Does smoking cause cancer?

Author Topic: Does smoking cause cancer?  (Read 77157 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Does smoking cause cancer?
« on: July 31, 2010, 02:12:26 PM »
or is it something else...

am finding myself increasingly sceptical.

anyone wanna argue the case using science, id be grateful

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2010, 02:16:01 PM »
I have wondered if it is the processing and adding of chemicals that is the true cause.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2010, 02:35:44 PM »
most human illnesses are caused by bacterial or viral infections.
They accept that a virus can cause cancer.
A virus is one of the things that can get into a cell and tamper with the DNA

what is it in the cigarette smoke that can do that

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,267
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2010, 02:36:36 PM »
Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html [link no longer works]


Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the “Anti-Smoking Inquisition” spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.

Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities.

Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly “sinning” by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again.

Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics.

Certain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to extreme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead. As we will find later in the report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can justifiably claim to provide startling health protection.

Not all governments around the world share the same problem. Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer. This is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that “smoking causes lung cancer.”



The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments. When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies.

In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills. By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As K. Greisen recalls:

“When the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. Then someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave travelling along the ground. The appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. The color was yellow.

“The permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me. After the first rapid explosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fixed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. The upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a zigzag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. The smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud.”

This was the notorious “Trinity Test”, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere. A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide.

The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.

If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker. The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.

How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed? For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The suspect agent (radioactive matter) caused the claimed result (lung cancer) when inhaled by mammals.



The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse.

The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.

Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.

Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity.

The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us.



Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for “big government” to start taking heavy diversionary action.

How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical “researchers” suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: “Prove that smoking causes lung cancer”. Real scientists [especially some notable nuclear physicists] smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. The quasi medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals.

Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect agent [tobacco smoke] must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, “medical science” has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. Yes, you did read that correctly. For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you.

The real scientists had the quasi medical researchers by the throat, because “pairing” the deadly radioactive particle experiment with the benign tobacco smoke experiment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer. And further, in one large “accidental” experiment they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer.

All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.


'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' Vishnu, Bhagavad-Gita

Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.

Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.” It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record!

Predictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical “researchers” into a frenzy of rage. By 1982 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment. Quite suddenly they switched the blame to other “secret” ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. “Yes, that must be it!” they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same “secret” ingredients had been included in the mice experiments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer.

Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer. Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight “C” doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. “Smoking causes lung cancer” converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof.

Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media. Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened “smoker’s lungs”, with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don’t quit now. It was all pathetic rubbish of course. On the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of Camels or Marlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed.



The black lungs? From a coal miner, who throughout his working life breathed in copious quantities of microscopic black coal dust particles. Just like radioactive particles they get caught deep in the tissue of the lungs and stay there forever. If you worked down the coal mines for twenty or more years without a face mask, your lungs will probably look like this on the slab.

Many people ask exactly how it is that those smoking mice were protected from deadly radioactive particles, and even more are asking why real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers. Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, “which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue.”

This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue.

All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible. Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke. Go on, don’t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. Or perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, just three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer. If you cannot or will not do either of the above, consider phoning Michael Jackson to ask for a spare surgical mask!

Copyright Joe Vialls. 16 July 2003
"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2010, 02:47:24 PM »
radioactivity is another potential cause, because it too can damage DNA

Offline Guns Equal Freedom

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 903
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2010, 02:48:11 PM »
It is the black tar you get from smoking that is probably the top worst part about smoking.

A Peaceful Anarchy would be like Utopia, but a Minarchy is reality.

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2010, 02:54:22 PM »
Donay's article is a MUST READ


PullMyFinger

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2010, 02:56:26 PM »
I have wondered if it is the processing and adding of chemicals that is the true cause.

I look at generations past who smoked with no ill effects.Nowadays,you are risking your health whn you light up so I do think it is the chemicals and additives,not the actual tobacco.

