Does smoking cause cancer?

Author Topic: Does smoking cause cancer?  (Read 75795 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,782
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #80 on: April 14, 2011, 02:38:19 PM »
There are lies, damn lies and then there are "statistics".

Nobody has ever been able to cause a cancer with tobacco smoke.

Donnay's earlier post here is a must read.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181975.msg1075841#msg1075841


OMFG! We actually agree on something!  :D


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 TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #81 on: April 14, 2011, 02:44:10 PM »
If the tobacco is radioactive possibly... YES! Think....
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,172
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
"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 Kack vroben

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #83 on: June 21, 2011, 11:20:04 PM »
Hello everyone.I am new on this forum and this is my first post.Smoking is dangerous for health and we should avoid it because it causes cancer.It is harmful for health and destroys our life completely.So i suggest everyone to avoid it.

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,172
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #84 on: June 22, 2011, 12:56:03 AM »
Hello everyone.I am new on this forum and this is my first post.Smoking is dangerous for health and we should avoid it because it causes cancer.It is harmful for health and destroys our life completely.So i suggest everyone to avoid it.

Welcome aboard. 

I suggest you take the time and read this entire thread.  I am not convinced that smoking tobacco causes cancer.  There are far more other things out there that people need to be worried about, like MSG, Aspartame and High Fructose Corn Syrup and many Pharmaceuticals that government says is absolutely fine to consume.

Right now there is a class-action lawsuit on one pharmaceutical called Chantix.  Chantix is smoking cessation drug approved by the FDA.  These are some of the claims from people and family members who used Chantix:     
    Committed or attempted suicide on Chantix
    Suffered severe physical Injury as a result of sudden abnormal behavior
    Diagnosed with new on-set diabetes from Chantix
    Developed Stevens Johnson Syndrome or Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis due to Chantix
    Suffered severe physical injury or death from an Accident or Fall caused by seizures, black-outs, vision disturbances or other sudden problems
 

The bottom line is, government pays a certain amount of scientists to make biased reports so that government can garner more control over peoples lives.
"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 JosephW

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #85 on: July 06, 2011, 03:03:56 PM »
I don't think smoking 'causes' cancer but it certainly raises the risk of cancer and in particular, lung cancer. If smoking 'caused' cancer, then everyone who smokes would have cancer. But I think one can argue that most of the cases of lung cancer are from people who smoke or have smoked cigarettes. As far as whether, natural tobacco contain less carcinogens than chemically treated tobacco, I don't know and I'd be curious to see the chemical makeup of each including the chemical makeup of the smoke.
Can someone explain the advantages of a HSA plan over a traditional plan?

Offline Overcast

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,133
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #86 on: July 06, 2011, 03:29:42 PM »


Maybe smoking does something to counter something they want done to us. I'm sure money plays a role some way too.



I wondered about that too. Then I found this one day:



This finding may help scientists develop treatments for psychiatric disorders such as depression and schizophrenia in which it is thought that different parts of the brain do not communicate correctly with each other.

“Until now, scientists have thought that in the brain’s cortex -- where most cognitive processes occur -- information was only processed in the cell body,” said Raju Metherate, author of the study, associate professor of neurobiology and behavior, and director of the Center for Hearing Research at UC Irvine. “The result of our study suggests that we must consider the axons as sites of information processing – and of potential problems when things go wrong.”

This study appears online Aug. 19 in Nature Neuroscience.

Increasingly, studies are beginning to show that complex information processing, and perhaps consciousness itself, may result from coordinated activity among many parts of the brain connected by bundles of long axons. Cognitive problems may occur when these areas don’t communicate properly with each other.

Cognitive function occurs when millions of brain cells communicate with each other at the same time. A brain cell has a network of branches called dendrites through which it receives and processes information from other cells. The body of the cell then relays the processed information along an axon to a terminal that links to another cell’s dendrites. At the terminal, chemicals called neurotransmitters are released, allowing the information to enter the receiving cell. Until now, scientists believed axons were just the wires between point A and point B.

“Axons, we thought, were like wires in a radio conveying signals, but we found that if you stimulate the axon, the signal can be altered, like turning the volume knob on the radio,” Metherate said.

Originally, Metherate and his colleagues had hoped to confirm the idea that the drug nicotine alters information that is processed in the cell body or terminal. Puzzled by several negative tests, they developed an experiment in which they could study the intervening axon.

In their experiment, they examined a section of mouse brain associated with hearing that contained a brain cell with an axon connecting to the cortex. Using nicotine, they stimulated the axon to determine how it would affect a signal the brain cell sent to the cortex. Without applying nicotine, about 35 percent of the messages sent by the brain cell reached the cortex. But when nicotine was applied to the axon, the success rate nearly doubled to about 70 percent.

“We looked for more conventional reasons why the response was enhanced, but the evidence just kept pointing to the axon. Nicotine activated the proteins that we think are on the axon,” Metherate said. “This is a completely new idea about how the brain works.”

Source: University of California - Irvine
And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,172
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #87 on: July 08, 2011, 12:17:11 PM »
Does smoking help protect the joints?

Ella Quittner
CNN
Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:52 CDT

Curious as it may sound, a new study of nearly 11,000 older men in Australia has found that the longer the men smoked, the less likely they were to undergo surgery to replace hips and knees damaged by arthritis or other conditions.

(Health.com) -- Smoking will increase your risk of cancer, emphysema, heart disease, stroke, and dying young, but if you manage to dodge all those bullets, it may actually reduce your need for joint-replacement surgery later in life.

Comment: Ah yes, they must start with the requisite propaganda mustn't they? If they didn't, they would be accused of working for tobacco companies because they printed the results of scientific studies that showed anything positive about smoking. This is the way of anti-tobacco activists. If you say anything that counters their message of "Smoking kills and there is nothing positive about it" you are attacked.

