• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
LongeCity .                       Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * - - 14 votes

Smoking is good for you!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
492 replies to this topic

#31 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 27 February 2010 - 01:02 PM

Well, I'm not even going to bother with a quote-reply as there is so much idiotic, pseudo blabber to the pro-smoking post it is laughable. It seems every so often on health forums, someone rises from the muck and mire of stupidity and delusional reality to spend countless hours and energy trying to convince the level-headed folks that smoking is somehow a logical, safe, sane practice. Every aspect of smoking is anti-health. You know it, I know it, and science knows it. Entertaining such foolishness by replying to the pro-smoker just feeds their need for attention. He/She is probably a cloaked, addicted smoker who can't quit and therefore needs a forum to justify their deleterious actions. Plain and simple - Save your money and save your life - Don't ever smoke.


Well, you have certainly got all the antismoking emotions and talking points down to perfection. How about some real evidence, though, the hard science such as animal experiments or randomized human trials.

All that antismoking con has got show for the vast expenditures of six decades in intense research to demonstrate scientifically any harm from inhalation of tobacco smoke at all, are mere vague hints -- the statistical correlations of smoking with so-called 'smoking related diseases' on non-randomized samples (i.e. on self-selected classes of subjects: 'smokers', 'never-smokers' and 'ex-smokers'). Such correlations on their own are equally consistent with therapeutic/protectve role of tobacco smoke as they are with a causal role in those diseases.

Taking further into account (a) the vast number of therapeutic/protective effects of tobacco smoke discovered within hard science (experiments, see links from earlier posts in this thread), along with (b) dead silence of antismoking "science" about these firmly established beneficial effects, while sticking exlcusilvely with junk science methods (since hard science routinely comes out the "wrong" way for their mission), along with animal experiments (which backfired, having been funded by antismoking interests) demonstrating directly and unambiguously that smoking animals live longer (20%), stay thinner and sharper, leads any rational person to a simple conclusion -- smoking is good for you.

Edited by nightlight, 27 February 2010 - 01:24 PM.


#32 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 27 February 2010 - 01:22 PM

Btw, I think the pro-smoking argument basically says that "natural tobacco = good", "commercial cigarettes = bad", i.e. that it's all the extra stuff in cigarettes that is bad, not tobacco leaf.


That's basically correct.

EDIT: Or maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here... some pro-smoking people seem to think even a pack of Marlboro is good for you, others say you have to smoke the real stuff to see benefits.


Before the so-called "Fire Safe Cigarettes" (FSC) were maliciously imposed as yet another one in the long chain of escalating abuses of American smokers, one might have argued for mass market cigarettes, as maybe not as good as the real tobacco, but still better than no smoking for most people (especially older folks). But FCS, with their toxic fire retardands and heavily skewed burning (which distorts the perfectly tuned medicinal composition of the real tobacco smoke) are extremely noxious. I tried them few times from friends and had to stomp them down in downright disgust after just few puffs that gave me instant headache, cough and choking reflex. In contrast, the same friends, who I gave to try my hand made clasical non-filtered cigarettes (fitlers release non-biodegradable synthetic fibers into lungs which cause coughs to expell the fibers) from real, additive free organic tobacco leaf, the stuff our grandfathers and their fathers smoked, they all asked where can they get them (check earlier post) and have switched since.

#33 VidX

  • Registered User
  • 865 posts
  • 137

Posted 27 February 2010 - 03:32 PM

Btw, I think the pro-smoking argument basically says that "natural tobacco = good", "commercial cigarettes = bad", i.e. that it's all the extra stuff in cigarettes that is bad, not tobacco leaf.

EDIT: Or maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here... some pro-smoking people seem to think even a pack of Marlboro is good for you, others say you have to smoke the real stuff to see benefits.


Nope...Weed is the only way to go. Maybe you won't live longer, though at least you'll get high.
Profit?

#34 miklu

  • Registered User
  • 63 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Finland

Posted 27 February 2010 - 05:16 PM

Btw, I think the pro-smoking argument basically says that "natural tobacco = good", "commercial cigarettes = bad", i.e. that it's all the extra stuff in cigarettes that is bad, not tobacco leaf.


That's basically correct.


So, if the tobacco plant and its ingredients (e.g., nicotine) are supposedly healthy, why are you so vehemently pro-smoking instead of, say, pro-nicotine?

Also, here at Skin&Hair, the longevity effects of tobacco/nicotine/smoking aren't our specialty. (Certainly you should have the courage to present your arguments on the more longevity-specialized sub-forums.)

#35 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 27 February 2010 - 07:28 PM

Btw, I think the pro-smoking argument basically says that "natural tobacco = good", "commercial cigarettes = bad", i.e. that it's all the extra stuff in cigarettes that is bad, not tobacco leaf.


That's basically correct.

So, if the tobacco plant and its ingredients (e.g., nicotine) are supposedly healthy, why are you so vehemently pro-smoking instead of, say, pro-nicotine?


Nicotine is only one among hundreds medicinal components of tobacco smoke. If you check the 'skin' post above, you will see several non-nicotine related effects (e.g. MAO B inhibition, Co-Q10, CO/NO). There was another more extensive reply in another thread here.

Also, here at Skin&Hair, the longevity effects of tobacco/nicotine/smoking aren't our specialty. (Certainly you should have the courage to present your arguments on the more longevity-specialized sub-forums.)


If you look at the top of the thread, you will see that it started on the subject, but it diverged after some members started parroting the antismoking con talking points, so they had to be informed about the rest of the story.

Edited by nightlight, 27 February 2010 - 08:21 PM.


#36 nushu

  • Registered User
  • 247 posts
  • 11
  • Location:NC

Posted 28 February 2010 - 03:01 AM

What about using a vaporizer with tobacco? This way you wouldn't draw the particulate matter into your lungs.

#37 niner

  • Registered User
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 04:15 AM

Ever look at a graph of tobacco usage and lung cancer incidence over the past century? Kinda puts the lie to the whole "natural tobacco" BS line. Yeah yeah, I know. Correlation != causation. You're a freakin' genius, nightlight.

