News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

HI, I smoked a packet of cigarettes about 4 weeks ago now. I smoked about 20 in 24 hours, which I realise was totally stupid. It was my birthday and I decided to have a smoke, but got carried away and smoked the entire packet.

I am not normally a smoker, but used to smoke on a friday night sometimes with my cousin. But otherwise never smoke.

My question is this, I have had symptoms since this solo smokathon I had. I have had nausea to the point of being close to throwing up often, drooling in the morning, going into a drug like sleep sometimes during the day, cramping in my gut, pallor of the face with dark circles around my eyes, racing heart sometimes, and it keeps going in cycles, not to mention extreme fatigue. I deserve a backlash I know after what I did, but am concerned that this should have abated a long time ago.

I am on the candida diet, so am sticking to that, but I would have though tthat any backlash from cigarettes would have long gone. Can it be at all possible that even after all this time the cigarettes would still be impacting me? Apart from telling me how stupid this was, I'd really be appreciative of anyone letting me know what they think regarding the smokes and this possibility of me being so ill after a month later.

Sorry, I don't know the direct answer to your question, but I will throw in that we tested cigarette smoke for mercury when we rented the mercury meter, and we got readings of well over 100 ug /m3 when measuring exhaled smoke about 10 feet away on a windy day. We have this all on video and will eventually post it here. This amount is about 3 times the amount we found in the mouths of 75% of persons with amalgam fillings.

omg!!!!!!! well...thank you for letting me know this. This is a shocker to say the least. I appreciate finding this out but angry at myself for doing what I did, especially in the knowledge that I am in a very vulnerable state as it is. Good grief, these people really love to add the mercury to stuff don't they? And not to mention the other toxins.

Well, certainly, I have no excuse, it's not like I don't know the dangers of smoking, I do and I'm not addicted like some poor people, so I hope I take this incident as a life long lesson (just hope it doesn't last life long <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ).

I 've asked about that before I think. I knew that there were mercury in cigarettes, but did not know the amount. Thanks Russ. This is very informative. I can't wait for those results. I have been smoking for 8 years now with many attempts to quit with no avail. It now makes sence though why they add so many toxins to cigarretes, namily because they know that nicotine is extremely addicting and will have the user comeback regardless of what's in them. Hence, why not add mercury as well. I am going to have to quit now and not wait till new years.

Hey all,

I guess since we're on the subject, I'll also add this in...

We also had our employee (who used to smoke), exhale cigarette smoke into a plastic container (the kind you store food in). We had already made a small hole in the container with a paper hole punch and put the sensing probe of the mercury meter into it and took a reading.

The reading was so high, that the meter displayed the "overload" signal and needed to go through it's self-cleaning procedure immediately after the reading—before it would let us take anymore readings. It's called "saturation" when this happens.

Now, we were all stunned by this (as you'll see in the video) and, in fact, we wonder to this day if there isn't something else that interfered with the meter when taking this test. We don't know. Nevertheless, it is what it is and people need to be aware of it. Basically, our conclusion is that there really should be more experimentation. Until then, no one should smoke <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

By the way, I was inspired to carry out this experiment because of talk on this forum months ago when someone said they heard that cigarette smoke contained mercury. I had never heard that before. Was the you Alex?

In fact, many of the testing ideas we conducted came from people on this forum, such as...

Fluorescent lights, we tested them on and off and found no mercury coming off of them.

We tested blue jeans and found no mercury coming from them either.

We actually put the lights (on and off) and the jeans into air-tight boxes for several days and then took readings from the air in the boxes so if there was some mercury, we thought we'd be able to measure it.

I'll post the videos as soon as I can find the time to convert them all, which can be time consuming.

Well, if this is what has done it to me, i am in dire straits as I am not improving after it and frankly I am frightened by the symptoms.

Regarding the mercury in cigarettes, I found that info in the book called 1000+ reasons to quit smoking, which obviously did not help. But this thread has nailed it, by giving the best reason to quit. If it's bad enough as a second hand smoke goes, think about inhaling it into your lungs with all its mercury content and then exhaling it for 8 years. Add this to fillings, vaccines, fish, food, air, etc. and you can go overboard. On the good note Fluorescent lights dont' contain mercury and they are everywhere, so cheers!

Obviously, just like some people seem to somehow "cope" with amalgams, they seem also to 'cope" with everyday smoking. Though of course it would be effecting them, they don't seem to have the massive toxic/allergic response that some of us do. I know it gets people over time, but the thing is, why are some people so highly intolerant of these things and others are not? I guess it comes down to biochemistry and immunity.

The very fact I've been so badly poisoned from smoking 20 cigarettes in 24 hours, and still ill after 4 weeks, should give people a pretty clear idea of what it can do to a person who smokes everyday and doesn't realise what damage they are doing. Even if it is moderate smoking.

I was turned on to this information by Sandi Flood in one of her posts. I then did a little research and did a short writeup about how these APO-E proteins help some people cope. There is also a lot to be said about the level of natural glutathione production a person has.

http://mercurytalk.com/wiki/index.php/Mercury_Excretion_and_APO-E_4/3_4/4_Genotypes

Another interesting thing to consider is the research being done by Dr. James Woods at the University of Washington. If you do a search in pubmed for his work you can see he has done a lot of studies showing abnormal urinary porphyrin profiles for people who are exposed to Mercury above a certain very low level. He has shown in some of his studies that the porphyrin abnormalities correlate well with DMPS chelation challenge tests and thus he proposes porphyrins as a decent non-invasive way of assessing mercury body burden.

Perhaps one of the most interesting papers that he recently did showed that in some non insignificant portion of the propulation, they had much higher porphyrin excretion (of the one that was indicative for mercury damage) and all of these people had the "CPOX4" polymorphism.

Check it out:

The association between a genetic p... and neurobehavioral response in humans.

From what I can tell it seemed to show that the people with that genotype correlated with more symptoms. Oh and BTW, his study population is a bunch of dentists, heh kind of ironic isn't it? Someone needs to replicate his findings, but this certainly does point to some sort of genetic succeptibility (or more than one).

I would be very cautious about the supposed high readings of mercury in tobacco smoke. Russ, you should check the smoke from other materials, wood, leaves,... since the meter may be falsely responding to the ions in the smoke. Also the smoke from a stand alone cigarette vs the exhaled smoke should be tested i.e. the smoke may act as chelator of mercury from the lungs of a toxic person, hence the exhaled smoke would contain more Hg for the same reason that urine contains more Hg after DMSA or DMPS provocation. The extremely high readings, though, are most indicative of the false reading.

Namely, all references from anti-smoking research on the composition of tobacco smoke give about 1-5 nanograms of Hg per cigarette (e.g. see this paper, p. 18), which is 5/1000 micrograms per cigarette i.e. you would need to smoke a carton of cigarettes for 1 microgram of mecury! For your 100 micrograms per m3 reading, you would need to burn 100 cartons into 1m3. Note also that these 5 ng is the outer end of the measurements, the best shot of the science strongly biased against tobacco smoke (they make big bucks out of peddling its alleged dangers, see below).

If you are a mercury toxic smoker, you may be harming yourself by quitting (or by not taking up smoking, as you will see below).

Tobacco smokers have about 80% more glutathione in active form than non-smokers (smoking is a kind of exercise of immune system). One of beneficial effects of this excess glutathione is about tenfold reduction in rates of Alzheimer's disease of smokers vs non-smokers among ApoE4 allele carriers (these are people with poor detox of mercury from brain and particularly susceptible to Alzheimer's; ApoE4 frequency increases from south to north Europe, hence Nordic countries are most affected by amalgams among Europeans). Tobacco smoke is also highly therapeutic for Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia (possibly due to increase in dopamine and MAO inhibition).

Note that Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and schizophrenia share great deal of symptoms with mercury toxicity of the brain and smoking is significantly therapeutic for all three diseases. So be very careful before jumping into the hands of the Big Pharma, with their nicotine replacements and antidepressants (which don't help at all for your own glutathione stimulation by tobacco smoke). Odds are you will cause yourself much more harm than good.

Tobacco is an ancient medicinal plant and the present anti-smoking propaganda is driven chiefly by the profits of the Big Pharma (also Big Med & "health" bureaucracies), which created and funded almost all of the anti-smoking groups and funds much of the anti-smoking "science" directly (and the rest indirectly via the "health" bureaucracies). The profits of the Big Anti-tobacco come not just from the obscene taxes on cigarettes (imagine suddenly having to pay $100,000 for a car you can now buy for $25,000), but also from selling nicotine replacements, antidepressants (tobacco smoke is therapeutic for anxiety & depression), allergies and asthma (smoking used to be advised by medical textbooks & doctors for these ailments until 1950s), Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia... The ancient medicinal plant, tobacco, is a competitor for the Big Pharma. Many tens of billions are extorted from smokers every year under the cover of the anti-smoking hysteria they whipped up. Few crumbs from the loot go into buying the best anti-smoking "science", "health" bureacrats, politicians, anti-smoking laws and regulations the money can buy.

To get a bit more balanced picture on the subject of tobacco smoking (and avoid harming yourself by falling for the media brainwashing), check the following references:

1. The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking by J. R. Johnstone & P. D. Finch

2. "In Defense of Smokers" by L. A. Colby

3. "Smoking is good for you" by Dr. W. T. Whitby

4. Therapeutic Effects of Smoking (misc. scientific references; also article "World's Oldest -- All Smokers)

5. LF thread on WHO study showing that secondary smoke is protective against lung cancer (lots of discussion and other links)

6. SE thread Tobacco Smoking is Protective Against Lung Cancer (more links & references cited in the discussion; see also on immune stimulus & correlations with diseases)

Now, of course, additive and pesticide laden supermarket cigarettes, like much of supermarket foods, are junk and likely harmful. Filters are also harmful since they shed non-biodegradable fibers.

On the other hand, additive free, organically grown pure tobacco leaf, such as American Spirit, rolled in thin paper (on how to "roll your own" and "stuff your own") or used in a pipe, is the way it was meant to be done, the way our grandfathers smoked it. Tobacco was cultivated for thousands of years as the sacred medicinal plant and real science (unlike the anti-tobacco junk science) is only beginning to uncover some of its magic. Nicotine is just one tiny bit of its medicinal power (that's why nicotine patches or antidepressants don't work for quitting; e.g. they don't stimulate glutathione or act as MAO inhibitors). For example, Coenzyme Q10, the miracle supplement, is actually tobacco leaf, it was discovered there and the best brands are still manufactured from tobacco leaf, even though it can be now synthesized artificially (see Whitby's book #3, also #6).

Note also that the anti-smoking propaganda is peddled largely by the same actors (FDA, CDC, EPA, AMA, NCI) and backed up by the same kind of pseudo-science (and money that buys it) that peddle the theory that "mouthful of mercury is safe and effective" and "thimerosal injected into babies causes them no harm". The same guys, the same alphabet soup agencies, the same money and and the same bought "science".

So, read the materials for yourself, all sides of the story, but before anything else, listen and trust signals from your own body. A single cell in your little toe knows more about biochemistry, genetics and detox at the molecular level than all the science and technology in the world put together. If you were to take all of the world's medical, biochemical and pharmaceutical science & technology in one gigantic team, give them all the money and resources they want and ask them to create one live cell from scratch, they wouldn't even know how to create one organelle, a tiny organ of cell, let alone a whole live cell (or to say nothing about a vastly more complex human organism). Yet, the little "dumb" cells, which are actually unamaginably complex biochemical networks (i.e. distributed, self-programming natural computers of the same kind as human brain), create new live cells from scratch every day all day long, without breaking a sweat, as it were.

Hi Nightlight, thanks for that. Very very interesting. yep, there are most definitely two sides to this and I feel it's the degraded version of cigarettes we now have that are causing the problems. The stuff they add to them, they are a perverted version of what was once used as you mentioned.

perhaps the old style plain smoking tobacco wasn't so bad, but certainly what is out there now on our shelves are just sticks of poison. I know someone who raises tobacco, he farms it and told me that if people knew what was done to this stuff, they'd not touch it!

So as usual, it seems once it's interferred with and added to enough with whatever poisons, it is no longer what it was and then of course, it's blamed for causing the problems, when it's what they do to it that is most likely the issue.

I enjoy a smoke, but certainly after what happened, I am unlikely to ever be able to. though maybe one on occassion would be ok. I don't want to become a smoker though, but I don't see the harm in the occasional one, if it's of the variety you have mentioned. The ones that do not contain the garbage they add to them on the supermarket shelves.

I too have heard some benefits of smoking, but the stuff on the shelves with what they do, wuold far outweigh any benefits and the amount of toxins in them now is just ridiculous.

My Mother smoked for years and gave up due to getting a pain in her chest. The pain gradually went after giving up. My father smoked and developed a cough, the cough was worsening as time went on and the longer he smoked, the worse it got. He gave up and the cough went. There is NO denying that there is a very bad downside to this stuff and in our country, we are forking out for people with lung cancer because of their smoking. Some are lucky enough to improve after giving up smoking before things have gotten that bad.

There are those who have smoked so heavily, they've had to have a plug like device put in their throat to talk out of. Let's not forget these cases!

I think the old style smokes certainly may have some benefits as you have mentioned. No doubt about it, but where is the middle line? I think the occasional smoke may have benefits (if it's the right kind), but unfortunately most people are smoking whatever they get on a supermarket shelf and smoking a lot of them.

But I thank you for sharing all that with us, because it's really interesting to read. It does give me food for thought, but I'd never take up smoking regardless. I "may" try the good kind on occassion (in moderation) oneday though, but I think it's a case of people becoming easily addicted and then sadly moderation goes out the window and they find their spend a lot of their earned money on smokes and can't get through a day without them.

But again, after what they now do to them and what they contain, is it any wonder there is a addictive element, because that is what the makers want.

Hi Bex, you're up early on Saturday, eh. As someone with mercury toxicity (20+ years of 17 amalgams, just got out 15, the last two in couple weeks), I started smoking in my early twenties at the end of my graduate school (Brown University, theoretical physics). Having entered the profession with very high demand on brain, I noticed at some point (in retrospect, it was after getting a series of amalgam fillings) that my focus and mental stamina was falling. Smoking was the medicine picked instinctively that alleviated the problem and saved the day.

Before deciding to smoke, though, I spent a summer in the large medical library of my parents (both medical doctors), read all there was about it, looked at the family history and concluded smoking would be fine for me. Frankly, without it and with all those amalgams, I probably wouldn't have been able to continue in this intellectually very demanding field.

As with anything else in life, especially the good stuff, moderation is what separates poison from medicine. And, as with foods and beverages, one should stick with the least adulturated products and with the time-tested, traditional ways of using them. I smoke organically grown, additive free tobacco (American Spirit), roll my own cigarettes, no filters (just tobacco leaf and very thin chlorine free paper), about a pack a day. I also take 500mg vit C on every hour during day (vit. C has 1/2 hour half life so one needs to keep it coming). I also take other common supplements & vitamins, as well as lots of raw nuts (walnuts, almonds..) as the main food through the day, home roasted & freshly ground coffe & tea with honey, fruits (hate most veggies), a glass of Italian wine with dinner (the only conventional daily meal I eat). Having experimented over the years with just about anything that came my way, the old magical plant, tobacco, remains the single most helpful health supplement among them all.

I imagine, once I clear up the mercury, I might need less of it. For now, it is the best mercury antidote I know of (probably due to stimulation of internal glutathione production). Having researched the subject of anti-smoking "science" (which is largely a cover for the money making extortion racket), I felt I had to respond to the potentially quite harmful conventional wisdom expressed earlier in this thread. For a mercury toxic person with double ApoE4 allele, quitting smoking (or not taking it up for non-smoker), is a recipe for almost certain early onset Alzheimer's. The remaining five ApoE combinations (E4+3, E4+2, E3+3, E3+2, E2+2) are progressively less susceptible to the mercury neuro-toxicity, although none is entirely immune.

Hi there, well it's after midnight here, so it's basically sunday morning!

I think the problem is, we are talking about very different cigarettes. THe anti smoking agenda is probably justifiable when you consider the poisons added to the modern day cigarettes. Perhaps thiswould not have been needed years ago.

The ones you use, seem to be far better. I can't believe you smoke a pack a day! Wow and obviousy for you this works and who knows, maybe for me it might. I would be wary to do anything right now with how ill I am from smoking a packet last time (but again, I smoked the typical toxic one, pall mall menthol). Good thing you are using vitamin C like that. Wise move.

Basically, my reaction to smoking a packet of cigarettes has been horrific, this cannot be good right? Still suffering now. So certainly, the type of cigarettes and how many are smoked makes all the difference.

I am also one of those people that I retain toxins and do not eliminate properly. I can be exposed to a toxin and become ill for long periods of time, while someone else won't notice a thing. I have to be very careful.

Certainly it seems that smoking does stimulate the gluathione production, and this seems that it would encourage mercury elimination at the sametime. I would have thought it would add to the load, but again this must depend on what type of cigarette is smoked.

Sounds like you are consuming stuff that is beneficial for you and again, a lot of it is how it's prepared and what form it's in and as you said, doing things in moderation. As with the coffee too. It's like fat, we had the modern day dieticians tell us it's all bad, eat low fat or no fat diets. now they are beginning to go back to the old ways and realising that fat is very necessary and the healthiest fats are Butter, lard, extra virgin olive oils, organic coconut oils etc. All the stuff they always used to eat once upon a time, including the full fat creams.

I am now consuming these fats and doing better than I was before it. There is no doubt they have helped.

Oneday I may try the smokes you've recommended, but I live in New Zealand, so I don't think we'd have those ones! Again, I'd never smoke too much if I tried again. I've learned my lesson in that area and also the type of smokes. I am very tempted to try the old fashioned type ones though, the roll your owns oneday.

I am not familiar with the NZ tobacco availability. Since your body knows best what works with your biochemistry, you should certainly stay away from the mass market junk cigarettes which obviously cause you problems. Among the popular supermarket brands, Winston full flavor use additive free real tobacco (so they claim), although they are not organically grown i.e. regular pesticides and fertilizers were used (you would also need to clip the filter to avoid fibers).

If you do run into oldfashioned, additive free tobacco in some specialized tobacco shop there, it still may be worth rolling one or two to test the effect. For me, it works like magic (I especially noticed its positive effects during the last half a year, while I was getting the amalgams out). Instead of filters, use plain cigarette holder (you can even make one from suitable bamboo stick or some such), not the holders with chemical filters built in (unless they are removable). Alternatively, you can try a pipe (which looks pretty cool, to me).

When you have to roll your own, you smoke much less than with ready made cigarettes. Each cigarette becomes a kind of peaceful little ritual, very soothing for the soul. It's after all a sacred plant, gift of gods.

I also find the pure leaf smoke completely non-irritating (premade sticks make me cough). The natural smoke is competely bio-degradable since all life-forms, including our cells, have evolved mechanisms for metabolizing the natural/organic smoke for hundreds of millions of years. Those pictures of the so-called "smoker's lungs", all black and gunked up, they show on TV and to kids in schools are a shameless fraud (they are usually lungs of coal miners, full of coal dust).

If you check Colby's & Whitby's books, you will find that a surgeon or a pathologist can't differentiate the smoker lungs from non-smoker lungs. Biochemically they are different, of course, since smokers lungs have much more glutathione (and several other internal anti-oxidants and detoxifying enzymes). To the naked eye, though, they are indistinguishable.

There are hundreds of toxins in cigarette smoke. It's a public menance, and doesn't just effect the smoker, but family of smoker or anyone who lives with them - takes about five years off the life of anyone who lives with a smoker, if not kill them before hand, as second hand smoke, not to mention all the smoke that comes out of the cigarette before it is inhaled, is toxic.

I do believe cigarettes should be banned. My father is so addicted and I hate the habit. It's so frustrating to be doing all I can to detox but be exposed to this toxic smoke every day. Even though he smokes outside, it wafts in. I was at the bus-stop the other day and some inconsiderate woman lit up. I had to leave and walk home because the exposure would undo so much of my hard work in detoxing, it pooured down with rain and I got drenched so had to call for a life. People who smoke in front of others are selfish and inconsiderate, and I do believe it is child abuse to smoke in fron of children. That might seem harsh, but if you hit your child and it ends up in hospital, it's abuse. Hundreds of children end up in hospital a year because their parents have smoked. It's no less abuse - they are harming their children.

If you want glutathione that you supposedly get from cigarettes, then take a glutathione supplement, don't smoke a cigarette for that reason. I'm sure that any of the "benefits" of smoking can be found in healthier alternatives. And to say that regular cigarettes with over 1000 chemicals in them are "likely" bad for you is quite the understatement. There is no doubt that they are all-out terrible for you - with or without the current rhetoric from pharmaceuticals. And I don't mean to sound preachy, because I've had a number of American Spirit cigarettes lately due to stress. But there is nothing healthy about cigarettes, at least the regular variety and I highly doubt there is in the non-additive kind too. And American Spirits are not organic at all (at least none of the varieties I have smoked or seen sold in stores), but they do not have any additives added to them at all. And it's mainly the additives that are horribly toxic to us. It's still not as if smoking Spirits is good for you though. And one of the reasons that they are so high in mercury (regardless of this test, I have heard/read that several times before), is that they are heavily doused with mercury-containing pesticides....so even the Spirits likely have mercury in them, as they are not organic.

Just my thoughts on it. Like I said, I don't want to be preachy, but saying that cigerettes may be good for you....well, saying it is a stretch is about as mildly as I can put it.....

~Tia

Also, on the thought that cigarettes help with Schizophrenia....

I know many people with schizophrenia that smoke. And yes I have read that it "helps" and it does seem to be something people rely on. But why does it help? I doubt that it is the toxic chemicals in there that are truly helpful... Cigarettes can relax some people, and anxiety, nervousness, and paranoia are often some of the biggest symptoms with schizophrenia....if the cigarette can relax someone and very temporarily minimize those symptoms even a little.....Plus, it's almost like a nervous habit for some people. Lighting cigearette after cigarette all day long does not help cure schizophrenia and it doesn't even seem to reduce the symptom....if it helps minimize the symptoms, it's only to a tiny degree....But without a doubt either way, it will eat years off of their lives.

I think it would be hard to measure the "benefit" of cigarette. Nicotine addiction is more serious than heroin as an addiction. So, if someone who smokes goes some time without their fix, then when they do light up, they satisfy the craving - which will have a kind of "relaxing" effect. So, it would be easy for the smoker to confuse this relazing feeling as a result of feeding the habit with feeling better. Yes they feel better temporarily, but only because they've fed the craving - in my opinion. If there are at all any benefits to cigarette smoking, I'd say the same as chemotherapy or something to that effect - poisons the body at the same time.

I have suffered anxiety probelms all my life due to OCD (from the fillings), but have never resorted to either smoking or alcohol to "relieve" the symptoms - it's a dangerous road, in my opinion. Both smoking and alcoholism have devastating effects not only on the body, but the local environment and the lives of families and community.

A lot of wisdom on this thread. I think we all are grateful to Russ for that experiment, and to all of those who responded.

Years ago I went to a well respected natural doctor. Though I wasn't fighting cigarette addiction (I feel the same as Demi about alcohol and cigarettes when you are seriously ill, or even well for that matter), my doctor and I got on subject of cigarettes. He told me that the reason that those who smoke have such a time giving it up is because their body is withdrawing from over 400 chemicals. Recently, a doctumentary on television pointed out the same figure.

For me, I feel like others have mentioned. My body has been through so much over the past 30+ years since my first filling was put in my mouth that I don't want to poison it intentionally any more. Besides, it would be a huge waste of the thousands of dollars that we spent removing the mercury fillings and amalgams. For the first time in my life I am feeling much better with permanent results, I don't want to mess that up.

There are two sides to every story, and I am glad that we can all share ours, but for my two cents...it's not worth it to smoke.

I do beleive that cigarettes are bad. I am interested though in the old style ones that may not contain all the types of poisons they do now, but even then I'd never become a full on smoker.

I have gotten ill a few times from secondhand smoke and had to make my cousin smoke in our bathroom with the window open instead of my bedroom. So there is no doubt the stuff is toxic, or i'd not have gotten ill.

I had a friend who overdid it once also and she ended up vomiting up tar and blood, so there is NO doubt of its dangers.

I have a neighbour that smokes, she rolls her own and this lady is a mess psychologically, she's pale and she coughs nearly all the time. Sometimes you can hear her and she sounds like she's about to cough up a lung. Her doctor advised her to stop or cut down the smoking and she did and the coughing lessened, amost went away, but she went back again and started to increase the smoking and her coughing is back. If she carries on like this, i can't see her lasting quite frankly because the coughing at times makes me cringe to hear it. It's horrible.

So let's not forget the other side to this which is definitely not good. There are no doubts that throat cancer, lung cancer and many othe rthings can indeed be connected to smoking. As I mentioned earlier, my Mother was deteriorating on her own smoking and had chest pains etc. My father developed a terrible cough, both of these things went away when they finally gave up smoking.

I am grateful for the non smoking adverts. My only interest is in teh concept of the old age brain diseases and the connection with smoking in that area and mercury etc. But I'd only look at the old style organic type smokes and even then I'd be cautious. You don't see any other creature but humans lighting up. And yes surely there is another way of increasing glutathione levels in the body....e.g with the good satuatred fats and antioxidants, plus a good diet avoiding all the junk. Is it worth looking forward to an old age with the hope of avoiding dementia etc, only to end up with some other disorder? Surely they should be looking into why smoking works in that area and finding out what it is we can do to emulate the good and avoid the bad.

I personally think taking up smoking in the hope of avoiding old age dementia is quite absured. To get that benefit "IF" it even exists, one would first have to live to old age. Just my opinion.

I personally think taking up smoking in the hope of avoiding old age dementia is quite absured. To get that benefit "IF" it even exists, one would first have to live to old age. Just my opinion.

The neuroprotective benefits of tobacco smoke are not disputed, even by antismoking scientists (not for lack of trying). They have been known to science for four decades (and to users and Native American shamans for millenia) and replicated thousands of times. For general population, tobacco smoking reduces risk of developing Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and schizophrenia, which are precisely the three diseases sharing great deal of common symptoms with mercury neuro-toxicity, by a factor of two. For particularly vulnerable sub-populations, such as people with ApoE4 gene variant (bad mercury excretion), who tend to have a high risk for early onset Alzheimer's, tobacco smoking reduces risk tenfold[/b]. Further, for people who already have these diseases, smoking greatly alleviates the symptoms.

These significant factors of risk reduction are nothing to sneeze at since [b]no other medicine, traditional or pharmaceutical, comes even close in its neuroprotective power to the ancient medicinal plant, tobacco. Pharmaceutical companies and medical researchers have been trying for decades to replicate this magic of tobacco leaf by various tobacco leaf extracts and individual compounds, such as nicotine, MAO inhibitors, anti-inflammatory enzymes (such as CoQ10, which is made from tobacco leaf), immune stimulants & antioxidants (such as glutathione)... but while each piece did help a bit, each still fell well short of the protective benefit of the full combination found in the tobacco smoke, where the components seem to mutually reinforce each other in ways which are still largely a mystery.

For people with mercury neuro-toxicity, these are very important facts to know. Unfortunately, they are little publicized and are virtually unknown within our presently extreme antismoking zeitgeist (which is driven by the obscene amounts of money being "made" (read "extorted from smokers"), by those paying for the antismoking pseudo-science, smoking bans and media campaigns whipping up antismoking hysteria and tobacco-phobia).

The info and links I posted in this thread above and in the other thread (discussion with dawn & jinx1983) are meant to bring this to the attention of people who could benefit the most and to give them the rest of the story regarding the alleged harmfullness of tobacco smoke. The only real and proven harm to smokers is from the witch doctor effect[/b], the negative placebo, induced by those profiting from the tobacco-phobia they incited. The only real harm to non-smokers is from [b]being denied the health benefits of the ancient medicinal plant, such as the reductions in the diseases mentioned above (and numerous others, such as variety of autoimmune & allergic conditions). I should also note that I have absolutely no relation to tobacco industry or interests and do not make a penny from tobacco in any form or shape.

You missed the point. Even if there is a reduced risk of dementia diseases, there is a huge risk of cancer and other serious diseases. My point was that to get the benefit of any such advantage (if it exists - I don't know one way or the other) then one has to risk dying of cancer and other diseases before one gets the benefit. To me that is as logical as using amalgam - it prevents further decay of the tooth and is one of the most enduring filling materials, but can make someone very ill.

You missed the point. Even if there is a reduced risk of dementia diseases, there is a huge risk of cancer and other serious diseases.

I did address the alleged harmfulness of tobacco smoking. That is precisely what the references #1 to #6 in my initial post deal with. Check for example the review article given as #1 above, "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking" by Johnstone & Finch. It is fairly short, precise and with exact citations to papers & studies, while remaining quite readable. The Colby's book (the #2 link) is much more detailed and covers all the alleged harms very thoroughly, while again being very readable.

As to the amalgam analogy you suggested, the situation is precisely the opposite. Namely, note that the same actors (FDA, CDC, pharmaceuticals, AMA, WHO,...) who are peddling the alleged safety of amalgams & thimerosal are also the guys peddling the alleged harmfulness of tobacco smoke and downplaying its therapeutic and protective properties. Tobacco, which is a medicinal plant cultivated and honed for thousands of years for its healing powers, is a natural and traditional health remedy (e.g. smoking was compulsory for students in the most eminent British schools), thus a competitor to pharmaceutical industry products. The Big Pharma, aided by their bureaucratic stooges (in FDA, CDC, EPA,...) and mass media shills, is is attacking all natural & traditional remedies, not just tobacco. The attack on the latter is the most vicious one among them all precisely because tobacco is the most powerful and most beneficial traditional remedy among them all, hence the Big Pharma stands to gain the most from its banishment.

We need to keep in mind, though, that there is a huge difference between the junk supermarket cigarettes (which are not made from tobacco leaf at all, but mostly from reconstituded debris & scraps, rolled into sheets, then artificially colored & flavored) and the traditionally (organically) grown, additive free pure tobacco leaf, used the oldfashioned ways (e.g. pipes or filterless cigarettes smoked through long cigarette holders). It's the latter that is the sacred healing plant passed to us by the Native American shamans.

This is really the same as the difference between the denatured, pesticide and additive laden supermarket junk foods and the organically grown, additive free traditionally prepared foods.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I personally, however, have never smoked tobacco, never will, and will continue to support the ban on smoking in all public places. All the best to you.

I think what some of us are saying is . . . yes, it's anyone's business to smoke or not to smoke. As for the health benefits to the person who choses to smoke; there don't seem to be any if you consider the damage that smoke does to our lungs and those who get it second hand. My mother-in-law died of lung cancer, though she didn't smoke but her husband did. Even eating too much barbecue has been shown to cause cancer; this being strong incentive against smoking (it's the smoke from the wood that causes cancer). If you watch someone after they have had a cigarette (regular or organic), you will notice a personality change take place. I've noticed it for years. They get angrier, their facial expression changes, and we all know the health problems that they might get down the line.