But we digress. If you subscribe to the Dot Connector now, you'll get to read a very revealing upcoming article on what is really known about smoking and what is only propaganda.

Curious as it may sound, a new study of nearly 11,000 older men in Australia has found that the longer the men smoked, the less likely they were to undergo surgery to replace hips and knees damaged by arthritis or other conditions.

Those who smoked for 48 years or more -- the bulk of their adult lives -- were 42 to 51% less likely (depending on their age) to need the surgeries than men who had never smoked, according to the study, which appears in the journal Arthritis & Rheumatism.

Previous studies have hinted at a similar link, but this is the first to show a clear relationship between the number of years spent smoking and the likelihood of joint-replacement surgery, says George Mnatzaganian, the lead researcher and a Ph.D. candidate in public health at the University of Adelaide.

Comment: Isn't that curious? Previous studies have hinted at a similar link--an unabashedly positive result of smoking--and you never heard about it. We'd be willing to wager you haven't heard a fraction of the studies that have shown positive results of smoking, or that have countered the "Smoking kills" line that has been force fed into your brain your entire life.


Mnatzaganian and his colleagues can't fully explain the findings. Obesity and habitual vigorous exercise both increase the risk of arthritis and also tend to be less common among smokers, but the link between smoking and joint replacement remained even when the researchers took those factors into account.

(They also adjusted the data to account for medical conditions besides arthritis-- and the fact that the smokers survived into old age in the first place.)


Comment: Perhaps they should take a look at the life expectancy for countries around the world compared to the smoking habits of those countries. There is no correlation. For example, those statistics from the mid 1990s showed that while 59% of Japanese men smoked, the life expectancy for a Japanese man was 76.5 years. Counter that to the U.S. where only 28% of men smoked, yet life expectancy was 72.6 years. As a matter of fact, of the top 15 western countries in terms of life expectancy (all above the U.S.) only one of them, Sweden, had a lower smoking rate...and 7 of them had a smoking rate that was at least twice that of the U.S.


Nicotine may play a role, however. Lab experiments using animals and human tissue have suggested that nicotine may stimulate the activity of the cells found in joint cartilage, which could help lessen the severity of osteoarthritis, the study notes.

"What we would like to see now is increased research by laboratory and clinical scientists, so we can clarify the exact mechanisms by which smoking confers protection on weight-bearing joints," Mnatzaganian says. "If this led to development of new preventative or treatment strategies then, eventually, we might reasonably expect to see a fall in the need for major joint replacement."

But he is quick to point out that smoking is not the answer to joint health.

"Whatever new preventative or treatment strategies may be developed in the future," he says, "they will certainly not include smoking."

Leigh Callahan, Ph.D., an arthritis researcher and professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says the findings are likely to spur scientists to explore the relationship between smoking and arthritis more closely.

The study "makes you want to understand the mechanism underlying the association," she says.

Copyright Health Magazine 2010
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/231265-Does-smoking-help-protect-the-joints-
"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 MommaDukes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Life. Loathe it or ignore it. You can't like it.
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #88 on: August 04, 2011, 05:56:01 PM »
What about emphysema?  I have a friend that was just diagnosed and she is now taking Chantix.  Which is scaring the hell out of me.  I have tried to talk to her about organic tobacco but she's not convinced.   :-\

I actually started smoking again based on this thread.  I forgot how much I enjoyed it.  ;D

Thank you very much for posting this information.

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,172
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #89 on: August 05, 2011, 08:25:42 AM »
What about emphysema?  I have a friend that was just diagnosed and she is now taking Chantix.  Which is scaring the hell out of me.  I have tried to talk to her about organic tobacco but she's not convinced.   :-\

I actually started smoking again based on this thread.  I forgot how much I enjoyed it.  ;D

Thank you very much for posting this information.

Chantix is a mind altering drug and can cause serious psychiatric side effects!  I knew someone who tried using this drug to stop smoking and reported having horrific nightmares, and when they stopped it the nightmares went away!

That to me is pretty creepy.
"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 TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #90 on: August 05, 2011, 12:22:51 PM »
Chantix is a mind altering drug and can cause serious psychiatric side effects!  I knew someone who tried using this drug to stop smoking and reported having horrific nightmares, and when they stopped it the nightmares went away!  That to me is pretty creepy.

http://www.youhavealawyer.com/chantix/

The Chantix lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A. are reviewing potential lawsuits for individuals who suffered severe physical injury or death which may be related to the use of Chantix.  The anti-smoking drug has been linked to a number of reports involving suicide, unusual behavior, heart attacks and other health problems which could be caused by drug.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #91 on: August 08, 2011, 06:14:41 AM »
Smokers who light up their first cigarettes as soon as they wake up are more likely to develop cancer than those who manage to wait an hour.
A study found they had much higher levels of nicotine than those who put off their first smoke of the day. Researchers found this effect was independent of other smoking habits.

The addictive chemical nicotine breaks down into cotinine, a molecule which has been linked to lung cancer risk.
The results, published online in the journal Cancer, may help identify smokers who have an especially high risk of developing cancer and would benefit from targeted smoking interventions to reduce their risk.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2023640/Morning-smokers-likely-develop-cancer-light-later.html


a molecule which has been linked to lung cancer risk.

This is what i have a problem with. Every time i read the same junk presented as science.
'Linked to lung cancer' means correlated with. Which is open to correlation fallacy.
Where is the real science.

Also, does anyone believe you are twice as likely to get cancer if you smoke in the morning? Please
More likely is that this study exposes how false all the correlation studies are, 'more likely' isnt science. No scientist works this way.

