The Health Benefits of Smoking Tobacco.

[infinitethoughts]

In order to change momentum, we as smokers do need to realize that just as they lie about SHS, they lie through their teeth about tobacco being harmful.

It's very important to start spreading knowledge to smokers and non-smokers. This is the main reason they get away with everything because everyone is convinced it's harmful.

-Tobacco prevents Alzheimer's

-Tobacco prevents Parkinson's disease.

-Tobacco cures Bronchitis.

-Tobacco cures Asthma.

-Emphysema is caused by Mold, Not from tobacco smoke.

-Smokers hardly ever get colds and the flu. Non-smokers are constantly plagued by them.

-The oldest people in the world are consistently tobacco smokers.

-Researchers and biotech companies are quietly developing pharmaceuticals, derived from Tobacco plants, that are decidedly good for brains, bowels, blood vessels and even immune systems.

-Tobacco contains Niacin, otherwise known as Vitamin B3. Niacin used to be called "Nicotinic Acid", but the name was changed to disassociate from having anything to do with Nicotine.

-The word Niacin is derived from "Nicotinic Acid" and "Vitamin".

-The infamous Doll and Hill report in the 50's that started it all was shown to have major problems with it's statistics by the famous statistician Sir Ronald Fisher. This he strenuously pointed out, but they refused to change their report.

-A 1964 chart by the Surgeon General showed that persons smoking 10 cigarettes or less a day were healthier then non-smokers. NOTE: Smokers smoking 2 packs a day were unhealthier then non-smokers.

-The tobacco plant has very powerful Anti-bacterial properties.

-Before the Anti's took over, historically tobacco was considered one of the most powerful medicinal plants ever discovered.

-There's a Drug company in Texas working on a Drug, using the Tobacco plant as the derivative by the way, for Heart Disease.

All these info is available online and more. Although I have noticed it gets buried deeper and deeper in Search engine-nology !

Here are some links I know of:
Dr. William T. Whitby: The Smoking Scare De-bunked. (Free online book.)
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/507927406-7466.html
(NOTE: You'll have to turn the scanned images on the site. Control located at bottom of site.)

Lauren A. Colby Author of In Defense of Smokers (Free online book.)
http://www.lcolby.com/

Dr. William Campbell Douglas: Health Benefits of Tobacco.
http://www.amazon.com/Benefits-Tobacco- ... 9962636450

"The smoking-lung cancer theory will eventually be regarded
as a conspicuous and catastrophic howler."

The late Professor Sir Ronald Fisher of Cambridge University .

[jredheadgirl]

...Been in Chicago for the last few days visiting family...Anyhoo, I don't have any internet connection where I'm staying, so I've had no choice but to clean up my documents/desktop when I came across this link that I had saved:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 211236.htm

[jredheadgirl]

Dr. William Campbell Douglas: Health Benefits of Tobacco.
http://www.amazon.com/Benefits-Tobacco- ... 9962636450

.

..Just ordered it..thanks for posting:-)

[infinitethoughts]

Smokers lungs when autopsied are completely black and diseased, right ?

WRONG.
Just another lie by little Anti, who doesn't have crap to go on and desperately needs to lie about.

"Kephart tells me that he's done approximately 1560 autopsies, and he's seen some strange things, such as the lungs of auto painters, which were "effectively sealed with catalyzed lacquers".

Kephart insists, however, that it is normally impossible to tell, from autopsy, whether the deceased was or was not a smoker. Upon resection, the lungs are always clear, unless the deceased lived in a large city where there was significant industrial pollution. In that event, carbon deposits may be found, but these are unrelated to smoking. So the "brown lungs" myth is exactly that: a myth."

Next paragraph talks about lungs of a heavy smoker and says -- "Heavy black pigmentation suggests that the person was either a heavy smoker, or lived in a city with heavy particulate air pollution, or was a coal miner, or some combination of the three."

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap8.htm

(Chas over at the F2C group found this.)

[Rose]

Dirty Diesel
Michael Abramson: "The lungs of city dwellers are much dirtier than the lungs of rural dwellers. So that if a post mortem examination is performed, you actually see the black deposits on the outside of the lungs of city dwellers and also in the lymph glands in the middle of the chest.
And this is true, even in people who haven’t worked in a coal mine or haven’t smoked. It’s simply the effect of breathing in fine particles over the years of a lifetime"
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/hel ... 838424.htm

Dr. Victor Bubler, Pathologist at St. Joseph
Hospital in Kansas
City:
"I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from examining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.
"I state flatly, unequivocably and emphatically
that cigarette smoke will not turn the lung black".

Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York:
it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker.
Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon
particles into the lung."

"It would thus appear that at best this claim is not scientifically supportable and at worst, that it is another deliberate attempt to frighten people"
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/p ... 007569.pdf