Bad News For Smokers?

[larrynz]

I disagree with this, after I gave up smoking I found it made little difference, the big win is I stopped the downward spiral, my FEV1 (which is age adjusted) remains at the same level 5 years down the track, I stopped smoking 7 years ago.

www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10445048

Grim news for reformed smokers - study
5:00AM Tuesday June 12, 2007
By Errol Kiong
Lung damage in smokers continues to worsen even after they have quit, new research shows.
The study, conducted by an international team of researchers in respiratory medicine including Massey University's Dr Felix Ram, shatters the conventional medical wisdom that smokers with lung disease should stop smoking to halt further damage.
Instead, it shows that once smokers have established lung disease with bronchial inflammation, the problem will just continue even after they have given up the habit.
"The study has wide implications for how we manage patients with smoking-related lung disease and for all smokers at large," said Dr Ram, a senior lecturer in clinical pharmacology at Massey's Albany campus.
"Instead of telling smokers that it's never too late to quit, the new public health message is never take up smoking," he said.
The study was conducted with bronchial biopsy samples from 101 patients in British hospitals.
All had been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a long-term lung condition usually caused by smoking. It often brings with it chronic bronchial inflammation, and symptoms include coughing and shortness of breath.

[morningstar]

Larry,

I disagree with them also. I know the damage is done but I believe we do ourselves much good by stopping smoking. I have been quit a year and no my lungs will never be the same but they are better than they were a year ago. Can we fix what the smoking done no I don't believe we come that far yet but I do think we stop some of the damage that ever cigarette we smoked caused.
JMHO

[larrynz]

My reply to the paper

The article published in the Herald 12th June is not only wrong but the most irresponsible I have ever seen from a medical professional. Quote “Lung damage in smokers continues to worsen even after they have quit”
I write as a patient not a medical person, I am in contact with hundreds of others who have COPD just like me, most of us are past smokers, almost all found lung damage stopped progressing once the tobacco habit ceased.
To speak only about my self my lung function was 37% 6 years ago, it’s a test that allows for age, today its still 37%, I stopped smoking 7 years ago, OK it’s not very good but it is no worse. I also removed myself from a dirty work environment as well, known to contribute.
The article published could have the effect of persuading smokers to continue, this is sad because some men and women could have their lives shortened because of it. Estimates are that we have 200,000 people in NZ with lung damage so it is important.

[LindaNY]

Interesting article Larry and I loved your reply to it.

Mine decreased 1% the first year and 1% the second year . We will see next year what it is in year #3.

[larrynz]

Linda mine decreased but when you allow for age loss (.8% per year) it remained static.

[spike99]

With the "choice words" that are used, the article is true. What?? Here's a few key phases or "word smithing" to focus on:

Focus point A - "smokers with lung disease should stop smoking to halt further damage". If you have Emphysema, the "big E" will never go away. If you stop smoking, the growth / spread of emphysema will slow down. If you stop smoking, it will NOT halt the increase of E. It will only slow it down (down to a crawl - in most cases). From a high level perspective, this statement is true. And if I remember correctly, nobody said that if one quits smoking, their existing E will 100% "go away". If a doctor ever said this, they need their license pulled.

Focus point B - "Dr Ram said analysis of inflammatory cell types and markers found no statistically significant difference between the smokers and ex-smokers." The paragraph before states that both current smokers and ex-smokers from 8 years ago was tested. Please note that their test is focusing on the microscopic level of a lung cell. They are NOT focusing on the overall health improvement, "how the person feels now" comparisons, or the increase performance of the lungs many cells. They are only focusing on the "cell level".

Note: In the past, I read if this someone is age 30 and they smoked for 20 years, it would take "15-20 years on average" for their lungs to re-produce. After they reproduce (assuming their original lungs are NOT damaged from too pollution and smoking), they have a fresh set of lungs. If they stop smoking at age 50 (after smoking 30 years), it would take 25-35 years for one's lungs to re-produce. If they stopped smoking at age 65, it will take 35-45 years for one's lungs to re-produce. At age 50 and if butted out for 40 years, they would have a new set of lungs. Note: This is from a perfect white board perspective. If this doctor is testing current and only ex-smoker lungs of 8 years ago (of folks 60 years old), I would NOT expect a cell's structure to be dramatically differt. Especially if under a microscope and if the probe sample is looking at lungs that need another 32 years to replace themselves. Say what??? From a vehicle repair perspective, it's like changing the spark plugs in a car on Friday and testing the black dust in its tail pipe on its next Monday morning (3 days later). Bet the black dust still exists in the tail pipe system. As implied in this comparison test, more time between BEFORE and AFTER an ex-smokers lung's needs to be done - for a valid comparison test. For example.... Test the same vehicle that has new spark plugs 1 month later - to allow the crud to flush out of the tail pipe system.

Also... I keep reading the message of "Instead of telling smokers that it's never too late to quit, the new public health message is never take up smoking," he said. OK. Let's "cut to the chase". What is the main purpose of this test or this article? Is it to prove that smoking is bad for you? Is it to globally state that one should NEVER start smoking? Is it to prove that if one has lung damage, their lungs will NEVER return to normal - if they stop smoking or NOT? Is it to prove that cell tests (under a microscope level) are the same of a smoker and ex-smoker? I think the answer is YES to many of these questions.

To me, this article fails to focus on is ... "if one quits smoking, their body will FEEL much better. And, their lungs will function much better as well". Would have been nice to compare before / after lung functions, physical exercise levels, etc. etc. - instead of focusing on a microscope cell level. To me, this doctor needs to focus on "less science" and more on the human element / lung function ouput health perspective. Who really cares about cell comparisons on a microspe level - especially if a person already has lung damage. What does these tests mean to us humans? Especially someone with a known lung problem like COPD??? To me, the author or doctor failed to focus on the most important thing. "the people and what it means to them".

BTW: I quit smoking 6 months ago and feel up to 10 years younger. I no longer wheeze at night, I don't get SOB after running up the stairs and if I suck in small dust clouds (from wood working), it no longer makes me run for fresh air. Not too sure of my lungs on a microscope level are better from BEFORE or AFTER but I can tell you from a human and health perspective, my lungs are much better. And that's only from quitting 6 months ago. I'm sure when I hit my 8 year mark, my lungs will be much, much better - even if some doctor says "at the cell level my lungs are NOT different".

Hope this helps others...

.

[maryaz]

I have to agree that this is a very poorly written article. Most of the articles that I read I can find some fault with. This one is at the bottom of my list. I did see worse at least once.

I don't have a lot of faith in study/trials/polls or whatever unless have more figures to see what was tested.

I had a positive article a while back about some tobacco money going to a good cause. I cannot remember what it was. My memory is not good anymore. Yes, I have enough o2!!

[morningstar]

Larry,

That was a very good answer. I am glad you told them. They needed it and you did it like the gentleman I have always known you to be. Thanks for standing ground for all of us that is what it will take everywhere to get COPD thought of like we all know it should be.

[larrynz]

Well I came to the conclusion that it was bad reporting rather than bad research as I have seen a different version on another news site.
The last thing I thought I could do was alert the National organization, COPD is under the wing of the Asthma Society, my thinking was they could approach the paper. I more or less got disinterest, reply below.


Hi Larry – good on you for stopping smoking and for writing in – I agree the article isn’t very helpful but research is research I guess

Hei kona mai

Jane



Jane Patterson

Executive Director

[maryaz]

What a bummer Larry.

[John]

I don't like to go against the" pros" BUT It's been a little over a year from dx & stopping smoking And I feel 100% better than a year ago. Maybe my fev1 hasn't gotten better but it hasn't gotten worst either. I don't cough hardly any more , when I do get a cold it still goes into my chest but doesn't get 1/2 as bad or last 1/2 as long. I 've got up most of the crud in my lungs up & that has made a difference . My Skin color is very improved & I put on 20 #'s ! I'm expecting to live at least another 20 years & maybe even more with the advances they are going to make in the stem cell area I do believe if I had stayed smoking I could have had 5 maybe 10 years left. I'm also sure that the the quality of my life would be much more diminished. No matter what the article says I'm glad I stopped smoking I do know it's a lot easier to stay stopped than it was to stop! The article did give me a little of the whats the point if it doesn't matter May I should have a smoke , Attitude! I;m sure glad I have this support family that strengthen me against these kinds of attacks ! It's sad because I wonder how many fell off & started smoking again ? I felt The article was almost giving permission to go back to smoking Thats sad!

[morningstar]

John,

I feel like you do I am glad I quit smoking. And I do feel better. Sometimes the powers that be don't have a clue. I know if I would have read that a year ago. I would probably either be dead today or still smoking. I can't help but think they didn't really research anything although they say they did. I would almost bet money that anyone who smokes of has ever smokes new they were bad for us ever puff we took. We all just though well it won't be me. Everyone else can get sick but not me. Well we all about died but we finally saw the light of day. And quit. So I do think it didn' t come write out and say smoke but it sure didn't say stop either.
What a pity with National Exposure and they blew it.

[Deleted]

Spike99,
You run up the stairs? Wow. If someone carried me up I could walk down. Don't have much trouble on flat surfaces but any kind o grade kills me. Glad you are able to do it.

The Abstract for the article seems to be in conflict with the newspaper article.
tinyurl.com/2ykm9s
When I read it it tells me that the damage is permanent but if I stop smoking any further damage will occur at a non-smokers rate.
Isn't that what we have always been told?
Am I wrong?

Joe - Tx

[larrynz]

It starts off by saying "Lung damage in smokers continues to worsen even after they quit" Current medical opinion tells us 'yes' but only at the same rate as a non smoker. So contrary to the article, giving up smoking is very worth while.
The letter below was in response to that article and published today under Letters To The Editor.



There were confused and confusing messages in the article headlined “Grim news for smokers—study.
Saying this small study of how smokers’ lungs look under a microscope shatters the conventional medical wisdom that smokers with lung disease should stop smoking to halt further damage is playing fast and loose with the facts.
The presence of inflammatory markers in the lung tissue of former smokers does not necessarily indicate that their lung function will inevitably decline. Furthermore, it does not sit well with the searchers conclusion that “this doesn’t mean that there is no point in quitting smoking”
There is unequivocal evidence that stopping smoking saves lives and is of health benefit, no matter how old the smoker the smoker or how unwell they are.
The public health message “Don’t start smoking and if you do smoke, it is never too late to stop” still stands.
Dr.Chris Bullen, School of Population Health, Auckland University.