Anonymous, good for you for having never smoked. I hope you never do.

I know we all know the health risks involved but there are hundreds af thing not beneficial to our health these days and I have met some people during my life that have had terrible things happen to them through no fault fo their own and I guess what Im trying to say is if some of these people get a small amount or relief from smoking then so be it . They know the risks involved but some people who do not get adequate help with numerous problems intheir life become addicted to things for some reason and I would never judge anybody unless you know the circumstances. Smokers, alcoholics, drug users all got there for some reason and I in know way intend to preach but some people face life in the only way they can. If there was more help available maybe it would be easier for them. I know at times we're all going through hell but so are others for many reasons.

I was a smoker myself for many and gave up about ten years ago. When people (myslef included) are addicted to substances they will rationalise away the addiction and the harm they cause to themselves and others. This is part and parcel of the nature of addiction.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> It has been said that: A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

This started out as someone asking for help with a mercury related question: "Can it be at all possible that even after all this time the cigarettes would still be impacting me? " And many were answering that if you read the first few answers that she got. It has turned into a venue to encourage people to take another look at cigarette smoking.

You won't find many here who will agree. Please take another look at the other side of the story. We have been fighting illness for so long that we are exhausted from doing so. We have spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to repair our mercury damaged bodies. None of us are trying to condemn those who smoke. Some of us have loved ones who do smoke. We're just saying, "Please let us have our different opinions and let's keep this thread for the purpose it was originally intended."

HI anonymous, yes, I agree. I just wanted to know about the long term effects of the smoking I did a month ago. I think I had it answered pretty much.

No, i can't speak for the old style organic roll your owns, I'm referring to the usual typical today cigarettes which are the ones I smoked, which I gather contain some pretty horrible toxins.

check this out..this is enough to make a diehard quit!!!

http://seahen.coolinc.info/Health%20Forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=184

Sandi
xoxo

I am in a bad way here folks and I get no help from my doctor or any doctor where I am. It's been around 5 weeks now since the smoking bout and no improvement. I am pretty much going through hell everyday, only to erupt in some weird explosion of tears, mucous and saliva when my body appears to be making some sorry assed attempt to excrete whatever toxins those cigarettes had. I'm pretty sure this is what it is, but its not stopping.
I am also going to the toilet a lot and yet I'm not improving. I smell of metal also now.

I am often in a lot of gut pain and I am still suffering nausea daily. I guess this shows the mess my system really is in.

P.S. thanks for the link Sandi. That just seals it even more!

Bex, im so sorry you are having to deal with this, its one thing after another. We just want to do things that other people do sometimes but then we have to pay for it in a big way, i had a drink a few weeks ago with a friend and boy did i pay for it, yes i went over the top, i had 6 pints of beer, i just wanted to enjoy myself for once. I really hope you feel better soon.

Hi Bex, Have things settled down now? Someone on one of the yahoo groups has posted about this issue recently if youre interested http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/frequent-dose-chelation/message/14039

I read somewhere once that the mercury toxic are more prone to addictions cause they try things to make themselves feel better. And addictions lead to more addictive behavior...sad, really sad. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I used to smoke, drink and enjoyed caffeine...very limited...it really gave me palpitations...but red wine and cigarettes...oh and shopping too. Now I can't do any of them...not even shopping, except for supplements. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> Never did many drugs..recreational or otherwise...thank goodness for that!!!

Hope you are feeling better too Bex....

Sandi
xoxo

Hi Richard, that was me on the other link lol. I'm fats_malone2002 as well as Bex. As you can see I'm trying to get opinions where I can on this and if anybody else has had it occur. But nobody responded on the other link...so oh well.

Hi Sandi, thanks for your message. NO I cannot do anything nowadays AT ALL. I used to get away with things to a point once, but the tendency was always there to have bad reactions, but not like this.

I am still struggling. The odd thing is, the toxicity seems to be in the sinus areas, as I can feel itching inside my nose, tingling and my eyes are often gooey and heavy and when I go into some explosive expisodes to where it seems my body is making an attempt to excrete toxins, I can feel it all trying to come out of every part of my face and my nose feels blocked, but that's one of the worst parts.

I mean it's not like I had a cigaratte hanging from my nose when I smoked, but regardless it doesn' t all go into the lungs I guess.

When i smoked a few yrs back, my throat and nose always itched like mad. I used to drink wine alot and it also gave me these symptoms along with ashma.

Hi, just thought I would post this info I received from a lady via my email regarding this thread about my smoking and the interesting discussion here. Read below:

i saw in one person's post about the 10 fold reduction in alzheimer's. the
reason for this is because smoking causes a chemical compound called
acetylcholine. it is depleted in people with alzheimer's.

you often here that smokers smoke to calm themselves down, and that has never
made much sense because we know nicotene to be a stimulant, right? well, the
acetylcholine is what produces the calming effects. actually, what it does is
minimizes stimuli to the brain from outside influences, allowing the person to
focus better on the task at hand or focus better on one thought at a time.

BUT, the same acetylcholine is produced by taking B-5 and choline together (plus
it produces muscle tone, perty cool side effect). so, if a person would take
those instead of smoking, they would get the same stress relieving calming
effects they get from cigarettes.

i have known about this since 1986 when i read Life Extension by durk pearson
and sandy shaw. i prefer phosphatidyl choline myself. incidentally, B-5 is
used for arthritis and i went many years having to take it 4 times a day just to
keep the pain down some. it works well. i still use it with the choline every
day, generally.

reason for this is because smoking causes a chemical compound called
acetylcholine. it is depleted in people with alzheimer's.

The increase in acetylcholine is certainly one piece of the puzzle of neuro-protective effects of tobacco smoke. But it doesn't explain nearly the entire magnitude of the neuro-protection of tobacco smoke, since pharmaceuticals simulating such individual components (similarly the effects on nicotinic receptors) have not shown nearly as strong protective or therapeutic effect as the real tobacco smoke. For example, the near doubling of glutathione levels in smokers, which is the enzyme vital in mercury & lead detox, is not covered by the acetylcholine aspect. Similarly the increase in levels of CoQ10 (the top CoQ10 brands, containing full synergistic complexes, are manufactured from tobacco leaf) in smokers is also not covered. And so goes for the myriad other aspects, mostly unknown.

The interaction of tobacco leaf smoke with human biochemical networks, including those in brain, has been honed over millenia of cultivation for this precise purpose, resulting in an extremely complex and as yet poorly understood symbiotic relation between the two biochemical networks, the medicinal tobacco plant and human organism. Driving acetylcholine up, applying nicotine patches or any such single or mere few aspects of the interaction, is like trying to substitute a marriage to a widower by making him a toast in the morning -- it is a tiny fragment of the complex relation between the two or more complex networks intertwining into a symbiotic relation, marriage. The relation of tobacco to B vitamin complex is well covered in the earlier post (which has many additional links).

Here is one excerpt from an antismoking article hinting at some of the complexity and unknowns involved:

[color:"blue"]Tobacco Smoke May Contain a Psychoactive Ingredient Other Than Nicotine

Nicotine may not be the only psychoactive component in tobacco smoke, according to a study funded in part by NIDA. Using positron emission tomography, an advanced neuroimaging technology, Dr. Joanna S. Fowler and her colleagues at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, have produced images showing that smoking decreases the brain levels of an important enzyme that breaks down the neurotransmitter dopamine. The amount of the enzyme, called monoamine oxidase (MAO), is reduced by 30 to 40 percent in the brains of smokers, compared to nonsmokers or former smokers, the brain scans show. The reduction in brain MAO levels may result in an increase in levels of dopamine, which scientists associate with the reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse.

Although nicotine causes increases in brain dopamine, it does not affect MAO levels, research has shown. Thus it appears that another component of tobacco smoke is inhibiting MAO. "Whatever is inhibiting MAO could be acting in concert with nicotine to enhance dopamine's activity by preventing its breakdown," says Dr. Fowler.

The concept that the smoking-related reduction of MAO activity may synergize with nicotine's stimulation of dopamine levels to produce the diverse behavioral effects of smoking suggests that MAO inhibitor drugs may be useful as an additional therapy in smoking cessation efforts, she adds. MAO inhibitor drugs are used to treat depression and Parkinson's disease. One such drug, moclobemide, is already being used experimentally to assist persons trying to quit smoking.

Dr. Fowler's research was funded by NIDA, the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, and the Department of Energy's Office of Health and Environmental Research.

Sources
Fowler, J.S.; Volkow, N.D.; et al. Inhibition of monoamine oxidase B in the brains of smokers. Nature 379:733-736, 1996.
Fowler, J.S.; Volkow, N.D.; et al. Brain monoamine oxidase inhibition in cigarette smokers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93:14065-14069, 1996.[/color]

Another article (from a pharmaceutical industry sponsored organization SRNT, dedicated to reasearch on how to replicate the medicinal effects of tobacco smoke with pharmaceuticals) gives even more nuanced picture (again, with the obligatory antismoking spin, since their sponsors would rather sell their own substitutes):

[color:"blue"]
Potential Therapeutic Applications of Nicotine and Nicotine Analogues[/b]
SRNT Vol 1, No 4, 1995
John Baron (Dartmouth Medical School), Edward Levin (Duke University Medical Center), Alexandra Potter and Paul Newhouse (University of Vermont)

Cigarette smoking has a well-deserved bad reputation; it is among the leading causes of mortality and morbidity throughout the world, largely because of its strong effects on the risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and chronic lung disease. Nevertheless, nicotine is one of the most widely used drugs in the world, most commonly by chewing the leaves or inhaling the smoke from the leaves of a plant that synthesizes nicotine, tobacco. In spite of health warnings, hundreds of millions of people continue to use tobacco.

Why is tobacco so widely used? Addiction to nicotine is a common explanation for the persistence of nicotine use, once established. Because nicotine has [b]multiple neural and functional effects, however, the simple addiction model may be too narrow to account for nicotine use.

A multifactorial model including a variety of nicotine effects, such as

* improved attentiveness and
* memory,
* quickened reaction time,
* reduced appetite, and
* lessening of anxiety and
* stress,

may be needed to explain why the drug is so widely sought after. These effects also suggest possible therapeutic uses of nicotine when delivered without hazardous compounds present in tobacco tar, as well as of novel nicotinic ligands.

For example, there is evidence to suggest that these agents may be useful in preventing or treating a wide variety of central nervous system (CNS) disorders, including

* Parkinson’s disease,
* Alzheimer’s disease,
* attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and possibly
* Tourette’s syndrome;

other conditions for which nicotinic agents could theoretically be helpful include

*obesity,
* depression, and
* anxiety.

In addition to its effects on CNS disorders and functioning, cigarette smoke seems to exert a protective or beneficial influence on some

* immunological and
* inflammatory disorders and on certain

* hormone-related and
* reproductive problems.

Although the moiety in cigarette smoking that underlies the effect of smoking on immunological or inflammatory disturbances is not clear, there are indications that it may be at least in part related to nicotine. If so, a role for nicotine therapy for those disorders could usefully be investigated. For the hormone-related disorders, the effects of smoking may well not be due to nicotine.

This article will highlight recent work examining the epidemiological and clinical evidence for the inverse association between cigarette smoking and a variety of disorders and review what is known about the mechanisms underlying these relationships. For a number of these diseases, the potential therapeutic value of nicotinic agents represents a particularly promising area of research. Even for conditions for which the smoke components responsible for the beneficial effects are unknown and/or unlikely to be nicotine, a better understanding of the relationship with smoking may help to clarify the etiology and suggest treatments and preventive measures that will likely be far safer than cigarettes.

Central nervous system functioning

Mental functioning in nonimpaired individuals. Smoking may affect CNS performance in non-diseased individuals. Smoking or nicotine clearly ameliorates the impairments associated with nicotine withdrawal; among smokers, cigarettes seem to provide modest improvements in vigilance and information processing, facilitation of some motor responses, and perhaps enhancement of memory. The use of smokers in much of the cognitive research has necessarily involved individuals with chronic nicotine exposure; this may well have played a role in the effects observed through withdrawal, tolerance or changes in receptors. Nonetheless, there are data suggesting that non-smokers may experience nicotine-related benefits in performance and information processing. Consistent with these findings, studies in animals have indicated that nicotine may improve learning and memory, although some investigations have also shown evidence of nicotine-associated impairments.

Parkinson’s disease

An inverse association between smoking and Parkinson’s disease (PD) is well established; ever smokers have about half the risk of never smokers. The association is not explained by defects in study design or analysis, although the possibility that individuals destined to be at high risk for Parkinson’s disease have an aversion to smoking has not been completely excluded.

Nicotine is thought to activate the nigrostriatal dopaminergic pathway and increase the release of dopamine in the striatum. Smoking or nicotine can reduce drug-induced parkinsonism, ameliorate Tourette’s syndrome, and neuroleptic tardive dyskinesia, effects that all point to a substantial impact of nicotine on the dopaminergic motor systems. Chronic nicotine dosing has also been shown to protect against degeneration of central dopamine neurons induced by mechanical lesions. Thus, the positive effects of nicotine on the movement disorders of PD are not surprising.

Other human and animal evidence also support a protective effect: Cigarette smoke or nicotine can ameliorate experimental parkinsonism in rodents.9,10 Two case studies by Fagerstrom and colleagues using nicotine gum and nicotine patch demonstrated diminished bradykinesia and increased energy in one patient, and diminished tremor and disorganized thinking in the other.11 Case studies by Ishikawa and Miyatake show reduced tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, and gait disturbances which lasted 10-30 minutes after cigarette smoking in 6 patients with early onset PD.12

Alzheimer’s disease

The epidemiological data regarding a possible inverse association between cigarette smoking and Alzheimer’s dementia (AD) is certainly suggestive, although less compelling than that for PD.13 Deficits in short- and long-term memory, impaired attention, liberal response bias, and slowing of reaction times are hallmarks of the dementing picture seen in AD.

Nicotine has also been found in various studies to nicotine improve attentiveness, memory or learning in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.14-17 These effects may be related to direct nicotinic stimulation, which may be useful because Alzheimer’s patients have been consistently found to have decreased numbers of nicotinic receptors compared with age-matched controls.18-23

The potential effects of the loss of these receptors was examined by administering the nicotinic antagonist mecamylamine to young and elderly normals, AD and PD patients. Mecamylamine produced a dose-related impairment in acquisition of both verbal and non-verbal information, slowing of reaction times, and liberalizing of response bias.24 PD patients did not show the sensitivity that AD patients did, despite a prior finding that PD patients also show loss of nicotinic receptors. Studies with intravenous nicotine in AD patients have shown that nicotine can improve cognitive function in many of these same cognitive domains with a dose-related decline in errors on verbal learning tasks and increase in long-term recall.25,26 These results suggest that nicotinic modulation may alleviate cognitive impairments in various dementing disorders which show loss of nicotinic receptors.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

Individuals diagnosed as having ADHD also have higher rates of cigarette smoking than the general population.27 Nicotine administration has been shown to improve attentiveness, and nicotine also promotes the release of dopamine as does current pharmacologic treatments of ADHD. A study by Levin and colleagues showed significant reduction in reaction time, reaction time variability, and increased accuracy on several cognitive tasks with nicotine administration in 11 adults diagnosed with ADHD.28 Additionally, these subjects rated themselves as having significantly more vigor than when they were administered placebo. Further studies are continuing with chronic administration. Currently used treatments, methylphenidate, amphetamine and pemoline have this mechanism of action.

