truth seeker
The Living Force
The direct link is the one above. The search is for the specific part of the page. It should be almost at the very bottom of the page just under this part:Pashalis said:
It's not specifically the C's transcript but research by Dr. Narby. Let me know if you need any more help finding it.
Added: does your computer have a control f (find) option? That's what you use to search the word Amazon.
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
truth seeker said:
I must have confused the bit by Narby with something the C's said.
truth seeker
The Living Force
Maybe not. That's the closest I could find for now though.Mr. Premise said:
Stranger
Jedi
For all who are not frequent readers of Sott I take the liberty to recommend this fascinating article about tobacco, lung cancer and radiation poisoning:
Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
In addition, there is the free book "In Defense of Smokers", in which the author Lauren A. Colby writes about those animal studies in chapter 9 that never confirmed the today widely accepted lie: smoking causes lung cancer.
Even more, like Joe Vialls he shows that tobacco is a powerful tool to fight against the harm of inhaled radiation particles.
[quote author=chapter 9 "Smoking Animals"]Remember the smoking beagles? Movietone News, the old newsreel company, featured a piece on these cute little dogs, shot some time in the 1950's or 60's. It's sometimes re-run on late night TV, even today.
Actually, the experiment was rather cruel (although not nearly so much so as later ones). The beagles were strapped side-by-side to a long bench, in a rather unnatural upright position. They were fitted with face masks, which forced them to inhale and exhale smoke from lighted cigarettes. A mechanical device lit a new cigarette and dropped it into the air line, as soon as an old one was used up. Although the Surgeon General later claimed that the smoking machines did not force animals to inhale and exhale deeply, the newsreel footage sure made it look as if the dogs were inhaling and exhaling very deeply.
It was, perhaps, the smoking Beagles that were referred to in the 1964 SG's Report, when the Committee made the observation that with the "possible exception of dogs", the animal experiments had all failed to induce lung cancers. Whatever the case, in the 1971 Report, the Surgeon General conceded that the experiments with dogs, using smoking machines, had failed. However, also in the 1971 Report, the SG described a new experiment, conducted by a government physician, Oscar Auerbach, and others, in which the Beagles were forced to smoke in what the SG described as a "more natural" manner.
Specifically, Auerbach claimed to have slit the throats of 78 Beagles and inserted tracheotomies. He claimed that he had been able to train the dogs to smoke cigarettes through those tracheotomies. A table was presented, showing the number of dogs that managed to survive for 875 days, smoking either regular cigarettes or filter tips or no cigarettes at all. Amongst the 8 controls who did not smoke, there were no deaths. Among the smokers, however, there were 24 deaths from various causes, variously listed as "aspiration of food", lung fibrosis, etc. Although Auerbach did not claim that any of the dogs died from lung cancer, he did in fact claim that 2 of the animals, who smoked non-filter cigarettes, had developed early invasive squamous cell carcinoma in the bronchi.
Auerbach's experiment was again described and the table again presented in the 1977 SG's Report (which was just a reprint of portions of earlier reports). In the 1982 Report, however, the SG described Auerbach's experiment again but this time the SG remarked that Auerbach's "observation has not been repeated so far".
When a scientist says that an observation has not been repeated, it is a polite way of saying that the initial experiment may have been fraudulent. It would be nice to know why Auerbach's experiment was not replicated. Were others unable to train Beagles to smoke through tracheotomies, or were others able to do so, but no harm was done to the dogs? We do not know and the SG does not tell us.
At page 185 of the 1982 Report, there is a general discussion of the difficulties experienced in trying to induce cancer in laboratory animals by forcing them to inhale smoke. We are told that there's too much carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke to allow for continuous exposure, so that inhaling machines must be used. But, we are told, "laboratory animals are not willing to inhale aerosols very deeply and are especially reluctant to inhale tobacco smoke. Rhesus monkeys and baboons have been trained to smoke cigarettes. This approach does not yield neoplasms [cancers] because of insufficient exposure time and because of the tendency of the animals to puff rather than to inhale". Maybe so, but the old newsreel pictures of the smoking Beagles surely seemed to show them inhaling, deeply!
