reduced harm cigarette has got to be better than a a much riskier cigarette. If the carcinogenic biomarkers indeed show a reduction in exposure, then who in their right mind thinks that they have the right to say that "it ain't so"? The intentional suppression of such information with regards to any and all forms of tobacco harm reduction would not only prove to be  dastardly and dishonest, thus affecting the lives of millions (..or more accurately, about 1.5 billion), but it would also be a violation of smokers' human rights.

...and in speaking/thinking of vitamins and oxidative stress once again, I do believe that I read somewhere (recently) that the EU Commission is also proposing a ban on any vitamin additives to combustible cigarettes. I wish that I could recall where I read that....

Why in the world would they want to ban vitamin additives if they in fact were/are shown to reduce the toxicity of inhaled cigarette smoke?

.Again, a stupid question to something that I already know the answer for.

Happy New Year! Let's hope for some real change this time around.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

There was an error in this gadget