Tourette’s syndrome

Tourette’s (TS) is a disorder characterized by multiple motor and vocal tics. Some patients with TS do not fully respond to standard treatments and/or experience significant side effects with high doses of neuroleptics. Animal studies have found that nicotine dramatically potentiated the cataleptic effects of neuroleptics, while not producing these effects when administered alone.29 These studies have lead to open trials in adults and children to examine the possible benefit of augment nicotine treatment. Administration of nicotine gum or patch to patients showing incomplete responses to haloperidol produced dramatic relief of symptoms as soon as 20 minutes after administration. Improvement was seen in both the frequency and severity of motor and vocal tics as well as improved concentration and attention.

Preliminary studies by Sanberg and co-workers have found transdermal nicotine patches to be effective in reducing tic frequency in Tourette’s syndrome.30,31 Nicotine significantly facilitates the effectiveness of haloperidol and other dopamine receptor blockers which are the usual treatment for this disorder. This effect of nicotine is paradoxical since it causes dopamine release. Sanberg and coworkers have hypothesized that nicotine-induced GABA release in the striatum may be important for its effectiveness in Tourette’s syndrome. Unexpectedly, some patients showed sustained improvement in symptoms after a single exposure to nicotine, with suppression of symptoms lasting up to several weeks.32

Schizophrenia

Nearly 90% of schizophrenics smoke [NOTE: yet they have 30-50 percent lower lung & other cancer rates, compared to general population]. One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that schizophrenics may smoke in part because nicotine may improve their ability to filter out and ignore irrelevant sensory information, which may be related to an impairment of inhibitory mechanisms which act to decrease attention to repeated stimuli (sensory gating).34

One of the neuronal mechanisms responsible for such gating involves the activation of nicotinic receptors in the hippocampus, which appear diminished in schizophrenics. Investigations have shown that schizophrenic patients and 50% of their first degree relatives show deficient sensory gating to repeated auditory stimuli (P50) and that nicotine transiently restores normal suppression (gating) of P50.34

Pretreatment with the ganglionic-type (C6) nicotinic antagonist mecamylamine did not block the restoration of gating, suggesting that this effect may be mediated through bungarotoxin-type nicotinic receptors. Drug strategies to improve sensory gating in schizophrenic patients using nicotinic agents may be an attractive therapeutic target Levin and colleagues recently found in a study of schizophrenics in a haloperidol dose effect study that the spatial working memory and spatial information processing speed deficits induced by haloperidol were attenuated by nicotine skin patches.35 In a related study, they found that higher haloperidol doses resulted in higher levels of ad lib smoking.36 Thus, schizophrenics may also smoke to counteract the adverse side effects of antipsychotic dopamine blockers. Interestingly, clozapine an atypical antipsychotic with less dopamine D2 receptor blockade actually caused a dose related decrease in ad libitum smoking.37

Body weight

An inverse association between cigarette smoking and body weight is well known.38 The weight difference between smokers and non-smokers appears to be larger at older ages, and is most marked for moderate smokers. Cessation of smoking is associated with weight gain, a factor which impedes smoking control efforts. The effect of smoking is not completely explained by differences in energy intake or physical activity; cigarette smokers seem to have a higher metabolic rate than non-smokers.39 The weight-reducing effects of smoking may well be due to nicotine, although there are also suggestions of a behavioral component.

Immunological and inflammatory disorders

Cigarette smoking seems to impair [affect] several aspects of immune functioning, including T-cell functioning and antibody response;40 consequently, a benefit for immunologically-mediated disorders is conceivable.

Inflammatory bowel disease

Illustrative of the diversity of sites of nicotine’s action in the body is preliminary evidence of a potential role in inflammatory bowel disease. Silverstein reported several cases which linked cessation of cigarette smoking to the onset of inflammatory bowel disease, and/or symptom improvement with nicotine administration via nicotine gum.41 These studies show that current smokers have a reduced risk and former smokers had a slightly increased risk of being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis (UC) and that the risk of onset of UC appears to be substantially increased shortly after quitting smoking. Initial clinical trials of the addition of nicotine gum to standard treatment in UC have shown improvement in about 50% of patients. A study of 6-week treatment with nicotine patches has also shown significant improvements in global clinical and histological appearance, severity of symptoms, and remissions.41

An inverse association between cigarette smoking and ulcerative colitis has been repeatedly documented. Current smokers have a relative risk of 0.5 or lower in comparison to never smokers, but former smokers have, if anything, an increased risk.42 These findings, and reports of the amelioration of ulcerative colitis symptoms by smoking or nicotine led to formal trials of transdermal nicotine. The pattern of response resembles that of corticosteroid therapy: a benefit for patients in relapse, but no effect in prolonging remission.43 The mechanisms for the effect remain unexplained, although several have been proposed, including changes in bowel mucus or prostaglandins, immune suppression, and other effects in the bowel.44

Aphthous ulcers

A protective effect of cigarette smoking or smokeless tobacco use and the risk of recurrent aphthous ulceration of the mouth has emerged in several studies, though not in all.43 Some investigators have published case reports noting a worsening of the ulcers after smoking cessation, with relief after resumption. These effects may be due to the increased oral keratinization associated with tobacco use; the possible efficacy of nicotine chewing gum suggests that nicotine is an active moiety.43

Extrinsic Allergic Alveolitis

Smoking is clearly inversely related to extrinsic allergic alveolitis (farmers’ lung, pigeon breeders’ lung), a chronic immunologically-mediated lung disorder. In addition to a lower risk of the clinical syndrome itself, smokers have lower levels of the serum antibodies associated with the disorder.45

Sarcoidosis

Several case-control studies have reported an inverse association between smoking and the risk of sarcoidosis.45 It is possible, however, that artifacts in the studies may have distorted the findings, and some negative reports have been published. The association thus remains uncertain, although the effects of smoking on lymphocyte populations make it plausible.

Reproductive and hormone-related disorders

Endometrial cancer

Endometrial cancer is the only malignancy that has repeatedly been found to be inversely related to cigarette smoking. Smokers have about half the endometrial cancer risk of non-smokers, an association that is most marked among post-menopausal women and weaker in former smokers.46 The lower body weight and earlier age at menopause in smokers does not explain the association. The endometrium is probably the only anatomic site where such an effect is conceivable: Here carcinogenesis from direct smoke contact is not an issue, and the "anti-estrogenic effect" of smoking might play a protective role.2

Other apparently beneficial effects have also been ascribed to the hormonal effects of smoking, including a

* reduced risk of uterine fibroids and
* endometriosis.2

Current epidemiological data are far from conclusive, however. Other effects on the female reproductive system, similarly not established, include a lower risks of vomiting of pregnancy and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. For these, it is not clear what the mechanism of effect might be.43

Nicotine and nicotinic compounds as therapeutic agents

Nicotinic treatment holds considerable promise for preventing or treating a variety of conditions. Experimental studies with humans and animal models will help to identify critical mechanisms for the beneficial and adverse effects of nicotine. Much of the health risk associated with smoking, especially cancer and pulmonary disease, is attributable to some of the 4,000 compounds other than nicotine present in cigarette smoke. Nicotine apart from tobacco can be much safer, although like any drug it is not without adverse effects. When developing nicotine for therapeutic use, it is critical to determine the mechanisms of its actions so that its beneficial effects can be maximized and its adverse effects can be minimized. Alternate routes of nicotine administration may reduce adverse effects. For example, the nicotine skin patch seems to have much lower dependence liability than smoking because it is administered only once per day and produces a slow release of nicotine.47,48 Novel ligands may help determine which subtypes of nicotinic receptors are important for which effects of nicotine. Subtype selective ligands might have some of the beneficial effects of nicotine with fewer adverse side effects.

It is important to consider the mechanisms of action of nicotine to understand both its potential risks and benefits. Nicotine has complex primary actions at nicotinic receptors as well as primary effects at other receptor sites. Nicotine also has a cascade of secondary effects which involve a wide variety of neurotransmitter systems. All of these mechanisms may differentially contribute to the variety of functional effects of nicotine.

Nicotine is the prototypic agonist of the nicotinic subtype of acetylcholine receptor. This straightforward mechanism of action, however, is complicated in several respects. Nicotine potently stimulates the nicotinic receptor, but also can rapidly desensitize it. It is currently unclear precisely which of nicotine’s effects derive from its agonist actions and which from its desensitizing actions. A variety of nicotinic receptor subtypes have been identified. It is not clear which subtypes are important for which nicotine effects. In addition, nicotine has primary effects at other sites, such as N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors.49,50 Likewise NMDA ligands appear to have cross-reactivity with nicotinic receptors.51 This makes it difficult to sort out which receptor is responsible for the effects of nicotinic and NMDA ligands. Finally, an important component of nicotine effects is its ability to stimulate the release of a variety of neurotransmitters including acetylcholine, dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin.52 This cascade of neurotransmitter release can have effects on a wide variety of neurobehavioral functions.

With increased understanding of the molecular biology of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (NAR), new molecules are being developed which have enhanced selectivity for nicotinic receptor subtypes, or which may be allosteric modulators of nicotinic receptor functioning. ABT-418 is a potent and selective NAR ligand which appears to be relatively selective for the alpha-4-beta-2 NAR subtype.53 Studies of the cognitive effects of ABT-418 in animal models showed positive effects on inhibitory avoidance, restored performance in septal-lesioned rats and enhanced primate performance on delayed matching-to-sample tasks.54 Other nicotinic agonists under development include GTS-21, an anabasine derivative which may have activity at alpha-7 NARs and may be neuroprotective. S-1663 appears to be selective for alpha-3-beta-4/2 NARs and may selectively enhance dopamine release and reduce neuroleptic-induced catalepsy. Novel selective nicotinic agonists may offer significant therapeutic advantages over nicotine itself.

Research is continuing in a number of directions to promote a better understanding of the role of nicotinic mechanisms in both CNS and peripheral disease states and to develop selective nicotinic agonists for clinical trials. Such efforts may open up a new era in nicotine pharmacology.
[/color]

Hi Nightlight, that's a lot for me to go through. Pretty impressive stuff by some of what I read. I'll get back to that and read it properly.

Note well: I am still trying to improve from my last smoking bout nearly 4 months ago. Haven't yet gotten over the toxicity from it yet and this is probably one of the worst experiences I have ever had.

Put it this way, I think people could go back and forth bringing up articles for or against tobacco smoking.....my experience is enough for me. The toxicity from this has been hell on earth and alzheimers is the last thing on my mind (excuse the pun there). I just wanted to post that to you nightlight that someone sent to my inbox, but for me personally? alzheimers at this point in time is the LEAST of my worries.

I don't think I'd smoke, go through pure utter hell on earth daily just so I can avoid it....alzheimers.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> but thanks for the articles regardless.

It seems to me, after my experience, not only has it poisoned every system in my body, but has ruined any progress I had made previously to it, caused me a tremendous lot of suffering, put myself and my family through a lot and left now with ongoing muscle twitches, nausea, mental effects, abdominal cramps, salivating fits and so it goes on. If that's increasing glutathione levels? You can keep it. Perhaps I am an exceptional case with the way my body handles toxins, but it did not need cigarette smoking on top of it.

It seems to work wonderfully for you and be that as it may, I am sure you are well aware of hte horror stories out there as well, with those getting cancer of the throat, eaten away by long term smoking (needing a plug like device in their throat), not to mention the many other problems also. Though one cannot attribute it all to smoking, there is ample evidence it has devastated families.

Nightlight tell me, are the cigarettes of today, the supermarket ones really so different from the old style organics? For me? After what occured? i would be absolutely TERRIFIED to ever smoke again, even trying the ones you recommend.

...I am sure you are well aware of hte horror stories out there as well, with those getting cancer of the throat, eaten away by long term smoking (needing a plug like device in their throat),...

Who hasn't seen all that. The first problem is that those (Big Pharma & Big Med) promoting the "research" in support of such interpretation are raking in huge amounts of money (extorted from smokers in variety of ways) based on these interpretations.

The second and more fundamental problem is that the key claims of antismoking "science" still rest on mere statistical associations, more than half a century after they found these associations. Normal progression in science is to take such associations as a hint to be followed up shortly with hard science methods which can distinguish the causal from other types of associations.

The antismoking "science" is, half a century later, still stuck in the ""hint" phase! Any time they tried to get at the causes using hard science, the research backfired and smoking turned out to be protective against the very same diseases it was blamed for (e.g. smoking mice gets significantly fewer lung cancers than non-smoking mice, or in human randomized intervention trials, the randomly selected "quit group" gets more heart attacks & more lung cancers than those left to smoke, or similarly, among smokers, those who inhale tobacco smoke get fewer lung cancers than those who don't inhale,... etc, there are hundreds of such "anomalies"). It became so embarrassing, they simply stopped looking beyond the "hint" any more, and focues of using media to trumpet the hint as if they had a hard science proof underlying the claims.

To see what the problem with not moving beyond the mere statistical associations is, consider for example the fact that "wearing a bra" increases your "risk" for breast cancer by 12,500 times -- namely, if you take million test subjects who were bra and million who don't, you will find the breast cancer 12,500 more often in the "bra wearing" group than in the non-bra group. Does that mean bra causes breast cancer? Of course, not. This gigantic association (which dwarfs any association found regarding smoking and disease) merely reflects the fact that "bra" wearing is a "marker" for female gender, and women do get breast cancer 12,500 times more often than men.

Since tobacco smoke does have numerous medicinal effects (after all, tobacco was cultivated and revered for millennia as a medicinal and sacred plant for the healing properties of its smoke), it will associate with the very diseases for which it is therapeutic (or it may provide some relief against the causal agents of the diseases). For example, glutathione is the chief antioxidant and detox enzyme in our bodies, especially powerful for excreting mercury, lead, aluminum and other metals. A smoker will have nearly double levels of glutathione[/b] compared to non-smoker. Hence, if you are a person exposed to such metals at work or at home, you will find smoking to be helpful in alleviating the symptoms of the metal toxicity since your excretion rates will be double of those in non-smokers. Hence, smoking effectively halves your exposure level. Now, that doesn't mean it eliminates the exposure or its effects, but it does reduce it.

Therefore, a statistical sample which [b]does not control for the metals exposure level, but merely checks smoking vs diseases (caused by the toxic metal exposures), will find a statistical association, which will be generally positive i.e. those who smoke more will have more of these diseases, simply because smoking in this case is an indirect gauge, a marker or a measure, of the exposure level. But, if one controls for the exposure to metals, and compares the individuals with similar exposure, while varying only smoking parameter, then one will find smokers to have fewer of the same diseases.

In the glutathione example above, smoking will associate with these metal toxicity diseases exactly the same way that using sunscreens will associate with sunburns or skin cancers -- if you don't control for sun exposure, but pick samples within general population, you will find that users of sunscreens will have more sunburns and more skin cancers than non-users (since the latter may not spend much time in the sun, or may live in cloudy or rainy regions, thus do not need or use sunscreens). But, if you control for the sun exposure and compare people with the same levels of exposure, you will find that sunscreen users are protected against the very same problems that were positively associated with sunscreens within general population sample.

You can find much more on how the modern "health science" manipulates such statistical correlations (for profits of those funding the research) in a nicely written and very readable book (free, online):

Science Without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research
by Steven J. Milloy

Though one cannot attribute it all to smoking, there is ample evidence it has devastated families.

