PDA

View Full Version : A comprehensive review of the many health benefits of smoking Tobacco



Frankie Pancakes
8th January 2017, 18:44
No it's not from the Onion (satire). I don't have a dog in this fight as "they" say. This is an interesting and long article but worth a read. I wonder if it is possibly the additives in tobacco that cause some of the problems... pure organic as opposed to chemically enhanced?

https://www.sott.net/article/338885-A-comprehensive-review-of-the-many-health-benefits-of-smoking-Tobacco

Ashy67
8th January 2017, 18:53
There are alot of nasty chemicals in cigarettes but I think inhaling any smoke can't possibly be too good for you :bigsmile:

lucidity
8th January 2017, 19:34
I'm not prepared to believe this.

Whilst it's true that we _have_ been lied to about many, many things:
=> that dietary fat causes heart disease or..
=> that eating dietary fat will make you fat
=> that chemotherapy is a valid treatment for cancer
=> that radiotherapy is a valid treatment for cancer
=> that 300 IU of vitamin D3 is an adequate dose
(but woe betide you if you exceed it)
=> that vitamin B17 is toxic
=> that cannabis causes cancer (or brain damage)
etc etc

I find it hard to believe that cigarette smoking is 'good' for you.
There's been too many studies showing, that for example, doctors who smoked
were massively more likely to contract every disease from heart attack,
lung cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, obesity and diabetes to throat cancer.

I think this is the equivalent of the "flat earth" stories that have been going
around for last few years.
Probably the point of this story is to pollute the information pool and
confuse the sheeple.

I'm willing to believe in UFOs, aliens, alien abductions, telepathic abilities,
telekinetic abilities, psychic abilities, conspiracies to pollute public drinking
water with fluoride, conspiracies to spray poisons into the skies, and
conspiracies concerning the murder of Kennedy, the 9/11 false flag and
USA funding ISIS
.... but believing that smoking cigarettes is good for you ?


I think Woody Allen predicted this story... about 40 years ago
See here (zoom in at 3:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fYguIX17Q

Frankie Pancakes
8th January 2017, 19:40
Did you read the article?

bluestflame
8th January 2017, 20:46
have long suspected the benefits of tobacco , likely why the elite took control of its cultivation and processing and loaded it full of chemicals

A Voice from the Mountains
8th January 2017, 20:49
Tobacco actually does have at least a couple of positive effects that I already knew about even without the article above:

- Nicotine unbinds fluoride from the pineal gland and other parts of the body.
- Smoking tobacco occasionally (not heavily) can acutely increase testosterone levels in men, which is a good thing because most men don't have near the healthy levels of T they're supposed to today. Having low T for men can actually increase risk of cancer. Not to mention it literally makes you sissified.

Of course organic tobacco is better. Otherwise you're smoking a chemical cocktail, and all kinds of harmful products.

And of course smoking anything is not healthy for your lungs, but neither are you going to die overnight just because you inhale smoke. I've known of daily smokers who have lived well into their 90s, but they were smoking before all of these chemicals were in the products.

bettye198
8th January 2017, 21:28
Pure Tobacco heals. Once added with all the nicotine and junk, it destroys.

WhiteLove
8th January 2017, 22:02
There is no way I am going to buy that commercial cigarrettes are healthy, they contain chemicals.

Naturally produced smoke from matches, wood etc. is less unhealthy in my opinion to the point that it makes little sense viewing it as a health risk. But the nostrils close instantly, so they block out that smoke, which indicates they want to minimize/balance it into the lungs.

I am not a smoker, if I were I would try to first migrate over to more natural smoking, e.g. being in the presence of smokey environments (not from people smoking), then gradually lower that too.

If that would not help, I would as the very last resort at least apply a really complex psychological block - limit the limitation - e.g. always smoke outside where there is fresh air, or always take fresh air before and afterwards, maybe even mix that with using lip protection from the cigarette paper similar to what Joseph Farrel uses, maybe stick to a particular brand, anything that could help apply a psychological block onto it.

But it is best to migrate towards more natural smoke and then from there lower that dose to ok levels, just to make it so that you don't have to think of the health aspects because that can cause a constant repetitive stress that is not good.

A Voice from the Mountains
8th January 2017, 22:14
It's not just a matter of inhaling smoke that has health benefits. Inhaling smoke isn't good in general. It's the nicotine itself that has some health benefits, just as certain chemicals in marijuana also have health benefits. And nicotine is naturally present in tobacco, it is not an additive.

As with anything, moderation is key. Even too much water or oxygen can kill you.

http://ashevillemunchies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/american-spirit-green.jpg


That is the easiest-to-find brand here in the states that uses no chemical additives. They even have a line of cigarettes that use certified organic tobacco, not that there is realistically much difference there because they still use fertilizer with radon in it either way and that's the other concern. The price is comparable to other brands, maybe slightly more expensive, at least here in Virginia.

shaberon
8th January 2017, 22:17
Interesting that they mention MAO Inhibitor, apparently that's what's needed to get ayahuasca to work.

By-products of combustion always contain carbon isotopes, which is what carbon dating runs on, so that gives you perhaps a bit of neutron decay.

But yes, the first thing that fouled tobacco was industrial fertilizer, and then, the plethora of additives that constitute different brands. Some of this also involves the spraying of excess nicotine and placing fiberglass into the filters to manipulate addiction. World of difference between organic tobacco, and those "cocktails" which immediately induce respiratory trouble, mental stress, and impulsive cravings.

Interesting that one of the centenarians said he abstained from alcohol, as some amounts of red wine for example are supposed to be beneficial.