Also, at pages 185 and 186 of the 1982 Report, there is a description of some failed experiments with Golden hamsters, explaining why tobacco smoke had failed to induce lung tumors. Never-the-less, interleaved into all of these discussions of failures, there is a description of an experiment which, allegedly, succeeded. At page 185, we are told that in 1980 experimenters at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories, using a newly developed "advanced inhalation device" were able to induce tumors of the "respiratory tract" in rats. The Report states that "...seven of the 80 smoke exposed rats had tumors.." and that one of 30 "sham exposed rats" had tumors 29 .
Apparently, the "advanced inhalation device" referred to by the SG is the "Maddox-ornl smoking machine". It is referred to in an article by A.P. Wehner, et al., which appeared in 1981 in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology at pages 1-17. There, the authors describe an experiment in which 80 female rat were forced to consume 8 cigarettes per day, seven days per week, for 2 years. One of the rats developed a carcinoma of the lung.
Before getting too excited about these experiments, however, we need to consider this: the largest known rats weigh no more than an average of one pound. Forcing a one pound rat to smoke 8 cigarettes per day is the equivalent of forcing a 160 pound human to smoke 1280 cigarettes per day (64 packs). Such experiments are not realistic and in no way replicate exposure to ordinary tobacco smoke. Given the enormous concentrations of smoke used by the experimenters, it is wonder that any of the animals even survived the ordeal; yet, they did, and only a small percentage developed tumors.
Strangely, despite exhaustive research in medical databases, I have been unable to find any additional rat experiments (or experiments with any other animals) conducted in the years since 1980, which replicate the above reported experiments. A 1989 article in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 30 , describes an experiment in which rats of both sexes were forced to inhale cigarette smoke in high concentrations for 22 weeks. The rats were then killed, and investigations made to determine the effect of the smoke on the level of "DNA adducts". The experimenters concluded that "inhaled cigarette smoke induces lung DNA adducts which may play an important role in cigarette smoke-induced lung carcinogenesis" (emphasis mine). But the experimenters stopped short of claiming that the smoke actually induced any tumors.
A report of a similar experiment with rats forced to smoke for 8 weeks appears in 1985 in the Journal, Cancer Research 31 . Here again, however, the researchers did not claim that the smoke did the animals any direct harm. They claimed, instead, that the smoke reduced the level of production of cytotoxin, a substance thought to be toxic to certain types of tumor cells. My question is simply this: why haven't the 1980-81 rat experiments been repeated? Was there something wrong with them? Did the researchers conclude that because of the extremely high concentrations of smoke given to the animals, and the large number of animals that were unharmed, the experiments failed to prove their point? Or was there some other reason? I'm afraid I don't have the answers.
In recent years, new smoking machines have been devised that subject rats to second hand smoke. In an article in the May 28, 1994 issue of The Los Angeles Times, writer Sheryl Stolberg describes experiments that have been going on for three years, exposing rats to continuous concentrations of smoke as high as 4,000 micrograms per cubic meter, concentrations many times the concentrations encountered in the real world, even in times of brief exposure, e.g., bars. Bottom line: no significant harm to the animals has been shown, although one researcher at UC (Davis) claims a 6% reduction in birth weight for the offspring of the exposed animals.
In earlier versions of this book, I left the subject of the animal inhalation experiments with unanswered questions. It appeared that there had been two experiments - never repeated - one of which induced a single carcinoma in a rat, and other of which supposedly induced "tumors" in a very small percentage of rats. In 1998, however, an event took place which enables me to resolve the unanswered questions. In that year, the State of Minnesota brought a lawsuit against tobacco companies to recover damages to the State, allegedly caused by smoking. The case was settled before any judgment could be rendered, but not before a few trial sessions were held.
At these sessions, testimony was taken from experts for both the plaintiff (the State) and the Defendants (the tobacco companies). Experts for both sides agreed that, despite many, many animal inhalation experiments over a period of many years, all of the experiments had failed, i.e., nobody has ever been able to demonstrate, through animal experiments, that inhaling tobacco smoke - no matter in what quantities or concentrations - causes lung cancer. These failures are powerful evidence, indeed. If, as alleged, smoking causes lung cancer, training or forcing animals to smoke should produce lung cancers. It doesn't.
[...]
Anyway, in the Norwegian study, investigators induced pneumonitis (lung inflammation) in rats by exposing the animals to radiation. The animals were then exposed to tobacco smoke, and it was shown that the smoke actually suppressed the inflammation in the lungs. In short, smoking is good for you if you have pneumonitis (I guess)
[...][/quote]
Added: Thanks for bringing this on sott!
Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
In addition, there is the free book "In Defense of Smokers", in which the author Lauren A. Colby writes about those animal studies in chapter 9 that never confirmed the today widely accepted lie: smoking causes lung cancer.
Even more, like Joe Vialls he shows that tobacco is a powerful tool to fight against the harm of inhaled radiation particles.
[quote author=chapter 9 "Smoking Animals"]Remember the smoking beagles? Movietone News, the old newsreel company, featured a piece on these cute little dogs, shot some time in the 1950's or 60's. It's sometimes re-run on late night TV, even today.
Actually, the experiment was rather cruel (although not nearly so much so as later ones). The beagles were strapped side-by-side to a long bench, in a rather unnatural upright position. They were fitted with face masks, which forced them to inhale and exhale smoke from lighted cigarettes. A mechanical device lit a new cigarette and dropped it into the air line, as soon as an old one was used up. Although the Surgeon General later claimed that the smoking machines did not force animals to inhale and exhale deeply, the newsreel footage sure made it look as if the dogs were inhaling and exhaling very deeply.
It was, perhaps, the smoking Beagles that were referred to in the 1964 SG's Report, when the Committee made the observation that with the "possible exception of dogs", the animal experiments had all failed to induce lung cancers. Whatever the case, in the 1971 Report, the Surgeon General conceded that the experiments with dogs, using smoking machines, had failed. However, also in the 1971 Report, the SG described a new experiment, conducted by a government physician, Oscar Auerbach, and others, in which the Beagles were forced to smoke in what the SG described as a "more natural" manner.
Specifically, Auerbach claimed to have slit the throats of 78 Beagles and inserted tracheotomies. He claimed that he had been able to train the dogs to smoke cigarettes through those tracheotomies. A table was presented, showing the number of dogs that managed to survive for 875 days, smoking either regular cigarettes or filter tips or no cigarettes at all. Amongst the 8 controls who did not smoke, there were no deaths. Among the smokers, however, there were 24 deaths from various causes, variously listed as "aspiration of food", lung fibrosis, etc. Although Auerbach did not claim that any of the dogs died from lung cancer, he did in fact claim that 2 of the animals, who smoked non-filter cigarettes, had developed early invasive squamous cell carcinoma in the bronchi.
Auerbach's experiment was again described and the table again presented in the 1977 SG's Report (which was just a reprint of portions of earlier reports). In the 1982 Report, however, the SG described Auerbach's experiment again but this time the SG remarked that Auerbach's "observation has not been repeated so far".
When a scientist says that an observation has not been repeated, it is a polite way of saying that the initial experiment may have been fraudulent. It would be nice to know why Auerbach's experiment was not replicated. Were others unable to train Beagles to smoke through tracheotomies, or were others able to do so, but no harm was done to the dogs? We do not know and the SG does not tell us.
At page 185 of the 1982 Report, there is a general discussion of the difficulties experienced in trying to induce cancer in laboratory animals by forcing them to inhale smoke. We are told that there's too much carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke to allow for continuous exposure, so that inhaling machines must be used. But, we are told, "laboratory animals are not willing to inhale aerosols very deeply and are especially reluctant to inhale tobacco smoke. Rhesus monkeys and baboons have been trained to smoke cigarettes. This approach does not yield neoplasms [cancers] because of insufficient exposure time and because of the tendency of the animals to puff rather than to inhale". Maybe so, but the old newsreel pictures of the smoking Beagles surely seemed to show them inhaling, deeply!
Also, at pages 185 and 186 of the 1982 Report, there is a description of some failed experiments with Golden hamsters, explaining why tobacco smoke had failed to induce lung tumors. Never-the-less, interleaved into all of these discussions of failures, there is a description of an experiment which, allegedly, succeeded. At page 185, we are told that in 1980 experimenters at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories, using a newly developed "advanced inhalation device" were able to induce tumors of the "respiratory tract" in rats. The Report states that "...seven of the 80 smoke exposed rats had tumors.." and that one of 30 "sham exposed rats" had tumors 29 .
Apparently, the "advanced inhalation device" referred to by the SG is the "Maddox-ornl smoking machine". It is referred to in an article by A.P. Wehner, et al., which appeared in 1981 in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology at pages 1-17. There, the authors describe an experiment in which 80 female rat were forced to consume 8 cigarettes per day, seven days per week, for 2 years. One of the rats developed a carcinoma of the lung.
