The ritualistic use of plant smoke stretches back to the prehistorical era and is still used, the world over, as a way of ‘cleansing’ the spirit. Now modern scientific research reveals that the practice may actually have life-saving implications by purifying the air of harmful bacteria.
Medicinal smoke reduces airborne bacteria (2007).
Abstract:
This study represents a comprehensive analysis and scientific validation of our ancient knowledge about the effect of ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products’ smoke for therapy and health care on airborne bacterial composition and dynamics, using the Biolog microplate panels and Microlog database. We have observed that 1h treatment of medicinal smoke emanated by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs (havan sámagri=material used in oblation to fire all over India), on aerial bacterial population caused over 94% reduction of bacterial counts by 60 min and the ability of the smoke to purify or disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner was maintained up to 24h in the closed room. Absence of pathogenic bacteria Corynebacterium urealyticum, Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens, Enterobacter aerogenes (Klebsiella mobilis), Kocuria rosea, Pseudomonas syringae pv. persicae, Staphylococcus lentus, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. tardicrescens in the open room even after 30 days is indicative of the bactericidal potential of the medicinal smoke treatment. We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to completely eliminate diverse plant and human pathogenic bacteria of the air within confined space.
This has been known for a very long time. Fumigation with wood smoke has long been used as an insecticide, a bactericide, and a fungicide.
Even birds use cigarettes and cigarette smoke for these purposes.
I can only suppose that our modern capnophobic medical profession has simply forgotten all about the practice of fumigation, or – more likely – suppressed the knowledge.
Now that we no longer have these benefits of smoke, one can only suppose that insects and bacteria and fungi can multiply freely in our ‘smoke-free’ hospitals, and that some terrible epidemic will ensue.
Frank Davis 
MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), a bacteria that has evolved to be resistant to many antibiotics has become quite a big problem in hospitals (of all places) in the past ten or so years. I’m now curious to know how it reacts in the presence of cigarette smoke.
I suspect that if someone did research this subject, and found that cigarette smoke did act as a bactericide on MRSA (which wouldn’t surprise me at all), the report would be suppressed and discredited.
One thing you can be sure of is that the anti-smoking medical profession is never going to hold up their hands and admit they were wrong. They would rather see people die of infection than admit any benefits of smoking.
Nisakiman , this very year they have published new studies to prove that smoking makes MRSA even worse, so I think you may well be right.
Cigarette smoke makes MRSA worse
2015
“Cigarette smoke functions much like an alarm to the superbug MRSA, warning it to activate its defenses, according to a new study led by UC San Diego scientists.
In lab studies in human cells and whole mice, MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) bacteria exposed to cigarette smoke extract become harder to kill, said Dr. Laura E. Crotty Alexander, a pulmonologist at UCSD and the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System.
Crotty Alexander is senior author of the paper, published Monday in the journal Infection and Immunity.
The study is similar to one published last May, in which the effects of e-cigarette vapor on bacterial resistance was examined.”
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/apr/02/cigarette-smoking-mrsa-crotty-alexander-ucsd/
The question is, why now?
I found this, this morning while looking up MRSA to see if there was anything new.
As stigmatising and socially isolating sections of the public is the new Public Health approach, some scientists are worrying about it spreading to other groups.
With special references to the “denormalisation” of people who smoke, this study is a fascinating read.
The story hit the headlines here last month so it is hardly a secret now.
Debate
The stigmatization dilemma in public health policy-the case of MRSA in Denmark
2nd January 2015
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/15/640
Just a taste.
“What is stigmatization? The locus classicus is Erving Goffman’s characterisation of stigmatization. In his interpretation, stigmatization involves the act of attributing a person with a discreditable trait that makes the person seem inferior or dangerous–ultimately something less than human–in light of an underlying ideology [1]. The ‘virtual’, social identity formed by these attributes is then subjected to various forms of discrimination resulting in the person being cut off from society [1].
