Confounding research on Chronic Inhalation Exposure to Mainstream Cigarette Smoke Increases Lung and Nasal Tumor Incidence in Rats – Human consumption of tobacco lowers lung lesions, tumours, and other malignancies

There are a number of procedural errors in this study which will be addressed as follows. Firstly the bias or affiliation of the study, published by Oxford University, is listed as pfizer, a corporation that makes smoking substitution products, and was caught bribing academics (in unlisted affiliations) with the intent of maintaining marijuana prohibition. Furthermore, the study was conducted in New Mexico, a part of the USA with high atmospheric radiation at this time, the non-smoking control received filtered air, while smoking groups were exposed to non-filtered air. The study asserts that in mice testing, supporting data was gathered that cigarettes cause pulmonary damage. 
The mice are divided into a control group, a “low-smoking” and a “high-smoking” group. The low-smoking group was exposed to the equivalent of between 20-30 cigarettes smoked continuously for six hours without stopping. The high-smoking group was exposed to the equivalent of 60 cigarettes per day continuously over a period of six hours and should have been disregarded as non-evident of human consumption patterns at any time in history. For the purposes of reality, the low-smokers (which in humans is at levels classified as heavy cigarette use), will be used in this evaluation. In addition, in this study the high smoking rats were starved (food consumption 60% of non-smokers), which also indicates this data is not reliable.
Despite the conclusion and abstract’s assertion, the data is actually quite positive for regular smokers. Incidence rates of neoplasia in the nasal cavity was lower for smokers than non-smokers.  The survival rate for smoking rats is higher by a significant amount, from 752 days to 779 days. Lung weight of smoking rats was the same as non-smoking rats (an increase was seen by 60 cigarettes per day). Ciliated cuboidal cell metaplasia (mucus in the lungs, a deformity frequently observed with aging that has not been definitively connected to cancer, except in epidermal cases, and then only correlatively) was noted in a small amount in smoking rats. Squamous metaplasia was not observed in smoking rats, but were noted in the 60 cigarette per day group. Keratinizing squamous cysts were not observed in smoking rats, but were noted rarely at 60 cigarettes per day. There were no consistent trends in lung lesions, with sometimes lowest levels in the group smoking 60 cigarettes per day (eg. hyperplasia), sometimes lower in smoking rats (eg. malignant neoplasia) and other times in non-smoking (eg. benign neoplasia), though it should be noted this occurred in non-significant levels in all rats. There is no increase in nasal neoplasia for smoking rats. 
After all this, the study asserts that cigarettes are the cause of problems, but admits, “The reason this study produced significant increases in lung tumors in rats while previous studies did not cannot be determined with certainty.” It is fairly clear that while, previous studies have linked regular human consumption to health benefits, the concept of gassing rats with 60 cigarettes per day had simply not occurred. See previous articles for data on cancer mortality rates in the USA and the probability that tobacco use in humans has numerous health benefits. While there is not data here on radiation exposure necessary to lower white blood cells in a rat, it is safe to assume these fall along similar lines with humans, and exposure to an unmeasured number of mrems of radiation was a significant factor in the development of malignancies in the rats. It is possible that filtered air might make a difference in mucous accumulation in rats as well as humans, though this is not definitively connected with cancer or malignant symptoms.

Mauderly, J. L., Gigliotti, A. P., Barr, E. B., Bechtold, W. E., Belinsky, S. A., Hahn, F. F., Hobbs, C. A., March, T. H., Seilkop, S. K., and Finch, G. L. (2004). Chronic inhalation exposure to mainstream cigarette smoke increases lung and nasal tumor incidence in rats. Toxicol. Sci. 81, 280–292. 

Letter to Patrick Kennedy regarding conversation at Smart Approaches to Marijuana