Offline Guns Equal Freedom

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 903
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2010, 02:58:57 PM »
I look at generations past who smoked with no ill effects.Nowadays,you are risking your health whn you light up so I do think it is the chemicals and additives,not the actual tobacco.

The White Man even f**ked up the coca plant for profit.

The Natives who chewed the coca planet in Central and South America, chewed the coca planet like a stimulate like coffee, not to get high of it.

Then, The White Man played scientist and invented one of the most addictive drugs in the world, cocaine.
A Peaceful Anarchy would be like Utopia, but a Minarchy is reality.

Offline lamourlady

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,292
    • ICHTHYS: Bible Study for Spiritual Growth
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2010, 03:07:13 PM »
I have no scientific proof one way or the other, but it is always interesting when some people who smoke get up into their late years without having acquired cancer and then there are people who have never smoked and they do.

I tend to think you are either born with some form of it in your body along with one's mental position or thinking which also aid in bringing it out.  Sort of like the herpes that supposedly sits dormant in all of our bodies...until "something" brings it to the forefront.

I truly believe that our minds and thinking affect our bodies and it's health.  There's a book called "Heal Your Body" by Louise L. Hay that a friend of my brother's gave me.  She gives her story in the preface in which she had cancer of the vagina.  She had been raped when she was a little girl.  Her premise is this:

First, that
Quote
"cancer comes from a pattern of deep resentment, (according to her studies) that is held for a long time".

Quote
"The point of power is always in the present moment".  "The thoughts we have held and the words we have repeatedly used have created our life and experiences up to this point."

She believes
Quote
"we unknowingly create dis-ease in ourselves."
We create the "root" to an inner mental cause which manifests itself in the body.

She also believes that all illness or affect comes from "nothing" and can be sent back to "nothing" by our thoughts.

She worked her own program and her cancer was gone. (Her story is much more detailed in her little book)

The one thing in my own life which corresponded with her book, and it amazed me, was that one day both my feet swelled up like balloons.  I could not put any shoes on and had to wear sandals.  After about a couple of days I had to go to emerg to see what the problem was.  The doctors said that it is a bad sign and did checks of my heart and all sorts of other tests.  It ended up being nothing at all.  They referred me to my family doctor who said he didn't know either.  There was no physical cause.  But, there they were huge as ever.

In her book, swelling is called 'edema'.  And lo and behold, this is what it read:

(also see holding fluids, swelling) What or who won't you let go of?

It just happens that we had just moved my daughter to her residence at college.  It was her first time away from home.  And here I was putting on a smile for her while inside I was "holding on to her".  It blew me away.  A day later the swelling went away.

The book is small and inexpensive.  It is on her own website or probably available on amazon or the like even cheaper.  Check it out.  Very, very interesting food for thought!  pun intended.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2010, 03:08:48 PM »
Everything these people say here is accurate, but note how vague it is and how they cant pin down a single cause

Thanks to years of research, the links between smoking and cancer are now very clear. Smoking is the single biggest cause of cancer in the world, and accounts for one in four UK cancer deaths.

In the UK, smoking kills five times more people than road accidents, overdoses, murder, suicide and HIV all put together.

Which cancers are caused by smoking?
Smoking causes nine in ten cases of lung cancer. Lung cancer has one of the lowest survival rates of all cancers, and is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. The good news is that most of these deaths are preventable, by giving up smoking in time.

Smoking also increases the risk of over a dozen other cancers including cancers of the mouth, larynx (voice box), pharynx (upper throat), nose and sinuses, oesophagus (food pipe), liver, pancreas, stomach, kidney, bladder, cervix and bowel, as well as one type of ovarian cancer and some types of leukaemia. There is also some evidence that smoking could increase the risk of breast cancer.

How does smoking cause cancer?
Tobacco smoke contains at least 80 different cancer-causing substances. When you inhale smoke, these chemicals enter your lungs and spread around the rest of your body.

Scientists have shown that these chemicals can damage DNA and change important genes. This causes cancer by making your cells grow and multiply out of control.

