News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Since undergoing chelation I've become really sensitive to cigarette smoke. I now often leave wherever I am if people are smoking as it makes me feel so ill. But recently a friend of mine started smoking roll-ups and I didn't feel ill at all.

It's very bizarre. There must be something they add to pre-rolled cigarettes that affect me, and presumably other amalgam sufferers too.

Get your friends to smoke roll-ups if it's really bothering you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

SteveX

Yes, I am so bad with cigarettes that the effects are just devastating. Probably because I have a shattered immune system. But what you said is interesting too. You might have seen the discussion on the other thread "cigarette toxicity?".

A few people on there actually advocate smoking and claim benefits. I did not entirely buy into it. There are both sides to that argument, but people can read for themselves and decide what they make of it.

But certainly, the roll-your own ones would be more beneficial than the regular junk ones. THe thing about the regulars is the crap contained would quicly outweigh any potential benefits. At least that's how it was for me.

Thanks for posting that though, it just emphasizes to smokers that it might be very wise for them, even for their sake, to smoker the roll your owns.

But recently a friend of mine started smoking roll-ups and I didn't feel ill at all.

It's very bizarre. There must be something they add to pre-rolled cigarettes that affect me, and presumably other amalgam sufferers too.


You have stumbled onto something there. I smoke only pure, additive free tobacco leaf and make my own cigarettes, the way it was meant to be done. It is a perceptible difference from the junk supermarket cigarettes (which are largely not made from real tobacco leaf but use instead reconstituted "tobacco" sheets i.e. a cheap colored and flavored tobacco scraps & wood pulp). There was an earlier thread which describes the health benefits of tobacco smoking (see all posts by "nightlight" there for a more complete story; tell your smoker friend as well, particlularly the post on "witch doctor effect"), especially for mercury sensitive people. In particular, tobacco smoking nearly doubles levels of glutathione in smokers (after few years of smoking, not instantly), which is the main internal antioxidant and metals detox enzyme in human body, vital in mercury detox. Smoking also more than doubles neutrophiles whose function is essential in controlling inflammations & yeast during mercury detox (neutrophiles are one of white blood cell types diminished as a side-effect of DMSA, leading occasionally to runaway yeast problems and gum infections during detox).

Tobacco smoke (not nicotine) also inhibts MAO enzymes in a fairly unique way, via still unknown biochemical pathways. MAO enzymes increase with age, especially in brain, where they cause oxidation and depletion of key neurotransmitters, such as dopamine and serotonin, leading to mental decline and general loss of life energy. Hence, MAO levels are a like clock -- their rise is a measure of your aging and decline. Tobacco smoking rewinds back (lowers) MAO, to almost half the levels in non-smokers. It also rewinds back (raises) DHEA, testosterone to more youthful levels.

Pharmaceutical industry has recently found a MAO inhibitor, deprenyl (also under brand name selegiline), that mimicks the unique pattern of MAO inhibition induced by tobacco smoking and it is being used for smoking cessation (in combination with nicotine, which produces numerous but different beneficial effects). It turns out that deprenyl (selegiline) is the closest thing to youth elixir that pharmaceutical industry has ever stumbled onto and it has become all the rage in life-extension and smart-drug circles (in addition to being used to treat Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other types of age related dementias for which smoking is also known to be therapeutic & protective against). Of course, deprenyl lacks numerous other rejuvenationg and neuro-protective mechanisms of tobacco smoke, including endocrine (testosterone, DHEA), antioxidant (glutathione), anti-inflammatory (neutrophil),... effects.

Curiously, the principal sponsor of antismoking "science" and of the "grass roots" antismoking organizations is none other than pharmaceutical industry (which also attacks all other natural or non-patented remedies, but none as viciously as tobacco, the oldest and the most potent traditional medicine of them all).

Nightlight, could you tell me to buy that additive free tobacco, it would be for my mum, she smokes like a chimney and im worried about her, thanks.
Dawn.

I used to be very ill when people smoked around me a few years ago, i couldnt be in the same room as smoke but now i can tolerate it alot better since amalgam removal, it wasnt just smoke, also glue, paint, petrol etc.
I gave up smoking because it was affecting me badly, that was 5 yrs ago now.
I

Yeah I looked at the other thread, but it became such a flame-war I decided to make another thread.

Since chelation I've become very sensitive to a lot of things, tap water in certain areas in the UK for example, fresh fish on certain days, etc. Because of this sensitivity and my experience I would estimate that "pure" cigarettes may be okay. But I'd always be quite suspicious to what they put in even the roll-your-own cigarettes.

If like me you find yourself to have increased sensitivity I'd smoke "pure" cigarettes if you don't notice any negative health impacts. Trust your body - if you end up lying to yourself it'll only be you that suffers in the long run.

An similarity between pure-leaf tea and mass-manufactured tea with cow's milk and sugar could be made I suppose.

...to buy that additive free tobacco, it would be for my mum, she smokes like a chimney and im worried about her...

Hi Dawn, I wouldn't worry about your mom's smoking -- that's what keeps her endocrine and immune systems as well as MAO levels few decades back from her chronological age, compared to her non-smoking friends. The most critical point is that she isn't guilt ridden about it, since the witch doctor effect[/b] causes real harm:

[color:"blue"]
There was a study in Heidelberg, described by [b]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]

To help her shake off this insidious antismoking "death curse" and enjoy the full health benefits of smoking tobacco, as people have done it for at least 18000 years, I would print for her Dr. W.T. Whitby's book "Smoking is Good For You" (get online PDF copy of the 2nd edition) or send her online to check several other references I gave, especially Johnstone and Colby.

As to physical aspects of smoking, she could move to roll-your-own (RYO) or stuff-your-own (SYO) methods, which offer much wider range of traditional tobacco blends (and save great deal of money in the process). Note that filters shed non-biodegradable fibers, which lodge in the lungs and need to be enclosed into mucous liquid and coughed out. The plain tobacco leaf produces only organic molecules (there is no "tar" in tobacco smoke, only microscopic particles containing organic molecules; "tar" is an antismoking propaganda term, an aritifical smoke condensate, not what people inhale i.e. "tar" is to tobacco smoke what a muddy puddle is to a cloud in the sky) which live cells, such as those in human body, have been metabolizing safely for hundreds of millions of years.

