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

Photo
- - - - -

The intelligent smoker: what should a smoker take to nullify harm?

tobacco carbon monoxide carcinogens lungs nicotine mucus elimination

  • Please log in to reply
180 replies to this topic

#121 GhostBuster

  • Guest
  • 107 posts
  • 22

Posted 12 April 2014 - 10:55 PM

 

There is a pattern. It is not random.


Of course there is a pattern -- association between substance X and disease D will exist whether

a) substance X causes D or
b) substance X protects against D or its real causes.

Association on non-randomized sample (namely, you didn't pick randomly and assign one person to smoking, another to non-smoking group; they selected themselves into those categories) merely tells you that X and D are in a common web of causes and effects, but the nature of the links within that web must be uncovered by hard science, such as randomized trials or animal/human experiments. That's precisely why I pointed you to a research which performed the hard science investigation regarding the observed association of smoking and rheumatoid arthritis. And the hard science has uncovered that (b) was the correct explanation -- smoking is protective and therapeutic against R.A. (and myriad other autoimmune diseases, as you will find if you care to look, in the thread above), hence people with R.A. in any phase will find it helpful and will self-medicate with tobacco, resulting in the observed statistical association.

This is no different than observing that people who wear sun glasses will have more sunburns than those who don't wear them, even though sun glasses protect you (partially) against sun radiation. It is precisely because of that protection that sun glasses become a proxy for sun exposure, hence for sunburns. Interestingly, there is also a proper dose-response relation (those wearing them more will have more sunburns) and if you were to ban sun glasses, there would be a drop in sunburns (people in sunny regions would dwell less outside in the sun, since it would hurt their eyes more without glasses).

But if you disregard their protective role, as it is routinely done in the antismoking "science" regarding medicinal effects of tobacco smoke, and only observe statistical associations of that kind, you may well jump to the wrong conclusion that sun glasses cause sunburns, as you did about arthritis and smoking (you are apparently unaware of anti-inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke or of the experimental results regarding R.A., such as the one I cited earlier).

Of course, the fact alone that after six decades of antismoking "science" you will only hear about associations on non-randomized samples (smokers have more of this or that disease or other problems than non-smokers), but not about results of hard science (such as the experiment above, or numerous others cited and discussed in the earlier thread), is more telling than anything else -- they are so quiet about the hard science since it always goes the "wrong" way. This pattern is so unusual in normal science that already in 1958, the father of modern statistical methods, famous British mathematician R. A. Fisher noticed it and wrote (pdf; this article also contains a very readable exposition of the sample randomization topic you ought to learn about so you won't be taken for a ride by every junk science scam du jour):

Most of us thought at the time, on hearing the nature of evidence, which I hope to make clear a little later, that a good prima facie case had been made for further investigation. But the time has passed, and although further investigation, in a sense, has taken place, it has consisted largely of the repetition of observations of the same kind as those which Hill and his colleagues called attention to several years ago. I read a recent article to the effect that nineteen different investigations in different parts of the world had all concurred in confirming Dr. Hill's findings. I think they had concurred, but I think they were mere repetitions of evidence of the same kind...

Yet, over half a century later, they are still stuck on making their case using the same statistical argument Fisher objected to in 1958, since the real science doesn't work (for their agenda $$$).

 

 

This is a off topic, but the old tobacco thead seems to be locked, so I ask this here: what is your take on polonium in cigarettes? Some sources say that there is a lot of polonium in the cigarettes and when you smoke it is vaporized and it all goes to your lungs. Obviously, this a nasty thought. I dont recall if you have addressed this aspect of smoking in your comments.
 



#122 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 12 April 2014 - 11:15 PM

By weight, we eat alot more stuff than we smoke. Overeating, smoking, or drinking too much water or other beverages would cause the same accumulation of Polonium (the fertilizer is used on lots of different crops) based on weight. The only difference might be that some of it gets trapped in the lung tar and is never removed or creates a slow drip. The alpha waves released by Po210 are likely shortlived and would be deposited in the tar and the damage would then be from any beta emitting atoms that may have resulted from it's decay. It's also worth noting that Po210 occurs from the decay of uranium. The fertilizer that is supposed to contain it is phosphorus IIRC. My knowledge here is limited though. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can confirm that Po210 only comes from uranium decay which isn't used as fertilizer?

