Junk Science and SOTT articles

flashgordonv

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I've been on a bit of a journey these last couple of months. I've been digging into the research behind the supposed proofs of the harm of smoking, and established to my own satisfaction that it's all based on junk science. I've written an article on the subject, as requested, and submitted it for critique and possible publishing on SOTT.

The problem I am striking now is that I look at the research behind other articles now, including articles about subjects like chemicals in food, in cleaning products etc, and today the article on high GI products being worse than smoking for lung cancer.

http://www.sott.net/article/314032-White-bread-bagels-increase-risk-of-lung-cancer-by-49-percent-with-non-smokers-more-at-risk-study-finds

Now I have 2 issues with this article.
1. I don't accept that smoking is the cause of lung cancer or is harmful
2. The research behind this headline is pure and simple junk science. When you read the article you find this:

"The researchers stressed that their study can't prove cause-and-effect, and it also failed to take into account the potential role of other illnesses, such as diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease.

However, Jain agreed that the downstream effect of a high-glycemic diet on cellular growth factors might explain the link to lung cancer risk."

In other words, the research may have found an association, but in their own words, it does not prove causation. As presented, it is junk science.

Now, I want to believe that what they propose is true, but the research does not establish that. So in good conscience I cannot let the article go without a comment. And this is not the only article SOTT has published recently which has the same sort of flawed data behind it.

I do wonder whether SOTT should print this stuff without looking critically at it. We are quick to come to the defence of smoking, we comment, we post links to other articles to support our position. Should we not be doing this with other articles, rather than uncritically accepting and publishing them because they reinforce our worldview?

On the other hand, am I being obsessive about this? Am I becoming self absorbed with this? Should I back off and leave this stuff alone. It is difficult, because my instinct now is to check the data rather than just accept it. And so much of it is just rubbish, fraudulent in fact.
 
Flashgordonv said:
I've been on a bit of a journey these last couple of months. I've been digging into the research behind the supposed proofs of the harm of smoking, and established to my own satisfaction that it's all based on junk science. I've written an article on the subject, as requested, and submitted it for critique and possible publishing on SOTT.
It's funny you mention this, because I have also just submitted an article on tobacco. Although it was only tonight that I came to understand that you had done so aswell :P. I couldn't agree more, it seems that there was a LOT of politics involved with this so called "scientific discovery". Slightly overwhelming to delve into everything, simply because there is so much. It turns out that there is actually very little in the way of genuine proof for any of the claims. What I found most fascinating however was to learn of the sheer amount of evidence in support of tobacco being beneficial for the human body.
"The researchers stressed that their study can't prove cause-and-effect, and it also failed to take into account the potential role of other illnesses, such as diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease.

However, Jain agreed that the downstream effect of a high-glycemic diet on cellular growth factors might explain the link to lung cancer risk."

In other words, the research may have found an association, but in their own words, it does not prove causation. As presented, it is junk science.
Yeah, this study isn't exactly great quality science. However, the study technically doesn't claim to prove causation. Most studies out there can only really show correlation. It is much more difficult to prove causation, as you probably know already.

Just because there is no causation, doesn't make it junk science. It just means there are no conclusions that can be drawn directly from the results. However, by drawing from your own knowledge base and connecting the dots - these kinds of studies can help you fit together pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. I was under the impression that the main reason SOTT carried this article was because it showed that smokers were less likely to develop lung cancer. Does this correlate with the rest of our knowledge about smoking? Yes, it does.

Why are smokers less likely to develop lung cancer? = because smokers produce twice as much glutathione in their lungs, twice as much catalase and significantly increased amounts of superoxide dismutase - three main antioxidants that protect the tissues. Add to this, Carbon Monoxide in small doses acts as a physiologically hormetic agent. Most people don't know this, but we here on the forum can connect the dots.

Therefore I would say that you can individually add it to your knowledge base and draw more objective conclusions because of that. The study alone by itself cannot prove much, whereas when it is coupled with everything else that you understand about tobacco, i think it can mean a lot.
 