Filters were added simply to filter tobacco particles, the "filters tar and nicotine" thing was added for marketing later, but those can be just as problematic as some of what's in the smoke.

Sean
8th January 2017, 22:25
No it's not from the Onion (satire). I don't have a dog in this fight as "they" say. This is an interesting and long article but worth a read. I wonder if it is possibly the additives in tobacco that cause some of the problems... pure organic as opposed to chemically enhanced?

https://www.sott.net/article/338885-A-comprehensive-review-of-the-many-health-benefits-of-smoking-Tobacco

Both my parents died of cancer, years ago. Both were smokers.

I CURRENTLY have an aunt and an uncle who are dying from stage 4 cancer. Both are smokers, well, they were before this cancer. I'm sitting in my dying uncle's living room, looking at him in a hospital bed that hospice care set up here, so he can die at home, as I type this.

Selling me on "beneficial" tobacco is gonna be hard. And yes, I read the article, but, still..not buying. Not yet.

Ashy67
8th January 2017, 22:42
No it's not from the Onion (satire). I don't have a dog in this fight as "they" say. This is an interesting and long article but worth a read. I wonder if it is possibly the additives in tobacco that cause some of the problems... pure organic as opposed to chemically enhanced?

https://www.sott.net/article/338885-A-comprehensive-review-of-the-many-health-benefits-of-smoking-Tobacco

Both my parents died of cancer, years ago. Both were smokers.

I CURRENTLY have an aunt and an uncle who are dying from stage 4 cancer. Both are smokers, well, they were before this cancer. I'm sitting in my dying uncle's living room, looking at him in a hospital bed that hospice care set up here, so he can die at home, as I type this.

Selling me on "beneficial" tobacco is gonna be hard. And yes, I read the article, but, still..not buying. Not yet.

Wow that's tough, I too am experiencing something similar in my family also. I agree that any smoking is not advisable for your health. Love and light to you and your family :heart:

TargeT
8th January 2017, 22:58
There are alot of nasty chemicals in cigarettes but I think inhaling any smoke can't possibly be too good for you :bigsmile:

It's a bit counter intuitive, but, the statement "moderation in everything" really does mean EVERYTHING ;)

Toxicity is always bout dosage, not substance.



Both my parents died of cancer, years ago. Both were smokers.

I CURRENTLY have an aunt and an uncle who are dying from stage 4 cancer. Both are smokers, well, they were before this cancer. I'm sitting in my dying uncle's living room, looking at him in a hospital bed that hospice care set up here, so he can die at home, as I type this.

Selling me on "beneficial" tobacco is gonna be hard. And yes, I read the article, but, still..not buying. Not yet.

My grand dad died smoking at 96; I think he smoked for some 70 years.

Cancer is a weird one, is it SOLELY due to "carcinogens" ?

I think it's more of a systemic problem that manifests itself in places where your body is extra weakened (lungs on a smoker etc..).

IE: the problem isn't JUST the smoking, there are many compounding factors (mainly diet, and exercise... and it's MOSTLY exercise really (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161128151241.htm)) My grandfather was a Forrest ranger & worked until his late 70's... a
"woodsman" basically, lived a very very active life style, it's anecdotal; but I think that had something to do with his bodies ability to handle drinking and smoking for that many years.

Bubu
8th January 2017, 23:37
There are alot of nasty chemicals in cigarettes but I think inhaling any smoke can't possibly be too good for you :bigsmile:

It's a bit counter intuitive, but, the statement "moderation in everything" really does mean EVERYTHING ;)

Toxicity is always bout dosage, not substance.



Both my parents died of cancer, years ago. Both were smokers.

I CURRENTLY have an aunt and an uncle who are dying from stage 4 cancer. Both are smokers, well, they were before this cancer. I'm sitting in my dying uncle's living room, looking at him in a hospital bed that hospice care set up here, so he can die at home, as I type this.

Selling me on "beneficial" tobacco is gonna be hard. And yes, I read the article, but, still..not buying. Not yet.

My grand dad died smoking at 96; I think he smoked for some 70 years.

Cancer is a weird one, is it SOLELY due to "carcinogens" ?

I think it's more of a systemic problem that manifests itself in places where your body is extra weakened (lungs on a smoker etc..).

IE: the problem isn't JUST the smoking, there are many compounding factors (mainly diet, and exercise... and it's MOSTLY exercise really (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161128151241.htm)) My grandfather was a Forrest ranger & worked until his late 70's... a
"woodsman" basically, lived a very very active life style, it's anecdotal; but I think that had something to do with his bodies ability to handle drinking and smoking for that many years.

agree to all that you have said but especially to exercise. Speaking from first hand experience. My siblings (6) got their share of diabetes and/or high blood pressure and a host of diseases, as early as 30 to 45 years old. I have never been diagnose with any. The only difference between them and me before I change diet 4 years ago age 47 is that I live a very active life. I simply cant leave working in the office. I was once hired to teach in school but resigned after 4 days.

As to the smoke I knew a very healthy man who never smoke but burn dry leaves every morning upon waking up. I guess he inhales some smoke. As for me I always have a wood stove inside the house which I fire every now and then. My instinct tells me that a house without smoke is mold and germ infested. For the spiritually inclined it drives bad spirit. Not to mention I simply love to inhale some smoke. As you have mentioned its about the right amount. I don't smoke cigar because it does not feel right but love to inhale some from wood or dry leaves smoke. simple as that. trust the senses its there for a reason.

