Stop Smoking, Get Sick

H/T Nightlight: Samples from Quit Smoking A Year Ago – Sick Ever Since!

1 . Hi, since I quitted smoking a year ago, I have only been feeling more and more sick. I don’t have enough energy for routine activities, feel exhausted, I gained weight and lost self-confidence. Why is this happening?

2. I quit cigarettes 4 months ago and I’m sick all of the time. I mean as in sever sore throat, congestion, respiratory infections, etc. I’ve been to the doctor multiple times and they say my lungs are fine but I have bacterial infections. Well, I’ve had 5 of them in a row now and they always end up in my respiratory system.
Is this normal? I smoked a pack a day for 17 years before I quit. I hope this doesn’t stay this way forever because I’m not sure how much more of this I can take.

3. I quit smoking about 5 months ago. I have spent the last three months fighting cold/flu like symptoms. I went to the local med center when it first started because it felt like a strep infection. They told me I was fine, just a little cold.
It would go away for a few days, only to come right back.
I finally gave up and went to my doctor. He told me that what I was experiencing was like a detox effect. Not everyone goes through it, but it isn’t that uncommon. He wanted to avoid giving me any type of inhaler or nasal spray because this could pass as quickly as it started.
Just knowing why I feel the way I do, and knowing that it isn’t going to last for ever is making all the difference.
Why don’t people tell you about this?
I joined to quit assist programs and no one warned me that this could happen. I just wish I could have been prepared.

4. I has certainly been a long ride for me. My body had gone through a significant period of physical and mental struggle once I quit smoking cold turkey after over 20 years. I too had bacterial infections of throat , skin issues (guttate psoriasis), prolonged nausea (for months) and elevated anxiety. I had to seek medical help for the latter and thank God it worked.

And there’s at least 10 more pages of this. Nightlight writes:

This is something sickness industry doesn’t tell fellow smokers when they bully them into quitting — many people, especially nowadays, get very sick after quitting with myriad of ailments. Back in the old days when nearly everyone was smoking this wasn’t the case with quitting, since many were smoking as a social habit or for the minor boost of mood. But as the pressures on and abuses of smokers ramped up, the only ones left still smoking are largely those that truly need it as a medicine that nothing else can substitute. As soon as they quit, their latent health problems they were self-medicating with tobacco go out of control.

These ailments are mostly chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases that were kept in check with tobacco smoke (plain nicotine also has anti-inflammatory effects, but weaker than the full tobacco smoke), depression, anxiety, loss of concentration/ADHD, asthma, bacterial & viral infections (tobacco smoke boosts by 20% neutrophiles, which are the front-line defense against microorganisms), toxicities (heavy metals, alcohol,…; tobacco smoke boosts glutathione by 80%, nearly doubles catalase and SOD), obesity, diabetes, etc. Some get lung cancer not long after quitting.

Coincidentally (not really), these poor folks quickly become the best customers for the same sickness industry which brought this whole health meltdown upon them.

I can well believe the strep infections. Tobacco smoke is bactericidal and fungicidal, and once someone stops smoking, bacterial infections must be almost inevitable.

But, aside from that, I think that changing any lifetime habit at all, not just smoking, is likely to throw a body’s ecosystem out of equilibrium. A change of diet, of climate, of residence, of job, could just as easily trigger off some disorder.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

32 Responses to Stop Smoking, Get Sick

  1. cherie79 says:

    I personally know of six people who developed cancer usually lung or colon after stopping long term smoking. Others who developed heart problems and other illnesses too. There is an article called ‘smoking out the facts’ which give some possible explanations for this which make sense to me. It is quite common to be ill with various infections for a couple of years after but, as said, they don’t tell you about that.

    • smokingscot says:

      Agreed, though I only know of one who quit then developed lung cancer.

      One thing I suspect is the REASON why people quit. If they enjoyed smoking but were forced to do so because they could no longer afford the price of cigarettes, then there are real issues that I feel are largely overlooked.

      Low self esteem, feelings of failure, envy of others and many other negative emotions. Add that lot into the mix of the physiological and psychological changes that take place when you quit, plus habits of a lifetime, like avoiding coffee and strong flavours and perhaps, just maybe you’ve got the basic ingredients for things to go awry in the body.