Keyhole said:
Yeah, this study isn't exactly great quality science. However, the study technically doesn't claim to prove causation. Most studies out there can only really show correlation. It is much more difficult to prove causation, as you probably know already.

Just because there is no causation, doesn't make it junk science. It just means there are no conclusions that can be drawn directly from the results. However, by drawing from your own knowledge base and connecting the dots - these kinds of studies can help you fit together pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. I was under the impression that the main reason SOTT carried this article was because it showed that smokers were less likely to develop lung cancer. Does this correlate with the rest of our knowledge about smoking? Yes, it does.

Thanks Keyhole. My point was that, as presented, it is junk science. The study says it cannot prove causation but that is not how it is reported. Abstract summary and resulting headline says one thing, body of the research says another. And the headline is what was picked up in the article quoting the study. Most people only read the headline, so they think the study proves eating carbs causes lung cancer. How many people reading the article would know that the research it is quoting does not claim causation?

And the second point is that this is EXACTLY how the Tobacco Control people propagate their lies. Weak studies, with biased questionnaires that ignore the fact that all these diseases are multiple risk factor diseases. Sensationalist headlines, and the public think that the case is proved.

But this article in my opinion does not show that smokers are less likely to get lung cancer, if the research is based on faulty data. And it perpetuates the myth that smokers are highly likely to get lung cancer.

it appeals to us because it is anti-carb which resonates with the ketogenic message, and it say carb eaters are more likely to get lung cancer than we smokers. But we are embracing two messages based on junk science. Two lies together don't make a truth. And a lie deserves the truth,OSIT.
 
Keyhole said:
Flashgordonv said:
Why are smokers less likely to develop lung cancer? = because smokers produce twice as much glutathione in their lungs, twice as much catalase and significantly increased amounts of superoxide dismutase - three main antioxidants that protect the tissues. Add to this, Carbon Monoxide in small doses acts as a physiologically hormetic agent. Most people don't know this, but we here on the forum can connect the dots.

Do you mind my asking the source of this data please?

Edit=Quote
 
Well, I couldn't find any of the data on sott or on the forum. So on my 4 days off work, I basically just trawled through online journals and found loadddds of information that simply hasnt been put out there yet. I will copy and past from the article with the references and studys.



Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibition


Monoamine oxidases (MAO's) are enzymes in the body that are responsible for degrading biogenic amine neurotransmitters such as Noradrenaline (Norepinephrine), Serotonin and Dopamine. Mono amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI's) are chemicals that inhibit the action of this enzyme to increase the levels of these neurotransmitters and thereby elevating the mood of the individual. For this reason, MAOI containing drugs were developed by pharmaceutical companies in the late 1950's and were sold as anti-depressants. Interestingly enough however, an unknown property of tobacco smoke has been shown to contain naturally occurring MAOI's. This is reflected in numerous studies18 demonstrating that smokers have significantly lower levels of both types of MAO's (A and B), which basically means that smoking acts as a natural antidepressant – without any of the horrible side-effects common to many pharmaceuticals. Another interesting fact is that the drug “Deprenyl”, an MAOI, has also been shown19,20 to markedly increase the lifespan of a variety of mammallian species in lab settings on several occasions. This fact is something to keep in mind, because we will be returning to it later on.


Glutathione: The “Master Antioxidant”

As an antioxidant, Glutathione's function is to protect virtually every cell in the body by neutralizing damage caused by reactive oxygen-species (free radicals), heavy metals, and peroxides/lipid-peroxides. It is a chief component of the body's natural defence systems and is required for the accomplishment of a host of cellular processes which include cellular differentiation and proliferation. What makes glutathione so special is that, unlike other antioxidants, it is intracellular and has the ability to maintain other antioxidants in their reduced (active) form to maximise antioxidant activity. It plays a critical role in detoxification processes, hence why the majority of the body's stores can be found in the liver. It also influences immune function significantly, and glutathione depletion has been associated with cancer, diseases of aging, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular, inflammatory, immune, metabolic, and neurodegenerative diseases21. The alternative health community acknowledges this molecule as the “mother of all antioxidants”, and rightly so. Interestingly, smokers lungs have been found to contain 80% more glutathione than the lungs of non-smokers22. The author of the study states:

Compared with nonsmokers, cigarette smokers had 80% higher levels of ELF [epithelial lining fluid] total glutathione, 98% of which was in the reduced form.

Higher concentrations of glutathione in the lungs offer increased protection against foreign material and pathogenic agents. What these findings suggest is that smoking tobacco may actually have a protective effect on lung tissue by up-regulating glutathione levels, however the mechanism behind this up-regulation was not covered in this particular study. Another experiment23, however, sought to directly measure glutathione's response to tobacco smoke and here's what they found:

CS [cigarette smoke] exposure initially decreased ELF GSH [glutathione] levels by 50% but within 2 h GSH levels rebound to about 3 times basal levels and peaked at 16 h with a 6-fold increase and over repeat exposures were maintained at a 3-fold elevation for up to 2 months.

The author said: “CS exposures evoke a powerful GSH adaptive response in the lung and systemically. […] Factors that disrupt GSH adaptive responses may contribute to the pathophysiology of COPD.” So first of all, they theorize that the “glutathione adaptive response” is the mechanism which drastically up-regulates glutathione systems, both in the lungs and throughout the rest of the body in response to tobacco smoke. This also implies that tobacco has a protective effect on the lungs. Secondly, they state that factors disrupting this mechanism may contribute to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD). This statement contradicts mainstream health sources, because according to these sources, smoking is the main cause of COPD. Yet if smoking clearly upregulates the “glutathione adaptive response”, and COPD is caused by an under active “glutathione adaptive response”, then smoking OBVIOUSLY doesn't cause COPD. We may even go so far as to assume that smoking can actually prevent COPD.



Catalase and Superoxide Dismutase


Catalase is an antioxidant enzyme that functions to protect cells from the damaging effects of hydrogen peroxide by catalysing it's conversion into oxygen and water. It is therefore an important component of the body's immune and detoxification pathways. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) is also an important antioxidant enzyme that neutralizes superoxide, a by-product of oxygen metabolism. Together, these are two of the body's most remarkable antioxidants which play critical roles in protecting against oxidative/peroxidative cellular damage and are closely tied to longevity. Much like glutathione, catalase and SOD also appear to be controlled by some kind of antioxidant “adaptive response”. A recent study24 found that “Superoxide dismutase enzyme levels in the blood and saliva were significantly higher in smokers than in nonsmokers and the controls”. Furthermore, it was also discovered in a sparate experiment25 that tobacco smoke-exposed hamsters were shown to have roughly double the amount of both Catalase and Superoxide Dismutase than hamsters who were not exposed to smoke.
The increase in glutathione, catalase and superoxide dismutase may be partly be able to explain how tobacco smoke manages to prevent lung cancer in those inhalling radiation, exhaust fumes and asbestos. Such an increase in antioxidant activity could be the key factor the protects lung tissue and rids the body of any nasty toxins inhaled via the respiratory tract.


Hormesis
One common criticism made by anti-smokers is that tobacco smoke contains Carbon Monoxide, which is supposedly poisonous, so therefore smoking is bad. However, this view is based on the faulty assumption that any dose of carbon monoxide is harmful. No doubt, a high dose of carbon monoxide can be fatal. But what these anti-smokers probably don't realise is that Carbon Monoxide is actually Hormetic. The process of Hormesis is characterised by the introduction of a low-dose toxin into the body which triggers the body to respond in a beneficial way. On the other hand, at high doses the same toxin has a detrimental effect. Hormesis is one of the body's most effective means of making adaptive changes on the cellular level in response to external stressors by up-regulating detoxification pathways, and is a sure way to protect against disease. Other popular hormetic agents include curcumin, a compound found in green tea, and exercise.

