And here are some of the mice who helped to prove it!


Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the “Anti-Smoking Inquisition” spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.

Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities.

Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly “sinning” by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again.

Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics.

Certain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to extreme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead. As we will find later in the report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can justifiably claim to provide startling health protection.

Not all governments around the world share the same problem. Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer. This is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that “smoking causes lung cancer.”



The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments. When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies.

In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills. By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As K. Greisen recalls:

“When the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. Then someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave travelling along the ground. The appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. The color was yellow.

“The permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me. After the first rapid explosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fixed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. The upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a zigzag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. The smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud.”

This was the notorious “Trinity Test”, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere. A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide.

The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.

If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker. The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.

How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed? For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The suspect agent (radioactive matter) caused the claimed result (lung cancer) when inhaled by mammals.



The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse.

The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.

Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.

Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity.

The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us.



Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for “big government” to start taking heavy diversionary action.

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.


'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' Vishnu, Bhagavad-Gita

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.” It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record!

Predictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical “researchers” into a frenzy of rage. By 1982 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment. Quite suddenly they switched the blame to other “secret” ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. “Yes, that must be it!” they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same “secret” ingredients had been included in the mice experiments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer.

Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer. Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight “C” doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. “Smoking causes lung cancer” converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof.

Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media. Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened “smoker’s lungs”, with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don’t quit now. It was all pathetic rubbish of course. On the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of Camels or Marlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed.



The black lungs? From a coal miner, who throughout his working life breathed in copious quantities of microscopic black coal dust particles. Just like radioactive particles they get caught deep in the tissue of the lungs and stay there forever. If you worked down the coal mines for twenty or more years without a face mask, your lungs will probably look like this on the slab.

Many people ask exactly how it is that those smoking mice were protected from deadly radioactive particles, and even more are asking why real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers. Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, “which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue.”

This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue.

All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible. Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke. Go on, don’t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. Or perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, just three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer. If you cannot or will not do either of the above, consider phoning Michael Jackson to ask for a spare surgical mask!

Copyright Joe Vialls. 16 July 2003

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nightlight,

Fantastic report!

A must read for smokers and non-smokers alike.

Thank You

A very interesting article..And it would be wonderful if something of this magnitude were to be revealed publicly..It would turn the 40+ year association between smoking and lung cancer into perhaps the biggest act of deception in medical history...But I'm afraid the public will never believe this. Many (if not most) nonsmokers actually think that anyone who smokes will automatically come down with the disease eventually unless something else, such as getting hit by a bus, doesn't kill them first.

I have no doubt that these atmospheric tests have indeed played a role in the increased cancer rates we've seen for the past 50+ years - however its become dogma now that smoking is to blame for almost every illness known to man and what can't be blamed on smoking is blamed on ETS. At first glance, smokers appear to have a higher (5-10%) overall risk of lung cancer compared to non-smokers but the "scientists" who publish these studies deliberately ignore other factors (i.e. diet, alcoholism, family history, exposure to radiation and chemicals). I hope the truth will be revealed one day but things will probably get a lot worse for us before that happens.

quote:

Originally posted by NickM_71: At first glance, smokers appear to have a higher (5-10%) overall risk of lung cancer compared to non-smokers but the "scientists" who publish these studies deliberately ignore other factors (i.e. diet, alcoholism, family history, exposure to radiation and chemicals). I hope the truth will be revealed one day but things will probably get a lot worse for us before that happens.

With the level of negative social pressures put on smokers, the smoking now correlates with variety of illnesses simply because these negative forces tend to affect more those who care more about their health. Further, there is a 'witch doctor effect' (a negative placebo), which damages health of those who believe in the propaganda. Finally, like with much of mass produced foods and beverages, the short term profitability is placed ahead of consumer health (and the long term profitability), hence the mass products have numerous additives which may be harmful in the long term to the consumer.

For the latter two reasons, the best smokers can do for their health is to replace the mass market brands with 'make your own' (from real and additive free tobacco leaf) and turn every suggestion from the mass media and the 'health experts' upside down (since it is a money making swindle through and through).

The worst off are those who quit due to pressures (e.g. Peter Jennings), since that is marker of those who have internalized the 'witch doctor effect', absorbing its maximum damage, while simultaneously being cut off from any beneficial effects of the tobacco (a sacred plant, bred and selected over millenia for its medicinal and spiritual benefits).

