Smoking To Cure Lung Infections and For Good Lung Health

[donnay]

Smoking To Cure Lung Infections and For Good Lung Health
Written by Sarah Cain

This article is yet another demonstration of how powerful the propaganda machine has been, how truly safe and effective natural cures are suppressed, and how the public gets blamed for poisoning itself by the same people who are willfully poisoning us.

Whenever we discover a naturally occurring substance with astounding benefits, it always seems to be accompanied by F.D.A. regulations that ban its medicinal use throughout the medical industry, which creates an undeserved stigma surrounding it. This is the case with Indian tobacco (Lobelia inflata L). While some readers will be initially surprised by our endorsement of any herb that is to be smoked, our Fire Safe Cigarettes and The Genocide Against Smokers article explains that smoking truly natural substances is not necessarily harmful. Take for instance, the chemical tubes that we call 'cigarettes' are harmful specifically because of the additives, the glues, and the papers that are used ― not the tobaccos themselves. They need not be toxic anymore than our foods, water, or medicines need to be toxic, but of course, all of them are. We also wrote about smoking salvia divinorum in the article, Salvia Divinorum: Herbally Curing Addiction and Depression.

Both the seeds and the dried leaves of Indian tobacco contain alkaloids which yield its effects. Indian tobacco is mostly used for its beneficial effects upon the lungs, although it is also believed to boost the overall immune system. It has the unusual property of being a stimulant to the respiratory system, whilst being a general relaxant for the rest of the body. It has been found to be very helpful for asthmatics, with some asthma sufferers substituting it for their inhalers. Of course, such a plant is a huge threat to the F.D.A.'s pharmaceutical industry, which sells inhalers and steroids to asthmatics perpetually, throughout their lives. This plant is also a threat to the pharmaceutical industry that uses additional drugs to 'treat' the diseases caused by the aforementioned inhalers and steroids. It's quite a racket; but from what we have seen, it is business as usual.

Indian tobacco has been traditionally used to effectively suppress common colds, bronchitis, and pneumonia. The smoke from Indian tobacco soothes coughing, reduces phlegm, and kills infections in the lungs. Indian tobacco thins mucus, which increases recovery time, and allows infections to be less symptomatic. When people use the tobacco for this purpose, it is often combined with the herb mullein. Mullein was once used to soothe the coughing associated with tuberculosis, and to cure it. Mullein has no 'flavor', and is a very light smoke. Most people feel like they are breathing pure air when smoking mullein. It therefore makes a good base to mix Indian tobacco with.

Indian tobacco has been used by many people who were trying to quit smoking, but it was banned in such products in 1993 by the F.D.A., which claimed that Indian tobacco was ineffective. Of course, the F.D.A. did not actually fund any studies to test its effectiveness at all; and furthermore, it should never be the job of governmental regulators to limit natural options, or to bolster pharmaceutical profits at the expense of our health.

One of its constituents, isolobelanine, helps to relax people whenever they are experiencing stimulant withdrawal symptoms, and this includes nicotine withdrawal. It also contains lobeline, an alkaloid which helps to clean the lungs. When a person's lungs are clean, smoking becomes disagreeable, causing the smoker to become dizzy or nauseous, like they were when they first began smoking. This will generally aid someone who is trying to quit smoking, by serving as a deterrent. Studies have shown inconsistent results regarding the effectiveness of Indian tobacco, but these studies are often illegitimate, because they frequently use orally consumed extracts. This is the sort of data shopping that the F.D.A. uses to get the results that it wants, so we have come to call these shenanigans F.D.A. science.

Researchers have been studying the effects of Indian tobacco on amphetamine addictions. Lobeline counteracts excessive dopamine, which appears in people suffering from methamphetamine addiction. Similarly, some people have successfully used it to treat their alcoholism. Studies on rats have shown that one of the active constituents in Indian tobacco actually improves the memory of rats, even 24 hours after its usage.

Indian tobacco has traditionally been smoked. In recent times, people have begun swallowing the dried leaves, and making herbal teas from it. The newer methods of consumption are unwise, even though they are ironically intended to make it safer. Using it orally is misguided. For those who decide to use Indian tobacco medicinally, we strongly recommend smoking it via a pipe, instead of consuming it orally. This is because dosage is extremely important, and people have a tendency to over use it with oral dosages. Large amounts will induce vomiting, so just use a pinch, and add more if needed. Dizziness is an early symptom that too much has been used.

