If you ever wondered:
Tobacco Industry Picks Up Tailwind as Smoker Suits Dealt Setback - Bloomberg Business
Tobacco Industry Picks Up Tailwind as Smoker Suits Dealt Setback - Bloomberg Business
BG's relationship with BT
- Thread starter caramel
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Personally, I think they should rule that the tobacco companies can't be sued at this point, by anyone for smoking related diseases. There are very few people left that weren't delivered the message decades ago about the dangers. Heck, I smoked 43 years and I ignored the negatives. I still may end up dying from a "smoking related" disease but the idea of blaming the cigarette industry is ludicrous. I knew the dangers and still did it, just as I understand the dangers of riding a motorcycle.
That is probably the attitude of the vast majority of both smokers and non-smokers. And it's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. It lazily allows the anti-smokers to falsely frame the issue as "Big tobacco lying to the public," when in fact the United States government, at THEIR instigation, has been knowingly, deliberately, wantonly and maliciously committing scientific fraud to deceive the public about the health risks of smoking for the last six decades.
This is the classic mentality of "The authorities would never lie." It is the sheeplike mental state of the totalitarian state. It is beneath contempt. All of our problems are due to this mentality of lazily condoning evil by simply refusing to consider the possibility of it! Just like in the National Socialist Third Reich.
The anti-smokers commit scientific fraud by falsely blaming smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection, and every Surgeon General report is proof of their wrongdoing. For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about bogus smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from making phony bomb threats. The unjust persecution and exploitation of innocent people, and public policy by government terrorism, are the intolerable evils that this decadent attitude of "smokers know the risks" has fostered and condoned.
So I'll rephrase my comment. The tobacco companies shouldn't be sued for any health issues period. Now am I still wrong, wrong, wrong wrong, WRONG?
Unlike you Carol, I do believe that cigarette smoking can have health risks. Are they as deadly as the government and TC has made them out to be? Of course not. There has been a lot of exaggeration as the years have past and the lucrative nature of being part of the war on tobacco became understood. Like the latest craze in anything from the bikini to global warming, there is lot of incentive to become part of the "team". The SG each year, with the aid of TC extremists, produces a report that consistently adds fuel to the fire. Last year's report is typical. Now if you die of anything involving your internal organs and are/were a smoker, they can claim that it is smoking related. I get that.
However, to claim that smoking has zero effect on health is absurd. You are inhaling chemicals into your lungs that are not good for them. Miners have known for years that inhaling mine dust into their lungs on a regular basis has known risks. Truck drivers also know the risks. The smart ones wear safety masks to avoid inhaling diesel fumes. I developed a smoker's cough and night wheezing after 43 years of heavy smoking. Within weeks of quitting, they disappeared. Nothing else in my environment changed. I'm just glad I found e cigs when I did and hope it was early enough.
Unlike you Carol, I do believe that cigarette smoking can have health risks. Are they as deadly as the government and TC has made them out to be? Of course not. There has been a lot of exaggeration as the years have past and the lucrative nature of being part of the war on tobacco became understood. Like the latest craze in anything from the bikini to global warming, there is lot of incentive to become part of the "team". The SG each year, with the aid of TC extremists, produces a report that consistently adds fuel to the fire. Last year's report is typical. Now if you die of anything involving your internal organs and are/were a smoker, they can claim that it is smoking related. I get that.
However, to claim that smoking has zero effect on health is absurd. You are inhaling chemicals into your lungs that are not good for them. Miners have known for years that inhaling mine dust into their lungs on a regular basis has known risks. Truck drivers also know the risks. The smart ones wear safety masks to avoid inhaling diesel fumes. I developed a smoker's cough and night wheezing after 43 years of heavy smoking. Within weeks of quitting, they disappeared. Nothing else in my environment changed. I'm just glad I found e cigs when I did and hope it was early enough.
That's better. But best would be suing the government to put a stop to the fraud!
That's as vicious a misrepresentation of my views as anti-smokers would do.
It is not merely "exaggeration." It is deliberate fraud by misdesign of the studies, and we have a right to demand that they cease and desist.
No, that's not how their "smoking-related deaths" scam operates. The CDC's SAMMEC computer program uses odds ratios from the American Cancer Society's CPS studies, to which the user inputs the total number of deaths for each disease, and the proportion of smokers in the population.
Vicious misrepresentation again.
