Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

H/T J. Johnson for this link to Joe Vialls’ 10-year-old Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer. I read it about 5 years ago, but my link to it subsequently expired. His view was that blaming smoking for lung cancer was a way of deflecting blame from nuclear fall-out.

…How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical “researchers” suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: “Prove that smoking causes lung cancer”. Real scientists (especially some notable nuclear physicists) smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. The quasi-medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals.

Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect agent (tobacco smoke) must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, “medical science” has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. Yes, you did read that correctly. For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you.

The real scientists had the quasi-medical researchers by the throat, because “pairing” the deadly radioactive particle experiment with the benign tobacco smoke experiment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer. And further, in one large “accidental” experiment they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer.

All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.

Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue-in-cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens (anti-cancer agents) in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens (cancer-causing substances) are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.

Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.”

There are other examples of this. Ronald Fisher, in the Cancer Controversy for example, used data from Doll and Hill’s 1950 London Hospitals study to show that smoking inhaling had a protective effect.

Should not these workers have  let the world know, not only that they had discovered
the cause of lung cancer (cigarettes), but also that they had discovered the means of its
prevention (inhaling cigarette smoke)?

More recently there was an Indian study which found that smokers tended to develop lung cancer after they had given up smoking.

 “We are 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.”

And H/T Rose in the comments below for this one too.

The median interval from cessation to diagnosis was 2.7 years for lung cancer, 24.3 years for prostate cancer, and 10.0 years for patients with myocardial infarction.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

  1. ricky says:

    My old dad was in the RAF – he joined up in 1945 – and his squadron reunions have gradually thinned out. No living members have smoked; all the smokers are dead. This is a statement of fact. I myself am a smoker and have no axe to grind, but as I say, all the living members of his squadron are non-smokers or gave up in the 1960’s. The squadron in question is 502 and flew Meteors and Vampires, the Vampire being a very beautiful conveyance.

  2. Ricky, statistically you seem to be talking of a fairly small group since you’re dealing with one squadron of people who were born back in the 19teens or twenties. Many smokers give up smoking when they hit their 60s and 70s as their general physical health declines due to aging, and (with the encouragement of their doctors and the media) they tend to both blame part of that on their smoking and worry that the various chest pains and such they feel at times might be early signs of heart attacks brought on by continuing to smoke.

    So, it’s not that statistically surprising if a group of ten or twenty 80 to 90+ year olds tends to presently be largely or totally non-smoking… although many of them may have smoked heavily for 40 years or more of their lives. Plus, I’d bet that, if there ARE a significant number still in that group you’re looking at that there are likely a few who still quietly smoke without admitting it.

    – MJM

  3. Regarding smoking as protection against lung cancer, while I think such a thing is unlikely, I *do* see a possible explanatory mechanism that I’ve never seen explored or even alluded to.

    Tobacco smoke *does* contain high concentrations of a number of chemicals that are not good for living tissue in high concentrations. My understanding as a lay person may be a bit off the mark here (and I don’t mind at all if someone who’s more familiar with oncology wants to correct me) but don’t cancer cells tend to grow faster and be “hungrier” in some senses than other cells? And, if that’s true, wouldn’t we expect any newly born cancer cells in the lungs to absorb more than their fair share of “poisons” from inhaled tobacco smoke and thus possibly be killed off at a higher rate than they would be in nonsmokers?

    Of course if 90 were killed but smoking had caused a hundred to be created, then the end result would still be “more lung cancer in smokers.” BUT… if we accept the lag time concept for such cancer cell creation, then it could well be that smokers who quit continue to have a higher rate of cancer cell creation but will have given up the practice that would have been killing those cells.

    As noted: I’m a lay person and my understanding of the above may be FAR off the mark. I’m quite open to hearing contrary information from anyone more qualified in the area.

    – MJM

  4. Rose says:

    16 Mar 1982
    Professor Schrauzer

    Concerning the ‘Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Act of 82“

    G.N. Schrauzer, Ph:D. La Jolla, California

    “I am Professor of Chemistry at the University of California, San Diego. I hold a Ph.D. degree in chemistry from the University of Munich and am the president and founder of the International Association of Bioinorganic Scientists.

    I am a member of several scientific societies, including the American Chemical Society, the Association of Clinical Scientists, and the American Public Health Association. I am the author of approximately 200 research publications and have edited 2 books.