PS your grand dads job is my dream job. activity in nature. nothing beats it when it comes to feeling good and healthy. that's also from experience.

bluestflame
9th January 2017, 00:28
simple methodology , if in doubt , leave it out ... this is why we each get to choose what we do to our own bodies based on our own research and intuitions , ( even while the govt seems hellbent on taking even THAT away from us)

ie we do reap what we so , hence the importance of the ability choose WHAT we'll so and the importance of informed decisions , though seems many sow with wild abandon lately

CurEus
9th January 2017, 01:38
I am part way through the article ( I tend to read the studies as cited) and what they posit is not "unconventional" by any means. They deconstruct flawed studies that showed correlation instead of causation between tobacco and cancers. They ASLO inform readers that current cigarettes products can have nearly 8,000 different additives by commercial manufacturers...is it the tobacco or the additives, chemicals and other constituents that are problematic ? They also discuss they several thousanbd nuclear tests ejecting enough radiation particles to kill the whole planet several times over....

The body seems to adore nicotine with improved immunity, cognition, metabolism among other benefits. We are all pretty much on the same page as it relates to pesticide based farming........I doubt anything other than organic tobacco should be consumed. Then we concern ourselves with filters and rolling papers...I''ll keep at the article but I haven never been very comfortable with governments damning cigarettes while loving vaccines.....seems like a disconnect.

norman
9th January 2017, 02:36
When you're all done sifting this tobacco thing, start on tap water.

I quit tap water 3 years ago.

I've heard tobacco stops the mind control working on you. I thought I was growing eccentric, for years. Turns out I'm just semi immune to mind control and it's not really me that's drifted away from 'normal'.

TargeT
9th January 2017, 02:37
I doubt anything other than organic tobacco should be consumed. Then we concern ourselves with filters and rolling papers...I''ll keep at the article but I haven never been very comfortable with governments damning cigarettes while loving vaccines.....seems like a disconnect.

Every gas station around here has a container full of large, wrinkly brown tobacco leaves, locally grown. The locals pay a dollar and pick out a big piece, then usualy mix with with cannabis, or just smoke it strait.

Only tourists/outsiders smoke "carton" cigarettes here (though even american spirits are only ~$2.50 a pack), I only smoke when I'm at the bars (which can be up to 2-3 times a week.. haha) and at that price point, I don't mind at all.


When you're all done sifting this tobacco thing, start on tap water.



I drink water from the sky ;) (well, from the sky, that fell on my roof and drained into my cistern)

norman
9th January 2017, 02:46
I bought a packet of tobacco seed last year and want to have a go at growing some. Is there an expert reading this ? The seeds are very tiny and I'm thinking they are going to be very delicate little plants during the early and cooler months, which isn't ideal for the climate I live in.

bluestflame
9th January 2017, 04:12
i brought a dvd with all sorts of info on growing tobacco a few years ago
think it was on ebay

Bubu
9th January 2017, 06:17
given the reputation of the controllers to demonize what is good for us and the fact that my senses tells me that the right smoke of a right amount is good. I am inclined to give organic tobacco a try. Thanks Frankie for this post

Callista
9th January 2017, 08:30
I am a firm believer in the beneficial qualities of tobacco. Here is an interesting article about a Doctor in Indonesia who uses the sacred herb to treat various ailments - of course it has to be organic for obvious reasons.

http://www.mercurydetox.net/dr-gretha-zahar.html

Ernie Nemeth
9th January 2017, 11:25
The war on tobacco and cigarettes has made it impossible for me to afford the main brands. If I did pay for them they would cost me about $900/mo. As it is I pay a hefty $300.

Smoking is not so much good for you as it has a coating effect on the lungs. In my field, construction, the dusts and various chemicals in standard use are very bad for you and I am rarely affected because I smoke. The only adverse effect I have regretted is a bit of gum disease. I even have great lung capacity, far better than non-smokers my age, or any age for that matter. I have no shortness of breath.

There is no cancer in my family, at all, so I am at a reduced risk for that. The rest of the diseases like mouth or throat linked to smoking is equally unheard of in my family.

I like smoking because it is cool. I like smoking because it calms me and gives my hands something to do. But my main reason for smoking is because I get far more breaks at work. Every hour I sneak out for a smoke and no one says anything - but I'm sure they wish I didn't.

To be honest, another reason I smoke is because it gives me an excuse to leave or even an excuse never to show up - because I can't smoke at your house (or because you have kids)! It serves my anti-social tendencies nicely...

conk
9th January 2017, 18:08
Dr. William Douglas used to write about the benefits of tobacco, the purest kind without added chemicals. It seems to be true.

lucidity
9th January 2017, 18:29
I can't believe there are so many tobacco industry shills on this forum.
Wow... who would have thought it.

Do you people remember Alexander Litvinenko from 2006 ?
He's the russian defector who was poisoned with Pollonium 210.
Pollonium 210 is radioactive and it occurs in soils in South America.
Pollonium 210 is so radioactive, it reliably and predictably causes _fast_ acting cancers.
There have been rumours and speculation for some years, that agents such as Pollonium 210
are used to _silence_ ufo researchers and whistle blowers (perhaps Karla Turner, for example)

Here's the wikipedia page for Alexander Litvinenko:
He died of a fast acting cancer after being poisoned with Polonium 210.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

Now here's the punchline, are you ready this ?
Tobacco is a natural source for Polonium 210.
The plant concentrates it in it's leaves... which _you_ then smoke.

Exposure to polonium 210 is speculated to be the primary causal agent
of smoking related cancers.

Sacred Herb huh ?

TargeT
9th January 2017, 19:44
I can't believe there are so many tobacco industry shills on this forum.
Wow... who would have thought it.

