Is Smoking Really Detrimental To Health? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is Smoking Really Detrimental To Health?

cafetimes1991

08-04-2009, 04:41 PM

bornagain

08-04-2009, 04:44 PM

If you don't go overly crazy it's okay I smoke too, and run about a mile every day. :D
plus I read on this forum that smoking helps against chemtrails.

~Born Again

queenofleon

08-04-2009, 04:47 PM

cafetimes1991

08-04-2009, 04:49 PM

sedate_solution

08-04-2009, 04:51 PM

cf24

08-04-2009, 04:53 PM

bornagain

08-04-2009, 04:56 PM

Hey, bornagain.
How much do you smoke? How much is crazy? I walk a lot, but I wonder if each cigaretteI smoke takes eight minutes (or whatever) off my lifespan. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me that somethingso realxing could be harmful to my health.

Around 6 a day, I try to get my sleep :D. well crazy would be like a whole pack of fags, believe I've had these moments. I doubt that it takes minutes of your lifespan especially if you compensate it with healthy diet and exercise, and as long as you feel fine you will be alright. ;)

I find it ridiculous how people say "it's ridiculous when people eat healthy yet smoke, hypocrites" but the people saying this are the ones that binge themselves with mcdonalds...:rolleyes:

And as above poster said all is in your thougths. ;)

~Born Again

ranran

08-04-2009, 04:57 PM

I also smoke and the more I think about it the warnings might be spot on. Don't know for sure.

Question -

If it's as bad for you as they say, why not ban it like weed, cocaine, etc.?

but I wonder if each cigaretteI smoke takes eight minutes (or whatever) off my lifespan.
If that were true, I would have died 10 years ago.

sedate_solution

08-04-2009, 04:58 PM

Its Probably got a lot to do with your belief of what its doing to you. If you think its bad for you, and could kill you, then it may well do. If you don't pay any attention to the health messages, you could go through life being unaffected...

You make a good point cf24, here's a little story for you guys !

A family's grandmother falls quite ill, the family take her to get testing and such. They find that she has a blockage of some type and open her up and remove it, while they have her opened up they notice that she is riddled with cancer. The doctors explain this to there family and the fact that she only as a short time left, The family in there ultimate wisdom decide not to tell the grandmother.

Guess what guys, she lived for another 17 years !

drhemp

08-04-2009, 04:59 PM

ranran

08-04-2009, 05:00 PM

well crazy would be like a whole pack of fags

That makes me double crazy.:D

supertzar

08-04-2009, 05:03 PM

Like I do in every thread about smoking and health I will share with you something I learned about the exact reason smoking probably causes cancer (don't know so much about emphysema and others.) It is from particles of the radioactive isotope polonium being absorbed from the phosphate fertilizer used in commercial tobacco growing to the leaves of the plant and into the lungs. Smoking commercial tobacco is like x-raying yourself. Grow your own! It's practically free and it fuckin' ROCKS!!! :D

ex sheep

08-04-2009, 05:14 PM

Its been like everything else, its been tampered with.

I used to smoke for 30 years.

Now I cant stand the smell of it.

I opened a box where I keep documents in last night, and I could smell fags from 2 years ago, believe that or not.

toty1994

08-04-2009, 05:17 PM

I wonder if each cigaretteI smoke takes eight minutes (or whatever) off my lifespan.

If that were true I've probably been dead for some time now:eek:

Edit: oops, just noticed someone already said that.

void

08-04-2009, 05:23 PM

It's my beleif that smoking causes cancer is a deception!

Perhaps, but perhaps not.

getmeout

08-04-2009, 06:21 PM

Ofcourse inhaling smoke wont be good for your lungs/body, but as someone said it's likely the additives and radioactive fertilizer (!) thats responsible for most of the cancer.

My guess is that clean natural tobacco isnt anywhere near as carcinogenic as the ciggs most people smoke. You'd probably be healthier without it though.

sedate_solution

08-04-2009, 06:31 PM

Perhaps, but perhaps not.

My Grandmother is 83, and has smoked like a trooper for most of her life. W

We were kind of amazed and though she is a living de-bunking of it.

That is, until I got a phone call this very morning saying that my Grannie has just been diagnosed with cancer and that it is untreatable and terminal.

She probably has a few months to live, if she's lucky.

My grandfather died about 20 years ago from chronic lung cancer after a life time of smoking. Especially in the army where smoking like a trooper really meant more than just the phrase. We saw that fine and humorous man lying on a ventilator with all the crackling and sucking noises until he died.

Was it anything to do with cigarettes?

I'm not sure. We can't say for 'certain' I'll admit. But I'd say it is likely.

Only a few months back a neighbour of ours in her mid 40s that smoked like a trooper all her life, was diagnosed with cancer and was riddled with it.

She's dead now.

A few years back my mother (who also smoked like a trooper) was getting severe pains in her legs. She went to the doctor who put it down to smoking clogging up the circulation. She was given an ultimatum. Either she stopped, or expect to have her legs amputated in a few months. It was enough to make her stop immediately, after years of trying to stop in a passive manner.

All I know is that I don't smoke after being a Boy and watching Grandad die.

He felt it was the cigarettes, and warned against them.

Make of it all what you will.

Peeps who have never smoked are getting lung cancer, what do you suppose is causing this ?

Also peeps are getting cancers in so many different parts of ther body, what do you suppose is causeing this ?

Cancer is a new illness, unheard of many moons ago. Yet here we are with cancer rates rising !

devanshoom

08-04-2009, 06:31 PM

smoking: Lets face it....it causes tight chest, wheezing, shortness of breath, feeling of being tired, coughing, shitty feeling in the throat.

I dunno if it causes cancer but I think you'd be better off without it all the same.

ronisron

08-04-2009, 06:33 PM

The most dangerous thing about smoking Govt approved tobacco are the nasty chemical additives they spray on them such as ammonia, which is highly carcinogenic.

If you must smoke, then smoke the ones that don't have additives added to them such as Pueblo tobacco or American Spirit. I'm told the later can be a bit dry, but this is easily solved by placing a bit of apple or cucumber in the pouch.

Our Government are well aware of these nasty unnecessary poisons the tobacco companies add to their product, but they do nothing, as the truth is they couldn't give a shit about the health of the people in this nation.

Personally, I choose to smoke marijuana which is less dangerous and less addictive than tobacco.

That's pretty much my whole reply. If you could grow your own tobacco, or had access to some that wasn't filled with all the nasty additives that the major companies put in, enjoying a litle smoke every now and then wouldn't be a problem. Without the harmful, addicting additives, you wouldn't be compelled to smoke as governed by a feeling of addiction, you'd be free to smoke as casually as you choose.

I have tried wine cured tobacco leaves, folded up and rolled into a cylindrical shape. They are sold in certain tobacco shops and are called bediers (bed- e - ays;French) and they are a nice smoke.

I'm not a tobacco smoker myself, and I find regular cigarette smoke to be nasty. I do enjoy an herbal remedy now and again in smoke form.

drhemp

08-04-2009, 06:41 PM

That's pretty much my whole reply. If you could grow your own tobacco, or had access to some that wasn't filled with all the nasty additives that the major companies put in, enjoying a litle smoke every now and then wouldn't be a problem. Without the harmful, addicting additives, you wouldn't be compelled to smoke as governed by a feeling of addiction, you'd be free to smoke as casually as you choose.

I have tried wine cured tobacco leaves, folded up and rolled into a cylindrical shape. They are sold in certain tobacco shops and are called bediers (bed- e - ays;French) and they are a nice smoke.

I'm not a tobacco smoker myself, and I find regular cigarette smoke to be nasty. I do enjoy an herbal remedy now and again in smoke form.

The thing is, this Government wants people to be unhealthy, they want people to get cancer as it is highly profitable for their friends in the pharmaceuticals.

If they wanted reductions in cancer (or indeed many other conditions such as diabetes) this could be done by promoting healthy organic food and certain vitamin supplements. Far from doing this, they are introducing the Codex Alimentarius guidelines which seeks to eradicate organic food in favour of irradiated food and to ban many of the dietary supplements that we've been freely able to buy from health food stores for generations.

The Government will happily ban smoking in public places as this gives them to power to enforce draconian restrictions on us that they know will have little to no effect on public health (they wouldn't have introduced the smoking ban if they actually believed it would have a positive effect on public health). On the other hand, they could save thousands of lives by banning the nasty shit they currently allow their friends in the tobacco industry to spike their product with.

ronisron

08-04-2009, 06:54 PM

The thing is, this Government wants people to be unhealthy, they want people to get cancer as it is highly profitable for their friends in the pharmaceuticals.

If they wanted reductions in cancer (or indeed many other conditions such as diabetes) this could be done by promoting healthy organic food and certain vitamin supplements. Far from doing this, they are introducing the Codex Alimentarius guidelines which seeks to eradicate organic food in favour of irradiated food and to ban many of the dietary supplements that we've been freely able to buy from health food stores for generations.

The Government will happily ban smoking in public places as this gives them to power to enforce draconian restrictions on us that they know will have little to no effect on public health (they wouldn't have introduced the smoking ban if they actually believed it would have a positive effect on public health). On the other hand, they could save thousands of lives by banning the nasty shit they currently allow their friends in the tobacco industry to spike their product with.

We're all past waiting for big business and governments to "do right by us." though, aren't we? Cigarettes and the taxation of, are big business. Make them addictive, and it's bigger business. Then you have all the offshoot companies like Nicorette, the patch, hypnosis... all centered around curing that addiction. It is a colossal game, and only one of many that's being played. Tim Horton's coffee here in Canada has been spiked with nicotine for a long time. Major expose? Not so much, just a little blurb in the mainstream, some controversy for approx 15 minutes.

You're right again... what is more Draconian than manufacturing and selling addictive substances, then messing with the addicted, sectioning them off from everyone else, and coining terms like "smoker's rights"? Limiting "smoker's rights".

You're better off dumping the mainstream tobacco, and seeking out organic if you wish to smoke. For many good reasons.

netta

08-04-2009, 08:57 PM

Don't do it, boys and girls.
http://www.dyess.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080417-F-8306B-001.jpg
When I was in elementary they used to bring the real lungs of a smoker and non smoker in. It was gross.
http://www.talesfromtheotherside.com/images/smoker1.jpg

bornagain

08-04-2009, 08:58 PM

were such a disgusting piece of meat :eek: either way, :(

~Born Again

void

08-04-2009, 09:04 PM

Peeps who have never smoked are getting lung cancer, what do you suppose is causing this ?

Also peeps are getting cancers in so many different parts of ther body, what do you suppose is causeing this ?

Cancer is a new illness, unheard of many moons ago. Yet here we are with cancer rates rising !

Lung Cancer could also come from other environmental factors, such as pollution of various kinds. I wouldn't dispute that. I'm not suggesting that smoking is the cause of all cancer or all health problems at all, but going by the personal examples I put above, it appears it certainly doesn't do you any 'good' to smoke. You say that Cancer was unheard of many moons ago, like it's some kind of 'new' thing. If we go by this link (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080521091434AAUfsWr) (and yes I know it's not an academic link or anything, but just food for thought) then it appears that symptoms of Cancer we are aware of today (tumours, etc), have shown up way back in antiquity,and there are many types of cancer. The 'word' Cancer may be new, but how many millions of people died in the long past of causes without a diagonosis a such? It wasn't too long ago that people just 'died' in lots of pain, and without the autopsy knowledge of today they would have been buried quickly with everybody none the wiser of what caused it.

unusual_suspect

08-04-2009, 09:04 PM

If you don't go overly crazy it's okay I smoke too, and run about a mile every day. :D
plus I read on this forum that smoking helps against chemtrails.

~Born Again

I am not sure about the chemtrails, but the other day my boyfriend and I tested our lung capacity in one of those things you blow in to. He is 5 foot 11 and a male non smoker, I am 5 foot 3 and female and have been smoking between 10 to 30 a day since I was 13. We both had a lung capacity of 550, and my blood pressure is on the low side. What's that all about?

were such a disgusting piece of meat :eek: either way, :( ~Born Again

I am inclined to agree, since we are in a physical sense just decaying bags of gas I figure that it doesn't really matter whether I smoke or not.

sedate_solution

08-04-2009, 09:10 PM

Lung Cancer could also come from other environmental factors, such as pollution of various kinds. I wouldn't dispute that. I'm not suggesting that smoking is the cause of all cancer or all health problems at all, but going by the personal examples I put above, it appears it certainly doesn't do you any 'good' to smoke. You say that Cancer was unheard of many moons ago, like it's some kind of 'new' thing. If we go by this link (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080521091434AAUfsWr) (and yes I know it's not an academic link or anything, but just food for thought) then it appears that symptoms of Cancer we are aware of today (tumours, etc), have shown up way back in antiquity,and there are many types of cancer. The 'word' Cancer may be new, but how many millions of people died in the long past of causes without a diagonosis a such? It wasn't too long ago that people just 'died' in lots of pain, and without the autopsy knowledge of today they would have been buried quickly with everybody none the wiser of what caused it.

