Study says smokers more likely to develop Alzheimers?
Found the following study on smokers and alzheimers. Page 130-134 says current smokers are more likely to develop AD. I had always understood the opposite...doesn't support star's claims does it? BTW the john williams on the cover is not the jonnie williams!
(Note: this study was first discussed here, apparently, 10/26/2010)
This is one of those deals where a lot of studies say one thing and some say another. The problem with "studies" of complex illnesses where the exact etiology is not even known, PLUS it takes years to develop, PLUS it can't be diagnosed (until very recently at all) until death, (etc.) is that the design of such studies can be a factor in the outcomes.
For example, I'll give you a personal anecdote. I know a man who was a lifelong heavy smoker. He finally quit when he was 62. Five years later he was diagnosed with Alz., and he died of complications 4 years after that. Was this person a "smoker" ... or not? There is no way to know if the outcome would have been different had he kept on smoking. Moreover, "the difference" may have been that 4 years after he turned 62 he might have been diagnosed with lung cancer and died in 9 months. Would he have been diagnosed with Alz. had he lived??
There are simply too many unknowns about this disease in particular for "studies" outcomes to have hard and fast answers to the obvious questions.
Then there is the problem that, especially in such circumstances, "researchers" CAN (and sometimes do) deliberately design studies to yield the outcome they want ... for some reason, usually to support their own viewpoint on some matter. Both the smoking and anti-smoking forces are notorious for this, with, sad to say, in my view, the anti-smoking forces winning hands down by now.
I'm not saying this study did this, but it is a "study of studies", with many study results going into it ... and I'd be surprised if there were not biases in many of them, deliberate or accidental.
Also note that the disclaimer is added, about that finding, "The level of evidence for all of these factors was low." I presume you understand that that means that the evidence for their finding was pretty weak.
But most of all, I think you should reexamine your own post and rethink your statement that the study you cite, "... doesn't support star's claims does it?"
The Roskamp Institute claims it has some good preliminary evidence that ANATABINE may have some preventive and/or curative effect in Alzheimer's. This has nothing to do with "smoking" or "smokers". The patents were, in the late 1990s, likely made on the basis of studies about tobacco users, but there MUST have been additional evidence about anatabine itself, otherwise how would Williams and DeLorenzo (a neurologist) known which chemicals out of "smoke" to pick. In ANY case, Star's "claims" do not depend on such research.
If you would like to know of one or more studies which purport a STRONG relationship between Alz. and heavy smoking (latter causes the former, strongly indicated), join the private group where we have archives of articles about such things. AND the article about THAT study, for example, contains the following "theory" of why heavy smoking would cause Alz.:
"Though the study was observational, the authors have theories about what might be going on, Whitmer says. "People who smoke have increased inflammation, and we know inflammation also plays a role in Alzheimer's," she says."
Now, remember recent news about anatabine and inflammation and Alzheimer's ... from Roskamp Institute? Need I say more? However, I will.
The thesis is that there are 100's of harmful chemicals in tobacco plus a few good ones at most. CIGX found the good one Anatabine. Roskamp Institute has found that it helps with inflammation, breaks down amyloid plaque, and helps to regenerate neuron growth. All great for Alzheimers and maybe other diseases like Parkinsons. I took these Cigrx pills to help me quit smoking and I swear they work. I continue taking them for arthritis and there is no doubt in my mind it helps
You must remember, cigarette smoke contains so many different chemicals, many of them solvents like benzene and toluene, and such things. Most of them are quite harmful. A few of them, like anatabine, may be helpful. Studying "smoke" and studying anatabine is like the difference between studying one person in, or all those in, a small town. Two different things.
Here is my writing, apparently about THAT study (that you cite), from the my collection of articles about studies such as this in the "Files" section of our private group
Apparently some poor soul had just reported selling out because of the announcement.
##### Re: Big Study Links Alzheimer's w Smoking 26-Oct-10
Due to ongoing personal crises I do not and will not have much time to spend on this.
There is one problem with your reaction to this story that I can see: Star/RI are not advocating "heavy smoking" to help or cure Alz.
There are over 4000 different chemicals in tobacco smoke. Many MANY of them are highly toxic ... for example
Ammonia mcg 228 199 HCN mcg 532 498 Cyanogen (CN)2 mcg 19 20 Isoprene mcg 83 310 Acetaldehyde mcg 1200 980 Acetone mcg 443 578 Acrolein mcg 92 85 Acetonitrilebenzene mcg 132 123 Benzene mcg 76 67 Toluene mcg 112 108 Vinyl chloride
It is highly likely that one or more of such substances are responsible for this reported phenomenon.
RI is not basing its current effort on previous tobacco studies, but on studies RI THEMSELVES did in vitro on '006.
Studies on the pharmacological activity of single components of tobacco smoke (or tobacco, or synthetically derived as '006 is likely to be) have no real relation to studies on the whole effect of the smoke.
Concluding that '006 (presuming that '006 is a tobacco component or analog, but I think likely) doesn't help Alz because, combined with the other 3999+ chemicals in smoke, in heavy smokers, the risk of Alz is somewhat increased is like concluding that salad is bad for you because someone died of salmonella from eating (contaminated) salad.
It would be extremely helpful if someone could find the actual study and post it in "Files" (Files > Pharma > Articles about Alzheimer's) in the private group so we can look it IT, not "news stories" about it. "News stories" have a very bad record with getting medical reporting right, to boot. Thanks for article, though.
Sorry you sold, but right now little damage I guess. Izof_texas
I did not then know for sure that '006 was anatabine.
So, apparently YOU have found the study. I will add a link to your reference in the files for future study. Thank you for that.