Kinda judgemental eh?





Now here's the punchline, are you ready this ?
Tobacco is a natural source for Polonium 210.
The plant concentrates it in it's leaves... which _you_ then smoke.

Exposure to polonium 210 is speculated to be the primary causal agent
of smoking related cancers.

Sacred Herb huh ?

NO plant is naturally a source of (highly) radioactive material, Polonium, Uranium or any of they very "hot" unstable or stable isotopes.

Polonium is a rare and highly radioactive metal with no stable isotopes, polonium is chemically similar to selenium and tellurium, though it also shows resemblances to its horizontal neighbors thallium, lead, and bismuth due to its metallic character. Due to the short half-life of all its isotopes, its natural occurrence is limited to tiny traces of the fleeting polonium-210 (with a half-life of 138 days) in uranium ores, as it is the penultimate daughter of natural uranium-238. Though slightly longer-lived isotopes exist, they are much more difficult to produce. Most of this polonium is derived from lead-210 deposited on tobacco leaves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium#Tobacco) from the atmosphere; the lead-210 is a product of radon-222 gas, much of which appears to originate from the decay of radium-226 from fertilizers applied to the tobacco soils. So organic, naturally grown tobacco, would NOT have it present.

.... Due diligence my friend, due diligence.

norman
9th January 2017, 20:02
Tobacco Industry SHills !..hughhh

The Tobacco industry has been sacrificed to push this clamp down on smoking. The serious share holders moved out ages ago. The industry has been lying all the way though. There isn't actually very much real tobacco in their so called tobacco products. Ready made cigarettes have the least. They tried to market a tobacco substitute ( made from tree bark ) back in 1977. It flopped within the time it took to buy a packet and smoke the contents. From there on, they introduced new labels of brands and gradually mixed more and more of the substitute in with the real tobacco and along with various nasty chemicals.

Why would they do that?, reduce the real tobacco but keep the nasty chemicals.

As far as I can tell, the tobacco industry is a limited hangout kind of setup today. It's destined to take all the targeted flack that's being channeled away from other issues, not least the decades long nuclear testing program that put a lot of radio active particles into the environment. The most likely rout by which any single one of those lethal radioactive particles gets into someone's body is by breathing it in to a lung. Funny that, ain't it.

Frankie Pancakes
9th January 2017, 21:49
Lucidity is correct. There is Polonium 210 in commercially raised tobacco. It can also be found in the food chain and the water we drink.

Radon and radon decendants are naturally present in the earth and concentrated in fertilizer(1). This discussion focuses on Polonium 210 because it emits a particularly energetic(2) ionizing alpha radiation which is more hazardous when received internally(3). Although external exposure to alpha radiation is usually not dangerous, continuous external exposure to radiation from chemical fertilizer may cause skin cancer(4).

Research has shown that tobacco can absorb Po210. Similarly, many plants we commonly use for food can absorb polonium and other radon progeny(5). The widespread use of radioactive phosphate fertilizer may be increasing levels of radioactive polonium in animal feeds as well(6). In Europe, the majority of polonium in the average diet is sourced in grains, vegetables, and meat(7). In the United States, where chemical fertilizer use is more prevalent, the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research reports that polonium in American dairy and meat products expose human organs to radiation levels equivalent to tobacco use(8). Small amounts of polonium can even be found in fluoridated drinking water(9) which, in addition to normally present radionuclides, may be influenced by farm irrigation and run off(10).

Polonium from tobacco smoke is carried by the blood and accumulates in the liver, kidneys, bone marrow, and blood vessel walls(11). If fertilizer sourced polonium in food is distributed around the body in the same way, then much of the food we eat causes internal ionizing alpha radiation. In order to estimate the full measure of radiation in the diet, we must consider the radioactivity of all radon daughters(12) both naturally present and those added by fertilizer. There is a large variance in the estimates of polonium content in american polonium intake(13).

Food borne radon daughters may or may not be absorbed/distributed as efficiently as polonium in tobacco smoke. However, as seen in the above European diet example, food can deliver internal radiation exposure beyond the limits considered safe for external occupational exposure(14). It is not clear how much radioactive content fertilizer contributes to food and how much is naturally present.

Radon gas occurs naturally in most places on the planet. Exposure to naturally occuring radiation is unavoidable and relatively harmless(15). The needless additional radiation delivered via fertilizer can be reduced through the use of alternative phosphate sources or organic farming techniques.

The article A Comprehensive review...states the following.

There was another study3 that measured the carcinogenic effects of radon after radioactive uranium ore dust was inhaled by dogs. Paradoxically, unlike the usual fatalities witnessed in other dogs during similar experiments, none of the dogs exposed to tobacco contracted cancer. The author stated that "exposure to cigarette smoke was found to have a mitigating effect on radon daughter-induced tumors". Similarly an experiment4 on irradiated rats showed that those who smoked and were irradiated showed significantly less inflammation in the lungs than those who did not smoke. In many ways, the smoking group resembled the non-irradiated controls. According to the author "this experimental study further supported the suppressive effect of smoking on radiation-induced pneumo-nitis."

So if one is going to smoke at least let it be completely organic. Same with the food you eat and the water you drink, organic and clean.

TargeT
9th January 2017, 23:19
Lucidity is correct. There is Polonium 210 in commercially raised tobacco.

Hate to be a stickler here, but he is in correct with this wordage:


Tobacco is a natural source for Polonium 210.

It's not a natural source at all, it's artificial and the entire thread has talked about organic tobacco, so really, it's just a derailment of the thread by someone who either didn't read the thread or didn't comprehend this major difference.


