This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum.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

Lung Cancer & Smoking: A Simple Cause & Effect?

Postby EzraLB » Sun Mar 13, 2016 9:30 am

I have always found the Government's Anti-Smoking campaigns rather paradoxical. It was obvious to me that the government was using every means possible to sicken, weaken and kill the populations via vaccines, processed foods, pesticides, etc. So why, if smoking is so bad for us, do they want to "save" us from the evils of lung cancer?

My purpose here is not to suggest that smoking is a benign lifestyle choice or that it does not contribute to serious health problems, such as emphysema and heart disease when consumed immoderately. Rather, I am interested in understanding whether smoking, as most people have been led to believe, is the largest risk factor in lung cancer.

First, we should apply a little logic to the problem: if smoking is the deciding factor in lung cancer, we would expect to find that lung cancer rates are the highest in populations with the highest rates of smoking. The problem is--you won't find this correlation. The countries, say, in Europe with the highest smoking rates, such as Greece and France, do not have the highest lung cancer rates.

Second, since WWII and the heavy anti-smoking campaigns, smoking rates have gone down significantly while the lung cancer rates have gone up. That's counter-intuitive to say the least. A large percentage of people today who are diagnosed with lung cancer are non-smokers--and who have never smoked. If a person who never smoked can get lung cancer, then there must be another cause of lung cancer other than merely smoking.

A new study by the University of Texas Anderson Cancer Center seems to shed some light on this paradox. The results seem to confirm the opposite of what we've been told. The study finds that

"[P]eople who eat foods that are high on the glycemic index (GI) increase their odds of getting lung cancer by as much as 49 percent. Those results were even true for consumers of high-GI foods—meaning refined and processed eatables such as white bread, bagels, pretzels, corn flakes, and even some fruits—who don’t smoke. In fact, non-smokers with high-GI levels were more than twice as likely to get lung cancer as smokers with low-GI levels."

http://www.alternet.org/food/pasta-love ... ung-cancer

Now we are getting somewhere sensible. The link between refined sugar and chronic disease has been known for over 100 years. The primary fuel for cancer cells is refined sugar. Processed "foods" will always raise your blood sugar levels. Ingesting these "foods" is like throwing gasoline on the fire when it comes to cancer cells.

Processed "foods" are not food, just as pork is not food.

A word to the wise: Real food does not have a list of ingredients.

Real food does not have a "kosher" symbol on it. If you see a kosher symbol on a package, think poison and death.

Back to lung cancer and smoking--if there is a carcinogenic aspect to smoking or chewing tobacco, it can most likely be found in the same place that we find it in so-called "food". Commercial tobaccos have been found to have 100s, if not thousands, of additives, preservatives, and toxic metals.

No study has ever been done on people who smoke organic, non-toxic tobacco. And I seriously doubt that there ever will be one--for obvious reasons. Researchers play the same game with "red meat"; they love to demonize red meat in their studies, but they never do studies on people who eat only organically raised clean, non-processed red meat.

And finally, back to my original question: if smoking is not the primary culprit behind the rise in lung cancers, then why has the government spent billions of dollars since the end of WWII to convince the public that smoking causes lung cancer? Are they hiding the real cause?

Since the end of WWII, there have been over 1,000 above-ground nuclear "tests", which poured huge quantities of aerosolized radioactive materials into our atmosphere. It's hard to imagine being able to take even one breath without taking this toxic material into our bodies. The scoffers would say these levels are too low to cause cancer.

But just imagine how many breaths you take from birth to, say, 50 years old when lung cancers tend to show up. 23 million breaths/doses per year on average--times 50 years--that's over a billion breaths/doses by the age of 50. Now, perhaps, we can begin to see what the real culprit behind lung cancer may be:

Alternative lung cancer hypothesis:
Aerosolized radioactive material provides the trigger and processed franken foods provide the fuel.

Yes, lung cancer occurred prior to WWII, but at much lower rates. And yes, commercial tobacco grown prior to WWII was loaded with additives and preservatives, which could be cancer triggers.

Yahweh put tobacco on Earth for a reason. Was it merely to poison us?

Original Study:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/25/3/532.abstract
"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 » Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:49 pm

Are you saying that smoking anything is okay?
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

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

Postby Kentucky » Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:40 pm

There's also the possibility that they arbitrarily put cause of death on death certificates as lung cancer. I know that happened to my dad and the doctors had no previous diagnosis for lung cancer. My sister and I were debating whether or not to fight their conclusion and wondered why there was no autopsy. The last few years of my dad's life he realized that he had been duped by endless prescriptions and more prescriptions for side effects. The pills were killing him. Perhaps putting lung cancer on the death certificate diverted attention away from the practice of over-prescribing. He did smoke in his earlier years, but had quit 40 years prior to his death.

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

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

Postby Teutonic » Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:50 pm

I lost both of my paternal grandparents to smoking, and their cause of death was without a doubt lung cancer.

But you raise an interesting point, which is that YHWH made the tobacco plant, just as He did the coffee plant, the marijuana plant, and the grape vine and hop from which we make wine and beer.

I'm fairly certain that it is not tobacco itself that causes so many deaths but rather all the artificial and carcinogenic additives that the cigarette companies add to it.
Duty, Honour, Sacrifice.
User avatar
Teutonic
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:38 pm
Location: Weimar America

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

Postby Les » Sun Mar 13, 2016 7:59 pm

i USED to smoke. been a long ime since.
there are a LOT of people that lived to very old age and smoked, but they probably did not smoke commercial tobacco (which adds poison) ?
Supposedly the reason why "illegal" cigarettes are hated in Canada is due to the natives avoiding the federal taxes, but when I used to buy plain tobacco that came off a reserve, they burned a long time.
Commercial tobacco burns VERY quickly, so there must be additives in it !
Les
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:02 am

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

Postby EzraLB » Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:37 pm

In his podcast on Friday, Bill mentioned how in the 1930s both alcohol and marijuana became demonized by the establishment for purely monetary reasons, and in so doing deprived people of two beneficial naturally occurring substances. The same is true for tobacco.