The time is on our side, since it won't be long before it will become impossible to blame second hand smoke for anything, since there won't be any. Also, the extortion syndicate now stealing from us is a greedy scum which will move onto other potential victims, and will eventually bite more than they can chew and will be discredited and neutered in everyones eyes. Their ongoing shift against fatsos may just do them in. The present thieves can pull their scam only so many times and make only so many enemies, before they run out of luck and get run out of town.

Based on the report that opened this discussion it may be that smokers are being relegated to the great outdoors so that we ingest more and more of the fallout and improve our ratio of succuming to lung cancer.

When I am in a deprived state racing to a smoking area I light up and suck in as much as I can as fast as I can before returning to the stalog. As a result I am ingesting more air pollution along with the smoke and therefore more fallout.

quote:

Originally posted by NickM_71:
I have no doubt that these atmospheric tests have indeed played a role in the increased cancer rates we've seen for the past 50+ years

Here is a scientific paper "Cancer Trends During the 20th Century" published in the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, Vol. 21, No. 1, April 2002, pages 3-8. It shows interesting graphs for cancer deaths (mostly in Sweden which had good quality records) over most decades of 20th century:


Figure 4. Lung cancer death rates in Sweden.


Figure 3. Skin melanoma mortality in Sweden since 1912.

There is an interesting simultaneous rapid rise in the rates for both types of cancers in the fifties, just as the atmospheric nuclear tests (especially in neighboring USSR) were reaching their peak (these tests were banned not long after the cancer rates rise started). The skin and lungs would be particularly sensitive to airborne radioactive particles, hence the rates of these two cancers show high degree of temporal correlation. Note also how there is another little upward jolt in the rates, especially striking for melanoma rates, in late 1980s, right after the Chernobyl nuclear plant meltdown. In the article they also show how this same correlation (between melanoma & lung cancer) manifests in spatial dimension as well, when data is compared by counties in Sweden, which is to be expected since the air current patterns would deposit radioactive fallout differently at different locations.

Another interesting bit buried in the paper is how the statistics around this critical period were difficult to get from the government "health" bureaucrats and how the more recent official way of counting the cancer death rates, the so called 'age adjusted mortality', is artificially making the increase appear smaller (citing discussion after Fig 13):

" First of all, data before 1955 has always been locked out from publicly available databases. Secondly, and even worse, trends for obviously exposure-time-dependent cancers are effectively neutralised by use of age-standardised ratios (ASR). This procedure assumes that the increasing cancer incidence is a natural effect of growing old and thus the age standardised mortality will stay the same although the population gets older. By doing this, the responsible institutions can show to the authorities that the mortality is in control and in effect not increasing at all despite the fact that it is. "

This same statistical gimmick with 'age adjusted rates' was also used by CDC to hide the fact that lung cancers in USA have been on the rise for decades, being now at their maximum, even though the smoking has been declining also for decades, being at its minimum now. The sneaky little mathematical trick of scaling the rates for different years using different multipliers, made the actual increase appear as a small decrease in the "new math" (since they multiplied the rates of more recent years with smaller factors), which CDC "scientists" then attributed to the decline in smoking rates.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nightlight,

Nightlight, have you been able to find anything anywhere that repeats the information about the experiment where the mice that had been exposed to large quantities of tobacco smoke and then most of them survived being exposed to radioactive particles? And another source for Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, and his testimony before a US congresisonal committee in 1982?

It would be great to have a backup source for these, something more "official" than this Joe Vialls' site.

Ditto to that. Mr. Vialis is no longer with us and not able to defend his views, but it seemss that he holds some very unconventional and conspiratorial opinions.

Last night, I typed the phrase "Smoking Prevents Lung Cancer" (in quotes) into Google and almost all of the references were to this article by Mr. Vialis.

I have to say, though, that I am intrigued by this notion that A causes B causes C is misattributed to B causing C, but Mr. Vialis wasn't very thorough in backing up his claims with references. It seems to be more of an interesting hypothesis, and, I won't doubt, one worth looking into, but I'm far from sold.

I Googled "Professor Schrauzer" and came up with this:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/507927406-7466.html...matted&start_page=11

Reading it now, but thought others might want to look at it.


Edited to add: What Vialls states about Professor Schrauzer seems to come from this book, "The Smoking Scare De-Bunked" written by Dr. William T. Whitby in 1986. The text is available at tobaccodocuments.org, which seems to be a copyright violation since the paperback is available at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Smoking-Scare-Bunked-W-Whitby/dp/.../102-6412900-2503316

Still, no anti is going to accept this book as authoritative! So I'd still like to have a more official source on this as well as the smoking mice experiment.