Before getting too excited about these experiments, however, we need to consider this: the largest known rats weigh no more than an average of one pound. Forcing a one pound rat to smoke 8 cigarettes per day is the equivalent of forcing a 160 pound human to smoke 1280 cigarettes per day (64 packs). Such experiments are not realistic and in no way replicate exposure to ordinary tobacco smoke. Given the enormous concentrations of smoke used by the experimenters, it is wonder that any of the animals even survived the ordeal; yet, they did, and only a small percentage developed tumors.
Strangely, despite exhaustive research in medical databases, I have been unable to find any additional rat experiments (or experiments with any other animals) conducted in the years since 1980, which replicate the above reported experiments. A 1989 article in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 30 , describes an experiment in which rats of both sexes were forced to inhale cigarette smoke in high concentrations for 22 weeks. The rats were then killed, and investigations made to determine the effect of the smoke on the level of "DNA adducts". The experimenters concluded that "inhaled cigarette smoke induces lung DNA adducts which may play an important role in cigarette smoke-induced lung carcinogenesis" (emphasis mine). But the experimenters stopped short of claiming that the smoke actually induced any tumors.
A report of a similar experiment with rats forced to smoke for 8 weeks appears in 1985 in the Journal, Cancer Research 31 . Here again, however, the researchers did not claim that the smoke did the animals any direct harm. They claimed, instead, that the smoke reduced the level of production of cytotoxin, a substance thought to be toxic to certain types of tumor cells. My question is simply this: why haven't the 1980-81 rat experiments been repeated? Was there something wrong with them? Did the researchers conclude that because of the extremely high concentrations of smoke given to the animals, and the large number of animals that were unharmed, the experiments failed to prove their point? Or was there some other reason? I'm afraid I don't have the answers.
In recent years, new smoking machines have been devised that subject rats to second hand smoke. In an article in the May 28, 1994 issue of The Los Angeles Times, writer Sheryl Stolberg describes experiments that have been going on for three years, exposing rats to continuous concentrations of smoke as high as 4,000 micrograms per cubic meter, concentrations many times the concentrations encountered in the real world, even in times of brief exposure, e.g., bars. Bottom line: no significant harm to the animals has been shown, although one researcher at UC (Davis) claims a 6% reduction in birth weight for the offspring of the exposed animals.
In earlier versions of this book, I left the subject of the animal inhalation experiments with unanswered questions. It appeared that there had been two experiments - never repeated - one of which induced a single carcinoma in a rat, and other of which supposedly induced "tumors" in a very small percentage of rats. In 1998, however, an event took place which enables me to resolve the unanswered questions. In that year, the State of Minnesota brought a lawsuit against tobacco companies to recover damages to the State, allegedly caused by smoking. The case was settled before any judgment could be rendered, but not before a few trial sessions were held.
At these sessions, testimony was taken from experts for both the plaintiff (the State) and the Defendants (the tobacco companies). Experts for both sides agreed that, despite many, many animal inhalation experiments over a period of many years, all of the experiments had failed, i.e., nobody has ever been able to demonstrate, through animal experiments, that inhaling tobacco smoke - no matter in what quantities or concentrations - causes lung cancer. These failures are powerful evidence, indeed. If, as alleged, smoking causes lung cancer, training or forcing animals to smoke should produce lung cancers. It doesn't.
[...]
Anyway, in the Norwegian study, investigators induced pneumonitis (lung inflammation) in rats by exposing the animals to radiation. The animals were then exposed to tobacco smoke, and it was shown that the smoke actually suppressed the inflammation in the lungs. In short, smoking is good for you if you have pneumonitis (I guess)
[...][/quote]
Added: Thanks for bringing this on sott!
S
Sirius
Guest
I read this article this morning because you had announced that you would translate it. It is a very interesting article and certainly not "too old."
What I noticed, one reader commented it, actually criticised it, just yesterday or today (depending upon time differences and settings) as though it is now attracting increasing attention.
What I noticed, one reader commented it, actually criticised it, just yesterday or today (depending upon time differences and settings) as though it is now attracting increasing attention.
Stranger
Jedi
Sirius said:
There are some criticising comments without any rational arguing. But I also commented on it and asking why there are scientific sources who claim that 80-90% of all lung cancer deaths are related to smoking.