<img src="http://www.biopark.org/peru/N-rustica-flowers-01a.JPG"> <img src="http://www.biopark.org/peru/N-rustica-plant-01a.JPG"> <img src="http://www.biopark.org/peru/N-rustica-leaf-01a.JPG">

Regarding cigarette tobacco blends, there are hundreds to choose from in the RYO/SYO realms. The healthiest are either pure natural leaf blends, such as American Spirit, American Bison, Sagamore Natural, Manitou (German blend from Von Eicken), Smokin Joes Natural, Blackjack Natural,... or classic blends from traditional tobacco masters, such as Dutch (Heupink & Bloemen, Royal Theodorus Niemeyer), Danish (Mac Baren, Peter Stokkebye), British (Gawith Hoggarth, Dunhill blends from BAT, Golden Virginia from Imperial Tobacco) and German (Lane Limited Ltd, Von Eicken), which use old style additives and flavorings (apple, black cherry, oak,...). If she has to smoke supermarket cigarettes, Winston Regular are now made from additive free whole leaf, although one would still need to snip off filters to avoid inhaling fibers. In order to cool the smoke of non-filtered cigarettes, one would use traditional cigarette holders (4 inches or longer), which look pretty cool, especially for women.

<img src="http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/1d/250px-BreakfastatTiffanys.jpg"> <img src="http://www.aristasia.co.uk/CigaretteHolder.jpg"> <img src="http://theladysmokes.com/Glmaour_Smoker_Girl.jpg">
<img src="http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/artikel/331/28303/image_fmabspic_0_0.jpg"> <img src="http://www.displaycostume.com/store/files/images/large/d_1597.jpg"> <img src="http://theladysmokes.com/Holding1copy.jpg">

Entire realms, rarely expolored by women, of good healthy choices open up if she wants to experiment with pipes or cigars.

<img src="http://www.photofreeway.com/data/500/Cigar_Lady.jpg">

Another requirement of healthy smoking, due to the fact that smoker's basal metabolism is higher, with immune, endocrine and nervous systems upregulated to nearly double the levels of nonsmokers, are sufficient supplements, in particular Vitamin C, zinc and E+selenium. A rich traditional diet along with traditional beverages (coffe, teas, cocoa, wine), especially mediterranean diet, or at least natural orgin supplement complexes (at double doses recommended for nonsmokers) should be used. Finally, she should stay away from doctors and pharmaceuticals they peddle, especially statins and antidepressants.

Hi anon (Steve),
I don't know about you, but I personally don't take to the advertising type glamor or wholesome pictures to try and convince people of a product. I prefer simply reading the evidence. But hey, that's the reality and necessity of advertising I guess.

But I do take onboard some of the points made on either side and what suits one person is not necessarily going to suit another. it's very much down to each individual and their own response. If your body rebels, you listen to that, not someone attempting to brain wash you into doing it regardless of how you feel. If you respond well? That's ok too. I may try the roll your own smokes oneday, and if/when I do, I'll be sure to post the response.

PS. Even in dentistry, they'd have some attractive young person on the front grinning. Or the best one to use is a wholesome family grinning and looking surpremely healthy and happy.... Old tactics. And often movie stars are used to push the product even further. Dentistry has caused horrible suffering/toxicity, but you'll never see that ugly face of dentistry on their advertisments <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> So the pictures used to support/push the product, so often don't have much to do with the reality of it. But again, that's advertising!

It's the cigarette paper. Stinks to high heaven. Pass the word to use non papered rolling paper. Rice is a real good one.

You wanna smell something really nice. Smoke organic tobacco in a hooka, (tobacco has to be at the right moisture content.) Very nice aroma.

Organic tobacco is a herb. Pure and simple.

nightlight, please don't posts pictures of people smoking. it really doesn't impress or convince anyone.

Cheers, SteveX

Ive seen this nightlight guy elsewhere doing the same thing. I think there is either some kind of unhealthy obsession going on here or some need to push this for some other agenda. I've noticed he's on this forum and seems only to post when he spots the word cigarette in a title or he gets a chance to move in and take over with all this cigarette information he can't stop posting. I saw how people gave up posting on the other thread, now he's onto this one.

I dont see much else out of this guy on here. I noticed in the other thread he seemed oblivious to the things people stated about their experience with cigarettes that was negative. Like I saw some posting their relatives had gotten ill and recovered after giving up.

I saw his responses were either rather antagonistic and belittling (superior), or he'd ignore it, or come up with any excuse under the sun. He was only reasonable if people were on his side and agreeing with him or enquiring. Those that posted otherwise were spoken down to I saw.

If he was genuinely concerned and wanted the best for people, you'd pick that up in his posts. I don't pick that up at all, I pick up a robotic salesman type pitch with a superior idea of his own intelligence.

So Id suggest anybody take his cigarette push posts witha large grain of salt and caution. As Bex said, great to see both sides of an issue, but when you got a guy this obsessed, something is up....to me he's wacked out. Gotta wonder what else he's smoking lol.

the very thing he criticises from the ani-smoking compaign, hes actually doing the same thing on the other end of the scale, but hes just more dogmatic and desperate. Ive seen people who when they enjoy something and it makes them feel good, they'll push it for what it's worth, find anything they can that speaks positives on it, dig up anything possible to back up their need to continue doing this. They don't really give a rats [censored] about those that get bad effects though , they just want to justify themselves. They'll ignore the other science, but only look at the science that suits them.

Moderation is the key nightlight, calm down and let people breath on here, instead of stiflying the thread and smoking us out.

Hey Steve X I reckon thats right. I think alot of mercury toxic people have problems with cigarette smoke and I do as well. Don't know about the other ones you speak of but do badly around the usual. I get sick and have to leave.

Tried it a few times and got really sick too. I wish nightlights advertisments were true, ive not seen that reality in my own family. Not once.

nightlight, can you answer me this. You say there is no tar in smoking. I smoked years ago at age 19 with a friend. We went stupid and smoked one smoke after another chain smoking. I didn't stop until I started feeling odd, far away and nauseous. The feeling was frightening and finally I was overtaken with salivating uncontrollably and hit by extreme nausea. I ran and vomited up blood and a dark brown, almost black like liquid.. Nothing else came out, no sign of the usual vomit.

Now, I had not been doing anything else, other than smoking. I went home and had to go to bed and went into a drug like sleep. Luckily I recovered by the next day. Are you going to tell me that it was somethign else? Never in my life have I had such an attack, other than after that chainsmoking and the stuff I vomited up, with blood was digusting. It was exactly like liquid or tar type liquid. i cannot readily describe it and there was NO normal looking vomit.

