Smoking/smokers

[nickdutch]

A Quote from a pro snuff site:

"However, to balance the argument our I refer you to Dr John Hill, who in 1761 reported on the association of nasal snuff with malignancy:
"Whether or not polypusses, which attend Snuff-takers, are absolutely caused by that custom; or whether the principles of the disorder were there before, and the Snuff only irritated the parts, and hastened the mischief, I shall not pretend to determine: but even supposing the latter only to be the case, the damage is certainly more than the indulgence is worth: for who is able to say, that the Snuff is not the absolute cause, or that he has not the seeds of such a disorder which Snuff will bring into action.

With respect to cancers of the nose, they are as dreadful and as fatal as any others... It is evident therefore that no man should venture upon Snuff, who is not sure that he is not so far liable to a cancer: and no man can be sure of that."

WOW !!! You sure are up with current research and thinking on the subject of nasal snuff !!

Please refer to the more advanced sources PLEASE.
I might as well asked you to do your research from Alex Jones on youtube.

[Ian]

I was trying to point out that an association between snuff tobacco and cancer goes back a long, long way, long before 'modern' studies.

I think everybody here is aware of current thinking and do not need reminding. Tobacco = cancer is now an accepted fact.

[nickdutch]

I was trying to point out that an association between snuff tobacco and cancer goes back a long, long way, long before 'modern' studies.

I think everybody here is aware of current thinking and do not need reminding. Tobacco = cancer is now an accepted fact.

The "Cancer Research Campaign" wrote on 8th March 1985:
. . . .there is no evidence of any association with cancer or other health risk in the snuff produced in this country.
For this reason, snuff seems an entirely acceptable substitute for cigarette smoking and could be recommended for addicted cigarette smokers since if they could substitute snuff taking for cigarette smoking, they would greatly reduce the risk to their health.
A cancer research specialist recently remarked on UK TV:
"People smoke for the nicotine - but it's not the nicotine, it's the tar and toxic gases that kill them."

[Bladerunner]

Japan has one of the highest percentage of smokers and yet they have one of the lowest rates of lung cancer.

They also have one of the highest iodine rich diets in the world.

Everybody has cancer in their bodies and the average person gets cancer 6 times in their lives. They just don't know it because their body kills it before it takes too big a hold.

Your body's immune system is perfectly capable of seeing off cancer if it is working at it's optimum. Unfortunatey, modern diets do not help and most people's immune systen is not at 100%.

I have done a bit of research into cancer as it will no doubt effect someone close to me at some point. There are some good books and videos I would recommend. Just ask.

Be Lucky (and informed)

[scoobie]

If that's all true bladerunner, can you back it up with sources? Specifically:

Japan has one of the highest percentage of smokers and yet they have one of the lowest rates of lung cancer.

Everybody has cancer in their bodies and the average person gets cancer 6 times in their lives.

Your body's immune system is perfectly capable of seeing off cancer if it is working at it's optimum.

Thanks!

[bulldogeagle]

at the end of the day, unlike eating, drinking or breathing, smoking is not necessary for human life, when the S does finally hit the fan, will tobacco still be grown? i somehow doubt it, there will be more important things to grow. i just wonder how useful anyone who is seriously addicted to weed will be to their group of survivalists (ditto junkies and alcoholics-its all about addiction). i'm glad i gave up all those years ago, i saved a fortune and feel much more healthy for it, but thats just my personal opinion, i know that anyone that is serious about smoking will continue to do so-i'm also a realist.

[Bladerunner]

If that's all true bladerunner, can you back it up with sources? Specifically:

Japan has one of the highest percentage of smokers and yet they have one of the lowest rates of lung cancer.

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesof ... aradox.htm

Everybody has cancer in their bodies and the average person gets cancer 6 times in their lives.

http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/u ... cells.html

Your body's immune system is perfectly capable of seeing off cancer if it is working at it's optimum.

http://globalsuccess4life.com/21cancer/

Thanks!

