panaceachronicles

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


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.


Leave a comment

Dude! That Shit’s Shrinking Your Balls!

Does your kid, or a kid who you know and care about smoke little cigars or some other kind of cheap, flavored tobacco? Are you frustrated because you can’t stop them? Do they have a major “don’t give a shit” attitude? Even if they are being little idiots, do you understand and still want to help?

I propose some evidence-based reality and an appeal to that little idiot’s well-concealed intelligence. Do you think you can you get this kid to sit with you for one hour and read this post together. In the post I will lay out hard evidence showing how their testicles and genetic materials (and those of their friends) are under stealth chemical attack from contaminated cheap products they are being suckered into smoking. Challenge yourselves to understand the science and read through the references together – they are linked to the original research. This isn’t obscure science – this is about clear evidence of specific chemicals known to attack male reproductive organs in the tobacco brand they smoke that are there because of a cheap, money-grubbing manufacturer’s carelessness and greed. See if your discussion doesn’t trigger an instinct for self-preservation in them and maybe even help them get a clue.

We all know that “please please don’t smoke” doesn’t work, and neither does “smoking is really really bad for you”.  How many millions of dollars are still being wasted on endless repetition of some version of those two “nanny state” themes? Tell a kid that there are 4000 really really bad chemicals in that cigarette, or that he’s going to get lung cancer, and he will sneer to show you how tough he is. Tell him that the cheap-ass manufacturer of that crap he’s smoking is using trash tobacco that’s such shitty stuff that it’s contaminated with totally illegal chemicals that are attacking his balls every time he takes a hit. Tell him that the brands that are poisoned this way are pushed hard to people in poor neighborhoods who can only afford cheap poisoned shit, and to people who have enough money to afford less poisoned brands but are too stupid to know the difference. Show him the data tables below and ask him what he thinks – which brands are pushed to which people in which neighborhoods? Point out, in case he doesn’t get it, that when it comes to tobacco shit definitely rolls downhill.  

BTW this post is for boys. I’m working on one for girls that will be titled “Girl – Those Swisher Things Are Frying Your Eggs!”

So young Dude, you smoke Swisher Sweets. Maybe some other brands too. Lots of people love to smoke Swisher Sweets, especially when they see hotties like Cardi B sucking on their favorite kind of Swisher. But those Swisher Sweets aren’t anything like what the Man behind Cardi B wants you to think they are. No indeed.

Dude, no joke – your balls are at serious risk smoking that shit. If you’re cool with that, no problem. It’s your life. But, for the sake of those who care about you, take a little time and think about a couple of things.

Let’s begin with a reality check on those sweet fruity little cigars. Do you think you’re going to get real tobacco at 2 sticks that weigh 3 grams each for $0.99? Really? Then you must have bought your share of baggies of Oregano thinking you were getting bargain dope, because the math doesn’t work. Even if they didn’t shrivel your nuts, little cigars are not real tobacco. They are worse trash than any toxic Mexican weed you ever smoked, even when you weren’t buying Oregano, and here’s why. Those little 3 gram sticks are made especially for poor kids and stupid kids and are loaded with chemicals that do all kinds of nasty shit, but only to the people who smoke the cheap stuff. Most of those chemicals aren’t even there in the pricier brands, and Swisher Sweet smokers and little cigar smokers in general get special treatment as you can see here. This data is from tests we just ran on off-the-shelf tobacco products popular with young smokers from all kinds of communities.

Community Tobacco Control Partners Test Results 12/18

Keep your eye on that Carbendazim under “Swisher Sweets” in the right-hand column because that’s the ball-shrinker we’re talking about. I’m going to explain the connection in a minute.

To be fair you have to ask why those friendly folks at Swisher Sweet would want to bother to shrink your balls? Well, they don’t actually. They don’t care about your balls, or the kids you may want to make someday with those balls. All they’re doing is spraying their tobacco fields with chemicals that kill off the bugs more effectively by shrinking adult bug balls so they can’t have baby bugs. It’s a new way of controlling bugs, and they will tell you they have to do it. You just can’t kill bugs with pure poisons anymore – they’ve gotten resistant. But their little balls are vulnerable as hell, and that’s what these chemicals are designed to attack and destroy, so you add chemicals like Carbendazim to your chemical cocktail and wham – no bugs, and a lot more valuable tobacco per acre.