    My main research interests are in cancer-prevention, cancer epidemiology, trace minerals in human and animal nutrition, and various fields of experimental chemistry. I have done pioneering work on the prevention of cancer by the essential trace mineral selenium and in 1978 received a special award from the Santa Clara Section of the American Cancer Society. As a chemist, cancer researcher and American Citizen I wish to comment upon the “Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Act”

    “In this Act, it is stated, among other things, that “smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer in the United States”. In my opinion, what role, if any, smoking plays in the causation of cancer, including lung cancer, has still to be determined.

    Those who claim smoking causes cancer rely upon the reported statistical association and ignore the inconsistencies of the smoking causation theory in the scientific literature.’ For example, to date, no one has ever been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals through exposure to fresh, whole cigarette smoke.

    Moreover, the vast majority of smokers never develop lung cancer and there are serious inconsistencies in the epidemiological evidence and dose-response relationships. For example, a Japanese male smoking 50 cigarettes per day has a lower risk of dying from lung cancer than a British smoking doctor smoking only 1-14 cigarettes per day. In addition, no ingredient or combination of ingredients, as found in tobacco smoke, has been shown to cause human lung cancer.”

    “Since it is probable that the many hundreds of compounds present in smoke interact with each other, it is highly artificial to focus upon the effects of any one ingredient or combination of ingredients in isolation from the others. It has long been known that certain smoke constituents act as anti-carcinogens in test animals.

    For example, tobacco belongs to the selenium accumulating group of plants and selenium has been shown to possess anti-carcinogenic properties.

    Also, constituents of cigarette smoke previously thought to be lacking altogether in carcinogenic activity have recently been found to be anti-carcinogenic when applied with true carcinogens in test animals.”

    “The “findings” in the “Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Act” have not been proven. Moreover, passage of the Act will divert attention from other etiologic leads to the disadvantage of the American Public and the progress of the health sciences.”

    http: //

    Unfortunately though , no matter how good the science if there is even a trace of tobacco money somewhere in your funding, anti-tobacco points it’s gnarled finger.

    Thinking about it, it seems that under such circumstances nobody could ever defend themselves as nobody else is likely to pay for studies out of the goodness of their heart and if they did, they’d be tainted too.

    Very much like in the 16th century, if someone accuses you of being a witch, anyone who says that you are not a witch is accused of being a witch themselves.

    No wonder people keep quiet until after they retire.




  5. Heh heh, good post, you smoking denier (or whatever the official term of abuse for people like us is).

  6. Iro Cyr says:

    Just added Schrauzer to

    The list keeps getting longer, thanks Rose. Consensus my behind!

  7. Rose says:

    On the dismissal of the studies of anyone who has the slightest connection with tobacco, no matter how remote.

    According to this tobacco document, look who was associated rather heavily with Big Oil and the motor trade, who were also under suspicion for causing lung cancer at the time.

    October 23, 1974 MEMORANDUM President Ford’s letter to Jonathan Rhoads, October 18, 1974, is capable of being misunderstood. The UPI story the same day increased the chances, by portraying it as a Presidential initiative against the tobacco industry. (E.g., “President Ford today expressed interest in the possibility of regulating by law the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes. He asked the National Cancer Advisory Board to provide for him by Dec. 1 ‘scientific advice on this important matter of possible concern.”‘)

    What was, in fact, a Presidential slap on the wrist to the NCAB for an unsubstantiated recommendation, is being perceived as a White House move against the tobacco industry. This was the reaction of the antismoking clique, and initially of the tobacco industry. The story was largely ignored by the press, however, but depressed Phillip Morris stock by $100 million….”

    “This “hanging jury” could easily manipulate the President into a box he would have to explain his way out of to his basic conservative, business and anti-regulatory constituency”

    Long-term effect:
    “The tobacco industry is becoming increasingly disturbed by industries which are using smoking as a cover-up for their problems in complying with the Clean Air Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
    Tobacco executives have noted efforts by the oil industry, the automobile industry and others to hide their pollution behind a tobacco smoke screen.”

    Adding to their suspicion is foot dragging of the National Cancer Advisory Board in acting on environmental and occupational cancer, which some scientists and environmental activists regard as ignored and “unindicted co-conspirators” in the case against cancer.
    The NCAB is much more vigorous in its almost single-minded persecution of smoking.

    Precedent effect: Yielding to pressure from the NCAB in regulating cigarettes will open a Pandora’s Box.
    Will the White House want to deal with similar advisory board “scientific assessments” to provide the basis for the regulation of auto exhaust hydrocarbons, occupational fumes, sugar content of breakfast food, etc., etc.

    The membership of the NCAB and the President’s Cancer Panel lends credibility to the tobacco industry’s fears. At the least there is ground for an appearance of possible conflict of interest.

    For example:
    Benno Schmidt; Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel, is on the Board of Directors of four oil companies.

