Since we know "smoking being bad for you" is a myth, what can be done to change this fact?
>Within the current antismoking climate in the Western world you will not find papers that will explicitly state that quitting causes any harm, let alone lung cancers. In fact the official party line is that quitting significantly reduces harm and lung cancers (resting entirely on the stats on non-randomized/self-selected samples). What tipped me that there is something fishy going with the official party line was paper by a research team of Indian academics with provocative title: "Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?"(pdf), (by A. Kumar et al., Med. Hypotheses 2007; 68(5):1176.). Although the usual antismoking animus permeates much of the prose, there were few little slipups outside of the Matrix, indicating something interesting may be going on here: >"In an overview of personal history in a number of lung cancer patients locally, we are struck by the more than casual relationship between the appearance of lung cancer and an abrupt and recent cessation of the smoking habit in many, if not most cases. The association is more than just casual development of cancer within a few months of eschewing cigarette smoking. ... >The striking direct statistical correlation between cessation of smoking to the development of lung malignancies, more than 60% plus, is too glaring to be dismissed as coincidental. ... >Nicotine stimulates corticotrophin-releasing factor (CRF) besides increasing the level of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), both of which interfere with immune systems [2]. Abrupt withdrawal of the addictive drug could trigger derangement of the `smoking-steroid' conferred immunity, priming the healing lung epithelia to dangerous levels uncontrolled cell division. longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-10#entry388800
So abruptly quitting smoking is harmful, okay. It's not different than with drinking. Still better not to start.
Jaxson Reyes
>$1 has been deposited into your account, Altria group thanks you for your help.
Nicholas Foster
I really wish you'd go somewhere else OP
Joshua Fisher
>still better not to start.
But it protects against arthritis.
>The hard science (experiments) finds exactly the opposite -- smoking is protective and therapeutic for arthritis. Tobacco smoke is potent anti-inflammatory substance and smoking provides relief against autoimmune diseases, including arthritis, hence the observed statistical association (via self-medication). Check for example a recent paper about rheumatoid arthritis experiments on mice -- 3 groups of mice were used, untreated control group, nicotine only group and tobacco smoke group. The nicotine group did better than controls, while tobacco smoke (which has additional anti-inflammatory & anti-apopototic effects beyond those of nicotine) group did the best -- the disease onset was delayed relative to the other groups and the damage to cartilage was much less severe than in the other groups. >Of course, even though the above and similar experiments demonstrating potent anti-inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke have been known for a long time, doctors will strongly advise R.A. patients to stop smoking, then sell them synthetic anti-inflammatory substances and stroke inducing pain medications (as they did to my mother in law who died from series of strokes after her doctor started her on Vioxx; she was a university professor, hence overly educted to have much common sense and keep away from quacks brandishing the latest, greatest snake oils). They routinely do the same for other natural medicines, too, but for none as intensely or as stridently as for tobacco, the most potent one among them all (hence the most harmful to their business model). longecity.org/forum/topic/61248-the-intelligent-smoker-what-should-a-smoker-take-to-nullify-harm/
You see it's al about doctors and pharmaceutical companies trying to tell a product that replaces smoking so they can make money. I've cracked the code. I figured it all out man. Why can't other people see it?
Levi Bennett
>all tobacco companies are out to get you.
The delusional nature of the tobacco control shitposter.
Why? Is the truth, much like global warming caused by something other than man, something too hard to accept?
Gabriel Price
RA fisher, father of modern statistics, found that smoking has a protective effect against cancer if it's inhaled.
>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)? york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher276a.pdf
Samuel Edwards
>$1 has been deposited into your account, Altria group thanks you for your help.
Zachary Gonzalez
How I know anti-smokers are wrong: they have nothing useful to say. I will admit storebought cigarettes are probably bad for you, but the way cigarette deaths are calculated is through a shitty computer. So the deaths are likely overexaggerated.
The person talking about smoking being good for you? He's talking about organic tobacco, which pharmaceutical studies clearly show is associated with some pretty serious benefits.
Matthew Harris
> Since we know "smoking being bad for you" is a myth
0/10 very shitty troll
Jayden Cooper
Millennial who just saw a Truth commercial spotted.