I believe I was quite close to death, as my entire body during that before I vomited was cold/numb, I was far away, floating and senses almost shut down and the person who was with me was talking, but I could hardly hear them, I could see their lips moving and that was it and I could hardly speak or answer... The only thing i reckon that saved me was vomiting. The fact blood came out as well as dark liquid, was enough for me and once I did that, things began to improve gradually and I recovered as I said, the following day.

Nicky.

Good question. I just think that it's sad that a Mercury Fillings/Mercury Poisoning forum has become an advertisement for cigarette smoking. Thanks to all of the above who have had the courage to speak out against this. I have to tell you that I hope you can put an end to this thread with your pure logic and living evidence, but it will take endurance. The last one went on and on. I think that some people just like an arguement or to have the last word. At least, leave the pictures off.

Moderation is the key nightlight, calm down and let people breath on here, instead of stiflying the thread and smoking us out.

The information posted is meant primarily for smokers, to help them shake off the death curse from the 'Sickness Industry' conmen (stealing big bucks under the cover of the antismoking hysteria they whipped up), which is the only harm to their health related to smoking. Smokers who are mercury toxic are benefiting from this ancient medicine much more than most other smokers due to upregulation of glutathione (and other detox enzymes esential for elimination fo mercury) and neutrophiles (which, as Andy Cutler noted in another thread here, are vital for trouble free detox with DMSA), as well as the neuro-protective effects of tobacco smoke (such as nicotine, NO & unknown MAOI components).

Badgering smokers everywhere they go, including this and other health forums, with antismoking hysteria (mostly by people meaning well, but who are brainwashed themselves and are unwittingly serving as pawns of the conmen making big bucks behind the hysteria) is analogous to squirting pepper spray into the breathing tubes of a hospital patient on a respirator -- it makes something that is helping him great deal very unpleasant and harmful, leaving them no good way out. A nurse spraying the ventilator may be doing it with all the best intentions, since doctor and everyone else told her that breathing ventialators are associated with shortened life expectancy, that people on ventilators have 20 times higher risk of strokes and heart attacks,... and the patient needs to be weaned from them as soon as possible and go on drugs instead, that papper spraying the ventilator is good for the patient, that his squirming and apparent agony is merely his addiction to the ventilator and that he will be just fine, once he agrees to get off it and take the drug$ recommended to the doctor by the friendly pharmaceutical sales reps. That is precisely what is going on with antismoking con and all I am doing here is analogous to placing a screen between the ventilator and the spray. Yep, some small fraction of the noxious vapors may bounce back at the poor nurse and she may get a whiff of the good "medicine" she was dispensing, which is as well.

Even the 'politically incorrect' photos are a perfectly factual reminder that the present antismoking zeitgeist is a very shallow perspective, flipped precisely upside down from the one that preceeded it not very long ago, which had much deeper and more solid roots in the human experience and traditions.

You say there is no tar in smoking.

The term "tar" is a deceitful antismoking propaganda label for microscopic particles of organic molecules in tobacco smoke. While one can condense such molecules into a tar, that would be like calling a cloud in the sky a 'mud puddle' or 'cesspool'. Or calling some food you disapprove of 'feces' -- while it is true that it can easily be turned into 'feces', that kind of characterization tells reader more about how you feel about it rather than about the particular food itself.

I smoked years ago at age 19 with a friend. We went stupid and smoked one smoke after another chain smoking. I didn't stop until I started feeling odd, far away and nauseous. The feeling was frightening and finally I was overtaken with salivating uncontrollably and hit by extreme nausea. I ran and vomited up blood and a dark brown, almost black like liquid.. ...

What you describe is a classical nicotine poisoning. It is seen most often in tobacco farm workers where it is known as "Green tobacco sickness". It doesn't normally occur with smoking since it takes great deal of willing foolishness to overdose that way, while going against all the unpleasant warning signs, yelling at you "stop it", which precede the toxic dose well ahead of the genuine danger. It can be done through smoking, of course, with a right mix of testosterone, alcohol and youthful foolishness, but it isn't easy or common.

There was recently a news story about a contest organized by a radio station, in which the winner (of a computer game) is the person who can drink the most water before taking a leak. Dozens of fools came in, tortured themselves with a gallon or more of bottled water, the healthiest kind the organizers could find. The participants all went through a horrible torture (vomiting, nausea, heart racing,...) which became much worse in hours after the contest was well over. One previously healthy young woman who participated died that night. The radio station fired the young dj's who came up with the contest idea. The woman's family is suing the station.

The moral of the story -- you can take just about anything in your kitchen, ingest it well beyond the natural warning signs to stop, and you will reach the toxic dose, suffer great deal and likely endanger your life. Even breathing quickly the plain, clean air (to say nothing of inhaling a pure oxygen) will cause contraction of the arteries in your brain, as your body tries desperately to cut down on oxygen overdose, and at best you will just black out before you can harm yoursef further and then wake up with a bad headache. At worst you will end up with a stroke and possibly die.

As to the gunk you vomited, that certainly was not "tar" but something you had in your stomach. As explained above, you inhale microscopic particles in very small quantity, about 25 mg per cigarette of which less than 20% is absorbed by your lungs, hence there are under 5 mg of absorbed matter per cigarette (for comparison, a glass of juice has 200,000-300,000 mg of matter) or it takes about 200 cigarettes, 1 carton, to absorb 1 gram of tobacco smoke matter into your bloodstream, or 200-300 cartons of cigarettes to absorb as much matter as you do from one glass of juice. You ingest many thousands of times more matter, the "chemicals", including any pesticides, chemical additives, mercury, lead, polonium Po 210 from fertilizers,...etc from your food and drinks than from cigarettes.

These absorbed molecules end up in your bloodstream, not your stomach, and require detailed chemical analysis to detect i.e. they are not visible to the naked eye, not even through a microscope.

In response to the 2 posters against too much posting about cigs. This particular thread is about chelation and cigarette smoke. We're following the thread. So I don't agree with the points made.


If you do anything in excess you'll poison yourself. Smoking that many cigarettes introduces an excess of benefital nicotine into the system. Hence the poisoning.

----

To the two posters against smoking I ask you to consider how long humans have been smoking tobacco. The plant was discovered 18 thousand years ago, and humans started smoking it 10 thousand years ago.

10 thousand years ! Seriously. Stop right there and consider this. Humans have been smoking tobacco for 10 thousand years !

Now. Here's the crux of the matter. Civilizations do not keep doing something they find is killing them !

(This glaring observation should make one stop and think what is the real agenda behind Big Pharma's Anti-smoking?) (Ask yourself where on earth does the Anti-smoking get all that money for their TV ads? And now the ads are set to go global? You know how much money it takes to run a GLOBAL ad campaign.?)

Back to my main point. Civilizations keep doing something that they find is beneficial to them. Moderate amounts of organic alchohol and organic tobacco is beneficial to the organic human system, and no amount of selective science by vested interests (Big Pharma) can change the facts.

Organic herbs are a threat to the Synthetics Industry. (Pharmaceudical Drug makers.) Why?
1) They work. 2) You cannot make money of nature.

Have you seen the sheer number of Synthetic Drugs on TV ads??? Why is is an organic herb....marijuana outlawed??? Why is tobacco, an organic herb now also being attacked??? What happened to our knowledge of curing everything thru herbs??? The American (for) Cancer Institute? A gigantic joke !

Things are not as they seem. Social engineering exists, and it will always be by the ones who hold the money.

Nightlight has done an excellent job of combating Social Engineering by posting link after link showing the benefits of nicotine and tobacco.

If you don't believe this. All I ask is, see for yourself.
Google benefits of nicotine.

Finally this will be a touchy subject, for both sides.
Any time you have Social engineering going on with fabricated lies, the people who see thru this will post and make the effort to undo the lies.

... sad that a Mercury Fillings/Mercury Poisoning forum has become an advertisement for cigarette smoking.

I have no relation to tobacco companies or tobacco related businesses. My sole connection to tobacco is as a user who was curious enough to check the scientific literature, beyond what media and paid experts are telling me about. To my own greatest astonishment, I found that scientific research, sponsored by the antismoking interests themselves, has unambiguously demonstrated numerous health benefits of tobacco smoking along with their biochemical mechanisms, while failing to demonstrate any harm from it after half a century of intense search for any such harm.

All they are showing to this day as the "harm" are thousands of replicas of the same statistical association between the smoking and various diseases they already had in 1950s (when this scam was hatched), which is no different than statistical association between the use of aspirin and headaches or between the use of sunblocks (or sunglasses) and sunburns. Tobacco smoking is protective and therapeutic against the very diseases or their causes or side-effects that they blame it for.

Further, finding of the glutathione (and numerous other antioxidant & scavenger enzymes) and neutrophil upregulation in smokers, as well as of numerous biochemical pathways via which tobacco smoke is neuro-protective (e.g. MAOI, nicotinic receptors, acetylcholine, CoQ10, vascularization) explained to me why I smoked -- it is the most potent medicine against mercury toxicity and subsequent detox support there is, bar none. No natural remedy or pharmaceutical comes even close.

Hence, it is something that other victims of mercury toxicity ought to know. You are welcome to study the scientific materials at the links provided, or just try it (with understanding that it is an exercise, a la aerobics for you immune, endocrine, detox and nervous systems, hence you need the right supplements, right pacing and warmup, right mindset,...) and find out for yourself. I don't make cent, whether you do it or not. Just as you can take DMSA or DMPS the wrong and the right way, you can go both ways with smoking. I share these findings and experiences as everyone else does here for other supplements and techniques they tried themselves and found to work well. It simply feels good to do good.

Hi NIghtlight, thanks regarding the tar explanation. yep, guilty of the youthful foolishness! That is true. How I managed to do that is beyond me, but not surprising due to age and stupidity.

However, sadly i didn't get any warning signs until it had gone past that point. Once I felt odd, though I stopped, it was kind of too late.

So yes nicotine poisoning it was. Not fun. I reckon its right to do things in moderation. Even if you believe smoking is great, if it's excessive as with anything, there is an element of unhealthiness about that as well. Just my opinion and what suits one person may not suit another. People do have a right to be for or against it.

Nicky.

Infinite thoughts, I'm happy to read either side. Smoking doesn't bother me either way. I have smokers and non smokers in my family. I dont see anything compelling to start me smoking fulltime, I smoke a couple a day when I feel like it and then stop. the smokers I know are not overly healthy and dont live longer than the non smokers in my family. Some died of cancer who smoked, some died of cancer who didnt. Certainly, didn't see any impressive stuff from the smokers healthwise. Alot of coughing from some though.

But, it was great to see the other side of this. I passed it on to a few of them too. I'm not against nightlight and what he's doing at all. Hell, if there are two sides, please give them. Nobody is on here on an anti smoking hate compaign, to behave like we are is somewhat paranoic. But to push it and become dogmatic about it, or even annoyed at those giving negative experiences is a little off and this is why people start to wonder what the real deal is here.

Nightlight is obviously a well read guy, intelligent. I just found the threads becoming excessive with the pics and advertisment type posts and some of his responses to people who gave their negative side to smoking a little condescending at times, which sounds somewhat superior. I dont like that. But I apologise if I misjudged you nightlight. Sometimes its easy to do when you read someones post and get a wrong impression.

But I like a balanced approach I suppose. Giving people a chance to read it and come to their own conclusion without excessive shoving it down peoples throat and if they dont swallow it, somehow it means they have problems. Which is bollocks. Whether you believe some issues people have had from cigarettes is smoking related or not, people have every right to give their side, as you guys have.

Moderation is the way to go if people want to try smoking. Ive read all of nightlight posts on this matter and saw some compelling evidence on either side. But I dont do something cause someone tells me to or not. I do it off my own bat. If I dont like what it does, i stop. Pure and simple, or i lessen it. I Hey, there are many things people advise on here to do cause it worked for them. Natural and otherwise. But others have had very bad reactions to the same thing. If that occurs, you should listen and take it onboard, not sweep it to oneside deliberately because it doesnt suit you and doesnt fit in with your own personal experience.

I dont agree with smoking, i gave up 5 yrs ago but all my family smoke, im the only one who doesnt due to being chemial sensitive but at least nightlight has shown me there is a better tobacco and i have recommended it to my mum and hopefully to the rest of my family in the future, they cant give up, so why not try a healthier alternative.

Hi Dawn, I'm in agreement with you. I don't particularly like it either, but if one is going ot smoke, exactly, why not choose the best? Nightlight has posted a lot of great positives on smoking, but I've yet to see the reality of it among the smokers I know. One can give as much science as they want, for or against, but the reality of it should speak for itself. Just simply observe the smokers in your own life and/or your own response to trying it.

Because I too am chemically sensitive and unwell, the effects from smoking are noticed very quickly and hasn't done me any favors.