I agree with your points void, it needs an independent investigation though going back a few hundred years. something which I doubt we'll ever get !

Take the Jade Goody fiasco, me thinks that has been used to push the cervical cancer vax jab.

flyermay

08-04-2009, 09:11 PM

The most dangerous thing about smoking Govt approved tobacco are the nasty chemical additives they spray on them such as ammonia, which is highly carcinogenic.

That's true, but the worst chemicals are not in the tobacco itself, but in the paper.

It seems that the tobacco companies had a great idea: they thought, why don't we made a cigarette that keeps on going on its own when the customer is not smoking; this way he will have to light another one if he gets distracted. And so they did: they added chemicals to the paper, including lead, so that our cigarettes will never go off.

Make a test, light a normal cigarette and another one rolled with a rizla; you will see the difference.

I changed normal cigarettes for roll-ups many years ago (Dutch tobacco: Samson or Drum) and feel much better since.

Either way, my father smoked between 2 and 3 packs a day from his 20 to his 80. Hi never had an illness related to his chest.

unusual_suspect

08-04-2009, 09:13 PM

That's true, but the worst chemicals are not in the tobacco itself, but in the paper.

It seems that the tobacco companies had a great idea: they thought, why don't we made a cigarette that keeps on going on its own when the customer is not smoking; this way he will have to light another one if he gets distracted. And so they did: they added chemicals to the paper, including lead, so that our cigarettes will never go off.

Make a test, light a normal cigarette and another one rolled with a rizla; you will see the difference.

I changed normal cigarettes for roll-ups many years ago (Dutch tobacco: Samson or Drum) and feel much better since.

Either way, my father smoked between 2 and 3 packs a day from his 20 to his 80. Hi never had an illness related to his chest.

Cigarettes smell more chemically than rollies for sure.

void

08-04-2009, 09:17 PM

since we are in a physical sense just decaying bags of gas

Our body is the fabulous device through which our truth filters through into manifestation (if we allow it). Religion went from understanding this early on ("your body is the temple of god" etc) to reviling the body and even punishing it, as it was wrongly felt to be some kind of 'barrier' to truth, some 'lower' corrupt thing of temptation. It was dismissed as a filthy corrupted diseased burden to carry around. If treated right, it certainly isn't.

It is the device through which our truth can shine beautifully into physical manifestation when all the energy channels closely linked to the physical body are clear and healthy. It's very clear to anyone who looks, that some people shine brimming with vitality and others are dragging themselves around like the body is a burden. And if somebody believes the body is a burden, it ironically makes the more likely to feel they 'are' their body alone.

A healthy physical body feels light and a joyous way of enjoying manifestation and the various senses. Even the New Age is guilty 'sometimes' of seeing the body as a burden. Some can get way out into out of body bliss ninny games and then start to view every day living as a frustrating burden. They want to float off into other realsm. It needn't be a burden. It's why the true teachers are not anti body nor anti manifestation.

Realizing ourselves is one thing, but 'living' it and manifesting it even into our very physical cells is even better. It's why the body is best treated well and not abused. It's a fabulous and delicate instrument which so many hammer.

nectars

08-04-2009, 11:02 PM

I have just started smoking natural American Spirit cigarettes, having gotten them in Berlin last week, having switched from Marlboro Light.

If you muscle test natural tobacco(type native americans used; home grown etc.) with Applied Kinesiology you stay strong. If you test modern smokes, you go weak instantly. Apparently in the 50's they introduced most of the chemical agents into it which now cause the health problems.

Void is also correct. Regarging percieved reality(that which changes) theres nothng out there but your consciousness, both conscious and subconscious. Although knowing that and being able to do it(change it) at will is a whole different ballgame.

gripit

09-04-2009, 12:02 AM

Hey everyone,
I've been studying this a lot recently, having taken up smoking in December 2008. I'm still not convinced whether it is good bad or indifferent to us.
I have just started smoking natural American Spirit cigarettes, having gotten them in Berlin last week, having switched from Marlboro Light.
Anyway, your thoughts on smoking: Is it okay and TPTB are lying to us again, or have the Illuminati decided to let people be warned about it?

Brian, 17, Land of Ire

http://picture.yatego.com/images/4784cfcb21c555.2/ZPMO_311016.jpg

American Spirit, good choice.

Is smoking bad for you? NO. Smoking is 'bad for you' ranks right up there with 'the world is flat.'

Big Pharma and their cartel (WHO, cancer 'charities', World Bank etc) are the ones who pay partially or fully for every 'study' done on smoking. If you research it, you will know exactly why that is. It's not just the billions they make off selling garbage $30 packs of gum or band aids that couldn't possibly ever help anyone to quit, it's the 100s BILLIONS they make off all the extra victims they create by conning poeple into quitting or never starting. Not just epidemiology, but hard science tells us of the remarkable protective effect smoking has on many, many devastating and expensive diseases.

Parkinson's (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9921857?dopt=Citation)
Alzheimers (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7703749?dopt=AbstractPlus)
Asthma/Allergies (http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm)
Osteoarthritis (http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/5/366)
Diabetes (http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/1/97)
Childhood Asthma (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/363403.stm) and Juvenile Diabetes rates are going through the roof (no more second hand smoke). The list goes on and on and on...

for anyone interested, a nice forum where 'smoking is good for you' cannot be defeated! here (http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=169&t=15125&st=0&#entry166023)

Read this: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking (http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html)

the dose is the poison, smoke in moderation and free yourself from the Witch Doctor Effect (Negative placebo)

I have tons more info for anyone needing it :)

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=297&pictureid=3004

gripit

09-04-2009, 12:19 AM

It should also be noted that most supermarket smokes are made with what's called reconstituted tobacco sheets. They contain sticks/stems, tobacco dust and are rolled out into sheets. Sometimes, the tobacco companies add government approved additives to expand the tobacco, such as hydrogen cyanide. Nothing in comparison to what's in our food/beverages...but still...

American Spirit are all natural whole leaf tobacco with no additives, very good choice. I buy all natural roll your own from the Indian reserves in Ontario. Giimma, incredible stuff. I have a hand crank smoke maker with good quality filter tubes. However, the best thing is to ditch the filter. They upset the medicinal value of the smoke and can shed fibers, which unlike tar, are not biodegradable in the lung. I usually smoke in a nice veggie based paper with all natural glue. Use a cigarette holder to cool the smoke. Oh, and I also smoke a pipe!

but if you have a yard, grow your own!

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=297&pictureid=2596

limelady

09-04-2009, 12:32 AM

Cancer is a stress-related illness. Stress takes many forms (mental, physical, spiritual, environmental i.e. life in the matrix!). People who smoke are just stressful people and use smoking as their means of attempting to eliminate some of that stress. Other people eat a lot of food, use drugs (street, OTC and prescription), drink alcohol every day, take up extreme sports or any other number of different activities/distractions in attempting to raise their serotonin levels. Others meditate in the hope they can escape this place for a while. The thing is, this place is SO wrong in just about every way, we all have ways of making life more bearable for us, and smoking is merely one of those ways.

The controllers (and their puppets the governments and medical authorities of the world) do nothing to eliminate the true causes of stress, in fact they continue to add to the already high stress levels of their 'stock' EVERY DAY, therefore they are in fact causing the early demise of thousands of people every year and they know it!

Does smoking cause cancer? No, stress in the body system causes cancer.

In fact, just living causes cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and all other modern illnesses you could name.

gripit

09-04-2009, 12:41 AM

Here is a study (http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html) from someone whom David Icke himself has studied and admired (Dr. Kitty Little, Oxford). I'm fairly certain it was her last study (dead soon after)...probably just a coincidence, nothing to worry about ;)

Snippet...

Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?

Introduction:

So far, most of the money given to the cancer industry has been spent looking for a cure for cancer. But it seems that cancer is a disease which has no cure. Traditionally, with solid tumours, cut it out has been the only real option - and it still is. Given that, wouldn't it be better to concentrate more on preventing it?

Oxford's cancer expert, Sir Richard Doll, writing in The American Journal of Public Health , said that increasing cancer mortality "can be accounted for in all industrialized countries by the spread of cigarette smoking." Unfortunately, this statement tends to be believed, despite the evidence against it.

If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn't!

The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:

* tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
* that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
* that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
* that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
* and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.

Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:

"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".

gripit

09-04-2009, 12:49 AM

Does smoking cause cancer? No, stress in the body system causes cancer.

In fact, just living causes cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and all other modern illnesses you could name.

;)

Fear kills, hence the hysteria surrounding smoking. Not to mention turning smokers into the social pariah, dividing friends, families. Big Pharma loooooves the depression, guilt and hatred!

a great read...this is just a snippet :)

Leslie Kenton: Modern Day Death Curses (http://www.lesliekenton.com/circle/aging/think_young.htm)

"Almost everybody has heard of death curses: psychological literature is laced with accounts of how Aboriginal witch doctors have quite literally brought about the death of the young and healthy by cursing them. No sooner do these people learn of the fate which has been cast for them than they begin inexplicably to sicken and eventually to die. It appears that through complex biological processes, their simple belief in the curse brings about destruction of their organism.

In civilized society we tend to look upon such phenomena as anthropological curiosities - products of primitive superstition which simply don't touch us in our more enlightened age. What we are not aware of however is that many of us in the civilized world are also under our own brand of `death curses'. They may be subtler than those issued by witch doctors but they can be every bit as potent in bringing about the physical and mental decline which we have come to associate with aging.

Common (and usually unconscious) notions such as `retirement', `middle-age', `It's all down hill after forty', and `At your age you must start taking things more easily', are widely held. They can exert a powerful effect on the process of aging by creating destructive self-fulfilling expectations about age decline. Instead of facing the future full of confidence and excitement about what lies ahead, optimism is replaced by anxiety as we are warned to `Be careful', or `Don't take chances on a new career at your age."

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=297&pictureid=2603

void

09-04-2009, 12:55 AM

http://i44.tinypic.com/33dihoi.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/vnoyus.jpg

Classic :D

gripit

09-04-2009, 01:02 AM

lol void :)

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=297&pictureid=3007

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=297&pictureid=2598

limelady

09-04-2009, 01:13 AM

;)

Fear kills, hence the hysteria surrounding smoking. Not to mention turning smokers into the social pariah, dividing friends, families. Big Pharma loooooves the depression, guilt and hatred!

a great read...this is just a snippet :)

Leslie Kenton: Modern Day Death Curses (http://www.lesliekenton.com/circle/aging/think_young.htm)

A very interesting and worthwhile read, and explains way better what I was attempting to say in my post above.

Thanks gripit. :)

gripit

09-04-2009, 01:17 AM

A very interesting and worthwhile read, and explains way better what I was attempting to say in my post above.

Thanks gripit. :)

Your welcome. It really does apply to all facets of life :)

flyermay

09-04-2009, 01:42 AM

It's not just the billions they make off selling garbage $30 packs of gum or band aids that couldn't possibly ever help anyone to quit

That's right, and the government (at least in the UK) is with this companies. They make you spend on this stuff much more than you previously spent in tobacco.

I tried three times with the NHS programme, there is no way of leaving it. And the reasons is very easy: they always give you the same dose during the free 3 months. There is no nicotine reduction programme, so once you finish the free 3 months you are completely addicted to the gums, patches, inhalators, or nassal sprays.

It's a fraud!!!

gripit

09-04-2009, 02:21 AM

That's right, and the government (at least in the UK) is with this companies. They make you spend on this stuff much more than you previously spent in tobacco.

I tried three times with the NHS programme, there is no way of leaving it. And the reasons is very easy: they always give you the same dose during the free 3 months. There is no nicotine reduction programme, so once you finish the free 3 months you are completely addicted to the gums, patches, inhalators, or nassal sprays.

It's a fraud!!!

No need to quit, but if you do, go cold turkey!

...and let's not forget about the deadly quit smoking drugs...

from www.forces.org

More on the killer drug

5th June 2008

The latest actions of the US FDA against Chantix are well justified, but insufficient. For those who are not yet aware, Chantix is a killer smoking cessation drug no different than Zyban (http://www.forces.org/evidence/kill/kill.htm). It just kills in a different way. It should be removed from the market as it is an unnecessary drug to treat a non-existing disease.

Unlike those fraudulent attributed to cigarettes, the deaths that Chantix causes are real and as monofactorial as a gun bullet or a hanging rope. It helps to point out that the effects of Chantix may be almost immediate, and this article from last November describes just some.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=297&pictureid=3161

"Suicide was reported 55 times. Suicidal thoughts were mentioned in 199 cases and 417 people complained of depression.

There were hundreds of mentions of anger, aggression, amnesia, hallucination and homicidal thoughts.

In California, Chad Huber was arrested after an allegedly unprovoked bar fight. His wife said the father of 6-year-old twins was never violent until starting Chantix.

An FDA spokesperson confirmed they are looking into 100 specific psychotic incidents in the United States.

Even before Albrecht's death, the FDA said they had planned an investigation based on complaints in Europe where Pfizer sold the drug as Chantix since 2006. "

Just the figures above are a sad reminder of how ignorant too many smokers really are: when they believe antismoking propaganda; when they try to fit the "new society", a product of scientific fraud and perverse values, instead of fighting to set it straight again; when they "believe" corrupt "public health" authorities; when they give in to fear.

It all boils down to this: you just don't screw around with your brain – and nor should "public health".

Smoking is not a disease and none of the diseases "attributed" by dishonest health authorities has ever been scientifically demonstrated to be caused by smoking. "Public health" institutions have become publicly-funded, mouthpieces of the pharmaceutical industry. An industry that wants to obtain tobacco prohibition in the next decade so that nicotine becomes the monopoly of the pharmaceutical crooks that pay off "health" commissions and politicians.

There is nothing wrong with smoking, except in the minds of fanatics and bigots, and in both cases they are to be dismissed as such. The real problem is that people die with these pharmaceutical marketing experiments. Another big problem is that the aforementioned fanatics and bigots are in control of public health institutions, governments and medical associations.

Link To Original Article »» (http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa071128_mo_chantix.4b4d129d.html#)

miracles

09-04-2009, 03:09 AM

Ive been smoking for 20 years and theres nothing worng with my lung.

Wise up people, of courses it's bad for you.

I smoke 20 a day and wake up every morning with burning lungs. Im trying desperatly to quit because I dont want to die. (yet) or suffer the last few years of my life on an Iron lung.

4000 people die a year in my country pf smoking related illness. FACT!

miracles

09-04-2009, 03:11 AM

No need to quit, but if you do, go cold turkey!

...and let's not forget about the deadly quit smoking drugs...

from www.forces.org

More on the killer drug

5th June 2008

The latest actions of the US FDA against Chantix are well justified, but insufficient. For those who are not yet aware, Chantix is a killer smoking cessation drug no different than Zyban (http://www.forces.org/evidence/kill/kill.htm). It just kills in a different way. It should be removed from the market as it is an unnecessary drug to treat a non-existing disease.

Unlike those fraudulent attributed to cigarettes, the deaths that Chantix causes are real and as monofactorial as a gun bullet or a hanging rope. It helps to point out that the effects of Chantix may be almost immediate, and this article from last November describes just some.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=297&pictureid=3161

"Suicide was reported 55 times. Suicidal thoughts were mentioned in 199 cases and 417 people complained of depression.

There were hundreds of mentions of anger, aggression, amnesia, hallucination and homicidal thoughts.

In California, Chad Huber was arrested after an allegedly unprovoked bar fight. His wife said the father of 6-year-old twins was never violent until starting Chantix.

An FDA spokesperson confirmed they are looking into 100 specific psychotic incidents in the United States.

Even before Albrecht's death, the FDA said they had planned an investigation based on complaints in Europe where Pfizer sold the drug as Chantix since 2006. "

Just the figures above are a sad reminder of how ignorant too many smokers really are: when they believe antismoking propaganda; when they try to fit the "new society", a product of scientific fraud and perverse values, instead of fighting to set it straight again; when they "believe" corrupt "public health" authorities; when they give in to fear.

It all boils down to this: you just don't screw around with your brain – and nor should "public health".

Smoking is not a disease and none of the diseases "attributed" by dishonest health authorities has ever been scientifically demonstrated to be caused by smoking. "Public health" institutions have become publicly-funded, mouthpieces of the pharmaceutical industry. An industry that wants to obtain tobacco prohibition in the next decade so that nicotine becomes the monopoly of the pharmaceutical crooks that pay off "health" commissions and politicians.

There is nothing wrong with smoking, except in the minds of fanatics and bigots, and in both cases they are to be dismissed as such. The real problem is that people die with these pharmaceutical marketing experiments. Another big problem is that the aforementioned fanatics and bigots are in control of public health institutions, governments and medical associations.

Link To Original Article »» (http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa071128_mo_chantix.4b4d129d.html#)

Its Champix - not Chantix. Im on it now. But not any more. Thanks for posting.

deem

09-04-2009, 03:19 AM

Smokers are a lot more resisdant to poisons like carbon monoxide, so if you see non smokers keel over when your in a restuerant or a confined space, head for the exits.<)

gripit

09-04-2009, 03:20 AM

4000 people die a year in my country pf smoking related illness. FACT!

NOT! Smoking has never been known to cause cancer or disease, ever! CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION EVER, FOR ANY REASON. There's science, then there's the polar opposite, epidemiology. Please read my posts and links provided and smoke happily; free from the Big Pharma Witch Doctor :)

gripit

09-04-2009, 03:46 AM

Its Champix - not Chantix. Im on it now. But not any more. Thanks for posting.

Champix: Just Another Name For Chantix (http://www.chantixhome.com/chantix_vs_champix.html)

Are you aware of the fact that Champix is nothing but another name for the FDA approved quit smoking drug Chantix? Well, only a certain section of people around the world are acquainted with this fact and the other half who are really ignorant of the relationship between Chantix and Champix fall into utter perplexity when they get hold of Champix while looking for the quit smoking medicine Chantix. So, to inform you the real truth on Chantix as well as Champix, a couple of pointers are mentioned below:

* Varenicline Tartrate is the generic name of Chantix as well as Champix.
* Intially, Pfizer selected Champix as a brand name for Varenicline Tartrate but the Food and Drugs Administration, USA(FDA) rejected it citing that the name Champix is “overly fanciful and overstates the efficacy of the product” from the promotional point of view. As a consequence Pfizer changed the name to Chantix, obtained FDA approval for the drug on May 11,2006 and launched Chantix as an anti-smoking medicine in US under the same name.
* But the brand name Champix for Varenicline Tartrate was accepted by the European Commission a few months after the launching of Chantix in the pharmaceutical market and on September 29, 2006, the drug was relaunched as Champix in the European countries.
* On 14 th January, 2007 Champix was made available for sale as a prescription-based quit smoking medicine on the Scotland National Health Service(NHS).

gripit

09-04-2009, 03:56 AM

Its Champix - not Chantix. Im on it now. But not any more. Thanks for posting.

Thank you for not taking that poison. Perhaps smoking just doesn't agree with you? Do you live/work in an environment detrimental to lungs? Anyhow, I would get checked out.

If you wish to quit, cold turkey is the way to go.

Smokeout Tips for Cold Turkey Quitters (http://whyquit.com/pr/111605.html)

The Annual Great American Smokeout is again upon us and quitting product advertisements abound. Those marketing an ocean of quick-fix magic quit smoking cures know that almost all successful long-term quitters quit smoking cold turkey. If they want to gain market share they must convince quitters to ignore their natural instincts.

According to the American Cancer Society, 91% of America's 46 million ex-smokers quit entirely on their own. More than 41 million strong, the below cold turkey quit smoking tips reflect lessons taught by successful cold turkey quitters to counselors, health educators and researchers....

miracles

09-04-2009, 03:59 AM

Thank you for not taking that poison. Perhaps smoking just doesn't agree with you? Do you live/work in an environment detrimental to lungs? Anyhow, I would get checked out.

If you wish to quit, cold turkey is the way to go.

Smokeout Tips for Cold Turkey Quitters (http://whyquit.com/pr/111605.html)

The Annual Great American Smokeout is again upon us and quitting product advertisements abound. Those marketing an ocean of quick-fix magic quit smoking cures know that almost all successful long-term quitters quit smoking cold turkey. If they want to gain market share they must convince quitters to ignore their natural instincts.

According to the American Cancer Society, 91% of America's 46 million ex-smokers quit entirely on their own. More than 41 million strong, the below cold turkey quit smoking tips reflect lessons taught by successful cold turkey quitters to counselors, health educators and researchers....

No problem, it's obviously branded different in my counrty, your right, exactly the same ingredients. It makes me feel horribly nauseus when I take, but I did cut down to three or four a day on it, and stopped for 5 days on it, but it didnt take away the cravings at all, which leads me to beleiev its all in the mind and a placebo used to milk us. Its bloody expensive too.

However suicide etc is an emotional problem which cant intirely be blamed on drugs.

motleyhoo

09-04-2009, 04:16 AM

gripit

09-04-2009, 04:20 AM

No problem, it's obviously branded different in my counrty, your right, exactly the same ingredients. It makes me feel horribly nauseus when I take, but I did cut down to three or four a day on it, and stopped for 5 days on it, but it didnt take away the cravings at all, which leads me to beleiev its all in the mind and a placebo used to milk us. Its bloody expensive too.

However suicide etc is an emotional problem which cant intirely be blamed on drugs.

I know some people who took it and felt horrid, very strange and just not themselves. This was before I knew the truth, it's god awful.

Smoking may not agree with you, but I would get checked out. Many people think it's smoking that is hurting their lungs when in fact, it may be something else. Many people smoke to help detoxify their lungs (such as aluminum workers). They just don't know it. Best of luck, hope you feel better :)

"Smoking is also much more prevalent among physical laborers, miners, firemen, blue collar workers,... If you take a look at a recent German study of aluminum workers (http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/518607732/m/1861060081?r=7961046281#7961046281), it becomes obvious why they smoke more -- smoking reduces respiratory problems (caused in this case by inhalation of aluminum dusts) sixfold compared to non-smokers. The same "smoker's paradox" was observed numerous times for all kinds of miners and other workers heavily exposed to noxious metallic dusts. They smoke because it tangibly and immediately helps their breathing."

mrindigo

09-04-2009, 04:43 AM

My father smoked for 50 years and was getting early stage emphysema when he nearly died of a ruptured abdominal aorta, which was definitely caused by smoking. My family has a long history of healthy people who live into their nineties, except for the smokers who all die much younger. Nicotine
and other chemicals in cigarettes/cigars causes hardening of arteiries, weakening of arterial walls, and cardiovascular imflammation, which leads to coronary artery disease. These are not myths cooked up by some global underworld, they are facts, and the cigarette companies spents millions over 20 years trying to cover it up.

Most of my friends are cyclists, and the ones who smoke are the ones who barely make it to the end of our rides. They also seem to get slower every year while the rest of us get faster. On cold days they are the ones coughing and hacking.

Though I don't personally know you or your father, I'm glad he didn't die this way, as that would be horrible. I believe what you've said to be true. The concept of smoking is very strange to me. I can't understand why others would deliberately put something into their body which does not naturally belong there, especially when it does not have any beneficial effects. To each their own though.

As for the stop smoking ads, they aren't there to get you to break down mentally and develop cancer(s). Many people like to rebel in some way because they believe it makes them individualistic freethinkers. Sometimes that is the case, but I don't believe it to be so with Smoking, Drinking, and drugs. The stop smoking ads use one of the most basic forms of psychology, reverse psychology. By telling many that, "Ohhh smoking is bad, you shouldn't do it!", many do the exact opposite out of defiance.
If anyone thinks the cigarette companies are hurting from the anti smoking ads, think again. Not only are they putting money into these ad campaigns, they also get away with looking good by claiming to educate the public on the hazards of smoking. Fact of the matter is, they're making a killing (pun intended) off of these ads because they seem humanitarian on the surface, but are actually brilliantly orchestrated ads which challenge defiant people of today. These people running the companies and ads aren't stupid, and have studied societies and cultures for quite some time. It wouldn't be beyond their capacity to trick the minds of most people. ;)

miracles

09-04-2009, 05:24 AM

I know some people who took it and felt horrid, very strange and just not themselves. This was before I knew the truth, it's god awful.

Smoking may not agree with you, but I would get checked out. Many people think it's smoking that is hurting their lungs when in fact, it may be something else. Many people smoke to help detoxify their lungs (such as aluminum workers). They just don't know it. Best of luck, hope you feel better :)

"Smoking is also much more prevalent among physical laborers, miners, firemen, blue collar workers,... If you take a look at a recent German study of aluminum workers (http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/518607732/m/1861060081?r=7961046281#7961046281), it becomes obvious why they smoke more -- smoking reduces respiratory problems (caused in this case by inhalation of aluminum dusts) sixfold compared to non-smokers. The same "smoker's paradox" was observed numerous times for all kinds of miners and other workers heavily exposed to noxious metallic dusts. They smoke because it tangibly and immediately helps their breathing."