#38 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 28 February 2010 - 04:18 AM

What about using a vaporizer with tobacco? This way you wouldn't draw the particulate matter into your lungs.


It's concievable that after few thousand years of honing the composition and delivery on couple billions of life-long test subjects, as it is the case with classic tobacco smoke, the improved recipe will come along. In the meantime, 'vaping' delivers some nicotine, at best, without any of the other medicinal components all harmoniously working together, optimized to perfection over the eight thousand years of conventional tobacco smoking. Nicotine by itself is likely harmful, without the balancing vascular counter-effects of low dose CO & NO (as produced by burning tobacco), and without dopaminergic effects of tobacco smoke to offset cholinergic effects of pure nicotine, and without the boosting effects on internal antioxidants & detox enzymes,... The burned tobacco leaf smoke particles cause no harm -- smoking animals live longer, no matter how hard the antismoking scientists tried to cause harm through inhalation of tobacco smoke e.g. driving the smoke levels to the edge of asphyxiation, at +5 packs/day equivalents concentrated into 6 hour/day smoking sessions, and still no luck. This ancient 'gift of gods' like some kind of Asimov's robots, programmed by some long forgotten gods of earth, air, rain and sun, just would not do harm.

Edited by nightlight, 28 February 2010 - 04:59 AM.


#39 bacopa

  • Validating
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 28 February 2010 - 04:30 AM

I smoked for 3 years hard due to SERIOUS depression...I coughed more, and I felt sick often...yes I enjoyed it, but facts are facts...look at William O' Rights who died of lung cancer from smoking 20 plus years...look at Paul Newman, died of lung cancer 28 years smoking...Peter Jennings, George Harrison, Audrey Hepburn...and these are just well known celebrities.

Nightlight, you're trying to justify a habit that you may LOVE, but it still is a mere rationalization!

And there are many randomized trials I'm sure proving that 50% of lifelong smokers die of cancers, (almost all except two,) heart disease, COPD, and emphasyma, and who knows how many others?

If you are addicted, it's never too late to start a healthy lifestyle, and I AM a firm believer that eating fruits, vegetables of the right kind, lean proteins, some carbs, and supplements like Vitamin D, Green Tea, and Curcumin, among others can greatly reduce your chances of getting smoking related cancers.

And despite the opposition here, I DO believe rigorous exercise multiple times a week also is a potentially great reducer of cancers and heart disease.

edit: I know the cold stats of smoking related deaths is very scary, but there are plenty of people who quit late in life who do not go on to die of smoking related causes, or who die very old people of smoking related causes...either way it's always beneficial to quit and you can quit at any age and add 10 years on to your life. Statistics can be misleading...

oh, and there is no evidence pointing to Obama having ever been a chain smoker...I'm not even sure if he smoked consistently from early adult hood until when he supposedly quit at age 46...he may have quit for a good decade in between...last thing I read Obama averaged 5 to 10 smokes per day...

Edited by dfowler, 28 February 2010 - 04:58 AM.


#40 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 28 February 2010 - 04:57 AM

Ever look at a graph of tobacco usage and lung cancer incidence over the past century? Kinda puts the lie to the whole "natural tobacco" BS line. Yeah yeah, I know. Correlation != causation. You're a freakin' genius, nightlight.


You could plot thousands of other variables also systematically trending up or down during the same period. Atmospheric nuclear tests, gasoline use,.... come to mind as likely candidates for lung cancers. In contrast to tobacco smoke (for which scientists still don't know how to make it cause lung cancer in animal experiments, see a recent review paper of that six decades long futile pursuit), it is no brainer to demonstrate scientifically that either of those can cause lung cancers -- just add some radioactive particles to the air inhaled by the animals and they all to the last one get lung cancers. Curiously, if you co-expose some of them to the tobacco smoke along with radiation (or other well known lung carcinogens, as in that NCI experiment from 1980s), about quarter in the smoking group don't get lung cancers (scientists have speculated that additional mucous coating induced by tobacco smoke may be partially protective).

You should also note that the early antismoking drive in UK & USA was government driven campaign (the big pharma, which is now the driving force behind antismoking scam, jumped in later, in mid-980s), which coincidentally came out just as concerns grew about rapid rise in LC and melanoma cases, which coincided with the rapid escallation of atmospheric nuclear tests (both LC and melanoma are cancers on the outermost tissues, those in direct contanct with air and any radioactive particles there). Sir Richard Doll (more about him here), a disciple, literally, of the Nazi antismoking pseudo-science from 1930s, and the master of shifting the blame for diseases from the industries and governments whose actions caused them onto the poor victims (usually their lifestyle, eating and other habits), was drafted for the task and he promptly delivered, picking tobacco smoking as the cause for lung cancer. The sun was blamed for melanoma (even though most melanomas occur on the skim areas the least exposed to sun UV, such as stomach and lower back, crotch,... in the era of one-piece swimming suits, cobvering those areas).
  • Agree x 1

#41 mustardseed41

  • Registered User
  • 928 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 05:01 AM

This quote from nightlight pretty much sums up his pure genius. Burn one for me dude.

"Many models smoke today, to control weight and their skin looks fine, too."

WOW THEIR SKIN LOOKS FINE AT 20 YO....HOLY $^(# Batman.
  • like x 1

#42 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 28 February 2010 - 06:45 AM

[quote name='dfowler' post='387389' date='Feb 27 2010, 11:30 PM']I smoked for 3 years hard due to SERIOUS depression...I coughed more, and I felt sick often...yes I enjoyed it, but facts are facts...[/quote]

You probably smoked supermarket junk made of reconstituted tobacco sheets (Marlboro is the worst on that pile), and likely filtered (the non-biodegradable fibers will give you coughs, they've got to be expelled somehow; filters were one of the early submissions to the antismoking scam, and it like the rest of such compromises, it is harmful). Further, you were also likely fully hooked into the antismoking propaganda matrix, and that may have harmed you more than anything else (filters or additives) -- the witch doctor effect (negative placebo) kills as surely as any poison.

[quote]look at William O' Rights who died of lung cancer from smoking 20 plus years...look at Paul Newman, died of lung cancer 28 years smoking...Peter Jennings, George Harrison, Audrey Hepburn...and these are just well known celebrities.[/quote]

If I recall correctly, O'Rights was suddenly yanked from tobacco (as well as from massive numbers of supplements), when he ended up in prison, which is where he got lung cancer. He also spent lots of time inhaling gasoline and paint fumes working on his bikes and cars. Then after the accident, he was exposed to massive ammounts of ionizing radioation from diagnostic X-rays.... Others were also all former smokers, some were scared to death and had quit decades earlier -- quitting smoking is extremely harmful, worse even than never starting to smoke. Considering how deep is the reconfiguration of your biochemical networks as they synergistically intertwine with those of tobacco, quitting it's a full blown biochemical meltdown at all levels. See for example a recent paper "Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?" (discussed here). In animal experiments, the only known way to cause harm to smoking animals, other than spiking the smoke with radioactive tracers (for "diagnostic" allegedly) is via satanically named "recovery period" (intense smoking until 'middle age' equivalent, then sudden complete quitting; see discussion here).


[quote]Nightlight, you're trying to justify a habit that you may LOVE, but it still is a mere rationalization![/quote]

Reality is rationalization (for solipsists, at least). Also, ad hominem argument will be seen by readers as an admission of defeat.

[quote]And there are many randomized trials I'm sure proving that 50% of lifelong smokers die of cancers, (almost all except two,) heart disease, COPD, and emphasyma, and who knows how many others?[/quote]

Check this review on the subject (or a book here) -- there were a handful randomized intervention trials with smoking, bu they all backfired badly (e.g. 'quit group' ended up with more lung cancers or heart attacks, no matter how much they tortured the data, it just wouldn't confess:) and so they just gave up on doing them -- it doesn't work. You are welcome to bring up any truly randomized trials. Good luck searching.


[quote]If you are addicted, it's never too late to start a healthy lifestyle, and I AM a firm believer that eating fruits, vegetables of the right kind, lean proteins, some carbs, and supplements like Vitamin D, Green Tea, and Curcumin, among others can greatly reduce your chances of getting smoking related cancers.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong in being dependent on something that is good for you. We are all "addicted" to food, water, air, family, friends, reading,... If something is good for you, transferring the need to replenish it to automated/reflexive systems (the so-called "addiction") is quite useful, time and effort saving transformation.

[quote]And despite the opposition here, I DO believe rigorous exercise multiple times a week also is a potentially great reducer of cancers and heart disease.[/quote]

Two words, Jim Fixx. From casual observations, athletes do seem to die quite a bit younger than regular folks, clerks, librarians, engineers,... unless they are smokers, like the that former military fitness instructor Buster Martin, who smoked since age 7 and who completed London marathon at age 101 (smoking along the way).

[quote]edit: I know the cold stats of smoking related deaths is very scary, but there are plenty of people who quit late in life who do not go on to die of smoking related causes, or who die very old people of smoking related causes...either way it's always beneficial to quit and you can quit at any age and add 10 years on to your life. Statistics can be misleading...[/quote]

You can also start smoking at any age and still benefit. The longest living man in the world, Shigechiyo Izumi (see at the top of the thread), started smoking at age 70. Some folks, scientifically well educated and health fanatics, who lived four or five decades as nonsmokers, until their lucky day when they decided to educate me, usually at a party or at work, that I ought to quit smoking, it is terribly bad for me,... and then I 'splained to them few things about glutathione, SOD, MAO B,... gave them books, emailed links to papers, and few days later they would ask me where can they order 'organic tobacco'...

[quote]oh, and there is no evidence pointing to Obama having ever been a chain smoker...I'm not even sure if he smoked consistently from early adult hood until when he supposedly quit at age 46...he may have quit for a good decade in between...last thing I read Obama averaged 5 to 10 smokes per day...[/quote]

Opinions certainly vary on that question. I wouldn't trust his word on it, though. The first law he signed was to raise tax on rolling tobacco (among other antismoker taxes) by astronomical 2200%, taxing the folks who surely must be making 250K or more a year (recalling his promise on no new taxes for those below 250K/year). Considering his stressful childhood and teens (abandonment, by flakey, shifty father and unstable mother, both wandering all over, politically, psychologically and geographically, dating and marying the 'wrong' way for the zeitgeist...), along with his use of hard drugs, I suspect he was likely self-medicating by chain smoking at least for couple decades of his life, possibly reduced some after his kids were born and Michelle tightened the screws. Anyway, my argument doesn't depend in the least on his habits. That photo was a mere illustration in response to an equally 'significant' anecdote with a photo that Luna posted.

#43 Sillewater

  • Registered User
  • 1,076 posts
  • 278
  • Location:Canada

Posted 28 February 2010 - 07:04 AM

I don't agree with Nightlight (except maybe from a hormesis point of view) but most replies have been very useless when compared to Nightlights. I would like to see some data otherwise referenced because I haven't seen it myself either.

#44 Luna

  • Registered User, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Israel

Posted 28 February 2010 - 09:47 AM

I googled "Smoking Lifespan" I found:

http://www.medicalne...ticles/9703.php
http://www.webmd.com...is-tool-measure
http://articles.sfga...british-doctors
http://www.no-smokin...12-15-03-4.html
http://www.cnn.com/2...span/index.html

I googled "Smoking Extends Lifespan" I found.... nothing related and sometimes more about smoking shortening lifespan.. Interesting!
  • like x 1

#45 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 28 February 2010 - 09:53 AM

I don't agree with Nightlight (except maybe from a hormesis point of view) but most replies have been very useless when compared to Nightlights. I would like to see some data otherwise referenced because I haven't seen it myself either.