They successfully brainwashed you to be a chemical hysteric who thinks infections are nothing.
We are not miners and pneumoconiosis is not among our concerns.
More like the brainwashed ones.
And those symptoms could have gone away anyhow despite not quitting.
Well hello Carol. I see you are still trying to push your junk science. I remember you all to well from the local Madison forums where I had a few run in's with you. You where wrong then, and you're wrong now.
For those that may not be familiar with Carol's view, she believes smoking has no real risk and that it is all a great conspiracy. It has some validity as some of the risk are certainly exaggerated, especially second had smoke, but Carol goes way beyond that by claiming no real harm to inhaling smoke. What you are doing on an electronic cigarette forum is a bit of a mystery. I assume you think you can convert a few naive folks to your fanatical views.
Your views are poison to the THR movement.
I don't know much, but I know I have COPD. I know that eventually, unless science comes up with a way to grow completely new lungs (such as they are actually working on.) before I die, I will die from it most likely. I know that and I wish that I had never picked up a cigarette and if I could go back in time, I'd slap the crap out of myself for doing so. Yeah, I knew the risk, but by the time I put too much thought into it, I was hooked beyond hope...until ecigs came along and extended my life. I'm hoping that they extend it long enough to see those cool new lungs the scientists are working on. Probably not, but at least now there is hope. Real cigs should cease to exist. Not worried about any particular law suit. They should go away or go full on into vaping products that don't suck. I'm probably far off base with my assessment, but that's how I feel about it.
It is true the exact mechanism for lung cancer are unknown, but what we do have are population studies, and they clearly show with no doubt a strong correlation with smoking and lung cancer, and oral cancer, and likely a few more, and heart disease, etc.
There has been a huge amount of junk science going on in recent years on the negative effects of smoking and second hand smoke and that is a big negative on science. But even with that, the basic studies done that show the connection with smoking and a number of cancers and heart disease stands up to scrutiny.
I believe the health risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated, but exists! I also firmly believe that those risks are seriously compounded by the thousands of chemicals added to cigs, or by heavy smoking (more than a few cigs a day).
I think the risk to someone smoking a few cigs, made from unadulterated tobacco, is tiny. But good luck finding unadulterated tobacco. I tried when I was rolling my own, and even the "all natural" ones were grown with some bad fertilizer that made the tobacco more dangerous. Sucked.
Not picking sides in this fight - I land somewhere in between lol.
I think the risk to someone smoking a few cigs, made from unadulterated tobacco, is tiny. But good luck finding unadulterated tobacco. I tried when I was rolling my own, and even the "all natural" ones were grown with some bad fertilizer that made the tobacco more dangerous. Sucked.
Not picking sides in this fight - I land somewhere in between lol.
Correct, however it is important to understand if smoking is the cause or just a favouring factor and treat it accordingly.
The ANTZ pov "we don't know what causes cancer but we'll blame it on smoking" is pure dogma. Doesn't even rise to the standards of a hypothesis. Carol's posts at least suggest a cause and a mechanism. It's up to real science to infirm / confirm it. As for antz - it's about propaganda not science, there's nothing to research there. And no usefulness other than financial for some select group.
Even if they're not exaggerated, it still doesn't justify the extent and methods of the anti-smoking campaign. You can get a heart attack from ...... yet there's no anti-...... campaign. And ...... is as optional as smoking.
Let's face it, life can be only so long and enjoyable things (from sports to ...... effects to smoking) tend to only shorten it. You'll pay your pleasurable time through shortening your overall life. If you define an enjoyment coeficient like enjoyable/overall time, trying to increase it affects both the numerator and the denominator in an "accelerated payment" scheme
All these "live healthy" activists are proposing that you maximize the denominator only, conveniently forgeting to mention that the effect is a null numerator. "For your own good" and "The Children".
P.S. Anyone remembers a scene from "Lord of War"' where Nicholas Cage plays the role of an arms dealer and Eamonn Walker the one of an African (dictator) buyer?
The two meet in Eamonn's office, and, as a good host, Eamonn offers cigars, drinks, ladies... Nicholas turns down all offers based on "health" reasons... then Eamonn says something like "You Americans are all living long, boring lifes...".....
The two meet in Eamonn's office, and, as a good host, Eamonn offers cigars, drinks, ladies... Nicholas turns down all offers based on "health" reasons... then Eamonn says something like "You Americans are all living long, boring lifes...".....