There was another study3 that measured the carcinogenic effects of radon after radioactive uranium ore dust was inhaled by dogs. Paradoxically, unlike the usual fatalities witnessed in other dogs during similar experiments, none of the dogs exposed to tobacco contracted cancer. The author stated that "exposure to cigarette smoke was found to have a mitigating effect on radon daughter-induced tumors". Similarly an experiment4 on irradiated rats showed that those who smoked and were irradiated showed significantly less inflammation in the lungs than those who did not smoke. In many ways, the smoking group resembled the non-irradiated controls. According to the author "this experimental study further supported the suppressive effect of smoking on radiation-induced pneumo-nitis."

Do you have a link to that? interesting...



So if one is going to smoke at least let it be completely organic. Same with the food you eat and the water you drink, organic and clean.

always best.

DeDukshyn
9th January 2017, 23:56
 
As an ex-addicted smoker, one thing I miss about it is the bouts of enhanced cognition while out on my smoke break. My best thinking was done while smoking ...

I enjoy smoking, and still do very occasionally (averages out to probably once a year for every year I have been quit) - when ex smokers say they're "one cig away from being addicted" -- that's not me .. now if I have one it's usually just a couple puffs, then I don't feeling like smoking ever again, until maybe 6 months down the road, where I might get another urge. I have been nicotine "addiction" free for seven years and can still enjoy it occasionally without fear of becoming addicted. Can't say the same for other people though ... :)

The inherent dangers in tobacco are: 1) cyanide - tobacco will pull this compound from the soil and concentrates it in the leaves -- good soil is important 2) addiction - nicotine is highly addictive. 3) overdose - not too hard to do ... 4) method of consumption - smoking - probably not great for your lungs to do regularly.

Most of the other nasty chemicals like formaldehyde and arsenic are added by the manufacturers for various reasons (arsenic holds the burnt ash together so it doesn't make mess with ashes flying everywhere constantly, and formaldehyde is their preservative of choice, etc)


Just a bit of a fun fact ... those who smoke tobacco and cannabis have less health problems and live longer on average than those who just smoke tobacco -- cannabis seems to be able to counter some of the negative long term effects of smoking tobacco.

Zionbrion
10th January 2017, 03:39
About 10 years ago I attended an ayhuasca ceremony here in California. A good friend of mine brought me. It was with a man from Peru that travelled offering ceremony. The medicine man and all his helpers smoked a lot of tobacco during the ceremony, and there were instances where they passed around a giant cigar rolled in corn husk of a tobacco called Mopacho.
My friend was quite close with the group and had went to Peru a couple times to sit with them there. I was suprised when I learned that in the whole ordeal they believe that the tobacco is the most potent medicine of the whole ceremony. hard to believe after what I went through, lol...but it makes sense because when feeling a bit insane on the medicine, when the tobacco was passed arou d and I smoked, I felt so much I was feeling wash away.

amor
10th January 2017, 04:39
After giving the matter some thought in the past, I decided that there was no doubt that the poisoned tobacco which is also highly addictive is given to people to decrease their life span, successively reducing the population along with fluoride in the water, GMO, Chem trails, pharmaceutical medication, depleted and poisoned food, and on and on. If I had my way, I would burn the tobacco fields and factories and all smokers would go cold-turkey into freedom.

shaberon
10th January 2017, 09:00
I bought a packet of tobacco seed last year and want to have a go at growing some. Is there an expert reading this ? The seeds are very tiny and I'm thinking they are going to be very delicate little plants during the early and cooler months, which isn't ideal for the climate I live in.

Not quite an expert personally, but, comparing to belladonna, another nightshade which resembles tobacco:

I had good results from cold stratification: put the seeds in clean water in the fridge, change it daily for at least two weeks. After that, plant them in indoor or sheltered containers *barely* below the soil surface, or just dampen the soil and press them in gently. Get them in the soil roughly three weeks before your expected last frost date. Once it no longer freezes, the containers are fine outside. If you want them in the ground, wait till the stem is green/hardened off then transplant. Sure they are tiny at first but, I bet it will grow more by sunlight than temperature: cool is ok but cloudy will slow it down.

This would give you a headstart and probably better success ratio than simply strewing a few hundred seeds on the ground. Done that way, you have to compete with birds, rain, or whatever else happens.

The actual tobacco farmers around here just put in fescue to those plots, so it will be real easy to see when they change it.

Frankie Pancakes
10th January 2017, 11:53
TargetT- the information on protection from radon etc is from the article that started the thread. It is true his wording was not correct but the info was. However, it is clear that there are many other ways to Polonium 210 exposure not from treated tobacco alone. I wonder if this may be related to nonsmokers and cancers.

lucidity
10th January 2017, 13:15
So... in summary.

Tobacco contains Polonium 210 which is a known carcinogen.
It's not the only known carcinogen in tobacco.
Here's what it says on the cancer.com website:


Tobacco smoke is made up of more than 7,000 chemicals,
including over 70 known to cause cancer (carcinogens).
Some of the chemicals found in tobacco smoke include:
- Nicotine
- Cyanide
- Benzene
- Formaldehyde ...


Here is a wikipedia list of the carcinogens in cigarette smoke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcinogens

We know anyway from 60 + years of research conducted by thousands
of researchers that people get cancer from smoking tobacco.

And what are the statistics like ?
I remember reading the Royal College of Physicians report into smoking
"Smoking and Health Now" ... i think it was called.
They gave an analogy at that time.
If 20 people got on a bus and they were all smokers...
... 13 of them would die from a smoking related disease.
The odds are stacked against you.
You don't even have a 50:50 chance.