The only thing that "devastates families" of smokers is the financial and social damage from the antismoking con artists. There is also a negative placebo or a witch doctor effect, which does actually damage the health of those smokers who believe in the antismoking voodoo:

[color:"blue"]
J. Hatton, R. Harris [/i] Murder a Cigarette: the Smoking Debate[/b]

<img src="http://www.forces.org/writers/hatton/images/book1.jpg">

There was a study in Heidelberg, described by Professor Eysenck in Psychological Reports (1989) in which 528 men were asked [b]whether they, as smokers, were convinced that they would be very likely to develop lung cancer, heart disease, or other 'smoking related diseases'.

The 72 who answered 'yes', while admitting that their views were taken from information in the media, had an almost three times higher death rate at the end of 13 years than those who were not so influenced.

Fear can kill. This has been known since disease was first studied. We are entitled to wonder how many people have been killed more by the fear of 'smoking related diseases' than by any actual disease itself.


[i]Leslie Kenton Modern-day Death Curses

<img src="http://www.lesliekenton.com/activebar/images/leslie1.jpg">

Almost everybody has heard of death curses: psychological literature is laced with accounts of how Aboriginal witch doctors have quite literally brought about the death of the young and healthy by cursing them. No sooner do these people learn of the fate which has been cast for them than they begin inexplicably to sicken and eventually to die. It appears that through complex biological processes, their simple belief in the curse brings about destruction of their organism.

In civilized society we tend to look upon such phenomena as anthropological curiosities - products of primitive superstition which simply don't touch us in our more enlightened age. What we are not aware of however is that many of us in the civilized world are also under our own brand of `death curses'. They may be subtler than those issued by witch doctors but they can be every bit as potent in bringing about the physical and mental decline which we have come to associate with aging.

Common (and usually unconscious) notions such as `retirement', `middle-age', `It's all down hill after forty', and `At your age you must start taking things more easily', are widely held. They can exert a powerful effect on the process of aging by creating destructive self-fulfilling expectations about age decline. Instead of facing the future full of confidence and excitement about what lies ahead, optimism is replaced by anxiety as we are warned to `Be careful', or `Don't take chances on a new career at your age.'
[/color]

I am still trying to improve from my last smoking bout nearly 4 months ago.

Sorry to hear about the problems you had. It may well be that you are harmed chiefly by the above "witch doctor effect" since you seem to believe very strongly in the antismoking propaganda, being wired, as most people are, in the antismoking propaganda "matrix". It could be also that you have smoked additive laden junk cigarettes and the additives, not the tobacco smoke proper, has caused a bad reaction. It may also be that you smoked too many cigarettes too quickly, after a long period of not smoking (there can always be too much of a good stuff). WIthout further experimentation, you won't know which is the case.

If I were you, I would take a clean, additive free organically grown tobacco (such as Natural American Spirit), pick a thin cigarette paper, without filters and hand roll one, then smoke it as health ritual, in peace and quiet, observe the blue smoke cloud and kind of try to connect spiritually with the magic contained in this ancient gift of gods. This is quite different process than a hectic, hurried and mechanical sucking of supermarket junk cigarettes. The latter is not very different than gorging on few pounds of MSG laden potato chips in one sitting -- it's going to make you sick, even though a real potato in real home made dish from traditional recipe may be perfectly fine and healthy for you.

If you can't find NAS tobacco pouches or cans in your area, the full flavor, regular Winston cigarettes do use real tobacco leaf and are additive free (albeit they don't use organically grown tobacco, but that may be a minor aspect dwarfed by the positive medicinal effects of the leaf). In that case you would need to snip off the filters (since they change the balance of CO vs medicinal smoke particles and also shed non-biodegradable fibers which you end up inhaling) and perhaps use a cigarette holder, to cool the smoke and avoid burning your lips, if you are not used to these oldfashioned ways of smoking. The principal point, though, is to smoke it as a sacred health ritual, like taking some ancient miracle herb or tea, or some latest highly recommended supplement.

<img src="http://members.iglou.com/perkins/newkpf/2002_07/1198.jpg">

In conclusion, tobacco is the single most potent natural medicine that humans have ever had. No other medicine, natural or synthetic, comes even close to the broad spectrum and depth of its healing magic.

Your posts sadden me. Smoking has been proven beyond a doubt to be harmful to ones health, even the tobacco companies know this and have begun buying up food companies because they know their demise is on the way. Finding reasons to smoke and all the information posted appear to be trying to convince yourself this habit is okay. I do hope you consider that this experiment is on your own body and down the road when difficulties do arise there is no turning back.

Smoking has been proven beyond a doubt to be harmful to ones health...

Different people have different standards of what they consider a "proof". Being educated as a theoretical physicist and having also studied the antismoking "proof", including the financial interests surrounding it, along with the much longer history of tobacco (which was highly revered as a medicinal plant), I have concluded that the antismoking "proof" is a self-serving scientific con job (one among several peddled by the present-day health con industry, which includes not only amalgams & thimerosal frauds, but the entire "cholesterol mythology" with its toxic statins ruining the "golden years" of many millions in USA alone).

Since you have no doubt, smoking would certainly be harmful to you for the same reason that a death curse is genuinly harmful to those who believe in it.

<img src="http://www.daviddeen.com/artwork/witch_doctor.jpg">

... tobacco companies know this and have begun buying up food companies because they know their demise is on the way.

That has nothing to do with scientific proof. It is simply the result of corporations pursuing their self-interest, which is certainly not identical with the interest of smokers.

The Big Tobacco realized that the Big Anti-tobacco (Big Pharma, Big Med and the "health" bureaucrats on their pay) is a far bigger fish than themselves, hence they joined them at the expense of smokers. It may be short sighted and it will eventually backfire, but the corporate managers mostly care about the next few quarters at best, hence it's a right decision within their horizons.

While the demise of the Big Tobacco is on the way, and it will be a well deserved fate, that is not the same as demise of the ancient medicinal plant, tobacco, or of those who believe in and are helped by its healing properties revered in its long history. Smokers, who number about 60 million of voting, working and consuming adults in USA (or about a third worldwide), are just beginning to awake to the scientific scam and the underlying financial extortion, at least those better educated and independently minded ones, who can check and critically evaluate the scientific literature.

The beneficial side-effect of present "denormalization" and herding of smokers together into streets is that the word is getting around quicker and it won't be long before these 60 millions currently extorted and discriminated against adults shakes off the antismoking parasite for good. After all, the entire antismoking enterprise, their "science" and their media power lives on mere few crumbs from the spare change extorted from these same smokers (who were mostly sucked into the antismoking propaganda matrix, for now).

<img src="http://members.iglou.com/perkins/newkpf/2002_07/1198.jpg">

Finding reasons to smoke and all the information posted appear to be trying to convince yourself this habit is okay.

It surely is perfectly Ok, as it was for thousands of years before the present swindle took off. Recall that the driving force behind this antismoking swindle is the same one that fights all other natural remedies and your access to medicinal herbs and vitamins, the Big Pharma and Big Med , the Sickness Industry. They're the same forces that bought laws and bureaucracies to force their thimerosal laden vaccines on our kids, ruining brains of millions of children and lives of uncountable familes, the same force which maintains that mouthful of mercury is "safe and effective" for you and that any problems you experienced from it is due to your "rare sensitivity".

<img src="http://www.saddletramplee.com/images/Dr-Leroy01.gif"> <img src="http://www.forces.org/evidence/pharma/images/believe.gif">
That kind of parasitic and extremely harmful enterprise cannot go on for much longer, or the society tolerating its thievery won't go on for long, and that is where you should look for the real big demise in the near future. The ancient "gift of gods" will certainly survive our present "Sickness Industry" parasite.

I do hope you consider that this experiment is on your own body and down the road when difficulties do arise there is no turning back.

That observation applies to any important decision we make in our lives.

Hi Nightlight, regardless of all this convincing massive amounts of info you are giving us, and as great as it sounds, it does not explain the hospital bills over where i live due to those smoking and having the typical outcomes. you may wish to put that down to anything BUT smoking, but I'm afraid, some have managed to reverse this by quitting. What a pity they took it up in teh first place. Does not explain those with throat cancer and having to talk through a plug-like device either.

Again, you may want to come up with anything else as an excuse. it also does not explain why both my parents, smokers, deteriorated until they gave up smoking. My father got so bad, that even when he "tried" to smoke, he'd end up having terrible coughing fits and had to quit. He improved in health and never looked back.

My Mother ended up with ongoing chest problems, some coughing, other health issues, never attributed it to smoking at all. Continued and things worsened. finally when she gave up, these things improved and she's never looked back.

Frankly, I don't like what you are doing here entirely and many people in my country have had to pay out tax payers money to fork out for those who have damaged themselves by years of smoking or even obesity related disorders, some of which are caused by those overeating. Perhaps I ought to encourage both my parnets to take up smoking again based on your advice? Lead them right back to how they were. They did actually take it up again and guess what? Same stuff occured, so they were in actual fact forced to stop due to the side effects.

I know two old men, identical twins. One smokes, the other does not. THe one who smokes, has ended up with all the health problems, he coughs, he's weak, things are falling apart, the other one is strong and doing fine. NO problems at all. Again, you'll put it down to something else I'm sure.

Also, my toxicity from my smoking bout? That was not mind over matter. I would not have bought them in the first place if I had a mind set over what it might do. I was SHOCKED to have this occur, and this I did not expect and there is no way I would have thought 4 months later I'd be suffering still from the severe aftereffects.

I don't think it would matter what people had gone through, or what family members they've lost due to smoking or have cancer, I assume you would continue to support your view regardless. I don't buy into it and I think it's about time the tobacco companies were taken down for the damage they have caused.

Yule Brynner, the great hollywood star, kept his body in SUPREME fitness condition and health. His only vice was smoking. He smoked daily. He died young from smoking related disease.

I can't convince you, nobody can, you've got your mind set that it's great. I have a cousin that smokes, she eats well, but she's pale, tired and coughs. Will she give up? no. Now if that's the outcome of the health benefits of smoking and raising glutathione levels, I'm not sure I'd like to take it up to be in that state just to avoid some old age brain disease.

Perhaps, once again it is due to the toxins/chemicals they now have in smokes, compared to the ones you speak of, I do not know. Regardless, the anti smoking agenda is aimed at the right thing, because the cigarettes of today are toxic without a doubt.

The ones you speak of may well have the benefits that you have shared with us, but I have YET to see a positive outcome of a smoker within my family or relatives.... and frankly I do not feel like encouraging it based on what you have shared, as I don't completely buy into it, what you share and what I"ve seen are two totally different experiences... and that concerns me.

Again, are we talking about very different cigarettes here nightlight? If so, then please continue to make that clear in your posts or people will assume you are speaking of ALL cigarettes, which I TOTALLY disagree are healthy for anybody. But you seem to talk about smoking in general, which makes out that they're all "ok".

The anti smoking agenda, is aimed at cigarettes full stop, but most of which are the ones marketed tooday on the shelves full of many toxic chemicals and addictive poisons. I can hardly believe that you'd find this an issue? wishing to place warning signs on the cigarettes of today???? KNowing what they have in them? Is there really something wrong with actually giving people a chance to see what these cancer causing chemicals are capable of doing? I don't see the issue and it should have been done a long time ago.

Again, perhaps the cigarettes you speak of, the old style organics have some benefits, but most likely in moderation. But please do not speak of smoking in general, this gives people a wrong impression and also is rather callous considering how many of us have smoking casualties within our own families.

I instinctively know that smoke of any form is not good for me. My lungs and my body tells me so and i listen to that. Research can say what it likes either way, but my body will will have the last word.

Hi, i used to smoke and got sore throat all the time, it got so bad i thought i had throat cancer and had 3 biopsies on my throat.
My dad got alzeimers at an early age, in his 50s and smoked all his life until the alzeimers took over and now he can no longer use any limbs
My uncle has septisemia due to smoking, he is still quite young and docs have told him there is no cure.
smoking is not good, if im in a smokey room my sinuses get blocked and i get palpitations, i cant wait for the pubs in the Uk to be smoke free, i may be able to get a social life again.
Smoking does give you that nice cozy feeling, from what i have read, its because it raises the T3 in the brain.
When i gave up smoking due to bad health it was like i lost a friend, a dangerous friend!

Smoking 'causes brain decline'


Study links smoking to brain decline
Smoking speeds up brain decline in the elderly, a study suggests.
The rate of decline is five times higher than in people who have never smoked, according to a group of European researchers.

Their study, published in Neurology, also found that smokers who quit greatly slowed their cognitive decline.

The findings contradict some earlier research which had suggested that nicotine could actually aid the brain.

The latest study ran a series of questions and tests called a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) designed to establish the cognitive function of men and women aged 65 and over.

Among those who never smoked, their MMSE declined .03 points a year, while for current smokers it was .16 points per year. For people who had previously quit, the MMSE declined .06 points.

The MMSE has a maximum score of 30, with 24 or less suggesting possible early stage dementia.

The constant inhaling of a substance that is a poison is more likely to have a negative effect than a positive one

Amanda Sandford, ASH
Study author Alewjin Ott, of the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, in The Netherlands, said chronic tobacco use causes atherosclerosis and hypertension and that this, and other effects of smoking, increases the risk of stroke and small areas of tissue damage in the brain.

Current smoker

The greater the number of cigarettes smoked and the longer a person had been a smoker for, the greater the cognitive decline, Professor Ott found.

However, this was more significant for current smokers than those who had quit.

A family history of dementia did not influence the higher decline in smokers, said the researchers.

They studied data for 9,209 people in Denmark, France, The Netherlands and the UK for the European Community Concerted Action Epidemiology of Dementia (EURODEM) incidence research group.

Amanda Sandford, a spokeswoman for Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), said: "There has been other research suggesting nicotine might have some beneficial effects. It is quite a complex area."

Alzheimer's

Earlier studies had shown a positive effect against Alzheimer's, but Ms Sandford suggested this was because smokers did not live long enough.

She added: "The constant inhaling of a substance that is a poison is more likely to have a negative effect than a positive one."

Though smoking was more associated with damage to the heart and lungs, it also affected brain function, she said.

She welcomed the finding that those who had quit smoking also benefited as this emphasised that it was "never to late to quit".

However, Simon Clark, director of pro-smoking lobby Forest, said: "People will be very sceptical about these results. They will be put down to yet more scaremongering by the health industry.

"There have been so many weird reports recently and exaggerated claims that it is not going to have the slightest effect at all."

Hi Dawn, based on your experience, my parents, myself and what I have seen around me, I would have to "pretend" that smoking was good. I would actually have to deliberately believe this, regardless of the person's condition, which is completely nonsensical.

My cousin who has tried to give up a few times in her life, cannot do so properly. Her addiction now is that great, if she tries, she ends up (and I kid you not), sitting up in bed, crying, pulling her hair out and shaking. So what happens? she has to go back to her comfort smoking, even though physically she is unhealthy regardless of diet.

If you notice people that smoke, take a look at them and they are often more wrinkled than those around them, simply because the ongoing intake of toxins/chemical etc is using up the much needed antioxidants. The ones I know (most) cough continually, clear their throat constantly and we joke with them by saying "have another cigarette", which of course they know is totally sarcastic and they start laughing, but encouraged to quit? no, becuase they do not wish to go through withdrawal.

Any benefits of smoking, would have to be screamed about in order to attempt to drown out the rest of what it does. The many toxic chemicals would have to be deliberately ignored and pushed to oneside, in favour of finding something it might do.

