The only real issue I had with the video is the gratuitous antismoking propaganda sprinkled throughout. There was a long thread in this forum "Smoking is good for you" where I "debated" almost entire Longecity (Imminst back then) forum for months -- hyperlinked ToC of the highlights is in this post. The verb 'debated' is in quotes above since, as you can see if you skim through, there was no real contest.

Namely, all the hard science (experiments, randomized trials) accumulated over six decades was on the side of the ancient panacea, tobacco, while the pharma generated and peddled antismoking "knowledge" accepted and parroted by others (mostly in the beginning of the thread) was entirely resting on the junk science i.e. on associations on non-randomized samples (smoking status is self-selected by the subjects, not randomly assigned to the subjects by the researchers). Since tobacco smoke has myriad of therapeutic and protective effects (discussed in the above thread), such associations on non-randomized samples which contradict the experimental science is exactly what one would expect to find due to self-medication confounding. That's like observing that people who take blood pressure meds will have more heart attacks and strokes than people who don't take these medications (since they don't need them, e.g. because of healthier cardiovascular system). Or that people who wear sunglasses will have more sunburns than those who don't wear them (e.g. because they may be indoor types or they live in less sunny climate).

BTW, I enjoyed the Belgrade scenery in your video, since I was born in that ancient city and went to college (physics) there before coming to USA (grad school in theoretical physics at Brown University). Your name isn't Serbian, though. How did you end up there and do you speak the language?

Edited by nightlight, 14 July 2016 - 03:06 PM.

bosharpe's Photobosharpe

17 Jul 2016

niner, on 13 Jul 2016 - 7:26 PM, said:

I don't recommend the option of just trying one. Particularly if you've been drinking. That is precisely how I got hooked for a number of years. One cigarette will not make a significant difference. It's the thousands that follow that are the problem.

Very true. When I did smoke often a few years back it was always socially and I'd maybe chain smoke about 4 cigs tops.

I went cold Turkey for a good long while and (to put some context to my initial Q) broke that a few days ago when out drinking.

Anyway smoking is bad and I'll try my very hardest to reframe in future.

aconita's Photoaconita

18 Jul 2016

Unfortunately in a cigarette there is much more than just tobacco, assuming that tobacco itself in very moderate amounts might have some health benefit...which I doubt.

If you grow your own and try to smoke it chances are you are going to dislike it very much, plain tobacco is quite unpleasant for the common taste.

Grow your own pot and smoke a tiny one some now and then instead, healthier and more satisfying for sure, much better taste too.:)

Share Share

Full Version

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/88193-the-effects-of-1-cigarette/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35746362)

In Japan and Korea, 60-70 percent of men smoke, yet they tend to look more youthful than Europeans or Americans with less than half of those smoking rates (Japanese men also have three times lower lung cancer rates and live longer than American men). Back in 1940s and 1950s, actors and other celebrities were largely smokers, they didn't have botox or face lifts, yet they didn't look particularly wrinkled, certainly not more than nonsmokers of that era (some smoking celebrity photos; wikpedia had a large list of smoking who-is-who in Hollywood, which was deleted recently, someone obviously has felt threatened by the unsuitable facts and decided to erase history and improve on truth, Orwell's 1984 or Stalin style; that's is quite typical for vicious antismoking hysterics, even FDR's cigarette was erased from old photos). Many models smoke today, to control weight and their skin looks fine, too.

Some of the underlyng biochemical reasons why smoker's skin (and every other marker of youthfulness) would come out younger in any apples to apples comparisons (not just the same genetics, but sun & other exposures, diet, stress, socioeconomic status,...):

a) Nicotine stimulates and upregulates growth and branching of blood vessels (via upregulation of vascular growth factor), especially of capillaries, which improves the nutrient delivery and cleanup (antioxidant & detox enzyme supplies) to all tissues, including brain and skin (provided person's intake of nutrients and supplements is adequate).

b) Tobacco smoke (not nicotine) upregulates production of glutathione, catalase and SOD (our body's chief internal antioxidant and detox enzymes, sometimes used in cosmetics for skin rejuvenation), to nearly double levels.

c) Carbon monoxide in low concentration (as delivered in tobacco smoke) acts as a signaling mechanism in human biochemical networks to increase blood circulation, oxygenation and reduce inflammation.

d) Nitric oxide in low concentrations (as provided by tobacco smoke) acts as neurotransmitter, signaling to cardiovascular system to increase blood supplies to peripheral tissues (this is the biochemical mechanism behind the Viagra effect).

e) Tobacco smoke upregulates levels of "youth hormones" DHEA and testosterone and reduces their decline with age.

f) The highest quality brands (Japanese) of the miracle skin supplement and rejuvenator, Conezyme Q10 are produced from tobacco leaf, which is still the best source of natural Co-Q10 (since it includes the full synergistic complex which the cheaper synthetic production methods cannot replicate).

g) Deprenyl (selegiline), which mimics the selective MAO B inhibitory properties of tobacco smoke (this is not related to nicotine) and is used in smoking cessation "therapies" for that reason, has become quite popular in life-extension circles, due to its almost magical rejuvenating powers.

h) Nicotinic acid (byproduct of oxidized nicotine, as in burning tobacco, delivered directly into arterial bloodstream), along with its salts and various organic compounds, are skin-protective agents, used in cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35775090)

https://web.archive.org/web/20150211202544/http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35775137)

He smoked since age 7 (see also for other supercentenarians). He even smoked during London marathon which he completed at age 101.