 

That's about as far as I can go. Perhaps someone else can tell you more and what beta emitters are likely to result and how damaging they might be.



#123 GhostBuster

  • Guest
  • 107 posts
  • 22

Posted 13 April 2014 - 01:01 AM

Ok, now that i red this thread, I noticed that the question of polonium has been addressed here. However, according to one "educational source" one package of cigarettes is equivalent of 1 year of normal cumulative radioactive amount. Which sounds a lot. With respect to other sources of "radioactive substances" (water, milk. etc) that you listed, tobacco is different in a sense that is smoked. Maybe it is more bioavailable that way.



sponsored ad

  • Advert

#124 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 13 April 2014 - 03:49 AM

Things should be pretty well dissolved, so unless the gut is filtering it out and excreting it that efficiently, I wouldn't see that being the case. It's scare tactics. I'd like to see how they arrived at that figure. Unless Uncle Sam is adding it to cigarettes in excess... that's 180 years worth of radiation in one year!

 

Background radiation is equal to 300mrem/yr at sea level, higher at higher altitudes. At half a pack a day (assuming 180 years worth of radiation a year), you'd exceed the standard annual occupational limit (5,000mrem) after smoking 17 packs (34 days) and you'd exceed that of an astronaut (25,000mrem) after smoking 84 packs (168 days). The lethal dosage is about 2.4 million mrem (IIRC) which would be reached after smoking half a pack/day for 43 years or a pack a day for 22 years. Assuming all of the other contributing death factors, smokers would be dropping like flies.

 

Smoking is bad for you and it will kill you. There is no need to concoct lies about it or misrepresent facts. It's bad enough by itself. Though if this gets accepted as Gospel, sure let's take it and run with it and make cigarettes illegal so no one gets hurt by them. Would you buy a face punch? How about a gut punch? Cause that's kinda like what smoking is. It's being addicted to getting punched in the face everyday!



#125 GhostBuster

  • Guest
  • 107 posts
  • 22

Posted 13 April 2014 - 12:22 PM

Things should be pretty well dissolved, so unless the gut is filtering it out and excreting it that efficiently, I wouldn't see that being the case. It's scare tactics. I'd like to see how they arrived at that figure. Unless Uncle Sam is adding it to cigarettes in excess... that's 180 years worth of radiation in one year!

 

Background radiation is equal to 300mrem/yr at sea level, higher at higher altitudes. At half a pack a day (assuming 180 years worth of radiation a year), you'd exceed the standard annual occupational limit (5,000mrem) after smoking 17 packs (34 days) and you'd exceed that of an astronaut (25,000mrem) after smoking 84 packs (168 days). The lethal dosage is about 2.4 million mrem (IIRC) which would be reached after smoking half a pack/day for 43 years or a pack a day for 22 years. Assuming all of the other contributing death factors, smokers would be dropping like flies.

 

Smoking is bad for you and it will kill you. There is no need to concoct lies about it or misrepresent facts. It's bad enough by itself. Though if this gets accepted as Gospel, sure let's take it and run with it and make cigarettes illegal so no one gets hurt by them. Would you buy a face punch? How about a gut punch? Cause that's kinda like what smoking is. It's being addicted to getting punched in the face everyday!

 

Thanks for a reply.

 

Should check the reference before writing....I overstated the radiation effects. According to the source two packages cigarettes per week equals 5 mSv of extra radiation. Yearly avarage for backround radiation is 4 mSv. And 1,5 packales of cigarettes equals 1 X-ray session. Obviously, this also is way too much comparated to polonium content in different foods.



#126 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 13 April 2014 - 01:53 PM

The Serratia marcescens bacteria is often a complication in cancers that makes them more virulent. Smokers are at greater risk for infection and infection can lead not only to the worst forms of lung cancer, but also the failure of other internal organs. The vaccine achieves immunogenesis in at least 97% of those receiving it. The bacteria is virtually immune to all readily available (oral) antibiotics and those IM/IP that work may only be available at select hospitals (they aren't commonly used) or doctors offices. Some serratia strains may also be bio-weapons depending on how they are released on a target. Google it.

I'm starting a group buy:
http://www.longecity...vaccine-for-le/

This vaccine would probably be more effective at extending a smoker's life/healthspan than any supplement.

Tell your friends. We may have to buy quite a bit of it. But if the vaccine is the vaccine I'm thinking it is, it's pretty old and should be pretty cheap to produce.