Research is fun, but it sure is a time-sink!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tnsmoker,

quote:

Originally posted by tnsmoker: Edited to add: What Vialls states about Professor Schrauzer seems to come from this book, "The Smoking Scare De-Bunked" written by Dr. William T. Whitby in 1986. The text is available at tobaccodocuments.org, which seems to be a copyright violation since the paperback is available at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Smoking-Scare-Bunked-W-Whitby/dp/.../102-6412900-2503316

Still, no anti is going to accept this book as authoritative! So I'd still like to have a more official source on this as well as the smoking mice experiment.

Research is fun, but it sure is a time-sink!

Yep, it seems Whitby was the main source for Vialis. The Swedish cancer stats over 20th century I posted above, reinforces the gist of Vialis theory. Various links & info I posted in recent posts here & on LF further support the same view.

Note that you can download at your link the whole Whitby's book (in png format, 2 pages per image) if you go to this link, which sets up max resolution (2290 pixels) and rotates images for correct viewing. You save from the browser the full page (which saves page images). At the bottom of the page is a button to move to next set of 10 scanned pages (each scanned page contains 2 pages of the book). That is a good resource!

Vialis, of course, has all kinds of conspiracies on his pages (I guess one has to be a bit "unusual" to break out of the propaganda matrix). His information, though, is good and meshes perfectly with all other sources. I don't really care if anti-smokers believe any of it or not (they won't no matter what facts one has). Arguing with them is a waste of time.

As explained in several recent posts, it is smokers who need to get the straight info in order to shake off the 'death curse', so they can reduce harm to themselves (from the witch doctor effect/negative placebo) and then, having understood that they're on the good side, stand up to the anti-smoking extortion racket. Our main problem is that vast majority of smokers largely believe the swindlers, hence they'd rather be on the other side, paralyzed in a permanent state of 'trying to quit'. That is how the small group of loudmouth zealots, funded and whipped into frenzy by the Big Pharma & health bureaucracies, was able to keep winning so far. All their fraudelant "science" and publicity, buying of politicians and anti-smoking laws, are funded by the few crumbs from the vastly greater quantities of money stolen from us (and pocketted by the string pullers). With the right mindset, we are much stronger financially and numerically than the little gang of schemers herding us last couple decades.

Organized smokers, believing firmly their cause, could have their own science and lobbies that dwarf those of anti-smokers. Smokers are a giant with few leeches attached to his ankles, gorging while the giant sleeps. Awakened giant could rip them off and stump them instantly. Hence, the first step is to awaken the giant, then deal with the anti-smoking leeches. That's why I think the FORCES, which should lead this awakening, is presently on the wrong track with their "multimedia project", which they imagine will fight the existent anti-smoking mass media. That is running ahead of the sleeping giant, and it can't work -- they want $100K per year to fight the anti-smoking media behemoth with thousands times more resources. One has to awaken the sleeping giant first, then the anti-smoking behemoth will suddenly find itself dwarfed and the battle will be over within one election cycle.

Then, the tobacco will be taxed like any other wholesome health supplement and sell for $15 or so per carton, while offices, business meetings, supermarkets, restaurants, trains, planes, busses, classrooms and lecture halls, hospital beds, waiting rooms, TV talk shows and news desks,... will become smoker friendly again... It sounds incredible amid the current witchhunt, but recall that it is a tiny fraction of our money that feeds all the anti-smoking leeches and their pseudo-science. All their "invincible" strength and the lodmouth busybodies live off the few crumbs picked out of our pockets.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nightlight,

Well, twice lately, I've trotted out the Vialls' page and antis have said "who's he? what does he know?" and one pointed out the other conspiracies on his site. Just wanted to be able to have a more official place to point to. No, the antis won't be impressed, they'll still call it an extremist site--that's what they're paid to do. But the lurkers--the fence-sitters, the uninformed, the ones who may not care until you push a button in them that says "Hey, wait a minute, maybe this IS a scam!"--will have a verifiable source to look at.

Right now, it seems FORCES is the only one who's in any position to "awaken the sleeping giant", but they have to reach that giant. Isn't the multimedia project one way to do that? Yes, I think they say it's to grab the media's attention, but won't it also grab uninformed smokers' and non-smokers' attention, too? What else would you suggest they do?

"Then, the tobacco will be taxed like any other wholesome health supplement and sell for $15 or so per carton, while offices, business meetings, supermarkets, restaurants, trains, planes, busses, classrooms and lecture halls, hospital beds, waiting rooms, TV talk shows and news desks,... will become smoker friendly again..."

Sounds wonderful! I can't wait for it to happen!

quote:

Originally posted by tnsmoker:
Right now, it seems FORCES is the only one who's in any position to "awaken the sleeping giant", but they have to reach that giant. Isn't the multimedia project one way to do that? Yes, I think they say it's to grab the media's attention, but won't it also grab uninformed smokers' and non-smokers' attention, too? What else would you suggest they do?

Competing for smokers eyeballs and ears on TV and radio is sure loser. You're battling them on their turf and they have thousands times more than 100K per year (but keep in mind, though, that all their propaganda & "science" is just few crumbs out of the untold billions they gyp from us every year).

Internet is clearly one medium in which we're on a more level playing field with them. Yet, it is still a highly diluted connect. Most smokers don't look for Colby, Johnstone, FORCES,... they don't even know there is such a viewpoint, having lived inside the propaganda matrix all these years and having accepted the death curse. Hence they have no reason to run into these sites.

As suggested in the "Getting Organized..." , thread, we need to take advantage of the fact that we're being every day herded into proximity of other smokers from our town, to huddle together on sidewalks and near entrances in the rain and snow, all with same objective and the same grievance. They have denormalized us, marked us. We carry our yellow stars and we can spot each other from hundred yards away. My point is that this setback can be turned into our advantage. There is simply no better place and situation to transmit the message to the sympathetic listener and get organized against the common oppressors. A single activist with a stack of leaflets can pass on leaflets to two or three smokers, each of them to two or three more, and in a few days every smoker in a town or a city will get the message.

The key question, though, is -- what is the message? As argued earlier, smokers are living in the propaganda matrix under a death curse. They have been brainwashed into believing smoking is terribly bad for them. Once you swallow the poisoned pill, or even a part of it, from the anti-smoking swindlers, you are causing a real harm to yourself:
--- quote ---
There was a study in Heidelberg, described by Professor Eysenck in Psychological Reports (1989) in which 528 men were asked whether they, as smokers, were convinced that they would be very likely to develop lung cancer, heart disease, or other 'smoking related diseases'. The 72 who answered 'yes', while admitting that their views were taken from information in the media, had an almost three times higher death rate at the end of 13 years than those who were not so influenced.

Fear can kill. This has been known since disease was first studied. We are entitled to wonder how many people have been killed more by the fear of 'smoking related diseases' than by any actual disease itself.
--- endquote ---

In other words, by submitting to the matrix, you are turning their propaganda into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Additionally, once they got away with convincing you that primary tobacco smoke is bad, it is a tiny step away from convincing the non-smokers that they are harmed, too, by the secondary smoke. If the accepted wisdom is that primary smoke is bad for smoker, then it is essentially automatic that non-smokers, who don't get any pleasure from your smoking, will easily buy into the story that your smoke harms them, too, and without any benefit to them. To non-smokers the secondary smoke harm becomes as plausible as a harm someone with tuberculosis coughing near them. They don't want you in their sight or in their town. You become a leper for them. That is where we are now.

The problem with FORCES is that they seem to accept that primary smoking may be harmful to smoker, at least mildly so, and hold only that secondary smoking is harmless. The trust of their battle is the secondary smoke. I am saying this is a losing position -- the history since 1960s in fact shows that indeed this is so, since that was basically the official respectable position of doctors and mass media from early 1960s. Once you set foot on that slope, the slide from there to where we are now is automatic. FORCES, is thus not much different than Siegel (quoted and linked to by them quite often) who holds that primary smoking is fairly bad for smoker, while secondary smoke is almost harmless to non-smokers. Hence, his clock is in early 1980s, while FORCES clock is stuck in 1960s-1970s. They are both delaying actions differing in degree only, seeking to put off the anti-smoking offensive toward the complete prohibition, just little bit, few more years while the FORCES authors are still alive, it would seem.

Further, the fact that they have been struggling to reach 100k in donations for some time now, shows that their "pro-smoking multimedia" strategy is dead on arrival. They must have quite few visitors, who like myself greatly appreciate their noble work in gathering pro-smoker material. But, there is no winning message there. They are calling for an attack at the thickest wall in the enemy fortress, the alleged harm of second-hand smoke. Non-smokers surely won't listen to them and their voice, backed by $100k per year for the multimedia project, has absolutely no chance of drowning down the multibillion anti-smokers message.

