Smoking is... good?

[Gawan]

Hi rana, seeing as this is your first post on the forum, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief intro about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc.

Smoking is injurious to health. It ruins the respiratory system of the body.

Yes, that this is what almost everyone says nowadays, but is it really true for everyone? And did you follow this topic already?

 

[SunEterna]

Third hand-smoke

Mice exposed to household fabrics contaminated with third-hand tobacco smoke showed changes in biological markers of health after only one month, a recent study found. After six months, the mice showed evidence of liver damage and insulin resistance, symptoms which usually precede the development of type 2 diabetes.

A landmark study in 2011 by Georg Matt of San Diego State University showed that nicotine levels were still elevated in house dust in non-smokers’ homes two months after the previous smoking tenants vacated. Even infants in a neonatal intensive-care unit in the US, with a strict no-smoking policy, had chemical markers of tobacco exposure in their urine after a visit from a parent who smoked.

The new mouse model study investigated the effects of third-hand smoke exposure over time on animal health (the first study to do so). The researchers, from the University of California, Riverside, used a smoking machine to create third-hand smoke contaminated household fabrics in mice cages, including curtain material, upholstery and carpet. Once the fabrics showed levels likely to be found in smokers homes, the mice were placed in the cage and monitored over a period of six months.
After just one month, the mice showed changes in markers of health in the blood serum, liver and brain tissues. The range and severity of the changes on the health of mice got progressively worse the longer they were exposed.


After four months, the mice showed increases in factors related to oxidative stress and liver damage. Fasting glucose and insulin levels increased with third-hand smoke exposure and, after four months, the mice already had a increased risk of type 2 diabetes.


The speed at which third-hand smoke residues cause measurable health effects in the mice is surprising. How the health effects observed in mice translate to humans, though, remains an open question.

Tobacco-smoke residue that lingers in furniture, curtains and house dust can still be harmful

What to think about this? Interesting in the way of accumulation of substances.

 

[flashgordonv]

First, read this SOTT article for some background.

The epidemic of junk science in tobacco smoking research -- Sott.net

Second, go to the websites and read the research papers. You will not they are full of the following words - suggest, could, might, may. This is a clear indication that they have actually discovered nothing concrete.otherwise the language would be much stronger and certain. The old adage for research is correlation does not prove causation.

 

[mugatea]

A: Excites neurotransmitters. You require less sleep.
Q: Is this true for everyone?
A: No.
Q: (A) How much nicotine is necessary?
A: 100 mg per day.
Q: (A) Can it be in pill form?
A: Cigarettes infuse it to brain tissues most effectively.

I'm curious about the 100mg a day. This seems a lot. I'm currently smoking American Spirit at the moment till I have the money to move over to a less radioactive organic brand. The AS pack doesnt show nicotine content but a pack of Golden Virginia I have lying around does and it says the amount of nicotine in a roll up is about 1mg (more or less depending on size of roll up). That's 100 rollies a day to get 100mg which seems a lot of smoking, no?

 

[Altair]

I'm curious about the 100mg a day. This seems a lot. I'm currently smoking American Spirit at the moment till I have the money to move over to a less radioactive organic brand. The AS pack doesnt show nicotine content but a pack of Golden Virginia I have lying around does and it says the amount of nicotine in a roll up is about 1mg (more or less depending on size of roll up). That's 100 rollies a day to get 100mg which seems a lot of smoking, no?

Keep in mind that it was probably a personal advice which might not apply to everyone.

 

[Rhythmik]

I'm debating with a friend over this, who works in the medical field. How would you dispute this?

"If you require empirical evidence, some people who are smokers develop COPD and continue to smoke in spite of it having already affected their lungs. And stage-4 lung cancer is often an inevitability, if you don't quit. A metastasis to the brain from their lungs can occur in such cases where their nervous system function gets impaired including lucidity, and their motor activity suffers. If you've devloped a secondary in your brain, you're probably at a terminal stage of cancer with few months to live.

In India I did run into many people who did not smoke but chewed tobacco leaves instead. People with oral cancer or tongue cancer often have no other risk factor than tobacco usage.