So can we confirm for good that there is no science that shows smoking is causing cancer

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,172
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #92 on: August 08, 2011, 10:30:07 AM »
Smokers who light up their first cigarettes as soon as they wake up are more likely to develop cancer than those who manage to wait an hour.
A study found they had much higher levels of nicotine than those who put off their first smoke of the day. Researchers found this effect was independent of other smoking habits.

The addictive chemical nicotine breaks down into cotinine, a molecule which has been linked to lung cancer risk.
The results, published online in the journal Cancer, may help identify smokers who have an especially high risk of developing cancer and would benefit from targeted smoking interventions to reduce their risk.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2023640/Morning-smokers-likely-develop-cancer-light-later.html


a molecule which has been linked to lung cancer risk.

This is what i have a problem with. Every time i read the same junk presented as science.
'Linked to lung cancer' means correlated with. Which is open to correlation fallacy.
Where is the real science.

Also, does anyone believe you are twice as likely to get cancer if you smoke in the morning? Please
More likely is that this study exposes how false all the correlation studies are, 'more likely' isnt science. No scientist works this way.

So can we confirm for good that there is no science that shows smoking is causing cancer

IMHO, that report is so ridiculous that it hurts my head to read their so-called findings.  I am of the belief that nicotine, all by itself, is beneficial to people.  It is the additives that are put into a cigarette that is not.

These studies are often for grants, they are not thorough enough to make any definitive conclusions, but they put out the effort, therefore are granted their money for doing so.
"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 All4truth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,053
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #93 on: August 08, 2011, 10:46:48 AM »
I would say that the cigarettes you buy that are government approved are laced with chemicals that you don't want to put into your body.  When I try to smoke those cigarettes, right away I feel a very heavy feeling on my chest, I can't even get pass smoking one whole cigarette.  I buy my cigarettes elsewhere, and I don't have a problem with those.  Government approve cigarettes will kill you.

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,172
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #94 on: August 29, 2011, 11:23:54 PM »
The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

By

J. R. Johnstone, PhD (Monash)

and

P.D.Finch, Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Statistics (Monash)

 

 

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.

 

Smoking and health have been the subject of argument since tobacco was introduced to Europe in the sixteenth century. King James I was a pioneer antismoker. In 1604 he declared that smoking was "a custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." But like many a politician since, he decided that taxing tobacco was a more sensible option than banning it.

By the end of the century general opinion had changed. The Royal College of Physicians of London promoted smoking for its benefits to health and advised which brands were best. Smoking was compulsory in schools. An Eton schoolboy later recalled that "he was never whipped so much in his life as he was one morning for not smoking". As recently as 1942 Price’s textbook of medicine recommended smoking to relieve asthma.

These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer. A campaign was begun to limit smoking. But Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As Fisher said, "even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung causes cancer."

Doll and Hill decided to follow their preliminary work with a much larger and protracted study. British doctors were asked to take part as subjects. 40.000 volunteered and 20,000 refused. The relative health of smokers, nonsmokers and particularly ex-smokers would be compared over the course of future years. In this trial smokers would no longer be asked whether they inhaled, in spite of the earlier result. Fisher commented: "I suppose the subject of inhaling had become distasteful to the research workers, and they just wanted to hear as little about inhaling as possible". And: "Should not these workers have let the world know not only that they had discovered the cause of lung cancer (cigarettes) but also that they had discovered the means of its prevention (inhaling cigarette smoke)? How had the MRC [Medical Research Council] the heart to withhold this information from the thousands who would otherwise die of lung cancer?"

Five year’s later, in 1964, Doll and Hill responded to this damning criticism. They did not explain why they had withdrawn the question about inhaling. Instead they complained that Fisher had not examined their more recent results but they agreed their results were mystifying. Fisher had died 2 years earlier and could not reply.

This refusal to consider conflicting evidence is the negation of the scientific method. It has been the hallmark of fifty years of antismoking propaganda and what with good reason may well be described as one of the greatest scandals in 500 years of modern science.

A typical example of such deception appeared in the same year from the American Surgeon General. This was "Smoking and Health",

the first of many reports on smoking and health to be produced by his office over the next 40 years. It declared that in the Doll and Hill study "…no difference in the proportion of smokers inhaling was found among male and female cases and controls." Fisher had shown this was not so. Fisher’s assessment and criticism of the Doll and Hill results is not mentioned, not even to be rejected. Unwelcome results are not merely considered and rejected. They cease to exist.

The work of Doll and Hill was continued and followed up over the next 50 years. They reintroduced the question about inhaling. Their results continued to show the inhaling/noninhaling paradox. In spite of this defect their work was to become the keystone of the modern anti-smoking movement: Defects count for nothing if they are never considered by those who are appointed to assess the evidence.

But their work had a far more serious and crippling disability.

From its inception the British doctors study was known to have a critical weakness. Its subjects were not selected randomly by the investigators but had decided for themselves to be smokers, nonsmokers or ex-smokers. The kind of error that can result from such non-random selection was well demonstrated during the 1948 US presidential election. Opinion polls showed that Dewey would win by a landslide from Truman. Yet Truman won. He was famously photographed holding a newspaper with a headline declaring Dewey the winner. The pollsters had got it wrong by doing a telephone poll which at that time would have targeted the wealthier voters. The majority of telephone owners may have supported Dewey but those without telephones had not. A true sample of the population had not been obtained.

The new Doll and Hill study was subject to a similar error. Smokers who became ex-smokers might have done so because they were ill and hoped quitting would improve them. Alternatively, they might quit because they were exceptionally healthy and hoped to remain so. Quitting could appear either harmful or beneficial. To avoid this source of error another project, the Whitehall study, was begun.

In 1968 fourteen hundred British civil servants, all smokers, were divided into two similar groups. Half were encouraged and counselled to quit smoking. These formed the test group. The others, the control group, were left to their own devices. For ten years both groups were monitored with respect to their health and smoking status.

Such a study is known as a randomised controlled intervention trial. It has become increasingly the benchmark, or as it is often referred to, the "gold standard" of medical investigation. Any week you can open The Lancet or British Medical Journal and you will likely find an example of such a trial to determine the benefits or harm of some new therapy. Such trials are fundamentally different to that of Doll and Hill. This is ironic because Hill had published the influential and much-reprinted textbook "Principles of Medical Statistics" where he considers the relative merits of controlled and uncontrolled trials. His praise is reserved for the former. Of the latter he is particularly critical: Such work uses "second-best" or "inferior" methods. "The same objections must be made to the contrasting in a trial of volunteers for a treatment with those who do not volunteer, or in everyday life between those who accept and those who refuse. There can be no knowledge that such groups are comparable; and the onus lies wholly, it may justly be maintained, upon the experimenter to prove that they are comparable, before his results can be accepted." This criticism by Hill can accurately be applied to the Doll and Hill study. According to Hill’s own criteria, his work with Doll can only be described as second-rate, inferior work. It would be for others to conduct properly controlled trials.

So what were the results of the Whitehall study? They were contrary to all expectation. The quit group showed no improvement in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rates due to heart disease, lung cancer, or any other cause with one exception: certain other cancers were more than twice as common in the quit group. Later, after twenty years there was still no benefit in life expectancy for the quit group.

Over the next decade the results of other similar trials appeared. It had been argued that if an improvement in one life-style factor, smoking, were of benefit, then an improvement in several - eg smoking, diet and exercise - should produce even clearer benefits. And so appeared the results of the whimsically acronymed Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial or MRFIT, with its 12,886 American subjects. Similarly, in Europe 60,881 subjects in four countries took part in the WHO Collaborative Trial. In Sweden the Goteborg study had 30,022 subjects. These were enormously expensive, wide-spread and time-consuming experiments. In all, there were 6 such trials with a total of over a hundred thousand subjects each engaged for an average of 7.4 years, a grand total of nearly 800,000 subject-years. The results of all were uniform, forthright and unequivocal: giving up smoking, even when fortified by improved diet and exercise, produced no increase in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rate for heart disease or for cancer. A decade of expensive and protracted research had produced a quite unexpected result.

During this same period, in America, the Surgeon General had been issuing a number of publications about smoking and health. In 1982, before the final results of the Whitehall study had been published, the then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop had praised the study for "pointing up the positive consequences of smoking in a positive manner". But now for nearly ten years he fell silent on the subject and there was no further mention of the Whitehall study nor of the other six studies, though thousands of pages on the dangers of smoking issued from his office. For example in 1989 there appeared "Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress". This weighty work is long on advice about the benefits of giving up smoking but short on discussion of the very studies which should allow the evaluation of that advice: you will look in vain through the thousand references to scientific papers for any mention of the Whitehall study or most of the other six quit studies. Only the MRFIT study is mentioned, and then falsely:

"The MRFIT study shows that smoking status and number of cigarettes smoked per day have remained powerful predictors for total mortality and the development of CHD [coronary heart disease], stroke, cancer, and COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. In the study population, there were an estimated 2,249 (29 percent) excess deaths due to smoking, of which 35 percent were from CHD and 21 percent from lung cancer. The nonsmoker-former smoker group had 30 percent fewer total cancers than the smoking group over the 6-year follow up."

This was untrue, as the Surgeon General was later to admit.


Continued...
"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 Overcast

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,133
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #95 on: August 30, 2011, 10:08:13 AM »
Chantix is a mind altering drug and can cause serious psychiatric side effects!  I knew someone who tried using this drug to stop smoking and reported having horrific nightmares, and when they stopped it the nightmares went away!

That to me is pretty creepy.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind stopping smoking, but I haven't thought of trying Chantix - something about screwing with the chemical balance in my head makes me shaky. Think I'd rather smoke to an early grave, but stay sane the whole time... well, no more insane than now, in any event!
And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,172
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #96 on: August 30, 2011, 08:56:11 PM »
Yeah, I wouldn't mind stopping smoking, but I haven't thought of trying Chantix - something about screwing with the chemical balance in my head makes me shaky. Think I'd rather smoke to an early grave, but stay sane the whole time... well, no more insane than now, in any event!

 :)  Again, I am still not convinced smoking sends people to an early grave.
"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 Overcast

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,133
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #97 on: September 06, 2011, 01:41:31 PM »
:)  Again, I am still not convinced smoking sends people to an early grave.

Well, it's said that asbestos causes cancers and DDT as well. They are banned.

Smoking *supposedly* does the same thing, but yet it's not banned.

There is no good answer to 'why' - short of $$$$$
And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,782
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #98 on: September 06, 2011, 03:19:58 PM »

Michael Crichton on the Unproven Dangers of Secondhand smoke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGoZ-b1OaW4

Michael Crichton on DDT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSYla0y9Wcs

DDT Toxicity Research on Prisoners 1956 Atlanta Penitentiary CDC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6nVS0wZ8U


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 LibertyPrevails

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #99 on: September 12, 2011, 10:37:31 PM »
One thing is for sure: "tobacco" is not "cigarettes." -- tobacco and cigarettes are two different things completely. Tobacco can be harvested from the earth and smoked without preservatives or chemicals, while cigarettes are LOADED with carcinogens and toxic chemicals that are undoubtedly linked to premature death in a number of ways. NOT saying that smoking tobacco is completely healthy in every way, but it's a LOT better than cigarettes -- that is for sure.
“Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” ―Psalm 94:16

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #100 on: October 16, 2011, 10:42:03 PM »
Up to 40% of cancers 'are caused by viruses': Discovery

Last week scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden found a viral link with medulloblastoma, the most common form of childhood brain tumour.
It follows the discovery two years ago that Merkel cell carcinoma, an aggressive skin cancer, often follows infection by the polyomavirus which is common among animals and can spread to humans.
It is also claimed that prostate cancers could be caused by viruses.
Nobel Prize winner Harald zur Hausen, who jointly discovered the link between cervical cancer and HPV in the 1980s, said he expected more discoveries to follow and suggested that viruses could be involved in cancer of the skin, breast, gut and lungs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2049775/Cancer-vaccine-step-closer-viral-infections-linked-40-cent-cases.html

Now we have to find out how many of these viruses were in the vaccines.
An impossible task but who knows

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,172
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #101 on: October 16, 2011, 10:44:36 PM »
Up to 40% of cancers 'are caused by viruses': Discovery

Last week scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden found a viral link with medulloblastoma, the most common form of childhood brain tumour.
It follows the discovery two years ago that Merkel cell carcinoma, an aggressive skin cancer, often follows infection by the polyomavirus which is common among animals and can spread to humans.
It is also claimed that prostate cancers could be caused by viruses.
Nobel Prize winner Harald zur Hausen, who jointly discovered the link between cervical cancer and HPV in the 1980s, said he expected more discoveries to follow and suggested that viruses could be involved in cancer of the skin, breast, gut and lungs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2049775/Cancer-vaccine-step-closer-viral-infections-linked-40-cent-cases.html

Now we have to find out how many of these viruses were in the vaccines.
An impossible task but who knows

Good info...yes, I wonder how many viruses have been placed in vaccines like SV40.  >:(
"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 nnuckols

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #102 on: November 09, 2011, 03:34:49 PM »
I have some form of geographic tongue. The doctor didn't actually say this is what it is but said it wouldn't be cost effective to do any tests to find out. I looked online and found this to be the only disease it could be. OR it's a candida yeast infection. Looking into vitamin strategies next week when I get paid to counter this annoying "incurable" virus inside of me.

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,172
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #103 on: November 09, 2011, 06:39:06 PM »
I have some form of geographic tongue. The doctor didn't actually say this is what it is but said it wouldn't be cost effective to do any tests to find out. I looked online and found this to be the only disease it could be. OR it's a candida yeast infection. Looking into vitamin strategies next week when I get paid to counter this annoying "incurable" virus inside of me.

This stuff is great

http://www.amazon.com/Integrative-Therapeutics-Plus-180-Capsules/dp/B004IN80Y8

It is great for getting rid of Candida yeast infection.  It is also recommended while getting candida to have a diet void of yeast products.  I took it for two weeks then followed up with a good probiotics.

Try to limit yourself to eating a lot of yeast products until you can get your gut regulated.

"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 TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #104 on: November 09, 2011, 06:44:22 PM »
There is a radioactive , chemical and biological component to cancer. As an example :

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3372906/Brandt_Syphilis.pdf?sequence=1
IN 1909, NOBEL LAUREATE IMMUNOLOGIST PAUL EHRLICH announced the discovery of Salvarsan, a cure for the dreaded
disease syphilis. Ehrlich's discovery marked a fundamental breakthrough in the history of modern medical science; for the first
time, a specific chemical compound had been demonstrated to kill a specific microorganism. Ehrlich called the substance-the 606th arsenical he had synthesized-a "magic bullet," a drug that would seek out and destroy its mark. He posited that the world of 20thcentury bioscience would be the elucidation of magic bullets to cure all diseases

At that time Ehrlich was competing with other scientists who were working on biological "vaccines" to cure while Ehrlich worked on purely chemical cures.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline global_fiefdom

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #105 on: November 09, 2011, 07:18:45 PM »
I think many forms of smoke SHRINK TUMORS @.@
they restrict angiogenesis, CUTTING OFF TUMOR BLOOD SUPPLY.
This has been proven.

I don't know what to think of cigs and cancer except... BEWARE PROCESSED PRODUCTS.

Smoking however COULD cause emphysema. Hack hack!

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,782
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #106 on: November 14, 2011, 05:57:36 PM »

Post-Punk Icon Joe Jackson on The Nanny State, Smoking Bans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=WCgQmlOKsZE


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

Online chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,133
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #107 on: December 14, 2011, 08:09:24 PM »
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. 
I'm glad you mentioned that, as strange as it sounds I stopped smoking for 7 years during which time I was with colds constantly and with Pneumonia twice. Coincidence, how the hell would I know.
 I do agree that all the chemicals added to tobaco are not healthy. I smoke, but I resent the fact people are getting to the point they begin to see us as criminals. Could it have anything to do with the the imploded cost of tobaco, and more laws, you tell me.

Offline decemberfellow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,033
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #108 on: December 14, 2011, 08:34:48 PM »
I'm glad you mentioned that, as strange as it sounds I stopped smoking for 7 years during which time I was with colds constantly and with Pneumonia twice. Coincidence, how the hell would I know.
 I do agree that all the chemicals added to tobaco are not healthy. I smoke, but I resent the fact people are getting to the point they begin to see us as criminals. Could it have anything to do with the the imploded cost of tobaco, and more laws, you tell me.

I believe it has to do with the year after year lies spread to the sheep of the hazards of smoking,  and also with CONTROL.  I do not know what you have read  about tobacco but if you get time check these out.

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


http://www.smokershistory.com/

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

Online chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,133
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #109 on: December 15, 2011, 01:43:45 PM »
I believe it has to do with the year after year lies spread to the sheep of the hazards of smoking,  and also with CONTROL.  I do not know what you have read  about tobacco but if you get time check these out.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http://vialls.net/transpositions/smoking.html
http://www.smokershistory.com/
              Hi december,, yup, controll... And if I remember right, didn't the OLE Gov stick a on sizable tax when they began this charade as well.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #110 on: June 26, 2012, 09:51:11 AM »
Here is a theory:

1) Cancer is exacerbated, not caused, by a weakened immune system.
2) Smoking pumps particulate pollutants into your body and your body's natural immune system goes to work extracting this foreign matter. These are known as carcinogens.
3) While its busy doing this the overall immune response is weakened
4) If you smoke regularly you'll eventually contract cancer somehow - means still unknown.
5) A smokers body is less likely to defeat the cancer than a non smokers, due to its weakened state immune state.
6) This would explain why smoking is correlated with cancer but not all chain smokers develop cancer.
7) Correlation not cause

Offline reviind

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #111 on: December 04, 2012, 10:38:51 PM »
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.”

Offline donnay

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,172
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #112 on: December 14, 2012, 07:40:14 PM »
Nicotine - The Zombie Antidote

Gabriela Segura, MD.
Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:36 CST

I'm sick and tired of the anti-smoking culture that has taken over the entire world. I've have had enough of hearing "don't smoke, it's bad for you!!" The ignorance that betrays such remarks is utterly abysmal, especially coming from people who should know better. So for all those who have asked me why do I actually smoke, I'm going to explain my reasons in this article.

I have found anti-smoking activists to be intolerant, judgmental Authoritarian Follower types. They believe and parrot emotionally-charged catch-phrases taken straight from government anti-smoking propaganda. Doctors and non-smokers alike are guilty of this. They feel righteous when providing such 'advice' yet fail to take notice of how ill they themselves look, and forget that, in many cases, their own health issues went downhill when they stopped smoking. Thanks to some pretty convoluted thinking, if they are some day diagnosed with a serious disease, they will later blame their 'smoking years', while overlooking the real culprits of today's modern diseases: junk diets high in carbohydrates and the industrial-scale toxicity that has choked our environment.

Yes, the changes in our diet, particularly since the introduction of mechanised agriculture, the Industrial Revolution and arrival in the 'enlightened' Modern Age, have systemically destroyed our health. The mismatch between our ancient physiology - which thrived with little or no edible plant food - and our current diet, is at the root of many so-called diseases of civilization: coronary heart disease, obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disease, osteoporosis, etc. But I'm not here to talk about that. You can read more about it here. My aim here is to defend the rights of people who choose to smoke. It may surprise you to know that, while the percentage of the population that smokes has declined in recent years (due to government propaganda), the incidence of heart disease has not declined. The reason, shock! horror! is that smoking is not the real problem to begin with!

Almost all smokers I know feel guilty about smoking and are planning to quit one utopian day when life gets 'less stressful'. The way things are going, good luck with that one! I arrived in Europe when there was still a smoking culture and it wasn't seen as the profound 'evil' it is today. The European smoking bans were introduced during my time here and, coincidentally enough, the general state of society has deteriorated badly during the same time. Could that deterioration have something to do with the replacement of nicotine - a chemical that enhances learning and memory - with Big Pharma tranquilizer drugs and dissociative technology?

From my vantage point in the medical profession, everybody and their friend is taking some kind of calming pill that numbs their feelings and further alienates them from reality. It is beyond me how a person who eats food that is completely mismatched to their physiology, and takes drugs to cover up the damaging effects of that food, can claim to be an authority on any health-related matter. I have found that, typically, those who look more dis-eased are those who feel more self-righteously entitled to use smoking as a scapegoat for all the world's health problems.

I remember when people used to smoke on airplanes, trains and in restaurants. It was really not that long ago! How have things changed so rapidly? I have colleagues who tell me that they used to smoke in their offices while attending patients. It seems to me that things were definitely better back then, when we were still able to think!

Tobacco has nicotine in it, which is related to acetylcholine, and this fact is very important indeed, as we are going to learn.

Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter responsible for learning and memory. It is also calming, relaxing and is also a major factor regulating the immune system. Acetylcholine also acts as a major brake on inflammation in the body and inflammation is linked to every known disease. For example, inflammation of the brain is linked to every known mood, behavior and attention disorder and every neuro-degenerative disease.

Receptors for acetylcholine, also known as cholinergic receptors, fall into two categories based on the chemicals that mimic or antagonize the actions of acetylcholine on its many target cell types. In classical studies, nicotine, isolated from tobacco, was one of the chemicals used to distinguish receptors for acetylcholine. That is why there are nicotinic receptors for acetylcholine.

People who smoke often experience cognitive impairment when they stop smoking. This worsening is due to the fact that nicotine acts as an agonist (that is, it mimics) receptors of acetylcholine which are important for learning, memory and cognitive functions. Daily infusions of nicotine actually increase the number of acetylcholine receptors.

As in a kind of 'blessing from above', local and systemic inflammation is calmed down by the brain through what is called the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, which is a mechanism consisting of the vagus nerve and its neurotransmitter acetylcholine, a process dependent on a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor1. Nicotine, the prototypical nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist, counteracts inflammatory cytokine production and has demonstrated protective effects in blood poisoning2.

Nicotine has also been used to prevent kidney failure and improve kidney function. Nicotinic receptors in the brain are associated with neuronal plasticity and cell survival, which is why tobacco has been linked with better thinking and concentration. Nicotine has been used to treat ulcerative colitis, a disease characterized by inflammation of the large intestine3. It is clear from available medical literature that the benefits are far-ranging when it comes to this natural compound - nicotine - that acts as an anti-inflammatory and facilitates the creation of new brain cells!


Doctors and anti-smokers are, in my opinion, completely deluded on this topic. They say things like "smoking is bad because it has thousands of chemicals including arsenic and cadmium." For God's sake, there are far more toxic levels of arsenic in the chicken they eat! Factory poultry farms produce enormous amounts of concentrated waste, and poultry processing byproducts which are later fed to pigs, cows and fish are loaded with arsenic4. Dangerous concentrations of arsenic in the water supply is a global threat because it induces both genetic and epigenetic changes related to lung cancer and other diseases5.

Yes, tobacco has its pollutants, but they are found in the water we drink, the air we breathe, in baby food, you name it, in even higher concentrations. A conservative estimate is that over 80,000 new chemicals have been introduced into society since the 1800s, only a few hundred have been tested for safety; this doesn't even take into consideration nanotechnology and GMOs, which are already pervasive in the food chain. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, about 2.5 billion pounds of toxic chemicals are released annually by large industrial facilities. And the authorities are worried about a plant that produces the learning and memory-enhancing, natural chemical nicotine? It really is laughable. You see what mainstream education indoctrination does to your brain? You breathe thousands of chemicals every time you inhale air, whether you like it or not, and whether or not you are sitting next to a smoker.

Outdoor air contains some of the nastiest cocktails of pollutants. Most people tend to think of air pollution as having effects on the lungs, but exposure to road traffic and air pollution may also trigger heart attacks6. But people are right; air pollution does cause lung cancer. A much-anticipated government study of more than 12,000 miners has found that exposure to diesel engine exhaust significantly increases the risk of lung cancer. For NON-smokers, the risk was seven times higher. The authors of the study say "we also observed an interaction between smoking and 15-year lagged cumulative REC [marker for estimation of diesel exhaust exposure] such that the effect of each of these exposures was attenuated in the presence of high levels of the other.7" What does that mean. It means that research suggests that people who smoke are less vulnerable to the toxic effects of inhalation of diesel fumes than people who don't smoke.

You have no idea how many times we have found again and again the protective properties of tobacco smoking. When it comes to hard-core petrochemical industry pollution, smoking really is a blessing from above. Take for instance this report by Riki Ott from Sound Truth & Corporate Myth$: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill:

    Workers in jobs with high oil exposure to oil fumes, mists, and aerosols have a greater prevalence of self-reported symptoms of respiratory problems, neurological problems, and chemical sensitivities than unexposed workers. Among workers with high oil exposure, nonsmokers reported a greater prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis than smokers. Symptoms of chronic airway disease included sleep apnea, pneumonia, other lung conditions, chronic sinus and/or ear problems, asthma, persistent hoarseness. [...]. [Annie O'Neill, a graduate student at Yale Medical School's Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, conducted an internship with ACAT and AFER, the two nonprofit organizations investigating the health effects of the EVOS cleanup. She conducted independent research on Exxon's cleanup and an investigation of self-reported chronic health problems among EVOS cleanup workers for her master's thesis.]

Want to know more about the real enemy? As Laura Knight-Jadczyk wrote soon after the Fukushima fallout:

    Well, thinking about that and the fears about nuclear fallout from a power-plant melt-down made me ask the question: why didn't anybody get excited about all the nuclear bomb tests that were being done all over the planet since WW II? I mean, just take a look at this time-lapse map of every nuclear explosion since 1945 and ask yourself if that is not one heck of a lot of radioactive fallout to be dumping on our planet - sometimes right in our back yard - and nobody was saying a thing about it? [...]

    In short, while I think that what is happening as a result of the Japan nuclear reactor disaster is a lot worse that the authorities are saying, I don't think that is any reason to get hysterical right now. The time for hysteria was long ago. You are already poisoned and don't know it.

The time-line she is referring to is the "1945-1998" video by Isao Hashimoto. It documents 2,053 nuclear explosions conducted in various places around the world, and it doesn't even cover the tests made by North Korea. It is based on a report made by Nils-Olov and Ragnhild Ferm8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cjAqR1zICA0

So much for the anti-smoking campaign where we have been led to believe that smoking is practically the sole cause of all humanity's health problems. Before the fascist anti-smoking legislation, people in Spain, Italy and France were happily puffing away, and as a result, were enjoying much longer life-expectancy than the U.S. with its fewer smokers. Incidentally, more nuclear bombs have been detonated in the U.S. than in any other country.

Professor Chris Brusby, Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, explains that we are probably only looking at the tip of a brty nasty radioactive iceberg. In a meeting which took place in Stockholm 2009, he said:

    "The global death yield of the nuclear age to 1992 has been horrifying. According to objective calculations by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (using weapons fallout radiation exposure) there have been (up to 2003) 61 million cancer deaths; 1,600,000 infant deaths; 1,880,000 fetal deaths. There has been a loss of life quality of 10% (in terms of illnesses and ageing effects). The blame for this can be squarely placed at the door of those scientists and administrators (WHO, UNSCEAR, ICRP) who developed and supported the scientific risk models. This is a war crime far greater in magnitude than any that has occurred in recorded human history."

So there you have it.

Yes, you're reading this right; as a doctor, I don't discourage patients from smoking in this increasingly stressful world. I do encourage them to choose organic tobacco and papers, or to go back to the old traditional ways of smoking pipes or cigars. The smartest people on Earth smoke and it is a veritable sign of the times that smoking is so highly discouraged in this modern, zombie culture.

Further reading

For more information on the benefits of tobacco smoking, please read:

Let's All Light Up!
Pestilence, the Great Plague and the Tobacco Cure
Comets, plagues, tobacco and the origin of life on earth

Notes

1. Pavlov V.A. Tracey, K.J. The cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 2005: 19, 493 - 49.

2. Van Westerloo D.J. The vagal immune reflex: a blessing from above. Wien Med Wochenschr 2010, 160/5 - 6: 112 - 117.

3. Rosas-Ballina M., Tracey K.J. Cholinergic control of inflammation. Journal of Internal Medicine 2009: 265; 663-679.

4. Nachman KE, Raber G et al. Arsenic species in poultry feather meal. Sci Total Environ. 2012 Feb 15;417-418:183-8.

5. Martinez VD, Vucic EA. Arsenic biotransformation as a cancer promoting factor by inducing DNA damage and disruption of repair mechanisms. Mol Biol Int. 2011;2011:718974.

6. Mills NL, Miller MR, Lucking AJ. Combustion-derived nanoparticulate induces the adverse vascular effects of diesel exhaust inhalation. Eur Heart J. 2011 Nov;32(21):2660-71.

7. Silverman DT, Samanic CM, Lubin JH, et al. The Diesel Exhaust in Miners study: a nested case-control study of lung cancer and diesel exhaust. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Jun 6;104(11):855-68.

8. Nils-Olov Bergkvist and Ragnhild Ferm. Nuclear Explosions 1945-1998. Swedish Defence Research Establishment (FOA) and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 2000. Available at iaaea.org
Avatar

Gabriela Segura, MD

Gabriela Segura is a heart surgeon who was born into a multiethnic family in Central America. Her ongoing adventure with the medical science, alternative healing and the true nature of our world has taken her to live in Costa Rica, Spain, Canada, Uzbekistan, France and Italy. Her favorite hobbies are SOTT, researching and spending time with nature. Her writings can be found at The Health Matrix.
Email Print this article Discuss on Cassiopaea Forum

             
"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 Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,771
  • Thank you Jesus!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #113 on: December 15, 2012, 06:38:17 AM »
It just dawned on me recently...PETS

If second-hand smoke is bad, then what about all those pets smokers own? Are they dying of lung cancer? Where is the evidence of it affecting pets that breath the same air their owners do?

Hmm. Just sayin'!
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #114 on: December 15, 2012, 08:35:15 AM »
It just dawned on me recently...PETS

If second-hand smoke is bad, then what about all those pets smokers own? Are they dying of lung cancer? Where is the evidence of it affecting pets that breath the same air their owners do?

Hmm. Just sayin'!

Lots of pets are dying of cancer, but it is because they are being CHIPPED.

Look up serial killing psychopaths, first they do it to animals, then they upgrade to doing it to people.

They practice eugenics, euthanasia, chipping etc... all on pets first.
Your Next!!


Offline decemberfellow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,033
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #115 on: December 15, 2012, 09:07:32 AM »



Quote
Nicotine - The Zombie Antidote
Thank you Donnay very good article
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 jerryweaver

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,432
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #116 on: December 15, 2012, 10:45:13 AM »
I have been smoking since I was ten years old and doing welding/ metal sculpture from the age of 16 years old. At half a century old I had to give up surfing big waves because of COPD. I am thinking of using this silkworm enzyme product from Europe. Does anyone on this forum have experience with serrapeptase for COPD?

Any Ideas regarding its affects for chemtrail poison? I bicycle quite a bit and some days I can really taste aluminum in the air.

http://www.serrapeptase.info/Serrapeptase-Testimonials/lung-copd/serrapeptase-and-copd/

Serrapeptase and COPD
Sheila Bushell, a pharmacist from London, who uses Serrapeptase herself, tells of a man in his 30’s who was suffering from a severe lung condition, bronchiectasis, which made it difficult to clear mucus. He was prescribed antibiotics for 12 months, but his condition deteriorated to such as a degree that he could not travel to work and could only work part-time at home.
Sheila suggested he try Serrapeptase, so he asked his consultant, who ridiculed it and said his lungs were permanently damaged, and he would have to learn to live with it; a daunting prospect at his age! He decided to try it and took 4 SerraEzyme 80,000IU per day. He quickly began to improve and clear his lungs. After 2 weeks he felt so much better that he returned to his full time work.
Date: 11/29/07
Sheila Bushell, Pharmacist – UK

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,771
  • Thank you Jesus!
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #117 on: December 16, 2012, 04:53:04 AM »
Lots of pets are dying of cancer, but it is because they are being CHIPPED.

Look up serial killing psychopaths, first they do it to animals, then they upgrade to doing it to people.

They practice eugenics, euthanasia, chipping etc... all on pets first.
Your Next!!



 ::) Come on! I'm being serious. Don't dismiss the question and change the target.

Seriously, they claim it affects humans, so where is the proof it affects their pets? If it affects the children of smokers, why is it not affecting pets?

It's a serious legit question that should be asked of these anti-smoking clowns.
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)

Offline Dazza

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #118 on: January 27, 2013, 10:46:52 AM »
or is it something else...

am finding myself increasingly sceptical.

anyone wanna argue the case using science, id be grateful

I can't prove if it causes cancer or not (have read that the chemicals they add to the tobacco are a problem in themselves).

I can attest it ruins your health and makes you stink.  Ruined my breathing capacity. Went from excellent cardio health to crap cardio health.   Luckily I gave up years ago and seem to have regained my health.

Offline ramicio

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Does smoking cause cancer?
« Reply #119 on: February 25, 2013, 08:59:42 AM »
Smoking pure tobacco that didn't have any artificial pesticides applied to it out of a pipe...fine.  Smoking what the tobacco industry sells us with heavy metals and other chemicals rolled up in paper made of who knows what with filters...not fine.  When I smoked I was in OK health.  When I quit I gained probably 70 lbs. and lost a ton of lung capacity.  I quit because it was expensive and it just smells bad, not because of my health.