[img]Robosmokeyan[/img] ]

The trouble with cigarettes and alcohol for the mercury poisoned is that they can become a crutch...these drugs give us a lift and pretty soon we start to rely on them to make us feel good. Then the trouble begins....been there, done that. I drank and smoked for years cause they made me feel better at first...but then those habits got out of control and brought me to the candida diagnosis. Which probably turned out to be the best thing, cause then I learned about the mercury/yeast connection and followed a cancer diet for 4 years before my actual cancer diagnosis. But if I had been exercising instead of smoking and drinking wine, my cancer may not have progressed to this point either.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candies and nuts, every day would be like Christmas!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Sandi
xoxoxo

From what I gather, the tar and nicotine in the cigarrettes is what makes them addictive as well as what encrusts the lungs with poison.

I don't like the idea of smoking anything- and I believe that if people actually DRANK the organic tobacco leaves as a tea, they would get the same benefits- and even more unimagined antioxidant benefits -than if they smoke it.
That's just my feelings so far-

Neverthless, if someone must smoke- It would probably be a heck of a lot safer to smoke roll your own tobacco cigarrettes than the Tar/Nicotine crap the cigarrette industry pushes.

My mum smokes and i told her about the additive free tobacco, and we found some in a tobacconist not far from us, i think she might stick to it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I got the below information from a health professional on a candida forum. He is one of the most informed i've come across on gluathione levels and speaks of this is one of the most important aspects in health. Here was his response when I mentioned the promotion of smoking by a few on here claiming the glutathione benefits. Please read below.
> >
> > Smoking causes a lot of oxidation. this is visible in the
wrinkling
> > of a chronic smoker's face. It probably does promote a rise in
> > glutathione, which is a natural response to oxidative stress that
> has
> > been measured in many kinds of toxin loading as the body attempts
> to
> > clear the toxins.
> >
> > But a marginal glutathione rise is insufficient to stop the
damage;
> > refer again to the visible wrinkling of the smoker's face - a
sign
> of
> > accumulated damage from oxidative stress.
> >
> > Because smoking depletes glutathione, meaning glutathione is used
> up,
> > a decent glutathione rise necessitates providing more precursors
> just
> > like we are doing in disease or other oxidative stress, which
also
> > depletes glutathione. So if one is going to smoke and undertake
> more
> > than usual oxidative stress, more than usual glutathione
precursors
> > and better glutathione recycling will be helpful in offsetting
the
> > increased oxidation.
> >
> > Think of it this way: we are increasing our glutathione reserves
to
> > clear oxidative stress and toxins. Reducing this effort by
> > deliberately increasing oxidative stress doesn't make sense;
> > avoiding oxidative insult and keeping glutathione levels and
> activity
> > up is what reduces disease.

I bought an ozone making machine to purify my water & freshen the house.
However I increased its value by placing not only my tobacco (in a brown paper bag) but the papers & filters in another then place all in a plastic shopping bag & tie the handles tightly around the little hose & turn it on for about hour & a half.
Im sure I overdo the timing.
Just purifying the water would pay for the machine in no time
especially if you buy bottled water. You could purify your friends & charge them 1/2 the price it would cost them for the water
Apparently it takes toxins out of shampoo (benzine & formaldehyde) which is where I got the idea to do the tobacco etc.
As the biggest danger to our health comes from our habitual negative emotion changing the molecular structure of our body.
Just the lack of worry about what you are eating, drinking, smoking etc releases you from much stress.
I have always been facinated by the many exceptions to every rule we are taught to believe, especially in the area of health.
I have smoked over 40yrs & am one of those who love to learn & rightly or wrongly get carried away to some ungodly hour often & cigarettes & coffee have been my major diet. I could place my health record against the best & still be near the top.
I am not bragging, simply saying if I believed all I read or was told I would have been long gone....but I should add here, in case someone irresponsibly decides ...if she can I can.
Whatever you do...its not what you do but you reasons for doing it & accepting responsibility for what you do..
Having said that my mother used to say I have 5 children I dont have time to get sick & one day I connected with this & said I have 5 also I shouldnt have time to get sick.
I do wonder though if there is a particular reason why we are being discouraged from smoking....& burning fires is outlawed.
Does smoke kill some toxins/ diseases? Does it interfere with spying into our homes? or other reasons?

You have a nice attitude in this group even when you disagree . Good on you.
Have a great day/night
Judy

Hi there, well the negative thinking you mentioned? I feel for me it was a toxic negativitiy, not me getting toxic from bad emotions, but the other way around.

But getting ill seemed to cause me to think in ways I never had before, which was very negative. Depression and anxiety and panic attacks nad all sorts of things occured as a result.

Anytime I got improvements from diet or something else, my mind and thoughts would improve as a result of that. IF I slipped back into eating bad, it wouldn't be long before I'd notice other things deteriorate again, which lead me of course to believe that the body does indeed react to bad foods and like a car, it needs the right gas to work properly (for me anyway). I've never had a paranoic type of feeling over my food, but if I get improvements from alterning diet then it would be stupid of me to eat what I wanted and then complain when I get ill again (which I often do).

So you may get away with coffee and cigarettes, I do not. Ive tried it a number of times and at first I dont notice an issue, but it hits me later and then I have to go through a very long time of trying to recover. And it's not easy on myself or family. I end up extremely ill which wastes my time and just eats up more of my life. It's not even worth it. So I choose to take responsibility for what I know makes me worse and simply stay away from it.

people smoke regardless of hearing the bad or good side. It's up to the person. Being informed either way is the best idea. Smokes do contain toxins, I am a prime example of trying them twice now and being devastated at the end of it. Nothing to do with my prior beliefs on smoking, as I never really cared much. I enjoyed having them, but the response to them was horrendous, which does confirm that my body has a lot of trouble eliminating toxins. You may not have that issue, but many here do. Often we are battling too many other things, so it doesn't always take much to tip a person over.

I take onboard the other things you have mentioned though.

Thanks for the compliment too! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

cheers!!!

> > But a marginal glutathione rise is insufficient to stop the damage;

It is not marginal at all -- in long term smokers it is near double the levels of nonsmokers and it has higher proportion of reduced (active) glutathione. The reason is, indeed, the periodic, mild oxidative stress in combination with possibly some other ingredients in tobacco smoke, which act as exercise and tonic for the immune system (most other antioxidants and detox enzymes are upregulated as well), no different than exerting periodically your heart and muscles in aerobic exercises helps their capacity and health.