Enough with the insults and refute the information presented (not just by posting a study but through analysis) and maybe you'll stop sounding like a five year old.
Jaxon Edwards
>$1 has been deposited into your account, Altria group thanks you for your help.
Jaxson Jackson
Why would you post THAT image, and then say THAT?
What truth might that be? That the flat earth did 9/11? In my day trolling meant something.
Jordan Martinez
your "information" is NOT an academic source, and doesn't prove how toxins and carcinogens aren't dangerous for your lungs, heart and blood vessels
0/10
Anthony Smith
Alright, at least I know that I am the one producing real scienctific topics instead of just spamming. When someone argues that vaccines are good for you, do you say they work for Pfizer?
Caleb Reed
Yes, you are spamming real scientific toppings. Congrabulations.
Brody Mitchell
>$1 has been deposited into your account, Altria group thanks you for your help.
Nathaniel Price
Did you not even look at it? The majority of lung cancer cases are in former and non smokers, the greentext provided poses an argument for continuing to smoke, since quitting, especially spontaneously, can trigger lung cancer. The number of nonsmokers getting cancer is only three percent less than that of smokers. If you put former smokers in the same category with the presumption that they're supposed to "heal" from the effects of smoking, then basically nonsmokers develop far more cases of cancer.
The information discusses academic sources and also discusses the arguments of RA Fisher, who has more intellect in his dick than any anonymous user of a Malaysian Image Board does in their brains.
Jordan Smith
>real scienctific topics
prove with equally weighted scientific evidence how toxins and carcinogens aren't dangerous for your lungs, heart and blood vessels in your next post or you will be mass reported for shitposting on Veeky Forums
Here's a list of just 00.1% of the evidence and research proving how smoking is dangerous for your entire body. since you're so versed in "producing scientific topics", you have on post to disprove them all with counter evidence specific to all these papers and their arguments.
>$1 has been deposited into your account, Altria group thanks you for your help.
Kevin Thompson
>$1 has been deposited into your account, Altria group thanks you for your help.
Joshua Reyes
>It has been hypothesized that lung destruction in persons with emphysema associated with cigarette smoking is mediated by elastase released by neutrophils that have migrated to the alveolar structures in response to cigarette smoke. To directly evaluate this hypothesis, cell suspensions, isolated from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and from open lung biopsies of non-smokers and cigarette smokers with normal lung parenchyma and from open lung biopsies of nonsmokers and cigarette smokers who have sarcoidosis were evaluated for the presence of neutrophils. A significantly increased number of neutrophils was present in the cell suspensions isolated from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and from open lung biopsies of both normal and sarcoid cigarette smokers compared with that in the nonsmokers (p < 0.01, each comparison). Evaluation of the alveolar macrophages present in lavage fluid suggested a mechanism by which neutrophils may be attracted to the lungs of cigarette smokers: alveolar macrophages of cigarette smokers release a chemotactic factor for neutrophils, whereas alveolar macrophages of nonsmokers do not. In addition, alveolar macrophages of nonsmokers, after exposure to cigarette smoke, in vitro, are stimulated to release this chemotactic factor. These studies demonstrate that an increased number of neutrophils are present in the lungs of cigarette smokers compared with that in nonsmokers and suggest that cigarette smoke may attract neutrophils to the lung by stimulating alveolar macrophages to release a potent chemotactic factor for neutrophils.
Give me a second, I actually have something that explains this. It's too long to fit in one post though.
Robert Young
tobacco isn't cigarettes, we're not talking about tobacco
Brayden Roberts
I've been talking about tobacco though. I even mentioned storebought cigarettes are likely bad for you a few posts up.
Daniel Turner
are you OP ? are you fucking retarded ? everytime you use the word "smoking" people are thinking marlboros and camels, if you specified it to just tobacco I wouldn't bother posting those links since I know tobacco doesn't have carcinogens
Jayden Fisher
I (and the longecity thread) both were talking about tobacco. Not storebought brands.
Jack Hernandez
>Since we know "smoking being bad for you" is a myth
lol sure OP
John Bell
As someone who recently quit smoking after 3 years, can someone actually engage with OP and prove him wrong?