The Health Benefits of Tobacco... my arse !

TargeT
10th January 2017, 13:42
And what are the statistics like ?
I remember reading the Royal College of Physicians report into smoking
"Smoking and Health Now" ... i think it was called.
They gave an analogy at that time.
If 20 people got on a bus and they were all smokers...
... 13 of them would die from a smoking related disease.
The odds are stacked against you.
You don't even have a 50:50 chance.

The Health Benefits of Tobacco... my arse !

So,, that's a lot of numbers with no references; so opinion?

Here's some info with references that strongly contradicts your above numbers.
0ZA8Ha4TwbA


Science is not always a neutral, disinterested search for knowledge, although it may often seem that way to the outsider. Sometimes the story can be very different.

We all know that smoking is a health hazard.

The government says it, the medical experts say it, even the tobacco companies are behaving in a way to suggest that.

But does the science support this argument?

Turned out, it doesn't.

So let's have a look at the science behind smoking.

Throughout history there were people who thought of smoking as something beneficial, relieving asthma and warding off infections, while others thought of it as disgusting, hazardous and deadly in the long run.

These opinions for or against were not supported by much evidence either way until medical scientists first attempted to study this question in 1950.

That year Richard Doll and Bradford Hill published a paper in which they showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer.

This was the start of the anti-smoking movement.

But shortly after the publication an astute statistician, Sir Ronald Fisher, noticed some strange anomaly in the results of that study: They had asked their subject whether or not they inhaled the smoke of their cigarettes.

Fisher showed, that men who inhaled cigarette smoke where less likely to develop lung cancer than those who did not.
As Fisher said: "Even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke causes lung cancer."

In 1968 another study - the Whitehall study - was undertaken with the participation of 1,400 smoking British civil servants divided in two similar groups: one was encouraged and counseled to quit, the other was left on their own.

Both groups were followed for 10 years, the results were surprising: The group that quit showed no improvement of life expectancy, nor any change in frequency of death from cancer or heart attacks, with one exception: certain cancers were more than twice as common in the group that quit.

The study was extended to 20 years of follow-up with the same results.

This type of study is called a randomized controlled intervention trial and is the "gold standard" to compare a new treatment to another one or no treatment at all.

It avoids bias built into observational studies like Doll and Hill's of subjects who choose themselves, whether to stop or continue smoking.

A further six more of this type of trial were conducted with a combined follow-up of close to 800'000 subject-years - all with the same results: No association between smoking and life expectancy, deaths from cancer or deaths from any other cause.

The medical literature has shown us, that smoking doesn't seem to be associated with premature death, but are there any potential health benefits that are associated with smoking?

In fact, there is quite a long list ...

There is good evidence suggesting that smoking lowers the risk of Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's up to 60%.

Contrary to pictures on your cigarette box, smokers are much less likely to develop severe gum disease.

In men, smoking also lowers the risk of needing joint-replacement surgery up to 50%.

Also, nicotine has been found to stop the growth of tuberculosis in laboratory tests, even when used in small quantities, according to Saleh Naser, an associate professor of microbiology and molecular biology at UCF, and seems to work better than about 10 other substances also tested.

Nicotine also has been shown to have multiple benefits for cognitive performance, like rapid information processing, immediate and long-term memory and problem solving.

Last, but not least, smokers show a reduced incidence of ulcerative colitis, a chronic inflammatory bowel disease.

Why is there a difference between studies done between the 1960s and 1980s that showed that smoking doesn't increase risk of disease and recent studies, that show the opposite?

There are probably several reasons for this.

The first is, that the tobacco industry has progressively increased additives in tobacco to make the product "more appealing" - more addictive - to smokers.

The list that the tobacco manufacturers have provided to the US Department of Health and Human Services contains 599 substances, that may or may not be used in a particular brand.

They have been approved as "food additives" and have not been tested by burning.

When these compounds are burned they create more than 4000 compounds.

This is the main argument, why smoking additive free tobacco is undoubtedly healthier than commercial cigarettes.

Another other reason is that research into smoking hazards are mainly sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry selling nicotine-replacement therapies and drugs to facilitate smoking cessation.

And who pays also calls the shots!

By the way, these therapies have not been shown to increase rates of smoking cessation in independent research.

But it still is a billion dollar industry.

Last but not least, since the end of World War II 528 nuclear bombs have been detonated in the atmosphere and a further 1525 underground, spewing tons of radioactive particles (especially plutonium) high into the atmosphere, which have been distributed around the world by Jet streams. Ingestion or inhalation of such particles increase the risk of cancer massively and there is enough plutonium in the atmosphere to kill every human being several times over.

Has smoking become the perfect scapegoat cover up for cancer caused by other factors that were introduced by our modern society since the anti-smoking propaganda was set into motion?"

In summary, there is little scientific evidence that smoking tobacco is the health hazard that mainstream medicine is trying to paint.

In fact, it may often even be beneficial.

DeDukshyn
10th January 2017, 15:20
So... in summary.

Tobacco contains Polonium 210 which is a known carcinogen.
It's not the only known carcinogen in tobacco.
Here's what it says on the cancer.com website:


Tobacco smoke is made up of more than 7,000 chemicals,
including over 70 known to cause cancer (carcinogens).
Some of the chemicals found in tobacco smoke include:
- Nicotine
- Cyanide
- Benzene
- Formaldehyde ...


Here is a wikipedia list of the carcinogens in cigarette smoke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcinogens

We know anyway from 60 + years of research conducted by thousands
of researchers that people get cancer from smoking tobacco.