> > refer again to the visible wrinkling of the smoker's face[/i]

I am not sure which smokers he head in mind, but here are few to balance his mental imagery:

<img src="http://www.resourcesforlife.com/library/otherwritings/barack-obama.jpg"> <img src="http://www.stiffs.com/image/calment.jpg"> <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/DengXiaoping.jpg">
46 year old chain smoker, 122 year old Jeanne Louise Calment
and 90 year old chain smoker Deng Xiaoping

In Japan and Korea, 60-70 percent of men smoke, yet they tend to look more youthful than Europeans or Americans with less than half of those smoking rates (Japanese men also have three times lower lung cancer rates and live longer than American men). Back in 1940s and 1950s, actors and other celebrities were largely smokers, they didn't have botox or face lifts, yet they din't look particularly wrinkled, certainly not more than nonsmokers of that era. Many models smoke today, to control weight and their skin looks fine, too.

These days it is very easy to produce "studies" about alleged premature aging of smokers skin:

[color:"blue"]"A new study from the University of Michigan Health System adds another dimension to the link between cigarette smoking and skin damage. The study suggests that smoking may be associated with a higher degree of aging on areas of skin, such as that of the inside of the upper arm, that are not normally exposed to sunlight."[/color]

Were the subjects they compared matched by socioeconomic status, profession, exposure to various chemicals at work and home, stress, diet, use of supplements (especially C, E, selenium which smoker's metabolism needs in higher doses than nonsmoker's),... ? Of course not.

These kinds of junk studies are dime a dozen, since there is plenty of "research" money (the few crumbs of the billions looted from smokers every year and "invested" back by the thieves into the psudo-scientific smokescreen for their scam) for academic whores willing to please any comer for a buck.

Namely, the underlying biochemistry and physiology of the symbiotic intertwining between the human biochemical networks with those of tobacco smoke is highly rejuvenating for the human side and smokers would come out looking sharper, younger and healthier provided everything else except for smoking is kept the same between the subjects being compared. The latter requirement is always violated in the "studies" paid for by the antismoking interests (Big Pharma).

Some of the underlyng biochemical reasons why smoker's skin (and every other marker of aging) would come out younger in any apples to apples comparisons:

a) Nicotine stimulates growth and branching of blood vessels (via upregulation of vascular growth factor), especially of capillaries, which improves the nutrient delivery and cleanup (antioxidant & detox enzyme supplies) to all tissues, including brain and skin (provided person's intake of nutrients and supplements is adequate).

b) Tobacco smoke (not nicotine) upregulates production of glutathione (our body's master antioxidant and detox enzyme), to nearly double the levels of nonsmokers.

c) Carbon monoxide in low concentration (as delivered in tobacco smoke) acts as a signaling mechanism in human biochemical networks to increase tissue oxygenation, reduce inflammation and inflammatory damage.

d) Nitric oxide in low concentrations (as provided by tobacco smoke) acts as neurotransmitter, signaling to cardiovascular system to increase blood supplies to peripheral tissues (this is the biochemical mechanism behind the Viagra effect).

e) Tobacco smoke raises the levels of "youth hormones" DHEA and testosterone and reduces their decline with age. It also lowers "insuline growth factor" IGF1, the change which in animal experiments results in leaner and more youthful, longer living animals.

f) The highest quality brands (Japanese) of the miracle skin rejuvenator, Conezyme Q10 are produced from tobacco leaf, which is still the best source of natural Co-Q10 (since it includes the full synergistic complex which the cheaper synthetic production methods cannot replicate).

g) Deprenyl (selegiline), which mimics the selective MAO B inhibitory properties of tobacco smoke (this is not due to nicotine) and is used in smoking cessation "therapies" for that reason, has become all the rage in the life-extension circles, due to its almost magical rejuvenating powers (more discussion here).

h) Nicotinic acid, along with its salts and various organic compounds, are skin-protective agents, used by cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry.

The listed effects are just a tip of the iceberg of the biochemical magic bundled in the ancient "gift of gods", tobacco.

The pharmaceutical industry (along with its cosmetic offshoots), which nowdays funds (and then hypes through its mass media and bureaucratic shills) almost all of the antismoking "science", would rather you bought myriads of their own pharmaceuticals, each trying to substitute, often clumsily and with numerous undesirable side-effects, for just one little piece of tobacco magic.

Consequently, the junk "studies" funded by these competing interests, like the one above, will routinely compare smokers who may be working in a metals smeltering plant or miners, with poor nutrition and other genuinly unhealthy habits (excessive drinking), for whom tobacco smoking is a lifesaver, a form of self-medication due to metals detox and antioxidant properties of elevated glutathione, with a non-smoking suburban yuppie, taking tonnes of health supplements, eating healthy foods, getting regular skin massage,...

Due to the intense social pressures against smoking, aiming at the "average" person, those who still smoke are largely underclass, having more sun exposure, poorer nutrition, poorer genes, heavier pollution at work and home,... They smoke because smoking provides relief for their hardship (e.g. MAO inhibition, hence higher dopamine) and because it strengthens their immune and detox systems (doubles glutathione, 30% higher neutrophil,...), which helps them detox better in more polluted environments.

Despite protective effects of tobacco smoke, they will still have worse health (and more wrinkled skin) than those living in better conditions, who don't need to smoke as a form of self-medication and who, under the present antismoking pressures, mostly won't smoke. Hence, smoking is a marker or a proxy for the level of hardship and it is the hardship itself which damages their health and wrinkles their skin. This is no different than observing that people using breathing ventilators have shorter life expectancy than the age-matched controls not using ventilators. That doesn't mean ventilators shorten the life or harm those using them. It is exactly the opposite.

That is precisely what randomized[/b] intervention trials with smokers show -- [b]randomly selected "quit group" (in contrast to self-selected non-smokers or quitters observed in usual "studies") ends up with worse outcomes, including more lung cancers and heart attacks, than the "control group" (those left alone to smoke as they wish). After about half a dozen of such studies, which is how one can differentiate causal from protective/therapeutic role of smoking, the antismoking "science" has avoided them like a plague, sticking to what "works" (for getting the Big Pharma funding), the plain old heavily confounded, easily malleable statistical associations, the usual junk science.

With the large middle of the Bell Curve brainwashed and scared away from this ancient miracle plant, besides the left tail underclass using smoking as self-medication, there is also the right tail of the Bell Curve, people who are well off, who smoke because they know better and who can't be duped by the shallow propaganda optimized for the mediocre majorities. They smoke for the same reason they eat fruits, nuts, fish,... because they know that smoking is good.

They also know that, due to upregulation of immune, endocrine and neurotransmitter systems, smokers require higher doses of many supplements (especially C, E, selenium) and they take care of proper, good nutrition.

