I was one of those who said, "If they invent a safe, non toxic cigerette I'll go back to smoking", that's how much I liked smoking I guess.

Well, enter the "Vape Age" & I still never went back!

My wife still smokes but I got her into the Vapes so I could help her wein herself off smoking. I tried it a few times but didn't get all the hype (luckily). Unfortunately she quit vaping about a year into it (And still smoked regular cigerettes at the same time) & went back to regular smokes.

I smoked a pack a day for 10 years. I quit at age 26, when I got pregnant with my first child. My RA symptoms started right after I had my daughter. I'm sure smoking can be one of many triggers or "switches" as someone put it earlier. Smoking alters the immune system. Much like allergy shots, vaccines, strep or pneumonia and pregnancy. They all have one thing in common: stressors on the immune system. It makes sense that if enough switches are turned on, the immune system begins to malfunction and we end up with RA.

There are too many people who NEVER smoked who have RA.

But maybe the non smokers were passive smokers?
But lots of smokers don't get RA....
I smoked from age 19-43. Stopped just over a year ago.
I'm inclined to believe it may make you more susceptible, but not the only trigger. Don't think I've ever had pneumonia, but always prone to chest infections as a child. Had pleurisy early 20's...

I think a few of you are confusing my comment for stating RA comes from smoking. I never said that. I'm just wondering who smoked & who still does. There's plenty of evidence that shows ONE trigger for many COULD BE smoking.

We all know people who smoked for 200 years & never had cancer & died of falling down a flight of stairs. I get it not everyone who smokes will get RA & not everyone who has RA ever smoked.

Nope....I'm not misunderstanding. I'm just saying that if there is an overwhelming number of RAers who never smoked....then that is statistically significant.

That means that smoking......if if it a trigger.....is not a significant trigger.....if it is at all.

I know you're reading the Mayo links....but you have to remember that anyone in a clinical trial will probably be asked if he ever smoked. And even if half the people in the trial said yes, it doesn't mean smoking is a trigger.

Yeah I guess? Doesn't meant that's its not either. In the end the only thing that knows for sure if RA will "trigger" is your own DNA.

Have you studied grad level stats?

Never heard of it?

OK, in statistics there are very clear parameters for determining if there is a relationship between two variables, or to test the validity of a hypothesis. So when you question if smoking is a trigger......you have to look at all the variables within a specific population, then test it against another set of variables in another population. [I'm simplifying all this.]

Then there are charts you can test the results to see if it was random chance or a high enough correlation that it could be the "cause." Or not!

Lynn, I studied this in first year biology. We actually did an experiment growing grass with a "stimulant" on some of the quadrants, to see if they grew more. I sincerely thought the quadrants with the stimulant grew more. I convinced myself. But when I analyized it statistically, it did not correlate. So, despite being convinced the stimulant helped, I wrote up the conclusion saying the stimulant did not result in increased growth for the grass.

After everyone turned in their results, we found out what the stimulant was. Turns out it was sugar. I am a gardener, and sugar does not help plants ever. That was a big life lesson, in learning that just because it looked like it helped it grow, the right conclusion was that it did not.

Then I moved on and took advanced stats, and I do believe the methodology is very sound. And that is what too many people miss, whether it is cures with placebos, or looking for a trigger. They fail to look at things statistically. And they correlate things that should not be correlated.

By the way, I am very allergic to second hand smoke, and I detest it with a passion. I think it is evil, bad, horrible. But being exposed to it, having allergies to it, still doesn't make it a viable possible trigger for my RA.

But you know what? Maybe we should all say the heck with the statistical model and just decide that smoking DOES trigger RA. Maybe then more people would quit smoking!

Wow!! Look at you 2 "Joe College" brains. I'm not that clever, barely got out of high school so I guess I like or "fall" for the trigger idea.

Sorry - didn't mean to offend.....just trying to show the importance of picking things apart.

And maybe stats should be taught in high school, instead of years of algebra and trigonometry. Followed by calculus? Ok, I know they have some use, but it just seems like it would be wiser to use math to teach people to do bookkeeping and chart their expenses and income, so they could recognize why they are in debt, or teach stats to keep people from believing unbelievable "testimonial" type of cures.

And yes, to scaring everyone about smoking. They just need to outlaw it period! Why a poisonous substance, which causes so many diseases (the real ones, like lung and other cancers!) and the dangers of second hand smoke, birth defects or low birth weights in new borns, should be allowed to continue is beyond me.

Make it so! Smoking can trigger RA. All on board who want to quit smoking!