Building on Goffman, a recent analysis suggests that stigmatization has five elements [2]: First, the social identification of a difference between persons and the labelling of this difference;
Second, the linking of differences with negative stereotypes, i.e. linking a person to what is consciously or pre-consciously associated with undesirable characteristics;
Third, the segregation of the labelled person from the labelling person, i.e. a separation of individuals into “us” and “them”;
Fourth, the loss of social status and discrimination, and:
Fifth, the asymmetrical distribution of power. From this perspective stigmatization therefore involves and requires power. If the labelling and stereotyping is to result in segregation and a more general loss of status, but also in more general discrimination, the labelling party must be in a position of social, economic, and political power that allows for stigmatization to happen.
All these elements can be found in historical examples of intentional stigmatization, for instance in the Nazi stigmatization of the Jewish people etc.”
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/15/640
They are worried about what will happen to the farmers and their families.
However, back to the subject.
The other study mentioned in the Facebook article
Medicinal Smokes
2006
“All through time, humans have used smoke of medicinal plants to cure illness. To the best of our knowledge, the ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products’ smoke for therapy and health care have not been studied.
Mono- and multi-ingredient herbal and non-herbal remedies administered as smoke from 50 countries across the 5 continents are reviewed.
Most of the 265 plant species of mono-ingredient remedies studied belong to Asteraceae (10.6%), followed by Solanaceae (10.2%), Fabaceae (9.8%) and Apiaceae (5.3%).
The most frequent medical indications for medicinal smoke are pulmonary (23.5%), neurological (21.8%) and dermatological (8.1%).
Other uses of smoke are not exactly medical but beneficial to health, and include smoke as a preservative or a repellent and the social use of smoke.
The three main methods for administering smoke are inhalation, which accounts for 71.5% of the indications; smoke directed at a specific organ or body part, which accounts for 24.5%; ambient smoke (passive smoking), which makes up the remaining 4.0%.
Whereas inhalation is typically used in the treatment of pulmonary and neurological disorders and directed smoke in localized situations, such as dermatological and genito-urinary disorders, ambient smoke is not directed at the body at all but used as an air purifier.
The advantages of smoke-based remedies are rapid delivery to the brain, more efficient absorption by the body and lower costs of production.
This review highlights the fact that not enough is known about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form.
Furthermore, this review argues in favor of medicinal smoke extended use in modern medicine as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17030480
How it works
Validation of smoke inhalation therapy to treat microbial infections.
2008
AIM OF THE STUDY:
“In traditional healing, the burning of selected indigenous medicinal plants and the inhalation of the liberated smoke are widely accepted and a practiced route of administration.
This study elucidated the rationale behind this commonly practiced treatment by examining the antimicrobial activity for five indigenous South African medicinal plants commonly administered through inhalation (Artemisia afra, Heteropyxis natalensis, Myrothamnus flabellifolius, Pellaea calomelanos and Tarchonanthus camphoratus).
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
An apparatus was designed to simulate the burning process that occurs in a traditional setting and the smoke fraction was captured for analysis and bioassay. Methanol and acetone extracts as well as the essential oil (for the aromatic species) were prepared and assayed in parallel with the smoke fraction.
RESULTS:
Antimicrobial data revealed that in most cases, the ‘smoke-extract’ obtained after burning had lower minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values than the corresponding solvent extracts and essential oils. The combustion, acetone and methanol extracts produced different chromatographic profiles as demonstrated for Pellaea calomelanos where several compounds noted in the smoke fraction were not present in the other extracts.
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that the combustion process produces an ‘extract’ with superior antimicrobial activity and provides in vitro evidence for inhalation of medicinal smoke as an efficient mode of administration in traditional healing”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18778765
With regard to MRSA specifically, that “extract” with “superior antimicrobial activity” done by distillation and then broadcast in the air.
“Today distillation is still the most common process of extracting essential oils from plants. The advantage of distillation is that the volatile components can be distilled at temperatures lower than the boiling points of their individual constituents and are easily separated from the condensed water.”
https: //www.naha.org/explore-aromatherapy/about-aromatherapy/how-are-essential-oils-extracted/
Aromatherapy oils ‘kill superbug’
2004
“Essential oils could kill the deadly MRSA hospital ‘superbug’, scientists have claimed.
University of Manchester researchers found three of the oils, usually used in aromatherapy, destroyed MRSA and E.coli bacteria in two minutes.
They suggest the oils could be blended into soaps and shampoos which could be used in hospitals to stop the spread of the superbug.
Hospital-acquired infections, such as MRSA, kill an estimated 5,000 a year.
The Manchester study was triggered when complementary medicine specialists at Christie Cancer Hospital asked university researchers to test essential oils.”
She said: “Our research shows a very practical application which could be of enormous benefit to the NHS and its patients.
“The reason essential oils are so effective is because they are made up of a complex mixture of chemical compounds which the MRSA and other superbug bacteria finds difficult to resist.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4116053.stm
Essential oils ‘combat superbug’
2007
“Tests of new machine at a hospital have found it could be effective in the battle against the superbug MRSA.
Consultants at Wythenshawe Hospital found that using a vaporiser to spray essential oils into the atmosphere killed off micro-organisms.
Airborne bacterial counts dropped by 90% and infections were reduced in a nine-month trial at the burns unit.
The recipe of oils used in the machine was refined by microbiologists at Manchester Metropolitan University”
“However, the researchers say they are unable to reveal which oils carry benefits because of commercial sensitivities”
“There were no MRSA infections in the burns unit while the machine was being used with the recipe of oils.
In the final two months the natural essence blend was removed from the machines and MRSA levels in the air increased – and there was an MRSA outbreak in the ward.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6471475.stm
Lord just think where we could have been scientifically and medically if tobacco control had never existed to induce junk science as the norm………………
That’s not to say some aren’t doing real research its to say those doing junk science are likely doing it simply to get the grant money to support their real work. Which means they sold their professional souls for a dollar and made the deal with the devil/TC.
Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science
Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)
An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!
Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.
Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
one risk factor, including social factors.
Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.
But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an
epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful
to epidemiology.”
But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought
it was public health that mattered!
we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that
Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they
see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through
the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.
Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel
after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Sl-utz and Nutz Implant
Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything
other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack
of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.
The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn
back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of
corporate paid witnesses with selective vision?
Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
lives that selective blindness has caused!
Smoking also has demonstrated beneficial effects on asthma; however all reference to that fact has been purged and countered with extreme propaganda to ensure few know.
How come there are so many conflicting studies on ETS/SHS? Does it depend on who sponsored the study? It took me five Google pages to find this link:
Click to access F2CAQM_Sheet_1.pdf
Actually, the majority of studies on ETS/SHS show no signfificant health risk. The problem is tobacco control surpasses these and the media is either unaware or censors discussion. Getting the word out about the actual situation rather than tobacco control propaganda is the issue. Take a look at Tobacco Control tactics for a start: http://tctactics.org/index.php/Main_Page
That was a great link. I am going to send it to the lawyer representing the bar and restaurant association of Quebec. The Quebec government wants to ban smoking on outside terraces and the bar and restaurant owners association is planning to sue them.
That was a great link. I am going to send it to the lawyer representing the bar and restaurant association of Quebec. The Quebec government wants to ban smoking on outside terraces and the bar and restaurant owners association is planning to sue them.
I just sent an email to Sebastien Sénéchal, the lawyer representing the bar/restaurant owner association of Quebec. I forwarded him your link on tobacco control tactics.
Excellent, I hope it helps… There is a real need to stop tobacco control in their tracks.
Pingback: The Right Stuff | Frank Davis
Pingback: Protected Smokers | Frank Davis