OK, bugs don’t have balls, not little ones hanging on the outside anyway, but they do have male reproductive organs and those bug equivalents of your precious balls are what Carbendazim is designed to attack and destroy. 

But, unfortunately, those chemicals in the tobacco fields don’t only bust bug balls, they retain the chemical potency to twist and shrink the balls of every creature they touch, like human Swisher Sweet smokers. That would be you, young Dude, wouldn’t it?

Well hey, as long as you keep buying their shit why should they worry about a few chemicals you don’t seem to mind even if they are attacking your balls? Nobody says it’s illegal for them to have ball-busting chemicals in their little cigars, so why worry about it. Nobody inspects tobacco products for pesticides anyway because they think that anyone who smokes deserves anything that happens to them and this means that everyone from doctors to FDA to inspectors to anti-tobacco crusaders all totally ignore the presence of pesticides in tobacco products and what they would have to admit that means.

OK, this has all been trash talk. Now I’m going to assume that you understand regular English and basic science. I’m also going to assume that if you’ve read this far maybe you’re ready for some straight talk, and that you may, secretly even, be starting to give a shit. So here’s just a taste of the straight science behind your shrinking balls in regular English, with links for you to follow and make up your own mind what you’re going to do about it. 

This first reference just about says it all for any young man who smokes little cigars and expects to have children:

Why Carbendazim has been banned in the EU since 2014

Then there are all these peer-reviewed scientific findings:

“Although the exact mechanism of action is unclear, carbendazim appears to bind to an unspecified site on tubulin and suppresses microtubule assembly dynamic. This results in cell cycle arrest at the G2/M phase and an induction of apoptosis.(translation: it shrinks your balls.)

The Link: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Carbendazim#section=GHS-Classification

“The fungicide Carbendazim Methyl-2-benzimidazole carbamate (MBC) is known to produce male reproductive toxicity.” (translation: there is no doubt.)

The Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17479253?dopt=Abstract

“Administration of carbendazim induced significant decrease in testis weight, diameter, and germinal epithelial height of the seminiferous tubules. Histological results revealed degeneration of seminiferous tubules, loss of spermatogenic cells, and apoptosis.

Moreover, carbendazim caused elevation of testicular malondialdehyde (MDA), marker of lipid peroxidation, and reduced the activity of the antioxidant enzymes, superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT).” (translation: it shrinks them and totally fucks them up.) 

The Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22903170?dopt=Abstract

“2,5-Hexanedione (2,5-HD), a taxol-like promoter of microtubule assembly, and carbendazim (CBZ), a colchicine-like inhibitor of microtubule assembly, are two environmental testicular toxicants that target and disrupt microtubule function in Sertoli cells.” (translation: testicle toxins work together.) 

The Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15141104?dopt=Abstract

“Due to synergistic effects, low environmentally present concentrations of imazalil and cypermethrin in food, and especially their mixtures with carbendazim have genotoxic potential that could be particularly dangerous over prolonged exposure in mammalian organism.”(translation: prolonged exposure destroys the genetic materials in your balls.) 

The Link:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21868589?dopt=Abstract

If you want to read more on other linkages between pesticide contamination of tobacco products and disease please follow these links to other recent posts:

Obesity & Obesogens: The Toxic Chemical Connection

https://wp.me/p48Z9A-nJ4

Tobacco Pesticides & Childhood Leukemia

https://wp.me/p48Z9A-nIL

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

https://wp.me/p48Z9A-nyp

DDT, Little Cigars, & Dropouts

https://wp.me/p48Z9A-nIk

Organic Tobacco Is Safer Tobacco & Here’s Why

https://wp.me/p48Z9A-nH5

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

https://wp.me/p48Z9A-nEY

Smoking & Health – Fake Science Kills

https://wp.me/p48Z9A-nxW