    Jonathan Rhoads is a past president of the American Cancer Society, which GM tycoons Alfred P. Sloan and Charles Kettering set up and nurtured.
    In the early 1950’s the ACS was looking at both cigarette smoking and air pollution as possible causes of lung cancer, but soon dropped air pollution as a target.

    Here is an example of how he has tried to whip other scientists into line on tar and nicotine control: “…every practical means /should/ be used to discourage smoking,” he said, “regardless of the effects this may have on the tobacco industry or the economy…”

    “Mary Lasker is a member of the NCAB and sparkplug for the proposal to regulate the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes.

    E. Cuyler Hammond, Vice President of the American Cancer Society, blazed the trail in the 50’s with his study zeroing in on smoking as the cause of lung cancer. He hasn’t stopped since. Regarding another possible cause, he said:. “There is no relationship whatsoever between lung cancer and air pollution.”
    He has said that the danger from asbestos is limited to only those workers who also smoke.

    According to another document it was Wynder who suggested that cigarettes with lower tar and nicotine should be termed as “Light”, not the industry at all.

    Once again the tobacco industry seems to have taken the route of appeasement instead of being forced to do it by law.
    Hence, these days they get the blame.

    “Dr. Wynder felt that regulatory action should cover the entire spectrum of smoking dependent diseases and that if the 1974 average tar and nicotine contents of cigarettes (18.4 milligrams,and 1.27 milligrams respectively) are acceptable to the majority of smokers, there is no reason they should not be acceptable to all smokers.

    The labeling of cigarettes with a precise tar and nicotine content may not be specifically clear to the consumer, and a qualitative label of °light” may be allocated for all cigarettes below 12 milligrams of tar and 0.8 milligrams of nicotine, hoping that the consumer would find a more immediate signal for his choice.”

    “Dr. Wynder also voiced strong concern that legislative attempts at cigarette regulation would have little chance of being approved ,and expressed his favor for recommendations to encourage voluntary regulation by the cigarette industry”.

    Supreme Court Ruling is Victory for Consumers Deceived by Tobacco Companies About Light Cigarettes – 2007

    “Washington, DC – The U.S. Supreme Court today delivered an important victory for consumers by ruling that a class-action lawsuit against Philip Morris alleging the fraudulent marketing and sale of “light” cigarettes can be heard in state court, in this case in Arkansas.
    In overturning a lower court ruling, the Court unanimously rejected Philip Morris’ argument that such cases should only be heard in federal court because they claimed that tobacco companies acted as “officers” of the United States government in their testing and marketing of light cigarettes.”

    “Only a tobacco company would have the gall to argue that its deceptive practices are government-sanctioned acts.”
    http: //

  8. margo says:

    Thanks for this interesting post, Frank. I too (as you may have realised!) hold the view that, from the very first, smoking has been the deliberately chosen scapegoat, to deflect blame from other cancer-causing substances, notably and especially radioactive materials. I urge everyone to look into the history of nuclear power – atomic bomb testing, the suppression and cover-up of accidents and leakages, and to check out what is really happening, now, at the Fukushima plant, what is being dumped daily into the Pacific ocean, the soil and the air, and how the public has been (and still is being) lied to. USA nuclear plants are in big trouble, too. Cancer, that in the ’50s was rare, now affects one in three of us, and the rates keep rising – despite the massive drop in smoking. Why anyone still believes the ‘science’ on smoking I simply do not know.

    • margo says:

      Meant to add: good sites to investigate include (Low Level Radiation Campaign) and

      • RdM says:

        Extremely interesting in-depth link, thanks;- although it was disconcerting to have audio come on and to have to scroll easily 3/4 of the way down the very information-packed page to find finally that it was coming from an embedded YouTube video that started automatically – by which time, although it was mysteriously compelling in the background, it was almost half-way through;- perhaps something to chat with the webmaster about… I wonder if accidental (accustomed to starting a video at will!) or deliberate that it should start on entering the page.

        Or maybe because I happened to be using an ancient eMac and Camino browser at the time…
        Must check it again on a modern machine & browser… ;=})

  9. Rose says:

    More recently there was an Indian study which found that smokers tended to develop lung cancer after they had given up smoking.

    Frank, as luck would have it, I typed this out the other day.

    Quitters finish first – 2007

    Health warning: giving up smoking can kill

    “The danger of cigarettes is mostly not in smoking them, argues a study by three doctors at the KS Hegde Medical Academy in Mangalore, India. Or, put another way: the danger comes from not smoking. Figuratively blowing smoke in the face of conventional wisdom, the study asks: “Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?”