      • cherie79 says:

        Ironically one of them was a friend who gave up after 45 years when I was dx with lung cancer, I didn’t and have been fine for the past five years while he contracted colon cancer within six months!

    • James Smith says:

      Hey cherie79, The reason people quit smoking or drinking on their own is they know they are already sick and when quitting doesn’t cure them they go to the Doc and are diagnosed with the disease they were afraid they had that made them quit in the first place.

      • cherie79 says:

        Hi James,
        I have read that theory too and there may be some truth in it for some people. It seems to relate to people who suddenly and easily stop after many decades of smoking. No one really stops smoking easily so being able to do so seems to be a warning that something is wrong. There is a good article called ‘smoking out the facts’ in a Canadian publication that elaborates better than I can if you can locate it. I know lung cancer sufferers who have never smoked and smokers who live to a ripe old age so who knows.

  2. rattyariel says:

    I’ve been smoking since 1969. I have had very few colds – far less than anyone else I know. The only time I’ve ever had bronchitis was during the three-month period in the late ’90s when I quit smoking. My non-smoking friends seems to get colds, bronchitis – and even things like pneumonia/walking pneumonia – all the time. I haven’t had as much as a cold in over a decade. I’ve never had pneumonia. I am, in fact, physically healthier, at age 65, than any of my same-or-similar-age non-smoking friends.

  3. jaxthefirst says:

    I also know loads of people who have suffered nothing but ill health – sometimes minor, sometimes not-so-minor – after giving up smoking. One friend of mine suffered with chronic stuffiness and sinusitis for four whole years before going back, with no small sense of relief, to smoking and – you guessed it – within a week her symptoms had vanished. A colleague, who had given up seven years previously, said that, almost to the day that he quit, he’d been constantly plagued with mouth ulcers which he never had before, but which he now has virtually all the time. A third (my brother-in-law, actually), who gave up eight years ago, has developed terrible trouble with his teeth, has lost two and suffers constantly with tooth and gum problems which no dentist seems able to put right for him, having previously had a very filling-free set of knashers. He’s also – more worryingly – developed sudden, medically inexplicable (he’s had all the tests) crippling pains in his groin and left leg which occur at random and, literally, stop him in his tracks. Another colleague found, rather mysteriously, that as soon as he gave up smoking he had terrible trouble with his feet and ankles, because they suddenly started retaining water and swelling at an alarming rate, such that he then developed uncomfortable corns and callouses which were so severe that he often couldn’t even get his shoes on. Needless to say, when he returned to smoking, his feet returned to their normal size!

    The bad-teeth scenario seems to be a particularly regular complaint from ex-smokers in my experience. I’ve known many who have lost several teeth shortly after giving up or who have suddenly started having dental problems that they never had before, and I’ve often wondered whether, as you say Frank, it’s the bactericidal qualities of nicotine which keep the nasties at bay. I’ve heard it said that human mouths are pretty dirty places generally compared to many other mammals, most of whom have much more efficient saliva than we do, which is why it’s so much more important for us to brush and floss and go for regular dental check-ups than it is for other animals. I’ve also noticed that all the people I know who have halitosis (real halitosis, I mean, not just a temporary smell from having had a pint of beer, or a cigarette, or a garlicky meal in the last 15 minutes) are all non-smokers. Which is ironic, when you consider how the antis have tried so hard to associate smoking with bad teeth by printing a picture of “meth-mouth” (a condition not associated with tobacco at all) on cigarette packets.

    And of course, more generally, despite all the rhetoric about “days lost because of smoking-related illnesses,” it’s very notable, certainly in my workplace, that all the people who are regularly absent from work because of colds or flu or sore throats or chest infections do tend to be the non-smokers. All of the smokers in our workplace fly through the cold and flu season largely unscathed, for some inexplicable reason. Surely we should all be pretty much bedridden from October until March if all the antis’ accusations about what a sickly lot we are were true?

    More seriously, though, I have known at least four people who have given up smoking and then gone on to develop cancer within a remarkably short space of time. Coincidence? Hmmm. I’m not convinced. I know the old argument about it “taking time for the risk to drop to the levels of a non-smoker,” but it does seem illogical that the precise time that a person has done the very thing which (so we are told) should start to diminish their chances of developing cancer should just happen to also be the time that the disease decides to appear! It just doesn’t add up. I think that cancer is much more complicated than that, and that it is often “kick started” by stress, and, when a body has got used to something, whether that’s nicotine, or alcohol, or caffeine, or meat, or anything else – and even if that substance is putting a bit of strain on the system – taking it away too suddenly puts the body into a state of shock, which is never good. It’s a bit like an army who’ve been sitting in a country waiting for the battle to start and then – all of a sudden – the Major-General turns up and says: “All bets are off, chaps – we’ve signed a treaty with the enemy. The battle’s not going to happen.” So, what happens then? Well, all that pent-up tension and energy and adrenaline which would have been directed toward battle action can’t just be “switched off” like a tap. It has to come out somewhere else. So the army goes out, gets drunk, gets into fights, damages property and generally behaves badly. And I think a similar mechanism takes place internally when a body, having got used to gearing up all its resources to coping with what’s been put into it – bad or good – for many years, suddenly finds that it hasn’t got to cope with that substance any more. But a body can’t go out and get drunk and have a punch-up to relieve its tension; its only option is to turn those resources inwards and start either fighting itself (e.g. developing cancer) or over-fighting any other invaders (e.g. bacteria or viruses) which come its way. Hence the reason why minor illnesses which smokers seem to shrug off easily, such as colds or flu or sore throats, seem to render ex-smokers prone for days or weeks on end.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I can’t say that my teeth are perfect specimens. I’ve got more crowns than I have real teeth, and most of the real ones are chock full of fillings. And I’ve even got two false ones. What does slightly puzzle me is that my sole surviving intact, unfilled teeth are a band of 4 hardened veteran lower front incisors. And yet these are the very teeth that have been in the front line facing the daily impact from my smoking and tea-drinking over the past 50 years.

      As for people developing cancer when they stop smoking, there was a fairly recent Indian study where the researchers pointed out exactly this.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        soda pop and its sugars are the culprit in tooth losses. When you swallow they go right over the top of the mid teeth and waste them away. Then the dentists have a term for it,they call them apple cores. if not dealt with quickly they end up being pulled.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Teeth…. I eventually found out what exactly I have inherited by one of my offspring (never-smoker!) encountering now. Actually, I am far better off than my never-smoking cousin.
        The trait comes from my non-smoking side of the family; the teeth are grooved very pronounced and this explains the abscesses. The fact that I started to smoke at the age of 12 probably saved a lot of my teeth. I do have latent abscesses but they rarely flare up. My cousin had her teeth pulled in her twenties; my offspring already has dental implants.

        As for people developing cancer when they stop smoking, there was a fairly recent Indian study where the researchers pointed out exactly this.
        It is something that has been known for quite a while – don’t bank on the BBC announcing it.
        Apropos BBC – It is beginning to look like Andrew Marr has been phased out. Or, maybe he has pulled the plug. I did like him when he worked for ITV – the BBC culled a lot of his individuality. And then, he (40-something old) had a stroke whilst being out jogging…

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    I cant say a whole lot,because of the lyme disease left me with a weakened immune system and I stay sick all to often because of that damned tick bite in the woods during war games for the military………then suffered out 3 years before I got treated and then left as they say forever ill!
    Then I had to fight the Veterans administration for 9 years to win my pension at 100%……..Even they couldn’t deny it in the end especially after a in service treating doctor wrote them and stated we looked for 18 months for what was wrong with him and that was it………..After that I got a complete apology and full back pay for 10 years then,one of the biggest back pays in VA history for a claim!

    So fighting smoking bans for 7-8 years is a breeze……………Im a hardened fighter.

  5. Jude says:

    This is interesting, because I have seen the same in people who have quit smoking, but more particularly, quit nicotine use altogether. I found that I suffered none of these issues when I switched to vaping. I never had many colds or flus as a smoker, and this has continued, to the point where I am the only person in my workplace that has not taken any sick days at all for anything, in the last 3 years. I used to get hayfever every springtime, now I never get it, my sinuses are clear.
    I have had no dental issues from smoking, never had a filling, I often used to wonder whether this is because I had better dental hygiene because I worried about “smokers breath” , or whether was the antibacterial properties of tobacco smoke. The propylene glycol used in vaping liquids also has antibacterial properties, so this again could be protective both against dental issues, and colds, flus etc.

    I don’t know anyone who has quit smoking and gotten cancer soon afterwards, but I am dubious about this being related to quitting, as there is no way to tell if these same people would have gotten cancer anyway, whether they smoked or not, or whether they quit or not. Contrary to the claims of the ANTZ, cancer is pretty random, and the risks from smoking are little more than not smoking. Cancer is used as the “big scary thing” by all anti, (insert pleasurable product here), to cause fear in the population, and to demonise those who don’t follow the fascist prohibitionist ideology.

    What I do find sad is that research into the benefits of nicotine use have been buried in the avalanche of toxic ideology and lies surrounding smoking, and now vaping.

    • woodsy42 says:

      Interesting you should mention hay fever. I was desperately badly affected by grass and flower pollen as an adolescent, to the extent that I avoided going outside on bad pollen days. Smoking was the only effective remedy I ever found.

    • beobrigitte says:

      The propylene glycol used in vaping liquids also has antibacterial properties, so this again could be protective both against dental issues, and colds, flus etc.

      The dental issues, yes. Both,propylene glycol and nicotine have anti-bacterial but no anti-viral properties.
      But then, we need to check out who financed studies in this area.

  6. Lepercolonist says:

    When a fellow employee or acquaintance dies, people ask what caused their death. They say, “Oh, he was a smoker.” Even though he was a morbidly obese, diabetic, hypertensive with a glandular disorder. But you add that he quit smoking 15 years ago. Doesn’t matter. He was a smoker. It’s a label that will never go away. Pathetic society.

    • prog says:

      My mother quit in 1960 and died in 1994 (aged 76).

      Apparently they found hardened arteries. Guess what the doctor told my sister…..

    • beobrigitte says:

      Leper, every cloud has a silver lining.
      It’s a label that will never go away.
      I am beginning to enjoy this label of being a smoker. People are in awe of someone being proud of smoking. (Actually, I think this is funny!!!)
      “Aren’t you worried?” I’m often asked.
      My answer usually is: “About what? The stuff tobacco control&friends come up with? If I am to believe them, I do have to see more research financed by the tobacco industry. Both clearly have an agenda – and tobacco control took the competition out in the 1990s, when universities were lobbied into no longer accepting tobacco industry funds for research. We were then told that the pharmaceutical industry would ‘compensate’ for the loss. Not very successfully, I see. My offspring had to pay university tuition fee which I didn’t have to…”

      Being labelled as a smoker provides a great opportunity to ask questions.

  7. jltrader says:

    From 1966: https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=krgd0130
    ADLER : “And how does Dr . Rosenblatt account for the fact that his opinion runs counter to that of most of his peers .”
    ROSENBLATT : “Most doctors don’t know anything about this subject . It’s impossible for anybody to specialize in lung cancer or the relationship of cigarette smoking — this has been
    a brainwashing by a small group of individuals, located strategically in various organizations so that it seems that everybody is agreed on the subject .
    This brainwashing came to light in the McTear case as well, when it was revealed that McTear’s GP was just parroting the official anti-smoking dogma.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Even Doll couldn’t defend his junk science in court

      Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

      It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

      (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
      Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
      2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
      ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
      long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
      said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
      cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
      (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
      arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
      to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
      therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
      lung cancer.

      [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
      Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
      use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
      causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
      cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
      it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
      individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
      (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
      [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
      point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
      case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
      consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
      knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
      individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
      intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
      life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
      [7.181]).

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    http://www.glasgowsouthandeastwoodextra.co.uk/news/scottish-headlines/drop-in-number-of-nhs-anti-smoking-products-handed-out-1-3915602

    Drop in number of NHS anti-smoking products handed out

    The number of products handed out on the NHS to help people quit smoking has plummeted by almost a third.

    New figures show there were 169,967 (31.1%) fewer smoking cessation items dispensed in 2014/15 compared to the previous year

    • beobrigitte says:

      “However, since 2012 there has been a reduction in the number of NHS items prescribed to help people quit smoking.