DNA damage
DNA damage is extremely common - some studies suggest that the DNA in a single human cell gets damaged over 10,000 times every day.

For a start, the life-sustaining chemical reactions that occur naturally in our cells generate harmful by-products, and these can cause DNA damage. So merely being alive leads to DNA damage and this can potentially cause cancer.

Also our everyday surroundings are full of things that constantly damage the DNA in our cells, known as carcinogens.

Although our cells are very good at repairing this damage, errors can accumulate over the years. This explains why cancer usually affects older people.

Carcinogens
‘Carcinogen’ literally means ‘something that causes cancer’. Carcinogens damage DNA, causing faults in important genes that can lead to cancer. Examples include:

Tobacco
Car exhaust fumes
The sun
Natural and man-made radiation
Asbestos
But it is a mistake to believe that exposure to carcinogens is the only cause of cancer. In almost all cases, carcinogens are contributing factors, but there is a whole host of other factors at work, including lifestyle and genetics.


All the 'scientific evidence' they present, isnt scientific at all, its correlational.
If its established scientific fact, why not describe and explain the mechanism instead of shown statistical correlations

Tobacco, smoking and cancer: the evidence
This page contains information about the links between smoking and cancer.

Smoking greatly increases the risk of lung cancer
Studies from Europe, Japan and North America have shown that 9 in 10 lung cancers are caused by smoking. 2, 7 In 2002, lung cancer killed around 33,600 people - about one person every 15 minutes. 8

Tobacco smoke was first shown to cause lung cancer in 1950. 9 This study found that people who smoked 15-24 cigarettes a day had 26 times the lung cancer risk of non-smokers. And people who smoked less than 15 cigarettes a day still had 8 times the lung cancer risk of non-smokers.

After these first results came out, UK scientists began a large study of smoking in British doctors, which Cancer Research UK has helped to fund

The people with the highest lung cancer risks

We cannot exactly calculate a person’s lung cancer risk based on how many cigarettes they smoke or the number years they have been a smoker. But studies have shown that lung cancer risk is greatest among those who smoke the most cigarettes over the longest period of time. 2

The length of time spent smoking seems to be the more important of these two factors. The British Doctors’ Study found that people who had smoked for 45 years had 100 times the lung cancer risk of people who had smoked for 15 years, regardless of whether they smoked heavily or moderately. 11. And smoking one packet a day for 40 years is about 8 times more dangerous than smoking two packets a day for 20 years. 8

Even light or irregular smoking can increase the risk of cancer. One study found that even people who smoked 1-4 cigarettes a day had much greater risks of dying from lung cancer or heart disease, 12 while another found that even people who smoke just 2 cigarettes a day are more likely to develop cancers of the mouth and oesophagus (food pipe). 13 And the EPIC study found that occasional smokers who have never smoked daily, still have higher risks of most cancers, and double the risk of bladder cancer. 14

Starting smoking at an early age increases the risk of cancer even more. One study found that young smokers are especially vulnerable to DNA damage caused by chemicals in cigarette smoke. And when they quit, they have higher levels of DNA damage than people who started smoking later in life. 15

Smoking is a major cause of several types of cancer
Smoking also increases your risk of cancers of the bladder, cervix, kidney, larynx (voice box), pharynx (upper throat), nose, mouth, oesophagus (foodpipe), pancreas, stomach, liver and some types of leukaemia. 2, 3, 16 And smokers are 7 times more likely to die of these cancer than non-smokers. 17

There is some evidence that smoking could also cause other cancers including bowel cancer and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 18, 19