Fortunately for smokers, there is now a growing body of evidence demonstrating carbon monoxide's potent hormetic effects and potential therapeutic benefits. Researchers at the Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology department of research at the University of Kyoto, Japan, says26:

Recent accumulating evidence has suggested that carbon monoxide (CO) may act as an endogenous defensive gaseous molecule to reduce inflammation and tissue injury in various organ injury models, including intestinal inflammation.
[..]
Potent therapeutic efficacies of CO have been demonstrated in experimental models of several conditions, including lung injuries, heart, hepatic and renal I-R injuries, as well as inflammation, including arthritis, supporting the new paradigm that CO at low concentrations functions as a signaling molecule that exerts significant cytoprotection and anti-inflammatory actions.

Now consider the fact that your body is in a constant state of producing and recycling CO, and CO poisoning only can occur when the body becomes overburdened by an extremely large amount. Cigarette smoke contains such low quantities of CO that it would be pretty much impossible to smoke enough to induce any kind of poisoning. With this in mind, you can now feel safe in knowing that as long as you don't stick your head in front of a car exhaust pipe, the chances of you experiencing carbon monoxide poisoning is near enough
zero. To the contrary, the amount of carbon monoxide inhaled from cigarettes will likely have a hormetic affect on your body.


References:

18. Fowler J, Volkow N, Wang G, Pappas N, Logan J, Shea C et al. Brain monoamine oxidase A inhibition in cigarette smokers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Internet] 1996 [cited 2016 Mar 10];93:14065-14069. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/93/24/14065.full

19. Milgram N, Racine R, Nellis P, Mendonca A, Ivy G. Maintenance on L-deprenyl prolongs life in aged male rats. [Internet]. PubMed, NCBI1990 [cited 2016 Mar 10];Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2118586

20. Yen T, Knoll J. Extension of lifespan in mice treated with Dinh lang (Policias fruticosum L.) and (-)deprenyl. [Internet]. PubMed, NCBI1992 [cited 2016 Mar 10];Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1304677

21. Ballatori N, Krance S, Notenboom S, Shi S, Tieu K, Hammond C. Glutathione dysregulation and the etiology and progression of human diseases. Biological Chemistry 2009;390.

22. Cantin A, North S, Hubbard R, Crystal R. Normal alveolar epithelial lining fluid contains high levels of glutathione. Journal of Applied Physiology [Internet] 1987 [cited 2016 Mar 10];63:152-157. Available from: http://jap.physiology.org/content/63/1/152

23. Gould N, Min E, Gauthier S, Martin R, Day B. Lung glutathione adaptive responses to cigarette smoke exposure. Respiratory Research 2011;12:133.

24. Jenifer H, Bhola S, Kalburgi V, Warad S, Kokatnur V. The influence of cigarette smoking on blood and salivary super oxide dismutase enzyme levels among smokers and nonsmokers—A cross sectional study. Journal of Traditional and Complementary
Medicine 2015;5:100-105.

25. Mccusker K, Hoidal J. Selective Increase of Antioxidant Enzyme Activity in the Alveolar Macrophages from Cigarette Smokers and Smoke-exposed Hamsters. Am Rev Respir Dis 1990;141:678-682.

26. Naito Y, Uchiyama K, Takagi T. Therapeutic Potential of Carbon Monoxide (CO) for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Digestion 2015;91.
 
Thanks mate. I really appreciate it. Lots of stuff to get my teeth into.

Out of interest, do you have a science background. I only ask as I don't and am painfully aware of my subsequent shortcomings when doing this sort of research.
 
Your welcome :). I dont have a science background per se, although I am currently in my first year of studying nutrition which is a science-based course, and I enjoy science very much! FWIW reading the studies can be really quite tedious if you are not familiar with the language, but as long as you can identify the most important content everything should be fine.

If you are interested in the science behind how it works, you may also be interested in the connection between SIRT1 genes, NAD+ and how this ties into longevity. Jack Kruse mentioned SIRT1 in one of his blogs, and itellsya posted it on the smoking thread. The problem was, Kruse didn't really explain any of it.

