Thoughts On Coca, Cannabis, Opium & Tobacco – Gifts Of The Great Spirit

Leave a comment

Hidden Endocine Disrupters Sickening Oregon LGBTQ Smokers

According to LGBTQ youth and adults in Oregon use tobacco at a 40% higher rate than heterosexuals, among the highest usage of any community, and have much higher rates of many devastating diseases. Everyone knows there’s a connection, but nobody has been able to figure it out. We’ve found what we think is solid new laboratory-verified evidence (data tables are below) and if we’re right, the path is wide open to a simple, elegant at least partial local-level solution that can start improving health and saving lives virtually overnight.

Our new research offers hard evidence (below) that there are hidden supertoxic chemicals in tobacco products that we believe are behind much of the elevated rates of specific diseases among LGBTQ youth and adults.

That’s because what they are smoking is heavily but invisibly contaminated with hidden supertoxic chemicals that target and attack immune systems and endocrine systems and other body systems and functions in people who are already especially vulnerable. Our research has just uncovered the existence of these contaminants for the first time ever in the US.

Here are some of the results of these hidden toxins in tobacco, and some of the smoking-related diseases with higher LGBTQ community rates that nobody can explain.

Smoking rates are 40% higher and …..

1. A 28% greater proportion of Oregon lesbians suffer from obesity.

2. Oregon lesbians also have elevated risk of breast cancer versus heterosexual women.

3. Oregon LGB adults are 50% more likely to have been diagnosed with cancer, relative to heterosexuals. 

4. Gay Oregon men are at enhanced risk of prostate, testicular and colon cancers.

5. A 20% greater proportion of Oregon LGBTQ adults report living with arthritis, diabetes, asthma or heart disease.

All these diseases related to the fact that LGBTQ people smoke more. Up until now the reason for that has been a total mystery, because nobody knew about the endocrine-disrupting pesticides that contaminate the cheapest tobacco products – the kind smoked by economically marginalized LGBTQ youth. We just did the first research ever here in Portland in December 2018 and the hard data below is evidence of what the Portland LGBTQ communities are inhaling without having a clue.

Here’s why the those higher rates of smoking and the endocrine disruptors and fungicides in them are linked to the higher rates of cancer and other diseases.

Each of the tobacco pesticide contaminants shown below, and many of the combinations, are linked to specific diseases. LGBTQ people smoke 40% more pesticide contaminated tobacco products, and they get more of these diseases.

But it is not necessary to prove what part of these diseases smoking tobacco itself may be causing, not only because that isn’t actually known, but simply extensive peer-reviewed journal studies prove that these specific contaminants of specific tobacco brands do cause these specific diseases.

And by the way, I am only showing the data for three brands here. We have just generated this and other data through testing off-the-shelf tobacco products in Portland, Oregon in December, 2018 and we are planning our next run now. 

Community Tobacco Control Partners Test Results 12/18

There is a simple solution to totally eliminating these added risks. Think of clean needle programs. We recognize that IV drug users are exposed to terrible added harm by using dirty needles and we supply them with clean needles to reduce the harm they are doing to themselves. We don’t condone IV drug use, or encourage it, but we recognize that people are doing it and won’t or can’t stop, so we reduce the damage as much as possible.

We can and should do the same with tobacco use, which when you look at the substances being injected into users bodies through the smokestream are every bit as harmful to smokers as diseased needles are to IV drug users. I am talking with clinics serving Portland’s marginalized communities with major smoking and health issues connected with specific diseases like HIV/AIDS and discussing how easy it would be for them to begin a program of supplying their patients who smoke with organic tobacco, either hand-rolled by volunteers from organic leaf bought online or just using pre-packaged organic RYO organic tobacco.

Organic tobacco can be bought for as little as $10/pound from reputable suppliers, and can be easily hand-processed by volunteers into cigarettes that any smoker will readily and even happily accept once they have tried them in comparison to any brand they’re now smoking. Natural flavorings can also be added if there is a need for mint or other familiar tobacco product flavors.

What I’m advocating is a volunteer organization that works with clinics in marginalized communities to supply organic cigarettes as a first step in weaning smokers off of contaminated tobacco products, then transitioning them into a smoking cessation program that actually deals with tobacco addiction rather than the disguised impact of pesticides and fungicides.

The cost of distributing free organic tobacco in an HIV/AIDS program, or any other kind of community-based health program would be minimal, especially compared to the social and economic value of the potential outcomes.


Hidden Causes Of HIV/AIDS Treatment Failure

The Korean Genome + Smoking + (DDT) = Diabetes Epidemic

Did Mom Give You Testicular Cancer?

Ancestral DDT Exposure & Trans-generational Obesity

Smoking & Breast Cancer – A New Link?

Little Cigars And High Liver Cancer Rates In Marginalized Communities

Sweet Cheap Poison At The Bodega

Prostate Cancer & Tobacco Pesticides: Hidden Links

Obesity & Obesogens: The Tobacco Connection

Tobacco Pesticides & Childhood Leukemia

Tobacco Road – Brazilian Tobacco, Nerve Agents, and American Cigarettes

DDT, Little Cigars, & Dropouts

Dude! That Shit’s Shrinking Your Balls!

Do You Want To Make Little Cigars Illegal In Your Community?

Smoking & Health – Fake Science Kills

A Community-Level Tobacco Control Strategy

Tobacco Product Risk Reduction

Stop IQOS From Vaporizing The Lives Of Millions

Just Incidental genocide

Organic Tobacco Is Safer Tobacco & Here’s Why

Leave a comment

Smoking & Breast Cancer – A New Link?