So, their message is wrong. The right message, which happens to be the truth, is that smoking is good. At this stage, though, only smokers will be motivated enough to put in an effort needed to inform themselves and understand the real story. Primary smoking is very good, once the smoker shakes off the death curse. The secondary smoking is not quite as good, but it is still good for non-smokers, once non-smoker shakes off the anti-smokers' curse on them. I sketched earlier one possible sequence of 4 stages how to get there from here.

It is vital to take advantage of the fact that we're now the yellow-star marked folks herded into our ghettoes. But for that, one needs a brief and clear one page message for the fellow smokers -- smoking is good and healthy, anti-smokers are evil swindlers, come see the rest of the facts for yourself. The site they're invited to by leaflet has to have full scientific material (no broken links, half baked citations with no years, journals,...) clearly put together that makes a rock solid case for the claim. No money or political action is called for at this stage, which is merely helping smokers get out of the propaganda matrix and its death curse. Some minor donations to upkeep the site with materials can be accepted, but they are not required for membership.

The main contribution asked for is to take leaflets and talk to fellow smokers in their town, to help them find their way out of the matrix and its death curse. The leaflet isn't enough, though. One needs the proper verbal message that is presented to the fellow smokers while huddled together in the street for five-ten minutes. The verbal side complements, fleshes out and explains, the brief written part in a manner sensitive to the listener and situation.

Different scenarios and different environments need different verbal & written materials. This is where the expertise of FORCES folks comes in. They've been with these materials longer and know them better than any of us. Messages need to be crafted, discussed and debated for a little bit (e.g. in a private message board & via emails), then made public for action. First the pilot trials are done, with tight feedback, so the message, the written and verbal parts (which complement each other), can get honed to perfection. By this time all the scientific materials, scanned & copied scientific papers as PDFs and analysis (a la Colby, Johnstone and various FORCES authors, also Whitby), are all gathered and ready on the site, making a rock solid case - smoking is good - for anyone open-minded to read them.

This is exactly the stuff you were asking for after reading Vialis -- some real solid backing with full documents. While you can find it if you spend enough time and effort, that is not the way to build a smoker movement. Few will care or have expertise or time to dig it all out and digest on their own. All that has to be ready, a click away, all tied together into a coherent picture, each bit backed up, from the biochemistry of glutathione to the scheming and trail of money from Big Pharma and other string pullers of the anti-smoking syndicate. Members contribute what they know and what they can to keep and build-up these materials.

The battle for the hearts and minds of non-smokers (other than family and friends), let alone anti-smoking media and science, is several stages away from here. The first is to win the battle for ones own heart and mind, to awaken oneself out of the propaganda matrix, so you will know where you are going. Only then you can lead others there, too. Sleep-walking, which is what we're all currently doing, FORCES folks included (however nice and well meaning they may be), is not going anywhere.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nightlight,

quote:

Originally posted by tnsmoker:
"Then, the tobacco will be taxed like any other wholesome health supplement and sell for $15 or so per carton, while offices, business meetings, supermarkets, restaurants, trains, planes, busses, classrooms and lecture halls, hospital beds, waiting rooms, TV talk shows and news desks,... will become smoker friendly again..."

Sounds wonderful! I can't wait for it to happen!

Interestingly, reading Whitby's book from that link (great reading btw), on page 58-59 (of the book; 30-40 on web page) I find that Co-enzime Q10, CoQ10, hailed as the miracle supplement, for heart, circulation, infections, cancers, Parkinson's,... and just about everything that can go wrong, is actually a tobacco leaf and is manufactured from tobacco. Naturally, it is not mentioned very often, but that is what it is and how it was discovered in 1950s. Now, that is interesting.

After reading Whitby one can only say, yep, tobacco is a miracle medicine, as our elders always thought. From every angle one looks the actual facts behind the anti-smoking propaganda, from biochemistry to animal experiments and the randomized quitting trials, even the statistical rigging in the epidemiology, one arrives to this same conclusion -- tobacco is a miracle drug. No wonder Big Pharma is doing its best to destroy it.

