Anything that can halt or reverse some of the damage of second hand smoke or smoking?

[abercrombiedude18]

There is "nothing" besides quitting to be done? I know 2 family members. One smokes and the other gets the second hand smoke. There is nothing demonstrated my science to help reverse some of the damage? How about vitamin C supplementation for production of nitric oxide? Nothing else clinically or peer reviewed that has been shown to help smokers and second hand smokers?

[tgit23]

------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”

“Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...=pmcentrez

------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen
http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html
“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

-------- OSHA will NOT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp....p_id=24602
“Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”

Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790
“Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.”

-------- Secondhand smoke is as safe as dust
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...10-285.pdf
“Among never smokers in our population, we observed no association between either exposure to ETS at home or at the workplace and lung cancer risk”(p. 5)
“Our results support the concept that exposure to exhaust fumes and or soot/smoke (***from non-tobacco
sources***) is a source of carcinogenic exposure.” (p. 7)
“ETS exposure was not found to significantly increase risk among never smokers in this study”(p.7)

Showtime television, "How the EPA, CDC, Lung Association, and etc." support their claims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGApkbcaZK4

-------- PURPOSELY misleading the public with MEDIA STRATEGIES -------
The Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health was enacted by Congress in 1984 which is a collection of Health and Human Services, American Heart and Lung Association, National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization, CDC and many other government funded health organizations. (eliminating any independent sources of information).

Below are direct quotes from those meeting notes:
“Social (Un)acceptability of smoking will be decisive TOOL an the road to a smoke-free society.” Using “four mechanisms: - passive smoking, - social cost, - ELIMINATE ALL INFLUENCES in society which could reflect favorably on smoking, - educational campaigns for children (App.II) “

“although passive smokers may suffer considerable subjective discomfort, a lasting adverse health effect is probably not likely to result in otherwise healthy, grown-up individuals . “

““Lindahl concluded that it is difficult to demonstrate harmful effects of passive smoking on healthy nonsmokers ; there is little proven in this area”

“He admitted that he couldn't explain how or why smoking harmed the fetus but suggested that, instead of worrying about such fine points, women be told that all unborn children of smoking women will be hurt “

“We're moving out of the horse and cart era, we're not yet in the jet age of MEDIA STRATEGIES, but we're getting there “

Review of Notes and all contents: http://rampant-antismoking.com/
Actual meeting notes: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/efp57a00/pdf

[Andrew]

To date, your assertion that "there is nothing demonstrated by double blinded placebo controlled trials to help reverse some of the damage from tobacco smoke exposure" is correct. There very well may be in a decade or two however as COPD is a growing problem worldwide and predicted to be the third leading cause of death globally by 2030. Not to mention all the other common lung diseases like IPF, CF, Alpha-1, etc. This is an area of very intense research at the moment. Quitting smoke exposure, along with exposure to other airborne pollutants, will reduce the rate of lung function decline however in those that have sufficient smoke exposure or for various other reasons have already developed COPD, even avoiding the initiating factor will not return the rate of decline to a normal pace as the disease is believed to be self perpetuating, sometimes refereed to as auto-inflammatory, once developed. Nothing will regain or regenerate lost lung function in chronic lung diseases as of the latest medical science today.

No vitamins or anti-oxidant supplementation has been shown to be effective in treating COPD as the defense mechanisms in smoker's lungs are dysfunctional due to increased DNA damage and cellular senescence. Some Supplementation, namely high doses of vitamin A, retinoids, were actually clinically proven to increase the susceptibility towards lung cancer in smokers and former smokers. These trials occurred in the late 90's.

Best thing to do is avoid all tobacco smoke and limit exposure to other forms of air pollution. And pay no attention to the pro-smoking wacko's i.e. piglet23.