Do not use Indian tobacco alongside pharmaceuticals, because it has a tendency to interact with other drugs. It especially intensifies the effects of medications that are given to control blood pressure, and it restricts the action of drugs given to control diabetes. It increases the loss of potassium from the body if it is taken alongside diuretics or corticosteroids. Aspirin and NSAIDs may increase the risk of overdose reactions to Lobelia (nausea/vomiting/etc).

Taurine supplementation has been shown to reverse some of the damage caused by smoking, even when smokers continue to smoke during treatment. A 2003 study found that damage caused by chronic smoking can be reversed in as little as five days with a dosage of 1.5g taurine. The inner lining of the blood vessels, and the diameter of blood vessels returned to normal in the study.



Related Articles

Fire Safe Cigarettes and the Genocide Against Smokers

[Kotin]

I am pretty sure feds blame tobacco cause they don't want people to know about the effect their nuclear testing had on all of us.. Especially cause tobacco's leaves are terribly absorbant of anything in its environment, like radiation!!! which I would attribute its toxicity to more than the tobacco itself.

[donnay]

I am pretty sure feds blame tobacco cause they don't want people to know about the effect their nuclear testing had on all of us.. Especially cause tobacco's leaves are terribly absorbant of anything in its environment, like radiation!!! which I would attribute its toxicity to more than the tobacco itself.

Very true, I forgot about that aspect of it. However, if you grow it in a clean environment, it would be a good thing. Hydroponics may be a way to go?

[Zippyjuan]

Just personal experience. My mother never smoked- her sister smoked a lot. My Mom has clear lungs- her sister is now dying from lung cancer. Good for lung health?

I suppose it is interesting that you promote cigarettes as healthy and are deathly afraid of vaccines.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Just personal experience. My mother never smoked- her sister smoked a lot. My Mom has clear lungs- her sister is now dying from lung cancer. Good for lung health?

I suppose it is interesting that you promote cigarettes as healthy and are deathly afraid of vaccines.

I could be wrong but the first part of the article looked like it was blaming the bad effects of smoking conventional cigarettes on the additives mostly. That tobacco itself isn't as bad as advertised?

[Dr.3D]

Talking about Tobacco.... here is something interesting I found the other day.

Poison Ivy Treatment
2 cups water
Tobacco from 3 cigarettes

Combine water and tobacco. Bring to a boil and simmer about 5 minutes.

Carefully strain all the tobacco from the brew, since it may burn sensitive skin. Let the liquid cool. Apply it to inflamed areas with a clean cloth. This ensures immediate relief from the itching and burning discomfort.

[ClydeCoulter]

I am pretty sure feds blame tobacco cause they don't want people to know about the effect their nuclear testing had on all of us.. Especially cause tobacco's leaves are terribly absorbant of anything in its environment, like radiation!!! which I would attribute its toxicity to more than the tobacco itself.

I remember my mom telling us that the government has warned that we not make snow-cream from the first snow because of atom bomb testing. As an child, I hated atom bombs because I really looked forward to eating snow-cream.

[DerailingDaTrain]

I am pretty sure feds blame tobacco cause they don't want people to know about the effect their nuclear testing had on all of us.. Especially cause tobacco's leaves are terribly absorbant of anything in its environment, like radiation!!! which I would attribute its toxicity to more than the tobacco itself.

or it could be all of the additives they put in cigarettes...


Acetanisole
Acetic acid
Acetoin
Acetophenone
6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane
2-Acetyl-3-Ethylpyrazine
2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran
Acetylpyrazine
2-Acetylpyridine
3-Acetylpyridine
2-Acetylthiazole
Aconitic Acid
dl-Alanine
Alfalfa Extract
Allspice Extract, Oleoresin, and Oil
Allyl Hexanoate
Allyl Ionone
Almond Bitter Oil
Ambergris Tincture
Ammonia
Ammonium Bicarbonate
Ammonium Hydroxide
Diammonium phosphate
Ammonium sulfide
Amyl Alcohol
Amyl Butyrate
Amyl Formate
Amyl Octanoate
alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde
Amyris Oil
trans-Anethole
Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil
Anise
Anise Star, Extract and Oils
Anisyl Acetate
Anisyl Alcohol
Anisyl Formate
Anisyl Phenylacetate
Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins
Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate
L-Arginine
Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil
Ascorbic Acid
L-Asparagine Monohydrate
L-Aspartic Acid

[donnay]

Here is a bit of trivia. . .



http://gcaggiano.wordpress.com/2010/...yne-literally/

Of the 173 film appearances of John Wayne, The Conqueror is one of his lesser known roles, and for good reason. In this movie, which Wayne actually asked director Dick Powell to star in, he plays the Mongolian warrior Genghis Khan.

