Theory Tobaccopill

[DarkStar]

ITT, I shall discern to everyone here the lies, myths, and other nonsense we have been fed by the modern medical industry in regards to that of Tobacco.

To start with, I will address the study which is often cited in regards to tobacco smoke causing cancer. It is this British Doctors study from 1956, in which they analyzed smokers who inhaled, did not inhale, and then a control group who did not smoke.

Here's the results:

To test the significance of this apparent protection due to inhaling, we must recognize the effects of random sampling not only due to the limited number of inhalers, but equally of the non-inhalers with whom they are compared. This is conveniently done by reducing the deficiency in the ratio of the non-inhalers to the total.
No particular importance need be attached to the test of significance. It disposes at about the 1 per cent. level the hypothesis that inhalers and non-inhalers have the same cancer incidence. Even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung causes cancer. The fact, however, and it is a fact that should have interested Hill and Doll in 1950, is that inhalers get fewer cancers. and the difference is statistically significant.

Now, isn't it kinda odd that the people who literally inhale it are less likely than the people who just puff, with the difference being statistically significant.

Well, let's dive further shall we?

One thing to note is at the start of the last century, lung-cancer was actually quite rare:

To our knowledge, it is the first study reporting historical lung cancer prevalence for this period: Lung cancer was rare 200 years ago but increased significantly from the beginning of the twentieth century onwards, reflecting probably the introduction of manufactured cigarettes

https://www.jto.org/article/S1556-0864(18)32300-1/fulltext#:~:text=1947%20in%20Germany.-,Conclusion,the%20introduction%20of%20manufactured%20cigarettes.

Now sure, it is fair to say that cigarettes have contributed to this(but not in the way you think), but the thing is, humans had been smoking tobacco for 200 years even before that due to the discovery of it by Columbus in 1492.

Smoking--once a socially accepted behavior--is the leading preventable cause of death and disability in the United States. During the first decades of the 20th century, lung cancer was rare; however, as cigarette smoking became increasingly popular, first among men and later among women, the incidence of lung cancer became epidemic (Figure 1). In 1930, the lung cancer death rate for men was 4.9 per 100,000; in 1990, the rate had increased to 75.6 per 100,000 (1). Other diseases and conditions now known to be caused by tobacco use include heart disease, atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease, laryngeal cancer, oral cancer, esophageal cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, intrauterine growth retardation, and low birthweight. During the latter part of the 20th century, the adverse health effects from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke also were documented. These include lung cancer, asthma, respiratory infections, and decreased pulmonary function (2).

Again, lung cancer even in the 1930s was still quite uncommon.

So what possibly changed since then?

Well, perhaps it could be to do with this:

Like the Harvard group, Martell was also concerned with the buildup of polonium 210 in particular areas of the lung. It had been generally accepted for some time that exposure to radiation from radon “daughters” was the principal cause of elevated cancer risk in uranium miners. Thus, he reasoned that because of smokers’ chronic exposure to low, concentrated doses, polonium 210 was likely the primary cause of their lung cancer and perhaps—as he suggested later—of other types of cancer as well.

Radioactive Smoke: A Dangerous Isotope Lurks in Cigarettes

The tobacco industry has known for decades how to remove a dangerous isotope from cigarettes but has done nothing about it. The government now has the power to force a change

www.scientificamerican.com

The Polonium decays gradually (1/2 of its mass per 158 days) into Lead (which is also a poisonous toxin and carcinogen). The Polonium comes from the Calcium Phosphate based fertilizer, Tobacco plants love it (because Polonium is metabolized like Calcium by the Plants, the confuses it for one of the nutrients the needs). That amount of Polonium 210 is enough to cause your Lungs to become riddled with Tumors over 2 to 6 decades, depending upon your susceptibility to the mutations in your tissues all the radioactivity being delivered to your Lungs will ultimately lead to. And it effects almost 90% of all smokers, at least those who by their mid life to elder years, have not already succumbed to heart disease, stroke, mouth and gum cancers, emphysema and other Tobacco related diseases.​

Radioactive Polonium in Tobacco

Tobacco is contaminated with radioactive polonium from chemical fertilizers.

www.acsa.net

here's also something interesting which I read:

Nicotine suppresses cell death of neurons (it also promotes vascular growth factor, e.g. growth and branching of capillaries). (Another advantage of nicotine is that Nicotine Slays TB. The link to this mainstream article is prefaced by this comment, “This article was written in 2001 and since then the ban on smoking in public places and taxing tobacco has grown. Extremely-Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis strains will continue to spread and multiply. The resulting global XDR-TB epidemic will be an untreatable and unstoppable calamity.”)

The lung cancer meme — a history

After four centuries of smoking in Western countries — longer in others, especially by Indian tribes and other indigenous peoples — lung cancer was so rare that many doctors had not hea…

churchmousec.wordpress.com

Here's another interesting pattern:

Smoking in Japan is practiced by around 20,000,000 people, and the nation is one of the world's largest tobacco markets,[1] though tobacco use has been declining in recent years.[2]

Yet Japan has one of the highest life expectancies on Earth?

 

[Grodd]

Good thread

Lots of Cancer has nothing do with smoking that being said Smoking is obviously bad but who gives a fuck tbh.

 

[Friezacel]

tl;dr ?

 

[Scatius Deletus]

tl;dr ?

Inject cocaine daily

 

[light]

Good thread

 

[Choler]

dnr but im smoking a cig rn

 

[DarkStar]

@proudweeb thoughts? I think we(or was it MDS when he was here) spoke on this

 

[luciolencerr]

smoking is based, I'm glad I started recently

 

[justuseless]

I used to work with a guy who suffered from asthma he said it got cured after he started smoking

 

[proudweeb]

@proudweeb thoughts? I think we(or was it MDS when he was here) spoke on this

I occasionally used to enjoy a quality cig. Good flavour

 

[negativexp]

This is really interesting, thanks for posting.

Also TBH even if smoking gives you health benefits I wouldn't do it often, I have done it before and it feels really good the first few times but then it becomes super lame. Opiates > Nicotine

 

[ogercel]

lifes short just enjoy the ride

 

[Castaway]

Based. I’ve thought of picking up smoking cigs as a way to voicemaxx and sound more intimidating

 

[m3nt4Lbl0ck3d]

lifes short just enjoy the ride

Nobody is promised tomorrow. I'm having my second cig for the day and fucking enjoying it too. Death is a part of life. Who gives a shit.

 

[Uncle Death]

Smoking again here… it is a relaxing activity with coffee and black tea

 

[Hoppipolla]

Huh. I hope you're right!

 

[Slut_Annihilator298]

Smoked a cigarette outside earlier today. Felt good.

 

[DarkStar]

View: https://x.com/utilitaryan/status/1905570359987863737


just throwing this in

 

[Skelly]

If true, why did cigarette companies felt the need to hide research that linked cancer to smoking?

 

[Skelly]

Again, lung cancer even in the 1930s was still quite uncommon.

Ciggarette smoking really took off in the 1920s-30s, so smokers just didn't have enough time for it to develop into lung cancer. Also it was really hard to detect lung cancer since X-rays weren't common yet, so it could've just been misdiagnosed