I did some searching on google and pubmed, and couldn't find anything to suggest that serratia marcescens elimination would make a difference in lung cancer outcomes.  Could you post the source for this?  I'm concerned that people might think they are getting a "lung cancer vaccine" and be deterred from quitting.  I did find a lot of papers talking about a red pigment from the bacteria that has anti-cancer properties. 



#127 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 13 April 2014 - 10:30 PM

It's not a lung cancer vaccine. However, I did read that Sm can make cancers more virulent. I'm having trouble finding the article now. I really should book mark these things. IIRC, it was probably in something I read about the Coley's toxins. It made sense to me as Sm makes SOD, a potent anti oxidant which can keep dysfunctional cell populations from dying. I'm not sure how prodigiosin works to combat cancer unless it's better at preventing cancer than curing it. Coley's vaccines/toxins improved cancer outcomes in around 30% of patients IIRC.

 

Prodigiosin is however an immune suppressor in addition to having anticancer activity:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11015311

 

So it's not purely a bonus if it leaves you susceptible to other infections. 

 

Vaccination for Sm would be for the hopes of avioding complications such as malignant pleural effusion (MPE). According to microbe wiki:

 

 

 infections caused by S. marcescens include respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections (UTI), septicaemia, meningitis, pneumonia, conjunctivitis wound and eye infections, osteomyelitis, keratoconjunctivitis, keratitis, endophthalmitis and endocarditis

https://microbewiki....atia_marcescens

 

Many such infections would tend to be bad for cancer patients and would spread the immune system thin, especially the lung conditions. I discount the source of this information being from nosocomial infections as information on community-acquired infections isn't as easy to come by as they aren't monitored as closely. 

 

Vaccination would at least improve general health in some cases, especially those such as smokers who are particularly susceptible to MPE (AFAIAA, lung cancer is predominantly caused by smoking with a few minor exceptions such as asbestos and radon poisoning). A healthier person is more likely to survive and benefit from other cancer counter measures. 


Edited by cryonicsculture, 13 April 2014 - 10:35 PM.


#128 John Appleseed

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 2
  • Location:australia
  • NO

Posted 15 April 2014 - 08:22 AM

I just stopped smoking 3 days ago. Started after 10 years of non-smoking. Been smoking a pack a day for about 8 weeks. I was really interested in this thread. Hoping to get some information on how to accelerate the 'detoxification' or minimise neg. effects of this recent binge. Taking activated charcoal, vitamin e + c (2g). Really want to get any and all of this shit out of my body even if the evidence is slim I find doing this 'cleansing' has a very positive psychological effect and reinforces my commitment to never smoke again. 

 

 



#129 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 15 April 2014 - 08:59 AM

I suppose a good question to ask would be; what is the substance of lung tar? What exactly is it that makes our lungs so disgusting when we smoke? 

 



#130 LexLux

  • Guest
  • 265 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London, UK
  • NO

Posted 18 April 2014 - 12:40 AM

I just stopped smoking 3 days ago. Started after 10 years of non-smoking. Been smoking a pack a day for about 8 weeks. I was really interested in this thread. Hoping to get some information on how to accelerate the 'detoxification' or minimise neg. effects of this recent binge. Taking activated charcoal, vitamin e + c (2g). Really want to get any and all of this shit out of my body even if the evidence is slim I find doing this 'cleansing' has a very positive psychological effect and reinforces my commitment to never smoke again. 

 

My advice as an ex-smoker - regular exercise, curcumin (at least BCM-95 but the best are Longvida or Theracurmin) and increasing butyrate production by your microbiome (resistant potato starch and FOS, lots and lots of fruit) for better mood and neuro-plasticity.


Edited by LexLux, 18 April 2014 - 12:41 AM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#131 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 April 2014 - 04:12 AM

I just stopped smoking 3 days ago. Started after 10 years of non-smoking. Been smoking a pack a day for about 8 weeks. I was really interested in this thread. Hoping to get some information on how to accelerate the 'detoxification' or minimise neg. effects of this recent binge. Taking activated charcoal, vitamin e + c (2g). Really want to get any and all of this shit out of my body even if the evidence is slim I find doing this 'cleansing' has a very positive psychological effect and reinforces my commitment to never smoke again.