Don't want to overwhelm you with all the information, but here are some more interesting points I tried to collate:

Smoking and Mitochondrial function

In order to understand how tobacco may affect mitochondrial function, first it is imperative to have a basic understanding of how the mitochondria work and what their function is.
Structures called mitochondria are located within the cell and are known as the “powerhouse” responsible for generating energy to supply the body's metabolic requirements. The mitochondria's function is to take electrons from the environment and use them to synthesise what is known as Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP), the body's energy source. Through a process called cellular respiration, electrons taken from digested food are shuttled past the mitochondrial membrane with help from specific molecules (via electron chain transport) so that the mitochondria can create ATP. ATP is used to fuel almost every cellular process in the body and is absolutely essential for all bodily functions, therefore maintaining healthy mitochondrial function is of vital importance.

One of the key players involved in ATP production and mitochondrial health is the enzyme Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD). NAD is present in all living cells and is available in two forms: NADH and NAD+. Both forms are essential for proper cellular energy transfer, and insufficient amounts can result in mitochondrial dysfunction. NADH's main function is to transfer electrons to the mitochondria to facilitate ATP synthesis. Once NADH has lost it's electrons, it converts to NAD+. NAD+ has been shown45 to increase the rate of DNA repair, stress resistance, and regulate cell apoptosis. Furthermore, NAD+ also restores tissue integrity, induces homoeostasis, and increases longevity of the cell46. The cell senses levels of NAD+ as a measure of mitochondrial energy production and rate of metabolism. For this reason, the amount of NAD+ converted actually plays a significant role in regulating the rate of ATP synthesis and cellular metabolism47. Low levels of NAD+ reduce mitochondrial energy production, decrease the number of mitochondria in the cell48 and contribute significantly to muscular ageing processes49. Interestingly, NAD+ also has the ability to alter gene expression by “switching off” genes associated with degenerative processes50.

To follow on, SIRT1 (sirtuin) is a NAD-dependent protein coded for by the SIRT1 gene that cannot function without NAD+. So when NAD+ levels decrease, SIRT1 levels also decrease, and vice versa. SIRT1 turns out to be one of the single most important enzymes in control of epigenetic expression, metabolism and longevity. Through a process called acetylation, acetyl groups are added to proteins in response to stress, oxidation or inflammation, which causes the proteins to eventually become defective. Sirtuins, however, remove the acetyl groups to allow for those proteins to stay functional for a longer period of time. This gives the body the opportunity to expend less energy recycling, and more energy on other processes. Studies have shown that SIRT1 inhibits MTOR pathway signalling, increases leptin sensitivity51, increases T3 hormone sensitivity52, and also increases the skin' sensitivity to Vitamin D53. SIRT1 also inhibits/ switches off genes associated with inflammation54, blood sugar regulation, and body fat accumulation/storage55.

So, how does this relate to smoking tobacco?

A study56 conducted by Cancer Research in 2012 showed:
SIRT1 activity was the most consistently and significantly up-regulated in smokers compared to non-smokers in all 4 datasets. While SIRT1 was activity correlated to smoking status, SIRT1 pathway activation was not significantly correlated with pack-years among smokers (p > 0.05; Spearman). Therefore, independent of cumulative exposure, SIRT1 activity is consistently up-regulated in smokers. This increase in SIRT1 activity may serve as a protective effect against oxidative stress and DNA damage induced by smoking.

Considering the fact that SIRT1 is anti-inflammatory and can only function in the presence of NAD+, these findings suggest that NAD+ may also be up-regulated in smokers. An elevated level of NAD+ indicates an increase in mitochondrial functioning and ATP synthesis which are both absolute markers for longevity and overall better quality health! This finding can provide us with valuable insight in to how so many smokers end up leading such long, disease-free lives. For those people who are genetically compatible, consuming tobacco smoking is not a burden on the body. These people do not live to such old-ages despite their smoking habits, they live so long because of smoking

References

45. Massudi H, Grant R, Guillemin G, Braidy N. NAD + metabolism and oxidative stress: the golden nucleotide on a crown of thorns. Redox Report 2012;17:28-46.

46. Anderson R, Bitterman K, Wood J, Medvedik O, Cohen H, Lin S et al. Manipulation of a nuclear NAD+ salvage pathway delays aging without altering steady-state NAD+ levels. Journal of Biological Chemistry 2013;288:24160-24160.