Because of the heavy concentrations of DDT and other endocrine disrupting pesticide residues we recently detected contaminating popular tobacco brands, I’ve been thinking a lot about the fact that beginning with the 1950s every tobacco product being smoked, puffed, dipped or chewed in America had extremely heavy concentrations of organochlorine pesticides. Heavy use of xenobiotic “crop protection” agents for tobacco began in the 1950s with DDT and quickly included aldrin, endrin, dieldrin, chlordane and other byproducts of wartime toxic gas research.

With that in mind, please check this:

DDT Exposure in Utero and Breast Cancer  The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Volume 100, Issue 8, 1 August 2015, Pages 2865–2872,

Maternal o,p′-DDT predicted daughters’ breast cancer (odds ratio fourth quartile vs first = 3.7, 95% confidence interval 1.5–9.0). Mothers’ lipids, weight, race, age, and breast cancer history did not explain the findings.

DDT and Breast Cancer: Prospective Study of Induction Time and Susceptibility Windows . Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 13 February 2019

“Considering the patterns we observed, working backward to determine when a woman first came into contact with the chemical could help inform early detection and treatment of DDT-associated breast cancer.”

Women who were born roughly between 1955-1980 to mothers who smoked (or dipped or chewed) any of the popular tobacco brands of the times were heavily exposed to DDT and other organochlorines in the womb and probably throughout early childhood as Mommy smoked to get rid of all that pregnancy weight and then kept on smoking, maybe in secret, just a little, because it calmed her nerves.

A confidential industry study done in 1972 that I located in the Tobacco Settlement files reported an average of almost 6 mg/kg total DDT over all the brands they tested anonymously. The report ended with a hope that DDT concentrations would be dropping in the future (it had just been banned worldwide for the first time in 1972), and a warning that the data must be kept secret.

But when you look at what we found in tobacco products in 2018 you can see how little progress has been made. While there is only one instance of DDT contamination here it is extreme, and as you can see there are several rather extreme concentrations of other hazardous endocrine disrupting pesticide residues here even in this small sample. There are also residues of pesticides for which no data exist – their effects are unknown. It’s a crap shoot with human lives rolling snake eyes.

Community Tobacco Control Partners Test Results 12/18

If my interpretation of how our new tobacco pesticide residue data applies to the breast cancer research on endocrine disrupting chemicals is right, and it seems pretty straightforward, women in 2019 with medical history that includes parental and especially maternal smoking during birth years 1955-1980 are at severely heightened risk that requires close attention. I am NOT saying that the threat ended in 1980 – it changed, and it got worse. As you can see from the data above, female babies born today to young mothers who smoke Swisher Sweets, or who live in a household where they are smoked, are continually exposed to heavy doses of DDT. What does that say about their risk for breast cancer in 2050?

But in this post I am talking only about DDT and organochlorine exposure of women who were born to smoking mothers 1955-1980.

Know thy unknowns: why we need to widen our view on endocrine disruptors, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 71:3, 2016 (209-212)

These compounds ‘interfere with any aspect of hormone action’, and by doing so can adversely affect physiology and development and thus increase the risk of metabolic and reproductive disorders as well as hormone-sensitive carcinogenesis and impaired neurodevelopment

So keeping with the theme, here are a few more things you may want to review.

Environmental chemicals and breast cancer: An updated review of epidemiological literature informed by biological mechanisms, Environmental Research, 160, (152-182)

Organochlorine concentrations in adipose tissue and survival in postmenopausal, Danish breast cancer patients, Environmental Research, 163,(237-248)

Receptor activities of persistent pollutant serum mixtures and breast cancer riskEndocrine-Related Cancer, 10.1530/ERC-17-036625:3, (201-215),

 Evidence of the Possible Harm of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Humans: Ongoing Debates and Key IssuesEndocrinology and Metabolism10.3803/EnM.2018.33.1.4433:1, (44), 

 Changes in the total effective xenoestrogen burden (TEXB) of breast cancer patients during an 18-month post-surgical follow-upReproductive Toxicology10.1016/j.reprotox.2017.03.007, 69, (212-220),

A Ternary Mixture of Common Chemicals Perturbs Benign Human Breast Epithelial Cells More Than the Same Chemicals Do IndividuallyToxicological Sciences10.1093/toxsci/kfy126

Finally, as you look at this last reference, note the “higher girl’s BMI” factor, and consider the role of EDC in obesity. What if the EDC’s in the mother’s tobacco products contribute in utero and during childhood to the child’s obesity which in turn adds to her potential for breast cancer development? If so, we know for sure harmful pre-natal EDC exposure is going on today and is not just something that happened 1955-1980. 

Prenatal smoking and age at menarche: influence of the prenatal environment on the timing of puberty  Human Reproduction, Volume 30, Issue 4, 1 April 2015, Pages 957–962

We find that older maternal AAM (hazards ratio (HR): 0.75, confidence interval (CI) (95%): 0.71–0.79) and higher birthweight (HR: 0.86, CI (95%): 0.75–0.97) lower the chance of earlier menarche; while higher girls’ BMI at 8–9 years (HR: 1.12, CI (95%): 1.10–1.15), and maternal cigarette smoking on ‘most days’ during gestation (HR: 1.40, CI (95%): 1.10–1.79 with ‘no smoking’ as the reference level) increased the chance of earlier menarche. All factors were statistically significant at P = 0.05.