It would be great if someone has an answer for that or know some more facts behind these sources. Maybe everyone is listed as a "smoker" if he smoked a few times in his life. In the comment section is an article linked to, in which a scientist states, that you have to be smoked 100 cigarettes in your life and you are listed as a smoker if you die of lung cancer.
Than it is not unlikely that 60-80% of all humans belong to smokers. But still, if smoking really rather prevents lung cancer, and I don't doubt it after reading the sources I mentioned above, there mustn't be any correlation between smokers and lung cancer deaths. Actually it should show that less smokers die of it.
There is this study among canadians, saying:
S
Sirius
Guest
Yeah, I am remembering the very comments below the article and their contents...
[quote author=Stranger]There are some criticising comments without any rational arguing.[/quote]As always; that is, emotional thinking/reasoning. They just repeat the lies they were given and sold as truth by government, media, society, etc. Such people could be endlessly presented evidence and studies indicating the opposite of what they think to be correct and the truth, but their line of thinking is either way predestinated. Hence they protect usually a lie. Let the facts simply speak for themselves.
I cannot find the particular session regarding smoking and lung cancer (it must be a relatively new one), but as far as I can remember the Cs said once that lung cancer of smokers was caused by social/mental programming and smokers (some) died on lung cancer because they expected it to happen, or something like that.
<off topic>
[quote author=Stranger]I mentioned above, there mustn't be any correlation[/quote]
Be careful with 'must not', especially while translating. ;D
</off topic>
[quote author=Stranger]There are some criticising comments without any rational arguing.[/quote]As always; that is, emotional thinking/reasoning. They just repeat the lies they were given and sold as truth by government, media, society, etc. Such people could be endlessly presented evidence and studies indicating the opposite of what they think to be correct and the truth, but their line of thinking is either way predestinated. Hence they protect usually a lie. Let the facts simply speak for themselves.
I cannot find the particular session regarding smoking and lung cancer (it must be a relatively new one), but as far as I can remember the Cs said once that lung cancer of smokers was caused by social/mental programming and smokers (some) died on lung cancer because they expected it to happen, or something like that.
<off topic>
[quote author=Stranger]I mentioned above, there mustn't be any correlation[/quote]
Be careful with 'must not', especially while translating. ;D
</off topic>
Stranger
Jedi
I agree with you completely. Those people, who are the majority, can't argue on a reasonable basis because they fear the implications which follow the acceptance of the truth. They grew up on a lie, accepting it as what it is would mean to admit faults told to others and change the personal lifestyle. It is difficult to do this if you told others all your lifetime long how bad smoking is and how healthy you life, how superior you are in opposite of those "self-damaging", "addicted" smokers.
I remember the session you adressed. And I think its probably true what the C's said. But nevertheless I am just curious whether there are any scientific facts behind this claims I talked about.
I remember the session you adressed. And I think its probably true what the C's said. But nevertheless I am just curious whether there are any scientific facts behind this claims I talked about.
S
Sirius
Guest
[quote author=Pashalis]941028[/quote]
Thanks for searching and posting that part. That was the session I meant. No wonder I couldn't find it; it was in the archive.
There is no time, you know.Sirius said:
Thanks for searching and posting that part. That was the session I meant. No wonder I couldn't find it; it was in the archive.
Stranger
Jedi
Yeah, that's the said chapter.
Added: Information from the comment section on the "smoking helps protect against lung cancer" SOTT article.
"Sound Truth and Corporate Myths: The LEGACY of the EXXON VALDEZ Oil Spill" by Riki Ott, Ph D.:
Added: Information from the comment section on the "smoking helps protect against lung cancer" SOTT article.
"Sound Truth and Corporate Myths: The LEGACY of the EXXON VALDEZ Oil Spill" by Riki Ott, Ph D.:
Got the Mapacho on Saturday and tried it over the weekend. It's jut a very strong tobacco, it gives you a short nicotine high of the kind that a non-smoker gets when lighting up a cigarette, not worse than that. Kinda like those old yellow-leaf Gitanes cigarettes for those who remember. Otherwise nothing interesting I can say about it except that the huge roll of about 1kg of the stuff is priced 25 EUR, so it's much cheaper than what you get in a tobacco shop. Rather dry though and tastes no better than American Spirit. And obviously you must cut it yourself.