47. Yamauchi K, Nakajima J. Effect of coenzymes and thyroid hormones on the dual activities ofXenopuscytosolic thyroid-hormone-binding protein (xCTBP) with aldehyde dehydrogenase activity. European Journal of Biochemistry 2002;269:2257-2264.

48. Gomes A, Price N, Ling A, Moslehi J, Montgomery M, Rajman L et al. Declining NAD+ Induces a Pseudohypoxic State Disrupting Nuclear-Mitochondrial Communication during Aging. Cell 2013;155:1624-1638.

49. Prolla T, Denu J. NAD+ Deficiency in Age-Related Mitochondrial Dysfunction. Cell Metabolism 2014;19:178-180.

50. Imai S, Armstrong C, Kaeberlein M, Guarente L. Transcriptional silencing and longevity protein Sir2 is an NAD-dependent histone deacetylase. Nature [Internet] 2000 [cited 2016 Mar 10];Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10693811

51. Ghosh H, McBurney M, Robbins P. SIRT1 Negatively Regulates the Mammalian Target of Rapamycin. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e9199.

52. Suh J, Sieglaff D, Zhang A, Xia X, Cvoro A, Winnier G et al. SIRT1 is a Direct Coactivator of Thyroid Hormone Receptor β1 with Gene-Specific Actions. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e70097.

53. Sabir M, Khan Z. Resveratrol and SIRT1 Are Novel Positive Modulators of Vitamin D Signaling Via Apparent Deacetylation of VDR : Late-breaking Bone, Calciotropic Hormones & Vitamin D III. Endocrine Society [Internet] 2015 [cited 2016 Mar 10];Available from: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/endo-meetings.2015.BCHVD.6.LBS-042

54. Kotas M, Gorecki M, Gillum M. Sirtuin-1 is a nutrient-dependent modulator of inflammation. Adipocyte 2013;2:113-118.

55. Chalkiadaki A, Guarente L. Sirtuins mediate mammalian metabolic responses to nutrient availability. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2012;8:287-296.

56. Beane J, Cheng L, Soldi R, Zhang X, Liu G, Anderlind C et al. SIRT1 Pathway Dysregulation in the Smoke-Exposed Airway Epithelium and Lung Tumor Tissue. Cancer Research 2012;72:5702-5711.
 
Keyhole said:
Just because there is no causation, doesn't make it junk science. It just means there are no conclusions that can be drawn directly from the results. However, by drawing from your own knowledge base and connecting the dots - these kinds of studies can help you fit together pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. I was under the impression that the main reason SOTT carried this article was because it showed that smokers were less likely to develop lung cancer. Does this correlate with the rest of our knowledge about smoking? Yes, it does.

I think so too. Because so many articles and studies try to proof that smoking is bad, it is always good to have from time to time an article that states the opposite and links to other causes and which counterweights in the end the daily propaganda against smoking. As for studies per se, you would always need to get the whole data to get closer to the truth what they are really stating and which is most often not possible since not many people have any access to databases.
 
Hi Flashgordonv, i don't think you are obcessed, in fact it is a good think you point this out, it helps the aim.

It is a fair conclusion i think.

Problem with the constant overload of information all the time (like advertisements) and articles and so on is that many things are left out, i think constructive critics help a whole lot

On the other hand most people are inforced by means of propaganda this idea that smoking is bad and no complete explanation given it becomes a matter of waving the flag also, but like you pointed out , it does inspire you to think, inspires critical thinking.
 
Flashgordonv, I just wanna say that I think you did a great job on that article. Well done for synthesizing all of that information. Very well written! Keep it up :D
 
Speaking of junk science:

http://www.sott.net/article/315356-The-epidemic-of-junk-science-in-tobacco-smoking-research

Good job, Gordon!
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Speaking of junk science:

http://www.sott.net/article/315356-The-epidemic-of-junk-science-in-tobacco-smoking-research

Good job, Gordon!

Ditto, good job Gordon! Very well written article.
 
Back
Top Bottom