Fully agree! I just like knowing the truth - and making up my own mind about what I put into my body.
Sadly, these days it's hard to do either. The truth is hidden, or wrapped in so many lies, it's hard to know what's true. Then the busybodies, or those with financial interests, want to tell me what I can't put into my own body.
This is a personal attack on me, and furthermore it grotesquely misrepresents my views. And nobody has any excuse for misrepresenting them, because I state them clearly and concisely: The anti-smokers falsely blame smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection. Poorer people are more likely to have been exposed to those infections, and smokers are more often among them. And that's how the studies are rigged to make smoking look guilty.
And you obviously have no idea how science is supposed to work. "Scientific proof of an hypothesis consists of elimination of all conceivable and reasonable alternative explanations, not in filling in the blanks in a prescribed set of rules." (Wallace P. Rowe of NIAID.) The junk science you believe in is based on a charade of "filling in the blanks," while ignoring the role of infection, to slant its conclusions to blame peoples' lifestyles instead.
In addition, you prove your anti-scientific orientation by accusing me of "claiming no real harm to inhaling smoke." This is merely a dogmatist's horror at encountering a heretic. Real scientists do not begin with dogma, and then demand that nothing be allowed to cast doubt on it. Real scientists evaluate the evidence, and then form their opinions based on that evidence.
And it cannot be true that my views are "poison to the THR movement," considering that Tobacco Control is employing the same frauds against vaping that it used against smoking.
Last edited:
Those criminals at the CDC falsely blame smoking for COPD that's really caused by cytomegalovirus infection. Those CD4+ CD28null T cells that the quacks pretend are caused by smoking, just happen to be absolutely specific for CMV infection. Nothing else causes them, and they've been observed arising during primary CMV infection. Poorer people are more likely to get CMV and at younger ages, so that's why smokers have more CMV and thus more COPD.
Cytomegalovirus Is Implicated in COPD
And it explains why COPD is much more common in never-smokers than they officially admit. "Never smokers represented 42% of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey population aged 30 to 80 years, with obstruction prevalence of 91 per 1000. Never smokers accounted for 4.56 million cases of obstruction, or 23% of the total burden." (Airway obstruction in never smokers: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. BR Celli, RJ Halbert, RJ Nordyke, B Schau. Am J Med 2005 Dec;118(12):1364-1372.)
Airway obstruction in never smokers: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. - PubMed - NCBI
The single largest disease claim against smoking is for heart disease, not lung cancer. And their heart disease claims are based on ignoring the role of cytomegalovirus. "[T]he most striking finding of Simanek et al.'s study is that the relatively modest OR of CVD associated with CMV infection translates into an estimate of the population attributable risk or attributable fraction of CVD of ∼ 40%... What is striking about this 40% attributable fraction estimate is the implication that eliminating CMV infection would prevent as many CVD cases as the complete removal of smoking and almost twice as many as the elimination of either hypercholesterolaemia or hypertension from the population." (Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty. FJ Nieto. Int J Epidemiol 2009 Jun;38(3):787-790.)
Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US. AM Simanek, JB Dowd, AE Aiello. Int J Epidemiol 2009 Jun;38(3):775-87.
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US
All the subjects in this cross-sectional NHANES study were 45 years and older, so the most important thing it couldn't evaluate is the age at which people were infected, and earlier age at infection would account for earlier onset of heart disease, such as the anti-smokers blame on smoking.
Fortunately the cause of tuberculosis was elucidated before the AnTz started their campaigns, otherwise we would have "Smoking causes tuberculosis" warnings on cig packages. Plus some nice associated graphic content.
one reason smoking has been blamed for a lot of illness is
because midway through the last century 40% of the population
smoked and an additional 40% had smoked or tried smoking.
with 80% of the population as a base it was easy to blame
smoking for a lot of things. its the main reason they pinned
all that 20-30 years down the road you can still get a smoking
related illness after you quit.
current trends indicate illness in non-risk groups will intercept
illness in at-risk groups.
regards
mike
because midway through the last century 40% of the population
smoked and an additional 40% had smoked or tried smoking.
with 80% of the population as a base it was easy to blame
smoking for a lot of things. its the main reason they pinned
all that 20-30 years down the road you can still get a smoking
related illness after you quit.
current trends indicate illness in non-risk groups will intercept
illness in at-risk groups.
regards
mike
So Carol - just curious - do you think smoking has no significant health risks?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
