The Suppressed Link between Trinity and Lung / Skin Cancer

reply to post by Truth4hire


I was really intrigued by your information... until you started supporting smoking, then you kinda lost me.

If there are any beneficial attributes to cigarettes (such as the niacin mentioned) then isn't it better to further research and consider using those attributes rather than inhaling something that has ingredients we can't even pronounce? Or are you saying they don't contain things like tar, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, etc?

I admit, I am perhaps being biased here since I am a non-smoker (my apologies), but I will state the facts here from my own personal experience (as well as witnessing others go through the same)... When I end up inhaling second hand smoke from someone smoking nearby, I hack and cough to the point of gagging. When I smell it on someones clothes, hair, or the putrid smell in their breath, it makes me gag. If I kiss someone who has smoked I will.... well, you get the what I'm saying. My point is, I seriously don't see this as nature telling me that it's "healthy."

Someone in this thread mentioned that you can kill off germs by closing yourself in a room while smoking. PLEASE by all means do this. Please shut every door, every window, and cover every crack. Feel free to keep the enjoyment of those yellow walls and curtains all to yourselves... because when your second hand smoke leaves your window into mine, I really don't like the way my body reacts to those "healthy" benefits.

On that pleasant note, lol, star for the OP as I really appreciate the information about that testing being posted!

I would volunteer to be a test subject for the harms of smoking. Someone could send me four cartons of Pall Mall non filters a month. Or better yet four cartons of Camel wide ovals.

I would smoke them and record the results. No, you do not have to pay me.

reply to post by Truth4hire


wow thank you for bringing this up front for all of us

and mods, cmon! i think truth4hire should have more than 4 applause

i am going to smoke a cig in celebration of your epic thread

Originally posted by Elliot
However, Truth4Hire, I do have a question.

Surely the Elites who plan these outrages against humanity must suffer the same bad effects as the rest of us humans.........unless they are NOT human, of course?

[edit on 6-7-2009 by Elliot]

Eeeh. You are indeed correct.

There is a bloodline of the "gods". Hybrids that long ago mixed their DNA with human DNA. Or so it is said in the Terra Papers.

These hybrid half reptilian / half human are said to be the true rulers.

Yeah, it IS a bit weird.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Obviously your smoking habis are causing a lack of oxygen to the brain, and as a some time smoker myself, who did for years then quit I am not being predantic, the article sourced by the op and the study clearly shows:

If these statistics are representative of the overall population of the United States, the authors infer that around 8 percent of lung cancer cases in males and close to 20 percent of cases in females are among never-smokers. “We can actually put numbers on it now,” said Wakelee. “Before this, we could only estimate based on our own census.”

That is NOT 50%, and most of the 8% in women and 20% in men who get lung cancer who are non smokers is from SECOND hand smoke or passive smoking.....


Elf

I guess what always baffles me is the fact that I have been smoking at least twenty full strength cigarettes a day for the past forty years and have never suffered any harmful effects.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Truth4hire

 

wow thank you for bringing this up front for all of us

and mods, cmon! i think truth4hire should have more than 4 applause

i am going to smoke a cig in celebration of your epic thread

Thanks muzzleflash (lol)

I was not even aware that there was still something like applause in ATS. The points having disappeared and all...

On topic: it would be interesting to see which actors/actresses suffered -or died- from lung / skin cancer, and played in all the westerns in the fifties and sixties which were shot in... New Mexico?

Maybe this is why Barack Obama won't quit smoking.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

Obviously your smoking habis are causing a lack of oxygen to the brain, and as a some time smoker myself, who did for years then quit I am not being predantic, the article sourced by the op and the study clearly shows:

If these statistics are representative of the overall population of the United States, the authors infer that around 8 percent of lung cancer cases in males and close to 20 percent of cases in females are among never-smokers. “We can actually put numbers on it now,” said Wakelee. “Before this, we could only estimate based on our own census.”

That is NOT 50%, and most of the 8% in women and 20% in men who get lung cancer who are non smokers is from SECOND hand smoke or passive smoking.....


Elf

True, but how do you explain Japan and Greece (also in the article)?
Also, should the percentage of lung cancer cases drop now that less and less people smoke? Is that the case?

About the second hand smoke: I do not believe it, nor is there a conclusive scientific study to show this. The link between FIRST hand smoke and lung cancer is not even established either.

As I said: I will take my chances. (rolls)

The article is somewhat inaccurate. If a single particle lands on your skin at the beach,you don't automatically get skin cancer, any more than if you let the Sun's rays fall on your skin. Your chances of getting cancer do increase, but it is NOT inevitable. If you wash the particle off, no problem.

The problem comes from ingested particles, especially into the lungs where they lodge and remain for life, emitting ionizing radiation. That's likely to kill you eventually, so that part is accurate. Particles you've eaten would likely pass through your digestive system without harm. If they get introduced into your body, then again you've got a permanent source of radiation that will likely adversely affect you sooner or later.

It is thought that these tests are the reason some actors have died of cancer - John Wayne among them. They were shooting a movie downwind from some of the tests. It was supposedly safe, of course...

The surface tests are old news, and there's nothing much to be done about them now. However, we might want to consider using a different source of energy for our space hardware. Some of them, like the Cassini probe, use significant amounts of plutonium for their power. An accidental explosion at the wrong time (as the probe is taking off) could release this plutonium into the atmosphere, which would be a disaster. At least we can do something about this sort of thing.

Originally posted by Strictsum
Maybe this is why Barack Obama won't quit smoking.

Exactly what I was thinking!

I initially ignored this thread because I thought it was about religion. Glad I checked it out. I just switched to pure tobacco cigs recently to eliminated the artificial additives.

BTW, there's a bill in Congress (already passed House) to prevent ordering tobacco products through the mail (from Indian reservations, i.e.).

Originally posted by Symetra
I never heard of a trinity, can someone tell me what a trinity is? This identity in the sentence below is off topic of what the trinity that you referred to is.

Your topic of a particular trinity is?

They are speaking of a certain nuclear bomb test back in the 1950's or 60's on some atoll in the pacific.

The thing is we as a species have thrown all sorts of chemicals around since the 1800's well before we knew of cancer. How many deaths do you think were marked as something else but were really caused by cancer?

Not to knock your post, and I'm sure that the nuke tests did contribute to a certain rise of cancers and general unhealtyness.

reply to post by Truth4hire


I smoke so this made me jump in joy! I thank you for the information, hopefully tests will be done and maybe a safe amount of smoking can protect everyone! does marijuana smoke work aswell? if so they can just use that when its legal. somebody should also do a thread on an update on marijuana, i know alot of people on this site are probably interested.

Originally posted by js331975

Originally posted by Symetra
I never heard of a trinity, can someone tell me what a trinity is? This identity in the sentence below is off topic of what the trinity that you referred to is.

Your topic of a particular trinity is?

They are speaking of a certain nuclear bomb test back in the 1950's or 60's on some atoll in the pacific.

Nope, Trinity was done in the New Mexico desert - right in the US of A.

The atoll was the Bikini islands where mostly the French had their way with the environment...

Originally posted by gandhi
reply to post by Truth4hire

 

I smoke so this made me jump in joy! I thank you for the information, hopefully tests will be done and maybe a safe amount of smoking can protect everyone! does marijuana smoke work aswell? if so they can just use that when its legal. somebody should also do a thread on an update on marijuana, i know alot of people on this site are probably interested.

There are other benefits to be had from hemp, but unfortunatly ATS rules do not allow us to discuss Mary Jane anymore. So I´ll not.

i thought id reply with a statement i made on another thread 2 weeks ago, here it is;

Riddle me this.......... ( & ANYONE ELSE WHO THINKS THEY HAVE THE ANSWER)

If the so-called powers that be want to reduce the population by a vast amount in whatever way they choose either by swine, fluoride or by other methods, Why on earth would a powerful person like Obama who is supposedly controlled like a puppet introduce an Anit-Smoking Bill ???

Shouldnt they be giving out free cigarettes to all ?? they're are going to cut out healthcare anyway arnt they, eventually?


Im really starting to think that smoking tobacco has an adverse effect on things like Fluoride and radiation ...... its just not making sense. hmm??


[edit on 6/7/2009 by scubagravy]

Originally posted by js331975
The thing is we as a species have thrown all sorts of chemicals around since the 1800's well before we knew of cancer. How many deaths do you think were marked as something else but were really caused by cancer?

Not to knock your post, and I'm sure that the nuke tests did contribute to a certain rise of cancers and general unhealtyness.

The thing is that people smoked for hundreds of years and statistics show that lung cancer basically exploded in the late forties.

Then in the sixties smoking is to blame all of a sudden. It fits the theory...

Can you imagine if ever there was solid proof found linking lung cancer for the past sixty years to atmospheric residue from nuclear tests?

I can only begin to imagine the repercussions, claims, protests and outrage.

I am pretty sure certain individuals will do anything to prevent such proof from ever surfacing, don´t you?

Originally posted by scubagravy
i thought id reply with a statement i made on another thread 2 weeks ago, here it is;

Riddle me this.......... ( & ANYONE ELSE WHO THINKS THEY HAVE THE ANSWER)

If the so-called powers that be want to reduce the population by a vast amount in whatever way they choose either by swine, fluoride or by other methods, Why on earth would a powerful person like Obama who is supposedly controlled like a puppet introduce an Anit-Smoking Bill ???

Shouldnt they be giving out free cigarettes to all ?? they're are going to cut out healthcare anyway arnt they, eventually?


Im really starting to think that smoking tobacco has an adverse effect on things like Fluoride and radiation ...... its just not making sense. hmm??


[edit on 6/7/2009 by scubagravy]

The gist of the thread is that smoking actually protects you up to a certain degree from harmful chemicals and radioactive particles in the atmosphere.

Hence the true reason to get rid of smoking and clear the lungs so we can all breathe the products the Elite want us to breathe freely and without any protective layers in our lungs.

Yes they are lizards. Or might as well be because they are cold blooded s.o.b.s

For those of you who might be interested.

1. Niacin can be administered in many different forms - ingested, inhaled, injected, put on the skin. However, of all forms of administration, smoking is the most effective because it delivers the Niacin directly to the brain in under 7 seconds. The inhalation of smoke quite simply whomps the hell out of any other delivery method developed by the medical and scientific community including intra-venous. (directly into the blood stream.

2. Yes, smoking increases mucous production but mucous is a substance that our body produces in order to protect our respiratory system from the very ultra-fine particulate. A smoker who is exposed to air pollution would have extra mucous to trap the particles and would then be able to cough the particles out. The same thing happens to a non-smoker but it is theorized that the process is more effecient in a smoker.

Remember - there is no difference in the body's reaction if the smoke is cigarette smoke or wood smoke. Man has spent a millenia burning organic material to heat their homes and cook their food. Exposure to this smoke, provoked the same body reaction - the increase in production of mucous and a slower parastaltic wave in the respiratory action (parastaltic wave is simply a wave like motion of the mucous membrane that moves mucous out of the lungs and into the throat where it could be coughed out.

This makes the respiratory system less "sensitive" to the presence of ultra-fine particulate (like pollen, cockroach poop, mites, bacteria and viruses) and is perhaps the reason why asthma shot up as smoking rates went down and we stopped heating our homes by burning wood. Being regularly exposed to smoke of any kind simply makes our respiratory system a little less sensitive. Asthma is a hypersensitive response to normal environmental contaminants.

Think about who smokes the most - why its the lower classes. The ones who work in factories and dirty jobs who are most exposed to high levels of environmental contaminants of course!

While the extra mucous may seem to "wind" smokers - that is a small price to pay for a healthy respiratory system and protection from the most deadly forms of air pollution.

Of course - this is a theory and has not been proven

But then the idea that smoking CAUSES lung cancer is also a theory that is drawn from statistical analysis and cannot be proven either.

For more information on this subject. I offer this link to a court case that occurred in Scotland in 2005. It was typical smoker sues tobacco company for causing lung cancer yada yada case. But what was interesting about this case is that there were 3 expert witnesses for the prosecution. The most famous of these was Sir Richard Doll. This is the man whose study on smoking and non-smoking British doctors gave birth to the modern anti-smoking movement. These 3 expert witnesses relied wholly on epidimiology to prove the smoking causes lung cancer.

The 3 expert witnesses for the defense discussed all the scientific knowledge available to support the theory that smoking causes lung cancer.

REad the decision of the justice NIMMO SMITH and the testimoney of all the witnesses yourself.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Its a very big long document but the judge's greatest criticism is specifically reserved for Sir Richard Doll.

Tired of Control Freaks