I also feel the same, I think those that smoke who are old? Probably die before they get the old age brain diseases, and also, it does give a person something to do, smoking makes you feel good at the time, it does stimulate the mind, I've experienced it, but I do not buy into the rest of it AT ALL. I've seen old people never smoke and keeping their minds healthy and active by having a hobby in life, which I think is the key to why some go right down hill that give up and allow senility to set into an unactive ageing brain.

Not all no, but my own father has things he does in life that gives his life meaning, he is 75, never smokes and in amazing condition. Those around him who smoke? They're look and act older than he does. One smokes everday and is in a home, she now has memory problems and needs aid daily because her daughter cannot look after her (she's younger than my own father, she's in her sixties).

The old people at church who dont' smoke have lasted. The ones that did? ARe all dead and gone. Which is sad because I remember them all and the ones outlasting the others are non smokers. Most in their seventies and well into their eighties, not a thing wrong with their minds.

Again, you can put across any impressive text, but life experience is what I look at and so far, I have yet to see benefits. You will always get some amazing old person that has smoked everyday of their life and doing amazingly well, those people seem to be able to do anything, but you cannot use the exception to try to call it a rule! And oh boy, it is an exception. ONe old man in my family smoked everyday, a pipe, he lasted well into his nineties! But if I lookedat that and forgot the rest of them that died of some nasty diseases who smoked daily, i'd be an idiot.

So let's get back to reality and realise the dangers of smoking are real, they are obvious and just about every family will be able to tell you the same. This is why we would need to make sure that the benefits of smoking are not taken out of context and made sure we know WHAT cigarettes we speak of when we talk of any benefit (at all) and how often they are smoked.

The only way I think a person could get away with it, would once again be the old style, organic types, missing out the toxic chemicals of today, and they would obviously need to be smoked in moderation. But this has NOTHING to do with the smokes of today, which is what is how this thread started and what I was referring to.

Once again, I will spell out, the anti smoking agenda is aimed at warning people against the toxic chemicals in cigarettes, putting a warning on the packet, when earlier they were allowed to cover this up. NIghtlight, you seem to have an issue with people finding this out? You speak against the anti smoking agenda, yet this is all they have done! Cigarettes are not banned are they? Do you not feel that people do not have a right to know that there are toxic chemicals in todays cigarettes and the possibilities of what might occur if they smoke them everyday?

They are nothing but sticks of toxicity. Any benefits would have been long lost considering what is in them.

Study author Alewjin Ott, of the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, in The Netherlands, said chronic tobacco use causes atherosclerosis and hypertension and that this, and other effects of smoking, increases the risk of stroke and small areas of tissue damage in the brain....

These studies statistically linking smoking with just about any disease that exists, along with any other disfunction and evil in human society, are dime a dozen these days, as every Dr. Ott and the like in the world is scrambling to get their hands into the loot swindled away from the smokers. In fact, my first first post in this thread on Alzheimer's points to my critique of couple similar "studies" showing that smoking increases the "risk" of dementias, including Alzheimer's.

To see what is wrong with this "study", and thousands similar ones churned by the antismoking junk science industry, you only need to realize that using exactly the same "scientific" method you can "prove", for example, that use of breathing ventilators dramatically increases the "risk" of death.

To "prove" that "theory", you simply restrict your study to a single parameter, the use of ventilator. Hence you will have the test group, the users of ventilators, plus the control group consisting of non-users of ventilators and to appear even more thorough and "scientific", add a third group, the former users. Then, to make it appear even more like a real science, you use "prospective" type of study (which is a stronger kind than retrospective, where family is interviewed to recall the use of ventilator by the deceased family members) and, this being a "serious science" in need of lots of money, you follow up these 3 groups for twenty years (just to get you to retirement comfortably), counting how many deaths and other unfavorable events of interest occur in each group.

What will you find? That ventilator users, in any age group will have much higher mortality (and just about any other unfavorable health event) than non-users, while the "former users" will fall in between. Say, you find that ten times more "users" died within 20 years of the study than the age matched non-users, or three times more than "former users" .

Then you can trumpet proudly to the mass media (and to the very pleased study sponsors, who may wish to sell 'ventilator cessation devices' or 'pills') that the "ventilator use" increases the "risk" of death within next twenty years tenfold and that "quitting" the ventilator use reduces the "risk" of death tree times. Duh.

That is precisely kind of "science" that Dr. Ott and thousands other talentless, opportunistic hacks churn out every year for the antismoking con men.

The key problem with that kind of "science" should be obvious: If parameter (A) (e.g. smoking) is statistically associated with some disease (B), this could be due to:

1. (A) is causing (B), or
2. (A) is protective/relief against an (early) symptoms of (B), or
3. (A) is outright protective/therapeutic for (B), or
4. some parameter (C) increases odds of (A) and (B).

Consider, for example C="exposure to heavy metal vapors or dusts", such as mercury or lead, which will make A="smoking" more likely (due to doubling of glutathione production in smokers, thus doubling of the detoxing rate and the resulting relief from metal toxicity), while this same exposure will simultaneously increase the ods of B=Alzheimer's (or Parkinson's or other dementias and neurological & immune system diseases). Hence, any single paramater (A=smoking) study will find A and B to be positively associated and can declare that parameter A is a "risk factor" for disease B. Duh, again. And that's all that Dr Ott "discovered".

In normal science (unlike the con job of antismoking "science"), when people encounter a statistical relation between (A) and (B), that is taken as mere hint indicating that one of possibilities 1-4 listed may be behind. The normal science then proceeds immediately (within a year or two, or much quicker in public health emergencies) with harder scientific methods, such as animal experiments or randomized intervention trials, which can discriminate between hypotheses 1,2,3 and 4. With antismoking "science", as even your citation illustrates, we are still in the "hint" phase, still talking statistical associations, half a century after these hints turned up.

As to why the normal scientific progression from the "hint phase" toward hard science didn't occur in antismoking "science" decades ago and why are we still tossing staistical associations around -- it did occur, but it went the "wrong" way every time, showing that it was hypotheses (2), (3) and (4) that were behind the association, not the hypothesis (1), which is what the antismoking "reaserch" sponsors wanted to hear. They simply stopped probing behind the "hint" and are still churning the single (or few tweakable) parameter statistical studies by the truckloads, half a century later. With the public education focused on groundless selfesteem and equalities of all kinds, not much sophistication is needed from these con men to dupe the scientifically and mathematically uneducated flocks.

In our ventilator example, going from the "hint" phase to the "hard science" phase, might be a randomized intervention trial, which would mean to take, say, 2000 ventilator users, randomly pick 1000 of them as "quit" group and take them off the ventilator (instead of looking at self-selected sample of "former users", which is healthwise entirely different sample than our "quit" group, the self-selected "former users" are patients who got well enough to breathe on their own and don't need ventilator any more). Then you watch these two groups, the 1000 "current users" and 1000 "former users" -- will you see now that "quitting" ventilator use reduces the risk of death threefold? Of course not -- most of the "quit" group would die, squirming in agony (yeah, poor addicts, you see how evil and addicitve those breathing tubes are), shortly after you rip their breathing tubes out.

As pointed out in the previous posts, this is what happens, albeit not as dramatically, when you take a random subset of smokers into a "quit" group -- they first squirm in agony for a while (poor addicts, you see how evil and addictive that nicotine is), then they end up with more cancers, including 20% more of lung cancers, 40% more colon cancer,... more heart attacks, more depression, anxiety, weight gain, suicides, accidents,... and have altogether greater mortality than the group left alone to smoke as they wished.

Forcing and pressuring people to quit smoking, through economic extortion, social pressures and "denormalization", as it has become fashonable these days, is no different than going into hospitals and ripping the breathing tubes out of the noses and mouths of patients, based on the "scientific" discovery that use of breathing tubes greatly increases the risk of death, stroke, klidney failure,... It is a pure evil, ignorant or otherwise.

As to smoking & Alzheimer's, the real relation, which is that smoking is both protective and therapeutic against Alzheimer's, is well known for decades, not just at the statistical level (in multiparameter studies, where subjects compared are matched on all known risk factors, and only smoking is varied), but at the hard science level -- several biochemical mechanisms behind these protective & therapeutic effects are known:

a) One is glutathione upregulation by tobacco smoke, in cases of heavy metal accelerated Alzheimer's (especially frequent among Apo E4 allele carriers, which is a low mercury detox variant of Apo E gene, and this dementia has early onset, 40s & 50s).

b) Another one is stimulation and increase in the number of nicotinic receptors and upregulation of acetylcholone in the brain by tobacco smoke (in part by nicotine), both of which are depleted in Alzheimer's patients, is another mainly therapeutic mechanism (they have even used nicotine patches on Alzheimer's, albeit they don't work nearly as well as real tobacco smoke).

c) The third family of mechanisms is stimulation of vascularization & blood supplies to the brain, such as growth and branching of capillaries, by tobacco smoke (mostly by nicotine, but also by carbon monoxide and nitric oxides, which at the low levels delivered by tobacco smoke act as signals to the biochemical networks to increase the blood flow & oxygen supplies).

To avoid being duped by the pseudo-scientific opportunists, such as Dr. Ott and similar conmen, check a very readable online book I mentioned earlier:

Science Without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research
by Steven J. Milloy.

which explains it all very plainly and illustrates via numerous examples from ongoing "scientific" scams, how exactly they do it and how to read that kind of "risk factor" pseudo-scientific voodoo without being taken in by the conmen.

Nightlight, you can give me study after study if you like and on they go. Me and others have enough proof in our own backyards without the need to be impressed by the ongoing churning out of massive amounts of information that can go either way. For or against. You have made yourself clear, you are all for smoking, good for you. I could just as easily continue to get on the internet and copy and paste just as extensive studies to argue with yours I'm sure.

I only know what I've seen and the improvements that I've seen after people have quit smoking. And what I saw when they DID smoke. That speaks for itself.

I could keep repeating myself here on what occured in my situation, and I'm sure others could too, but what effect would it have?

I know what I experienced, even without hearing from others own exerperiences and it was appaulling and there is no doubt to the toxicity of the cigarettes I smoked. Absolutely NO DOUBT. Something I'd not wish on anybody, even if my system happens to be stuffed and not eliminating properly, it shows they are poison.

And I will not be doing it again, unless of course I wish to spend my days in a toxic torment (perhaps you consider that healthy?).

Nightlight, I am quite interested in knowing what the cigarettes are that you refer to as I know of people who can not stop smoking would it be better if they changed to a safer variety that don't have so much "nasty" in them? I have been told before that cigs of today are 30X more toxic than they were 40 years ago.

...even if my system happens to be stuffed and not eliminating properly, it shows they are poison.

The glutathione upregulation by tobacco smoke is not an instant pushbutton process. It works like an exercise for immune & detox systems, the way exercise works for your muscles -- when you smoke there is a gentle periodic load, followed by longer relaxation of detox systems, just as there is a gentle periodic load on muscles when you do situps or jog. But if you are in bad shape to start with, deciding to do a five mile jog out of a blue will certainly hurt you.

In addition to the quantity after non-smoking for years, you smoked an additive laden junk cigarettes, likely not made with a tobacco leaf at all, and with filters (fibers, unbalanced CO), which would be analogous of this unprepared five mile jog done in the busy smog filled city streets in summer.

There is also a nutritional side to using properly this ancient medicine to help in mercury detox (via glutathione pathway). Specifically, glutathione needs selenium (400+ mcg/day for smokers) and extra vitamins E & C (to recycle glutathione into reduced=active form). I suspect you were Ok on these requirements, since you are already working on you detox and watching nutrition.

My cousin who has tried to give up a few times in her life, cannot do so properly. Her addiction now is that great, if she tries, she ends up (and I kid you not), sitting up in bed, crying, pulling her hair out and shaking. So what happens? she has to go back to her comfort smoking, even though physically she is unhealthy regardless of diet.

As explained in the previous post, forcing people to quit, by whatever means is no more helpful to their health than pulling out breathing tubes from hospital patients, just because "science" can "prove" that the use of breathing tubes "increases the risk" (in the same pure statistical sense that smoking does for the so-called 'smoking related diseases) of stroke, heart attack, kidney failure and generally odds of dying.

You need to help her shake off the "death curse" injected into her mind by the antismoking con artists (who stand to make big bucks should she give in and quit, first on the pharmaceutical cessation "therapy", then on antidepressants, antianxiety, antipsychotic pharmaceuticals, then on weight control,.... as the baseline). That is the only thing harming her health related indirectly to her use of this ancient medicinal plant, which by itself is only helping her, as her own biochemical networks are already signalling to her quite unambigiously. It is only the "death curse" from the con artists that is truly damaging her health:

[color:"blue"]There was a study in Heidelberg, described by Professor Eysenck in Psychological Reports (1989) in which 528 men were asked whether they, as smokers, were convinced that they would be very likely to develop lung cancer, heart disease, or other 'smoking related diseases'.

The 72 who answered 'yes', while admitting that their views were taken from information in the media, had an almost three times higher death rate at the end of 13 years than those who were not so influenced.

Fear can kill. This has been known since disease was first studied. We are entitled to wonder how many people have been killed more by the fear of 'smoking related diseases' than by any actual disease itself. [/color]

If you wish to help her, bring her in to check these posts, read the articles and books at the links I gave here and then make up her own mind based on both sides of the the story. (I am not making a penny out of any of this, nor anyone I know of at the sites I linked to, whether she smokes or not. )

Just brainwashing her with onesided "truth" (bought by those making big bucks out of it) and pressuring her to quit is cruel and at the bottom of it, as evil as pulling the breathing tubes out of the hospital patients. You commented on her "crying, pulling her hair out and shaking", then you "explain" and dismiss it as the result of a "great addiction".

The "addiction" is not a scientific term, but an emotional and value laden disparaging term, the emotion in question being your own hate for the certain ways of fulfilling ones urgent needs (which you may be incapable of perceiving or understanding sufficiently). You could equally well use such 'hate label' and dismiss the squirming and gasping for air by a hospital patient after you pull her breathing tubes out, as the result of her "great addiction" to the dangerious breathing tubes. The only difference is that in the latter case, the relation and the need being fulfilled is mechanical and self-evident to the naked eye, while in the former case, smoking, it is a much more subtle need at the molecular and bichemical level, invisible to the eye and still largely unknown to the present-day science.

Nightlight, i take your point on the analogy you gave regarding me with my binge smoke! And that was the reason I started this thread. I was referring to the cigarettes of TODAY, the junk laden ones with possibly no real benefits at all. So let's keep to what cigarettes I am talking about when I mention these negatives.

Also, correction. I never once suggested to my cousin to quit smoking, she made that move on her own. Due to finance, plus the fact she felt it might help her health (her move, her right). If anything, i said to her that if she felt smokes helped her get through the day, I didn't see much wrong with smoking moderately, especially to avoid things like antidepressants and many other things that could be far worse. Again though, she smokes the crap ones of today, so it would not have been bad at all of me to encourage her to quit due to the toxins they contain.....even you admit they are junk...so if I had warned her, I hardly see I'd have committed some crime as you suggested on your post that I would have been doing.

Her reaction during withdrawal was terrible yes, but what does that show? The fact is, she can't get through one day without a smoke. I don't know if I'd like to be in a state where if I was without my smokes, I'd go through hell ... how is that normal?

To compare someone giving up smoking, to having a tube pulled out on someone needing oxygen is the most is hardly worth even commenting on. We need oxygen and food to survive.

Addictions do exist, go down to some drug clinics and take a look at the victims of addiction there, drug abuse. Alcoholism, cocaine/heroine addiction. They are real, and families have been destroyed by it. Ever seen a drug addict? the results of heroine addiction?