The best way to minimize the effects would be to stop the binge, but you probably already know that. What kind of E are you using? If it's alpha tocopherol, I'd stop using it- it might make things worse instead of better. If you're going to use E, it should be mixed tocopherols. I'd look at c60-olive oil. Also consider LexLux's advice.

#132 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 11 May 2014 - 09:51 PM

A country's longevity doesn't seem to hinge on how much smoking its citizens do. Here I plotted the average yearly consumption of cigarettes (x-axis) vs. longevity (y-axis) for 184 countries. 

 

How to lie with statistics 101. What if you plotted average yearly consumption for people (not countries) and their mortality (or any other health indicator), corrected for differences in lifestyle, SES, gender and so on ...

For example: http://ehp.niehs.nih...103639.g001.png



#133 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 12 May 2014 - 01:23 AM

 

A country's longevity doesn't seem to hinge on how much smoking its citizens do. Here I plotted the average yearly consumption of cigarettes (x-axis) vs. longevity (y-axis) for 184 countries. 

 

How to lie with statistics 101. What if you plotted average yearly consumption for people (not countries) and their mortality (or any other health indicator), corrected for differences in lifestyle, SES, gender and so on ...

For example: http://ehp.niehs.nih...103639.g001.png

 

 

 

 

How did I lie with statistics? What I said was exactly what the chart showed. As for the plots you referenced, neither show longevity vs cigarette consumption. The same sort of tricks have been used to sell the public on the dangers of cholesterol, where "relative risk" is used to hide the fact that the overall risk for the age groups selected is very low, while for older people, cholesterol is actually protective.


  • Agree x 1

#134 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 12 May 2014 - 01:45 PM

You said that smoking prevalence isn't connected to average longevity which implicates that smoking is not as unhealthy as the doctors tell us, however your comparison is completely irrelevant - like correlating number of pirates and global temperature. There is enough evidence that smoking is bad for health. There may not be a lot of experimental studies in human about this, since it wouldn't be ethical to do, but there are a lot of other indices (longitudinal studies, animal studies) which are hard to refute as a whole. It's similar to global warming debate - you can argue that there is no global warning since there are some glaciers that aren't melting or are even increasing, but there is enough other evidence for global warming that these are just exeptions. Jeanne Calment reputedly smoked for 80+ years - but does this prove that smoking isn't bad? Science is not based on case studies or few correlations or few experimental studies.


  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#135 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 12 May 2014 - 04:23 PM

You said that smoking prevalence isn't connected to average longevity which implicates that smoking is not as unhealthy as the doctors tell us, however your comparison is completely irrelevant - like correlating number of pirates and global temperature. There is enough evidence that smoking is bad for health. There may not be a lot of experimental studies in human about this, since it wouldn't be ethical to do, but there are a lot of other indices (longitudinal studies, animal studies) which are hard to refute as a whole. It's similar to global warming debate - you can argue that there is no global warning since there are some glaciers that aren't melting or are even increasing, but there is enough other evidence for global warming that these are just exeptions. Jeanne Calment reputedly smoked for 80+ years - but does this prove that smoking isn't bad? Science is not based on case studies or few correlations or few experimental studies.

 

If you're going to quote, me, don't change my words--A country's longevity doesn't seem to hinge on how much smoking its citizens do. And any inference is purely your own. As for global warming, that's a bit far afield. A more relevant example is radon exposure. Everyone believes that radon is bad for you, and the belief is that the more radon, the worse it is. So when the following paper was published, people didn't want to believe it. It was heresy.

 

A test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis.

Attached Files


Edited by Turnbuckle, 12 May 2014 - 05:12 PM.


#136 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 13 May 2014 - 02:09 PM

I still don't see, why correlating longevity by country with smoking prevalence would be meaningful. It is true that inference is my own, but just the fact that you correlated these variables indicates that you find this correlation meaningful.



#137 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 21 April 2015 - 03:19 AM

 

 

People read the heading of this thread!
I'll repeat it here: "...what should a take to nullify harm?"
This same arguement about wether smoking is good for you has been agrued to death elsewhere on this forum.
While everybody loves a good agruement; WTF not do so in the appropriate thread!?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------






N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) and glutathione (GSH): Antioxidant and chemopreventive properties, with special reference to lung cancer

http://onlinelibrary...590805/abstract


"...The antimutagenic and anticarcinogenic properties of NAC could be ascribed to multiple protective mechanisms, such as NAC nucleophilicity, antioxidant activity, its ability to act as a precursor of intracellular reduced GSH, modulation of detoxification, and DNA repair processes. On these grounds, NAC has emerged as a most promising cancer chemopreventive agent..."