Since this right-tail group doesn't have as much need to smoke for self-medication (they live in healthier environments, have better nutrition and better genes), they will smoke at lower rates than the left tail underclass, but at the higher rates than the large mediocre middle. The net outcome of antismoking social engineering pressures is that smoking has become increasingly a marker of self-medication (it has always had that component, but in a much smaller proportion than today) and heavily shifted toward underclass.

In fact, many harsh antismoking ordinances have the unspoken motive[/b] of keeping the underclass or foreigners out of town or at least out of sight (just as in previous times, anti-opium laws were explicitly introduced to keep the Chinese away from 'white women', or anti-marijuana laws to keep Mexicans and Blacks, or anti-alcohol laws to keep Irish and Italians away). The drug prohibition laws today owe much of their support to similar, but now not spoken of openly, racist or class motives.

That's astounding Nightlight, I have to admit. Well once again i'm confused. I have seen it go either way. Usually when I see a heavily lined face and immediately I say "there's a smoker" sure enough, I've been right. They have a certain look normally that gives it away. A more leathered type of face, harder looking. At least that's what I've seen.

Though of course, it seems there is the opposite side to this. One wonders what those people have been doing other than smoking? Surely diet plays a role??? Or good genetics??? For sure they are astounding. But I must say, I've seen smokers and non smokers of great years, one will say their secret has been "no smoking" the other will say "smoking". So it seems to me, that it suits some and not others. Just as you bring up the best of the adverts for it, one could do the opposite I'm sure. Some people no matter what they do, seem to defy anything. Others like myself, the sensitives and not so immune efficient, seem to plummet if I put a step wrong. Those people in those pics could be the types of people who have extremely good genetic make up, the ones with strong hearts, lungs and wider arteries. They have proven this apparently that some people have this naturally, which is why they can get away with doing almost anything. Others do not.

Nightlight, you may also be aware that increasing glutathione levels can be done by using selenium, undenatured whey powder, etc? One lady doing this said her skin had improved markedly and become younger looking.

See for me, smoking is not even possible. I tried it again by the way, moderately this time and got bad results again. So once again, I am trying to improve from that. To force my body into doing something because someone is pro smoking, makes no sense to me if it makes me ill. It simply wastes more of my time and life and stops me going forward, which it has done twice in a row now.

So for me the smoking does not work. I could not afford the roll your own ones, the price was out of range. Does one keep doing something that makes them ill ? or do they avoid it? That's a no brainer.

Fascinating reading. Information I've never been exposed to.

They have proven this apparently that some people have this naturally, which is why they can get away with doing almost anything. Others do not.

The nature of person's aging depends, of course, on genetics and environment (which includes lifesyle factors). But one environmental factor discussed here, tobacco smoking, is on its own highly rejuvenating, as all the hard science demonstates (it's all produced by antismoking scientists, as you can see from the cited papers). As explained above, the heavy social engineering against smoking has resulted in a shift of this factor toward underclass or people with poor genetics in any class, who need smoking as self-medication.

Hence, many smokers are of poor health and do look prematurely wrinkled despite of smoking not because of it -- they are smoking against all the social and economic pressures of our times to offset the best they can all the other factors, genetic and environmental, driving in the opposite direction (you realize how inhumane antismoking is -- it is in most cases no different than ripping an IV and breathing tubes from hospital patients because IV and breathing tubes are associated with reduced life-expectancy). In other words, the fact that smoking is helpful for skin and for general rejuvenation does not mean smokers will have better skin or be more youthful as they age, just as rise in temperature this Tuesday morning does not mean this one is warmer than the last Tuesday morning, when temperature decreased.

So for me the smoking does not work.

The benefits of smoking are in part due to the 'exercise effect' -- it is an aeorobics for immune and detox systems (also for nerotransmitter, endocrine, cardiovasculatory and metabolic systems/networks). But if a person has broken leg, running would not be good for him, even though it may be good otherwise. Starting younger is also a plus and smoking was traditionally started as a rite of passage in mid-teens, from ancient American Indians through modern times (as well as with people on those photos). Some cultures, such as Semai people of Malaysia, take this benefit of "younger" to the absolute extreme and start smoking at age two (and have no 'smoking related' diseases; e.g. all 12000+ Semai adults were medically examined in depth in 1970s and the astonished scientists could not find a single lung cancer).

There are also various forms of smoking. Pipe smoking, although not very common among women (see here), is the most gentle kind of smoking (and similarly, pipe smokers are the nicest people you will meet).

Information I've never been exposed to.

You have seen in many other areas how the mass media works. Any time you study some subject in more depth, as you did about mercury toxicity, you find that mass media which is driven by the not-so-invisible vested interests, creates a virtual reality, carefully filtering and distorting (even outright lying) information fed to the public. People indeed live in this "matrix" and it often requires the 'red pill' to see what the real situation is.

While mercury business is profitable, the antismoking business is vastly more so, hence the reality distortion by the "matrix" is much stronger and more shocking, once you take the "red pill" and see the rest of the story. Ignoring profits for nicotine patches, gums and antidepressants, consider vast amounts of money for all the extra millions of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and schizophrenia patients, just few diseases reduced by smoking by factors 2 to 10, who will linger on expensive pharmaceuticals for years and decades. No wonder Big Pharma or the "Sickness Industry" is 'investing' over a billion a year into antismoking scam ("research", "grass roots" antismoking organizations, buying political & bureaucratic influence,...).

Well Nightlight, I must admit you do pass on some interesting points and hard arguments. Yes, as you suggested with the exercise effect and comparing it with someone who has a broken leg (me with smoking). yeah that sounds likely.

But I've not seen such grat results on family members who smoke (some most of their lives). THe studies you are passing on and experiences are not what I see in my own family. I think the only one member I can think of that seems ok is my uncle. The rest had to give up from chest trouble and continual coughing or other problems that only subsided upon giving up (both my parents being two examples). So certainly it is not for everyone.

I completely agree with you about the media.

I used work in politics and we would often have first-hand information about a rally, a bill, an event, or some other situation from witnesses, but when the news put their spin on the stories, it was no longer just a spin, it was lie after lie after lie: Carefully worded, craftily photographed, convincingly videoed—lie after lie.

Few know the depth of it.