You should be more understanding of their problem. It's not really their fault that it is very difficult, perhaps impossible short of blatant scientifc fraud (of making up data), to make the single most beneficial medicinal substance humans have ever known, appear harmful in the genuine scientific experiments. They have been dealt a lousy hand -- the pure, pharmaceutical grade junk science. All the hard science, experiments and randomized intervention trials, come out the "wrong" way. What can poor folks do, but parrot what they got, smokers have more of this or that problem, with a bit of ad hominem or big scary health class photos of so-called smoker's lungs, when the full blown desperation sets in.

Occasionally when someone brings up real experiments that seem to support antismoking claims, at least judging by the paper's title, abstract or intro section, it always backfires badly, as soon as one looks more closely at the actual data and little facts buried deep down in some long footnote -- the presumably "harmed" smoking animals end up living longer, while staying thinner and sharper, than their wholesome, "healthy" living non-smoking mates, who are all growing fat and senile as they age. And all that despite the fervently antismoking researchers doing their best to maximize the presumed harm from tobacco smoke (e.g. driving the smoke levels to the edge of asphyxiation, focusing smoking of 5+ packs/day equivalents into heavy 6 hour/day smoking sessions...). See for example recent 'rat experiment' brought up in an earlier thread, or another one with mice, the surprises are almost tragicomical. In another nootropic forum, a moderator after mocking my claims early on in the thread and posting gigantic, full color scary picture of "smoker's lungs" (thats another fraud, decades old), he suddenly went quiet. After long discussions with other members, the threead eventually wound down. Then, a week later, when the thread was already long dead, the moderator comes back and adds the final post, admitting he went out checked the references, then looked everywhere for something at the comparable level of scientific evidence (hard science) supporting his initial positions, and was ultimately left perplexed "scratching his head", after finding absolutely nothing. You can't find something that's just not there.

#46 Luna

  • Registered User, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Israel

Posted 28 February 2010 - 10:03 AM

Then don't call it smoking is good for you O_o

Call it Tobacco or smoking TOBACCO is good for you..

#47 miklu

  • Registered User
  • 63 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Finland

Posted 28 February 2010 - 11:23 AM

[quote name='nightlight' post='386995' date='Feb 26 2010, 08:10 PM'][quote name='Luna' post='386948' date='Feb 26 2010, 10:48 AM']There was an article here a while ago showing twins. One smoking, one not smoking. The smoker looked like 10 years older.
http://www.nydailyne...an_dramati.html[/quote]

First the "smoker" sister's skin looks like a typical result of sun damage. Second, she wasn't a smoker at all (for 20+ years already, and she smoked 16 years only at younger age).
[/quote]

Here is a better example of identical twins (from this twin study), with same upbringing and occupation. The only major difference is 52 pack-years. (The sample size is of course one; a larger-scale twin-study is available e.g. here.)

Posted Image

[quote name='nightlight' post='386995' date='Feb 26 2010, 08:10 PM']In contrast, here are some young looking older chain smokers:[/quote]

Small population size (anecdotal, really); no controls (unlike in twin studies).

[quote name='nightlight' post='386995' date='Feb 26 2010, 08:10 PM']In Japan and Korea, 60-70 percent of men smoke, yet they tend to look more youthful . . .[/quote]

Confounding variable "race" introduced. Perhaps non-smoking Japanese and Koreans look even younger than their smoking counterparts.

[quote name='nightlight' post='386995' date='Feb 26 2010, 08:10 PM']Back in 1940s and 1950s, actors and other celebrities were largely smokers, they didn't have botox or face lifts, yet they didn't look particularly wrinkled, certainly not more than nonsmokers of that era . . .[/quote]

This is sweeping and subjective.

[quote name='nightlight' post='386995' date='Feb 26 2010, 08:10 PM']Some of the underlying biochemical reasons why smoker's skin (and every other marker of youthfulness) would come out younger in any apples to apples comparisons (not just the same genetics, but sun & other exposures, diet, stress, socioeconomic status,...):[/quote]

Twin studies are as apple-to-apple comparisons as ethically possible (as, obviously, researchers cannot
force people to start or quit smoking). Also, differences in sun exposure (and other lifestyle) can certainly be taken into account (via multiple regression, as in this twin study).

The studies on the individual effects of smoking you cite look interesting. I'm not going to argue smoking/tobacco/nicotine cannot have any positive effects (including hormetic). However, based on the aforementioned twin studies (and their literature reviews), I would conclude that, at least for skin-aging, the harms greatly outweigh the benefits. (Many of the skin benefits of smoking can be gained more safely, e.g., by supplementing on CoQ10, as found in tobacco leaves.)

Edited by miklu, 28 February 2010 - 11:26 AM.

  • like x 1

#48 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 28 February 2010 - 11:53 AM

I googled "Smoking Lifespan" I found:

http://www.medicalne...ticles/9703.php
http://www.webmd.com...is-tool-measure
http://articles.sfga...british-doctors
http://www.no-smokin...12-15-03-4.html
http://www.cnn.com/2...span/index.html

I googled "Smoking Extends Lifespan" I found.... nothing related and sometimes more about smoking shortening lifespan.. Interesting!


Again, you haven't been following the discussion. All you are offering are statistical correlations on non-randomized samples (and even that little, amounting to ambiguous hint at best, is not in a form of actual scientific papers, but as a second or third hand retelling by "interpreters" sponsored by those making money from antismoking or groups on pharma pay -- can there be any weaker 'proof' than that). The categories 'smoker', 'ex-smoker', 'never-smoker' were not assigned to the subjects of those studies randomly by researchers (in which case the stats, within their certainty limits could imply causality, as they do in randomized drug trials), but are something that they chose for some other reasons (perhaps to deal with stress, toxins at work, poor focus,...), and those "other reasons" in turn could on their own be the causes of the poorer outcomes. By the "logic" of those "interpreters", sunglasses cause sunburns since people who use them get more sunburns than those who never use them, while the ex-users fall in between. Such considerations and caution are especially relevant when one takes into account the multitude of therapeutic and protective effects of tobacco smoke (which antismoking junk science never does) -- as any medicine it ought to correlate statistically with later health problems. If you care about your health and longevity, you better learn fast how to differentiate between the junk science and hard science (experiments, randomized trials).

