I am a newbie to this website but not a newbie when it comes to the anti-tobbacco campaigns. I did this research as a smoker whose eyes were opened by a surgeon friend who told me that there's no difference between the smoker's lung and the non smoker's lung except for, maybe, a slightly thicker mucus, and that smoker's were much less likely to develop cancer from Asbestos for example. At that time I knew that smoking helps keeping my genetically messed up blood pressure in check I unwittingly performed an experiment on myself by quitting smoking for 2 years and developing familial insane blood pressure problems, then smoking again then quitting smoking for 6 months...the result was that I simply smoke 10 cigarettes a day since I consider this more healthy than taking a handful of pills that work sometimes. But to my point and the rabbit hole that I entered. Unfortunately majority of my research is no longer accessible because the links to it went dark. Nowadays with the search engines finding anything on my research seems impossible. This one survived but I don't know for how long: https://www.sott.net/article/338885-A-comprehensive-review-of-the-many-health-benefits-of-smoking-Tobacco# The anti-tobbaco propaganda did not start in the 80's it started in the 50's. The governments of the West poured money into research that could explain the cancer epidemic (as they called it). This in itself is interesting because no such epidemic existed at the time. At first both, alcohol and tobacco were targeted but alcohol was dropped pretty fast (I have my theories as to why). The first big study on tobacco and it's correlation to lung cancer was 1950 Wynder and Graham Study which was just...bad. But it's accepted as a great first step. There were some links pointing out that the study was so bad it was ignored by the community and it was understood that the government funding it had more to do with the result than anything else. But this study paved a way to even more bad studies. To date we don't have 1 experiment showing causation ie. The cigarette smoke or tar actually causing cancer of any type. It's not for the lack of trying. Instead we now are dealing with an epidemic of lung cancers in women that were never affected by smoke, not even as children. The epidemic skews the regular ratio of the men/women lung cancer very hard and the Science TM cannot explain it with cigarette smoke although they are trying. The rabid anti-tobbacco propaganda in my opinion serves a purpose of obscuring something else that's causing the cancers. It may be a vaccine or one of them. Or it may be a simple fact that at the same time that the government got very interested in the research they also started "mass" nuclear tests. I don't think we will ever know for sure but at this time the propaganda is so ingrained that the tobacco is doomed in my opinion so the possible positive health effects may never be known. Epidemiological studies show over and over again that rhe smoker cohort has a significantly lower blood pressure than the non-smoker cohort. But I was told that if I start smoking again my blood pressure that the "modern" medicine cannot and will not help, will go up.
no subject
I did this research as a smoker whose eyes were opened by a surgeon friend who told me that there's no difference between the smoker's lung and the non smoker's lung except for, maybe, a slightly thicker mucus, and that smoker's were much less likely to develop cancer from Asbestos for example.
At that time I knew that smoking helps keeping my genetically messed up blood pressure in check I unwittingly performed an experiment on myself by quitting smoking for 2 years and developing familial insane blood pressure problems, then smoking again then quitting smoking for 6 months...the result was that I simply smoke 10 cigarettes a day since I consider this more healthy than taking a handful of pills that work sometimes.
But to my point and the rabbit hole that I entered.
Unfortunately majority of my research is no longer accessible because the links to it went dark. Nowadays with the search engines finding anything on my research seems impossible. This one survived but I don't know for how long:
https://www.sott.net/article/338885-A-comprehensive-review-of-the-many-health-benefits-of-smoking-Tobacco#
The anti-tobbaco propaganda did not start in the 80's it started in the 50's.
The governments of the West poured money into research that could explain the cancer epidemic (as they called it). This in itself is interesting because no such epidemic existed at the time.
At first both, alcohol and tobacco were targeted but alcohol was dropped pretty fast (I have my theories as to why).
The first big study on tobacco and it's correlation to lung cancer was 1950 Wynder and Graham Study which was just...bad.
But it's accepted as a great first step.
There were some links pointing out that the study was so bad it was ignored by the community and it was understood that the government funding it had more to do with the result than anything else.
But this study paved a way to even more bad studies. To date we don't have 1 experiment showing causation ie. The cigarette smoke or tar actually causing cancer of any type.
It's not for the lack of trying.
Instead we now are dealing with an epidemic of lung cancers in women that were never affected by smoke, not even as children. The epidemic skews the regular ratio of the men/women lung cancer very hard and the Science TM cannot explain it with cigarette smoke although they are trying.
The rabid anti-tobbacco propaganda in my opinion serves a purpose of obscuring something else that's causing the cancers.
It may be a vaccine or one of them. Or it may be a simple fact that at the same time that the government got very interested in the research they also started "mass" nuclear tests. I don't think we will ever know for sure but at this time the propaganda is so ingrained that the tobacco is doomed in my opinion so the possible positive health effects may never be known.
Epidemiological studies show over and over again that rhe smoker cohort has a significantly lower blood pressure than the non-smoker cohort.
But I was told that if I start smoking again my blood pressure that the "modern" medicine cannot and will not help, will go up.