The anti-smoking conspircy

Does smoking protect against heart disease too?

See the graph for Lung cancer death rate in Sweden:
[link to www.jonbarron.org]
1910 5%
2000 35%

Smoking in Sweden is at a very low prevalence; only 17% of Swedish men smoke.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Reptilians hate smoke.

Here's a thought.

What if...

All the lung cancer deaths from petrol smog and city living...

Were blamed on tobacco?

Conspiracy?

Well... the sheep sure as hell buy it.

Hook, line, and sinker...

Yet another obvious flaw in petrol economy?

Of course not! It's them damn sinners again, isn't it?

Truth.

How many deaths are related to smoking?

Me: I have lung cancer
DR: have you ever had one cigarette
Me: I smoked for 10 years
DR: that's why you have cancer!

Not the air, food, etc.
BUT ONLY SMOKING

You'd be surprised how often the above tale happens.

Yeah it's the same weird logic that is applied to illness and overweight/ obesity.

Most people I know who have had cancer or very ill have not been overweight. But that doesn't stop the blame fatty brigade for the escalated cost of health care to war in Iraq (if they could).

Smokers and the overweight have been the favourite whipping boys for all of societies ills. And yet, it's the majority who are to blame numbers wise.

See Figure 4: Daily smokers: proportion of people aged 14 years and over, Australia, 1985 to 2004
[link to www.aihw.gov.au]
Males Females
1985 33% 25%
2004 22% 19%

See Figure 4: Trends in death rates for lung cancer in Australia, 1945 to 2006
[link to www.aihw.gov.au]

Male Femle
1945 11 5
1980 80 11
2006 50 20

The same trends in death rates for lung cancer can be seen in US, UK, Sweden and Australia:
-for males the death rates peked round 1980 and then slowly dropped, well above the levels from the 40's and 50s
-for women the the death rates increased constantly, regardless the constant decrease in smoking rates.
I came to the con clusion that these evolutions are due to the nocebo effects of the anti-smoking campaigns.

A brief history of the War on Smokers
In 1964 the Surgeon General's report on smoking and lung cancer was published, followed one year later by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act which required the Surgeon General's warning be printed on each pack of cigarettes.
Twenty years later, in 1984, the Comprehensive Tobacco Education Act (Public Law 98-474) was passed. This Act created the taxpayer-funded Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health, a partnership between the federal government and the biggest of the non-profits, including the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, and later, the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation. Their stated purpose was to coordinate public and private tobacco research and education programs. This partnership laid the foundation for the non-governmental organizations' involvement in policy making and gave them the power of another branch of government. These unelected and therefore essentially omnipotent groups are still the
basis for the War on Smokers and they're more powerful than ever...probably more powerful than government itself.
[link to www.nycclash.com]

See also these articles:

THE NOCEBO EFFECT OF INFORMED CONSENT
[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Is the nocebo effect killing our smokers?
[link to www.impactednurse.com]

The last article has also lots of interesting comments from readers.

i've wondered about this, too. nothing more sensible to add than that, really. tobacco was sacred to native americans, though i don't know why.

As a former smoker I don't need a doctor to tell me it was bad for me. It's a stinky filthy habit and are bodies didn't evolve to inhale chemicals everyday. Smokers tend to be filthy litter bugs as well, they treat the whole earth as if it were their filthy ash tray.

What about the fall out from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Maybes they predicted the downturn of the cancer caused by these would curtail in the seventies. So the population of cancer sufferers wouldn't sue the government, they would blame it on smokes.

Shake dreams from your hair my sweet child.

See here how bad and toxic is tobacco:
Thread: Pentagon hopes nicotine plant can 'cure' chemical weapons effects

What if.. you live forever?..

.. oh wait, no one doe's, thankfully.

There were also a shitpot of open air nuclear tests right here in the good ol USA. I'm sure that could have nothing to do with it (sarcasm).

Hahahahahahaaaaa!!!

I love how indignant some former smokers get.

"Ewwwwwww, smokers are the worst people ever"

Fuck you.

You make us smoke outside and don't provide ashtrays, don't be surprised to see butts on the ground.

Yep, that is what I have been able to figure out so far. But hay, it is jut right in you face! Though it takes courage to accept this truth,--well, just like all truth.

Yep, worse than racists and Nazis

GLP is soooooo awake. Definitely nuclear testing.