So ask yourself this. Is belief in the potential benefits of smoking and continued smoking or tobacco usage worth the risk of end stage of life malignancy or crippling illnesses? If there is overwhelming correlation, it is causation. I'll give your claims the benefit of the doubt. If you can explain to me why over 75% of people with these illnesses, specifically lung cancer, are smokers? I understand you might have the desire to smoke. But it is harmful to condone it as a habit when there is a potential risk to life. Is tobacco really worth it? The benefits you seem to cite in no way make up for its long-term detrimental effects on the body."

 

[Cosmos]

First off I would say that smoking a normal brand with all kinds of additives in it might not be the same as smoking organic tobacco with much less artificial additives added to them.

The other point I would make here is that it is pretty much impossible to argue with people about the badness of smoking tobacco, especially if they fully believe it (as most people do). This is a topic that is so hard to grasp, even for people that are into "alternative stuff", that it almost amounts to one of the most successful propaganda-campaigns that was ever undertaken globally.

People who think differently there, are in the absolut minority. The other point that might be of interest, is the idea of causation and what Daniel Kahnemann for example explains in his book "Thinking Fast and Slow". It is very easy to find causations in scientific studies that are in fact not causations at all, since there are many variables that are easily overlooked.

There are also many biases to remember that Kahnemann brings up in his book. We also tend to find patterns were there are none since we already have preconceived notions about things.

 

[mrtn]

If I look at these 'warning' pictures they have to put on the tobacco packages here in the EU (rotten teeth, deformed bodies, wounds etc.) it looks to me that these people really have a lot of other problems in general, including psychological ones. Smoking might just be a helpful stress relief for people under hard life circumstances, people who grew up in destructive environments, who only learned to destroy themself instead of improving their life, who never heard of nutritional or health related aspects. Those rotten teeth look like from a homeless person who only lives on sugar and alcohol. If I had such a life I would probably be a smoker too. And the gray lungs they depict are just fantasy. A physician once said that in an autopsy you can't tell if someone was a smoker or just lived near a busy road.

 

[Gawan]

It is hard if not impossible and even worth it to dispute with your friend about this topic - as Pashalis already stated. Your friend made already up his mind and no matter what facts you may bring up, he cannot understand them and most likely would dismiss them. The other question that comes to my mind - and I may be wrong - would you like to dispute with him, because you like to be right? To be right is a very strong feeling and if it would be me, I personally would have this tendency to be right and most often I dismiss it then and let the person be and in their beliefs. Unless the person is really asking, and if this person is asking is then another topic of it's own .

 

[Chu]

Yes, is your friend really interested in a proper debate, or are you each trying to be right? If it's the latter and you value the friendship more than being right, then I would drop it if I were you. IF he really is interested in the science (but he really doesn't sound like he wants to go there), you could share this with him:

and there are a lot of articles on SOTT as well, quoting scientific papers which you can dig up.

As for his arguments, it seems to me that the reason you ask, is because it's not really clear for you. Maybe this can help:

I'm debating with a friend over this, who works in the medical field. How would you dispute this?

"If you require empirical evidence, some people who are smokers develop COPD and continue to smoke in spite of it having already affected their lungs. And stage-4 lung cancer is often an inevitability, if you don't quit. A metastasis to the brain from their lungs can occur in such cases where their nervous system function gets impaired including lucidity, and their motor activity suffers. If you've devloped a secondary in your brain, you're probably at a terminal stage of cancer with few months to live.

The key word here is "some". How many? And what is the percentage of smokers that develop COPD compared to non-smokers who do? Has causation really be established?

In India I did run into many people who did not smoke but chewed tobacco leaves instead. People with oral cancer or tongue cancer often have no other risk factor than tobacco usage.

No causation. Did the people he run into in India all had oral or tongue cancer?
Saying that those who do, have no other risk factor, is missing the point that commercial cigarettes DO contain a lot of toxic ingredients (and so do fumes from vehicles, pollution overall, and a lot of the food and household products we consume). That's a risk factor right there for every citizen of the world. But that does not equate with the effects of pure tobacco.

So ask yourself this. Is belief in the potential benefits of smoking and continued smoking or tobacco usage worth the risk of end stage of life malignancy or crippling illnesses? If there is overwhelming correlation, it is causation. I'll give your claims the benefit of the doubt. If you can explain to me why over 75% of people with these illnesses, specifically lung cancer, are smokers? I understand you might have the desire to smoke. But it is harmful to condone it as a habit when there is a potential risk to life. Is tobacco really worth it? The benefits you seem to cite in no way make up for its long-term detrimental effects on the body."

Where do those statistics (the 75%) come from? What type of tobacco did those people smoke? And where is the real causation? He's affirming that there is, but hasn't proven it. What about the tons of papers that prove all the contrary, but are often suppressed (there you get a bit too "conspiratorial", and most people will just think you are crazy...)

When people don't have a solid argument, they also resort to some paramoralistic statements. ("it is harmful to condone it as a habit when there is a potential risk to life.") They try to convince you that you are doing something "evil" when you aren't. And right there I think is the reason why it's pointless to engage in a debate with this person.

 

[mugatea]

He has to want to know. You can't argue with someone who isn't interested in changing their mind. Anyway, is there a bigger sacred cow than smoking not being a killer? I doubt it. If it was me I'd just casually mention that you've learnt that there's a lot of junk science against tobacco and you can share the videos and links with him should he be interested and then just leave it at that. I've tried the arguing in the past. Pointless and people really can get offended by it.

 

[Nienna]

Rhythm, this is for your benefit if you want to learn more about how smoking (non-commercial tobacco) can be beneficial and how much disinfo is being put out there by scientists who are paid to show that it is bad for a person. As Chu said, there are quite a few articles on SOTT that cover this subject. There are 4 articles that, in my opinion, are excellent:

Let's All Light Up! -- Sott.net

The epidemic of junk science in tobacco smoking research -- Sott.net

A comprehensive review of the many health benefits of smoking Tobacco -- Sott.net

Tobacco - Smokin' the propaganda peddlers -- Sott.net

They are long, but well worth the read for those who are truly interested.

Also, as was already said, trying to show someone who is not really interested in finding the truth is a waste of time and energy.

 

[SunEterna]

Hello!
Thanks for your answer!
I don't want to say that tobacco is evil. I just wanted to share my experience.
I don't know why i can not bear tobacco smoke anymore! It hurts my throat and my nose, even long after the smoke is gone...
I share this article to find a cause to my problem.
It's like my body doesn't want to have something to do with tobacco smoke anymore.
I stopped smoking 2 years ago - because i could not balance myself with it and also because of throat pain - and, 1 year after that, this reaction and feeling started to be.
Do somebody here has the same 'problem'?
I can not escape smoke because my girl smoke in the kitchen and in the car. :)
Thank you in advance.
Well, peace to you. :)

 

[SunEterna]

Protein found in tobacco plant has potential to fight life-threatening infectious diseases
May 17, 2018, La Trobe University

A team of scientists from Melbourne's La Trobe University has shown a protein found in a tobacco plant has the potential to fight life-threatening infectious diseases.

The scientific discovery, published in the prestigious journal Nature Communications, could lead to the development of a new class of antibiotics and meet the challenge of rising antibiotic resistance.

Dr. Mark Hulett and Dr. Marc Kvansakul from the La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science said their team had demonstrated the peptide NaD1 found in the flowers of the ornamental tobacco plant Nicotiana alata has infection-busting qualities.

"Infectious diseases are a major global health problem, accounting for more than one in eight deaths and mortality rates are predicted to skyrocket over the next 30 years," Dr. Hulett said.

"Antibiotic resistance at the current rate will eventually lead to the exhaustion of effective long-term drug options. It's imperative we develop new antibiotic treatments."

Using the power of the Australian Synchrotron, the team led by Dr. Hulett and Dr. Kvansakul have shown in atomic detail how the tobacco plant peptide can target and destroy the micro-organism responsible for a dangerous fungal infection.

The peptide perforates the parachute-like outer layer of Candida albicans cells, ripping them apart and causing them to explode and die.

"They act in a different way to existing antibiotics and allow us to explore new ways of fighting infections.

"It's an exciting discovery that could be harnessed to develop a new class of life-saving antimicrobial therapy to treat a range of infectious diseases, including multidrug-resistant golden staph, and viral infections such as HIV, Zika virus, Dengue and Murray River Encephalitis."

In 2014, Dr. Hulett and Dr. Kvansakul found NaD1 could also be effective in killing cancer cells.

Damn it, that's a medecine! x)

 

[Rhythmik]

Thank you everyone for your replies.
I understand how difficult or at times impossible it is to argue for the benefits of tobacco.
I don't care if I'm "right" or not but I'm going to do my best to give a rational argument and hopefully others reading will listen or be inspired to do their own research.