The effects of phenethyl isothiocyanate, N-acetylcysteine and green tea on tobacco smoke-induced lung tumors in strain A/J mice.
http://carcin.oxford...9/10/1789.short



Has anybody considered the mechanism of delivery for these chemicals?

I was thinking of buying some sort of vaporizer so I can directly inhale curcumin or NAC or green tea extract directly into my lungs.

It seems like I would get more cellular coverage by hitting the potentially damaged cells (former smoker of about 2 years) from both the bloodstream and the inhaled vapors.

I'm thinking of buying this: http://www.wired.com...012/12/le-whaf/

to help fix my lungs up.

 


You can diy that for $10 on ebay and some stuff lying around your house. The idea is note worthy though. Perhaps there is a way to de-tar the lungs and recover capacity?

 

Not sure if it was mentioned and I don't want to forget to mention it... But I did read somewhere that vaporising curcumin was carcinogenic... sorry no study....



#138 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 21 April 2015 - 03:28 AM

 

Smoking depletes selenium, so supplementing or eating a few brazil nuts will counter this effect.


Brazil nuts are not a very good way to get selenium, because the content is so variable. You can overdose pretty easily. They may also contain radium. I'd use a reasonable dose supplement, or just rely on multi which probably has enough.

 

Something else I've learned since originally discussing this topic is that chelated minerals are more effective at getting into tissues than their elemental counterparts. A chelated mineral complex might be the best source of selenium. 

 

Elemental minerals in most daily vitamins are probably the reason their use correlates to higher mortality rates as elementals strain the kidneys and maybe the liver IIRC. I use an albion mineral complex.



#139 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 21 April 2015 - 03:35 AM

A Multivitamin quite likely won't have enough, as like I just said smoking depletes selenium, ie uses it up faster than normal non-smokers. So you need more than a non-smoker, more than the RDA. I would think 200ug is a good amount to take.

I've also read that vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is good a stopping smoking-related free-radical damage, when a few grams are taken a day.

Vitamin C doses should be taken in 500 -1000mg and spaced out throughout the day and not exceed 4 grams. Excessive Vit C intake can also cause immune dependencies, so it's a habit you'll have to keep or at least be aware that you'll be more likely to get sick or have lowered immune responses for a time after discontinuing Vit C use. This applies to those taking 1 gram or more a day. Larger doses of C should also be taken with bioflavanoids to prevent damage to the eyes.


  • Needs references x 1

#140 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 21 April 2015 - 03:59 AM

 

I just stopped smoking 3 days ago. Started after 10 years of non-smoking. Been smoking a pack a day for about 8 weeks. I was really interested in this thread. Hoping to get some information on how to accelerate the 'detoxification' or minimise neg. effects of this recent binge. Taking activated charcoal, vitamin e + c (2g). Really want to get any and all of this shit out of my body even if the evidence is slim I find doing this 'cleansing' has a very positive psychological effect and reinforces my commitment to never smoke again.


The best way to minimize the effects would be to stop the binge, but you probably already know that. What kind of E are you using? If it's alpha tocopherol, I'd stop using it- it might make things worse instead of better. If you're going to use E, it should be mixed tocopherols. I'd look at c60-olive oil. Also consider LexLux's advice.

 

I stopped using tocopherols all together, or at least in very small comparative amounts to tocotrienols. It seems all the benefits can be had with tocotrienols as well as cancer prevention, increased klotho, and a 6% IQ increase with none of the bad stuff. I wonder how hard it would be to re-engineer foods to produce tocotrienols instead of tocopherols...



#141 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,148 posts
  • 159

Posted 21 April 2015 - 03:15 PM

 

 

 

People read the heading of this thread!
I'll repeat it here: "...what should a take to nullify harm?"
This same arguement about wether smoking is good for you has been agrued to death elsewhere on this forum.
While everybody loves a good agruement; WTF not do so in the appropriate thread!?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------






N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) and glutathione (GSH): Antioxidant and chemopreventive properties, with special reference to lung cancer

http://onlinelibrary...590805/abstract


"...The antimutagenic and anticarcinogenic properties of NAC could be ascribed to multiple protective mechanisms, such as NAC nucleophilicity, antioxidant activity, its ability to act as a precursor of intracellular reduced GSH, modulation of detoxification, and DNA repair processes. On these grounds, NAC has emerged as a most promising cancer chemopreventive agent..."


The effects of phenethyl isothiocyanate, N-acetylcysteine and green tea on tobacco smoke-induced lung tumors in strain A/J mice.
http://carcin.oxford...9/10/1789.short



Has anybody considered the mechanism of delivery for these chemicals?

I was thinking of buying some sort of vaporizer so I can directly inhale curcumin or NAC or green tea extract directly into my lungs.

It seems like I would get more cellular coverage by hitting the potentially damaged cells (former smoker of about 2 years) from both the bloodstream and the inhaled vapors.

I'm thinking of buying this: http://www.wired.com...012/12/le-whaf/

to help fix my lungs up.

 


You can diy that for $10 on ebay and some stuff lying around your house. The idea is note worthy though. Perhaps there is a way to de-tar the lungs and recover capacity?

 

Not sure if it was mentioned and I don't want to forget to mention it... But I did read somewhere that vaporising curcumin was carcinogenic... sorry no study....

 

 

There is one study on transgenic mice by S. Barnes who showed that curcumin could be a tumor promoter. Those mice are genetically fucked up so it's unclear if that is relevant to humans.



#142 Juangalt

  • Guest
  • 67 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Dublin, California

Posted 21 April 2015 - 03:52 PM

don't be stupid, read about cognitive dissonance, stop smoking and use swedish (!) snus (or whatever suits you, but IMO snus is the best form of smokeless tobbaco). Why I don't believe what f.v.c. is saying: chewing tobbaco contains a lot of nitrosamines and is carcinogenic, OTOH snus contains very small amount of nitrosamines (although I don't know anything about radioactives) and is much less (99% less) carcinogenic. And: other forms of smoke are also carcinogenic (like burning wood, coal whatever). And why wouldn't you stop smoking - what is so good about smoking that you can't achieve with smokeless tobbaco?

 

Cigarettes are much more enjoyable than any alternative I've tried. I was a pack-a-day smoker for 4 years. I tried all the alternatives, e-cig, snus, patches, gum. Nothing replaces the feeling, though all will take the edge off the craving to smoke.

 

To address the original poster's point, even if I didn't get cancer, the deleterious effects of smoking (for me) were pronounced. I was lethargic and I ended up gaining weight (probably because cigarettes were satisfying some of the pathways normally satisfied by exercise, or because it negatively affected my ability to exercise). I noticed a lot of skin aging as well, but I admit it could have been natural or as a result of the weight gain and general poor health. Quitting took about 2 years of trying, but it was the best thing I ever did.



#143 bosharpe

  • Guest
  • 239 posts
  • 10
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:07 AM

I wonder how many cigs you could get away with before you would see the effects on the skin. What if you smoked twice a year. I would think that wouldn't make much of a difference.



#144 Sith

  • Guest
  • 161 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Birmingham

Posted 24 July 2016 - 12:16 PM

The intelligent smoker: what an oxymoron! 


  • Unfriendly x 1

#145 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 24 July 2016 - 05:40 PM

The intelligent smoker: what an oxymoron! 

 

einstein_smoking_by_justagamer163-d6uccn

 

Fig-1-RA-Fisher-smoking-a-pipe-1956.png

 

 

R.A. Fisher -- One of greatest 20th century mathematicians, founder of scientific statistics.

 


Edited by nightlight, 24 July 2016 - 05:46 PM.

  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#146 Sith

  • Guest
  • 161 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Birmingham

Posted 28 July 2016 - 02:54 PM

 

The intelligent smoker: what an oxymoron! 

 

einstein_smoking_by_justagamer163-d6uccn

 

Fig-1-RA-Fisher-smoking-a-pipe-1956.png

 

 

R.A. Fisher -- One of greatest 20th century mathematicians, founder of scientific statistics.

 

 

I don't think you understood the context of my phrase. Modern day intellectual-types are much more likely to not smoke because they are now aware of the negative side effects of smoking; hence the oxymoron. 

 

People looking for life extension and wanting to smoke... they're wasting their time. 