What tobacco company are you employed by?

This arguement that it's not unhealthy boardering on beneficial is disinf comming from them, they ve got the money to start viral lies like this.

cafetimes1991

09-04-2009, 11:05 AM

Hmmm, I'm still not convinced either way. Damn.

gilly

09-04-2009, 11:13 AM

I'm as smoker. It is detrimental to your health, and for all the bull about helping people stop, if the Gov wanted it stopped, they'd ban the sale of fags. That's my opinion.

drc_

09-04-2009, 12:30 PM

Gave up smoking (sigarettes) (for the second time) last summer.

It's too expensive for me! Plus I feel in better shape now, I have more energy!

Anyway, tobacco isn't bad for you. It's atcually quite good. It's the toxic chemicals the tobacco companies put in their products that give people cancer and heart-attacks etc.

A few of my mates smoke that American Spirit stuff too, it's supposed to be chemical free. It does taste a lot less 'artificial' if you know what I mean.

I still smoke weed though! :p

whiteshadow

09-04-2009, 12:44 PM

Hmmm, I'm still not convinced either way. Damn.

How about these smokers lungs and heart:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/photogalleries/cadavers_exhibition_museum/images/primary/BODIES_smokers_lungs.jpg

clive w

09-04-2009, 01:13 PM

I think it is dangerous, like too much of anything, BUT, we have all heard of people who have smoked 60 a day their entire lives and lived to a ripe old age, because they just thought it would never happen to them, so it didnt. So I think your attitude towards it is of KEY importance.

That is why all the cancer adverts are on all the time, they want it in your psyche, cos the body can manifest it that way if you are worried about it.

So thats a good question, and I personally think they want it out there for us to stress over. Stress is the main cause of cancer. So what better for tptb to make us worry about something that can manifest through worrying?

Thats my opinion!!

Many people don´t give a shit about it... they think all this "health"-blabla is crap... and many people don´t know that eating flesh is unhealthy... but they get sick anyway.....

gripit

09-04-2009, 11:01 PM

What tobacco company are you employed by?

This arguement that it's not unhealthy boardering on beneficial is disinf comming from them, they ve got the money to start viral lies like this.

lol, I hate tobacco companies, they're in on the scam. I feel i've provided enough links in my previous posts to prove my point. Smoke in moderation (listen to your body), smoke good quality tobacco and free yourself from the witch doctor effect!

link to this amusing article (http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm) :)

SMOKERS DIE "EARLY"...

While this cannot really be considered scientific evidence, it is a fact nevertheless.

The oldest people on Earth are all smokers.

According to the World Health Organization and the statisticians of the anti-tobacco cartel, however, these are (or will be) all premature deaths, for the simple reason that they are smokers. Therefore, these individuals did (or will) add to the smoking-related death epidemic figures that the charlatans of the numerous anti-tobacco organizations keep waving in front of politicians, media, and public.

FORCES wishes to thank Wanda Hamilton for her usual, meticulously accurate work.
WORLD'S OLDEST -- ALL SMOKERS
(Original compilation by Wanda Hamilton)

Says who that smoking kills? Good habits such as smoking are the secret of good life – In spite of the drumming propaganda, every record of super-longevity belongs to smokers. Here is the case of Zhang Shuqing, a centenarian in Pixian, Sichuan, China, turned 100 on May 7, and who “buried” his own daughter – probably a non smoker! – eight years ago. Jokes aside, one is to think and really ponder on this. Record-setters of longevity are ALL smokers with a lot of other “bad” habits: Zhang also eats like a pig, including a daily bowl of pork fat! A paradox? Hold on: what is a paradox? Something contrary to scientifically established facts, or contrary to BELIEFS passed as scientific facts? Let’s face it: if smoking were such a “bad” habit Zhang and so many like him would not be here to prove the opposite, would they?

The Big 115: another ancient smoker has a birthday party - August 28, 2006 -A reader tipped us off to this story of the ex-smoker, never-drinker who was already six when the U.S. seized Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898. "I never damaged my body with liquor," said Mercado, who quit a 76-year smoking habit when he was 90. Happy birthday, Mr. Mercado del Toro!

The tobacco death toll - February 26, 2003 - Mercilessly, tobacco keeps harvesting an endless number of premature victims. Day after day millions of cigarettes are produced by criminals who KNOW that each and every one of their customers will DIE – and there is no escape, and no more unquestionable truth: if you smoke, you die. This is the case of the late John McMorran, of Lakeland, Florida. He smoked cigars, drank beer and ate greasy food –and now he has paid the dear price for a life turned that stands as an insult to the health crusaders. John was born June 19, 1889, in a log cabin in Michigan, and he was the oldest American living – but he could have lived longer. And that is not all; it is well known that smoking causes blindness and ear problems. In fact, “McMorran's eyesight failed in his final years, and people needed to shout for him to hear them.” What a waste. This is what tobacco does to you. May this epitaph stand as warning to the young, so that they learn to NEVER make John’s mistakes, and turn into statistical deaths.

The Italian Massacre - February 26, 2003 - In the meantime, we get a full dimension of what tobacco does to people in other countries as well. The Italian daily “Libero” has just reported updates on the Tobacco Massacre of Milan last February 6th. Out of a population of 2.2 million in that city, there are 646 people whose lives will, inevitably, be cut short – shortly after they turn 100. Two of them are already 110, five are 109 and 12 are 106. Another 217 are only 100, 167 just turned 101, and 115 are 102. But that’s not over. Over 35,000 Milanese are in the age range between 85 and 94, and another 92,000 are between 75 and 84. You can see them in the polluted Italian city with their dogs, in the typical little bars, indulging in despicable habits such as coffee, grease-filled brioches, alcohol and – worst of all – smoking Tuscan cigars that stink more than any diesel tailpipe, poisoning their peers. Some of them even “do” cigarettes, having indulged in the deadly habit for over 94 years. Imagine how dirty their lungs are. According to the daily, in fact, the overwhelming majority of these people either smokes, drinks, or eats fatty foods. Most even do it all. No wonder the heroic health authorities must intervene to stop the carnage. It’s either now or never!

Tobacco Claims Two More - The Philippines lost one of that country's most prolific and beloved composers and lyricists. Levi Celerio, who wrote the lyrics for more than 4,000 folk, Christmas and love songs, died after a bout of emphysema. Obituaries noted that Mr. Celerio was a chain smoker. He was 91. He is survived by his third wife and the 12 children he managed to father despite the impotence caused by tobacco. From the other side of the world, the United Kingdom morns the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. The mother of Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother was a bon vivant who loved horse racing, gin cocktails and, sadly, cigarettes. It was the latter, the beastly coffin nails, that did her in. She was 101 years old.

Television Pioneer's Life Cut Short - "His trademark cigar rarely left his hand. In an interview two years ago, Berle said he'd smoked cigars since he was 12. "I figure if George Burns can smoke 20 cigars a day his whole life and live to be 100, why should I worry if they're bad for me?" We note the passing of Milton Berle with sadness and anger at a creative life cut short by excessive tobacco use. Mr. Berle died Wednesday from colon cancer. He was 93.

Smoking Kills Famous Director - Succumbing to a life time of smoking, Hollywood director Billy Wilder died Wednesday at the age of 95. The 6-time Oscar winner directed such classics as "Some Like It Hot" and "Sunset Boulevard". His 1955 movie "The Seven Year Itch" made a contemporary icon of Marilyn Monroe's pose over a New York subway vent. The premature deaths of these two well-known victims of tobacco give added urgency to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's campaign to eliminate smoking from movies. Once smoking is banished from the silver screen, the focus can be shifted to the people who make and star in the movies the movies. The carnage must be halted.

Television Pioneer's Life Cut Short - "His trademark cigar rarely left his hand. In an interview two years ago, Berle said he'd smoked cigars since he was 12. "I figure if George Burns can smoke 20 cigars a day his whole life and live to be 100, why should I worry if they're bad for me?" We note the passing of Milton Berle with sadness and anger at a creative life cut short by excessive tobacco use. Mr. Berle died Wednesday from colon cancer. He was 93.

Gregorio Fuentes - Cut Down By Tobacco Before His Time - Gregorio Fuentes, who skippered Ernest Hemingway's fabled fishing boat, the Pilar, for more than 20 years and is said to have been the writer's inspiration for the embattled fisherman in "The Old Man and the Sea," has died. He was 104. Fuentes died of cancer Sunday at his home in Cojimar, the quiet Cuban fishing village about 10 miles east of Havana where Hemingway used to dock the Pilar. Smoking until the end, Fuentes is sad proof that tobacco kills.

John Berry - John Berry, a rugged-faced pipe smoker, a stage and movie director, writer and actor who made more than 50 films and, entangled in the blacklist, exiled himself from Hollywood during the anti-Communist inquests of the 1950s, died Nov. 29, 1999 at his home in Paris. He was 82. Another premature, tobacco-related death, no doubt. We are not kidding. Every smoker who dies is logged as a tobacco-related death to beef up mortality statistics and imply that those who don't smoke are either immortal, or live much longer lives. And when they die (…sorry, IF they die) they are not logged as a tobacco-related deaths even if they died of the identical diseases of smokers. … How else do you think that the anti-tobacco cartel builds up its statistical garbage about the "smoking epidemic?"

Isabella Gibson ready to celebrate her 99th - Another smoker approaches one century of life. Gambling, smoking, and enjoying life does not seem to have cut short the life of this person, though she will certainly be logged as yet another "premature, tobacco-related death" by the crooked statistics desing to create numbers proving the Lie of the Century. Isabella seems to be still in good health, notwithstanding osteoporosis (smoking-related, no doubt). Happy birthday, Isabella -- and keep on smokin'!

Wencelao Moreno: another victim bites the dust - It's with extreme sadness that we report the sad demise of Wencelao Moreno of a smoking related illness. Mr. Moreno, better known as "Senor Wences" of the "Ed Sullivan Show" was 103. During the benighted era when ash resided in ash trays rather than dictating policy in Washington, Senor Wences joked, drank and smoked with his puppets on T.V. All his puppets died of secondhand smoke decades ago. Although his premature passing is sad, his death is warning to us all that smoking kills.

Mme Jeanne Calment, who was listed as the world's oldest human whose birth date could be certified, died at 122. She had begun smoking as a young woman. At 117 she quit smoking (by that age she was just smoking two or three cigarettes per day because she was blind and was too proud to ask often for someone to light her cigarettes for her). But she resumed smoking when she was 118 because, as she said, not smoking made her miserable and she was too old to be made miserable. She also said to her doctor: "Once you've lived as long as me, only then can you tell me not to smoke." Good point! [USA Today, "Way to go, champ," 10/18/95].

When Mme. Calment died at 122 in l997, the new longevity champ became 116-year-old Marie-Louise Meilleur, of Canada. Mme. Meilleur had chain-smoked all her adult life (as her grandson said, "She always had a cigarette dangling from her lips as she worked,"--AP, 8/15/97, reported in Miami Herald, p. 2A). She did give up smoking, however, when she was nearly 100.

The world's oldest man is (unless he has died since the last report I have, which is l997) Christian Mortensen, ll4 in l997,who has been a cigar smoker for most of his life--and still smokes them. [San Francisco Chronicle, "114 and Still Smoking," Peter Fimrite, 8/5/97, p.A13].

Britain's oldest man, George Cook, died at 108 in his sleep in September, l997. He "smoked heavily for 85 years before giving up tobacco at the age of 97," ("World Briefs," Houston Chronicle, 9/29/97).

The Scottish Daily Record (12/15/97) reported on Ivy Leighton, 100, who smoked 20 cigarettes a day for 84 years, but cut down somewhat after her 100th birthday. April claimed smoking was the key to her long life.

There are two men who claim to be the world's oldest living humans, but their birth dates cannot be certified. One is Ali Mohammed Hussein, who claimed to be 135, of Lebanon. He "smokes like a chimney," but does not drink alcohol [CNN World News, "Born in l862," Brent Sadler, 5/13/l997].