Tobacco is a medicinal plant that increasing percentage of smokers uses instinctively for self-medication (the vicious antismoking pressures have scared and driven away most of those who don't really need it for any such purpose, those who are left are mostly the folks who do need it). Most smokers can't get a pharma drugs, even if they could afford them all, that will double all the key detox & antioxidant enzymes, that is simultaneously dopaminergic and cholinergic without downregulating either of those systems (an apparent paradox), that is also anti-inflammatory at multiple levels, anti-apoptotic, protective against sepsis, analgesic, ... (see earlier links for numerous other beneficial effects). There is just nothing else that combines harmoniously that kind of broad spectrum of therapeutic and protective effects and in such depth. Those who are still smoking in the face of ever escalating abuses of smokers, economic, social and psychological, are poor folks for whom no other medicine will do the same thing, or those who can't afford the array of pharmaceuticals needed to cover all the beneficial effects of tobacco smoke that matter to them.

Of course, as with any medicine, be it pharmaceutical prescribed by doctors or a remedy/supplement taken on ones own initiative, those who use them will have more health problems than those who don't use them. People using blood pressure meds will have more strokes than those not using them. That doesn't mean blood pressure meds cause stroke. They are obviously meant to prevent them, by lowering the blood pressure, which itself causes strokes. The same reasoning goes for tobacco smoke. For example, consider a miner exposed to toxic, possibly carcinogenic, heavy metal dusts and vapors at work. It just happens that tobacco smoke nearly doubles levels of glutathione, the master detox enzyme in human body, the perfect weapon to bind and excrete the heavy metals from outr body. A miner can't buy, even if he heard of glutathione, a supplement that will nearly double it, simply because there isn't anything that can do it, other than tobacco smoke. Hence, by smoking this miner will nearly double his detox rates, resulting in perceptible relief from the effects of toxic heavy metals. Hence he will have much greater incentive to smoke, especially under the present pressures, than somene sipping lemonade and inhaling purified air all day in a nice, clean suburban home. Indeed miners (or any physical or farm laborers, truck drivers, soldiers, firemen,...) will smoke at much higer rates than general populations -- it helps them detox (among other myriad other potential benefits). Yet, those same toxins that tobacco, via glutathione, catalase & SOD upregulation, partially protects against, will over time damage their health anyway and they will end up with higher rates of 'smoking related diseases' than the suburban white collar folks. And they will also be smoking at higher rates than the white collar workers, That is the mechanism behind statistical correlations of smoking and 'smoking related diseases' on non-randomized samples (each person chose to smoke or not to smoke for their own reasons). Tobacco is by virtue of its therapeutic & protective effects a mere statistical marker for any kind of physical, chemical, emotional and psychological hardship, and it is the latter factors, the harships, that causes diseases attributed (by the pharma sponsored antismoking junk science) to tobacco smoke. The antismoking racket is truly the most evil force in the western world today. It is analogous to someone ripping respirators from patients in hospitals, justifying it by observation that respirator users have shorter lifespans than non-users, while the ex-users of respirators fall in between, hence all those terrible respirators must be ripped from the patients to save them. An their pockets need to be picked in the process to help the breathe easier (tobacco taxes are becoming a pure thievery, e.g. the first law Obama signed, increased sharply the tax on all tobacco products, and on my particular one, the rolling/loose tobacco, by 2200%; thanks Mr. Reverse Robin Hood, at least your lobbyists are happy now).

Generally, statistical associations on non-randomized (self-selected subjects) samples, of some substance X with disease D, could equally well be due to the therapeutic/protective effects of X against D (or against some of the real causes of D), as they could be due to the causal role of X in D. To find out which is the case you need hard science (experiments, randomized trials). Yet, all you hear about tobacco smoking, for over six decades now, are the stats on non-randmized samples. Why? Because the hard science comes out the "wrong" way -- the smoking animals live longer, and the randomly selected quit group ends up with more lung cancers or more heart attacks than the control group (smokers left alone).
  • Well Written x 1

#49 mustardseed41

  • Registered User
  • 928 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 01:00 PM

Hey Nightlight......is smoking healthy for a pregnant woman? I need to know please. Highly value your expert opinion. Thanks.

#50 kismet

  • Registered User
  • 2,984 posts
  • 425
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 28 February 2010 - 01:17 PM

I googled "Smoking Lifespan" I found:

http://www.medicalne...ticles/9703.php
http://www.webmd.com...is-tool-measure
http://articles.sfga...british-doctors
http://www.no-smokin...12-15-03-4.html
http://www.cnn.com/2...span/index.html

I googled "Smoking Extends Lifespan" I found.... nothing related and sometimes more about smoking shortening lifespan.. Interesting!


Again, you haven't been following the discussion. All you are offering are statistical correlations on non-randomized samples (and even that little, amounting to ambiguous hint at best, is not in a form of actual scientific papers, but as a second or third hand retelling by "interpreters" sponsored by those making money from antismoking or groups on pharma pay -- can there be any weaker 'proof' than that)...

This is pretty ironical from someone who started his thread with hand-picked, non-randomised and anecdotal evidence - to put it mildly.

AFAIK you only ever provided one single interventional study (in Syrian gold hamsters), which is so easy to refute that I am still not gonna do it (not yet). Only interventional data matters as you said yourself. Therefore I am glad and thankful that you accept how weak your case really is. :-D

(OTOH, there is no need to continue posting on the topic if - by your own logic - you are wrong or can only provide minimal evidence.. &thanks for playing!)

Edited by kismet, 28 February 2010 - 01:22 PM.


#51 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 28 February 2010 - 02:27 PM

[quote name='miklu' post='387442' date='Feb 28 2010, 06:23 AM']Small population size (anecdotal, really); no controls (unlike in twin studies).[/quote]

It is not just sample of 1, but it is also non-randomized sample of 1. Reasercher didn't flip a coin and assign one twin to smoking another to non-smoking group (of one). If they are so identical in all regards (genetic and environmental), why would one be smoking heavily (52 pack-years at age 52). That's a clear marker of some sort of additional hardship in life, some unfortunate exposure or stress, bad marriage or stress at work, chemicals at work or home,.. (e.g. she had early on a tonsillectomy that nonsmoking sister didn't, clearly during childhood she was more susceptible to inflammation, or had a bad luck with doctors). When someone smokes in this day and age, and that heavily for a woman, or even during the last 2-3 decades of antismoking pressures and propaganda, that is clear a marker for something else that is likely to affect her health negatively (including her diet, skin) e.g. she clearly cared about her health much less than her non-smoking sister, considering all the scare stories abourt smoking everyone hears about from every source, including those on each pack of cigarettes.

That lack care for her own health couldn't just stop at heavy smoking, but it must have permeated all other aspects of her life (maybe she is a risk taker, contrarian,..). And that attitude toward her health and life obviously took its toll. What other risks she took, or advice she rejected, that the other one didn't. For example the non-smoking sister is using moisturizer, while the smoking one isn't, further confirming different attitudes toward their own care and looks. That can make skin look different, too, you know.

We can obviously discount the unlikely possibility that the smoking sister went out and read all the science about tobacco smoke and concluded that antismoking is a scientific fraud and so she decided to smoke rationally as adult (as I actually did; I didn't smoke in my teens or most of college despite great peer pressures to take up smoking to look cool; I started smoking fully in grad school as result of a rational conclusion, just when many of my friends succumbed to the antismoking pressures and quit).

Interesting few bits from the table, though -- the smoking sister, despite all the other odds against her (risk taking, lack of care for her health, possible other hardships which caused her to smoke against all advice), didn't get arthritis, while the non-smoking sister did by age 52. She also didn't have her gallbladder removed. Of course, therapeutic & protective effects of smoking in arthritis (osteo threefold for knee, and rheumatoid) are well established even in animal experiments, so that's not surprise. Gallbladder difference may be due to other anti-inflammatory or detox effects o tobacco. The most striking difference on the face photos is droopy, dull eyes and face of the non-smoking sister vs the bright and bushy-tailed, lively look of the smoking sister. One could almost tell which one will get Alzheimers or other form of senility in twenty years. As to wrinkles, yes, the smoking one appears more wrinkly, although well within the effects of a moisturizer that non-smoking sister is using. The non-smoking sister is also more overweight (BMI 33 vs 30.1 for smoking sister), which can smooth out some wrinkinling.

In summary, a very weak and very unconvincing case, with ambiguous net results (of all effects), at best, for the antismoking mission. Frankly, if it weren't for the antismoking hysteria and its big bucks sponsors, this kind of "scientific research" would have been laughed out of the journal by the referees after the first page. Today, of course, any junk study that "proves" <smoking bad, pharma potions good>, goes.

[quote][quote name='nightlight' post='386995' date='Feb 26 2010, 08:10 PM']In Japan and Korea, 60-70 percent of men smoke, yet they tend to look more youthful . . .[/quote]
Confounding variable "race" introduced. Perhaps non-smoking Japanese and Koreans look even younger than their smoking counterparts.[/quote]

[quote][quote name='nightlight' post='386995' date='Feb 26 2010, 08:10 PM']Back in 1940s and 1950s, actors and other celebrities were largely smokers, they didn't have botox or face lifts, yet they didn't look particularly wrinkled, certainly not more than nonsmokers of that era . . .[/quote]

This is sweeping and subjective.[/quote]

They were casual observations in response to casual observations of the same kind. My real argument (the scientific backing for more serious readers) was given right ofter those lighter comments.

[quote][quote name='nightlight' post='386995' date='Feb 26 2010, 08:10 PM']Some of the underlying biochemical reasons why smoker's skin (and every other marker of youthfulness) would come out younger in any apples to apples comparisons (not just the same genetics, but sun & other exposures, diet, stress, socioeconomic status,...):[/quote]

Twin studies are as apple-to-apple comparisons as ethically possible (as, obviously, researchers cannot
force people to start or quit smoking). Also, differences in sun exposure (and other lifestyle) can certainly be taken into account (via multiple regression, as in this twin study).[/quote]

There are lots of things not taken into account, many of them deliberately. I have yet to see an antismoking non-randomized stats study (which is just about all of them, except for handful of randomized intervention trials that backfired and are never talked about) that brings up self-medication confounding which ought to be right on the top of the confounding variables, considering the spectrum and depth of well established (and well known, but never publicized) protective and therapeutic effects of tobacco smoke, especially the upregulation of detox & antioxidant enzymes, MAO B effects, numerous anti-inflammatory effects,... None of them exists for the antismoking epidemiology matrix, hence they are never mentioned, let alone acknowledged as relevant confounding variables that need to be measured and their effects on the results quantified.

Further, as noted in the comments on the twin sisters case, the antismoking indoctrination itself is quite a relevant confounding variable. Somene who smokes in the face of the present day gross abuses of smokers at all levels (social, economic, psychological), "knowing" all about alleged harm and yet doing it, says a lot about person and his or her general attitude toward health, society, or any other advice, risk taking, as well as about unmentioned stresses and hardships in their lives. All these major confounders can skew and drown statistically many beneficial biochemical effects of tobacco smoke. These confounders are uniformly and deliberately ignored by the antismoking researchers, which strongly drives the statistical correlations on non-randomized samples in the directions disfavoring smokers (or masking the beneficial effects of t.s.).