Posted Image

Another curiosity -- an interview with Thomas Bruso (better known as MALWARE SITE DISABLED//encyclopediadramatica.com/Epic_Beard_Man"]"Epic Beard Man") the latest YouTube sensation -- the 67 year old Vietnam vet attacked on the bus by a ghetto thug teaches the bully a lesson (a version with translation). No surprise to see him smoke during the interview.

Posted Image

The longest living human on record, Madamme Jeanne Calment lived 122 years 164 days, smoked since her teens.

Posted Image

The longest living man, Shigechiyo Izumi who lived 120 years and 237 days, was smoker as well. Higher powers have a good sense of humor -- the only two humans who had to blow out 120 candles on their birthday cake were both smokers.

Before someone declares these 'lucky accidents' or exceptions, in animal experiements, the smoking animals live longer (about 20%) than non-smoking animals, remaining thinner and sharper throughout.

Posted Image

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35775145)

Luna, on Feb 25 2010, 11:27 AM, said:

And that japanese guy is said to only been 105.

Nop, he lived over 120, see the wiki page linked.

Quote

huh! howcome smokers survive? is there a health benefit for it or just the mental benefits?!

Tobacco is a potent medicinal plant and youth elixir used for over 8000 years. Antismoking "science" is a money making scam, resting entirely on the worst kind of junk science, created and financed chiefly by the pharmaceutical industry. The big pharma reflexively seeks to suppress other natural medicines and folk remedies as well, especially those that work. Tobacco being the most beneifical natural medicine humans have ever known (tell me which other substance, matural or synthetic, extends the lifespan by 20% in animal experiments, while keeping the brain sharp into the old age, doubles our main internal detox and antioxidant enzymes glutathione, catalase and SOD,...), is the main target of the pharma's attacks on natural medicines.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35775162)

In any case, the animal experiments, especially those sponsored by organizations or agencies seeking to scientifically show harm from smoking, such as National Cancer Institute, demonstrate the main point quite unambiguously -- smoking is good for you (interestingly, some imminst members have started smoking after reading some of my posts here, having checked the citations, of course). While the life extending power of tobacco smoke is easy to demonstrate in animal experiments, showing that smoking causes lung cancer in animal experiments (a matter of routine for any other carcinogen, but not for tobacco) has turned into a six decades old futile pursuit -- the ancient 'gift of gods' just won't do it. The handful of randomized intervention human trials have similarly backfired (i.e. the test group, smokers urged & helped quit, ended up with more lung cancers than the control group, smokers left alone to smoke as they please; see also here).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35775167)

mustardseed41, on Feb 25 2010, 08:53 PM, said:

Wow......you guys have it all figured out. Smoking is good for health and longevity. Brilliant. Think I'll go buy me some cowboy killers.

Although you're likely kidding, for other readers here who might consider experimenting with smoking I would caution that the mass market cigarettes are mostly made from reconstituted tobacco scraps, stems and wood pulp, plus artificial coloring, flavoring and nicotine. That look-alike product is quite different from the magical medicine, the real tobacco leaf honed over millenia by couple billions of life-long 'test subjects'. Further, in the last few years nearly all states in USA have mandated so-called Fire Safe Cigarettes (FSC). The net result is a noxious cigarette-like product laden with toxic fire retardants, that even most long time smokers can't tolerate (coughs, headaches,...).

So, don't even bother with any mass market "cigarettes" -- they will make you sick and will kill you over time. The only way remaining in USA (a country that ows its existence to tobacco and that used to be 'the land of the free' as long as we were grateful for the gift) to enjoy the benefits of the classical tobacco smoke, other than pipes or cigars, is to buy an additive free rolling tobacco and 'roll/stuff/make your own'. There are plenty of real tobacco choices and ever improving little stuffing machines that make this job so easy and quick that millions of smokers have switched from premade FSC junk to the real thing (e.g. check here and their forum, RYO Magazine, or search for RYO,SYO or MYO).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35775180)

26 February 2010 - 02:40 PM

TTom, on Feb 26 2010, 02:11 AM, said:

The long-term effects of smoking kills. Period.