The title is also claimed by Narayan Chaudhari, a Nepalese man who says he is 141. However, his birth date also cannot be certified. He too is a heavy smoker and says the secret of his longevity is "raw tobacco and no alcohol." [Nando net, Agence France-Press, "Nepalese man claims to be 141, which would make him world's oldest", 2/12/98].

miracles

10-04-2009, 02:09 PM

lol, I hate tobacco companies, they're in on the scam. I feel i've provided enough links in my previous posts to prove my point. Smoke in moderation (listen to your body), smoke good quality tobacco and free yourself from the witch doctor effect!

link to this amusing article (http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm) :)

SMOKERS DIE "EARLY"...

While this cannot really be considered scientific evidence, it is a fact nevertheless.

The oldest people on Earth are all smokers.

According to the World Health Organization and the statisticians of the anti-tobacco cartel, however, these are (or will be) all premature deaths, for the simple reason that they are smokers. Therefore, these individuals did (or will) add to the smoking-related death epidemic figures that the charlatans of the numerous anti-tobacco organizations keep waving in front of politicians, media, and public.

FORCES wishes to thank Wanda Hamilton for her usual, meticulously accurate work.
WORLD'S OLDEST -- ALL SMOKERS
(Original compilation by Wanda Hamilton)

Says who that smoking kills? Good habits such as smoking are the secret of good life – In spite of the drumming propaganda, every record of super-longevity belongs to smokers. Here is the case of Zhang Shuqing, a centenarian in Pixian, Sichuan, China, turned 100 on May 7, and who “buried” his own daughter – probably a non smoker! – eight years ago. Jokes aside, one is to think and really ponder on this. Record-setters of longevity are ALL smokers with a lot of other “bad” habits: Zhang also eats like a pig, including a daily bowl of pork fat! A paradox? Hold on: what is a paradox? Something contrary to scientifically established facts, or contrary to BELIEFS passed as scientific facts? Let’s face it: if smoking were such a “bad” habit Zhang and so many like him would not be here to prove the opposite, would they?

The Big 115: another ancient smoker has a birthday party - August 28, 2006 -A reader tipped us off to this story of the ex-smoker, never-drinker who was already six when the U.S. seized Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898. "I never damaged my body with liquor," said Mercado, who quit a 76-year smoking habit when he was 90. Happy birthday, Mr. Mercado del Toro!

The tobacco death toll - February 26, 2003 - Mercilessly, tobacco keeps harvesting an endless number of premature victims. Day after day millions of cigarettes are produced by criminals who KNOW that each and every one of their customers will DIE – and there is no escape, and no more unquestionable truth: if you smoke, you die. This is the case of the late John McMorran, of Lakeland, Florida. He smoked cigars, drank beer and ate greasy food –and now he has paid the dear price for a life turned that stands as an insult to the health crusaders. John was born June 19, 1889, in a log cabin in Michigan, and he was the oldest American living – but he could have lived longer. And that is not all; it is well known that smoking causes blindness and ear problems. In fact, “McMorran's eyesight failed in his final years, and people needed to shout for him to hear them.” What a waste. This is what tobacco does to you. May this epitaph stand as warning to the young, so that they learn to NEVER make John’s mistakes, and turn into statistical deaths.

The Italian Massacre - February 26, 2003 - In the meantime, we get a full dimension of what tobacco does to people in other countries as well. The Italian daily “Libero” has just reported updates on the Tobacco Massacre of Milan last February 6th. Out of a population of 2.2 million in that city, there are 646 people whose lives will, inevitably, be cut short – shortly after they turn 100. Two of them are already 110, five are 109 and 12 are 106. Another 217 are only 100, 167 just turned 101, and 115 are 102. But that’s not over. Over 35,000 Milanese are in the age range between 85 and 94, and another 92,000 are between 75 and 84. You can see them in the polluted Italian city with their dogs, in the typical little bars, indulging in despicable habits such as coffee, grease-filled brioches, alcohol and – worst of all – smoking Tuscan cigars that stink more than any diesel tailpipe, poisoning their peers. Some of them even “do” cigarettes, having indulged in the deadly habit for over 94 years. Imagine how dirty their lungs are. According to the daily, in fact, the overwhelming majority of these people either smokes, drinks, or eats fatty foods. Most even do it all. No wonder the heroic health authorities must intervene to stop the carnage. It’s either now or never!

Tobacco Claims Two More - The Philippines lost one of that country's most prolific and beloved composers and lyricists. Levi Celerio, who wrote the lyrics for more than 4,000 folk, Christmas and love songs, died after a bout of emphysema. Obituaries noted that Mr. Celerio was a chain smoker. He was 91. He is survived by his third wife and the 12 children he managed to father despite the impotence caused by tobacco. From the other side of the world, the United Kingdom morns the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. The mother of Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother was a bon vivant who loved horse racing, gin cocktails and, sadly, cigarettes. It was the latter, the beastly coffin nails, that did her in. She was 101 years old.

Television Pioneer's Life Cut Short - "His trademark cigar rarely left his hand. In an interview two years ago, Berle said he'd smoked cigars since he was 12. "I figure if George Burns can smoke 20 cigars a day his whole life and live to be 100, why should I worry if they're bad for me?" We note the passing of Milton Berle with sadness and anger at a creative life cut short by excessive tobacco use. Mr. Berle died Wednesday from colon cancer. He was 93.

Smoking Kills Famous Director - Succumbing to a life time of smoking, Hollywood director Billy Wilder died Wednesday at the age of 95. The 6-time Oscar winner directed such classics as "Some Like It Hot" and "Sunset Boulevard". His 1955 movie "The Seven Year Itch" made a contemporary icon of Marilyn Monroe's pose over a New York subway vent. The premature deaths of these two well-known victims of tobacco give added urgency to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's campaign to eliminate smoking from movies. Once smoking is banished from the silver screen, the focus can be shifted to the people who make and star in the movies the movies. The carnage must be halted.

Television Pioneer's Life Cut Short - "His trademark cigar rarely left his hand. In an interview two years ago, Berle said he'd smoked cigars since he was 12. "I figure if George Burns can smoke 20 cigars a day his whole life and live to be 100, why should I worry if they're bad for me?" We note the passing of Milton Berle with sadness and anger at a creative life cut short by excessive tobacco use. Mr. Berle died Wednesday from colon cancer. He was 93.

Gregorio Fuentes - Cut Down By Tobacco Before His Time - Gregorio Fuentes, who skippered Ernest Hemingway's fabled fishing boat, the Pilar, for more than 20 years and is said to have been the writer's inspiration for the embattled fisherman in "The Old Man and the Sea," has died. He was 104. Fuentes died of cancer Sunday at his home in Cojimar, the quiet Cuban fishing village about 10 miles east of Havana where Hemingway used to dock the Pilar. Smoking until the end, Fuentes is sad proof that tobacco kills.

John Berry - John Berry, a rugged-faced pipe smoker, a stage and movie director, writer and actor who made more than 50 films and, entangled in the blacklist, exiled himself from Hollywood during the anti-Communist inquests of the 1950s, died Nov. 29, 1999 at his home in Paris. He was 82. Another premature, tobacco-related death, no doubt. We are not kidding. Every smoker who dies is logged as a tobacco-related death to beef up mortality statistics and imply that those who don't smoke are either immortal, or live much longer lives. And when they die (…sorry, IF they die) they are not logged as a tobacco-related deaths even if they died of the identical diseases of smokers. … How else do you think that the anti-tobacco cartel builds up its statistical garbage about the "smoking epidemic?"

Isabella Gibson ready to celebrate her 99th - Another smoker approaches one century of life. Gambling, smoking, and enjoying life does not seem to have cut short the life of this person, though she will certainly be logged as yet another "premature, tobacco-related death" by the crooked statistics desing to create numbers proving the Lie of the Century. Isabella seems to be still in good health, notwithstanding osteoporosis (smoking-related, no doubt). Happy birthday, Isabella -- and keep on smokin'!

Wencelao Moreno: another victim bites the dust - It's with extreme sadness that we report the sad demise of Wencelao Moreno of a smoking related illness. Mr. Moreno, better known as "Senor Wences" of the "Ed Sullivan Show" was 103. During the benighted era when ash resided in ash trays rather than dictating policy in Washington, Senor Wences joked, drank and smoked with his puppets on T.V. All his puppets died of secondhand smoke decades ago. Although his premature passing is sad, his death is warning to us all that smoking kills.

Mme Jeanne Calment, who was listed as the world's oldest human whose birth date could be certified, died at 122. She had begun smoking as a young woman. At 117 she quit smoking (by that age she was just smoking two or three cigarettes per day because she was blind and was too proud to ask often for someone to light her cigarettes for her). But she resumed smoking when she was 118 because, as she said, not smoking made her miserable and she was too old to be made miserable. She also said to her doctor: "Once you've lived as long as me, only then can you tell me not to smoke." Good point! [USA Today, "Way to go, champ," 10/18/95].

When Mme. Calment died at 122 in l997, the new longevity champ became 116-year-old Marie-Louise Meilleur, of Canada. Mme. Meilleur had chain-smoked all her adult life (as her grandson said, "She always had a cigarette dangling from her lips as she worked,"--AP, 8/15/97, reported in Miami Herald, p. 2A). She did give up smoking, however, when she was nearly 100.

The world's oldest man is (unless he has died since the last report I have, which is l997) Christian Mortensen, ll4 in l997,who has been a cigar smoker for most of his life--and still smokes them. [San Francisco Chronicle, "114 and Still Smoking," Peter Fimrite, 8/5/97, p.A13].

Britain's oldest man, George Cook, died at 108 in his sleep in September, l997. He "smoked heavily for 85 years before giving up tobacco at the age of 97," ("World Briefs," Houston Chronicle, 9/29/97).

The Scottish Daily Record (12/15/97) reported on Ivy Leighton, 100, who smoked 20 cigarettes a day for 84 years, but cut down somewhat after her 100th birthday. April claimed smoking was the key to her long life.

There are two men who claim to be the world's oldest living humans, but their birth dates cannot be certified. One is Ali Mohammed Hussein, who claimed to be 135, of Lebanon. He "smokes like a chimney," but does not drink alcohol [CNN World News, "Born in l862," Brent Sadler, 5/13/l997].

The title is also claimed by Narayan Chaudhari, a Nepalese man who says he is 141. However, his birth date also cannot be certified. He too is a heavy smoker and says the secret of his longevity is "raw tobacco and no alcohol." [Nando net, Agence France-Press, "Nepalese man claims to be 141, which would make him world's oldest", 2/12/98].

Whats the best quality tobacco mate? Glad your not on there side buddy:)

supertzar

10-04-2009, 03:12 PM

Early in the thread I warned people about radiation in tobacco and how the latest research shows that it is the primary cause of lung cancer, but it went totally ignored. Do you guys just not want to hear it or what? It's kind of important because lives could be saved by people growing their own.

cafetimes1991

10-04-2009, 03:21 PM

dicrittical

10-04-2009, 04:10 PM

govt enforced chemical free american spirit is awesome, cannabis is awesome, but then again so is exercise which smoking of any of the above interferes with in my case, so the key is that old simple motto to balance all things in life so you get the best of all worlds, exercise 5 days a week, smoke, drink and get stoned like its going out of fashion for 2 days, repeat until 6 feet under, with occasional binges in either direction along the way

gripit

10-04-2009, 04:19 PM

So it seems growing your own is the way to go, impossible for me at seventeen years old, unfortunately. I might try when I'm older though.
It seems that... I'm still not sure (!). I mean, I observe a smoker's lungs and heart, but something tells me that the NWO is misleading me again, but maybe the hermful affects of smoking is just too large a threat for them to ignore: that's why they tell people to look both ways when they cross the street...

Yes, the NWO is lying...all the time...about everything. Smoking has never been known to cause cancer or disease (no scientific proof). However, I wouldn't recommend smoking too many 'supermarket junk' smokes. If you're only smoking 15-20 a day, I wouldn't even think about it, just go for it, knowing the facts! Since you can't grow your own, American Spirit is a good choice. I'm gonna grow some on my balcony this year :)

Yes, Superstarz. I would like to hear your input on radiation. I wonder, if it's true and tobacco does contain radiation, does it dissipate over time? Cuz usually, by the time you stick a smoke in your yap, it's been a year or two since it was picked and packaged.

How the scam began: the Scientific Scandal of Anti-Smoking (http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html)

Good online book: In Defense of Smokers (http://www.lcolby.com/)

P.S. The big lie the prickish tobacco companies told everyone was that smoking light cigarettes was better for you. This couldn't possibly be true. First of all, you'll smoke more of them. Secondly, you'll suck harder on them and inhale deeper. Filters can shed fibers, which unlike tar, are not biodegradable in the lung. In fact, the 'safer cigarette' (http://www.forces.org/Library/library_viewer.php?id=68) was developed long ago, but was squashed by the NWO.