Regarding our conversation at the SAM conference this summer: I was lucky to have qualified my statements with illegal and decriminalized marijuana in relation to my research. I did indicate that further results from fully legalized areas and places of further research were being waited on. Since the conversation, the confounding factor of the toxoplasmosis gondii being extant in many marijuana smokers in places with home grow operations has forced a reconsideration of the numbers and statistics available. This parasite is responsible for the perceived negative impact of marijuana in countries that fail to complete proper legal research in keeping with UN treaties in effect currently. In Canadian and other studies have conclusively shown with virtually no room for error that marijuana use is associated with a 5 point increase in IQ in current smokers and 3.5 points in former smokers. This translates to literally trillions of dollars in lost intellectual property as can be seen in Germany where marijuana use among 18-24 year olds has quadrupled to nearly 28% while the economy has ballooned to nearly the same size as the United States while alcohol use has dropped dramatically. In MRI and SPECT scans the positive effect of marijuana when disambiguated from those infected with the common parasite, along with pesticides or other factors including income, has been concretely shown in Dallas and other university academic studies. There is some research to indicate that a compound from marijuana may mitigate the effects of alcohol, but this research is still in its infancy, at this time in the 45% of America that drinks, it can be associated with a drop in IQ of several points in comparison to a non-user, and many points in comparison with marijuana users. For the time being, this is a national security crisis in which every year 150,000 people are needlessly dying from alcohol related deaths. To put this in perspective, this is more than all military deaths in all American wars since the Korean war combined, every year. Furthermore we are unable to compete on a global scale as other nations, including Germany, with smaller populations are able to perform on a higher level than the United States. An increase of 5 points in IQ translates to 100’s of % more geniuses and double the number of highly gifted in the population. We have made significant progress with industrial hemp legalization, which increases CO2 consumption by 4X that of other plants and can potentially offset global warming while increasing our energy independence. It is time to take these gains to other fields as well.
Legally, prosecution of marijuana is unconstitutional and the way it is currently implemented it is in violation of multiple UN treaties. According to our constitution, the supremacy clause in article 6 section ii only takes effect under certain circumstances. The most significant example of this was in the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln was forced to issue an executive order freeing the slaves before legislation from the federal government could make slavery illegal. Unless it could be argued that marijuana prohibition is more important to national security than 600,000 legal racially defined slaves, this clause should not override pre-existing and later passed state laws in this matter. This has been defended and ratified in multiple state supreme courts in the case of marijuana. Furthermore, in the federal statutes there is a contradiction in the case of marijuana, making prosecution unfeasible and illegal by federal organizations until resolved by a Federal court in an appeal to repeal. The charter of the FDA in the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 specifically addresses marijuana and retains classification from the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 which classifies marijuana and alcohol together as dangerous drugs with a high potential for poisoning and to be regulated by the FDA. This process was ironically pressed by conservatives in the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid long ago, and it is probable that with a federal court’s review of such an appeal that the older law would be amended with the exception of marijuana, in any case until this happens government agencies would be very amiss to fail to follow medical advise.
Finally, marijuana has been proven to stop cancer. This is the leading cause of death in the United States and research has shown that molecules in marijuana directly harm cancerous human cells while avoiding healthy ones. My own grandfather passed away last summer after living what the AMA has recommended as a healthy lifestyle for most of his life. It is time for the United States to embrace marijuana and tell the alcohol industry to take some time on the back burner until that 200 billion dollar sore on the American economy has been developed into a beneficial product.
Paul Andreas Fischer

Letter to Sven Andreasson on his longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts and confounding data

I have done some research in nuclear medicine on this subject and there are a number of confounding factors that I believe you have left criminally unaccounted for in your research. To begin with, in states with legal marijuana, such as Canada, use of 5 grams and less per day is associated with an increase in IQ of 5 points. My own research in nuclear medicine looking at the blood flow of the brain supports this, after half a pack of marijuana cigarettes over 6 months most of my brain was normal, with one area with increased activity. According to MRI studies there has been little change in the brain observed, though conclusive evidence exists that the size of the amygdala increases and some indication that the part of the brain associated with addictive behaviour becomes less prominent, here a benefit, though this was not substantial enough to say for certain. Ultimately, biologically what is claimed about marijuana in this longitudinal study is in conflict with studies in Canada that had a high level of accuracy that followed users from 12-17 to 25 and later points in life as well as the most recent SPECT and MRI imaging studies.
The most important confounding piece of evidence does not rely on new technology, or different methodology, however, and it is quite sad that this was not accounted for in this expensive research costing the Swedish government severely. According to the CDC the majority (between 65% and 86%) of schizophrenia can be attributed to the parasite toxoplasmosis gondii. To suggest that something without a logical biological explanation is responsible when it is quite simple how the microbe targets brain and muscle tissue to lay its eggs and the body’s protective cysts disrupt bloodflow is quite unethical. The explanation for how it goes in uneven amounts in marijuana users is quite simple, a cat defecating into a potted marijuana plant will contaminate the product for up to a year later.
I do not know the statistics in Sweden off the top of my head, but in the United States 22.5% of people are infected in their lifetime with t. gondii. Of these 25% (5-6% of the general population) get flu-like fatigue and fever, other psychotic symptoms for one week to as long as a month or three months. 6% will have latent symptoms, lasting longer than 6 months and will be diagnosed as schizophrenic. This is the majority of the 1.2% diagnosed with schizophrenia in the USA. It is dose dependant, and getting exposed to the parasite later in life or going thru a period of immunosuppression will cause a recurrence of behaviour.
Please provide an addendum to your research as I have done mine (this came up only as I was publishing, at first I thought to say there were some mild changes, nothing significant from marijuana, luckily I had prefaced my research by emphasizing that marijuana was decriminalized or illegal and the results may be different in a legal setting, as they indeed turned out to be) providing for these confounding factors.
Thank you,
Paul Fischer

New research suggests that nicotine creates cellular drills, targeting and perforating smooth muscles over a period of six hours.

Contrary to popular belief, that carbon dioxide level exposure had to be extreme in order to deposit enough tar to permanently damage the lungs, it is now becoming clear that the cause of lung cancer and other smoking related problems is in fact nicotine. It was an old wives’ tale or counterargument from smokers that because people living in big cities inhaled half of a pack to a pack of cigarette in smoke from smog each day, but did not have high lung cancer rates like second hand smokers, there must be something wrong with the tobacco studies that were done. Living in a city with hundreds of thousands of cars cars was equivalent to “two packs of cigarettes a day” while any smoker will have a 24-35 in 100 chance of lung cancer (500-1000 times higher than simply being a city dweller). In Bejing today, this rate is 42 in 100,000. People who use candles or incense frequently only have 7 or 8, slightly more than regular marijuana smokers. This perhaps indicated that in fact smoking cessation products cause lung cancer; that it is not smoke, but nicotine that causes the lung cancer has only been proved this last year. Possible explanations at the time included contaminants to tobacco or asbestos, hence natural brands such as American Spirit advertised as such to me as a teenager.
However, in 2013, a new paper delivered at the American Society for Cell Biology managed to watch the molecules of nicotine fold into drills after being present in the blood stream for a continuous six hours. These target smooth muscles, such as those found in the heart, epidermis, lungs, and reproductive system as well as throughout the body. This helps to explain why a secondhand smoker in a house with a heavy smoker has a greater chance of lung cancer than a light smoker. It is conceivable that users of e-cigs or nicotine substitution products such as the patch or gum living in a big city could give themselves lung cancer as well by pollutant exposure as the body becomes unable to naturally clean itself.
Much credit is deserved for Brown professor Ching-Ming Hai, who discovered these cellular drills called podosome rosettes. By establishing the link between heart disease such as atherosclerosis and nicotine, the way has been opened to investigate the role of nicotine on other organs such as the lungs. Being able to observe this phenomenon suggests a veritable hypothesis that other smooth muscles in the body will and do respond in a similar way, eventually tearing and folding under continued nicotine exposure.
Some research has existed which supports this hypothesis that lung cancer is caused by nicotine, including studies which suggest that lung cancer is sped up by nicotine exposure (Dasgupta). For the first time, it can be assuredly said that in fact the cause is in nicotine. This supports the population data. In all of Mexico, for example the lung cancer rate is 5 in 100,000 (Lazcano). Introducing smoke increases this eight times, to as much as and over 40 in 100,000 with smog and air pollution (Wang). With nicotine exposure, this jumps to the 30,000 in 100,000 or thirty percent that indicates lung cancer is caused by tobacco.
This is affirmed by research using populations in Sweden and in California in which smokers of marijuana were not found to have increased cancer rates, or only slight and suggested links to cancer. Research along these lines were released in the 1990s and 2000s, though did not have at this time any scientific rationale for the phenomenon, which can now be attributed to nicotine. Continuing research along these lines should provide alternatives and safe products, once again, to combat use of sweets and bubblegum which were originally the targets of tobacco advertising.


Dasgupta, Piyali, et al. “Nicotine induces cell proliferation by β-arrestin–mediated activation of Src and Rb–Raf-1 pathways.” The Journal of clinical investigation 116.8 (2006): 2208-2217.

Lazcano, Ponce EC, et al. “Trends of lung cancer mortality in Mexico.”Archives of medical research 28.4 (1996): 565-570.

Wang, Q. “[An analysis of incidence mortality and survival rates of lung cancer in Beijing].” Zhonghua liu xing bing xue za zhi= Zhonghua liuxingbingxue zazhi12.4 (1991): 205-207.

Addendum: It should be noted that this does not indicate that nicotine or tobacco is responsible for cancer. Since the US cracked down on tobacco use, with success in white males, the overall cancer mortality rate has increased from 184 per 100,000 in 1950-69 to 209 per 100,000 from 1970-1994. Today that rate holds steady at 203 per 100,000. In white females and in other demographics cancer rates have been steady or changed in negligible amounts, but these demographics have had increasing tobacco use rates. Cancer is a painful and unnatural death that can often involve long battles with the disease and should be combated with all resources available, in treatment and in prevention. While lung cancer rates have fallen, technological advances have allowed earlier detection of lung cancer, which at stage 0 and 1 is among the least deadly forms of cancer, but at later stages is among the most deadly. Without adjustments for technological advances in medical care, no positive statement can be made in regards to success or negative results from anti-smoking campaigns. Meta-data from overall cancer mortality does show that the resources in the war on cancer have been squandered and had an overall detrimental effect on the national health of the country, and some policy change is necessitated, although it must be noted there is no current biological explanation for the lower cancer rates in countries and places with higher tobacco use, these have been correlative not causal links.

Skip to toolbar