Health risk Oliver Twist - Snus

[alfseidel]

Hello,

I would like to know if anybody has some detailled information about the health risk of Oliver Twist (OT) compared to snus. Is it the same? Or is OT more like American chewing tobacco?
I like OT sometimes, because it is so discreet.
Thanks for answers

Alf

[chainsnuser]

Hi Alf,

welcome to the forum!

I don't think, that there are any detailed informations available, since it's a niche-product. It's also for sale in Sweden, so I assume that OT has to conform with the Swedish food-laws, just as snus. The warning-labels are the same as for snus or nasal snuff (no cancer-warning!).

AFAIK OT contains comparatively little sugar and has the same TSNA-levels as snus.

http://www.oliver-twist.dk/engelsk%20html/e-faq.html has some answers to frequently asked questions.

After 20 years of heavy smoking, I'm personally not very anxious about possible slight differences between products of smokeless tobacco (e.g. TSNA-contents). They are all at least a hundred times safer than to smoke.

Do you have any detailed informations about the health-risks of American chewing-tobacco (apart from the well-known horror-stories and the obviously high sugar-content)?

Cheers!

[alfseidel]

thanxs for your answer, chainsnuser, but sorry, what is the meaning of AFAIK? i dont get that...

[chainsnuser]

thanxs for your answer, chainsnuser, but sorry, what is the meaning of AFAIK? i dont get that...

As Far As I Know

You can find some useful abbreviations here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_d...8Netzjargon%29
(including German translations)
or here:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Internet_slang

Cheers!

[TropicalBob]

There is a very technical paper available online that compares almost all smokeless options, including Oliver Twist, to cigarettes in causing oral cancers. Swedish snus are highlighted. It's in Adobe PDF. Material of interest is in tables 2 and 3 on pages marked as 257 and 258. Note the interesting comparison of tobacco's "deadly" contents with common foods!

http://crobm.iadrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/5/252.pdf

[chainsnuser]

Note the interesting comparison of tobacco's "deadly" contents with common foods!

Thanks for the link. Yeah, I always suspected, that the whole "tobacco contains plutonium (etc.) propaganda" is bullshit or at least hopelessly exaggerated. It's even more ridiculous, than I though.
It's like the bullshit, that has formerly been propagated about how unbelievable healthy spinach is (the older ones among us will remember).

The longer the scientific community lets some idiots spread their nonsense about tobacco, salt, fat, sugar ... the more laughable the whole medical science will become.

These days, I hardly believe anything a medic says. Most of them seem to have no hard facts, but a clear agenda.

Cheers!

[flathead59]

Thanks for the link Bob, I appreciate it.

[Dead Rabbit]

i found that pdf on cancer causing agents very interesting. thanks for that. however, its hard to trust anything on this issue these days, even when its music to my...upper lip.


"The authors thank Dr. Philip Cole for his review of the manuscript. Dr. Rodu is supported in part by an unrestricted grant from the United States
Smokeless Tobacco Company to the Tobacco Research Fund of the University of Alabama at Birmingham."

[chainsnuser]

i found that pdf on cancer causing agents very interesting. thanks for that. however, its hard to trust anything on this issue these days, even when its music to my...upper lip.


"The authors thank Dr. Philip Cole for his review of the manuscript. Dr. Rodu is supported in part by an unrestricted grant from the United States
Smokeless Tobacco Company to the Tobacco Research Fund of the University of Alabama at Birmingham."

The argument is not valid. Nobody of the anti-tobacco-professionals ever said, that Dr. Cole's numbers are wrong, instead they repeat to mention the fundings of his university, which surely means that the numbers are right.

AFAIK, Dr. Cole has no personal income from the tobacco industry and the funding is given to the university with no restrictions, it's even not only funding his own faculty.

Many anti-tobacco-professionals on the other hand have a personal income with the clear requirement to spread anti-tobacco-propaganda. Even if these people some day would find out, that smokeless tobacco is good for one's health (which is within the scope of possibility, given the scientific material, that even has found a lower risk for certain diseases, when comparing snus-users and non-tobacco-users), they still would continue to propagate ridiculous lies, just not to risk their personal income.

Apart from all that, I tend to trust someone who gives me numbers and links to numerous scientific studies, studies that partly even were funded by the anti-tobacco-lobby. Someone who only tells me ridiculous and misleading horror-stories can go to hell.

Cheers!

[TropicalBob]

Dead-on, Chainsnuser. The ONLY funding a guy like Dr. Rodu can obtain will be from tobacco companies. The government would laugh at such a request to study smoking harm reduction. Its position is clear from the Surgeon General: Quit or die.