  • Needs references x 1

#147 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 28 July 2016 - 03:22 PM


I don't think you understood the context of my phrase. Modern day intellectual-types are much more likely to not smoke because they are now aware of the negative side effects of smoking; hence the oxymoron. 

 

It's well educated people that smoke less, since education is a marker for social programmability.

 

Since antismoking propaganda (pseudo-science) is optimized for the thick middle section of the IQ Bell Curve where the most of the targets are, the thin low and high tails of the IQ Bell Curve are less susceptible to such indoctrination. At the low end, some of these folks don't care or fully grasp the message, or are natural risk takers, but largely they use it as a poor man's medicine to treat chronic inflammatory & autoimmune diseases (as my earlier post in this thread illustrates in case of rheumatoid arthritis), or to boost their detox rate due to life hardships (smoking doubles catalase and SOD, and increases glutathione by 80%, see the cited thread), or as a potent nootropic (MAOI B, plus additional dopaminergic and cholinergic effects), "the most reliable cognitive en­hancer that we currently have". At the high IQ end, they know better, easily seeing through the pseudo-scientific scam.


  • Agree x 2
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • like x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#148 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 29 July 2016 - 10:33 AM

Just a passing thought as I see this title again.... In order to  nullify harm, it would be best if you used someone else's lungs :D 

 

On a more serious note, sublingual nicotine should be a better way to consume nicotine and is much cheaper and potentially safer than vaping. 


  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

#149 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 29 July 2016 - 10:38 AM

 

 

The intelligent smoker: what an oxymoron! 

 

einstein_smoking_by_justagamer163-d6uccn

 

Fig-1-RA-Fisher-smoking-a-pipe-1956.png

 

 

R.A. Fisher -- One of greatest 20th century mathematicians, founder of scientific statistics.

 

 

I don't think you understood the context of my phrase. Modern day intellectual-types are much more likely to not smoke because they are now aware of the negative side effects of smoking; hence the oxymoron. 

 

People looking for life extension and wanting to smoke... they're wasting their time. 

 

 

Pipe smokers don't generally inhale, and tobacco companies would pay ppl to be in photos using their products... that's why these photos look like advertising art... b/c they are... RA Fisher and Einstein were apparently corrupt enough to take bribes...


Edited by YOLF, 29 July 2016 - 12:36 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#150 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,148 posts
  • 159

Posted 29 July 2016 - 11:41 AM

 

The Effect of Turmeric (Curcuma Domestica Val.) Extract on the Histopathological Lesions of Lung Induced by Cigarette Smokes in Wistar Rats
laelatul Rahmad, Nida Ul Milah, Agapietta Kusumawardani, Novi Herliyani, Kurniati Sarwendah, Bambang Sutrisno, Hastari Wuryastuti, R Wasito

Abstract

This present study is aimed to observe and determine the effects of turmeric (Curcuma domestica Val.) extract administration towards the cytotoxicity effect of cigarette smokes in the lungs of Wistar rats. Twenty Wistar rats, male, 3 months old, were used and divided randomly into four groups, of five each. Group I is as a control (K I), Group II was given 9 cigarettes/day without turmeric extract administration (K II), Group III given
turmeric extract 1 ml 0.25%/day (K III) and Group IV was given 9 cigarettes/day and turmeric extract 0.25%/day (K IV) for 60 days. At the end of the present study, all rats were necropsied and organs, particularly the lungs were collected, processed histopatologically and stained routenely with hematoxilyn eosin. The results indicated that the lungs had macrophages infiltration in the septal alveoli and hyperplasia of bronchial associated lymphoid
tissue (K II). Whereas, the lungs in the rats in Groups K I, K III and K IV were still within the normal limits. It is concluded, that turmeric extract may have a potential anti
pulmonary cytotoxity effect due to cigarette smoke.

http://jurnal.ugm.ac...ticle/view/8109

 

I think it's quite possible to negate some of the harm from smoking, I've seen plenty of trials on Pubmed where they were able to negate some portion of the harm with stuff like green tea, curcumin, mito-targeted antioxidants and so on. If you look for trials looking at what can be done to protect against airborne pollution you can find plenty more. Humans with low levels of IGF-1 also seem to be less at risk in general so smokers should probably practice IF, true fasting, ketogenic diet and HIT exercise.


  • Agree x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: tobacco, carbon monoxide, carcinogens, lungs, nicotine, mucus elimination

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users