And what are the statistics like ?
I remember reading the Royal College of Physicians report into smoking
"Smoking and Health Now" ... i think it was called.
They gave an analogy at that time.
If 20 people got on a bus and they were all smokers...
... 13 of them would die from a smoking related disease.
The odds are stacked against you.
You don't even have a 50:50 chance.

The Health Benefits of Tobacco... my arse !

We may need to draw (for sake of this thread) distinction between "nicotine addiction" and "smoking", as well as one between "cigarettes" and "tobacco" ... Not quite the same context ...

Basho
10th January 2017, 15:39
I am a firm believer in the beneficial qualities of tobacco. Here is an interesting article about a Doctor in Indonesia who uses the sacred herb to treat various ailments - of course it has to be organic for obvious reasons.

http://www.mercurydetox.net/dr-gretha-zahar.html

Tobacco is abused & not treated as a sacred plant, the way people that live life in harmony with nature do. I guess we can say that about most things these days.

There's a saying that tobacco is the greatest trick played by the Native American to the white man. Their great revenge..

TargeT
10th January 2017, 17:56
There's a saying that tobacco is the greatest trick played by the Native American to the white man. Their great revenge..

In the land of many injected thought constructs, I'm starting to think this is just another one of those (and that saying, a product of it).

I'm starting to read some of the studies now (takes a while), I don't take anything at face value anymore... any topic I've dug deep into that is "public knowledge" has either been so twisted it's not near the truth anymore or just opposite of the truth.

Looks like most the 2nd hand smoking stuff was based on shaky scienc (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1)e... (aka no valid data).

There's a lot of valid criticism of the research & number manipulation / "estimation" that goes on around this topic

Below is English Translation of the Explanation/Statement by Dr. Tulio Simoncini, MD, Head of FORCES Italiana

To understand it fully, one does not have to be a physician. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multi-factorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one.

Now, follow this:

if I have 2 factors, the way they can possibly combine is 2^2 - 1 = 3; three factors, 2^3 - 1 = 7; ten factors, 2^10 - 1 = 1,023. Among the factors are genetic makeup, environment, diet, amount of tobacco in function of the specific health condition of that life period, stress, and so on, and so on.

Cardiovascular disease has over 300 known factors interacting; lung cancer over 40. Never mind calculating 2^300 - 1! Now, to sort them out, there is a primitive tool that really works poorly, called multi-factorial epidemiology; its job is to try to isolate the cause, which is impossible.

Since the antis are stating with great certainty that primary smoke "causes," or passive smoke "causes"... The question asks, simply, to find one human being where tobacco can be proven to be the sole cause (etios) of his/her disease (pathos; etiopathology = the cause of the disease), that is, to be sure that tobacco did it. Mono-causality is the only way to be sure. Since the only possible answer is "no," the question that follows is: "Then, if you cannot even prove your claims for ONE among the millions you claim die (or are sick) from smoking, how can you be sure that tobacco does it?"

The con work of the anti-smokers is on the ignorance of people. Epidemiology has defeated many diseases: small pox, TB (almost) etc, and it has helped to keep track of stuff like Ebola and AIDS. But those diseases are MONOFACTORIAL: one cause, one effect. People do not know that ALL "tobacco-related diseases" are multi-factorial in the extreme, and believe that the same epidemiology that has worked for small pox is at work for smoking. This is not to say that smoking does not cause disease: it probably does; we just cannot say how much. It follows that all the figures we hear are fantasy and wild guess game, right?

True, medicine cannot be an exact science - and no one expects it to be. But, given the size of the claims, one would expect that one case in, say, 10 millions could be certified simply by random chance! But it is not so, and if you really think about the little formula above, you can see why. Imagine a roulette with 300 numbers: what are your chances to hit the zero? (try asthma: thousands of continuously changing co-factors, and they blame passive smoke!) That is why the porno-pictures you see on your packs are real, but the chances that that stroke you see in the picture, for example, is actually caused by smoking are infinitesimal - although, technically, the possibility that it is due to smoking is real.

And this is for DIRECT smoking; in passive smoke, well, the possibility of isolating a mono-factorial etipathology is probably one in more than all the stars in the cosmos, which are more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth.

I hope I have been exhaustive enough. If there are further questions, do not hesitate to ask; if I don't have the answer, I will find it; and if there is no answer, differently than the anti-smokers, I'll say that "I don't know!"
https://www.sott.net/article/315356-The-epidemic-of-junk-science-in-tobacco-smoking-research


Are all smoking related deaths "estimated" ? it sounds like if someone dies, and they smoked, it's a smoking related death? Even though "smoking" is not listed on the death certificate?

This seems very shady to me at this point..

norman
10th January 2017, 18:19
Second hand smoke is a great catch-all for those cancer deaths that the radioactive particles got to, even though they were not smokers.

I think I can guess well enough that when a smoker dies, the death goes in the smoking death column. it sounds like the way things are would be done. Climategate for smoking.

TargeT
10th January 2017, 18:25
Second hand smoke is a great catch-all for those cancer deaths that the radioactive particles got to, even though they were not smokers.

I think I can guess well enough that when a smoker dies, the death goes in the smoking death column. it sounds like the way things are would be done. Climategate for smoking.


I'll not be surprised if that's the case (which it is starting to look like it is)...

I'm now just assuming that everything I've been told is a lie and I have to find out for myself what the real situation is (as best I can, often I still have to rely on studies and reports done by others, which feels like I'm using the "appeal to authority" falacy, so I make sure and read the studies too and see if i can understand it).