Smoking is the most important preventable cause of bladder cancer and causes two in three cases in men and one in three cases in women. It increases the risk of this disease by 3-5 times. 20
Smoking doubles the risk of kidney cancer, and causes one in four cases in men, and one in ten cases in women. 21
Smoking is the number one cause of mouth and oesophageal cancers, and together with alcohol, causes about nine in ten cases of these cancers. 22 By the age of 75, a non-smoker has a 1 in 125 chance of developing these cancers, but a smoker’s odds are 1 in 16. 23
Smoking is the only established preventable cause of pancreatic cancer, one of the most dangerous types of cancer in the UK. It causes over a quarter of pancreatic cancer cases. 24
Smoking is the most important preventable cause of stomach cancer and causes about one in five cases. 25
There is some evidence to suggest that smoking may increase the risk of breast cancer, bowel cancer and lymphomas but more research will be needed to say for sure. 26-29

Tobacco smoke contains many dangerous chemicals
Scientists have identified about 4,000 different chemicals in tobacco smoke. According to the International Agency for Research into Cancer and the European Network for Smoking Prevention, at least 80 of these chemicals could cause cancer. Many of the other thousands of chemicals are toxic and harmful to your health, including carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and ammonia. 2, 34

One study compared the amounts of cancer-causing chemicals in tobacco smoke with their ability to cause cancer. It concluded that the chemicals in smoke most likely to increase our risk of cancer include 1,3-butadiene, arsenic, benzene and cadmium. 35

Cigarettes contain at least 599 different additives including chocolate, vanilla, sugar, liquorice, herbs and spices. These are not toxic but they make cigarettes taste nicer and ensure that smokers want to continue smoking. 36


It goes on an on like this. All this is is statistical correlation , not scientific evidence.
Am having trouble finding the actual scientific proof for their endless list of claims.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/index.htm

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2010, 03:13:30 PM »
"One study compared the amounts of cancer-causing chemicals in tobacco smoke with their ability to cause cancer. It concluded that the chemicals in smoke most likely to increase our risk of cancer include 1,3-butadiene, arsenic, benzene and cadmium. 35"

I have underlined an example of some of the vagueness.
This kind of stuff isnt scientific

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,267
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2010, 03:34:47 PM »
A friend of mine smokes American Spirit Organic Tobacco.  I am sure the problems with main stream cigarettes would be all the chemicals.

"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2010, 03:38:02 PM »
A friend of mine smoke American Spirit Organic Tobacco.  I am sure the problems with main stream cigarettes would be all the chemicals.

I used to smoke that, but nowadays I prefer to smoke Gawith Hoggarths from Kendal


http://www.gawithhoggarth.co.uk/kendal.asp



Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,514
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2010, 04:43:15 PM »
A friend of mine smoke American Spirit Organic Tobacco.  I am sure the problems with main stream cigarettes would be all the chemicals.



This is my brand... I buy it in the pouch or bulk. I use American Spirit rice papers and short organic fiber filters.  I roll it all together on a little 78mm belt roller and then smoke it through a cleanable Venturi Tar-Gard... The overall cost is just under $3 a pack... about a buck and a half a day for me...

No chemicals in the tobacco, the paper, or the filters... just a real, good tasting, smooth, and long lasting smoke.

JTCoyoté

"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace
and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic
than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than
bureaucracy."

~Abraham Lincoln

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2010, 07:29:17 PM »
This is my brand... I buy it in the pouch or bulk. I use American Spirit rice papers and short organic fiber filters.  I roll it all together on a little 78mm belt roller and then smoke it through a cleanable Venturi Tar-Gard... The overall cost is just under $3 a pack... about a buck and a half a day for me...

No chemicals in the tobacco, the paper, or the filters... just a real, good tasting, smooth, and long lasting smoke.

JTCoyoté

"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace
and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic
than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than
bureaucracy."

~Abraham Lincoln


I like to get hold of the extra fine cut highest quality, flavoured with vanilla.

You should see the difference between ready rolled factory made and proper hand rolling tobbacos. Its a sicko joke, the factory cigs have twigs and all sorts inside.



Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,267
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2010, 09:05:10 PM »
This may be obvious to everyone else,
but since no one has come right out and said this,
I will.


I am gobsmacked!

This article provides a very different theory
regarding the origen of lung cancer,
NUCLEAR FALLOUT.

Just think about the implications of this, if it is true.
If the notion that "Smoking causes cancer" is a lie,
we have been sold a massive piece of propaganda.

The countries who have tested nuclear weapons are responsible in a way that is so serious,
for committing an heinous crime against us.

This makes the initiation of carbon taxes a farce.



Makes you wonder about the DOD stopping G.I.'s from smoking? I wouldn't put it past these psychos to be lying to the people about smoking.

You have to say to yourself, as a general rule, they don't give a rat's ass about us or our health, so why would they be so concerned about people who choose to smoke and wind up killing themselves later on down the road?  Unless their was an ulterior motive to demonize cigarettes to cover other things up.

We know that too much arsenic can cause lung cancer and bladder cancer, we know radon gas can cause lung cancer too.

If I were people in Iraq, I would be smoking so that I could protect my lungs from DU.
"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,775
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2010, 10:36:10 PM »

This might explain the second-hand smoke panic over the last 20 years. If less people are smoking, yet lung cancer is stable or increasing then you have to have a cause. Second-hand smoke.

I have also read several articles decrying the dangers of "third-hand smoke", that is smoke particles that have been absorbed into fabric! So, they are claiming that if you go to a place where someone is smoking and then leave. A person that comes in contact with YOU and your smoky smelling clothes could be at risk of cancer!


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Shroom!

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,376
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2010, 11:07:15 PM »
Pure, natural tobacco won't give you cancer. Commercial cigarettes could very well though since they add so much shit into it.

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2010, 11:08:07 PM »
Pure, natural tobacco won't give you cancer. Commercial cigarettes could very well though since they add so much shit into it.

Did you read the entire article ?
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181975.msg1075841#msg1075841

I only ask because its a very good read.

Offline trailhound

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,722
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2010, 11:14:37 PM »

"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2
At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK

Offline Shroom!

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,376
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2010, 11:16:25 PM »
Did you read the entire article ?
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181975.msg1075841#msg1075841

I only ask because its a very good read.


I didn't because I'm off to bed now, just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents for now. I'll read it in full tomorrow.

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2010, 11:38:39 PM »
I didn't because I'm off to bed now, just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents for now. I'll read it in full tomorrow.

I understand, see you tomorrow.

Offline jeremystalked1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,317
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2010, 02:22:03 AM »
No, actually, the coughing and hacking long term smokers go through when they wake up in the morning is a sign of superb health.  Unhealthy people don't do that.

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,267
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2010, 02:30:18 AM »
No, actually, the coughing and hacking long term smokers go through when they wake up in the morning is a sign of superb health.  Unhealthy people don't do that.

I know lots of non-smokers who wake up hacking in the morning...could be they over indulge in MSG poisoning or victims of vaccines?  Just sayin'
"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

Offline endof

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,709
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2010, 06:40:08 AM »
I like to get hold of the extra fine cut highest quality, flavoured with vanilla.

You should see the difference between ready rolled factory made and proper hand rolling tobbacos. Its a sicko joke, the factory cigs have twigs and all sorts inside.




Same, i buy proper rolling tobacco, no added anything.

Empty out a factory made cigarette...its actaully shocking how much utter crap is in there, alos you ever notice a factory made cigarette almost never goes out?

Alot of the studys about 'tobacco' are not about 'tobacco' but are in fact totally based on factory made cigarettes!

Quote
No, actually, the coughing and hacking long term smokers go through when they wake up in the morning is a sign of superb health.  Unhealthy people don't do that.


I dont get that, i also dont generally speaking have any real 'addictive' feeling from tobacco, i go for a run at least once a week and dont have any problems at all with breathing.

When i was younger i used to smoke factory made cigarettes, i would cough alot and all the rest of it.
When i tried to quit, it was absolute HELL, i couldnt go for very long without NEEDING another one!

tobacco, i feel that i would LIKE one and i do have one probably 3 or 4 times a day.
But there is never the feeling that i MUST have one, its a completely different experience, with plain tobacco, its just something i enjoy.

Factory made cigarettes are packed full of additives, chemicals and all kinds of shit, alot of it...far more addictive than tobacco!

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,514
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2010, 09:28:46 AM »
Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html [link no longer works]

Copyright Joe Vialls. 16 July 2003

Donnay,

Here is a link to an archived original copy of Vialls' 2003 article...

http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http://vialls.net/transpositions/smoking.html

JTCoyoté

“They [the NWO] will stage another terrorist attack,
and blame it on the Easter Bunny... and then the
government will shutter in fear."

~Alex Jones, on the air, 9/11/08

Offline decemberfellow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,036
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2010, 10:24:12 AM »
Right after the cigarette taxes went through the roof I started rolling my own.
Beside saving a ton of money, I enjoy MY cigarettes.  No additives 100% pure tobacco.  Also my dad who was a smoker  2 pack a day camel unfiltered lived to 84, autopsy report "death by natural causes."  Fingers were stained but no other signs of a smoker!  Yes I to believe that the "cancers are caused from all the bullshit they add to store bought smokes. 
            Also I would like to add, in my experiences I have noticed that I have far fewer colds than my non smoking  friends. 
Rev21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Who am I
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Fk6dt_uHo

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,267
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2010, 12:53:12 PM »
Donnay,

Here is a link to an archived original copy of Vialls' 2003 article...

http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http://vialls.net/transpositions/smoking.html

JTCoyoté

“They [the NWO] will stage another terrorist attack,
and blame it on the Easter Bunny... and then the
government will shutter in fear."

~Alex Jones, on the air, 9/11/08


Thank you, JT!

Here is another bit of info I researched:

The Smoking Scare De-Bunked

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/507927406-7466.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=11
"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

Offline thinkingman

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
  • Truth Advocate. Thought Provocateur.
    • jimcgreevy.com
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2010, 02:30:03 AM »
or is it something else...

am finding myself increasingly sceptical.

anyone wanna argue the case using science, id be grateful

As a cancer survivor I believe smoking does with the list of chemicals to treat the tobacco.

~thinkingman
"When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty."
~Thomas Jefferson
"For in reason, all government without the consent of
the governed is the very definition of slavery."
~Jonathan Swift

Offline Awoken

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #30 on: August 02, 2010, 10:17:28 AM »
Makes me want to start smoking again! (but only organic of course)  ;D

I think it has been proven time and time again that government studies or government-funded studies are NOT to be trusted!

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #31 on: August 02, 2010, 10:25:48 AM »
Makes me want to start smoking again! (but only organic of course)  ;D

I think it has been proven time and time again that government studies or government-funded studies are NOT to be trusted!

Yup, and to question if it might be caused by all the radiocative trash floating around the atmosphere, courtesy of Govt, is to be labled a 'crank'.


Offline endof

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,709
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2010, 03:49:21 AM »
Yup, and to question if it might be caused by all the radiocative trash floating around the atmosphere, courtesy of Govt, is to be labled a 'crank'.



I remeber some old film, where there were men working on a moon, or planet, or something, minning i think and there had been a nuclear war on it or something like that.
But the interesting thing i remember, is they had to smoke a special red coloured roll up when the radiation monitor bleeped...

Offline WhiteWitch

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #33 on: August 04, 2010, 12:53:06 PM »
Apologies for bargin in with my 2 cents before I've read everything but I can't read it all on this tiny screen.

Cancer is caused by fermentation. So a lack of oxygen, excessive sugar floating about and low levels of anti oxidants as well as vitamin D is what will give you cancer. The smoking won't help, but it's not THE cause.. Will get back to this thread to read everything else when I get home :-)

Offline tinfoiltruth

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2010, 04:26:47 PM »
so what about Gum cancer? and cancers in the mouth caused by smoking.

I read somewhere couldnt find it again that smoking cigars, Cigarettes, pipes and such was hard on your gums because of the heat in the smoke it killed the cells as it went by.

its not always lung cancer,

I had a friend who smoked a pack a day and he had cancer in his jaw bone which they attributed to smoking and now lives in a basement hiding from the world because he is missing half his face.

he was other wise a healthy person. just curious on peoples take on the other parts connected to smoking, mouth, tongue and esophagus.

Offline planning4acrash

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,550
    • Visit my blog
Veg oil and margarine cause lung cancer
« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2010, 04:38:53 PM »
Lung Cancer has grown since smoking reduced.

Why? Because the lungs are full of fats and margarine and vegetable oils are literally hydrogenating fats in the lung and on the skin. So it is causing a massive growth in lung and skin cancer. The sun doesn't cause skin cancer, margarine and vegetable oil do.

Of course, cigarettes have plenty of crap in them but tobacco, whilst not good for you, has been used to divert from bigger killers.

Barry Groves has some answers:
 - http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fats_and_cancer.html
 - http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/sunlight.html

Offline jeremystalked1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,317
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2010, 11:28:22 PM »
so what about Gum cancer? and cancers in the mouth caused by smoking.

And not just smoking, but chewing tobacco!  I've seen a long time Skoal chewer who paid a heavy price for his habit, an enormous cancerous growth on one cheek.  No health insurance and couldn't afford to have it treated in a timely fashion, I reckon.

Of course, it's not necessarily the tobacco that's responsible.  It could be the chemicals Big Tobacco adds to it, to make it extra addictive.


Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,514
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Tobacco and Money
« Reply #37 on: August 07, 2010, 12:50:31 PM »
Tobacco has a very interesting history in America.  Not only was it the primary commodity during the colonial period, but from 1612 to 1776 it was also used as money.

Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, being tobacco centers of commerce, first used tobacco itself as money at roughly a penny per pound.  This proved problematic as time passed, since tobacco is value based. As more and more the tobacco circulating was junk tobacco, a system of exchange was devised. This required all monetary tobacco to be processed at the local tobacco exchanges where it was weighed and graded for quality and a value receipt was issued, a "tobacco note" which was then circulated as money. In this way, tobacco was valued directly to gold and silver at an exact rate.

This was but one of the commodity based currency, another included animal pelts and other exchange commodities. Yet in those days, tobacco was by far the most prevalent and gave the tobacco growing colonies a decided monetary advantage. This was solved by the creation of a colony wide debt free exchange system in the early 1700 called Colonial Script... The mother country did not like this at all, and passed the currency acts of 1751, 1764, and 1773, which caused a colony wide, decade long depression. Like teasing a dog with a stick, Britain was begging for rebellion.

JTCoyoté

"Liberty may be endangered by the abuses
of liberty as well as the abuses of power."

~James Madison

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2010, 09:16:07 PM »
Western lifestyle 'to blame for soaring... cancer rates'

Britian's high number of breast cancer cases is being fuelled by the Western lifestyle that encourages women to over-eat, drink too much and exercise too little, say new figures.

They show the breast cancer rate in this country is more than four times higher than in eastern Africa, which has the lowest in the world.
Other parts of the world also have far fewer cases of breast cancer, with rates only half as high in South America and two-thirds lower in parts of Asia.
But this means the disease is not ‘inevitable’ for British women, who can cut the risk by taking action to prevent it, claims the World Cancer Research Fund.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301445/Western-lifestyle-blame-soaring-breast-cancer-rates.html

Offline thinkingman

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
  • Truth Advocate. Thought Provocateur.
    • jimcgreevy.com
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #39 on: August 09, 2010, 08:43:39 AM »
Makes me want to start smoking again! (but only organic of course)  ;D

I think it has been proven time and time again that government studies or government-funded studies are NOT to be trusted!

No kidding. You know oddly enough there is a brand of smokes that uses high fructose corn syrup to process the tobacco. Talk about ick.

~thinkingman
"When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty."
~Thomas Jefferson
"For in reason, all government without the consent of
the governed is the very definition of slavery."
~Jonathan Swift