This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

Lung Cancer & Smoking: A Simple Cause & Effect?

Gardening, Homesteading & Other Wholesome Topics

Re: Lung Cancer & Smoking: A Simple Cause & Effect?

Postby EzraLB » Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:29 am

NicoChristian wrote:The point is I think we need to start realizing that not everything can be proved by studies and that the majority of today's information is biased trash.


Studies and statistics are merely tools, and yes, used by dishonest people with an agenda, they are often abused. But that doesn't mean that the tools themselves are bad. I see Christians use statistics all the time, especially when they "prove" a point that they believe in, but the second statistics contradict their personal views, they claim that statistics and studies are "biased" and thus meaningless.

And as far as the physical act of smoking is concerned, I have seen no indication that chronic marijuana smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer than non-smokers.

Also, people who chew commercially grown tobacco do have a significantly higher risk of cancers of the mouth. If tobacco, without being smoked, can trigger cancer inside the mouth, then clearly the act of smoking it is not the deciding factor. Traditionally, tobacco was used to cure skin lesions, but modern tobacco induces skin lesions. That alone should set off some bells.

Cigarette smokers do not get mouth cancers at anywhere near the rate of tobacco chewers. How could this be if smokers are pulling smoke into their mouths with every breath? Why would this smoke by-pass the sensitive tissue of the lining of the mouth and affect only the lungs?

The logical--and absent--control is this: do people who chew organically-grown tobacco develop mouth cancers at the same rate as those who chew chemically-filled commercial tobacco? Of course, "they" will never do such a study--because if they did, it would reveal the real problem with commercial "tobacco".

If you are going to smoke, I would suggest special "kosher" Passover cigarettes that are available only in Isra-Hell. While they may still contain dangerous chemical additives, a rabbi has certified that the tobacco itself has not come into contact with any forbidden "grains".

http://news.yahoo.com/israelis-kosher-c ... 11923.html
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Lung Cancer & Smoking: A Simple Cause & Effect?

Postby NicoChristian » Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:23 am

I'll put it this way. Personally I despise smoking, as a race we only started recently and we got it off pagan beasts. Whether we did it pre-Columbus I don't know, regardless we did many evil things in the past. Is smoking something ordained by God? I highly doubt it, it's not good for health, it's addictive and my experience of smokers past and present leads me to regard it as a vice and a hindrance. People always need to take cigarette breaks fairly often. Weed smokers, I don't have lots of experience with weed because I don't associate with potheads, but from what I have seen weed makes people lazy and unmotivated.

If people want to smoke then I will struggle to be convinced that it is a good thing. I do know a lot of people who smoke, but don't smoke around me and it stinks. Smoking is one of those things like alcohol that are part of our culture and probably will be for a long time. They do more harm than good, but people continue to use them. I don't smoke and I have never needed to. If people want to smoke there's not much I can do about it, but don't cry when you get ill. You play with matches you get burned. People can make their own choices, but they'll have to live with the consequences.

The only last point I want to make is why would smoking be a good thing? Why are we even having this discussion? Are we trying to say smoking is good and healthy? I agree that there are many causes of cancer, but what good has smoking been for our race and kin.
YHWH bless.
NicoChristian
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Lung Cancer & Smoking: A Simple Cause & Effect?

Postby EzraLB » Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:39 am

NicoChristian wrote:Why are we even having this discussion? Are we trying to say smoking is good and healthy? I agree that there are many causes of cancer, but what good has smoking been for our race and kin.


Nico, if you think that the purpose of my original posting was to suggest the smoking is a "good thing," then you completely missed the point that I was trying to make. I can't help you with that. No matter how many times I repeated in this thread that my purpose was not to justify or promote smoking, you seem to believe that is my purpose regardless of what I'm saying.

Let me repeat: Clearly, based on the evidence, lung cancer seems to be caused by other factors rather than mere cigarette smoking. God forbid any non-smoker here is ever diagnosed with lung cancer, but if they are, their doctor is not going to have any kind of explanation for them.

I am trying to show you that there is a real and plausible explanation as to why a non-smoker may come down with lung cancer. If you don't want to give my explanation any credence, that's your business. I just don't want non-smokers scratching their heads if they are diagnosed. Simple really.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Lung Cancer & Smoking: A Simple Cause & Effect?

Postby Nayto » Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:58 pm

Lung cancer isn't the only thing which smoking causes though. Mark understood my point earlier. To reiterate, applying heat so directly to the throat and lungs is bad. There is a big difference in inhaling a cigarette or weed and standing over a fire cooking some meat. Even sitting in a wood smoke filled room doesn't compare. I know this because I have experience with all of the above, lol. I've tended to fires in cold circumstances away from civilization all evening and night and my lungs felt fine. Nothing has even come close to giving me a burning sensation in my lungs like smoking has.

Let me approach it from a different angle: Why smoke something when it's benefits can be extracted by other means? I know for a fact that hemp can be taken as oil, liquid, tea or even in a chocolate brownie.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Lung Cancer & Smoking: A Simple Cause & Effect?