    Arunachalam Kumar, Kasaragod Mallya and Jairaj Kumar take little for granted. They begin: “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.” But their experience with patients suggests to them a different, seldom-told story. “We are 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.”

    Experience is their guide, numerically speaking. Of the 312 lung cancer patients they treated during a four-year period, 182 had recently quit smoking.

    The report goes into detail. “Each had been addicted to the habit no less than 25 years, smoking in excess of 20 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.”

    But I don’t agree with their conclusion.

    “It is our premise,” say the doctors, “that a surge and spurt in re-activation of bodily healing and repair mechanisms of chronic smoke-damaged respiratory epithelia is induced and spurred by an abrupt discontinuation of habit, goes awry, triggering uncontrolled cell division and tumor genesis.”

    Abruptly, they have lost the extra nitric oxide and carbon monoxide which in my humble opinion is turning out to be the most important things in the smoke, and as we see, the body’s defences seem to break down in apparently healthy people leading to massive inflammation weight gain and insulin problems,leading to diabetes.

    That doesn’t sound like healing to me , more like falling apart.

    “July 14, 2010 (Los Angeles, California) — Much of what people think they know about smoking and lung cancer might be wrong, according to findings presented here at the 11th International Lung Cancer Conference.”

    “Sixty percent of our cohort developed lung cancer despite doing the right thing by stopping smoking over 1 decade ago,” according to the researchers.

    These findings contradict the popular perception that most people with lung cancer are ongoing smokers who did not kick the habit until cancer symptoms appeared, the researchers note”

    “In 1995, California passed one of the first antismoking laws in the nation when it banned smoking in enclosed workspaces.
    This might have encouraged more people to quit smoking than in other parts of the country and might help account for the preponderance of patients in the earlier stages of cancer.”
    http: //

    Another theory, if healthy people find it easy to quit, then they must instinctively know that they are about to become ill at sometime in the future and suddenly choose to give up smoking.

    Spontaneous Smoking Cessation Before Lung Cancer Diagnosis – 2011


    Introduction: We have observed that many patients with lung cancer stop smoking before diagnosis, usually before clinical symptoms, and often without difficulty. This led us to speculate that spontaneous smoking cessation may be a presenting symptom of lung cancer.

    Results: All 115 patients with lung cancer had been smokers. Fifty-five (48%) quit before diagnosis, and only six of these (11%) were symptomatic at quitting. Patients with lung cancer who quit were as dependent on nicotine, when smoking the most, as those who continued to smoke, unlike the other groups.

    Despite this, 31% quit with no difficulty. The median interval from cessation to diagnosis was 2.7 years for lung cancer, 24.3 years for prostate cancer, and 10.0 years for patients with myocardial infarction.

    Conclusions: These results challenge the notion that patients with lung cancer usually quit smoking because of disease symptoms.

    The hypothesis that spontaneous smoking cessation may be a presenting symptom of lung cancer warrants further investigation”.

    But no one is left alone to make their own decision about whether to stop smoking these days, life is made ever more difficult for them until they do.

    This may be one of the reasons why things sometimes go wrong after quitting.

    “Nitric oxide is a naturally occurring molecule that is utilised by the immune system as a means of “chemical warfare” to attack cancerous cells. This proposal aims to design molecules that will mimic the action of this natural defensive mechanism by releasing nitric oxide inside cancer cells in response to externally applied light.”
    http: //

    “The odorless, colorless and highly reactive simple radical nitric oxide (NO) has steadily gained a significant impetus over the past several decades.

    NO, an air pollutant produced from fuel burning, became the journal of Science ‘molecule of the year’ in 1992 (1) as a result of the discovery of its wide array of biological functions, including smooth muscle
    relaxation, inhibition of platelet aggregation, and neuro-transmission.

    Six years later Drs Furchgott, Ingnarro and Murad shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine for their major discoveries surrounding NO .

    In 1997, the Academic Press began the publication of the Journal Nitric Oxide: Biology and Chemistry, which is the official journal of the Nitric Oxide Society.

    Nitric Oxide has been the sole subject of several books and numerous review articles.

    Over the past decade, nitric oxide has emerged as a molecule of interest in carcinogenesis and tumor growth suppression.”
    http: //

    But it’s possible cancer killing properties are still subject to dispute

    • Rose, your research is excellent as always! I’ve been looking for a similar study for some years after I first came across it and then lost the link when I changed computers. But -sadly – I don’t think this is the actual one. The one I’ve been searching for was from China I recall. Have been mentioning to people in vague terms: ‘there were these doctors in China who said you died if you stopped smoking…’…to which they said ‘Yeah? Link?’
      Any ideas?