All of this takes a lot of effort though, sometimes (ok, a lot... haha) I just drink beer :cheers:

betoobig
10th January 2017, 19:36
to me smoking is a way to add the fire element to the body (allready with earth, wind and water), spiritualy talking.
much love

DeDukshyn
10th January 2017, 21:09
Second hand smoke is a great catch-all for those cancer deaths that the radioactive particles got to, even though they were not smokers.

I think I can guess well enough that when a smoker dies, the death goes in the smoking death column. it sounds like the way things are would be done. Climategate for smoking.


I'll not be surprised if that's the case (which it is starting to look like it is)...

I'm now just assuming that everything I've been told is a lie and I have to find out for myself what the real situation is (as best I can, often I still have to rely on studies and reports done by others, which feels like I'm using the "appeal to authority" falacy, so I make sure and read the studies too and see if i can understand it).

All of this takes a lot of effort though, sometimes (ok, a lot... haha) I just drink beer :cheers:

I assume the stats are similar to how the stats on flu deaths are assembled. In some models - the difference between summer months deaths and winter months death = death by flu. In another model, if the person died while influenza virus had been present (maybe say just after receiving the flu shot), then that person also died of the flu.

Usually these useless models are combined to get more useless and inaccurate stats, but it serves someone's purpose. Health Canada reports that 8000+ people die every year from the flu, while actual confirmed cases is usually only a couple hundred if even that. I imagine that smoking stats are gathered in similar ways, and potentially with similar results.

I'm not trying to defend nicotine addiction as being "not harmful" - it is definitely potentially harmful long term, but again here I draw a distinction between long term nicotine addiction and the "smoking of tobacco", not the same.

Callista
12th January 2017, 04:42
I am a firm believer in the beneficial qualities of tobacco. Here is an interesting article about a Doctor in Indonesia who uses the sacred herb to treat various ailments - of course it has to be organic for obvious reasons.

http://www.mercurydetox.net/dr-gretha-zahar.html

Tobacco is abused & not treated as a sacred plant, the way people that live life in harmony with nature do. I guess we can say that about most things these days.

There's a saying that tobacco is the greatest trick played by the Native American to the white man. Their great revenge..

All the natural sacred substances have been perverted and manipulated to cause the maximum amount of harm to the planet and its inhabitants. Tobacco has been polluted just like the water and the soil and the atmosphere. Tobacco is regarded by indigenous people as a sacred major Teaching plant and 'the powers that were' dont want us using it. In its natural state it is a blessing, but when chemicals are added, it is a curse.

Justplain
14th January 2017, 03:46
A doctor told me once that if he saw someone with a persistent cough, they were more often than not a smoker. Tobacco stinks up your breath, cloths, your house, everything. I question the health benefits of smoking anything, tobacco, weed, crack or whatever. Our poor lungs have to deal with air pollutants which is terrible enough. And tobacco, atleast that sold in retail, is extremely addictive. It took me several attempts over five years to quit. I know there may be a less harmful, organic tobacco, but please dont buy this line on this crappy plant. Dont smoke anything, do your body a favour.

Frankie Pancakes
14th January 2017, 11:26
I have to ask again. Did you read the article?

lucidity
14th January 2017, 16:53
Second hand smoke is a great catch-all for those cancer deaths that the radioactive particles got to, even though they were not smokers.

I think I can guess well enough that when a smoker dies, the death goes in the smoking death column. it sounds like the way things are would be done. Climategate for smoking.


I'll not be surprised if that's the case (which it is starting to look like it is)...

I'm now just assuming that everything I've been told is a lie and I have to find out for myself what the real situation is (as best I can, often I still have to rely on studies and reports done by others, which feels like I'm using the "appeal to authority" falacy, so I make sure and read the studies too and see if i can understand it).

All of this takes a lot of effort though, sometimes (ok, a lot... haha) I just drink beer :cheers:

You're trolling this thread...
you're taking a deliberately contrary position, presumably, for the attention it renders.
How many years before you grow out of this type of behaviour ?

be happy ;-)

TinFoilSuit
23rd January 2017, 23:48
This is truly a fascinating topic that I've often wondered about.

My questions:

- Since we can point to numerous examples that seem to indicate that improving public health is not an honest priority of most governments, why are there then so many government funded ads/pamphlets/PSAs spotlighting the dangers of smoking? I.e. who are you and what have you done with the real government, mister?

- How effective are all these campaigns in actually curtailing smoking behavior?

- Given that the tobacco industry is not allowed to market their products on television in the US (not sure if this holds for the rest of the world), is it possible that many of these anti-smoking campaigns actually serve as an insidious means of free consumer advertising? Many of these anti-smoking ads actually show people in the act of smoking - isn't this an immediate visual stimulus that might give rise to cravings? Addiction isn't exactly something that appeals to logic, no matter how many scary statistics you may throw at it. If you were trying to convince a crackhead about the ills of his damaging habit, would you start by showing him an image of someone else blazing, then throwing a bunch of stats at him?

Also, here's an interesting take. (http://comfortpit.com/anti-smoking-ads/) Among other points, it highlights a study that indicates that stress causes cravings (i.e. threat of death in anti-smoking ads)!

Of course, the aforementioned does not account for all forms of anti-smoking ads. Perhaps different messages are being communicated to varying demographics. I.e. "For those of you addicted smokers, we know you can't resist these, but you shouldn't do it". But "For those of you occasional smokers that are more concerned for your health (& possibly looking into purer forms of tobacco), don't do any of it cuz it'll kill ya."

Anyways, just throwing some darts.

Cheers!

TFS