Postby Kentucky » Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:05 pm

There was a smoker who had been smoking for years and he knew it was a nasty habit. He asked his minister at church one Sunday, "Pastor, do you think I'm going to hell for smoking?" And the pastor said, "Well, you might not be going to hell, but you surely smell like it." :lol:

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am

Re: Lung Cancer & Smoking: A Simple Cause & Effect?

Postby NicoChristian » Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:52 am

I remember when I was younger asbestos and passive smoking were associated with lung cancer and that was like over 20 years ago. The causes of cancer or anything are always multiple. There is never one single cause. That's the problem with studies and things like that; people doing the studies always want to pinpoint one determining factor when one cause by itself is never enough. Why did he get cancer, he smoked, he ate poorly, he worked in an office, he didn't exercise, he was exposed to EMF, etc. One of them by itself was not enough, altogether they killed him.

It's the same with anything, is our race dying because of one reason or many?
YHWH bless.
NicoChristian
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Lung Cancer & Smoking: A Simple Cause & Effect?

Postby EzraLB » Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:11 am

NicoChristian wrote:Why did he get cancer, he smoked, he ate poorly, he worked in an office, he didn't exercise, he was exposed to EMF, etc. One of them by itself was not enough, altogether they killed him. It's the same with anything, is our race dying because of one reason or many?


NIco, you just proved my point--the so-called experts claim that smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer--and clearly, it is not. If that were true, then a high percentage of non-smokers would not be getting lung cancer. And only a tiny number of those were ever exposed to asbestos, which triggers a very different form of lung cancer from "smoking".

According to your list of potential "causes" of cancer, my father-in-law, who has been diagnosed with two forms of cancer so far, had none of your risk factors:

-He never smoked.
-He does not drink alcohol heavily or immoderately.
-He ate "well", no junk food, no snacks, no desserts, no coffee, etc.
-He exercises intensely every day for at least an hour.
-He does not sit around at a desk job all day.
-He was not exposed to workplace hazards.
-He took no drugs, not even aspirin.

What happened to my father-in-law is the shape of things to come--people with no apparent officially-recognized "risk factors" are now being commonly diagnosed with cancers of all sorts. His doctors had no explanation for him.

But I pointed out to my father-in-law that he had two hidden risk factors that the medical establishment rarely recognizes:

-He grew up on a farm.
-He is ex-military.

Farmers are often exposed to highly-poisonous pesticides and fertilizers. Certain cancers are known as the "Mid-West Farmer's" diseases. His father and mother, both non-smokers, died of cancer. His brothers have heart problems; his sister just died of Parkinson's disease. All non-smokers.

Also, like all veterans, he was subjected to mandatory vaccinations--in far greater numbers than the general public. Many of the illnesses that are experienced by Vets can be traced back to those vaccines, which can lay dormant in your body for years before they do their real damage.

All cancer patients are given long "lifestyle" surveys to fill out so that doctors can create their bogus "risk factor" assessments. These surveys do nothing but provide experts with more information to "blame the victim" and protect those who are poisoning our people en masse through the air, water, food supply, and medical sorcery, such as vaccinations and poisonous drugs. By giving credence to their "risk factor" assessments, we do nothing but help them protect the guilty and perpetuate our own victim status.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Lung Cancer & Smoking: A Simple Cause & Effect?

Postby matthewott » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:59 am

It seems to be common sense that inhaling smoke is not the most effective way of consuming God's creation, but it definitely has it's uses. Smoking such things as cannabis and tobacco is born out of ease and simplicity. Your lungs have what is called 'cilia', microscopic hairs which naturally help expel foreign debris from your lungs...because foreign objects are in the very air we breathe! 'Smoke' does not cause lung cancer...simple carbon particles. They exist 'naturally' in the air we breathe. There is not one documented case where smoking cannabis could be attributed to lung cancer...or any cancer for that matter. In the world of herbology, there are certain herbs that are recommended to be smoked in order to obtain the desired medicinal effects. A perfect example in a common herb called 'mullien'. You smoke it to relieve asthma! I don't have asthma, but I have sinus issues that cause excessive mucus to drain into my lungs, and have suffered from a form of asphyxia occasionally as a result. The smoking of the mullien opens the aerioli in your lungs, which are the nodules that accept oxygen. I can tell you first hand that it works. As for knowing any study on the affects of smoking straight, pure tobacco, I cannot comment. However, it is common knowledge that commercial cigarettes contain over 500 added chemicals, including the carcinogens which are known to cause cancer. I do not smoke cigarettes, as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that not only are there no health benefits involved, but that it is absolutely detrimental to your health. However, I am known to smoke certain herbs when my body is in need of certain medicines, and there is both the ease of administration, and specific desired effects involved in the choice. This choice is not everyone's choice, as is evident here, but I sure hope this clarifies things quite a bit more, and eases the demonization of God's healing herbs, no matter in what form we choose to consume them.
For the Word of Yahweh is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb. 4:12
User avatar
matthewott
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Millersburg PA

Previous

Return to Health & Hearth

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron