How to enjoy the many benefits of nicotine without having to use tobacco?

Nicotine gum or vaping
There's a T Nation article about nitcotine gum as preworkout

Definitely don't smoke

Attached: IMG_1720.jpg (700x525, 27K)

Been using these for ~1 year now. 5/5

Attached: 48351011_1_640x640[1].jpg (640x640, 50K)

From what I've read it's the most likely to give you cancer

lol where did you read this? that’s a complete lie. i’m talking about traditional swedish snus not the american kind

why not use tobacco?

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.

because smoking tabacco puts tar in your lungs you dumb fuck

i bet you're one of those ridiculous brainlets that thinks that "black lung" is a result of smoking

TOP FUCKING LEL

what is 'tar' ?

tar - a dark, thick, flammable liquid distilled from wood or coal, consisting of a mixture of hydrocarbons, resins, alcohols, and other compounds. It is used in roadmaking and for coating and preserving timber.

nah. smoking is protective for people exposed to environmental carcinogens

Haha he bought the globalist propaganda, point and laugh, i bet you are a vegan who get your protein from Say aswell.

- A US Surgeon General report "Smoking and Health" (No. 1103, page 112) noted, "Death rates for current pipe smokers were little if at all higher than for non-smokers, even with men smoking 10 pipefuls per day and with men who had smoked pipes for more than 30 years." On page 92 the report also stated that pipe smokers who inhale live as long as nonsmokers and pipe smokers that don't inhale live longer than non-smokers. So according to that report, life expectancy for pipe smokers is three years longer than Non-Smokers

SOURCE: profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/C/X/B/
- Pletora of health benefits from nicotine: gwern.net/Nicotine

- NOTE: "Wikipedia summarizes Guillem et al 2005 as "Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties" - the addictiveness coming from MAOIs (eg. Khalil et al 2000, Khalil et al 2006) & possibly other compounds present in tobacco; while there don’t seem to many human studies aside from the Amsterdam et al 2006 review on the observed inhibition in smokers (consistent with the MAOIs playing a role in addiction), there are a number of significant animal studies"

- MAO-B inhibition is probably responsible for the protective effect of smoking on parkinson's (the Deprenyl effect):

- "The lower risk of Parkinson disease among current and former smokers varied with smoking duration, intensity, and recentness. The dependence of this association on the timing of smoking during life is consistent with a biologic effect."

SOURCE: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17339584

- "CONCLUSIONS: The inverse dose-response relationship between PD and smoking and its cessation is unlikely to be due to bias or confounding, as discussed, providing indirect evidence that smoking is biologically protective."

SOURCE: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9921857

- You must be a smoker to have the MAO-B inhibition effect: "Positron emission tomography (PET) studies with [11C]L-deprenyl-D2 have shown that brain monoamine oxidase (MAO) B is 40% lower in smokers than in non-smokers. ...These results indicate that the reduction in MAO B in smokers probably occurs gradually and requires chronic tobacco smoke exposure."

SOURCE: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11072429
- Animals that smoked in RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS lived 20% longer than their non-smoking counterparts. Graph: i.imgur.com/UoSF6h9.jpg

SOURCE: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.866.9540&rep=rep1&type=pdf

- Oldest man that ever lived (Shigechiyo Izumi) and woman (Jeanne Calment) and Marathon runner (Buster Martin) all smoked. Martin smoked during the London marathon as he ran it age age 101.

- "Almost 30% of the centenarian women had smoked (over 100 cigarettes) in their lifetime, while 26.2% of the comparison women did. Smoking rates were 60% for centenarian men and 75% for comparison men."

SOURCE: healthland.time.com/2011/08/05/even-the-long-lived-smoke-drink-and-dont-exercise/

- "Does an Italian village filled with cigarette smoking centenarians hide the secret to long life?" nationalpost.com/news/world/does-an-italian-village-filled-with-cigarette-smoking-centenarians-hide-the-secret-to-long-life

- 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 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).

SOURCES: Whitehall study, the 'Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial' (MRFIT)

Attached: UoSF6h9.jpg (602x433, 36K)

Professor Burch, in a letter to the British Medical Journal (March 1985) pointed out that in these two studies:
"In the low smoking intervention groups 56 cases of lung cancer were recorded in a total starting population of 7,142 men (0.78%); the corresponding number for the more heavily smoking normal care groups being 53 in 7,169 (0.74%)... Some 88 cases [of non-lung cancer] (1.23%) were recorded in the low smoking intervention groups, but only 60 cases (0.84%) in the normal care groups. Thus in the category 'all cancers' there were 144 cases (2.02%) in the intervention groups but 113 cases (1.58%) in the more heavily smoking normal care groups. Reduced levels of smoking were associated with increases in cancer incidence."

- The peculiar hint-hint nature of antismoking "science" [correlations in non randomized samples] 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: "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..."

SOURCE: york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher274.htm

- Cessation of smoking is correlated with the development of lung cancer, and found "absolutely necessary" in [randomized] animal studies.

- "Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking? The clinically high correlation between smoking and carcinoma of the lungs has been the focal point in societal campaigns against the habit and the tobacco lobby. In an overview of personal history in a number of lung cancer patients locally, we am struck by THE MORE THAN CASUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE APPEARANCE OF LUNG CANCER – AND AN ABRUPT AND RECENT CESSATION OF THE SMOKING HABIT IN MANY, IF NOT MOST CASES. The association is more than just casual – DEVELOPMENT OF CANCER WITHIN A FEW MONTHS OF ESCHEWING CIGARETTE SMOKING.
Over a period of 4 years, a total of 312 cases were treated for carcinoma of pulmonary origin [...] Each one of had been addicted to the habit for no less than twenty-five years, smoking in excess of twenty sticks a day. THE STRIKING DIRECT STATISTICAL CORRELATION BETWEEN CESSATION OF SMOKING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF LUNG MALIGNANCIES, MORE THAN 60% PLUS, IS TOO GLARING TO BE DISMISSED AS COINCIDENTAL."

SOURCE: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17141968

- In congruence with the above finding, animal studies require the experimenters to quit smoking to actually observe lung cancer: "The 4-month recovery period is absolutely necessary for observation of increased lung tumor multiplicity, but the reason for this is not clear." -- So much for a "recovery period" LOL!

SOURCE: academic.oup.com/carcin/article/26/9/1488/2390957

- Protective and therapeutic effects of smoking on lung function in people exposed to environmental carcinogens -- predictably, ex-smokers were worst off: "SMOKERS IN THE POTROOM GROUP HAD A LOWER PREVALENCE OF RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS THAN NEVER SMOKERS OR EX-SMOKERS, which was significant for wheezing (2.6% v 17.4% and 28.6% respectively, both p < 0.01), whereas respiratory symptoms in controls tended to be highest in smokers (NS). No effects of potroom work on the prevalence of respiratory symptoms could be detected. In potroom workers, impairment of lung function due to occupational exposure was found only in non-smokers,"
SOURCE: "Lack of combined effects of exposure and smoking on respiratory health in aluminium potroom workers" British Medical Journal, Occupational and Environmental Medicine (Vol. 56, 468-472, 1999)

- "Smoking has a protective effect on immunological abnormalities in asbestos workers."
SOURCE: "Effect of Smoking on Immunological Abnormalities in Asbestos Workers" (Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Poland) by Lange, A.

- More for asbestos workers is found in "Cancer of the Lung Among Asbestos Factory Workers" (University of London, School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine), relative risk of lung cancer for asbestos workers was "highest for those who had never smoked, lowest for current smokers, and intermediate for ex-smokers. The trend was statistically significant. There was no significant association between smoking and deaths from mesothelioma,"

- "Conclusion: The excess relative risk of lung cancer from asbestos exposure is about three times higher in non-smokers than in smokers. The modified measure has been placed within a more versatile model of interaction. If interaction is present the relative risk from asbestos exposure changes only slightly between light and heavy smokers, but is higher in very light smokers and non-smokers."
SOURCE: The Interaction of Asbestos and Smoking in Lung Cancer by G. BERRY1, and F. D. K. LIDDELL (Oxford Journals, Medicine, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, Volume 48, Number 5, p. 459-462, 2004)

- Many other studies show protective effects of smoking for asbestos workers. Similar effects are found for other lung cancer risk factors, including radiation and chemical carcinogen exposures. For example:

- "Over the 22 years of follow-up, exposed workers have had a very high risk of respiratory cancer, mostly of the lung. The risk has been dose related and has been much higher in nonsmokers and ex-smokers than in current smokers. The epidemic began to subside shortly after exposure to chloromethyl ethers ceased. The mean induction-latency period was 17 years. Most of the lung cancers in the moderate and high dose groups have been small cell carcinoma,"
SOURCE: "Lung Cancer Dueto Chloromethyl Ethers" (Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital, Philadelphia) by Weiss, W.,

- "Presence of chronic respiratory symptoms at baseline was inversely related to cessation of smoking. Respiratory impairment was positively associated with smoking cessation, but failed to reach statistical significance,"
SOURCE: "Respiratory Effects of Exposure to Diesel Emissions in Underground Coal Miners" by Ames, R.G. (DHHS, PHS, CDC, NIOSH. Funding: NIOSH)

What the fuck, I'm just done with my second week after stopping cigs and now you are telling me I may get cancer?

lmao this coping poster dropping walls of text to justify his shitty habit
that makes him smell like death. bet you can’t even run 3 miles without wheezing up a lung. enjoy dying at 50 sweetie

I hardball nictotine and caffeine as a preworkout. Shit gets pretty wild.

He’s linking bunk studies funded by big tobacco because he’s a good little goyim.

AD:

"A statistically significant inverse association between smoking and Alzheimer's disease was observed at all levels of analysis, with a trend towards decreasing risk with increasing consumption" (International Journal of Epidemiology, 1991)

"The risk of Alzheimer's disease decreased with increasing daily number of cigarettes smoked before onset of disease... In six families in which the disease was apparently inherited... the mean age of onset was 4.17 years later in smoking patients than in non-smoking patients from the same family" (British Medical Journal, June 22, 1991)

"Although more data are needed... [an analysis of 19 studies suggests] nicotine protects against AD" (Neuroepidemiology, 1994)

Nicotine injections significantly improved certain types of mental functioning in Alzheimer's patients (Psychopharmacology, 1992).

One theory: nicotine improves the responsiveness of Alzheimer's patients to acetylcholine, an important brain chemical.

"When chronically taken, nicotine may result in: (1) positive reinforcement [it makes you feel good], (2) negative reinforcement [keep you from feeling bad], (3) reduction of body weight [by reducing appetite & increasing metabolic rate], (4) enhancement of performance, and protection against: (5) Parkinson's disease, (6) Tourette's disease [tics], (7) Alzheimer's disease, (8) ulcerative colitis and (9) sleep apnea. The reliability of these effects varies greatly but justifies the search for more therapeutic applications for this interesting compound." ("Beneficial Effects of Nicotine," Jarvik, British Journal of Addiction, 1991)

- In this compilation of 19 studies, 15 found a reduce risk of Alzheimers in smokers, and none found an increased risk. Also noted is the fact that acute administration of nicotine improves attention and information processing in AD patients, which adds further plausibility to the hypothesis: web.archive.org/web/20120715065033/http://www.forces.org:80/evidence/files/liars.htm#alz

Swefag tobacco that's sort of like dip but with snus you don't spit it out

no? you could just, ya know, chew the fucking gum which avoids the whole tobacco causes cancer thing .. which is what snus is.

you should mention to smoke only self grown tobacco from heirloom seeds. Dont smoke regular ones u can buy from store, filled with shit and cancer

> I don't know what nicotine is.

The post.

So are you saying that the daily cigarettes I smoke have health benefits?

>bunk studies funded by big tobacco because he’s a good little goyim.
Utter nonsense and totally fraudulent

The early antismoking drive was government driven campaign (the big pharma, which is now the driving force behind antismoking scam, jumped in later, in mid-1980s), which coincidentally came out just as concerns grew about rapid rise in LC and melanoma cases, which coincided with the rapid escallation of atmospheric nuclear tests (both LC and melanoma are cancers on the outermost tissues, those in direct contanct with air and any radioactive particles there). It also correlates with the rise of high omega-6 PUFA oil use, which is known to cause cancer.

Sir Richard Doll, a disciple, literally, of the Nazi antismoking pseudo-science from 1930s, and the master of shifting the blame for diseases from the industries and governments whose actions caused them onto the poor victims (usually their lifestyle, eating and other habits), was drafted for the task and he promptly delivered, picking tobacco smoking as the cause for lung cancer. The sun was blamed for melanoma (even though most melanomas occur on the skim areas the least exposed to sun UV, such as stomach and lower back, crotch,... in the era of one-piece swimming suits, cobvering those areas).

All that antismoking con has got show for the vast expenditures of six decades in intense research to demonstrate scientifically any harm from inhalation of tobacco smoke at all, are mere vague hints -- the statistical correlations of smoking with so-called 'smoking related diseases' on non-randomized samples (i.e. on self-selected classes of subjects: 'smokers', 'never-smokers' and 'ex-smokers'). Such correlations on their own are equally consistent with therapeutic/protectve role of tobacco smoke as they are with a causal role in those diseases.

R A Fisher pointed this out decades ago: Big Pharma isn't in the business of cures, but perpetual customers: archive.is/jgmim

The harm from tobacco comes when it’s roasted, which regular dip and smoking tobacco is. Swedish snus is steamed and thus creates no cancer causing carcinogens. The cancer rates are only marginally higher than never using at all.

how many mg do you take a day?

yep, buy additive free tobacco

mass market junk cigarettes are trash. reconstituted sheets of tobacco mixed with wood pulp

>So are you saying that the daily cigarettes I smoke have health benefits?
read above.

i don't smoke cigarettes, i use a tobacco pipe and smoke additive free tobacco

>health benefits
there's no question at all that there are health benefits to nicotine and tobacco. literally nobody who is honest denies this, they simply claim that smoking will somehow kill you at the same time. like, say, a multivitamin mixed with cyanide

Who let the tobacco shill in?

Sweetie, stick to vaping

There are no health benefits to smoking anything. You are coating your lungs in cancer causing carcinogens and you lung capacity is remarkably reduced. How many miles can you run?

nice, so one kind of snus allegedly isn't carcinogenic while all others are + any other forms of tobacco.

hey, you know if you wanted nicotine you could just chew the gum?

please find ONE (01) RANDOMIZED study that shows smokers having shorter lifespan... just ONE! make sure it is RANDOMIZED though.

here's a study showing the opposite, longer lifespan in smoking animals

- Even when using near asphyxiating levels, in mice genetically bred to grow cancer, the smoking animals live longer than non-smoking. Smoking mice, despite living their entire life under the nearly asphyxiating levels of tobacco smoke, lived longer than the control group - "In spite of the higher lung tumor incidence and multiplicity in CS-exposed mice, survival of these mice was significantly longer than for the sham-exposed mice."
NOTE: Higher lung cancer is from well known effects of nicotine and NO as promoters of angiogenesis (especially in combination), on the vascularization in the lungs of smoking rats (note that lungs were larger in smoking rats, see Table 3), and of course they didn't take into account the effect of improved lung vascularization on the rate of growth of tumors (common cancer treatments rely on suppressing angiogenesis)

SOURCE: academic.oup.com/carcin/article/26/11/1999/2476032

-More on angiogenic effect: "nicotine induces angiogenesis. We also show that nicotine accelerates the growth of tumor and atheroma in association with increased neovascularization... we found that nicotine enhanced lesion growth in association with an increase in lesion vascularity"

SOURCE: nature.com/articles/nm0701_833

Attached: 5gAWShq.png (1043x815, 18K)

On average, I'd say ~16mg.

> I just realised I don't know what nicotine is, but I've already made the post and my ego is invested so I need to stay and save face despite being wrong. Oh god why did I post is it too late to delete fuck I'm so embarrassed.

The post.

I quit nicotine but the gum isn’t cost effective at all. One tin of snus has 20 pouches and is like $3. Also, there’s only one kind of snus. You can buy it in America, just avoid the fake camel and marlboro brands of it. General is good stuff. I recommend at least giving it a try.

the cope to justify your shitty habit is unreal. i also never claimed nicotine is bad for you you stupid fuck, why not go back and read my first post.

> Oh god maybe if I try to talk shit he'll leave me alone and we'll all forget I didn't know what nicotine was.

The post.

bout that time for the after lunch cigarette though isn’t? a marlboro man needs his fix!

>There are no health benefits to smoking anything
why do you ignore my posts?

>How many miles can you run?
No idea, I lift weights. I used to run long distance but hated it.
Buster Martin - oldest marathon runner, smoked while completing London Marathon

Australian olympic long-jumper Jai Taurima also smokes

more: Smoking Olympic athletes get village pass - archive.is/l6bBQ

more: complex.com/sports/2013/07/athletes-smoking-cigarettes-and-cigars/

more: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Owens
> He set three world records and tied another, all in less than an hour
>Owens was a pack-a-day cigarette smoker for 35 years, having started at age 32

plenty of people BETTER THAN YOU smoke, a lot. most smokers don't exercise at all

>You are coating your lungs in cancer causing carcinogens and you lung capacity is remarkably reduced.
every time you eat food, you are coating your stomach in cancer causing carcinogens

Keep also in mind that about 100mg (less than 1/3 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. virtually every organic molecule you ingest has to undergo biochemical breakdown before it is used as a building block or for energy (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).

> Maybe deflecting and being sarcastic will work.

The post.

still waiting for a RANDOMIZED study showing smokers having lower lifespan...
why can't the big pharma shills prove it? they've had many decades and billions of dollars of funding
>Chronic Inhalation of Cigarette Smoke by F344 rats
>W.E. Dalbey at al., Oak Ridge Nat. Lab., Inst. Environ. Health...
>J. National Cancer Inst., 64 (2): 383-390 (Feb 1980)

>"Smoke exposure did not change the total number of tumor-bearing animals relative to controls; however [smoke] exposed rats had significantly fewer tumors in the hypophyses, hematopletic-lymphoid system, uteri and ovaries, but an increased number of tumors in the respiratory tracts and dermes."

These animal data fit in with the concepts of Prof. Oeser in Berlin and Dr. Lock in Hamburg, that, if properly assessed, the epidemiological data on cancers in general and for specific organs, indicate that total cancer rates have not changed, and that the only thing which has changed is that the increase in one type of cancer is compensated for by a decrease in other organ cancers.

see also:

Your gum gets fucked up using it

why do most non-smokers die of 'smoking related diseases'?

the leading cause of death in america is heart disease, followed by cancer. over 50% of non-smokers die from one of these 2 issues

WHY DO MOST 'NON-SMOKERS' DIE OF 'SMOKING RELATED DISEASES'?

basically, if you're dying of cancer, and a week before you die, you smoke a pack of cigarettes... somehow you have died of a 'smoking related disease'

most smokers, based on statistics, would die of 'smoking related diseases' even if they never smoked!

what a fraud

There is an acetylcholine receptor gene cluster where certain alleles make carriers simultaneosuly and independently more likely to smoke and more likely to get lung cancer.

nature.com/articles/nature06846

nature.com/articles/nature06885

Curiously, the father of modern scientific statistics R.A. Fisher, speculated that this might be the case in late 1950s, after considering various statistical anomalies of the antismoking data, which in his expert view, didn't quite point, even as a mere hint (which is the most such non-randomized correlations can do), toward the causal role of tobacco smoke. See: Also read: york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/smoking.htm
>SMOKING
>THE CANCER CONTROVERSY
>SOME ATTEMPTS TO ASSESS THE EVIDENCE
>SIR RONALD A FISHER, Sc.D., F.R.S.

Chronic secondhand smoke, being around engine smoke, etc. This isn't a conspiracy.

>bet you can’t even run 3 miles without wheezing up a lung

many olympic athletes smoked. the oldest marathon runner ever smoked: >enjoy dying at 50 sweetie
oldest man and woman ever, were smokers: enjoy your alzheimers though, it seems to have already started LOL! see:

>Chronic secondhand smoke
name one person, with proof, who died from "secondhand smoke"

>being around engine smoke
you mean exhaust? smoking tobacco is protective against environmental carcinogens. see: specifically:
>- "Presence of chronic respiratory symptoms at baseline was inversely related to cessation of smoking. Respiratory impairment was positively associated with smoking cessation, but failed to reach statistical significance,"
>SOURCE: "Respiratory Effects of Exposure to Diesel Emissions in Underground Coal Miners" by Ames, R.G. (DHHS, PHS, CDC, NIOSH. Funding: NIOSH)

also, we know that there are other confounding variables linking lung problems to smoking (which is therapeutic) beyond self-medication: >This isn't a conspiracy.
is the fact that you can't post one single randomized trial showing smokers having shorter lifespan a conspiracy?
is it a conspiracy that you can't post the name of one individual, with proof, who died of 'secondhand smoke'?

t. smokercuck

PUFA causes cancer:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3921234
>Mammary tumorigenesis was very sensitive to linoleate intake and increased proportionately in the range of 0.5 to 4.4% of dietary linoleate.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012020
>Experiments on animals have indicated that polyunsaturated vegetable oils promote cancer more effectively than do saturated fats

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3302580
>These data suggest that inhibition of junctional communication may be involved mechanistically in the promotion of tumors by high levels of dietary unsaturated fat. Finally, potential mechanisms by which unsaturated fatty acids inhibit metabolic cooperation are examined.

google "lung cancer on the rise" -- it's increasing for non-smokers. blame it on 'second hand smoke' and you prove yourself to be absolutely retarded

Attached: canola.jpg (404x226, 21K)

another study on the 'recovery period' hoax, see: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11895867

>[p. 26] Demonstration of increased tumor formation required that the standardized 20-week exposure period be followed by a 16-week recovery period, during which mice were provided filtered air. Bogen and Witschi (2002) provided justification for the recovery period; more specifically, it was suggested that TOBACCO SMOKE EXPOSURE SUPPRESSES THE GROWTH OF PREMALIGNANT FOCI, and that smoke induced lung tumor risk occurs predominantly via a genotoxic mechanism. Consequently, the RECOVERY PERIOD ALLOWS TOBACCO SMOKE-INDUCED GENETIC DAMAGE TO PROGRESS TO TUMORS.

Note also that in the quote above, term "suggested" (meaning 'hypothesized') refers to conjectured "genotoxic" effect, while the 'suppressive effect of TS on the growth of premalignant foci' (e.g. produced genetically or with real carcinogens) is an observed empirical fact. The authors are trying to explain (away) why do you need "recovery period" (quitting) so they offer a conjecture that TS has caused "genotoxic" effect, which will manifest itself only after you remove tobacco smoke via "recovery period", to eliminate the observed protective effect of TS and allow conjectured "genotoxic" effect of TS to cause lung cancers.

The most amazing aspect above is not so much the protective effects of tobacco smoke against cancers (that's old news, known for decades among researchers, but not by public and most doctors), but knowing exactly the effect of quitting ("recovery" period), which they are trying to explain away above, why are they forcing tens of millions of smokers in USA alone to quit. Even if conjectured "genotoxic" effect were true (it is a mere wishful conjecture so far), while the "suppressive" effect of TS is empirical fact, hence they are deliberately causing tens of thousands of deaths from lung cancer among the smokers who yielded to the pressures to quit.

t. brainwashed brainlet who sucks big pharma's ballsack

utterly pathetic

there are people that smoked that will live longer than you, everyone in your family, and ever non-smoker who ever lived

LITERAL KEK

Attached: longest-lived-roastie-in-human-history.jpg (900x600, 62K)

Smoking made me constantly wheeze and cough it was the worst shit ever. You probably just sit on your ass all day so your lungs are never stimulated enough to realize they're fucked beyond belief. Fuck off.

Okay fag

Snus is tobacco, its legit just tobacco in a little bag

more ad hominem attacks

- oldest marathon runner ever smoked, even during the marathon (pic related)

- various olympic athletes smoked
read more: i lift weights

how does it feel to know people MORE ATHLETIC THAN YOU smoke?

89% of NFL players smoke[d] weed. kill yourself, brainlet.

>Smoking made me constantly wheeze and cough it was the worst shit ever.
stop smoking mass-market junk cigarettes. those are trash, utter trash

also, you get used to it

PLEASE POST ONE (01) RANDOMZIED STUDY SHOWING SHORTER LIFESPAN FOR SMOKERS

protip: you can't

enjoy your alzheimers, brainlet: you're already half way there!

>Bradley Wiggins celebrated an Olympic gold with wine and cigarette in Majorca.
>Ricardo Zamora, a smoker, is remembered as one of the greatest soccer players to ever have played for Spain; smoked up to 3 packs a day, allegedly

more olympic/pro athletes that smoke:
Dimitar Berbatov
Shane Warne
Anna Kournikova
Dion Phaneuf
Darren Clarke
Ashley Cole
Kaarsten Braasch
Ricardo Mayorga
Jack Wilshere
Randy Moss
Mario Balotelli
Alex Rodriguez
Wayne Rooney
Michael Jordan
John Daly

YOU ARE INFERIOR TO THESE SMOKERS

Attached: buster_martin_01.jpg (700x439, 53K)

I didn't say smoking prevents you from becoming a world class athlete you absolute brainlet. Having a god awful quality of life won't prevent you from becoming great things. I could smoke crack and still lift weights. But you're going to suffer from all the side effects and consequences of your actions. I smoked for 8 years and during this time period my lungs got progressively worse to the point where every day at my job I was coughing and wheezing. Also you constantly have to stop in the middle of what you're doing to smoke because you're addicted. There are many times in life when you're stuck somewhere and can't smoke and it drives you insane due to the rabid addiction it causes. You also smell like shit all the time.
>89% of NFL players smoke[d] weed
Smoking weed is fundamentally different from smoking tobacco because you can get high in a couple hits whereas you constantly have to inhale smoke from tobacco and as the addiction gets worse more and more smoking is required to get the benefits. Ask any smoker. They all start at 1 cigarette a day or less and gradually progress to smoking at least several a day if not more.
>you get used to it
No, you don't. It got progressively worse. The literal opposite of getting used to it.
>more olympic/pro athletes that smoke:
Once again you're conflating tobacco and marijuana smoke. They're fundamentally different.

>Smoker here

What the fuck is going on in this thread?

We're reaching levels of LARP that should not even be possible...

Smokeshill kys Smoking is bad for you retard, you can literally feel it killing you. I vape now and it still fucks with my sleep.

Fuck off you mentally ill retard

Attached: 37d38c34e9d6fae062e94f1653b19b0333335fe06c7f4485768efe1a2d73e9e7.jpg (414x385, 49K)

Love how none of these anti smoking fags are able to produce even one argument and resort to scripted outraged responses and ad hominem.

>provide some ultra specific study that will never exist when the preponderance of evidence is more than adequate to demonstrate smoking is terrible for your health
just kys already smokefag

Except i posted numerous RCTs funded by anti tobacco research... yet they all failed to show any benefit, and in fact some showed longer lifespan for smokers... LOL!

Alzheimer's this soon? Sad!

>you can literally feel it killing you
This is called nocebo effect aka "witch doctor effect"

Look it up, retard. Many centarians smoked

>But you're going to suffer from all the side effects and consequences of your actions. I smoked for 8 years and during this time period my lungs got progressively worse to the point where every day at my job I was coughing and wheezing. Also you constantly have to stop in the middle of what you're doing to smoke because you're addicted.
I dont notice this at all. I smoke a pipe. 10yr smoker. I smoke like 3 bowls a day, when i didn't work at home i never smoked at work. You are self medicating

>There are many times in life when you're stuck somewhere and can't smoke and it drives you insane due to the rabid addiction it causes.
No, i dont experience this because i smoke for nootropic benefits. I have gone a week without smoking, it wasnt hard. You're self medicating. Your body feels like it needs it. You should figure out why

>Smoking weed is fundamentally different from smoking tobacco because you can get high in a couple hits whereas you constantly have to inhale smoke from tobacco and as the addiction gets worse more and more smoking is required to get the benefits. Ask any smoker. They all start at 1 cigarette a day or less and gradually progress to smoking at least several a day if not more.
I am a smoker and smoke 0 cigs a year, i hate them. I smoke a pipe. I smoke less now, basically 3 cigs worth per day.

Anyone who has a strong compulsion to smoke like that is self medicating. Imagine blaming sunburns on sunglasses, that's what you're doing LOL

>Once again you're conflating tobacco and marijuana smoke. They're fundamentally different.
Nope! That entire list was TOBACCO smokers. Why lie?

Give it up brainlet. your body demands tobacco and screams at you to provide it because it is MEDICINAL. Many centarians & pro athletes smoked, deal with it

I smoked a pack a day for 2 years. When I quit my entire life got better - every day tasks were easier, cardio was finally possible, and I stopped smelling like burnt asshole everywhere I went. It's a terrible vice, bros. Don't start.

Nicotine may have some net cognitive/weight loss benefits but if you're smoking to get them you're fucking yourself over. And it's extremely addictive, and tolerance builds fast.

Weed has more "tar" than tobacco LOL

The only way to get the mao-b inhibition effect is smoking. Nicotine doesnt do it. This protects you from cognitive decline

Don't smoke cigs, they are trash. Smoke pure tobacco

What about additive free tobacco in un-dyed hemp paper rather than dyed rice paper?

I dont know much about papers, i smoke a pipe. I always hated filters. Pipe is more satisfying. After a [filtered] cig i just want more. A pipe doesnt do that. I smoke on a $4 ounce in like 10-20 days. It's a dirt cheap habit!

Would organic american spirits cut it?

The pouches? Yeah they are good. Pricy though, as expensive as regular packs really.

There are endless studies showing all the detrimental effects smoking has on you. The preponderance of evidence shows smoking is terrible for your health.
>I smoke a pipe
Could be different for pipes. I smoked cigs. I smoked tobacco from a hookah once and it didn't give me the same kick as smoking a big tobacco cig. So while you don't experience some of the problems you probably also don't derive as much pleasure from it as a cig smoker.
Not gonna go through the whole list but I can say right off the bat Randy Moss smokes weed not tobacco so no your list is wrong.
Long term studies show weed doesn't damage your lungs compared to tobacco smoke. When you smoke weed you inhale very little. The amount of tar is irrelevant due to this fact.
>LOL
You are a retard.

>There are endless studies showing all the detrimental effects smoking has on you.
Show me a rct where smokers have lower lifespan. I posted RCTs showing longer lifepan or no difference. All you have is correlations in non randomized samples. It's as useful as saying hospitals kill you you because you're more likely to die in a hospital, or that sunglasses cause sunburns. It's junk science, pointed out decades ago by the father of modern statistics

>Could be different for pipes. I smoked cigs. I smoked tobacco from a hookah once and it didn't give me the same kick as smoking a big tobacco cig. So while you don't experience some of the problems you probably also don't derive as much pleasure from it as a cig smoker.
I smoke pure unfiltered tobacco, additive free. You smoked reconstituted sheets of tobacco mixed with wood pulp & additives and filters. I dont suggest that

I don't care about lifespan. I care about quality of life and I can say based on studies and my own first hand experience smoking drastically reduces quality of life. Enjoy coughing and wheezing, addiction withdrawals, nutritional deficiencies and all the side effects that go with them, shitty teeth and breath and generally smelling like shit.
Thats cool but like I said those shitty big tobacco cigs gave a much better kick than any other nicotine product I have ever consumed. I've used snus, vapes, hookahs, rolled, pipes and none were worth bothering with compared to smoking cigs. Smoking wouldn't even be a topic of interest if it weren't for big tobacco so I feel it's somewhat disingenuous to bring pure tobacco use up.

>Randy Moss smokes weed not tobacco
WHY DO YOU LIE????

Quit lying idiot. Also weed has more "tar"
You are ignoring the Olympic athletes. The oldest marathon runner. Why so hateful??

If you smoke and want to quit but can't, you are (a) mentally weak and (b) clearly self medicating

Attached: admvqk7rawg0a5p8in1o.jpg (450x400, 22K)

>Long term studies show weed doesn't damage your lungs compared to tobacco smoke. When you smoke weed you inhale very little. The amount of tar is irrelevant due to this fact.
Find 1 randomized study showing smokers have more lung problems. You can't! You're ignoring confounding variables, which i posted, in your mere correlations of non randomized samples.

How much are you paid to post propaganda, shill??

Why would you use a light stimulant that literally blocks your nervesystem? Why not go directly to amphetamines if you want to make this deal with your health?

Attached: 71a3dcf3f7cc34ca.gif (500x625, 698K)

>i care about quality of life
Ignoring the Alzheimer's studies?? Why?

I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, but during university I would chew nicotine gum to perk me up and keep me focused. Honestly one of the most underrated drugs.

You wouldn't do an RCT in a study on cigarette smoking & increased all-cause mortality .. that's .. dumb

Let me guess, you're a 1st-year university student doing their 1st unit of statistic and somebody told you about the hierarchy of evidence & where RCTs are in that hierarchy.

>Enjoy coughing and wheezing
I never do this
>addiction withdrawals,
Dont have this
>nutritional deficiencies
I take vitamins. Superior metabolism requires superior nutrition. This is a benefit

>and all the side effects that go with them, shitty teeth and breath and generally smelling like shit.
like prevention of alzheimers, parkinsons, general cognitive decline? Longer lifespan in RANDOMIZED studies? Better mood ok

I brush by teeth BTW

>those shitty big tobacco cigs gave a much better kick than any other nicotine product I have ever consumed
My experience is different. It's clear you refuse to look at evidence tho. Enjoy your nocebo effect LOL

>I feel it's somewhat disingenuous to bring pure tobacco use up.
That's what i do though.. i said pre-rolled cigs are junk LOL

>You wouldn't do an RCT in a study on cigarette smoking & increased all-cause mortality .. that's .. dumb
If you wanted to prove a causal relationship, you absolutely would.. and they have! Only, the results went the opposite way in animal studies. Also, 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: It is not "dumb" you obviously brainlet. Attributing causal role to correlations on non-randomized samples 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 those junk "studies", 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.

See also:

>Let me guess, you're a 1st-year university student doing their 1st unit of statistic and somebody told you about the hierarchy of evidence & where RCTs are in that hierarchy.
No I graduated. Let me guess, your IQ is 2 digits. let me explain more. First read: 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').

This was already noticed in 1958 by none other than the father of modern statistics, R. A. Fisher: 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.

>you can literally feel it killing you

I'm back from the gym so giving a real response to this.

Before you get suckered into self-destruction again, you might wish to check couple recent papers. The first one is "Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?" discussed here: It is hypothesizing on mechanisms behind the "strange" phenomenon (known among experts, but which your doc or media won't talk about) of surprisingly large proportion of smokers getting lung cancers shortly after quitting smoking.

The second paper is even more telling, despite its less dramatic title "Carcinogenicity studies of inhaled cigarette smoke in laboratory animals: old and new".

It is a survey of decades of futile attempts to induce lung cancer in lab animals via inhalation of tobacco smoke by the leading expert in the field Dr. S.S. Hecht. Now this survey is six decades into this enterprise, with thousands of failed experiments, irreproducable frauds and countless research billions on its trail. No matter how heavy smoke animals inhaled, right up to the edge of asphyxiation, or how unnatural the exposure (e.g. lacking natural feedbacks in dosing and pacing of human smokers), the smoking animals still live longer than the controls inhaling the purest Hepa filtered air one could have. These little stubborn facts "complicate the interpretation of data" Dr. S.S.H. euphemistically explains.

So what is the most promising 'discovery' in this field after all that effort? Well, the less promising of the two 'discoveries' is to spike smoke with radioactive 'tracers' (for measurement purposes, allegedly, yet he warns the researchers on being careful when handling the 'glow in the dark' "contaminated pelts"). But the real recent breakthrough is the "recovery period", where animals are made to smoke heavily until about middle age, then the smoke exposure is halted completely for the rest of the experiment.

cont

cont

The smoking animals, which were slimmer, quicker and healthier until then, get fat, lazy and sickly. If the quitting is point is picked just right, the damages from the "recovery period" will undo all the effects that "complicate the interpretation of data". But to make absolutely sure that there are no surprises from the evil weed, the "post recovery" smoking animals and the controls should be sacrificed before their natural lifespan, then one can eyeball and count the lesions and other physiological changes in the hand picked areas and freely make up scary stories, woven from made up "scientific" words and cherry picked criteria, "scientifically proving" all those horrible damages from "smoking".

So, there you have it -- they are telling you and for all pracitcal purposes forcing you (via unprecedented discrimination, extortion and maltreatment not seen in the West since 1930s, when certain other folks had to wear yellow stars, hide and be ashamed of themselves) to quit, knowing perfectly well that if you quit you will greatly damage your health and shorten your life. Of course, those paying these "scientists" for their services (the pharma and the rest of the 'sickness industry') will make a nice chunk of change on treating all the duped smokers from all the damages of this "recovery" period. The tens of billions made on smoking cessation "therapies" and extra antidepressant sales to former smokers alone, will easily make for the puny few billion they invest annually in antismoking "science" (such as that of Dr. S.S.H.), "grass roots" antismoking loudmouth groups, bribes to politicians, regulators and media to get the bans (and most recently the toxic "Fire Safe Cigarettes") passed. So, if you really feel generous and noble, do quit again to help good Dr. S.S.H., his pals and his bosses make few bucks from treating you. They've all got to pay for their kids' colleges, too.

The most likely explanation of your problems is "witch doctor effect"

cont

Being civilized and scientifically educated person, you may believe yourself immune to such primitive effect (which can kill only some supersitious savages). In fact, you are likely as awed by the "science" of Dr. S.S.H. and other modern medicine men as any naked savage ever was by the "powers" and knowledge of his medicine men. The chronic stress of believing deeply, as you seem to do, that each puff is peeling away your life force, killing you bit by bit, is doing the same kind of damage that kills some savage after his medicine man points a monkey bone at him, shakes it, telling him he will die (unless he submits and pays up to lift the death curse, which is roughly what our medicine men are doing to smokers). Our medicine men use more modern props, but the physiology behind the effectiveness of such 'death curse' is exactly the same for you as it is for the any 'naked savage'. In fact, this deadly effect in modern settings has been quantified on none other than smokers and the 'death curse' upon them:

>There was a study in Heidelberg, described by Professor Eysenck in Psychological Reports (1989) in which 528 men were asked whether they, as smokers, were convinced that they would be very likely to develop lung cancer, heart disease, or other 'smoking related diseases'.
>The 72 who answered 'yes', while admitting that their views were taken from information in the media, had an almost THREE TIMES HIGHER DEATH RATE at the end of 13 years than those who were not so influenced.
>Fear can kill. This has been known since disease was first studied. We are entitled to wonder how many people have been killed more by the fear of 'smoking related diseases' than by any actual disease itself.
(from a book "Murder a Cigarette: the Smoking Debate" by J. Hatton, R. Harris)

cont...