The shitposting and mudslinging is /pol/-level nauseating.
Jacob Wright
back to sjwtard
Lincoln Robinson
Then just say its tobacco you're talking about in the OP.
jesus christ.
Cooper Miller
>$1 has been deposited into your account, Altria group thanks you for your help.
Isaac Collins
To clarify, I was specifically talking about smoking tobacco that is just tobacco rolled into a cigarette with no extra chemicals or additives. Of course everyone these days thinks smoking anything is bad for the human body without differentiating.
Justin Price
Am I just retarded or is this the most unscientific looking and unreadable paper I've ever seen? The labels make no sense and I do not see whatsoever the supposed inhaled vs non inhaled groups labeled. The dots do not line up at all.
John Williams
I quit cold turkey after being a chain smoker - been a year since then, not one day I felt urge or anything else but pleasure, and better quality of life.
Mason Jenkins
Wait so should I start smoking or not? I can't imagine smoking pure tobacco is any worse than those fucking hippie morons getting high every hour on mexican cigarettes.
Xavier Ramirez
You ask if you should start smoking because of some shitposting?
If you want to smoke - smoke you're free to do it, but it's obvious that it harms you.
Try to smoke for a month, then quit cold turkey - just to observe the effects, do no read anything - do not expect anything - experience the raw stuff, and write down what you experienced.
Andrew Smith
what about cigarillos?
Justin Russell
I've been told on this board that smoking anything is bad for you due to combustion or carbon monoxide creation or something.
Brayden Foster
>tobacco industry grass roots propaganda
Dylan Lewis
*vapes tobacco laced LSD* heh, best of both worlds kiddo. you'll learn when you get older.
*blasts off 2200kWh at a time*
John Jenkins
No one wants to because this is an old and tired subject. OP finds a few hand picked shitty done studies and by studies I mostly mean random web pages and then claims this makes up for the dozens of meta analysis all showing the huge differences in the cancer risks of multiple body parts from smokers vs former smokers and non smokers.
Also >80% of those with lung cancer are those who quit smoking or never smoked >It's just 60% are former smokers and 20% never smoked So you could also say that 80% of those who get lung cancer smoke or have smoked in the past. Both are equally innacurate when you do not know the population size and rates of these events. Maybe there's just that many smokers, maybe not many people smoke their entire life, maybe blah blah blah.
Evan Bell
>since I know tobacco doesn't have carcinogens
I'm curious as to why more people don't just smoke tobacco instead of the additive and chemical laden packs they sell in the stores, since there's such a difference.
Sebastian Williams
ITT Paid Shill trying to equate tobacco danger skepticism, with skepticism in an unfalsifiable pseudo-science Nice little meme-warfare buddy, how are the those Soros bucks? Did you get to shake hands with John Cook?
Mason White
Sage Sage Sage
Jack Rogers
I know that this is a bad trolling attempt, but some will still believe that this is real and true, and take up smoking. You should be ashamed of yourself, you worthless prick.
Luis Brown
Why do you even reply to clesrly retarded op?
sage
Christopher Collins
I'm being genuinely serious though. Or at least I was trying to be.
Angel Murphy
I don't think I've ever encouraged anyone to smoke or start smoking and that was never my intention, I was just posting alternate ideas and other studies that seem to create a different picture regarding smoking, and maybe not view it as bad, like most people in the west do.
Originally I felt smoking and passive smoke was just really overrated as a risk, but then came across the claim that organic, non-tainted tobacco has health benefits. I felt this was no different than the emerging benefits of marijuana, so I wanted to see what others thought.
But now I realize I've made a mistake, and will no longer post here.
John Hall
>only muh ebul corporations have shills anti-smoking is literally astroturf, there is no high ground for the virtue signalling.
Elijah Miller
This isn't /b/
Green text looks horrendous
Andrew Evans
You bumped this thread, a thread that hadn't had a reply in 11 hours, just to post that? Fucking off yourself.
Brandon Stewart
>Millennial Everyone younger than 36 years old is a millennial, that's the majority of people using Veeky Forums. If you don't like it then Facebook might be more your speed.