"Every aspect of the new cigarette was studied, analyzed and discussed: from cultivation to harvest, chemical analyses, on-going lab testing, curing to processing, marketing and even promotion in coöperation with health institutions. The way to make a safe cigarette was found, the scientific principles unlocked. The driving principle was simple: as nicotine is a harmless product in the quantities inhaled even by the heaviest smoker (http://www.forces.org/Scientific_Portal/evidence_viewer.php?id=139) — and indeed it has many beneficial effects (http://www.forces.org/Scientific_Portal/category.php?section=34) — a high nicotine yield tobacco would be produced. The actual amount of tobacco in each cigarette would be approximately halved as compared with the conventional product. The missing volume would be compensated by swelling tobacco with harmless substances such as water during curing, so that weight and feel would be the same as a normal cigarette. Flavour was to be adjusted with natural flavouring elements."

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=297&pictureid=2602

gripit

10-04-2009, 04:20 PM

eternal_spirit

15-04-2009, 01:33 PM

Don't know if this has been posted

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54498&highlight=smoking

Herbs for Athmatic's (Lungs)

eternal_spirit

15-04-2009, 01:42 PM

The Pharmaceutical companys can make loads of cash with the quit smoking drugs. Heard that some of these medications maybe used to chemically destroy parts of the brain, chemical lobotomy, which may effect your critical thinking abilities and your individuality, making you more likely to do as your told.

And maybe some other serious side effects, same as the anti depressants they dish out are used for the reasons stated above.

It's a chance to take to quit smoking.

eternal_spirit

15-04-2009, 01:44 PM

Other studies suggest smoking actually enhances the brains neural pathways and intelligence, smokers think faster or something like that.

gripit

15-04-2009, 04:39 PM

Other studies suggest smoking actually enhances the brains neural pathways and intelligence, smokers think faster or something like that.

Yes. Smokers have greatly reduced diseases of the mind because of this as well (Parki's, Alzheimers etc). Here is a terrific forum (http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=169&t=15125&st=0&#entry166023) (Immortality Institute of America) on Nootropics (Brain Enhancers).

Potential Therapeutic Applications of Nicotine and Nicotine Analogues (http://www.srnt.org/pubs/SRNT%20V1N4V2N1.html)
SRNT Vol 1, No 4, 1995
John Baron (Dartmouth Medical School), Edward Levin (Duke University Medical Center), Alexandra Potter and Paul Newhouse (University of Vermont)

A multifactorial model including a variety of nicotine effects, such as

* improved attentiveness and
* memory,
* quickened reaction time,
* reduced appetite, and
* lessening of anxiety and
* stress,

Don't know if this has been posted

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54498&highlight=smoking

Herbs for Athmatic's (Lungs)

Yup, smoking has long been known in the 'medical' community to help prevent asthma and allergies. It was in all the medical text books until the 50s when the scam began. This is one of the main reasons they want you to quit...MONEY, MONEY, MONEY...MUUUUNEY (http://www.forces.org/evidence/money/introph.htm)! Childhood asthma (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/363403.stm) is through the roof now too (no more 2nd hand smoke). Cradle to grave customers, Big Pharma's favourite!

Also, see my previous posts on the deadly quit smoking drugs.

Thanks for you input eternal_spirit :)

brucef

15-04-2009, 07:20 PM

gilly

15-04-2009, 07:27 PM

gripit

15-04-2009, 07:44 PM

Here is an interesting fact I picked up from the Anthropologist Jeremy Narby (David Icke has referred to him before).

Smoking 20 cigarettes per day for one year provides the same 'nutritions' dose of radiation as receiving 200 chest x-rays. This is thanks to the Polonium content (mentioned earlier in the thread). That;s a lot of nutritious radiation they jam into our tabs.

Yet he found that shaman in the Amazon smoked enormous mind blowing cigars of super strong natural tobacco and had no record of it causing lung disease of cancers.

Natural baccy mate that's the way forward!

In regards to polonium, I don't buy it, it has a half life of about 3 months. By the time a smoke gets to your lips, it's been at least a year since it's been picked, cured, packaged, shipped etc. Regardless, it's apparently only 0.04 pCi per cigarette, which sounds really scary until you check the data on the rest of the stuff we eat and drink and realize that a glass of tap water will have about as many pCi as 3-10 packs of cigarettes, beer 20 times as many as water, milk 3 times as many as beer, salad oil 3 times as many as milk. And so on...

Regardless, I totally agree, natural baccy all the way! The Semai people of Malaysia start smoking at age two, as a way of weaning themselves from nursing, and then happily continue smoking, completely worry free, into the ripe old age. They were studied in 1970s for 'smoking related' diseases, which included chest X-rays for all 12000 Semai adults, and not a single lung cancer was found (cf. Dr. G. Y. Caldwell, British Medical Journal, Feb. 26 1977, V. 1 (6060) p. 580).

gripit

15-04-2009, 07:46 PM

It never even occurred to me before to grow my own baccy. But this thread's inspired me to at least look into the possibility.

Here's a web-site where you can buy seeds, & there are pages of advice on all things connected (curing & making cigars etc).

http://www.coffinails.com/growing.html

Hey Gilly, there is a current thread (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46441) here. 21_12_2012 is growing his own :)

gilly

15-04-2009, 07:58 PM

Hey Gilly, there is a current thread (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46441) here. 21_12_2012 is growing his own :)

Cheers - definately worth a go I reckon.

kajun666

18-04-2009, 03:22 PM

Awesome thread. Somthing ive been studying for a few months. Im deffo gonna subscribe to this thread.

If its not been mentioned already, here is an article about filters.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2027

Best not to use them and smoke your roll ups without a filter.

not my words but quotes from other forums i thought were very intersting.

It appers that regular filters release quite a bit of non-biodegradable fibers and particles, which lodge in the lungs and stay there for the rest of your life, impairing lung capacity and potentially presenting a seed for cancer (like any permanent fibers will, such as glass/plastic from insulation etc). The regular tobacco particles and tar are biodegradable, hence don't linger in the lungs

Among various vapors and smokes we inhale every day, the smoke of tobacco plant, which was bred and selected over millenia for the medicinal properties of its smoke, is the most benevolent one of them all. The regular cell metabolism in lungs disolves tobacco smoke particulates (and expels the slower disolvable ones) even faster than your intestina & liver do with food nutrients. The quantity of smoke particulates processed by lungs is also vastly smaller than the quantity of food we pass through every day. As with foods, you're better off using organically grown, additive free brands.

Forgive me if some of these quotes have been mentioned in previous post.

regards

cafetimes1991

18-04-2009, 03:30 PM

Hi, kajun666, glad you like the thread and thanks for posting.

rydeon

18-04-2009, 03:48 PM

If you don't go overly crazy it's okay I smoke too, and run about a mile every day. :D
plus I read on this forum that smoking helps against chemtrails.

~Born Again

Bold words my shady lady.

But I too smoke and damn what the government sponsored talking heads say.
My father smoked like a chimney and lived to old age with the demon drink getting him in the end. Not the 60 cigs he smoked either ;)

The key to life is moderation. Be it sex, drink, or cigarettes.

The shit that's in the air from car fumes, aesbestos lined brake pads (third-world countries) and mines.
Radiation left over from the WW2 nuke testing and afterwards is also a contributing factor.
Smoking reduces anxiety and is a ward.

Anders Lindman

18-04-2009, 03:49 PM

I don't know if smoking is good, bad or neutral. Here's a funny video though:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1566496054296025817

:)

gripit

18-04-2009, 04:03 PM

I don't know if smoking is good, bad or neutral. Here's a funny video though:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1566496054296025817

:)

lol, love it!

supertzar

18-04-2009, 04:05 PM

In regards to polonium, I don't buy it, it has a half life of about 3 months. By the time a smoke gets to your lips, it's been at least a year since it's been picked, cured, packaged, shipped etc. Regardless, it's apparently only 0.04 pCi per cigarette, which sounds really scary until you check the data on the rest of the stuff we eat and drink and realize that a glass of tap water will have about as many pCi as 3-10 packs of cigarettes, beer 20 times as many as water, milk 3 times as many as beer, salad oil 3 times as many as milk. And so on...

This source says differently.

The 210Po content of tobacco from several countries has been
measured. One report[17] on the radioactivity of tobacco grown in India
indicated that a single Indian-grown tobacco cigarette had a 210Po
complement of up to 0.4 pCi. Another group from India[13] found a great difference between the 210Po content of Indian-grown tobacco and
tobacco from the United States. The 210Po in Indian tobacco averaged
0.09 pCi per gram, whereas the 210Po in tobacco grown in the United
States averaged 0.516 pCi per gram--about 5 1/2 times as much
radioactivity.
http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivetobacco/index.html

gripit

18-04-2009, 04:07 PM

rydeon

18-04-2009, 04:10 PM

That's true, but the worst chemicals are not in the tobacco itself, but in the paper.

It seems that the tobacco companies had a great idea: they thought, why don't we made a cigarette that keeps on going on its own when the customer is not smoking; this way he will have to light another one if he gets distracted. And so they did: they added chemicals to the paper, including lead, so that our cigarettes will never go off.

Make a test, light a normal cigarette and another one rolled with a rizla; you will see the difference.

I changed normal cigarettes for roll-ups many years ago (Dutch tobacco: Samson or Drum) and feel much better since.

Either way, my father smoked between 2 and 3 packs a day from his 20 to his 80. Hi never had an illness related to his chest.

Sorry but I take issue with roll-ups. They are nasty things, they go out on a whim and you have to keep re-lighting them.

I also had a sore throat with roll-ups. That was with the tiny little dink filters you insert.
I'll stick with the commerical ones until I get my American Spirit sorted out...

gripit

18-04-2009, 04:18 PM

This source says differently.

http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivetobacco/index.html

Thx for info superstarz, indeed puzzling.

Regardless, I don't think it's anything to be worried about. The polonium should be totally gone by the time you smoke it. It has a half-life 138.376 days. We're bombarded by god awful chemicals every which way we turn...sigh!

Best of luck with grow too, I'm starting soon as well (southern Ontario).

gripit

18-04-2009, 04:19 PM

Sorry but I take issue with roll-ups. They are nasty things, they go out on a whim and you have to keep re-lighting them.

I also had a sore throat with roll-ups. That was with the tiny little dink filters you insert.
I'll stick with the commerical ones until I get my American Spirit sorted out...

I can't smoke roll ups without using a cigarette holder to cool the smoke a bit.

supertzar

18-04-2009, 04:22 PM

gripit

18-04-2009, 04:26 PM

Bold words my shady lady.

But I too smoke and damn what the government sponsored talking heads say.
My father smoked like a chimney and lived to old age with the demon drink getting him in the end. Not the 60 cigs he smoked either ;)

The key to life is moderation. Be it sex, drink, or cigarettes.

The shit that's in the air from car fumes, aesbestos lined brake pads (third-world countries) and mines.
Radiation left over from the WW2 nuke testing and afterwards is also a contributing factor.
Smoking reduces anxiety and is a ward.

:)

Yup, nuclear weapons testing, smoking was made the scapegoat for that. Lung and skin cancers were pretty rare before the governments of the world exploded kajillions of radioactive particles into the atmosphere.

Diesel smoke (http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html) is the other major cause of lung cancer.

gripit

18-04-2009, 04:35 PM

The half-life is only the time it takes to decay 50%. It would take a long time to completely decay. The only thing that matters is that there is measurable radiation in cigarettes on the shelves, though, isn't it? People are inhaling polonium into their lungs when they smoke commercial tobacco - that is the bottom line. Tobacco may be getting a bad rap and human beings may be getting cancer because of a totally preventable situation. It's one of the biggest outrages of all time and hardly anyone knows about it.

Southern Ontario! Your weather must be almost identical to ours in Southeast Michigan. It's a beautiful day, isn't it? I can't wait to finish this Saturday morning in the projection booth and get out there.

More good info, thx superstarz. You think the diff between India and America might have something to do with nuclear weapons testing in America? Regardless, governments allow tobacco companies to put in all kinds of chemicals to expand the tobacco. Grow your own or get the all natural, ditch the filter and smoke happily in moderation :)

Yup! a remarkably beautiful day, 22C (72F). I gotta get out there and work off my hangover :confused:

supertzar

18-04-2009, 04:45 PM

More good info, thx superstarz. You think the diff between India and America might have something to do with nuclear weapons testing in America? Regardless, governments allow tobacco companies to put in all kinds of chemicals to expand the tobacco. Grow your own or get the all natural, ditch the filter and smoke happily in moderation :)

Yup! a remarkably beautiful day, 22C (72F). I gotta get out there and work off my hangover :confused:

The Polonium is in the phosphate fertilizer used by the big corps. The plants need phosphorous, but rock phosphate has radioactive particles that end up in smoker's lungs. That's why I am saying it is entirely preventable. I'm thinking it may be the world's first multi-trillion dollar class-action lawsuit against both the industry and the government for covering up what they know to be true.

gripit

18-04-2009, 04:54 PM

The Polonium is in the phosphate fertilizer used by the big corps. The plants need phosphorous, but rock phosphate has radioactive particles that end up in smoker's lungs. That's why I am saying it is entirely preventable. I'm thinking it may be the world's first multi-trillion dollar class-action lawsuit against both the industry and the government for covering up what they know to be true.

Ah, I see.

Ya, the government/tobacco industry aren't gonna win any truth telling contests anytime soon!

thoughtonfire

18-04-2009, 05:18 PM

I smoke American Spirit, too. And while the effects are indeed calming and in a certain sense: Shamanistic (Tobacco is used in Shamanistic Rituals to enhance the effects of some other ingredient, plant or other); The fact is that it is Smoke in your Lungs. Think of it like that. If all you did was Drink Green Tea you'd be okay. But if all you did was drink wine you'd be f'd up.

Now some people say it's not the Tobacco that is calming you, (though I disagree to a certain extent (because I feel the effects of tobacco when I smoke it)), and say that it is in fact the Fresh Air when you go outside to smoke. They say that because Tobacco (*or nicotine) is a Stimulant.

So if all we did was breath smoke we'd die fast.

As you know smoking has some positive effects. So balance your smoking, excessive use can cause harm.

diamondgeezer

09-05-2009, 07:42 AM

Cancer is quite a new illness remember guys !

No its not.

Cancer has always been around, but its only relatively recently that we've been able to diagnose it for what it actually is.

In olden days people with cancer were said to be suffering from 'consumption' or 'ill humours', things like that.

waitew

09-05-2009, 09:44 AM

Damn,at 8 minutes per cigarette,I've taken over 13 years off my life.BS,I refuse to believe it.I'll see you when I'm 90....if you're still around.

exclamatio

09-05-2009, 09:48 AM

the biggest thing you will notice with smoking is your cardiovascular fitness, i work at a martial arts school and the number one thing people see when they stop smoking cigarettes is that their fitness flies way up.

Look at pictures of smokers lungs and you will see the damage it does.

gripit

09-05-2009, 02:47 PM

Good book on tobaccodocuments.org (http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/507927406-7466.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=1). It's an antismoking site. Antismokers stupidity is only surpassed by their greed, hatred and lies.

Here is just part of one chapter from the Smoking Scare De-Bunked (http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/507927406-7466.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=1).

Booklet written by an Australian physician, William T. Whitby, which completely denies any link between smoking and disease, and claims that "the smoking scare is false and that smoking is really quite harmless and often beneficial."

Chapter 2 THE LUNG CANCER HOAX The anti-smoking case has been soundly rejected by numerous leading scientists. Apart from those mentioned in this book there are not dozens but hundreds who are on record as condemning or seriously questioning the theory. And yet the campaigners persist in the great lie that it is universally accepted. Professor M.B. Rosenblatt, New York Medical College, said, "It is fanciful extrapolation - not factual data." He also said, "The un-scientific way in which the study was made bothers us most. The committee agreed first that smoking causes lung cancer and then they set out to prove it statistically." (U.S. Congressional Record.) W.C. Hueper, former head of the National Cancer Institute of Switzerland, said, "Scientifically unsound and socially irresponsible." Professor Sir Ronald Fisher, late of Cambridge University, "The theory will eventually be regarded as a catastrophic and conspicuous howler." Dr. R.H. Mole, British Research Council: "Evidence in uranium miners permits the exclusion of smoking as a major causal agent." Professor Sheldon Sommers, New York Academy of Medicine and Science, said recently, "The belief that smoking is the cause of lung cancer is no longer widely held by scientists" and also, "Smoking is no longer seen as a cause of heart disease except by a few zealots." Dr. Ronald Okun, director of Clinical Pathology, Los Angeles, said, "As a scientist I find no persuasive evidence that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer." Professor Charles H. Hine, University of California: "After years of intensive research no compound in cigarette smoking has been established as a health hazard." Dr. B. Dijkstra, University of Pretoria: "The natural experiment (referring to a rise in lung cancer when people were unable to smoke) shows conclusively that the hypothesis must be abandoned." Professors Kothari and Mehta, Bombay Medical College, say in their book 'Cancer - Myths and Realities of Cause and Cure' that it is impossible for smoking to cause lung cancer. Dr. K.M.D. Herrold, former medical director of the U.S. Public Health Service, told a congressional committee that the claim that smoking causes lung cancer "must remain only a theory." Professor P. Burch of Leeds University has been a thorn in the side of the campaigners. In his book, 'The Biology of Cancer - A New Approach', he wrote, "Those epidemiological studies that purport to show a casual connection between cigarette smoking and various cancers, but particularly lung cancer, fail when critically examined to establish a causal claim." Discussing the findings of Professor Friberg he further said, "The same source of information indicates that smoking does not play a major causal role - according to present statistics it appears to have no role - in lung cancer." He also said, "The bulk of the enormous increase in death rates (from lung cancer) has been due to factors unconnected with tobacco." And further, "Unfortunately, it seems that excessive zeal leads only too often to methodological shortcuts, spurious arguments and premature conclusions and the sacrifice of truth." In the `Lancet ; July 14th 1973, he wrote, "There can be no suggestion that cigarette smoking has contributed appreciably to the increase in death rates from lung cancer." In the `Lancet ; April 5th 1975, he said, "My point to point refutation of Doll's arguments in favour of the causal hypothesis has not been answered by him." In a letter to Congressman Bliley he wrote, "I question the statements made in Sec. 2 of the Bill (proposals for stronger anti- smoking measures) about the effects of cigarette smoking on overall mortality, lung cancer and heart disease. I am unable to find any scientific justification for the assertion in the bill that cigarette smoking causes in the U.S. over 300,000 unnecessary deaths annually." (U.S. Congressional Record.) Professor H. Schievelbein of the German Heart Centre and consultant to the World Health Organization wrote in 'Preventive Medicine' (May 1979), "Tobacco smoke exposure in animals has never produced an arteriosclerotic condition similar to the human disease." Although he is strongly against smoking he insists on a strict scientific attitude. Referring to the conference on smoking and health in Stockholm in 1979, he said, "The problem of smoking and health should not be left to fanatics, renegades and politicians." He said some statements made at the conference would make your hair stand on end. The eminent Professor Hans Eysenck says, "There are too many inconsistencies, downright errors and unsupported conclusions to make it possible to accept the suggestion as proven that cigarette smoking in a meaningful way causes lung cancer or cardiovascular disease." Professor Epstein, University of Illinois, a long-time anti-smoker, now admits, "Modern scientists agree that most cancers are caused by the environment. To escape liability, industrialists have been placing the blame on smoking, but the increase in lung cancer cannot be blamed on smoking. The rate of lung cancers in non-smokers has doubled." The campaigners loudly claim that nobody disagrees with them. In their famous report Doctors Doll and Hill did not say that smoking caused lung cancer, merely that there was a "correlation", that is, The Lung Cancer Hoax 13 a statistical relationship. Completely ignoring the fact that the world's leading statisticians had condemned these statistics, the anti-smoking 'committee' changed 'correlation' to 'causation' to make it more fear- inspiring. They had no medical or scientific grounds whatsoever for this...CIGARETTES KILL (MILLIONS A YEAR) "We have no proof but it's incontrovertible. If anyone disagrees - off with his head. " (With the apologies to Alice in Wonderland) EXAGGERATION From the way the campaigners talk one would think that just about every smoker gets lung cancer. But even the Royal College of Physicians in its reports says, "Only a minority of even the heaviest smokers get lung cancer," and "Most smokers suffer no impairment of health or shortening of life." Your chance of getting lung cancer appears to be much less than being hit by an automobile. We should realize, too, that most people who get it are elderly.
Professor M. Becklake, Professor of Epidemiology at McGill University, asks, "Why do 99 per cent of smokers never get lung cancer?" Whether you smoke or whether you don't, your chances of getting it seem to be just the same. If a smoker gets lung cancer he would have got it even if he hadn't smoked. One thing that damns the anti-smoking case is the total failure to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals. One would think that if tobacco contains anything that causes cancer, inhalation of cigarette smoke would produce it in animals that have been subjected to it for years. As I shall show later not one animal has ever got authentic cancer in this way, despite a notorious claim that was rejected by scientists and was refused publication in America's two leading medical publications on the grounds that 'it did not measure up to acceptable scientific standards.' Some people have pointed out that this total failure to produce lung cancer in this way could be taken as a proof of smoking's harmlessness. A 1985 report from the Microbiological Laboratory at Bethesda states that in a nine year study, over 10,000 mice, of a special breed that is particularly susceptible to lung cancer, were made to inhale cigarette smoke. Not one of the mice developed squamous cell lung cancer, which is the type that occurs in humans and is blamed, wrongly it is clear, on smoking. Some mice developed other types of cancer but the incidence was the same as in the control mice that did not inhale smoke. To cap all this, even the U.S. Surgeon-General in his latest report admits that inhalation experiments using tobacco smoke have generally failed to produce lung cancer in animals. Enough said!

motleyhoo

09-05-2009, 04:33 PM

Hey everyone,
I've been studying this a lot recently, having taken up smoking in December 2008. I'm still not convinced whether it is good bad or indifferent to us.
I have just started smoking natural American Spirit cigarettes, having gotten them in Berlin last week, having switched from Marlboro Light.
Anyway, your thoughts on smoking: Is it okay and TPTB are lying to us again, or have the Illuminati decided to let people be warned about it?

Brian, 17, Land of Ire

http://picture.yatego.com/images/4784cfcb21c555.2/ZPMO_311016.jpg

Seriously, I cannot understand why anyone continues to or ever has asked this question. It seems to be a matter of common sense to me. Your lungs act like a filter for everything you breathe in, just like the filter on those cigarettes. When you finish a cigarette, take apart the filter and look at it. See all that brown stuff and gunk? That's exactly what your lungs look like also, and anyone who doesn't think so is living in denial.

So, the question becomes not whether smoking is bad, but rather is having your lungs full of brown gunk bad. The answer seems quite obvious to me, ergo why I cannot understand why anyone would ask such a thing. I am not being condescending. I have to assume that you must have been given some bad information by someone who wants to irrationally rationalize that smoking is actually good for.

Ok, the human body is actually fairly resilient and can bounce back after many of the terrible things we do to it, but it can only stand so much. It has its limits just like anything else. You smoke one cigarette and it can clear out its lungs over time and come back from that. But, you smoke cigarette after cigarette after cigarette, or you smoke everyday, you never give it a chance or even a hope and a prayer of ever keeping up. That means the gunk is gonna build up more and more and THAT is what is gonna cause you to have any number of the horrific ailments that are associated with smoking.

Ok, I'm sure someone is gonna use this idea to rationalize that smoking is good, so lets just nip it in the bud right now. Yes, Native Americans smoked tobacco, but it was mostly for infrequent ceremonial purposes. They were smart enough, unlike the foolish "white man", to partake of it in moderation.

And yes, all the chemicals and fillers that the industrial cig makers put in the cigs is bad for you, but that still doesn't, and never will, mean that tobacco is actually good for you.

cafetimes1991

09-05-2009, 04:36 PM

Thanks for thoughts, motleyhoo. I have cut down since starting this thread.

motleyhoo

10-05-2009, 04:02 AM

Thanks for thoughts, motleyhoo. I have cut down since starting this thread.

Thank you. Both of my grandfathers had their lives cut short by smoking, and my dad almost died from a ruptured abdominal aneurysm that most definitely was caused by smoking. Nicotine and the other chemicals in the smoke weaken your arterial walls over time. That is a fact. It caused my dad's problem (after 50 years of smoking cigarettes), and it killed my grandfather when he had a stroke after smoking cigs and cigars for 30 years. My other grandfather died from smoking-related arterial sclerosis that gave him a heart attack at 65.

At the time my dad almost died (he actually did die on the O/R table for a while) he was already showing the signs of emphysema and he was almost sedintary because he didn't have the stamina to do anything. It has been 5 years since that happened, he hasn't smoked since, and he is a different person now. He works on his house, works in the yard, fishes in his boat, goes to football games (Go Hoos!!!) anything he wants to do, and his breathing is a 100 times better.

Yeah, we all know stories of people who smoke like smokestacks till they're 90, but these people are not the norm.

Good luck to you and thanks for cutting back.

cafetimes1991

10-05-2009, 05:36 PM

One for the righteous anti - smokers to think about.

Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.

Full report, courtesy of DI's latest headlines 24/6/08
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-or-asbestos-802602.html

Interesting post from 2008.

gripit

12-05-2009, 06:18 AM

from In Defense of Smokers (http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap8.htm)

A common myth about smoking assert that the lungs of smokers become brown or even black from years of accumulation of tars and goo. Not true, according to Wray Kephart. Mr. Kephart presently works as an engineer but he previously worked in a hospital, performing autopsies, most of which were paid for by insurance companies, seeking to determine whether the deceased committed suicide, or died from "natural causes". Kephart tells me that he's done approximately 1560 autopsies, and he's seen some strange things, such as the lungs of auto painters, which were "effectively sealed with catalyzed lacquers".

Kephart insists, however, that it is normally impossible to tell, from autopsy, whether the deceased was or was not a smoker. Upon resection, the lungs are always clear, unless the deceased lived in a large city where there was significant industrial pollution. In that event, carbon deposits may be found, but these are unrelated to smoking. So the "brown lungs" myth is exactly that: a myth.

Recently, I posed a question to Ed Uthman, M.D., a pathologist practicing in Dallas, TX. The question was whether a surgeon, at autopsy, could determine from an examination of the deceased's lungs, whether the deceased was or was not a smoker. Here is Dr. Uthman's response: I don't think one can tell if the deceased were a tobacco smoker or not by the appearance of the lungs. The absence of any black pigment suggests that the person was either a nonsmoker or a very light smoker. Heavy black pigmentation suggests that the person was either a heavy smoker, or lived in a city with heavy particulate air pollution, or was a coal miner, or some combination of the three. The black pigment in question is elemental carbon, which most investigators believe to be inert in its effects on the lungs (although in the extremely heavy doses that coal miners used to get, it may have had a partial role in coal-workers' lung disease).

When I point these things out to anti-smokers, they frequently say, "But I've seen photographs of smoker's lungs that were shown to me in grade school, and they looked simply horrible." I've seen these photographs also, but they are phonies. A popular Internet web site features side by side photographs of two lungs. One is labeled "Smoker's lung - dead at 50". The other is labeled "Non-smokers's lungs, alive at 70". The problem is simply that the photograph of the smoker's lung is a photograph of a lung ravaged by lung cancer; it is not a photograph of the lung of some smoker who died from some other disease. Therefore, even if the cancerous lung is from somebody who smoked, and the "healthy" lung is from somebody who did not, the photographs prove nothing except that cancerous lungs look different from non-cancerous lungs.

Of course, both photographs are photographs of dead people's lungs, because it's not possible to take a photograph of the lung of a living person. Also, rather obviously, the photographs show the outside surface of the lungs. The outside surfaces of lungs are not exposed to either air or smoke; therefore, it would be impossible for smoke to stain those surfaces.

da1reppinqnz

12-05-2009, 06:46 AM

come on man ... this thread cant be serious... smoking is fatal to our species ... unless its that mary jane... cmon humans.. stay away from the cigarettes

carole21

13-05-2009, 01:46 PM

dont do it, stop before you become adicted and its expensive

gripit

13-05-2009, 02:28 PM

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap12.htm

For many years, anti-smoking activists have insisted that smoking "causes" heart attacks. In truth, there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim.

As early as the 1950's government scientists began conducting studies in Framingham, MA., to assess the "risk factors" which lead to heart attacks and stroke. Early on, they identified three such risk factors: Smoking, high blood pressure and cholesterol. As the years have gone by, however, other researchers have identified still other risk factors. Taking estrogen pills has been identified as a risk factor in women 36 . Male pattern baldness has been identified as a risk factor in men 37 . Vitamin and mineral deficiencies have been blamed for heart attacks, as well as eating fatty foods and drinking too much alcohol.

There are other obvious risk factors: 100% of all heart attack victims breathed air during the time prior to their heart attack. 90% drove automobiles. 95% paid income taxes.

I am, of course, citing these "other obvious risk factors" in jest, to illustrate the absurdity of "risk factor" analysis. If everything is a risk factor, then nothing is a risk factor, because there is no conceivable way of determining whether (a) a particular heart attack or stroke was caused by one of the risk factors and (b) if it was caused by a risk factor, which one.

Risk factor studies are, by their very nature, biased by the opinions of the people who conduct such studies. That's because the researchers must select the factors that they consider risky, before the study ever begins.

Consider this: It is a known fact that exercise sometimes causes heart attacks. I say "known fact" advisedly, because there are many newspaper accounts of athletes and others, dying from heart attacks brought on by exercise. A few years ago, my Congressman, Goodloe Byron, dropped dead of a heart attack while jogging on the C&O Canal. He'd been warned by his doctor that he had a weak heart and should not over-exercise, but he disregarded the doctor's advice. Also, a few years ago, Nelson Rockefeller suffered a fatal heart attack while exercising in bed in the company of two nubile young women.

Yet, nobody has ever conducted a study to determine how many heart attacks are caused by exercise. Why not? The answer, of course, lies in the conventional wisdom that "exercise is good for you". Researchers don't conduct studies to link exercise with disease because everybody knows that exercise doesn't cause disease, so there's no point in conducting such a study.

On August 18, 1995, the Wall Street Journal reported on an epidemiological study in England by anti-smoking activist Richard Peto, which claimed that in people aged 30 to 49, smokers have a heart attack risk 2.4 times that of non smokers. For that study to be meaningful, however, Peto would have had to also study a multitude of other risk factors. Smokers tend to be from the lower socio-economic strata of society, and people with low SES tend to be fat and work at hard manual labor (the "exercise factor", again). They may consume too much alcohol and eat diets deficient in the vitamins and minerals which some experts claim are protective against heart disease.

Peto selected smoking as the risk factor to be studied because he believed smoking causes heart attacks. But he might just as well have selected SES, obesity, alcohol consumption, cholesterol, estrogen consumption, diet, baldness, ear creases, etc. Even if he'd studied all of these risk factors, he might still miss the right one, because the real cause of heart attacks may be something that nobody's even remotely considered. After all, we now know that most stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria and can be treated with antibiotics; yet, until just a few years ago, every responsible physician in the world would have dismissed such a notion as total nonsense.

Just recently, researchers have suggested that the true cause of heart attacks may be surplus iron in victim's diets. This iron, they suggest, oxidizes cholesterol and deposits harmful plaque deposits on the artery walls 38

In earlier chapters, I discussed the flaws in the 1950's and 60's studies that attempted to link smoking to cancer and other diseases. Not the least of these flaws was the self-selection of the participants and the failure to establish adequate controls. Take, for example, Doll's famous (or infamous) study of British doctors. In 1951, Doll wrote to 59,600 physicians in the United Kingdom, asking them to fill out questionnaires and become part of his study group, but only 40,70l of the physicians responded 39 . Thus, the participants selected themselves. Furthermore, all of the participants were from the same highly select, elite profession, i.e., medicine. There was no control group, representing the population at large.

In the mid 1970's, some researchers decided to do a study on the effects of smoking cessation as well as other "healthy behaviors". They sought to avoid the flaws that had plagued other epidemiological studies and, to that end, they sought to study groups that were not self selected, but rather were selected, at least in part, on a random basis. The study group was called the "Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT) Research Group".

12,866 high risk men, aged 35 to 57 years, were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group was treated to a special intervention program, consisting of drug-care treatment for hypertension, counseling to stop cigarette smoking, and dietary advice for lowering blood cholesterol (I will call this the "special intervention" or"SI group"). The other group, which I will call the "control group", was left to smoke, eat, and have high blood pressure, without intervention.

The MRFIT Research Group rendered its first report in 1982, reflecting an average follow-up time of 7 years. To the disappointment of the researchers, there was no statistically significant difference between the mortality in the SI group, from that in the control group - despite the fact that, as a result of the nagging, the participants in the SI group significantly "improved" their health habits, i.e., stopped smoking, and lowered their blood pressure and cholesterol levels 40

In 1990, the MRFIT group produced another report, reflecting 10.5 years of research, using the same two groups. This time, the results appeared to show a statistically significant reduction in coronary heart disease (CHD) in the intervention group, but this was attributed not to smoking cessation, but rather to reduction in hypertension 41 . It turned out that there were more deaths from ischemic heart disease in the SI group than in the control group (96 vs. 86 deaths). Moreover, there were more deaths from cancer of the respiratory and intrathoracic organs in the SI group than in the control group (66 vs. 55) 42.

It is amusing to read the explanations of the health establishment for the discrepancies reflected in the MRFIT study. One group of writers tried to explain the higher incidence of lung cancer in the SI group by pointing out that all of the deaths from primary lung cancer reflected in the 10.5 year trial involved smokers or ex-smokers; there were no primary lung cancer deaths among "never-smokers" 43 . These writers apparently forgot that the participants in both groups were selected because they were adjudged to be at "high risk", i.e., smokers and ex smokers. We could hardly expect to find any lung cancer deaths involving "never smokers" in a group that didn't have any "never smokers"!

The MRFIT study is not the only study to use intervention to try to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) and cancer, by nagging people to improve their health habits. The World Health Organization conducted a massive study. It involved 63,733 men aged 49 to 59 in 44 factories in Britain, Belgium, Italy, Poland and Spain. The authors estimated that, as a result of smoking cessation and other improved health measures, they managed to reduce the risk of heart attack by 14% in the group as a whole and 24% in a high risk sub-group. Unfortunately, there was no equivalent reduction in the number of heart attacks 44 .

In 1982, Rose, Hamilton, Colvell and Shipley reported on a 10 year follow up study of middle aged smokers, thought to be at high risk for cardiorespiratory disease. The smokers were divided into two groups: a control group who were allowed to continue to smoke and an intervention group (a "SI" group) who were encouraged to give up smoking. The intervention was very successful. In fact, in the SI group of 714 men, the naggers succeeded in reducing the rate of cigarette consumption by half.

As in other studies, however, the results were negative. In fact, 17.2% of the 714 men in the intervention group died during the study period, as compared to 17.5% of the 731 men in the control group - an insignificant difference. There was also no significant difference in lung cancer. There were 25 cases in the control group and 22 in the intervention group. Interestingly, however, there was a statistically significantly greater rate of "all other cancers" in the intervention group than in the control group45 So nagging people to quit smoking - even successful nagging doesn't reduce the rate of either cancer or heart attack.

Perhaps the final word on smoking and heart attacks came in 1998, when the results of a massive study, financed by the World Health Organization, were released. The Monica Study, which assessed 21 countries over ten years, found the incidence of heart disease dropping across Europe, Australia, and North America. But scientists could find no statistical correlation between the reduction and changes in obesity, smoking, blood pressure or cholesterol levels. They didn't look at antibiotic use but maybe they should have, because at least one recent study showed that a course of treatment with antibiotics appears to protect against heart attacks, suggesting that, like stomach ulcers, they may be caused by bacteria.

cafetimes1991

01-07-2009, 03:03 PM

Interesting.

adbasque

01-07-2009, 03:13 PM

It's my beleif that smoking causes cancer is a deception, TPTB need to explain away why peeps are dying all over the place. They're the ones who have released so many chems into the environment and blasted a few nukes about the place 'Japan & testing', This imo is what causing illness in the populations of the world !

Cancer is quite a new illness remember guys !

Two things we need to ask ourselves.

Do we need to smoke?
Smoking is not just about cancer, it causes all sorts of things
especially heart attacks more than anything, it doesn't help the heart.

add to that the amount of money you spend a day on cigarettes what can you do with all that money?

The anti smoking propaganda has nothing to do with our health, it has to do with two little things.
One so people don't waste the NHS money in looking after them, because it costs a lof of money for the NHS to look after a patient, they want the money without having to spend a penny on us.

Second thing and more obvious, the sale of patches went through the roof, in the last 3 years with people who wanted to quit smoking.

And more importantly, what's in those patches, does anyone know for sure what's in them?
For all we know it could be some form of cancer through your blood stream?

I wouldn't touch those even if it means I carry on smoking.
Maybe it's my paranoia, but I learnt one thing, if something is heavily advertised, I keep away from it.

Maybe
Problem reaction solution?
again:rolleyes:

lizzy

01-07-2009, 03:16 PM

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14564

toty1994

01-07-2009, 03:18 PM

I've been a smoker about 8 years but stopped a couple of weeks ago (mainly expense reasons). Within a couple of days I had more energy and generally felt healthier. Whatever the arguments are the result of quitting has been positive on every level for me. Early days though!