107AsclepiusIf you are going to smoke tobacco, use a pipe or cigar. If you are going to use smokeless tobacco, use snuff or snus.
'Based on available evidence, for chewing tobacco RRs were significantly higher than one for oral cancer and oesophageal cancer, while for snus or snuff we did not find sufficient evidence of a RR greater than one for any health outcome.' - Lancet 2017; 390: 1084–1150
'Nasal snuff and snus were not associated with oral cancer risk.' - DOI: 10.1093/ntr/nty074
109Asclepius>>108 If you are going to smoke cigarettes, don't use filtered cigarettes. Filters cause lung cancer.
"While the application of filter ventilation can result in lower machine-measured tar yields, the composition of the smoke changes increases tobacco toxicant yields and adverse biological effects as follows"
"Among the increased toxicants was (N-nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), a potent lung carcinogen, in agreement with other published studies (57,64,68–72)"
"Filter ventilation statistically significantly increased the mutagenicity of tar independent of other cigarette designs and tobacco formulations"
110AsclepiusIn the Surgeon General’s 1964 report on smoking and health, pipe smokers who inhaled had the same mortality rate as cigarette smokers (not great), while pipe smokers who reported to never inhale actually had lower mortatliy rates than never-smokers. There is nothing wrong with smoking cigars and pipes
111AsclepiusThere is a long laundry list of cognitive benefits from nicotine use. Faster reaction times, better working memory, etc. Besides that it can help treat mental illnesses, parkinsons, and alzheimers.
112AsclepiusThis study from South Korea found smokers 67% less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2. In comparison, the J&J vaccine is 66.3% effective. There were similar studies out of China and France
113AsclepiusWhen reading any animal studies about smoke, remember that neanderthals and modern humans have specific adaptations to tolerate smoke, as we have been sitting around fires for a very long time
114anthonyFrom the first link: >Next up, the results of the Whitehall study went like this: people who gave up smoking showed no improvement in life expectancy; there were also no changes in deaths caused by heart disease, lung cancer, or other causes. The only exception was that certain types of cancer were more than twice as common in people who gave up smoking.
A link between giving up smoking and cancer is interesting. Reminds me of some stuff Gabor Mate wrote about smoking in one of his books. He doesn't endorse cigarettes but suggested that while unhealthy the big deciding factor in whether they're just kind of bad for you or whether they destroy you with cancer was personality and lifestyle based. Cited an old study on smokers within a community in Yugoslavia which everyone worked the same industry.
"If smoking caused lung cancer, every smoker would develop the disease. Several decades ago, David Kissen, a British chest surgeon, reported that patients with lung cancer were frequently characterized by a tendency to “bottle up” emotions. 1 In a number of studies, Kissen supported his clinical impressions that people with lung cancer “have poor and restricted outlets for the expression of emotion, as compared with non-malignancy lung patients and normal controls.” 2 The risk of lung cancer, Kissen found, was five times higher in men who lacked the ability to express emotion effectively. Especially intriguing was that those lung cancer patients who smoked but did not inhale exhibited even greater repression of emotion than those who did. Kissen’s observations implied that emotional repression works synergistically with smoking in the causation of lung cancer. The more severe the repression, the less the smoke damage required to result in cancer.
Kissen’s insights were confirmed in spectacular fashion by a prospective study German, Dutch and Serbian researchers conducted over a ten-year period in Cvrenka, in the former Yugoslavia. The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship of psychosocial risk factors to mortality. Cvrenka, an industrial town of about fourteen thousand inhabitants, was chosen partly because it was known to have a high mortality rate and partly because its stable population base permitted easier follow-up."
Nearly 10 per cent of the town’s inhabitants were selected, about one thousand men and four hundred women. Each was interviewed in 1965–66, with a 109-item questionnaire that delineated such risk factors as adverse life events, a sense of long-lasting hopelessness and a hyper-rational, non-emotional coping style. Physical parameters like cholesterol levels, weight, blood pressure and smoking history were also recorded. People with already diagnosed disease were excluded from the research project.
By 1976, ten years later, over six hundred of the study participants had died of cancer, heart disease, stroke or other causes. The single greatest risk factor for death—and especially for cancer death—was what the researchers called rationality and anti- emotionality, or R/A. The eleven questions identifying R/A measured a single trait: the repression of anger. “Indeed cancer incidence was some 40 times higher in those who answered positively to 10 or 11 of the questions for R/A than in the remaining subjects, who answered positively to about 3 questions on average…. We found that smokers had no incidence of lung cancer unless they also had R/A scores of 10 or 11, suggesting that any excect of smoking on the lung is essentially limited to a ‘susceptible minority.’” 3
These findings do not absolve tobacco products or cigarette manufacturers of responsibility in the prevalence of lung cancer—on the contrary. All the thirty-eight people in the Cvrenka study who died of lung cancer had been smokers. The results indicated that for lung cancer to occur, tobacco alone is not enough: emotional repression must somehow potentiate the effects of smoke damage on the body. But how?
Goes on to talk a lot more about the relationship between emotional life and susceptibility to bodily harm and damage of all kinds, an idea which i think will inevitably mainstream and be one of the big things that really kills conventional modern medicine practice.
636monadicthe entire idea that second hand smoke is dangerous was actually a lie
"The updated science debunks the alarmist fantasies that were used to sell smoking bans to the public, allowing for a more sober analysis suggesting that current restrictions on smoking are extreme from a risk-reduction standpoint."
638monadic>>637 New studies have shown that smoking may protect against the development of thyroid peroxidase antibodies, which may result in a decreased risk of Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism (HH), whereas it stimulates the development of Graves’ hyperthyroidism (GH)