Right off the bat it sounds ridiculous; John Wayne playing an Asian. The gave him makeup to make his eyes seem slanted and of course, gave him a Fu Man Chu facial hair style. Wayne, who needed to make only one movie to finish out his contract with RKO was heavily dissuaded by Powell to not take up this role and with the script thrown in the trash, Wayne pulled it out and said he wanted to play Genghis Khan as a cowboy would, and Powell then famously quipped, “Who am I to turn down John Wayne?”

And so they went filming, and by the time it reached theaters, word spread on how bad the film was. As of right now, it currently has a cult-following of those dedicated to watching bad films. It has made its way into books focusing on Razzie potential material, and is known as that project that John Wayne must have been insane to sign a contract with. What makes this even more of a shock is that this film came out the same year as The Searchers, a film which is said by many to be the Duke’s greatest performance.

I have seen The Conqueror only once, and would watch it again. As bad as it is, I enjoyed it. There are decent action scenes and the storyline is actually quite interesting. The fact that there is not one Asian in a film about Asians kind of threw everyone off, though, but this was the 1950′s and that was what the times were like. Anyway, this is not a movie review, but more of an interesting tidbit of trivia. John Wayne would die in 1979, a full 23 years later, but many attribute this film to his death.

The movie was notorious for being shot in the deserts of Utah, almost ten years after the United States Army conducted nuclear bomb testing there. Of the 220 people involved in the film, 91 would die of cancer, including Wayne, director Dick Powell, and every leading supporting cast member: Agnes Moorehead, Susan Hayward, and John Hoyt. Another star, Pedro Armendáriz would also be diagnosed of cancer, but commit suicide after hearing the news. The number does not even include the extras and other people involved in filming. Numerous American Indians who served as Mongolian warriors contracted cancer in later years, and even John Wayne’s son Michael died in 2003 of cancer, after visiting his father on the set at age 22.

What is also even more mind-boggling is the fact that after principle shooting was finished in Utah, the production company had 60 tons of radioactive dirt shipped to Hollywood so filming could be finished on sound stages. Whatever became of this dirt is unknown; it’s probably been used as filler in a back-lot by now.

Within a year after the film debuted as a critical and commercial flop, producer Howard Hughes knew that problems were on the horizon. Out of guilt, he purchased every single print of the movie that had ever been copied, and kept them at his mansion home. In his later, eccentric years, he would view the film every night before going to bed, regretting each day for the rest of his life the fact that he produced the film.

Contrary to popular belief, John Wayne did not die of lung cancer, despite being a chain-smoker (and smoking up to seven packs a day during the 1960′s), but stomach cancer. In his later years, he would beat lung cancer and just when it seemed he would be cured and live, a new form of galloping cancer took over his stomach and he could not be saved.

Could this cancer have been the effects of the radioactive filming locations? There are just too many cancer-related deaths associated with this film to be coincidence.

If one can find humor in this, there was at one point a photograph in existence of John Wayne at the set holding a Geiger Counter, and there being radioactivity registering on it. Wayne also quoted that the moral of the film was, “Don’t make an ass of yourself trying to play parts you are not suited for.” What seemed like a harmless decision may have ended up costing one of the greatest American actors his life. In a People Magazine article from 1980, there was a quote from the Pentagon Defense Nuclear Agency regarding this film that read, “Please, God, don’t let us have killed John Wayne.”


_______________________

Of the 220 cast members 91 contracted some form of cancer. It was brushed under the carpet and of course debunked and called an urban legend.


Other sources:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...-counter&hl=en
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...tive-movie-set
http://www.people.com/people/archive...077825,00.html

[jkr]

must

see

gehngis

john


ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHH!


t00bes?

[donnay]

must

see

gehngis

john


ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHH!


t00bes?

[ShaneEnochs]

I remember my mom telling us that the government has warned that we not make snow-cream from the first snow because of atom bomb testing. As an child, I hated atom bombs because I really looked forward to eating snow-cream.

I really miss snow cream

[DerailingDaTrain]

Here is a bit of trivia. . .



http://gcaggiano.wordpress.com/2010/...yne-literally/

Of the 173 film appearances of John Wayne, The Conqueror is one of his lesser known roles, and for good reason. In this movie, which Wayne actually asked director Dick Powell to star in, he plays the Mongolian warrior Genghis Khan.

Right off the bat it sounds ridiculous; John Wayne playing an Asian. The gave him makeup to make his eyes seem slanted and of course, gave him a Fu Man Chu facial hair style. Wayne, who needed to make only one movie to finish out his contract with RKO was heavily dissuaded by Powell to not take up this role and with the script thrown in the trash, Wayne pulled it out and said he wanted to play Genghis Khan as a cowboy would, and Powell then famously quipped, “Who am I to turn down John Wayne?”

And so they went filming, and by the time it reached theaters, word spread on how bad the film was. As of right now, it currently has a cult-following of those dedicated to watching bad films. It has made its way into books focusing on Razzie potential material, and is known as that project that John Wayne must have been insane to sign a contract with. What makes this even more of a shock is that this film came out the same year as The Searchers, a film which is said by many to be the Duke’s greatest performance.

I have seen The Conqueror only once, and would watch it again. As bad as it is, I enjoyed it. There are decent action scenes and the storyline is actually quite interesting. The fact that there is not one Asian in a film about Asians kind of threw everyone off, though, but this was the 1950′s and that was what the times were like. Anyway, this is not a movie review, but more of an interesting tidbit of trivia. John Wayne would die in 1979, a full 23 years later, but many attribute this film to his death.

The movie was notorious for being shot in the deserts of Utah, almost ten years after the United States Army conducted nuclear bomb testing there. Of the 220 people involved in the film, 91 would die of cancer, including Wayne, director Dick Powell, and every leading supporting cast member: Agnes Moorehead, Susan Hayward, and John Hoyt. Another star, Pedro Armendáriz would also be diagnosed of cancer, but commit suicide after hearing the news. The number does not even include the extras and other people involved in filming. Numerous American Indians who served as Mongolian warriors contracted cancer in later years, and even John Wayne’s son Michael died in 2003 of cancer, after visiting his father on the set at age 22.

What is also even more mind-boggling is the fact that after principle shooting was finished in Utah, the production company had 60 tons of radioactive dirt shipped to Hollywood so filming could be finished on sound stages. Whatever became of this dirt is unknown; it’s probably been used as filler in a back-lot by now.

Within a year after the film debuted as a critical and commercial flop, producer Howard Hughes knew that problems were on the horizon. Out of guilt, he purchased every single print of the movie that had ever been copied, and kept them at his mansion home. In his later, eccentric years, he would view the film every night before going to bed, regretting each day for the rest of his life the fact that he produced the film.

Contrary to popular belief, John Wayne did not die of lung cancer, despite being a chain-smoker (and smoking up to seven packs a day during the 1960′s), but stomach cancer. In his later years, he would beat lung cancer and just when it seemed he would be cured and live, a new form of galloping cancer took over his stomach and he could not be saved.

Could this cancer have been the effects of the radioactive filming locations? There are just too many cancer-related deaths associated with this film to be coincidence.

If one can find humor in this, there was at one point a photograph in existence of John Wayne at the set holding a Geiger Counter, and there being radioactivity registering on it. Wayne also quoted that the moral of the film was, “Don’t make an ass of yourself trying to play parts you are not suited for.” What seemed like a harmless decision may have ended up costing one of the greatest American actors his life. In a People Magazine article from 1980, there was a quote from the Pentagon Defense Nuclear Agency regarding this film that read, “Please, God, don’t let us have killed John Wayne.”


_______________________

Of the 220 cast members 91 contracted some form of cancer. It was brushed under the carpet and of course debunked and called an urban legend.


Other sources:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...-counter&hl=en
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...tive-movie-set
http://www.people.com/people/archive...077825,00.html

Didn't he smoke cigars and like 6 packs of cigarettes a day?

[kuckfeynes]

Just personal experience. My mother never smoked- her sister smoked a lot. My Mom has clear lungs- her sister is now dying from lung cancer. Good for lung health?

I suppose it is interesting that you promote cigarettes as healthy and are deathly afraid of vaccines.

Wow, your aunt smoked natural Indian tobacco and not mass-produced cigarettes? She must have been really cutting-edge on this stuff...

[DerailingDaTrain]

Wow, your aunt smoked natural Indian tobacco and not mass-produced cigarettes? She must have been really cutting-edge on this stuff...

Wow...

His aunt is dying of lung cancer. Perhaps you could lay off the sarcasm a bit?

[VIDEODROME]

So what's the lesson here? Only smoke tobacco from a pipe? Or maybe a vaporizer?

Actually does anyone have anecdotal stories on E-cigarettes? Is puffing on flavored nicotine vapor less hazardous?

[DerailingDaTrain]

So what's the lesson here? Only smoke tobacco from a pipe? Or maybe a vaporizer?

Actually does anyone have anecdotal stories on E-cigarettes? Is puffing on flavored nicotine vapor less hazardous?

I've read stories about the e-cigarettes blowing up in people's faces

[donnay]

History does repeat itself...

From Wiki:


A Nazi anti-smoking ad titled "The chain-smoker" saying "He does not devour it [the cigarette], it devours him"

Hitler's attitude towards smoking

Adolf Hitler was a heavy smoker in his early life—he used to smoke 25 to 40 cigarettes daily—but gave up the habit, concluding that it was a waste of money.[10] In later years, Hitler viewed smoking as "decadent"[14] and "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor",[10] lamenting that "so many excellent men have been lost to tobacco poisoning".[18] He was unhappy because both Eva Braun and Martin Bormann were smokers and was concerned over Hermann Göring's continued smoking in public places. He was angered when a statue portraying a cigar-smoking Göring was commissioned.[10] Hitler is often considered to be the first national leader to advocate nonsmoking, although James VI and I of Scotland and England has a better claim to that title by three hundred years.[19]

Hitler disapproved of the military personnel's freedom to smoke, and during World War II he said on 2 March 1942, "it was a mistake, traceable to the army leadership at the time, at the beginning of the war". He also said that it was "not correct to say that a soldier cannot live without smoking". He promised to end the use of tobacco in the military after the end of the war. Hitler personally encouraged close friends not to smoke and rewarded those who quit smoking. However, Hitler's personal distaste for tobacco was only one of several catalysts behind the anti-smoking campaign.[10]

(...)

The Nazis used several public relations tactics to convince the general population of Germany not to smoke. Well-known health magazines like the Gesundes Volk (Healthy People),[28] Volksgesundheit (People's Health) and Gesundes Leben (Healthy Life)[32] published warnings about the health consequences of smoking[28][32] and posters showing the harmful effects of tobacco were displayed. Anti-smoking messages were sent to the people in their workplaces,[28] often with the help of the Hitler-Jugend (HJ) and the Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM).[11][28][32] The anti-smoking campaign undertaken by the Nazis also included health education.[12][26][33] In June 1939, a Bureau against the Hazards of Alcohol and Tobacco was formed and the Reichsstelle für Rauschgiftbekämpfung (Bureau for the Struggle against Intoxicating Drugs) also helped in the anti-tobacco campaign. Articles advocating nonsmoking were published in the magazines Die Genussgifte (The Recreational Stimulants), Auf der Wacht (On the Guard) and Reine Luft (Clean Air).[34] Out of these magazines, Reine Luft was the main journal of the anti-tobacco movement.[6][35] Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research at Jena University purchased and distributed hundreds of reprints from Reine Luft.[35]

After recognizing the harmful effects of smoking on health, several items of anti-smoking legislation were enacted.[36] The later 1930s increasingly saw anti-tobacco laws implemented by the Nazis. In 1938, the Luftwaffe and the Reichspost imposed a ban on smoking. Smoking was also banned not only in health care institutions, but also in several public offices and in rest homes.[6] Midwives were restricted from smoking while on duty. In 1939, the Nazi Party outlawed smoking in all of its offices premises, and Heinrich Himmler, the then chief of the Schutzstaffel (SS), restricted police personnel and SS officers from smoking while they were on duty.[37] Smoking was also outlawed in schools.[28]

In 1941, tobacco smoking in trams was outlawed in sixty German cities.[37] Smoking was also outlawed in bomb shelters; however, some shelters had separate rooms for smoking.[6] Special care was taken to prevent women from smoking. The President of the Medical Association in Germany announced, "German women don't smoke".[38] Pregnant women and women below the age of 25 and over the age of 55 were not given tobacco ration cards during World War II. Restrictions on selling tobacco products to women were imposed on the hospitality and food retailing industry.[37] Anti-tobacco films aimed at women were publicly shown. Editorials discussing the issue of smoking and its effects were published in newspapers. Strict measures were taken in this regard and a district department of the National Socialist Factory Cell Organization (NSBO) announced that it would expel female members who smoked publicly.[39] The next step in the anti-tobacco campaign came in July 1943, when public smoking for persons under the age of 18 was outlawed.[11][32][37] In the next year, smoking in buses and city trains was made illegal,[14] on the personal initiative of Hitler, who feared female ticket takers might be the victims of passive smoking.[6]

Restrictions were imposed on the advertisement of tobacco products,[40] enacted on 7 December 1941 and signed by Heinrich Hunke, the President of the Advertising Council. Advertisements trying to depict smoking as harmless or as an expression of masculinity were banned. Ridiculing anti-tobacco activists was also outlawed,[41] as was the use of advertising posters along rail tracks, in rural regions, stadiums and racing tracks. Advertising by loudspeakers and mail was also prohibited.[42]

Restrictions on smoking were also introduced in the Wehrmacht. Cigarette rations in the military were limited to six per soldier per day. Extra cigarettes were often sold to the soldiers, especially when there was no military advance or retreat in the battleground, however these were restricted to 50 for each person per month.[6] Teenaged soldiers serving in the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, composed of Hitler Youth members, were given confectionary instead of tobacco products.[43] Access to cigarettes was not allowed for the Wehrmacht's female auxiliary personnel. Medical lectures were arranged to persuade military personnel to quit smoking. An ordinance enacted on 3 November 1941 raised tobacco taxes by approximately 80–95% of the retail price. It would be the highest rise in tobacco taxes in Germany until more than 25 years after the collapse of the Nazi regime.[6]

[donnay]

I have posted this before, but it bears repeating.

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
http://web.archive.org/web/200502141...s/smoking.html


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Copyright Joe Vialls. 16 July 2003

[donnay]

Big Pharma wants you to Quit Smoking

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22...o-Quit-Smoking


Where is the 'War Against Cell Phones'? WHO guilty of hypocrisy

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22...y-of-hypocrisy

Anti-smoking propaganda: Decrease in smoking causes oral cancer?

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22...s-oral-cancer-

Nicotine's effect on appetite identified

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22...ite-identified

[donnay]

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.

Continued...

[tod evans]

For those who smoke pre-packaged cigarettes, do yourself a favor and try some natural tobacco.

One thing you'll notice immediately is "The Jones"....your body will crave the chemicals you've been ingesting. It won't matter if you triple your cigarette consumption, without all of the nasty chemicals you're going to go through withdrawals.

In a few weeks things will taper off and you'll enjoy smoking again...

[phill4paul]

Roll-your-own smokes shops to close under feds’ new rules...

Edit...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...BJS_story.html

[tod evans]

Roll-your-own smokes shops to close under feds’ new rules

http://triblive.com/home/2125773-74/...-shops-stores-

Link doesn't work?

This is good tobacco;
http://www.peterstokkebye.com/cig_ps.htm

[Dr.3D]

Link doesn't work?

This is good tobacco;
http://www.peterstokkebye.com/cig_ps.htm

Here is a better link....
http://triblive.com/news/2125773-74/...res-businesses

[ShaneEnochs]

Can we all agree that inhalation of smoke from anything is bad for you?

I was attempting to come up with a metaphor, but I couldn't come up with one that was more stupid than "smoking regular tobacco is healthy", so I gave up.

[phill4paul]

Can we all agree that inhalation of smoke from anything is bad for you?

No.

[kuckfeynes]

Wow...

His aunt is dying of lung cancer. Perhaps you could lay off the sarcasm a bit?

I'm not the one who brought her into this in such a condescending manner. But you're right, I should have taken the higher ground and not stooped to his level. I should have merely pointed out the blatant misdirection and utter irrelevancy of the comment to the topic at hand without mimicking his tone. Apologies to the infirm.

[tod evans]

Here is a better link....
http://triblive.com/news/2125773-74/...res-businesses

That one worked..........Sucks for those who can't roll.

[DerailingDaTrain]

No.

It's scientific fact that inhaling heated smoke from burning plant matter will damage your lungs.