Good stuff guys.
we all have our fav links-saved downloads/folders-worddocs. FORCES has a great "library" along with cantiloper's stuff- AntiBrains and when Dr Mike of tobaccoanalysis blog goes through the "study" that slammed the homerun for the MSA-he will link (I'm sure) to his re analysis of the epidemiological wonder that it was.
so you're right in continuing to "prod" we The Smoker into production of OUR SCIENCE - the True Science, cause we are in the fight of our lives on this planet!
thanks for being here, all of us.

quote:

Originally posted by tnsmoker:
Just wanted to be able to have a more official place to point to.

Here is an interesting official confirmation I found abot smoking rodents. The source is the official repository of tobacco documents (obtained during MSA negotiations). On page 97 of the report there is the following study citation & conclusion excerpt:

"Inhalation Bioassy of Cigarette Smoke in Rats"
A. P. Wehrner, et al. (Battele Pacific Northwest Labs, Richland WA)
Journal of Toxiology & Applied Pharmacology, Vol. 61: pp 1-17 (1981)

The results show that the highest number of tumors occured in the untreated control [non-smoking] rats. The next highest number of tumors occurred in rats subject to sham smoking, i.e. rats which were placed in the smoking machine without smoke exposure, and the lowest number of tumors occurred in the smoke-exposed rats. Among the latter, the largest number of tumors occurreed in rats exposed to smoke from cigarettes having the lowest level of nicotine.


So, among the lab rats, the "full flavor" smokers had the fewest tumors, the "light cigrattes" smokers had more, the sham-smokers even more, and non-smokers had the most. The entire document (pdf file) is a gold mine with many hudreds of fascinating and little publicised reasearch "anomalies" (i.e. the studies in which the data went the "wrong" way) regarding the relation of cancers to smoking. Of course, there is no real anomaly (the reality is surely not perplexed by itself), provided one views the data from the perspective of tobacco smoking being protective against (instead of "the cause of") the diseases studied. The data is anomalous only from the perspectiva in which tobacco smoke is assumed to be the cause of those diseases.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/ftc_rjr/CX000044.html

Colby was a part of the tobacco industry nightlight. As you can see his signature is on this inter office memo. Is he really impartial? what does the memo prove anyway?

Is he a skeptic or a snake oil salesman?

quote:

Originally posted by I know it all:
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ftc_rjr/CX000044.html

Colby was a part of the tobacco industry nightlight. As you can see his signature is on this inter office memo. Is he really impartial? what does the memo prove anyway?

Not that it matters for anything of substance, but you're confused, again (have you been any other way throughout your entire existence in this forum?). That is a different and unrelated Colby. The tobacco industry guy mentioned there is "Frank G. Colby" while the author I cited is Lauren A. Colby. The two have absolutely no relation to each other (according to L. A. Colby).

In any case, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument, that the author L. A. Colby is the largest stockholder of the largest tobacco company in the world, how exactly would such bit of trivia invalidate or falsify a single scientific fact discovered and published by others, that he cites or brings to our attention? I am not interested in trivia and gossip but only in scientific facts on this subject. That is what affects my health and my life. Any scientific fact or logical deduction has to stand on its own merits and any claim of a scientific fact has to check out from other sources (e.g. original journal papers).

Apparently, in your low-res mind all that seems to be mangled up into one gigantic undifferentiated conceptual blob, the scientific facts, logical deductions, trivia, gossip, web site names, file and subdirectory names,... it's all one and the same to you. You can't really do much "debating" with that sort of "intellectual" gear. You can only continue making a fool of yourself until the site moderator runs out of patience and stops you from further wasting everyone's time here.

So, what specific scientific fact brought to our attention by L. A. Colby, or others I cited, are you claiming to be false?

quote:

Colby was a part of the tobacco industry

Dear Know it all,
Your Dementia is getting worse again; and your lack of validity rising.

I was hoping for some statement of how you know these are the same Colby.

Since I know of several people that have the precisely same name as mine, I suspect there are several Colbys running around also.

STILL praying for you.

Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and schizophrenia risks are cut in half by smoking (at least) and for the patients, taking up smoking greatly alleviates the symptoms and reduces further damage of these diseases. Those who quit smoking, increase their risk of getting these diseases by 50% for each 10 years of non-smoking. For the early onset Alzheimer's (40s and 50s), smoking cuts the risk tenfold.

Nightlight,please do not be so hard on 'Know it all',because of his Dementia, his cognitive reasoning is mostly gone,as I am sure he is aware.

Perhaps we should be sending him packages of nicotine gum to help restore his mental abilities.