Also, mercury toxicity. There are some who get mercury out and get far worse, withdrawal and detox are not pleasant. Would you suggest that really it's cruel to take mercury out of them, they need it? Or could it be the toxins coming out and sometimes one has to go through pain as toxins make their way out of the system Often people are further exposed when toxins erupt and circulate.

Now would you feel that the cigarettes of today with all their chemicals might produce a similar reaction if they are discontinued?.....

The cigarettes you smoke, I gather contain some benefits. You clearly feel they've helped you. I would like to know again, if you don't mind sharing, how many you smoke a day? And sorry to ask again, I'd need to re-read the posts, but what kind do you smoke?

Now for someone like me that had such a horrible reaction to the binge smoke I did (yes admittedly junk cigarettes), the idea of even risking smoking again, naturally causes me fear. once bitten twice shy. I have an uncle that smokes, cousins that smoke, I never tell them to stop. It concerns me however, that the cigarettes they smoke are chemically laden and the fact they are not moderate in their smoking.

Now don't you think that is a valid concern? Woudl you smoke the ones of today, the junk ones? Say if you did not have access to the ones you have? What is the alternative if there were no old style organic ones? would you turn to the junk?

Nightlight, I am quite interested in knowing what the cigarettes are that you refer to as I know of people who can not stop smoking would it be better if they changed to a safer variety that don't have so much "nasty" in them?

The first and the most critical thing for the health of a smoker is to shake off the "death curse", which is the most harmful aspect of smoking today, more so than the additive & pesticide laden junk supermarket cigarettes.

Therefore, you can email your friends smokers the link to my initial post in this thread, which will give them the rest of the story about this ancient medicine, tobacco. Merely smoking in clear conscience, like eating an apple or an orange, except knowning this ancient "gift of gods" is even healthier for you, will wipe out most of the harm they may have suffered due to the witch doctor effect.

Simply knowing that tobacco smoking is not merely harmless, but actually very good for your health, makes enormous difference in effects of smoking -- you breathe cleanly, jog and exercise happily (tobacco smoke, among others, upregulates the youth hormones, testosterone & DHEA, and slows down their decline with age; it also raises levels of Coenzyme Q10, which helps cellular energy production in mitochondria, thus helps muscles work better) and do all the things the antismoking con artists claim smokers aren't supposed to be able doing. During the season of colds, my wife and five kids get one or two per season, sniffle, cough and feel sick for several days, while I get only a brief, gentle hint of the virus trying to infect me the first time kids bring it in from school, which goes away without any external symptoms within couple hours, just a few cigarettes later. I have no allergies, coughs, bronchitis, asthma,... and only had some digestive and sleep pattern problems due to mercury toxicity (17 amalgams from my teens; they're now all gone for almost 3 months). The digestive problems have already mostly cleared (e.g. I couldn't eat potatoes and some other starchy foods, now I can eat them again with no bloating), mu sleep is better, although not quite fixed as yet (I am taking DMSA, 25mg on every 3 hours, week on, week off, the Cutler's protocol). My work energy level has also increased after the removal.

In several posts that followed, I described how to get even more healthy forms of tobacco (the core medicine is so potent, though, its healing magic is hard to ruin entirely, even by the junk cigarette brands). While 5-6 years ago, there were only American Spirit cigarettes and rolling/stuffing tobacco, which used pure, high quality organically grown tobacco leaf, 100% additive free,

<img src="http://www.oklahoma-outlet.com/images/products/ryo_natural_american_spirit_us_grown.jpg"> <img src="http://www.oklahoma-outlet.com/images/products/ryo_natural_american_spirit_original.jpg">

today, virtually every tobacco manufacturer has 'natural' brands in their product line, hence the good stuff is much easier to find. Even the regular Winston cigarettes (full flavor) use additive free, real tobacco leaf (although not organically grown). These do come with filters, which add non-biodegradable fibers to the smoke, without really helping anything since the tobacco smoke particles are the very medicinal compunds of tobacco leaf (note that the propaganda term "tar" is not what smoker inhales, "tar" is what you get when you condense these particles, i.e. "tar" is to tobacco smoke what a muddy puddle is a to a cloud).

<img src="http://www.domenicocigars.com/Ressourcen/.tabakpflanze_klein_nah.JPG">

The organic molecules making up tobacco smoke particles are as old as life on Earth itself, going back hundreds of millions of years to primordial soup of organic molecules syntesized by fires of lightening and volcanoes. The biochemical networks of live cells, including those in our bodies, are perfectly well adapted to metabolize them without any harm to themselves -- it's what they are made of in the first place. We ingest thousands times larger quantitites of these same molecules in our food, water and air every day. Additives and filter fibers, which are mostly needless concessions to the antismoking con, are not something that biochemical networks of live cells have had eons of experience with, metabolizing, hence, without the long track record of smoke itself, which is fully biodegradable and at worst perfectly harmless, one should be more cautious with these extras, additives, pesticides and filters (although we do inhale all kinds of non-biodegradable fibers from clothes, carpets, upholstery,... every day; to say nothing of our food additives, which are ingested in vastly greater quantities than < 1-2 grams, the grand total of all materials a smoker takes in from tobacco smoke per day).

As with foods and beverages, preparing your own from scratch adds a special intangible, spiritual ingredient to the final product, which in my view has its own therapeutic value. Therefore I buy tobacco in cans and pouches, along with paper and empty filterless tubes, and make my own cigarettes (using mostly the "stuffing" method, although I also hand roll one or two a day, the real oldfashioned way).

<img src="http://www.rsbtobacco.com/utilities/DEMO_3.jpg"> <img src="http://www.rsbtobacco.com/utilities/DEMO_5.jpg"> <img src="http://www.rsbtobacco.com/utilities/ThumbLarge_NAT.gif">

<img src="http://www.rsbtobacco.com/utilities/DEMO_7.jpg"> <img src="http://www.rsbtobacco.com/utilities/DEMO_9.jpg"> <img src="http://www.ryomagazine.com/2005topomatic1.jpg">

Some smokers go even further with 'do it yourself' than rolling -- they grow their own tobacco in their own back yards, even apartments:

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~nathan.huber/08-09-06_1803.jpg">

<img src="http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/1783/dsc37194nv.jpg"> <img src="http://www.coffinails.com/images/12july2002a.jpg">

<img src="http://www.coffinails.com/chris/cg105.jpg"> <img src="http://www.coffinails.com/chris/July%20pmkndrvr%2012c.jpg">

<img src="http://www.coffinails.com/chris/rt3.jpg"> <img src="http://www.coffinails.com/chris/li1.jpg">

Her reaction during withdrawal was terrible yes, but what does that show? The fact is, she can't get through one day without a smoke. I don't know if I'd like to be in a state where if I was without my smokes, I'd go through hell ... how is that normal?

Being dependent and the resulting symbiotic relations fulfilling these needs is what life is about. You are dependent on thousands entities in your environment. Just consider how many technological connections you have with the external networks (forming our technologies & sciences). You don't notice them until your internet goes down, or you computer won't boot, or your power, water, phone... go out.

You start intertwining and forming dependencies with the surrounding networks the moment you are born, first by learning within first few minutes how to breathe air, which you didn't do or need until that point, then after some months, how to eat food and drink water, again the stuff you didn't need until then. All of that becomes part of you. Then you learn to read and write, which intertwines you with cultural and other social networks. You form friendships, business relations, family... All these are forms of mutual dependencies which make up your life. Take all of them out, and there is nothing left of "you".

Hence, the existence of "dependence" or "intertwining" is not a criterium by itself whether such dependence is good or bad for you. It is by their fruits, as it were, that you know them. Becoming dependent on air, veggies, water,... spouse, children, relatives, friends, employers,... are all generally good dependencies (even though in some instances they may turn out harmful).

Whether tobacco dependence is good or bad is determined by what it does to you, not by the fact that you are dependent on it (or that its existence is dependent on you finding it useful). All by itself, it is neither bad or good, but just another intertwining between your biochemical network and those around you that make up your life. The fact that you depend on it is by itself no more a bad thing than the fact that you are dependent on air or water or myriad other things. To evaluate it, you need to account pluses and minuses for each "partner" of the intertwining.

In the present-day antismoking zeitgeist, the instilled guilt and the witch doctor effect are certainly harmful to your health. The tobacco itself is an ancient and sacred medicinal plant. It is most certainly good for your health as not just tradition but all the hard science indicates (my earlier links in this thread point you to further info in support of this evaluation).

Therefore, the net evaluation of tobacco dependence may be positive or negative for different people, depending on how strong is each of these opposing effects in a given instance -- the antismoking indoctrination (harming you via the witch doctor effect: different people have different sensitivity to such influences) vs the numerous health benefits of the tobacco smoke proper (different people, depending on genetics & environmental factors may need it to different degrees, or not at all).

Of course, once you shake off the antismoking indoctrination and its "death curse" (by critically examining the fraudelant "science" used in its support), what is left is only the positive contribution of the sacred plant itself, which in the worst case you don't need at all for your health problems (e.g. rare as it may be, you might not have a health problem for which tobacco is medicinal) and the only real harm to you is to your pocketbook, while your health would be neither better nor worse.

There are drugs, such as various illegal and legal drugs, which do harm you biologically or impair your performance at work, while providing certain benefits (such as pleasure) in return.

But tobacco is not such a drug. Tobacco smoke improves many forms of performance, including mental, physical and sexual. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that "smokers perform better than non-smokers" in these areas. Namely, consider statement that "breathing tube improves your oxygen supplies". That doesn't mean that users of breathing tubes have better oxgen supplies than non-users. In fact, they will likely have worse oxygen supplies.

Or similarly, when you say that "aspirin reduces headaches" that doesn't mean that aspirin users have fewer headaches than aspirin non-users (they will likely have more headaches, that's why they use aspirin in the first place). Or, that "sunscreen protects skin against sunburns" does not mean that sunscreen users will have fewer sunburns than non-users (again, the opposite is likely true, since the sunscreen use itself is an indicator of a combination: skin sensitivity to sun and sun exposure, while non-use is an indicator of a combination: greater tolerance to sun and low or no sun exposure).

What the tobacco statement above does mean is that, for example, if you were to take 2000 smokers and randomly pick 1000 as the "quit group" , take their cigarettes away (and perhaps replace them with nicotine & antidepressant combo), then test the two groups over time, the "quit group" will perform worse in all those areas. Conversly, if you take 2000 non-smokers, and pick randomly 1000 as the "smoking group", teach them to smoke over some time, then after few months or years test the two groups, the smoking group will perform better in those same areas (that's why smoking was compulsory for students in the elite boys schools of British Empire, and why the armies throughout history have provided free or very inexpensive cigarettes, or tobacco in other forms, to their solders -- they simply do better all that they're supposed to do).

To compare someone giving up smoking, to having a tube pulled out on someone needing oxygen is the most is hardly worth even commenting on. We need oxygen and food to survive.

Survival is only the most extreme point in the spectrum of human needs. But it certanly is not the sole point of that spectrum as you imply above. There is nothing wrong with a "need" to be happy or free from pain or discomfort or depression.

The labeling of some needs as "addiction" is an emotional labeling (the emotion being a hate by the one doing the labeling) of certain ways of fulfilling those needs that you happen to disapprove of. It is not an objective or a scientific property of the need itself or of a method fulfilling it. Such labeling of needs is simply an indicator of how you feel about it, and not an objective property of the need itself or of its fulfiullment methods. The latter properties are objective and independent of how someone else feels abut them.

Also, mercury toxicity. There are some who get mercury out and get far worse, withdrawal and detox are not pleasant. Would you suggest that really it's cruel to take mercury out of them, they need it?

Mercury is another one of those double-edged dependencies, like various illegal drugs. Healthwise, I would say it is certainly harmful. You don't need to weasel-word statistcal associations (as done by antismoking "science") to prove how bad it is -- you just have test animals breathe mercury vapors, and not long after that they get ill and die without much ado. You do the same experiment with tobacco smoke, and the smoking animals live longer and healthier, and the more they smoke the better off they are (well beyond the equivalents of 3-5 packs a day).

But, mercury was also an integral part of medicine and dentistry for a long time, hence it does have a positive side. The balance against it is growing, though, since all its previous uses have found better and safer substitutes.

With tobacco smoke that is not the case. It is not unsafe in the first place (statistical associations notwithstanding), and the pharmaceutical substitutes are generally worse (e.g. compare a chain smoking schizophrenic refusing neuroleptics with another one, non-smoking and on neuroleptics -- the latter one will not only be turned into an overweight drooling idiot few years later, but will also have nearly double the rate of most cancers, including lung cancer, more heart attacks and strokes, while the former will be healthier and skinnier, but much less docile and "managable" by hospital staff, more combative and annoying, a crazy-man, but otherwise fine as far as things that matter to him go).

The cigarettes you smoke, I gather contain some benefits.

All cigarettes containing tobacco leaf in some form (even reconstituted) provide benefits. But the additive & pesticide laden junk cigarettes have downsides and it is a matter of what is the net balance of these positive and negative effects. This is no different than eating supermarket fruits, meats, milk, veggies... you do need and benefit from many of them, but pesticides or some additives may also be harmful to you. There is nothing special about figuring out similar balance of pluses and minuses with tobacco.

Having experimented at some point with just about every form and brand of tobacco out there, I have found that additive free, organic tobacco used in hand made filterless cigarettes, smoked through cigarette holders, is the most benevolent and beneficial form for my particular needs (work stress, focus, long work hours, frequent need for creative or quick solutions,...). Some of these needs have to do with offsetting the side-effects of mercury toxicity and will decrease as I detox (using DMSA & ALA). But many will remain, including weight control, higher metabolism, handling of work stress, creativity & mental stimulus, anti-inflammatory and general detox (glutathione), hormonal benefits (testosterone & DHEA upregulation, along with increased CoQ10),... and many others.

<img src="http://karlandkinggeorge.com/images/Big_Pharma.png"> <img src="http://www.daviddeen.com/artwork/witch_doctor.jpg">

While the fine-tuning of a tobacco and methods of smoking was helpful, the most noticable and striking health difference was due to breaking the spell of the antismoking "death curse".

<img src="http://members.iglou.com/perkins/newkpf/2002_07/1198.jpg"> <img src="http://www.thimbleberryjamlady.com/store/images/thimbleberries.jpg">

Lighting a handmade cigarette with the same kind of wholesome feeling (but even more so by virtue of the sacred traditions going back thousands of years) as taking a freshly picked apple or a wild berry, is a vastly different experience than a guilt ridden, hurried sucking of some supermarket junk stick at a building entrance.


You clearly feel they've helped you. I would like to know again, if you don't mind sharing, how many you smoke a day?

There is no prescribed number or counting in my case. How would I or anyone else know what is "The Right Number"? From a detached external perspective, only my cellular networks which are biochemically intertwined in a symbiotic relation with those of tobacco plant, "know" how much and when they need it, and they transmit the signals of such need (e.g. in the form of craving or unease) up the hierarchy of networks at which point the consciously controlled motoric systems engage into the action and reach for another cigarette. This is no different than how they transmit their signals to our consious level about their other needs, such as those for oxygen, water, particular nutrients, heat and cold, particular kinds of interactions and relations with other people,...

Smoking is a symbiotic relation between the two intelligent, self-guided biochemical networks at a lower level than what human senses can perceive directly and who know much better and need no "help" from me or doctors or human experts of any kind in determining how much, when or what they need. They are the experts and true masters of that biochemical realm, while we, humans, are ignorant amateurs there who have no business in making up some ad hoc rules such as "exactly 20 per day" or "0 per day" or some such. Of course, my higher level facilities, the human level mind stuff, depend vitally on the well being and stability of the lower level biochemical networks which are the existential substratum for these higher level facilities. Hence it is in "my" best interest to be attuned to their "signals" (such as cravings of various kinds), to trust them and to perform actions which need to be done at the higher levels to maintain the lower levels as harmoneous and stable as possible.

I simply make them few at a time, then make more when they run out. The actual rate varies greatly depending on what I am doing. I have watched 3-4 hour movies without a need to smoke. But in stressful moments (e.g. our network servers crash, customers calling mad, and I need to get it all up and running as quickly as possible), I will light the next one before the previous one is out. Loking at a longer average from tobacco quantities purchased (1 cigarette uses just under 1 gram of tobacco), it comes to about 20-30 per day.

And sorry to ask again, I'd need to re-read the posts, but what kind do you smoke?

Check the posts above.

Well well, I must say this is very refreshing, to find someone, nightlight, who is not a victim of negative social engineering. (Here's a piece I wrote on Social Engineering and Global Warming .)There's so much of it going on, you have to be very very aware. To help with this awareness, smoking tobacco, amongst all the things that nightlight mentioned, stimulates the neurons in your brain

Everything he's saying is correct. Why?

Because you live in lies. Most everything fed to you are lies. The processed food the masses eat is poison, the drinking water is filled with carcinogens, the Pharmaceutical drugs cause disease, the planet is toxin overloaded, the legal definition of a Corporation breeds a sick and twisted way of conducting business, the media is utterly controlled by corporations and their agendas, geo weather engineering does exist through airplanes aerosol spraying day and night. The goal is to weed through all these lies, and expose them.

If anybody cares to follow this link , you'll see the oldest people in the world are all smokers. How can this be? (Many links to newspaper articles showing extremely advanced age of the smokers and they all smoke.)

Again things are not what they seem. Massive multi-nationals pay millions and millions of dollars to mold public and governmental opinions. The outcome is in their best interests not ours, or the planets.

Here's just one example of them getting caught that I happened to catch on C-span.
Link:
House Oversight Committee on polit...f government climate change scientists.

Philip Cooney chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (who Bush Admin. put into that position) later resigned to go to work for Exxon Mobil Corp.

Nightlight mentions tobacco is an ancient healing plant. Absolutely true. The California desert indian tribes would smoke tobacco if they started getting a cough or cold.
They treated it as a sacred plant, and that is exactly what it is. A very sacred plant.

The house of cards that the Anti-smoking/Pharmaceuticals have built is very flimsy, and as is the fate with all lies, eventually will have no choice but to come crumbling down.

I'll end with this, ask yourself why humans have been smoking the ancient medicinal plant, tobacco for 10 thousand years.

HI there, it's really great that you guys are giving this side to the cigarettes, but the thread started with me asking for advice on what I can do after a toxic reaction to smoking a packet of cigarettes in one day. 4 months later, I am still trying to pick up the pieces.

Don't get me wrong, you have every right to give your view, but I think we get the message <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> However, this does not help me at all. I have a system unable to rid itself properly of toxins and the cigarettes I smoked basically were the last straw for me.

lucky are those with better functioning elimination systems, I am not one of them. The cigarettes I smoked were not just a case of too much, too soon, you don't get 4 months of ongoing suffering from one packet from that alone. Obviously they were not the old style organic ones you speak of, but instead the junk laden ones of today.

If there were any benefits, regardless of toxins, I have not experienced any and still await improvements. It has been a waste of precious time to go through this and one of the worst experiences I have ever had.

I listen to my body, over anybody's advertisement. If cigarettes reacted well with me? Then I'd listen to that, as I enjoy how it feels to smoke, but if I react badly? I heed that also. Either way, my body is the one that has the last word, not someone's ongoing lengthy advertisement type responses set to convince me otherwise. I cannot help how I reacted and that's the reality, I wish it wasn't. I like a smoke too! But unfortunately, the reaction I have does not allow me to become a smoker.

I have tired more than once by the way! Simply becuse i enjoy how it feels, but it is not worth the severe aftereffects that I have to contend with. After this last bout, the idea of doing it again to me would be insane.

Sadly, this has put me off even trying to the possible healthier versions. You guys are going to have to differentuate between the junk cigarettes the old style ones that have been smoked for the 10 thousand years you say they've been smoked for. I very much doubt they were brought up on the supermarket crap ones of today, which harmed me so badly.

You say there are still benefits? wow, if that was the case in my situation, I'd not have suffered like this and for this long. Might be fine for you guys, most people don't have the bizzare backlashes I do from toxic intake. It makes life very frustrating!

And here is something. I asked my father today about his past smoking and why he really gave up. He said to me, that he used to smoke "roll-your-owns" in his youth and didn't notice issues. He then began to smoke a pipe, but ongoing he developed blisters on his lips. He stopped, the blisters cleared, he started, back they came.

Finally he stopped smoking a pipe and in fact, didn't smoke at all. Then, later on in his life, he took up smoking due to high stress situation (my brother nearly died as a kid from hydrocephalis). Well, this time, my father took up the typical junk cigarettes of today. They were there, quick and he smoked them. Well, that's when the problems began. Not at first, over time he started to develop a cough.

But due to the stress, he didn't want to give up smoking, however, the coughing worsened. In the end, he was forced to stop. Each time he tried to start? Back the coughing came and the longer he kept it up, the worse it got. Finally he stopped, the coughing left.

He didn't smoke for many years and oneday, had a go again, the smoking almost immediately returned to the point he tells me it was intolerable and if he wasn't coughing, he was constantly having to clear his throat. But again, as I said, he does not recall having the same issue with the roll your own cigarettes! But he never connected the differences, he just stopped smoking.

I wonder if he had stuck with the roll-your-owns, would he have been ok? That I will never know. He is 75 years of age now, and in excellent health. He does not wish to take up smoking. As far as I'm concerned, that's his decision.

But wanted to pass that info onto you

Hey Bex,
You're right to stay on topic.

This may help you out.
Intuitively what I feel is 1) You overdid it with smoking all those cigarettes. With anything one always has to build up a tolerance.
2) But since you're still having reactions, I feel your body is overloaded, meaning there is a weakness that needs to be addressed. I feel it's not the cigarettes that did it, but more so a weakened constituiton.

(Interestingly enough I'm going thru the same thing. Smoking has made my body aware of slight pains in my kidney, which now I need to address.)

There's a number of things you can do.
1) The best is find a good chinese doctor. They can very quickly find any weakness in your system, and then prescribe herbs that fix the problem permanently.

2) You can do muscles testing, which uses the body to tell you whats wrong. (Systematic yes and no questions.) Google muscle testing for more info.

I'd say a chinese doctor is best, cause the muscle testing takes a while and then you have to research the best herbs to use.

Or you could use western doctors, but since the takeover by Pharmaceudicals they're completely useless, unless you have an emergency and need ER.

The diagnostics of Chinese medicine is much more thorough and organically better.

I hope this helps.
MMH.

Oh by the way. The post above was me. I forgot to log in.
MMH.

Hi MMH, I think you are correct. I cannot possibly blame the cigarettes for 4 months of misery, but I can indeed say that whatever they did? definitely shows there are far bigger problems going on below the surface.

I have always had a defect with eliminating toxins. I have been shown to have a significant imbalance in my liver phases I and II and it's put down to either long term toxicity and/or genetic uniqueness. I feel it's genetic, because things began a long time ago for me.

But on top of this? I got a severe viral/bacterial infection in 2003, that pretty much wiped me out from then on. Since that time, not only did the tendencies I already have become far more pronounced, but my body appears to behave in a very odd way now and it can be frightening. I gather my immune system has gone rather haywire.

Then I find out from a doctor testing me that there is gangrene/dead pulp in my jaw. He tested it right by the area where a wisdom tooth had been previously removed. Yet nothing really shows up significantly on xray, so no dentist will bother with me. I did have bone scan, but it only showed cavitations in the upper jaws, not lower (where the doctor detected the actual gangrene).

This is very hard for me, as the problems are many and happening all at once. I have also been told my replacment materials after amalgams are also incompatible with my immune system.

As you can see, my body appears to be dealing with too much at onetime. So though the cigarettes could not have caused this, they triggered a dreadful toxin overload for me and probably unleashed other things also in the process.

Certainly, I overdid it, so that did not help. But smoking the junk ones of today with what they have, may not be significant to someone else, but to my system? they are.

But anyway, thanks a lot for your balanced approach here and for your suggestions. I feel my problems are also dental related and may need to make some steps in that direction. Problem is, any dental work makes me much worse, so I feel i'm in a no win situation at the moment. Just trying right now to be patient, eat well and hope my system improves from the cigarette binge, so I can possibly go and do something about the underlining problems!

Cheers

Bex.

Bex,
This might help, I dont' know how deep the gangrene is? But I would think just by injecting Hydrogen Peroxide between the gums and your teeth it should definitely reach the area. Dead nerves reach pretty far down.

1) Order a dental syringe for treating gums that can inject Hydrogen Peroxide to the area. (Simple device to inject H.P. between the gums and the teeth.) Hydrogen peroxide provides oxygen and high amounts of antiseptics to the area.

2) Swish your mouth 3 times a day with pure water and sea salt. (Not table salt.) This Person was able to remineralize and grow back enamel where cavities used to be.

3) NEVER use toothpaste. They all have glycerin in them, which forms a coat on the teeth, and therefore the cells in the teeth cannot do their job.

4) Buy aloe vera gel and brush with that. The aloe vera plant has amazing medicinal properties and antiseptic properties. (Make sure you angle your toothbrush 45 degrees to get up between the gums.)

5) If your tap water is flouridated, buy a flouride filter IMMEDIATELY. Flouride is an industrial waste, and actually weakens the teeth. (But it's good for the dentists. Makes sure to bring back repeat business !)

I hate to say this but the dental community is almost the same as the doctors. Using methods that make them money, but rarely help the patient.

You're right if your teeth have infections the whole body suffers. Try what I mentioned and if you can get balancing herbs for the rest of the body from a Chinese doctors diagnosis, you'll see a big difference.

MMH.

2) Swish your mouth 3 times a day with pure water and sea salt. (Not table salt.) This Person was able to remineralize and grow back enamel where cavities used to be.

I find salty rinse very helpful, especially for gums. Another variant I use is combining the salty moutwash with 1-2 gram Vitamin C (from an opened capsule of ascorbic acid), neutralized with a half teaspoon of baking soda (so the whole solution is strongly alkaline). Any toothache or gum infection goes away after several such rinses in an afternoon and evening, right before bed.

3) NEVER use toothpaste. They all have glycerin in them, which forms a coat on the teeth, and therefore the cells in the teeth cannot do their job.

I avoid toothpastes, too. Regular Ivory soap, which takes of bit getting used to the taste, works better for me. I do add a tiny bit of herbal Weleda children tootphaste in the first morning brushing (it has a nice flavor & smell, and it is very gentle and inoffensive).

4) Buy aloe vera gel and brush with that. The aloe vera plant has amazing medicinal properties and antiseptic properties. (Make sure you angle your toothbrush 45 degrees to get up between the gums.)

I am still experimenting with aloe. After my amalgams were removed on one side last fall, I had a hard bump on a cheek (which was there for some time), where the amalgam was previously touching the skin. After experimenting with various herbs and folk remedies (including home-made chlorella rinse, which didn't do much good), I found that chewing plain aloe leaf (the slimy gel from inside the leaf, while the outer layer, which is very, very bitter, was pealed off using scalpel) solved the problem within couple days. The cheek bump was gone and gums surely felt very happy with the slimy and slightly bitter gel. The procedure I used is somewhat labor intensive and too messy for routine use (and I have only one potted aloe plant presently), but I plan to refine and streamline it this spring when I add more aloe pots, since it seems very pleasant and beneficial for the gums and cheeks.

Very good point. I forgot about that. Keeping the mouth alkaline is one of the most important things you can do.


I still have to get my amalgams out. (Ouch.)

Hey Nightlight what are your thoughts on how much you can trust American Spirit, since RJ Reynolds bought them a couple of years ago?

I found out Toms of Maine got bought by Colgate, and sure enough you find the carcinogen Sodium Lauryl Sulfate in their toothpaste. That ingredient was not in there before.

I smoke good Nicaraguan cigars, but also like cigarettes. Right now I smoke the Danish tobacco Bali Shag with natural vegetable cellulose rolling paper. Rolls much better then paper, also.

I'm trying to find a good organic tobacco online. Any Ideas?

... how much you can trust American Spirit, since RJ Reynolds bought them a couple of years ago?

So far they didn't change tobacco and the Santa Fe Tobacco which makes AS seems to function undisturbed on things that matter (tobacco selection, customer interaction). I am trying to find something equivalent, though, since the Big Tobacco certainly deserves to be punished by smokers for their MSA backstabbing of their customers. D&R tobacco has Two Timer blend which is pretty close, similar clean and crisp flavor, albeit it's not as strong as AS.

I'm trying to find a good organic tobacco online. Any Ideas?

I have tried Sagamore Natural, which was pretty good early on and I almost switched over, but apparently someone there decided to "improve" the formula and the new blend isn't nearly as good. There is another newcomer, Blackjack Natural, which I will be putting on my next order with LBSS.

Hi, thanks so much for this. I will definitely take onboard that advice. I do happen to have a dental device that injects liquids into the gums! So I'll take onboard what you suggested and try the hydrogen peroxide! Very cheap and sounds a plan. Not sure whether it will reach the gangrene in the very area it is in, BUT, the rest of my gums it will and i happen to have periodontal gum disease too. Could have been caused by the infection in the jaw, or the lowered immune system from that. i do not know.

Although I have neglected my teeth by stopping dental check ups and cleans and that's when the gums deteriorated. So, I do understand what you're saying about the other stuff, but I do feel that it is wise to get the professional cleans done, as I was fine when I used to do that, but after I stopped, I went down hill. It does remove the hardened build up that can start under the gum and sadly people do not see it and don't realise the damage it's doing, then you get pockets forming.

I feel it takes proper home care, plus the odd dental visit for the removal of hardened build up. Though I take onboard the fluoride thing and I will try the toothpaste you speak of. I am in New Zealand, so do not know whether that toothpaste is available here, but no harm in trying.

My sister in law failed to have the ongoing dental check ups and did not seem to take enough care of her own gums too. They seemed to be red and puffy. Recently, she finally went to a dentist and had it all cleaned and I have to admit, her teeth and gums now look great, very healthy. So in that area, I do feel it's wise to get that side of things done by a dentist.

unless there is another way to remove the hardened tartar build up before it affects the gums....

thanks again though, this is most helpful to me. I didn't know you could use or inject the hydrogen peroxide into the gum!!!

nightlight Yeah I just heard about Blackjack, I'll probably check em out.

You might be interested in Forces.org. They exist to fight the misinfo set up about tobacco.

Bex
Very glad to help. One thing I can't stand is multinationals and their ethics. Make money at all costs to human health, and all that crap.

Most definitely, professional cleanings. I totally forgot to mention this.

Cheap and a powerful cure, Hydrogen Per. is a threat to pharmaceudicals. Inhaling it cures prostrate and other cancers (Make sure to use food grade tho.)

Here's something interesting. Big Pharma must be using this as their model. Cheap and powerful Hydrogen peroxide, India and the british drug monopoly 120 years ago.