There is no getting away from the fact that the media is a HUGE tool for manipulation and predominantly owned by very few people with completely vested interests, and they ain't ours. In London, one of the early anti -Iraq war rallies was attended by an all-time record number of people, by most counts well over 1/2 a million and the media tried to shave it down to about 80 thousand,ridiculous,but when you have that many people attending something the truth gains strength as you can't lie to that many eye witnesses.
Nightlight, you make me wish I COULD smoke tobacco, cigarettes just make my head revolve and then I have to find a bush I can puke behind .I always notice other people's Marlboroughs smell to me like the worst worn to death feotid sports shoe set alight. Thankfully a lot of people where I live smoke roll ups as it used to be cheaper, not sure anymore.
Interesting brain you've got there nightlight.

The exact same thing happens here all the time. Huge demonstrations get hardly any coverage and the reported numbers of participants gets reduced many times.

elvis i'm the same. I wish I could smoke now as well, or even just in moderation. But I can't. Like yourself, the reactions are just awful and for me they last AGES after it. It's like trying to recover from some major toxic impact.

And unfortunately I enjoy smoking too, which is hard when I get the urge and weaken and then end up a mess for it. But again, I guess it's for the best if my body is alerting me that this is not for me!

Some get that warning only too late. Some smoke their whole lives and seem to thrive. What gives? Why do some respond well and others respond adversely to it. E.g. I know some people who cannot even be in a room with someone smoking, they actually feel sick and get symptoms.

So really I think it's a tough one for me to wrap my brain around. I do believe there are smoking related illnesses, I have no doubts of that. But I'm seeing nIghtlight's side that there is the other also. Could it be that some of us do not have the make up to gain such benefits and are as he suggested (like a person with a broken leg trying to run?). Well I don't know.

There IS tar and nicotine in all cigarettes manufactured from major cigarrette companies and regulated by our government. Ordinary wild tobacco leaves do not have this tar. The tobacco the native americans smoked didnt have tar either.

your better off growing your own tobacco and rolling it up in rice paper (as suggested before) than buying a pack of cigarrettes over the counter.

Personally, I don't think breathing any type of smoke is good for the lungs-- and would much prefer to drink tobacco in the form of a tea if possible. Probably would get all the same positive health effects without the lung irritation.

I agree boldyloxx!!! I don't think breathing any type of smoke in such concentration is good either, nor the tar and other garbage in the junk cigarettes of today.

Again, I have not seen the benefits that nightlight continues to pass on. If that was so in my own life, we'd all be smoking, because we'd all be seeing the results in others who did. The reality would speak for itself.

thanks Bex! :-)

I love tea -- and found that Valerian Tea always relaxes me- to the point of a healthy tiredness. I get no insomnia when drinking Valerian Tea and I don't have to light up! Even burning candles aggravate my sinuses unless they're placed outside.

Bex, no disrespect intended, but we are a society that is Told what to Do.

The benefits of tobacco exist. Just watch any National Geographic show, you'll see all the elders of the indeginous tribes puffing away on tobacco. These elders are obviously way into their 80's and 90's.

By all accounts of our "Masters of Dis-info", these elders should be long gone.

I used to believe unquestionably what our "Masters of Dis-info" beamed into my nightly television shows, and conversely into my brain. No more.

Tobacco is an ancient natural herb, with extremely high beneficial health benefits, as nightlight has documented.

Here's one more link, showing that the California Desert Indians would smoke tobacco to cure a cold.

http://www.tobacco.org/History/indiantobcalif.html
"Smoking was said by the desert Indians to be a cure for colds, especially if the tobacco was mixed with the leaves of the small Desert Sage, Salvia Dorrii , or the root of Indian Balsam or Cough Root, Leptotaenia multifida , the addition of which was thought to be particularly good for asthma and tuberculosis. The introduced Tree Tobacco, Nicotiana glauca , which is common in waste places below 3000 ft., is also said to have been used for smoking by both the Indians and whites. Medicinally the leaves were supposed to be good steamed and used as a poultice to relieve a swollen throat, and steamed into the body for those suffering from rheumatism."

Infinite thoughts, I see what you're saying, but I am not going by what society dictates. I have tried smoking upteen times and it destroys any healh gain I've managed to get and I end up having to start again and attempt to detox myself.

So again, if it was about someone telling me what to do, I would continue pushing myself to smoke because of what's being advocated on here. This time I am listening to my body.

It maybe fine for those people on National Geographic who I am certain are not smoking the junk laden cigarettes we have in supermarkets <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

As I've stated, I have not yet seen the benefits of smoking in members in my family and my own attempts have been disastrous with long term impact. I can't really be anymore honest and straight than this.
Do you suggest I ignore this and continue smoking regardless? I couldn't even do that if I tried. It made me so ill, I STILL am trying to recover.

I appreciate hearing the other side to smoking, and as always it's impressive, but I'm afraid I am unable to smoke myself. My body speaks volumes and has the last say.

In this instant I'd suggest it has to do with the "vodoo effect" that nightlight mentioned. The human mind is a very powerful instrument, which we all know is molded by what I call The Merchants of Chaos.

One would also have to add to the number of commercial cigarettes one is smoking, vs say "natural" cigarettes. I mean, is a person smoking 5 cigarettes a day vs 40 ? (2 packs a day.)

Bex, But definately, I do agree with your above comment that commercial cigarettes are unhealthy, due to the number of pesticides and additives added.

Well in your instance I would have to agree and say if it causes that much disruption to NOT smoke.

One thing to consider is, possibly the bad effects you are experiencing could be an indication of something wrong with your body?

Just a thought.

INfinite thoughts, yes you are correct. There are many underlining problems that have caused me to become this intolerant of cigarettes and other things also.

E.g. I got a bacterial / viral infection in 2003 that caused a great deal of damage in me that I never recovered from. Since that time, I become severely ill and toxic very easily from any toxic exposure and suffer long term. So I fear it may have caused damage or defects to my immunity and possibly even the blood brain barrier.

So yes, I simply cannot smoke. I also cannot enter a dental office without becoming mercury toxic. all because of the mercury vapor already in the office environmnet. All this since that infection. Sad, but true.

So yes, you hit the nail on the head.

Now I remember we talked on other thread, Cig. Toxicity.
Sorry. I'm on too many NG's.......

I know I said this before, but look into a chinese Doctor. They may very possibly be able to cure this.

Reason being because of how they approach the human system.
IE: Is the body too HOT or COLD for example, (one of many tests.) Then they move on to Step 2. Why is the body HOT or COLD. Then Step 3. They know exactly what herbs to use to restore all balances in the body.

Good luck.

Right. One of the other tests, I just remembered, is they test the flow of your CHI, and correct it accordingly.