When White Europeans started bringing tobacco back from the New World, it was studied extensively for its health and medicinal benefits. Many scholarly books were written on tobacco, praising its versatile benefits, such as treating skin lesions, pain abatement, mouth sores, headaches--the list is seemingly endless. Hundreds of tobacco products were commonly used throughout Europe and America.

Most notably, in the 1570s the Spanish botanist, Nicolas Monardes, wrote a widely popular book on the benefits of the tobacco plant entitled Joyful Newes out of the New-Found World.

It wasn't until the 1930s that the demonization of tobacco began--and it really took off, as I mentioned, after WWII. The question is--were they demonizing commercially grown tobacco with all of its additives and preservatives, or tobacco itself? I think the answer is obvious. It was in the 1930s that the power of the American Medical Association greatly expanded, which coincided with the criminalization of all natural home remedies, such as marijuana and tobacco.

And let's not forget that the government made it illegal to grow your own tobacco on your own property without a license. I guess if people did that, they'd quickly discover just how toxic commercially grown tobacco really is--and they'd discover its many benefits aside from merely smoking it. But that's starting to sound like a "conspiracy". :roll:
"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 » Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:58 am

There is a reason why people cough and splutter when they have a cigarette. Smoke is not supposed to go into the lungs for any extended period of time. The heat of the smoke alone causes damage to the throat and lungs. Just don't smoke anything. It's not worth it. Why would you want to follow pagan, mongrel traditions anyway?

I lost an aunt to lung cancer from smoking. My father had quadruple bypass surgery due to smoking. My brother coughs constantly and has sleep apnea due to smoking.

I will concede that a large part of cancer, addiction and heart disease is probably caused by the added chemicals, but applying heat and added particles to a system which was not designed to receive it for an extended period of time is a bad idea.

Should we be barred from the use of these God-given herbs though? Absolutely not. They have wonderful properties which can be taken advantage of without turning our bodies into chimneys. :D
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

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

Postby EzraLB » Mon Mar 14, 2016 1:22 pm

Nayto wrote:There is a reason why people cough and splutter when they have a cigarette. Smoke is not supposed to go into the lungs for any extended period of time.


If merely breathing in smoke were a major cause of illness, our race would have died out a long time ago. Up until very recently, all indoor heating and cooking was done by wood fires, burning directly inside every room of a house.

In the cold climates of Europe, there was no way to avoid this, so our ancestors were often breathing in warm smoke from burning wood--which has no health benefits that I know of--for up to six months every year. Yes, much of the smoke went up the chimney, but some did not. So if smoke isn't supposed to go into our lungs, then were we not supposed to have indoor heating?

People cough and sputter from cigarette smoke because of the toxic nature of the commercial tobacco, not necessarily the tobacco itself. And that's the whole point of what I originally wrote here--no controlled study has ever been done to distinguish the tobacco from the toxic additives. My grandfather died of emphysema-related illness--but I'm sure he smoked commercial cigarettes, like everyone of his generation.

I am not advocating smoking tobacco here--that should be clear. But from my perspective, that's a personal choice--and it should be an informed choice.

It should also be clear from the studies that I cited that if you think that just because you don't smoke tobacco that somehow you are not going to get lung cancer, you need to think again. A large percentage of people diagnosed with lung cancer do not smoke, nor ever smoked.
"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 Kentucky » Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:12 pm

EzraLB wrote:In the cold climates of Europe, there was no way to avoid this, so our ancestors were often breathing in warm smoke from burning wood--which has no health benefits that I know of--for up to six months every year. Yes, much of the smoke went up the chimney, but some did not. So if smoke isn't supposed to go into our lungs, then were we not supposed to have indoor heating?

I think Nayto's point was the heat of the smoke and the proximity of the coal on the tip of a cigarette that is going to be a lot hotter inhaled than the normal distance one is from a fireplace or stove, especially as the coal gets closer to the filter or end of the butt. I love a good BBQ and we have a smoker for meat, and as great as smoking meat smells, I don't stick my nose down there with the same frequency as an average cigarette smoker would do with their habit. That would seem to be the fair perspective.

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

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

Postby NicoChristian » Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:17 pm

Tobacco grows naturally, that doesn't mean we should dry it out and smoke it and add chemicals. Even without the chemicals should tobacco be smoked? Probably not. Should weed be dried and smoked, maybe it should be drank as a tea. Smoke of any kind is not good for your lungs. Does smoking cause lung cancer, there's a good chance it does along with all the other poison in the environment. There's a good chance a lot of death is caused by a combination of factors. Bad food, bad air, bad lifestyle, bad workplace and bad genetics. Studies, I'm tired of studies, why, they take a few people, then apply the results to everybody to prove their agenda.

What I have come to realise over the years is that we can't really know anything. We learn things from studies and statistics from biased studies which prove nothing essentially. We analyze data from history, but we don't really know what it was like. I'm not suggesting that we can't learn anything, but in our era one can prove anything simply because there studies that prove everything and anything. I remember a sick liberal whore who was promoting LBGT and sex education quoting a US study proving abstinence increased STDs. Liberals can prove White people commit more crime than niggers.

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.
YHWH bless.
NicoChristian
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Next

Return to Health & Hearth

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron