People believe studies proving cigarettes are unhealthy are false propaganda?

a reply to: neutronflux

Yes and liquor is just as deadly,but do you see warning labels on liquor?,or laws banning it?more die from drinking then smoking,so much for this post

You can have a healthy active 40 year old who eats right, exercises, never smoke, drank or did any sort of drugs keel over from a heart attack. Then have someone who lived the polar opposite live to be over 100.

Not saying that certain life styles could increase your risk of a premature death. But as the old saying goes "when it's your time. It's your time"

The modern world has us all living in an ever increasing soup of carcinogens so why choose to increase your chances of an early demise by inhaling extra concentrated combustion products from smoking?

All the elders of my family lived through WW2, nearly all smoked (it was an accepted coping strategy in those days) and all of them are gone now, most suffering terribly in their final years from chemo, extreme cancer surgery, emphysema etc.

Is that enough evidence of a link between the smoking and their demise you might ask.

It was good enough for me to quit.

a reply to: neutronflux

But to say studies which show smoking industrial massed produced cigarettes from corporations at rates consistent with normal smokers are harmful to health are false propaganda.... WTF

If smoking tobacco as normally practiced in our culture was healthy, why would there be a conspiracy to produce false medical studies to prove otherwise?

For the conspiracy side of the debate, consider asbestos exposure and Mesothelioma.

I have heard and read that demonizing tobacco was a means to avoiding massive liability lawsuits for the lung cancer caused by asbestos. So because smokers exposed to asbestos are exponentially more likely to develop lung cancer, it was easy enough to blame tobacco by simply leaving the asbestos exposure out of the equation. The studies aren't exactly wrong, just not complete.

Historically, the Nazis first discovered the connection between asbestos and lung cancer/mesothelioma, but it was ignored because... well... Nazis donchaknow. So the rest of the world kept doing what they were doing and folks kept getting sick. I suppose that at some point the rest of the world figured out that the Nazis were right. So they should have known better, and that would not go over well in a lawsuit... "Oh yeah, we knew... but we thought the Nazis were just lying about it so we ignored them."

I have no way to prove or disprove any of this, but that's what some are saying.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Says “Smoking Kills” on the packet...

Kinda hard to ignore that, to be honest.



But we (yes, me too) do.

Denying the effects is very dumb though.

Oh, I don't know. I read about some guy's great great Grandma who smoked and lived to be 103, so they must be good for you, right?

originally posted by: lacrimoniousfinale

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Says “Smoking Kills” on the packet...

Kinda hard to ignore that, to be honest.



But we (yes, me too) do.

Denying the effects is very dumb though.

Oh, I don't know. I read about some guy's great great Grandma who smoked and lived to be 103, so they must be good for you, right?

So we should prescribe cigarettes to pregnant women?

8 Dangers of Smoking While Pregnant

www.healthline.com...

Smoking and pregnancy

Smoking and pregnancy don't mix. Smoking while pregnant puts both you and your unborn baby at risk. Cigarettes contain dangerous chemicals, including nicotine, carbon monoxide, and tar. Smoking significantly increases the risk of pregnancy complications, some of which can be fatal for the mother or the baby. Learn about the risks of smoking while pregnant.

I would like to know more about the claims that this or that person lived to 103 while smoking.

Are we talking about one or two cigarettes a day by persons that rolled their own cigarettes.

Or persons that smoked a couple of packs a day from a carton of the cheapest smokes from the gas station?

a reply to: Boadicea

The use of asbestos is severely limited, abestos product production down, and much of the installed asbestos insulation and ceiling tiles removed.

But studies still prove the harmful effects of smoking.

So why would there still be a conspiracy to falsify manufactured cigarettes are harmful?

a reply to: research100

interesting tidbit...nicotine actually helps people with parkinsons disease......another interesting bit...People with downs sydrome very very RARely get cancer...there has been studies... because they get a double copy of a chromosone they get double good stuff that fights cancer prevents the blood vessels that feed the cancer cells

Taking a pure form of nicotine is very different than smoking a manufactured cigarette manipulated by companies to maximize addictiveness and potency. Is that a false statement.

The main concern with tobacco and cancer is the radiation.

Tobacco is very hard on the soil. The plant absorbs many radioactive isotopes that cause alpha and gamma emissions. Especially if commercial fertilize is used.

The concern of smoking is it allows the lungs to be exposed to alpha radiation. Most alpha radiation is blocked by dead skin. Obviously the lungs have no protection from internal alpha radiation.

Is that a false statement?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Boadicea

Well, I'm really not the person to ask -- at least if you want accurate answers. You asked "why" and I gave you one reason. But off the top of my head...

The use of asbestos is severely limited, abestos product production down, and much of the installed asbestos insulation and ceiling tiles removed...

Now it is. However, the adverse effects of asbestos exposure can take 50 years to manifest. And while asbestos use and production is down, asbestos products are still found in homes and such, and removal of asbestos is continuing. So there is still a problem of exposure, albeit reduced.

But studies still prove the harmful effects of smoking.

Actually, more recent studies have disproven the conclusion of previous studies, especially regarding the dangers of secondhand smoke.

It has also been shown that much of today's research is basically junk... In other words, for whatever reasons, the results/conclusions of any one study cannot be replicated/duplicated by others, and therefore -- by definition -- is NOT science.

So why would there still be a conspiracy to falsify manufactured cigarettes are harmful?

For one thing, because smoking cessation is big business. Big Pharma and their patented smoking cessation drugs, nicotine patches, vaping, etc. Not to mention that anti-smoking grants for both research and activism have been handed out like candy by government.

There was a thread last week about research done decades ago that showed lower cholesterol correlated with younger deaths and higher cholesterol levels correlated with longevity. The research was only recently found and made public. At the very end of the article, the researcher's son was asked why his dad would have hidden the results, and the son pretty much flat out said because it didn't jive with the researcher's strong beliefs that cholesterol (and fat in general) were bad.

Researchers are human too.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: flice

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: neutronflux

That's a hard one,and I believe you. But my wife's grandfather smoked for 70yrs,died at 91,and from what I know it wasn't smoking related.....I think it all comes down to genetic predisposition,well in some cases anyways.

For the most part I would lean on this one regarding ANYTHING... but I do believe that the number of people who can smoke or even chew nicotine gum without consequences is a small number.
My dad more or less died from smoking last febuary... the chemicals in cigarettes destroy lung tissue, the nicotine in cigs and gum damage blood vessels and increase the risk of clots.

But I wont recognise the fact that a select few will live a long life anyways.
Problem is that smoking is still very public and having been a smoker myself for 13 years I dont even wanna breathe second hand smoke.
The majority should be taken into consideration first and foremost along with expenses to public health service and that meand it should be either banned or people who choose to smoke should have increased medical help prices when it comes to smoking related illnesses.

Nicotine is the basis for many medicines. Nicotine turns to nicotinic acid when it interacts with the lungs, which would be a vitamin. Nicotine is not the bad part of cigarettes, it is the carbons that cause damage to our bodies. One of those carbons is carbon monoxide. Actually cigarette smoke kills microbes and also can kill viruses. There is nitric oxides in the smoke.

Only about ten percent of people can get cancer from tobacco smoke. Smoking does cause other issues though, but they are still blaming everything on smoking tobacco when it is not causing many of the diseases they blame it for.

Yep, the wife gets sick all the time, while I rarely do.

I'm not afraid of pollution either. Smokers will survive!

Some of us, anyway.

I wish I never started. It's expensive.

I use roll my own pipe tobacco, it costs about ten bucks a carton. Twenty bucks a month. Cheaper than my copay on medications I would need if I quit.

Tobacco smoke contains nitrous oxide in small amounts, a ready to go killer of viruses and bacteria. It also expands the arteries and reduces some pains. It can keep a person calmer too. When evaluating things you can't discount the good and ignore the bad.

A guy once told me that each cigarette takes a minute off your life. I responded that those minutes at the end of your life basically suck. Smoking a lot of cigarettes is not good and also second hand smoke is better than first hand smoke. It is better to go outside and smoke instead of smoking indoors. Also some people are really intolerant to smoke, it is a strong adjuvant that triggers immune responses, smokers should go off to the side so they do not cause others to have problems. I will not give up smoking, I just smoke a little though, I might actually start smoking a pipe instead.

Tobacco smoke is a nootropic, meaning it makes you smarter. It is also a medicine that can be used to treat some poisons. Many medicines are designed off of nicotine chemistry. I like the harmaline effect myself. If I smoke over a pack of cigarettes a day I get hard of breathing, but half of that and my breathing is better. I know many other calming food chemistries to control my epilepsy, but most are not as fast acting as a couple of puffs of a cigarette. It does dampen my seizure risk by neutralizing methyl in the body.

a reply to: Boadicea

I agree on the second hand smoke. The effects of second hand smoke was overrated. But I do enjoy smoke free dining in public.

However, can you prove that smoking does not expose lungs to alpha radiation.

Can you point to a study that states there is no increased dangers to mother and fetus from the mother smoking during pregnancy. Is that a conspiracy to cover up asbestos?

Taxes from cigarette sales fill our Governments coffers, I would think there would be fraud cases on bogus health claims that would cut into government profits.

And you are ignoring the blatant conspiracy by cigarettes manufactures to hide the ill effects of cigarettes, and their chemical manipulation of their products. Is that a false statement?

a reply to: rickymouse

guy once told me that each cigarette takes a minute off your life. I responded that those minutes at the end of your life basically suck.

Maybe if you strived for quality of life instead of instant pleasure, maybe life would be enjoyable at the end.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: rickymouse

guy once told me that each cigarette takes a minute off your life. I responded that those minutes at the end of your life basically suck.

Maybe if you strived for quality of life instead of instant pleasure, maybe life would be enjoyable at the end.

I would worry more about pesticides and glyphosate used on our foods that are permanent inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase than short term acetylcholinesterase inhibitors like cigarettes. The perfect solution is potatoes which have a moderate inhibition while also having a small promotor of acetylcholinesterase at the same time.

Tobacco makes me think clearer, not jumping to conclusions too quickly and suffering the consequences later of doing so.

By tobacco inhibiting acetylcholinesterase thence boosting acetylcholine, it lowers dementia risk. But the potato would be a better choice with that. Nicotine can tie to the acetylcholine receptors too and nicotine is basically a plant form of niacin, Nicotinic acid. Yes, in some people who smoke, it does increase cancer risk. Also quick acting nicotine smoke can cause your body to make more enzymes to detox it, so getting your niacin only from cigarettes can be addicting. It is best to get some of the active form in food, N-acetylcysteine is the active form. Homemade beef or chicken soups with a tad bit of hot sauce and onions can help with that. You see, a person who smokes will not sense they need the niacin because they are getting it from the cigarette, so they have to smoke more and more if they do not consume it.

They seem to have bashed cigarettes and now our population is getting fatter and fatter. Is that a good trade off? I will agree that cigarettes have some bad aspects, especially for some people. But for some it is medicine. That is why they have not banned tobacco, if they did just think how many people would be needing pills in this country. The government just wanted to tax people to pay for the cancer risk increase. But I know more people who died of lung cancer who didn't smoke and avoided smoke from cigarettes, so what is up from that. The new third hand smoke scam is just that, they are trying to cover up the danger from permanent inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase which will lead to cancer. These organophosphates kill the enzyme, it has to be replaced, a moderate inhibitor like solamine or solanine which is a short inhibitor only deactivate it for maybe an hour for short term or up to a day for long term. When temporarily inhibited, the organophosphates cannot attach and destroy the enzyme.

People think the nicotine is bad in cigarettes, but actually it is other carbon based chemistry that is bad. They do add things to cigarettes, like propylene glycol and extra nicotine that cause problems, and even some of the chemistry required in the papers is bad, much worse than the natural tobacco itself.

The medical field is looking for a scapegoat. So is the FDA and department of agriculture, the real culprit is pesticides and herbicides that are on our food and also natural lectins and plant defense chemistry in some types of foods.

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know why you are trying to make this personal, but I'm not playing.

In my first post, I clearly stated that I had no way to prove or disprove anything. I did not express an opinion on the veracity of the claim, I simply offered the claim.

If you would like to know my opinion, then it is this: I have no idea if any government and/or corporate interests promoted a smoking conspiracy to cover up asbestos issues; but I'm damn sure that they would if it served their interests.

Further, ALL research is suspect thanks to a legally mandated corporate fiduciary duty to serve the best financial interests of its shareholders. Therefore, by law, virtually all research serves the purpose of selling a product... not the best interests of the consumer and/or patient. All interested parties will promote the "truth" that promotes their bottom line. Period.

We do not have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

In general, I'm sure smoking can cause harm to one extent or another depending on the individual. I'm sure that harm can be increased or exacerbated by other factors, such as excessive alcohol consumption or poor eating habits or poor air quality and on and on and on. I'm sure that harm can be mitigated by some factors, such as appropriate nutrition. I'm sure genetics has something to do with it.

But I'm also sure that smoking/nicotine has therapeutic and medicinal effects as well. I'm sure that smoking is a very fast and efficient means of delivery to the body. I'm sure that smoking also provides protective effects from other diseases, such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. And I'm pretty darn sure that for most hardcore smokers, that smoking gives them something their body needs but cannot get anywhere else. And so I'm not jumping on the "Hate Smoky" bandwagon. At some point, it's just cruel and sadistic.

There are a lot of dangerous things in life people do that hurt them, like Xrays and sugar.

a reply to: neutronflux

Not to support smoking but my dad also smoked till his last day. I am not sure his hypertension was related to smoking.. maybe. But I think many smoking related deaths are due to genetic dispositions / vulnerabilities.

It is a nasty thing though. Makes your breath smell and you smell. Messes up your teeth too. And yeah, it might give some people cancer and other problems.

I still don't think people should have the right to force other people not to smoke, if they wanted to smoke. People should be free to make their own decisions.

a reply to: neutronflux

Sugar and alcohol kill more people than cigarettes.

Anyone who believes that smoking cigarettes etc is NOT unhealthy should also be willing to believe that they can jump from a plane in flight without a parachute with little or no risk to their well-being. In fact, the thrill will likely outweigh any risks, if there are any.

Give it a try sometime.