      • Rose says:

        I don’t think I’ve seen that one, now I’m intrigued.

        I do have this one.from Hong Kong.

        Is Chinese Incense Smoke Hazardous to Respiratory Health?

        “To evaluate its effects on respiratory health, data from an air pollution cross-sectional study of 346 primary school children and their 293 non-smoking mothers, and a lung cancer case-control study of 189 female patients and 197 district matched controls who had ever been married were analysed.

        No association was found between exposure to incense burning and respiratory symptoms like chronic cough, chronic sputum, chronic bronchitis, runny nose, wheezing, asthma, allergic rhinitis, or pneumonia among the three popu lations studied: i.e. primary school children, their non-smoking mothers, or a group of older non-smoking female controls.
        Incense burning did not affect lung cancer risk among non-smokers, but it significantly reduced risk among smokers, even after adjusting for lifetime smoking amount. ”

        Presumably that’s compared to the official estimated risk for smokers.

    • Rose, amazing quote from Wynder! You really DO have to wonder what’s up with Big Tobacco’s lawyers, between them failing to block Glantz and the Insider documents, the acceptance of the MSA’s provisions, and the cave-in on the “lights” stuff (It’s not just Wynder either: you also had governments talking about (or even implementing?) differential taxation for light cigarettes.) Heh, maybe Big T is planning a final Uber-Retirement party for itself by a reverse class-action suit against all trial lawyers for malpractice, misfeasance, and nonfeasance!

      I was re-reading Sullum’s “For Your Own Good” the other day (Worth doing for anyone if it’s been a while: I had forgotten just how much good stuff he had in that book!) and ran across an amazing quote:

      “There’s no reason there can’t be smoking cars on trains, and smoking rooms in public places.”

      Nope. Not Mr. Philip Morris or RJ Reynolds….

      John Banzhaf! “’Please Put Your Cigarette Out; the Smoke Is Killing Me!” Today’s Health, April 1972, 38–41.”

      Pretty amazing eh? Ranks right up there with the Brit MP quote about “no one is talking about banning smoking in pubs.” (who was that again?)

      – MJM

      • Rose says:

        This one, MJM?

        Letter to The Publican re. protecting employees from passive smoking
        7th June 1999

        Dear Editor

        Re: smoking in pubs

        It is true that the Health and Safety Executive is developing a new Approved Code of Practice to deal with passive smoking in the workplace (Pubs face new smoking bans, Code is a blow, 7th June 1999). All the ACOP will do is provide meaningful guidance on how the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) should be applied to tobacco smoke in the workplace. This law already exists and has no exemptions for the hospitality industry. The ACOP will clarify the law and help publicans comply with it.

        A new ACOP would not mean that all smoking must be banned in pubs.

        The heart of the law is that employers have an obligation to do what is reasonably practicableto reduce their employees’ exposure. That could include segregation,ventilation, banning smoking at the bar or other measures. It also means the ‘do nothing and ignore it’ approach is not an option. The best approach for any pub is to wholeheartedly embrace the Charter agreed by the Government and trade bodies such as ALMR and BII and to do what is reasonable and practical to protect their employees. That is good professional business, and it should not be a cause for alarm, despair or resistence.

        Yours sincerely,
        Clive Bates

        • Thanks Rose, but I actually hadn’t seen that one! :) I’m pretty sure there’s another, actually from the head of one of the Brit parties back around 2004/05 that was VERY close to “no one is talking about banning smoking in pubs.”

          – MJM

        • lordsid says:

          Michael, I saw that again a short time ago-can’t think of where exactly though.Perhaps F2C?.If memory serves,the speaker may have been ASH UK-though either or both could have said it.I might have it in my files but I sometimes get lost in those. :-)

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Since we are talking about fallout radiation and since radiation in extreme doses is the only thing ever proven to cause cell change ie cancerous cells it beckons to report the following:

    The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

    Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 15 mrem

    Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) – 300 mrem

    Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 300 mrem

    Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid

    Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

    Average Annual Total
    361 mrem/year

    Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

    Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh!


    Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid

    Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

    18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking!

  11. garyk30 says:

    Also, American CDC data shows that current smokers and neversmokers have the same. Chance of not getting lung cancer.
    CompaRed to a smoker, a neversmoker has only 1.0005 increased chance of not getting lung.
    9998/10, 000 nevedsmokers do not get lung cancer.
    9997/10, 000 current smokers do not get lung cancer.

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Then again weve all read the cot report before but just for those who havent here it is:

    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.

    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

    Proof is something that just doesnt exist! For every claim they make genetically that supposed tobacco causes we find that its the same old things again only with CMV and all those same genetic coded findings they make are also implicated in other diseases ie viruses and bacterial infections! Epigenic changes is what they are pushing now! But even in that respect those changes disapear out of nowhere all to often. They simply have no clue those who are predisposed and those who arent! If we look at 94% of smokers dont get LC obviously the genetic codes in those who do get it needs close cross comparison for familia genetic coding across the board in those individuals to look for distinct genetic markers of faulty human genes that pre dispose these people to LC or for that matter any cancers!

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Mummies’ clogged arteries take smoking, fatty foods, lethargy out of the mix

    By Tom Valeo, Times Correspondent

    Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:30am

    You do everything right: You exercise every day, include lots of fruits and vegetables in your diet, never smoke, minimize the stress in your life and take medication to keep your cholesterol and blood pressure under control. You’re preventing modern life from ruining your heart, right? • Well, maybe modern life isn’t as much of a problem as merely living. CT scans of 137 ancient mummies from three continents show that our ancestors had plaque in their arteries, too, even though they never smoked, never tasted ice cream or pork rinds, and had no choice but to exercise vigorously every day of their lives.

    According to the study, which appeared recently in the Lancet, at least one-third of the mummies, who lived as long as 5,000 years ago, had arteries that had narrowed as a result of atherosclerosis — the buildup of fatty deposits in the arterial wall. Apparently the cardiovascular system has a tendency to clog up over time.

    “Our research shows that we are all at risk for atherosclerosis, the disease that causes heart attacks and strokes,” said Gregory Thomas, medical director of the MemorialCare Heart & Vascular Institute, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, and one of the authors of the study. “The data we gathered about individuals from the prehistoric cultures of ancient Peru and the Native Americans living along the Colorado River and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands is forcing us to look for other factors that may cause heart disease.”

    The diet of the mummies varied widely, but contained ample protein and vegetables (and presumably no cupcakes or pork rinds). Aside from the few Egyptian mummies who lived their lives as pampered royalty, these ancient people used their muscles constantly.

    Yet, the atherosclerosis was found in mummies who died in what we today would consider middle age (almost none made it to 60). And just as today, their arteries became more narrow as they got older. CT scans of modern people have demonstrated that after the age of 60 for men and 70 for women, some degree of atherosclerosis is all but universal. One large study found that teens ages 15 to 19 showed early signs of atherosclerosis, and 50 percent already had conspicuous accumulations of plaque.

    “All of us age in every tissue of our body,” says Dr. Donald LaVan, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a spokesman for the American Heart Association. “It’s just a question of how rapidly it happens. There’s nothing you can do to stop aging. All you’re trying to do is prevent it from advancing faster than it should.”

    The authors of the paper agree. “Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern humans raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease,” they concluded.

    So what can we do to thwart that predisposition?

    Above all, don’t smoke, says LaVan, and engage in regular physical activity.

    “After that, we’re in the realm of treating disease,” he says. “If your lipids are up or you have hypertension, take care of it. If you have problems with rhythm disturbances, that must be treated, too, because it impairs the ability of heart to pump efficiently. We’re looking at common sense here, but getting patients to do these things is tough.”

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    Study: live to 100 by defying all health advice

    Einstein College recently studied folks who lived past age 95. The reluctantly reported result: “People who live to 95 or older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits.”

    Einstein College press release:

    Did you notice in link above that they just state that the very old smoked about as much as did people who died younger, with no detail given, although detail is given regarding eating, boozing, exercise, and so on? Well, when it came to publishing the abstract with the National Institutes of Health, they ignore smoking results entirely! They do say that smoking was studied, but make no mention whatsoever that smoking was not shown to impair longevity: again, as with the press release, precise detail is given regarding other studied factors, but when it came to smoking — the holy taboo of all holy taboos — they simply couldn’t bear even to mention their own finding!

    Here it is: the official NIH abstract:

    You’d probably have to pay about $50 to buy the full study from the Wiley service where it’s posted. But you don’t have to. A reporter for an independent publication who read the study tells us that about 74% of 70-year old men smoked and that smokers still made up the majority of over-95 men at 60%, while 26% of 70-year-old women smoked and a greater proportion of about 30% of over-95 women smoked, and that, all-in-all, the oldest folks did not particularly follow any of the Healthist advice to exercise, eat “healthy”, or avoid booze and tobacco.

    The news article: … pectations

    Did you note the researcher’s conclusion: “Although this study demonstrates that centenarians can be obese, smoke and avoid exercise … We should watch our weight, avoid smoking and be sure to exercise, since these activities have been shown to have great health benefits for the general population, including a longer lifespan.”