As an illustration, just take a look at the rheumatiod arthritis experiment mentioned above. Statistically, as nothed in the intro of the paper, smoker have higher rates of r.h., and doctors will advice r.h. patients to quit smoking (as they did to my mother in law), yet the experiment demonstrates clearly the protective and therapeutic effects of nicotine alone, and the additional beneficial effects from the real tobbaco smoke. The results are also perfectly expected from previously well known potent anti-inflammatory & analgesic effects of t.s. (and of nicotine alone), as well as the known negative correlation betwene smoking and osteo-arthritis. Clearly many r.h. patients, or those in preclinical stages, would perceive smoking as beneficial in many ways, to alleviate the symptoms, to tolerate pain better, to delay the onset and progression of the cartilage destruction. Hence there is a more than obvious self-medication confounding that needs to be quantified and taken into account. Yet, such confounding is never mentioned in antismoking epidemiology, let alone quantified and taken into account. Thus the non-randomized stats from antismoking epidemiology indicate the negative effects of t.s. on r.h. which is exactly the opposite from the real effects (strongly beneficial), which results from the known effects of t.s., and which confirmed also by direct experiments. In short, the antismoking epidemiology has long degenerated into the pure junk science, worthless to anyone but those paying for it.

[quote]The studies on the individual effects of smoking you cite look interesting. I'm not going to argue smoking/tobacco/nicotine cannot have any positive effects (including hormetic). However, based on the aforementioned twin studies (and their literature reviews), I would conclude that, at least for skin-aging, the harms greatly outweigh the benefits. (Many of the skin benefits of smoking can be gained more safely, e.g., by supplementing on CoQ10, as found in tobacco leaves.)[/quote]

I suppose, as long as you limit the benefits to those with well identified mechanisms and isolated compounds, you will be fine with pharma substitutes. Considering though how little the biology and biochemistry really know about even the mere biochemical networks of a single cell (just few tips of the iceberg of the vast intelligent network within each live cell, capable of engineering new live cells at the molecular level from scratch), let alone about astronomocally more complex network of such cellular networks, the organism, I would guess, sticking to the understood substitutes you would be limiting yourself to few percent of the full benefits at best, if not harming yourself (with unbalanced, dissonant mishmash of supplements).
  • Well Written x 1

#52 Luna

  • Registered User, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Israel

Posted 28 February 2010 - 02:55 PM

why would one be smoking heavily (52 pack-years at age 52). That's a clear marker of some sort of additional hardship in life


No. My cousins smoke because it's fun. I know a lot of people who smoke because it's fun. O_o
Besides, just being alive can be stressful. If you need stress to smoke, well, live.

#53 frederickson

  • Registered User
  • 263 posts
  • 38

Posted 28 February 2010 - 03:07 PM

smoking anything (including tobacco) would seem to have deleterious effects on the lungs, but in light of some of the animal studies on tobacco/nicotine, chewing whole-leaf tobacco might be another story due to phytochemicals present in the tobacco plant. it would be impossible to obtain federal funding for a study on the benefits of tobacco, however.

i don't agree that smoking tobacco has health benefits, but unlike some of the emotionally reactive posts, nightlight does make some interesting points.

#54 kismet

  • Registered User
  • 2,984 posts
  • 425
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 28 February 2010 - 03:18 PM

i don't agree that smoking tobacco has health benefits, but unlike some of the emotionally reactive posts, nightlight does make some interesting points.

Could you cite the actual good points? I have been looking for them since he started trolling our forums.

#55 frederickson

  • Registered User
  • 263 posts
  • 38

Posted 28 February 2010 - 03:31 PM

i don't agree that smoking tobacco has health benefits, but unlike some of the emotionally reactive posts, nightlight does make some interesting points.

Could you cite the actual good points? I have been looking for them since he started trolling our forums.


for one, he points out many salient sources of confounding in the anti-smoking literature. i had not previously considered some of these, perhaps due to my own anti-smoking bias.

though still (very) strongly suggestive of a causal link between cigarette smoking and poor health outcomes, the tobacco literature may not be as completely bullet-proof as most would think.

#56 mustardseed41

  • Registered User
  • 928 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 28 February 2010 - 03:33 PM

Nightlight you remind me of Charlie Manson. Sounds like he's really smart but in the end has said nothing that makes sense.

Edited by mustardseed41, 28 February 2010 - 03:34 PM.


#57 nightlight

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 374 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 28 February 2010 - 03:51 PM

Hey Nightlight......is smoking healthy for a pregnant woman? I need to know please. Highly value your expert opinion. Thanks.


My mother (medical doctor) didn't smoke at all, while my father (also doctor, surgeon) smoked heavily, right around her while she was pregnant. Her younger sister smoked as well, and she smoked right through her pregnancies without my mother or any other doctor advising her to quit. We had their friends doctors at the house all the time, all males smoking with all their kids around them (this was all back in the 'old country', where antismoking didn't yet arrive at that time).

The real story is that tobacco is androgenic (not very strongly), so if you have trouble getting pregnant or need estrogen boost to get and stay pregnant, suspending smoking, or reducing it down to 2-3 per day would be beneficial (disruption is not good either). If you are normal feminine female, it would have no harmful androgenic effects. While you will find some number of papers about animal experiments, claiming variety of (mostly small) negative effects on fetus, if you check their numbers more carefully, you will discover that they are injecting pregnant mice with pure nicotine (very different substance than tobacco smoke) and at doses typically 1-2 mg per kg (some even 6+ mg/kg), which for a 75kg (165 lb) pregnant woman would amount to 75-150mg of nicotine (450 for 6mg/kg), which for todays <1mg nic full flavor cigarettes, would come to 4-8 packs of FF cigs per day (or over two cartons for 6mg/kg), obviously all in a massive overdose. What that tells between the lines, is that for anything near normal human smoking levels, there is absolutely no harm they could detect, hence they had to resort to such massive overdoses to show any harm at all (resulting mostly from reduced circulation at those high levels of injected nicotine). Wearing nicotine patch is much closer to those experiments than obtaining equivalent amount of nicotine via tobacco smoke (the researchers apparently avoided tobacco smoke inhalation in these experiments, which is another 'between the lines' fact).

The negative effects observed were chiefly due to acute vaso-constrictory effects of pure nicotine, especially when injected (it gets in and no let up from there), in contrast to cyclic self-administered delivery from smoking finely controlled by your own natural feedbacks. Tobacco smoke has also a number of offseting vascular effects (from low dose NO and CO in the smoke), which counter and balance the acute vasoconstricting effects of pure nicotine, effectively nullifying them as far as blood delivery to any tissue. The non-acute effect of nictine is upregulation of vascular growth factor, stimulating growth and branching of blood vessels, hence it improves circulation.

Some positive aspects are anti-inflammatory effects and a particularly strong protective effect against pre-eclampsia. There is also a unexplained protective effect of maternal smoking against transmission of H. Pylori infection to baby (fourfold reduction in transmission for smoking mothers). Anti-depressant effects of nicotine are also becoming important in the era when pharma is pushing for the en masse use of clearly harmful antidepressants on pregnant women. I think, the best is to listen to yur own body and you will know what to do and how much. Pregnant women a famous for strange food cravings, knowing apparently exactly what they need.

Edited by nightlight, 28 February 2010 - 04:16 PM.


#58 Blue

  • Registered User
  • 1,104 posts
  • 13

Posted 28 February 2010 - 04:16 PM

Here are several reviews of animal smoking exposure studies by RE Coggins.

Rodents
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/9608635
http://legacy.librar...0/Sblw84c00.pdf

Hamsters, dogs, and primates
http://tpx.sagepub.c...t/refs/29/5/550
http://tpx.sagepub.c...nt/29/5/550.pdf

Most recent
"Until recently, the published literature on inhalation studies with laboratory animals and cigarette smoke consisted entirely of negative findings, as far as neoplastic disease is concerned. This paper brings readers up to date, with analyses of recent studies that do indeed appear to report success after so many years of failure. The paper consists of a brief analysis of the literature up until a couple of years ago, giving brief, representative examples of inhalation studies with the five main species of laboratory animals that have been used: rat, mouse, hamster, dog, and nonhuman primate. A brief examination of the various technologies used to expose laboratory animals is given, along with an analysis of the histopathology and related toxicology data (specifically, biomarkers of exposure) that have been reported. The paper concludes by briefly mentioning the most recent studies, where positive results have been reported."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17661224

So there is a surprising numbers of animals models where smoking exposure has had little effect. On other hand, smoking does not generally extends lifespan either, for example a much larger hamster study found a dose dependent reduction in male but not female lifespan (SG1 in the second review). Regarding SG4, the smaller hamster study discussed in the first post, the authors speculated that this was due to smoking protecting against amyloidosis, a frequent cause of death in this animal model (but not in humans).

But again, humans are not other animals. There are animal models where smoking greatly increases cancer:

"Although cigarette smoke has been epidemiologically associated with lung cancer in humans for many years, animal models of cigarette smoke-induced lung cancer have been lacking. This study demonstrated that life time, whole body exposures of female B6C3F1 mice to mainstream cigarette smoke at 250 mg total particulate matter/m3 for 6 hours per day, 5 days a week induces marked increases in the incidence of focal alveolar hyperplasias, and pulmonary adenomas, papillomas and adenocarcinomas. Cigarette smoke-exposed mice (n=330) had a 10-fold increase in the incidence of hyperplastic lesions, and a 4.6-fold (adenomas and papillomas), 7.25-fold (adenocarcinomas) and 5-fold (metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinomas) increase in primary lung neoplasms compared to sham-exposed mice (n=326). Activating point mutations in codon 12 of the K-ras gene were identified at a similar rate in tumors from sham-exposed mice (47 %) and tumors from cigarette smoke-exposed mice (60%). The percentages of transversion and transition mutations were similar in both groups. Hypermethylation of the Death Associated Protein (DAP)-kinase and Retinoic Acid Receptor (RAR)-{beta} gene promoters was detected in tumors from both sham- and cigarette smoke exposed mice, with a tendency towards increased frequency of RAR-{beta} methylation in the tumors from the cigarette smoke-exposed mice. These results emphasize the importance of activation of K-ras and silencing of DAP-kinase and RAR-{beta} in lung cancer development, and confirm the relevance of this mouse model for studying lung tumorigenesis."
http://carcin.oxford...stract/bgi150v2

Should we take some average value of all animals models and then conclude that for humans smoking cannot be very harmful? Obviously not, we do not do this for other characteristics like intelligence or amount of body hair. Smoking as shown can be very harmful in certain species/models and humans happen to be another.

That there are a lack of human placebo controlled randomized smoking studies is of course not surprising since they would never be allowed for ethical reason.

Regarding East Asians they do a lot of healthy things (green tea, fish, soy products, natto, less burned foods, and so on), than the western general population do not, so uncontrolled comparisons of a single factor is pointless. But if smoking was such a super healthy factor then males who smoke more should live longer than females with the opposite being the case.

But finally I must say the tobacco smoking animal studies point out something important regarding CR, resveratrol, and so on. Animal studies are not worth much.

Edited by Blue, 28 February 2010 - 04:39 PM.


#59 JLL

  • Registered User
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 28 February 2010 - 07:33 PM

AFAIK you only ever provided one single interventional study (in Syrian gold hamsters), which is so easy to refute that I am still not gonna do it (not yet). Only interventional data matters as you said yourself. Therefore I am glad and thankful that you accept how weak your case really is. :-D

(OTOH, there is no need to continue posting on the topic if - by your own logic - you are wrong or can only provide minimal evidence.. &thanks for playing!)


You're being childish. You're the guy who always demands randomized trials and now you not only refuse to produce any evidence, but also refuse to come out of your ivory tower to refute nightlight's claims. Is this your new style?

#60 JLL

  • Registered User
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 28 February 2010 - 07:37 PM

Nightlight you remind me of Charlie Manson. Sounds like he's really smart but in the end has said nothing that makes sense.


And you, you should be ashamed of yourself for posting comments like this without anything constructive. If you disagree with nightlight's points, great: then express why they are wrong instead of comparing him to Charlie Manson.

I got really pissed off reading the old smoking thread when it was still going on, and now I remember why. I always thought this forum is supposed to be for people who want to find out the truth, whether or not it conflicts with what they've always thought was true. Name-calling is not going to achieve that goal.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users