Show some hard science (such as experiments or randomized trials) that demonstrate this claim. The only thing you have demonstrated is that you have swallowed and internalized the full load from antismoking con men.

Quote

Just in case you need a study to prove smoking kills, here is one: The British Medical Journal published a 50 year study starting in 1951 which concluded in 2001, titled: "Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors." It found that men participants who smoked only cigarettes and continued smoking died on average about 10 years younger than lifelong non-smokers. YES, DIED! Cessation at age 60, 50, 40, or 30 years gained, respectively, about 3, 6, 9, or 10 years of life expectancy. Prolonged cigarette smoking from early adult life tripled age specific mortality rates. Those who stopped smoking early enough, in their 30's were able to avoid most (not all) of cigarettes effects. In the end, the results of this 50 year study clearly stated: "The excess mortality associated with smoking chiefly involved vascular, neoplastic, and respiratory diseases that can be caused by smoking." If you look up mortality it means death. Simply put - smoking kills!

Attributing causal role to correlations on non-randomized samples (such as Doll & Hill study of UK doctors) is the surest sign of junk science. By that "logic" you could as well "conclude" that using prescription medications will kill you, since in any age group those who use them have shorter life expectancy than those who don't use them. Further, similarly to tobacco in Doll's UK doctors "study" you mention, those who "quit" using the prescription meds will have longer life-span than those who don't quit, and among the 'quitters' those who quit earlier will do better than those who quit later,... Hence, we can surely "conclude" that prescription meds kill. You can rewrite your entire paragraph substituting 'smoking' with 'using prescription meds' and it will hold equally at statistical level, yet the conclusion "hence, X kills" will be equally false.

Why is such leap of "logic" invalid? Because the reason someone is user, non-user or former user, of prescription meds is not a status randomly assigned to the subjects by a researcher (in which case any association with the outcomes can be attributted, with appropriate statistical caveats dependent on sample size, to the factor being randomly assigned), but rather that status is caused by something else which by itself may be causing shorter life span and thus leading to the positive correlation between the use of meds and shorter life-spans.

The mere statistical associations between an adverse health outcome D and some factor X observed on non-randomized (self-selected) subjects, be it {smokers, ex-smokers, never-smokers} or {med users, ex-users, never-users }, can equally mean protective/therapeutic role of X or causal role of X regarding outcome D. Such non-randomized association merely means that both X and D are within the same, often complex and largely unknown, web of causes and effects, but it doesn't tell you what is the nature (e.g. causal, protective) of the chain of links between X and D. In contrast to common junk science scams, in the real science, observation of such non-randomized correlation between X and D is at best a hint of causality that requires hard science (experiments, randomized trials) followup to disentangle the web of causes and effects to which X and D belong. The antismoking "science" has been stuck in this "hint phase" for over six decades (it was originally created by Nazi "health science" in 1930s, Hitler being fanatical antismoker and the original 'health nazi', where Doll studied at the time, and after the war he revived it in 1950, without mentioning its nazi roots).

Posted Image

This peculiar hint-hint nature of antismoking "science" was already noticed in 1958 by none other than the father of modern scientific statistics, famous British mathematician R. A. Fisher, who called their bluff (pdf):

But the time has passed, and although further investigation, in a sense, has taken place, it has consisted largely of the repetition of observations of the same kind as those which Hill and his colleagues called attention several years ago. I read a recent article to the effect that nineteen different investigations in different parts of the world had all concurred in confirming Dr. Hill's findings. I think they had concurred, but I think they were mere repetitions of evidence of the same kind...

Yet, here we are, not 8 years when Fisher pointed out this oddity, but six decades later, and the anstismoking "science" is still circling in that same hint-loop that Fisher objected to. For fairness sake, not that they haven't tried hard science. Unfortunately for their cause, it always backfired -- the smoking test animals lived longer than non-smoking ones and in the few randomized human trials that were done, the 'quit smoking group' ended up with more lung cancers or heart attacks than 'smoking group' controls. So, what can they do but stick with what "works" -- pointing finger at the correlations on non-randomized samples with a wink-wink to their 'journalist' and 'educator' stooges to spread the hysteria, along with vicious hatred, social and economic abuse of smokers (the largely poor folks just trying to self-medicate with this traditional medicinal plant).

Quote

The lungs consist of about 3000 delicate, small sacs called allveoli.

BTW, each human lung has ~300 million alveoli.

Quote

Okay so let's put aside the proven medical studies for a moment and let's just use our common sense here. God, nature, evolution or whatever you choose to believe in provided us with lungs to sustain life. The lungs were made for taking in oxygen not smoke of any kind regardless if it is tobacco or lettuce leaf smoke.