  15. Tony says:

    This talk of stopping smoking triggering lung cancer reminds me of this post from GF on Catch17:

    S.S. Hecht, Carcinogenesis 2005 26(9):1488
    [p.1489]…The animals were exposed for 5 months, then allowed a 4 month recovery period…. The increases in tumor multiplicity were generally small, from ~1 tumor per mouse to ~2.8, following exposure to 50-170 mg/m3 of total suspended particulates. The increase in tumor multiplicity observed in this model was due to a component of the gas phase of tobacco smoke….The 4-month recovery period is absolutely necessary for observation of increased lung tumor multiplicity, but the reason for this is not clear.

    Having just re-read the post I thought I’d check out all the references:
    The Hecht paper is here:

    Hecht begins:

    “A new study demonstrates that lifetime whole-body exposure of B6C3F1 mice to high doses of cigarette smoke robustly increases lung cancer incidence compared with
    sham exposed animals. This is the first study to demonstrate a strong effect of inhaled cigarette smoke on lung cancer in an animal model.“

    And it does indeed contain the quote about recovery period. But that is in reference to an earlier paper::
    “Witschi,H. (2005) A/J mouse as a model for lung tumorigenesis caused
    by tobacco smoke: strengths and weaknesses.”

    Hecht’s paper is really a review of all previous (failed) attempts to produce lung cancer in animals by by forcing them to smoke.

    However the new study he’s referring to had not yet been published but has now:

    Having only just seen this I haven’t really had time to read and analyse it properly. But it does claim a significantly higher rate of lung cancer amongst smoking mice. On the other hand it also shows (fig 1) that the smoking mice lived around 10% longer than the sham exposed ones.

    • Nightlight says:

      Tony, check page 3 of the study – survival curves: at the end more than twice as many smoking mice were alive than non-smoking. These are mice bred to get cancers throughout body and the effect of tobacco no blood supplies (nicotine stimulates angiogenesis) redistributes their genetically caused cancers so there are more where there was more nicotine hence more blood vessels. But the net effect is protective, as survival curve shows. The perversely named “recovery” period is added to remove this protection, while leaving the vascular effect to redistrbute the cancers.

      See a thread where all this was discussed for several more papers with similar outcomes:

  16. limbo says:

    of course, the center for disease control, and hundreds of thousands independent scientists and doctors must be incorrect!

    It’s sad that you are SO addicted to your disgusting habit you believe anything and fool yourself into thinking it’s fine to continue.

    Typical signs of an addict.

    • Limbo, actually, a quick analysis of the language in your posting would lead me to speculate that you yourself are exhibiting typical signs of a sufferer of ASDS, AntiSmokers’ Dysfunction Syndrome. It can be a serious problem, not just for yourself but for your family and any who might interact with you on either a regular or even an occasional basis.

      You can recover from it, although it’s not easy. To start with, I’d recommend reading Stephanie Stahl’s “Recovery from ASDS” at:

      After that, you might want to check out my own “Brains” and a few of the other fine Free Choice books that are available. It may be hard reading at first — the information and reasoning are likely to go against a good bit of your indoctrination — but stick with it and eventually things will start to get better.

      Michael J. McFadden
      Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

    • BrianB says:

      So, you are ‘limbo’ now are you?

      From the content of your post and the link you attached it is clear that you posted under the name of ‘jon’ on Simon Clark’s blog the other day:

      Since I took time out to reply to you there – without the concomitant courtesy of a reply from you – I have now provided you with a second opportunity to read something other than the CDC’s propaganda. Maybe, y’know, you might learn something. I doubt you could recognise truth, though.

      Typical signs of a troll. Are you paid or unpaid? An ASH member, perhaps?

      Now that really is a “disgusting habit”.

  17. wobbler2012 says:

    Frank you’re a good man and in general I agree with you, but this is just insane. Inhaling smoke all day every day cannot possibly “protect” you against anything. Posting crap like this just attracts idiots like limbo above.

    • Junican says:

      Why should ‘inhaling smoke all day every day’ NOT ‘protect’? How do you know that it does not? Where is your proof?

      • wobbler2012 says:

        With the best will in the world mate inhaling smoke into the lungs every day cannot be good for it. I’m very pro smoking/pro choice/anti nanny-state but I can’t help but feel that claims like this give the anti-smoking idiots ammunition. I call BS on this article.

        • Wobbler, there’s a big difference between claiming that smoking is ‘good for the lungs’ and saying that in some areas, at some times, and in some concentrations it can have beneficial effects. Do those effects balance out the harms generally? I don’t think so, at least not on a physical level (although once psycho/socio benefits are counted in the story might be different.)

          But *SOMETIMES* smoking CAN have particular benefits — even if they DON’T balance wider range harms for most people.

          E.G. despite the speculations about nuclear tests and roadway pollution, the almost universally huge RR’s linking smoking and lung cancer have always seemed pretty convincing to me. Could they be exaggerated? Yeah, but I think they’re still there to some extent. Could giving up smoking trigger near term lung cancer? I have some doubts about whether it’s true, but it’s certainly possible. Is the effect likely to be strong enough to mean that people worried about lung cancer should NOT give up smoking? No idea: the data and reasoning I’ve seen introduce enough uncertainty that it’s possible, particularly if the person is older.

          I agree with you that going on at length about the benefits of smoking does make it more difficult to get the more certain messages about the lunacy of bans based on ETS exposure listened to seriously though. The benefits can be pointed out within certain arguments, but emphasizing them is certainly not our strongest general play.

          – MJM

    • Frank Davis says:

      There’s nothing insane about it. There is some Canadian research I’ve read that suggested that inhaling tobacco smoke increased mucus in the lung’s airways, and this increased mucus made it harder for toxins or radioactive particles to find their way inside the body. The smoker’s lungs had, as it were, an extra layer of protection, much like an extra layer of clothes or armour. Non-smokers lacked this protection, of course.

      Also, you should bear in mind that smoke is bacteriocidal, fungicidal, and insecticidal. Pretty much all wood smoke is, and has regularly been used for this purpose (until recently).

      There are, in short, advantages to smoking as well as disadvantages.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.

        The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ”

        • Harley, link didn’t make it through. Try pasting it as “plain text” (option shows up when you’ve got stuff in your buffer and your right click to paste instead of using control-V.)


        • peki says:

          I’m glad you can copy and paste from scientific articles, it does indeed make you appear smart. It’s a shame in reality you are not.

          Nicotine is not the issue in smoking, and as far as I am aware, nicotine is not a dangerous substance, especially in the quantities in cigarettes. Smoking does contain nicotine, but that’s not all that is in a cigarette.

          Use Google and search for “combustion of tobacco”, you may learn a thing or two. And don’t worry, it won’t have as many big a complicated words as you found in that article, so you may be able to read and understand some of it.

    • Philip Neal says:

      Richard Doll admitted that inhalters get less cancer:
      Doll and Peto 1976: Mortality in relation to- smoking : Zo years’ observations –on
      male British doctors
      Doll and Peto 1978: Cigarette smoking and bronchial carcinoma: dose and
      time relationships among regular smokers and lifelong

      The 1978 paper is noteworthy for introducting a theory of carcinogenesis quite different from Doll’s earlier ideas and supposedly validating it by omitting several data points from their analysis.

    • Nightlight says:

      Tobacco smoke does protect against lung and others cancer as shown in many animal experiments you haven’t heard about from media or your doc. Check the links here for papers on those experiments:

  18. Pingback: Strange days. | underdogs bite upwards

  19. Messalina says:

    Excellent find, Frank. I recall reading a similar article but it was an old one and I lost the link. Thanks for posting.

  20. Nightlight says:

    Frank, the claims in the Vialls article, whille true, are based (without citations, though) on papers cited at links #1 and #2 from the “Smoking is good for you” longecity thread:

    Since Vialls wrote lots lots strange material, his claims are vulnerable to ad hominem attacks, even when independently demonstrable as they are in this case. The original papers you will find cited above should be more convincing.

  21. Kathleen says:

    So, if what you’re saying is true, I shouldn’t stop smoking and should encourage others similarly?

  22. peki says:

    Why talk about mice and rat studies when HUMANS have been smoking for generations and statistics are available which show causes of deaths and whether people are smokers or non-smokers. If no causal relationship existed, then this would have been discovered and published in scientific literature. The fact that it is not is proof alone. Now if you think all scientists are involved in some sort of conspiracy, or that they fake results/ignore facts due to funding (which is what global warming sceptics claim) then this too is incorrect.

    Nothing more needs to be said because what you say is utter rubbish.

  23. halloween3 says:

    Most people will believe anything the government or the AMA [medical association] puts out even when it is NOT true. There is money to be made by someone and people are easy brainwashed. A lot of people smoke most of their life and never get lung cancer.

  24. I know a lot of smokers who, despite anything written by anybody, believe this. Hey, they are happy for this belief knowing that they will probably never quit anyway.
    One thing’s for sure: if thumb sucking was socially acceptable there’d be a lot fewer smokers and many more able to quit.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.