"No strings attached" to university grants is a great thing, funding research we'd otherwise not have. I've corresponded with Rodu, as upstanding a guy as you'll find. He's willing to stand up for a scientifically correct position that is unpopular with the health zealots who want a "non-tobacco" world.

Believe him.

[Dead Rabbit]

i found that pdf on cancer causing agents very interesting. thanks for that. however, its hard to trust anything on this issue these days, even when its music to my...upper lip.


"The authors thank Dr. Philip Cole for his review of the manuscript. Dr. Rodu is supported in part by an unrestricted grant from the United States
Smokeless Tobacco Company to the Tobacco Research Fund of the University of Alabama at Birmingham."

The argument is not valid. Nobody of the anti-tobacco-professionals ever said, that Dr. Cole's numbers are wrong, instead they repeat to mention the fundings of his university, which surely means that the numbers are right.

AFAIK, Dr. Cole has no personal income from the tobacco industry and the funding is given to the university with no restrictions, it's even not only funding his own faculty.

Many anti-tobacco-professionals on the other hand have a personal income with the clear requirement to spread anti-tobacco-propaganda. Even if these people some day would find out, that smokeless tobacco is good for one's health (which is within the scope of possibility, given the scientific material, that even has found a lower risk for certain diseases, when comparing snus-users and non-tobacco-users), they still would continue to propagate ridiculous lies, just not to risk their personal income.

Apart from all that, I tend to trust someone who gives me numbers and links to numerous scientific studies, studies that partly even were funded by the anti-tobacco-lobby. Someone who only tells me ridiculous and misleading horror-stories can go to hell.

Cheers!

Yeah, I agree the anti-tobacco propaganda machine is often times an irrational joke.

But, on the other hand, I think were being a tad disingenuous if we pretend that funding has never influenced “scientific” results, even if the scientist didn’t directly reap any financial gain.

Surely you’ve seen some of the other “scientific” results in which Big Tobacco funded university studies.

Ultimately, I guess I rely more on my own experience and reason. Snus makes me feel exponentially healthier, even compared to American smokeless (for example, heartburn).

My own improvement in health makes me believe that study with about an 80% confidence rating.

Ultimately, I would much rather see a more independent approach to this research, outside both the anti and pro tobacco camps. Perhaps this is unrealistic, but when it comes to truth, i set the bar high.

[chainsnuser]

Of course funding has influenced scientific studies. The scientific community is not less corrupt than other parts of the society. And on some fields of science, that weren't of primary interest, nobody cared and fake studies have not been disproven for decades or centuries.

But Dr. Cole's work is about tobacco. Thousands of scientists (working on the 'anti-tobacco side') would be glad to disprove the findings, but seemlingly they can't.

If you're interested in 'independent' research, you could have a look at the recent report by the Royal College of Physicians in London:
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/brochure.aspx?e=234
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/cont...239b09c5db.pdf

Another big study has recently been conducted by the SCENIHR-organisation of the E.U., presumably to support the E.U.-snus-ban, but surely with the demand to keep the results scientifically correct:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consu....cfm?al_id=701
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/c...nihr_o_013.pdf
This study is no fun to read for a tobacco-user, because of the heavy anti-tobacco-undertone, but it comes to the same numbers as the Royal College or Dr. Cole and his colleagues.

I don't think, that the 'tobacco-science' will ever get more independent than in these two studies.

Cheers!

Edit: wrong weblink corrected.

[TropicalBob]

Unfortunately for us, the pronouncements we can LEAST believe today come from any government agency.

It's all about lobbying efforts, spin, covering your ass, and repaying political debt. Truth? That might work sometimes, but only if it supports a predetermined position and foregone conclusion. If it does, use it; if it doesn't, lose it.

Just read our government's position that all tobacco use is equally harmful and you'll understand how arms have been twisted and facts ignored.

Rodu or the Surgeon General? Rodu is less tarnished and more believable.

[Dead Rabbit]

great points guys and thanks for the links.

[DraculaViktor]

Interesting point about snus one day might be found to be good for you, even if you meant it lightly. My uncle used to smoke a lot for many years since childhood. He did however have a heart attack some years back. He did live, and the interesting thing is that the doctors told him that if he WAS NOT a smoker, he would have died. Now, I am not saying that smoking saves lives, but nicotine specifically, as the doctors said to him, saved him. Snus is probably the best form of nicotine delivery and the safest, IMO. So, it is very feasible that snus could be found out to be 'good' for you, of course in somewhat of moderation, as everything else. I have read some stuff on the antioxidants in tobacco. Most are lost in the fire-curing and fermenting methods, but pasteurization preserves a lot of them. Very interesting findings. After all, tobacco is a plant, and plants are our friends.