No one has a bluperint for what Nature or God, or whoever, had in mind for our lungs, our brains, our hands,.... Otherwise you wouldn't be typing this, since surely, your fingers "were not made" for typing on the keyboards, but merely for holding onto branches, picking flees from your buddies backs, grubs to eat,... In nature, anything that works, goes. In biochemistry of live organisms every enzyme, protein or general molecule, has myriad of uses, depending on location and context. Absorbtion of substances via skin or lungs (even eyes, ears, nose,...) has long been used in medicine (have you heard of medicinal creams, patches, inhalers, aromatherapy, medicinal smoke,...). As to the toxic smoke scare stories that you've been kind enough to retell, go back in time to the lightening scorched primordial soup few billions years ago. You will find all those scary, all 'burned' organic molecules, dancing to some cosmic tune, weaving the first life on Earth. If live cells have learned how to do anything at all by now, it is how to process safely the oxidized organic molecules. These are the kinds of organic molecules that gave rise to life and that still make the life go (oxidation/reduction cycle).

Keep also in mind that about 100mg (less than third of an aspirin tablet) of tobacco smoke matter absorbed per pack of cigarettes via 75 m^2 lung surface, is dwarfed by tens of thousands larger quantity of matter absorbed daly via digestive system, from foods and beverages. Since virtually every organic molecule you ingest has to undergo biochemical breakdown, before it is used as a building block or for energy (via oxidative processes), the potentially damaging oxidative processes, along with all their 'scary' free radicals byproducts, go on continuously in each of your cells 24/7. The quantities of matter involved in this vast biochemical factory making up your body are many orders of magnitude greater than the 100mg of matter/pack abosorbed from oxidized plant's leaf cells (smoking). There is more oxidation and its byproducts from one peanut or one blueberry, by the time it is fully processed and used up inside your cells, than a smoker ingests from pack of cigarettes (where much of oxidation takes place safely away from your cells).

Further, unlike most foods you ingest in thousands times greater quantities than tobacco smoke matter, some unknown components of tobacco smoke upregulate all the main internal antioxidant and detox enzymes -- nearly doubling glutathione, catalase and SOD, which vastly offsets any oxidative stress from the 100mg of tobacco matter ingested. Consequently, among others, smoking doubles smoker's detox rates for virtually any toxic materials (heavy metals, exhaust fumes,...) they are exposed to. Hence people exposed to such toxic materials at work or in their living environment, or those genetically sensitive to them, will instinctively use smoking as self-medication (to protect & help detox from the noxious exposures), resulting in the observed statistical associations of smoking with 'smoking related diseases'. That is no different than association between using sunglasses and sunburns -- those who use sunglasses more, will have more sunburns (and also, the ex-users will have less sunburns than the current users), even though sunglasses are protective against the sun's radiation, and they certainly don't cause sunburns.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35775191)

surely someone has tried an instrumental variable or mendelian randomization approach to evaluating the effects of smoking on mortality or overall health. it's wildly implausible to me that smokers are simply self-selected to develop lung cancer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35784473)

But what if you find you were wrong, and yet another of the legs on which modern worldview rests goes all wobbly?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35784747)

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/718212/effects-smoking-cessation-intervention-14-5-year-mortality-randomized-clinical

i found at least one large mendelian randomization study that supports the case for causation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24906368

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35796799)

First study, volunteers with airway obstruction - come on. And it is p hacked nonsense - QUOTE:

Intention-to-treat analysis after 5 years did not reveal differences in morbidity or mortality among treatment groups (4), although subgroup analysis showed that smoking cessation was associated with significant reductions in fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35797037)

sure, because we have no reason to believe either is relevant. these studies validate a large epidemiological literature, so when we see effects consistent with epidemiological correlations we shouldn't be suspecting an anti-smoking academic conspiracy. you are clearly looking for reasons to dismiss information that isn't consistent with your narrative.

one mendelian randomization study isn't definitive, but you have provided no reason for us to believe the gene is causing disease through some other effect. this is the first thing researchers consider when planning a mendelian randomization study. it doesn't contradict the pooled analysis - this study is focusing on total mortality vs. heart disease/stroke.

did you read this part:

"All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the special intervention group than in the usual care group (8.83 per 1000 person-years vs. 10.38 per 1000 person-years; P = 0.03"

the study wasn't just 5 years long. LJL at deluded smokers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35890498)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955320/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35784770)

Sorry to be dense, I am not understanding your apparent analogy to vaccination. The efficacy and safety of vaccines are supported by RCTs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971216310566

And the claims of anti-vaxers have not survived scrutiny

http://www.cochrane.org/CD004407/ARI_using-combined-vaccine-protection-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella

However, you are right that anti-tobaccers' unscientific arguments and shrill propaganda resemble nothing so much as the anti-vaccers' unscientific and dangerous campaign!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3936998&forum_id=2#35784768)