These are just a couple of websites but I would recommend the DVD "Iodine: The Most Misunderstood Nutrient". Here is a link to Youtube.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1044006757#

I also have a great Cancer dvd that explains everything in easy to understand terms and how it can be treated naturally. Can't remember the name off the top of my head (I have over 500). I will try and dig it out and post the name on here. It has some amazing info about the history of modern medicine that will scare the crap out of you.

Look up what actually killed George Washington. You will be amazed at what the doctors gave him after they bled him.

There is a doctor called Simoncini who is curing cancer with Bicarbonate of Soda. Cancer of the deigestive tract is quite simple to treat but other cancers need the Bicarbonate of Soda injected into the tuma by a medical professional.

He was kicked out of Italy for using a "CURE" that was not authorised. They admitted it was cure and still kicked him out and threatened him with legal action.

There is no money in a cure for cancer. It isn't a conspiracy (well maybe a little) it is all about profit.

Read "The Medical Mafia" by Ghislaine Lanctot M.D..

Did you know that more people are surviving cancer than ever before? Wrong! If you catch cancer today you have just as much chance of dying now as you did 60 years ago. To be cured of cancer you have to survive for 5 years from being diagnosed. That is the medical definition of being cured.

All they are doing is diagnosing cancer earlier. Ergo, you theorectically live longer. If you die six years after being diagnosed with cancer, you were cured!!!!!

It is just a way the cancer industry has manipulated the statistics. It's like the life expectancy has gone up over the years. Wrong! We just have fewer infant mortalities. It's like this:

2 people are born. 1 dies in child birth and the other lives to 60. Average life expectancy is 30.
2 people are born. Both live to 60. Average life expectancy is 60.

If anyone wants to message me I would be happy to send them some DVD's to help explain some things. All I ask is a small donation to pay for the DVD's and postage. I do not want to make money off this information. It is something that everybody deserves to know for free.

Be Lucky (and informed)

PS. Please don't jump on me for being a conspiracy theorist, all this information is out there and I am merely trying to help people. When TSHTF health will be an extremely important thing and the more we know the better we are preppared.

[itsybitsy]

There is a doctor called Simoncini who is curing cancer with Bicarbonate of Soda. Cancer of the deigestive tract is quite simple to treat but other cancers need the Bicarbonate of Soda injected into the tuma by a medical professional.

He was kicked out of Italy for using a "CURE" that was not authorised. They admitted it was cure and still kicked him out and threatened him with legal action.

Ah yes - the Italian quack who I believe was sentenced to three years in prison for manslaughter of one of his patients and 16 months for defrauding two others out of 7500 Euros each. I believe that's the reason he was struck off.

An alternative theory on 'Dr' Simoncini - third article down on the site below:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... revisited/

DANGEROUS CANCER QUACKERY
So who is Dr. Simoncini? He’s an Italian physician who claims to be an oncologist, whose claim to fame is the invention of the quackery–yes, quackery–that claims that cancer is in reality a fungus and that all cancer can be treated and cured with sodium bicarbonate. Here is a video in which Simoncini describes how he came to this conclusion as he hawkshis book Cancer Is A Fungus, makes the argument that fungus is the One True Cause of Cancer and that the medical establishment is Too Deluded or Too Blind to realize it:

Worse, Simoncini proposes a treatment that, even if cancer were a fungus, is completely implausible and wouldn’t work. Indeed, we don’t treat fungal infections that way even when we are treating a clearly diagnosed fungal infection. You can get an idea of just how quacktastic this video is by listening to Dr. Simoncini opine in the first couple of minutes of the vide that whenever he sees a cancerous tumor in the body, the lumps are “always white.” He emphasizes this amazing observation several times, so apparently important is it. Yes, that was the observation that supposedly led him to his idea (I refuse to dignify it with the term “hypothesis”) that tumors are in fact due to fungus. In response, the host gushes about how brilliant that is and how obvious it is. Just crush up a mushroom! Of course, it would be a major blow to Dr. Simoncini’s idea, would it not, if not all mushrooms are white. Truly, Dr. Simonici has demonstrated the the ultimate in taking a flawed observation and running with it straight off the cliff, as this description of his book shows:

The book “Cancer is a fungus” describes how a fungous infection always forms the basis of every neoplastic formation, and this formation tries to spread within the whole organism without stopping.

I also have to wonder what kind of oncologist Simoncini is if that’s all he’s seen. From my experience as a surgeon, it’s trivial for me to tell you that not all tumors are white. Many are, but a lot of them are brownish-colored, tan, or even greenish-colored. (Uh-oh, better not let Dr. Simoncini know that; that’s fungus color we’re talking!) And what about leukemias and other blood cancers? Dr. Simoncini then shows a bronchoscopy and thoracoscopy demonstrating white tumors. I’m supposed to be impressed by this? He also argues that in reality cancer is due to “excess acidity” that allows the fungus free rein.

So what is the answer, according to Dr. Simoncini? Baking soda. Yes, baking soda, a.k.a. sodium bicarbonate. Dr. Simoncini injects sodium bicarbonate into tumors and claims to be able to cure any cancer using these injections. One thought that immediately comes to mind whenever I see a claim like this is: If Dr. Simoncini can actually do what he claims he can do, where are his publications? Where is his Nobel Prize? To be able to cure cancer by something as simple as injections of sodium bicarbonate directly into tumors would be such an incredible breakthrough that there’s no way it could be kept quiet. Yet somehow only Dr. Simoncini knows this remedy, which is not only physiologically incredibly implausible and isn’t even used to treat real, biopsy- or culture-proven fungal infections but has no evidence to support it. There’s a whole culture of acid-base quackery that I’ve been meaning to write about in more detail, and Dr. Simoncini would be right up there among its chief “practitioners.”

Not surprisingly, Dr. Simoncini has been a focus of attention for the Italian health authorities.All I could find was this thread on the JREF forums. According to various commenters, not only was Dr. Simoncini expelled from the Italian Medical Order (Ordine dei Medici e Chirurghi) but he was condemned in the first degree by an Italian court for cheating and homicide. Here’s one report from a woman by the ‘nym of JennyJo:

I live in the Netherlands.

Last year, tullio simoncini was giving his treatments with sodium bicarbonate in a private clinic for alternative ‘medicine’ in Bilthoven in the Netherlands.

October 2007, a woman with curable breast cancer, who was afraid of operation and chemo therapy, came into contact with simoncini and was treated by him. He injected large doses of baking soda into her breast.

On the fourth day of the therapy, the woman became very ill and was transported to a university hospital in Amsterdam, where she died the following day.

The matter is since under investigation by the Dutch Justice Department. Simoncini denies he ever treated the woman, although various staff members have seen him administering injections. The clinic maintains the woman died of dehydration (sic).

More application of science to Dr. Simoncini’s quackery can be found at Cancer Is Not A Fungus and, of course, the Quackwatch affiliate Cancer Treatment Watch. There’s just so much wrong with Simoncini’s ideas that at some point I may well jump into the ring myself with a more detailed explanation of just what is so wrong and why. Suffice it to say Dr. Simoncini is without a doubt the very picture of a quack. Also suffice it to say that Kim Evans believes in Simoncini’s quackery and views him as “persecuted,” as this comment by her reveals:

Tullio Simoncini, yes, he had his license revoked, and there are reasons for that. In modern medicine today, medical doctors must practice standard accepted procedures, and if not, their license is in jeopardy. Let’s be clear, Dr. Simoncini was not going the standard and accepted chemo and radiation route. He found something far more effective and posed no harm to the patient. But because it was outside standard practice, he had his license revoked. Unfortunately, vitamin and herbal therapies also fall outside standard accepted practice, and are not often taught in medical school, as this community seems to think that only drugs are effective and little else plays a role in the body.

There are plenty of videos on the net if you care to watch Dr. Simoncini pour an alkaline solution of baking soda and water as close to a tumor as possible, and have the tumor disappear, often in a matter of days. While I grant that it is possible that Dr. Simoncini could be wrong about the cause of the tumor (I don’t believe he is, but for arguments sake, I’ll allow that possibility), I find it hard to believe that after graduating from oncology school he doesn’t know what a tumor looks like. Or that the videos showing the tumors being eliminated were somehow not eliminated or not tumors to begin with. So, even if the cause was incorrect, the fact that these tumors are being quickly eliminated seems pretty straight forward.

To Evans, Simoncini is a persecuted martyr for the One True Cause of Cancer who’s being attacked because he’s supposedly better at curing cancer than “”outside of standard practice.” Never mind that it has zero physiological plausibility, relies on a model of cancer causation that is trivial to demonstrate to be utterly incorrect, and has zero evidence other than the lowest quality testimonials to support it. Never mind that it’s never been convincingly demonstrated that injecting anything into a large, established tumor will cure it, much less solutions of baking soda. Never mind that Simoncini has been directly linked to the deaths of patients from his quackery. Again, if Simoncini could really do what he claims and demonstrate it to accepted scientific standards, the Nobel Prize is his. I suspect, however, that the Nobel committee won’t be considering him any time soon.

Here's a link to the article in an Italian newspapter regarding Simoncini's conviction. It's in Italian, so I appreciate that most of us will be unable to read it, but it's a credible source nonetheless. Corriere Della Serra is one of the oldest, and most reputable, Italian daily newspapers.

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2006 ... 1029.shtml

[scoobie]

If that's all true bladerunner, can you back it up with sources? Specifically:

Japan has one of the highest percentage of smokers and yet they have one of the lowest rates of lung cancer.

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesof ... aradox.htm

Everybody has cancer in their bodies and the average person gets cancer 6 times in their lives.

http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/u ... cells.html

Your body's immune system is perfectly capable of seeing off cancer if it is working at it's optimum.

http://globalsuccess4life.com/21cancer/

Thanks!

Without wishing to be rude, those aren't exactly the kind of links I was hoping for. I was hoping for peer reviewed scientific research. Not an about.com page, an angelfire page and a page selling its own wares.

Credible information, from credible sources, otherwise it might as well just be a wikipedia page, or something you wrote yourself. (no disrespect intended!)

[itsybitsy]

Further info here about sodium bicarbonate/baking soda and cancer, from the American Cancer Society

http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Treatme ... icarbonate

What is the evidence?

No peer-reviewed articles in medical journals were found supporting the theory that cancer is caused by a fungus infection or a yeast infection. Available peer-reviewed medical journals do not support claims that sodium bicarbonate works as a cancer treatment.

Scientists require certain kinds of evidence to support claims that a kind of germ causes a certain disease. The first requirement is that the germ should be present in all cases of the disease. Simoncini claims that all tumors contain fungi. But these fungi have not been found in tumors when biopsies are examined by methods capable of revealing fungi in infected tissue. Another requirement is that infecting laboratory animals with the germ should cause the disease. Infections can develop in animals that are exposed to Candida albicans, but there are no credible reports that this exposure or infection causes cancer. Finally, when researchers remove diseased tissue from infected laboratory animals, they should be able to recover the germs and grow them in laboratory dishes. There are no reports in scientific journals that this has been observed for Candida albicans and cancer of experimental animals.

A number of Web sites propose various reasons people believe there is a connection between fungus and cancer (for example, that Candida albicans can cause serious infections, and that cancer is a serious disease). However, none of these Web sites show scientific evidence supported by credible experiments or clinical trials.

Fungal infection deep in the body is a serious health problem that can be fatal. Although a number of antifungal drugs are available to treat these infections, there is no evidence that sodium bicarbonate can. There is no evidence that most people with cancer have any deep tissue yeast or fungal infections. People whose immune systems are weakened by high doses of chemotherapy can sometimes contract these kinds of infections. While antifungal drugs can often cure the infection, there is no evidence that antifungal treatment causes the patients' tumors to shrink. If this had happened, the doctors caring for these patients would have been likely to report it in medical journals.

Some people with cancer have other health conditions for which sodium bicarbonate is used. But, again, there is no evidence that sodium bicarbonate has caused their tumors to shrink. Chewable sodium bicarbonate tablets or powder are a common over-the-counter treatment that is used to neutralize stomach acid that causes heartburn. Intravenous sodium bicarbonate is used as a conventional treatment to reduce acidity of blood in serious conditions like shock, severe dehydration, and uncontrolled kidney failure or diabetes.