      “This is likely to be the result of a combination of factors, one of which is the increasing use of electronic cigarettes as an alternative aid to stopping smoking.
      I’d be most interested in that ‘combination of factors’ – I do wonder if the dismally low success rate of NRT appears in it, too.
      I use my e-cigarettes to stretch my tobacco which I currently buy (MUCH CHEAPER!!!) in countries in which I am still served an ashtray on the table.
      The customer is king. Kings do NOT get kicked out if they wish to smoke. One does prefer a comfortable room in which smokers can enjoy their stay!
      Also, who says that all vapers see their e-cigarettes as as an aid to stop smoking? I do know vapers who PREFER their e-cigarette (be it because of the variety of flavours available) to a tobacco cigarette. They don’t intend to stop vaping.

      “While more research is needed, e-cigarettes are almost certainly less harmful than tobacco, and if people are using them as an aid to quit smoking, that is a good thing.

      “Anyone using an e-cigarette will have the best chance of quitting tobacco altogether if they seek support from their local NHS stop smoking service.”
      While more research is needed? Into the food we heat in a microwave? Propylene glycol is about everywhere to be found and vegetable glycerine also.
      Vapers appear to have been given a reprieve – how come they are being kicked out alongside us smokers? “Vaping-looks-like-smoking” is being hysterically screamed by the anti-smoker fearful!! Funnily enough, they are happy to dish out hastily cobbled together pharmaceutics which on the long term are likely to cause REAL damage to people. If the vaping industry enters a kind of deal with the antz they will for sure be crushed in the not so distant future!!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The problem they don’t tell you about vaping is if your sensitive to glycol.its a big problem for the vping sales people to explain.

        • beobrigitte says:

          If you are sensitive to propylene glycol you do have a HUGE problem and will find that the “convenience meals” will not do you any good, either.
          Now, looking into the amounts of it ingested/inhaled……

          The food industry will run into great problems…

  9. harleyrider1978 says:
  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Significantly more disease in Denmark after smoking legislation and health patronage

    http://translate.google.com/tr

    Published 13 hours 55 minutes ago in Politics

    Added 23/03 2:07 to New teams of Klaus K

    Disease Factory: – Five years of health campaigns, smoking bans, health charges and political patronage lifestyle has not led to more health in Denmark. On the contrary, the Danes have become much more ill.

    State many paternalistic approach to change in the Danish “unhealthy lifestyle” is scheduled to have reduced disease and curbed the unbridled hospital expenses. The result is preliminarily said to be a genuine failure. A failure that should give all Danish health politicians red ears:

    Solid multiple illnesses and hospitalizations. Preliminary premium for health care since the start of lifestyle paternalism: Average 8 billion extra per year.

    * Read the article and see the numbers and graphs here: Make health patronage Danes sick?

    Since politicians with smoking law in 2007 began to stick his nose in the Danish lifestyle, the number of hospital admissions exploded. It shows the raw figures from Statistics Denmark:

    In 2012 reached up to a staggering 1.33 million annual hospital admissions – it was 150,000 more compared to 2006, or 13% more. This is double the rate of increase compared to the corresponding period before the smoking law.

    Paradox: non-smoking room led to more smoking-related diseases

    Ironically, the number of hospitalizations due to so-called “smoking-related” diseases increased much more than the average of disease hospitalizations. Prior to the smoking law claimed all health experts otherwise, to the smoke-free spaces would reduce these diseases. It was an “evidence-based” truth, it was said.

    Today, it is recognized that the opposite has happened, “smoking-related” disease hospitalization rose 20% in the period after smoking law, while the average of diseases “only” grew 13%.

    There have also been large increases in the number of hospitalizations due to joint and bone fractures, especially in women – this is because according to many practitioners overloads by excessive exercise cultivation, incited by various motion campaigns and the media council from health experts like. Bente Klarlund.

    Furthermore, the number of cardiovascular diseases has been declining for many years, returned to an increase in the period 2006-2012.

    Cardiovascular diseases were otherwise mainly the type of disease to be reduced as the Liberal-led coalition in January 2008 reduced the so-called Prevention Commission – to these words from former health minister Jakob Axel Nielsen (K):

    – Most of us are aware that prevention among other concerns better diet, less smoking and alcohol and then more exercise.

    – Prevention should be a top priority in the years ahead. We have just heard that the number of diabetes patients has doubled in just 10 years and that more than 300,000 people suffering from a cardiovascular disease. If the trend continues, they’re going lifestyle-related diseases to eat more and more of the health service.

    – The development should we have simply done away with. Therefore, I am delighted that we can now provide impetus for prevention commission.

    The Minister of Health, Jan. 2008: The government sets up prevention commission

    Five years later – after many prohibitions, admonitions, health taxes, avoidance actions, admonishments, and scaremongering – it can be observed that the plan to reduce medical expenses by means of patronage has not worked as intended. The “healthy” Denmark is on the contrary been a regular disease factory.

    The figures are a total failure of the idea that the state should interfere in people’s lifestyle to prevent disease.

    Preventive make healthy people sick – and pharmaceutical companies happy

    It goes without saying that “prevention is better than cure”, but obviously not when it comes to other people’s lifestyles, and certainly not when it is done by government intervention in people’s lives.

    Many disease prevention projects also has the negative effect that they make healthy people sick . The reason is that health campaigns and disease prevention imbues many citizens fear of getting sick, which in itself leads to disease – through the so-called nocebo effect .

    Prevention industry used 22 million to increase absenteeism

    Actually, the result is not surprising: The theory that people’s lifestyle should be responsible for as many as 40% of hospital admissions, as alleged, is patently false. Therefore, the theory that the state can reduce costs by using health patronage, of course, false.

    That these false theories accepted in health care because they are devised and spread the “science” of pharmaceutical lobbyists. They have done so with good reason – the pharmaceutical industry livelihood disease.

    By accepting the lifestyle theory ignores the politicians, however, the root causes of many of the diseases that are claimed to be “lifestyle-related” Air pollution and industrial pollution in the workplace, and environmental toxins . It also ignores the large number of diseases that the pharmaceutical sector itself causes with its own products and treatments .

    The result is, in other words predictable: When the government blindly rely on “evidence-based science”, financed and organized by global pharmaceutical companies suffering from the great interest that they earn more when there is more disease – the result is probably not minor illness, but more disease.

    The big elephant in the living room: Smoking Law

    It is possible that a part of the high admission increase since 2007 can also have other causes than health patronage – eg. of diagnosis, changing age structure and relocations from abroad. In addition, the increase in unemployment from 2009. But apart from high unemployment, so there were other factors also before the period of health patronage – they can not explain the explosion in the rate of increase has happened.

    However, it is known that unemployment can make people sick. So maybe the politicians should remove some of the many crazy laws and regulations that keep unemployment up if they want to reduce disease – instead of poking your nose in the Danish lifestyle? It would suit them.

    One could for example. start by looking at the big elephant in the living room: smoking law. This strange law, which is now in its seventh year prohibits an entrepreneur to open a restaurant where smoking is permitted. Smoking law destroys proven many emerging initiative, increased consumption and economic growth.

    It also does not lead to less disease, as shown. It would also be strange – the smoking law are also pharmaceutical giants work
    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.180grader.dk%2FPolitik%2Fmarkant-mere-sygdom-i-danmark-efter-rygelov-og-sundhedsformynderi-1&sandbox=0&usg=ALkJrhh_nP9lbiKbu33z77nIS-ggp2IwkQ

  11. Steven says:

    Many years ago my doctor said to me if your body is full of rubbish,then it is harder for any virus to enter your body.it makes total sense.bet I can’t find a doctor who would say that today.

    • beobrigitte says:

      A virus enters your body regardless. It does not make a decision. It injects it’s DNA into any of your cells and either integrates into genomic DNA or uses the cells components to replicate.
      Your body fights it.
      If smokers are less prone to viral infections I would much like to find out why. Nicotine cannot be involved.
      What makes smokers “hardier”?

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        It would appear smoking enhances the immune system

        • beobrigitte says:

          You do have a good point there.

          That does lead to another factor: stress. Smokers tend to be more relaxed people. Stress does cause the immune system to ‘malfunction’. (Apart from screwing your mind up)
          Perhaps it’s this “contentment” a smoker enjoys that keeps the biochemical malfunction of stress-loving idio- erm- individuals at bay?

          It’s a pity we never hear much about that side effect of smoking.

  12. Mrs S says:

    I stopped smoking 2 months ago and since then have had 4 bacterial infections. No one wants you of this and the medical community just say it’s your body adjusting, but it’s no fun at all. How long does this continue?

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s