I say let them smoke. I hope they do. They're not going to believe that it's bad anyway until they're toting around an oxygen tank.
So all you non believers that think smoking is a conspiracy. Please smoke up... Smoke a bunch. I mean after all it's actually healthy for your lungs.

Living is not healthy out of your prejudice attitude.
Oxygen is not life, Jesus Christ is life. Didn't you learn yet. If you did, I will disclose to you that it is the sins of you, the hypocrites and the evil doers, that the smokers are suffering.
Forget oxygen tank, get life!

The anti-smoking campaign was the first big public push to imprint and condition the minds of the population for being openly controlled, setting the foundations for further "conditioning" or otherwise being told what to think, do, or believe.

Take "something" that is:

A) regarded as important by the general public
B) regarded by the user as an open expression within their personal freedom
C) participated in largely across cultural/ gender lines
D) is a proven tax base

and then:

A) demonize it
B) tax and tax and tax it
C) create qualifications for purchase
D) begin a movement creating public disapproval - specifically based in fear
E) use this falsely- generated public approval to enact stronger restrictions and bans
F) create a legal process for the prosecution of those complying with any of the above

Sadly, the experiment worked, and people fell right in line.

Does any of this NOT look familiar to anyone here?

You have got to be kidding me....

Now smoking may be healthy for you????

Figures... I JUST quit abut 2 weeks ago, and finally got past the cravings and now I read this thread.

Sigh..... to smoke or not to smoke... that is the question.



Personally... I feel a lot healthier when i'm NOT smoking. I've gone back and forth over the past 18 years. And every time that I quit for several months, i've noticed a major improvement with my overall health. I can breathe much better, I feel more in shape and can walk, job and run like I was 10 years younger.

How can smoking possibly be GOOD for you???

I mean, we're breathing in a boat-load of toxic chemicals with every drag. How can that be a good thing??

I'm not saying this thread is BS or anything. All I'm saying is that it seems more like a cruel irony after years and years of everyone claiming how bad it is for you.

Eating once a day inadvertently became my habit. And you know what? I feel much more energetic than when I have two or tree meals. Go figure. I am a heavy clean cannabis ( I mean Like very heavy), and tobacco (the cleanest I can get) smoker.
???????

What is bad about any lung cancer from smoking study is that they do not eliminate other possible causes of the diseases.
To do this they would need 'volunteers' to live in an isolated environment breathing only pure air with no other contaminates.

As far as I know this has never happened primarily because it would be immoral, at least in the old days but now, in an era where torture is acceptable to the government psychopaths, perhaps they will.

Additionally; all animal studies are intrinsically flawed for the simple reason that mice and rats or whatever other animal they use for testing are not human.

Add to that the methods used to test in animals is to force the poor creatures to breath only smoke and just enough oxygen to keep them alive.

One more:
I have seen studies on second hand smoke that seem to indicate that second-hand smoke decreases the incidence of lung cancers, of course those results get buried or explained away for no other reason than the studies outcome did not line up with the testers preconceived notions, not very scientific.

They did much the same with marijuana studies and got caught but you will have a hard time finding that info since the gov. paid most colleges to destroy any research they had on marijuana in the late 70's.
In this case the preconceived notion was: Marijuana causes brain damage. When real scientists looked at this study they found it fatally flawed because they forced their test subjects to inhale MJ smoke and provided NO oxygen.

ANY government funded study should be looked at very skeptically.

I partake in the cannabis consumption as well. I probably smoke it a few times a week on average, but sometimes "take a break" for a month or two. And I was smoking cigarettes about a pack every 2 to 3 days. (I used to smoke a pack a day most of the time, sometimes I would get into the 2nd pack before the day was over and I went to bed)

But anyhow.... Strangely enough, smoking pot never seems to have affected my health in any way. If anything, I find I don't get sick nearly as often and my metabolism is a lot higher when I smoke almost every day.... go figure lol.

My wife likes to smoke pretty much every single day. And quite frankly, she's one of those people who are probably better off smoking it constantly, because when she's been "straight" for more than a day.... she can turn into a serious #$%^&*!! lol

Even her own mother says this to her, hahahahahaha!

Tobacco smoking and the Black Death (anthrax)

this link discusses the fact that tobacco protects against certain pathogens , like flu and anthrax exposure ...it worth reading .

What link?

Tobacco smoking is actually good for us, we have evolved to adapt to it by now. That's why they put pictures and warnings of diseases to program us into thinking its poison, or make us stand outside to breathe in chemtrails and other poisons...