warren

SPONSORED LINKS BY GOOGLE

Related Links:

Liberty Forum thread:
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat...er=293673 155

Cartoon:
http://www.hostfile.com/home/darlene/healthyliving.jpg

Nicotine Benefits:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamil...r/nicotine.htm

Therapeutic effects of smoking
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

In Defense of Smokers
http://www.lcolby.com/

Slow Burn
http://empirenet.com/~kko/slowburn/text.html

The tobacco death toll - February 26, 2003 - Mercilessly, tobacco keeps
harvesting an endless number of premature victims. Day after day
millions of cigarettes are produced by criminals who KNOW that each and
every one of their customers will DIE ? and there is no escape, and
no more unquestionable truth: if you smoke, you die. This is the case
of the late John McMorran, of Lakeland, Florida. He smoked cigars,
drank beer and ate greasy food ?and now he has paid the dear price
for a life turned that stands as an insult to the health crusaders.
John was born June 19, 1889, in a log cabin in Michigan, and he was the
oldest American living ? but he could have lived longer. And that is
not all; it is well known that smoking causes blindness and ear
problems. In fact, ?McMorran's eyesight failed in his final years,
and people needed to shout for him to hear them.? What a waste. This
is what tobacco does to you. May this epitaph stand as warning to the
young, so that they learn to NEVER make John?s mistakes, and turn
into statistical deaths.

The Italian Massacre - February 26, 2003 - In the meantime, we get a
full dimension of what tobacco does to people in other countries as
well. The Italian daily ?Libero? has just reported updates on the
Tobacco Massacre of Milan last February 6th. Out of a population of 2.2
million in that city, there are 646 people whose lives will,
inevitably, be cut short ? shortly after they turn 100. Two of them
are already 110, five are 109 and 12 are 106. Another 217 are only 100,
167 just turned 101, and 115 are 102. But that?s not over. Over
35,000 Milanese are in the age range between 85 and 94, and another
92,000 are between 75 and 84. You can see them in the polluted Italian
city with their dogs, in the typical little bars, indulging in
despicable habits such as coffee, grease-filled brioches, alcohol and
? worst of all ? smoking Tuscan cigars that stink more than any
diesel tailpipe, poisoning their peers. Some of them even ?do?
cigarettes, having indulged in the deadly habit for over 94 years.
Imagine how dirty their lungs are. According to the daily, in fact, the
overwhelming majority of these people either smokes, drinks, or eats
fatty foods. Most even do it all. No wonder the heroic health
authorities must intervene to stop the carnage. It?s either now or
never!

Tobacco Claims Two More - The Philippines lost one of that country's
most prolific and beloved composers and lyricists. Levi Celerio, who


chain smoker. He was 91. He is survived by his third wife and the 12
children he managed to father despite the impotence caused by tobacco.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. The mother of Queen
Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother was a bon vivant who loved horse racing,
gin cocktails and, sadly, cigarettes. It was the latter, the beastly
coffin nails, that did her in. She was 101 years old.

Television Pioneer's Life Cut Short - "His trademark cigar rarely left
his hand. In an interview two years ago, Berle said he'd smoked cigars
since he was 12. "I figure if George Burns can smoke 20 cigars a day
his whole life and live to be 100, why should I worry if they're bad
for me?" We note the passing of Milton Berle with sadness and anger at
a creative life cut short by excessive tobacco use. Mr. Berle died
Wednesday from colon cancer. He was 93.

Smoking Kills Famous Director - Succumbing to a life time of smoking,
Hollywood director Billy Wilder died Wednesday at the age of 95. The
6-time Oscar winner directed such classics as "Some Like It Hot" and
"Sunset Boulevard". His 1955 movie "The Seven Year Itch" made a
contemporary icon of Marilyn Monroe's pose over a New York subway vent.
The premature deaths of these two well-known victims of tobacco give
added urgency to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's campaign to
eliminate smoking from movies. Once smoking is banished from the silver
screen, the focus can be shifted to the people who make and star in the
movies the movies. The carnage must be halted.

Television Pioneer's Life Cut Short - "His trademark cigar rarely left
his hand. In an interview two years ago, Berle said he'd smoked cigars
since he was 12. "I figure if George Burns can smoke 20 cigars a day
his whole life and live to be 100, why should I worry if they're bad
for me?" We note the passing of Milton Berle with sadness and anger at
a creative life cut short by excessive tobacco use. Mr. Berle died
Wednesday from colon cancer. He was 93.

Gregorio Fuentes - Cut Down By Tobacco Before His Time - Gregorio
Fuentes, who skippered Ernest Hemingway's fabled fishing boat, the
Pilar, for more than 20 years and is said to have been the writer's
inspiration for the embattled fisherman in "The Old Man and the Sea,"
has died. He was 104. Fuentes died of cancer Sunday at his home in
Cojimar, the quiet Cuban fishing village about 10 miles east of Havana
where Hemingway used to dock the Pilar. Smoking until the end, Fuentes
is sad proof that tobacco kills.

John Berry - John Berry, a rugged-faced pipe smoker, a stage and movie
director, writer and actor who made more than 50 films and, entangled
in the blacklist, exiled himself from Hollywood during the
anti-Communist inquests of the 1950s, died Nov. 29, 1999 at his home in
Paris. He was 82. Another premature, tobacco-related death, no doubt.
We are not kidding. Every smoker who dies is logged as a
tobacco-related death to beef up mortality statistics and imply that
those who don't smoke are either immortal, or live much longer lives.
And when they die (?sorry, IF they die) they are not logged as a
tobacco-related deaths even if they died of the identical diseases of
smokers. ? How else do you think that the anti-tobacco cartel builds
up its statistical garbage about the "smoking epidemic?"

Isabella Gibson ready to celebrate her 99th - Another smoker approaches
one century of life. Gambling, smoking, and enjoying life does not seem
to have cut short the life of this person, though she will certainly be
logged as yet another "premature, tobacco-related death" by the crooked
statistics desing to create numbers proving the Lie of the Century.
Isabella seems to be still in good health, notwithstanding osteoporosis
(smoking-related, no doubt). Happy birthday, Isabella -- and keep on
smokin'!

Wencelao Moreno: another victim bites the dust - It's with extreme
sadness that we report the sad demise of Wencelao Moreno of a smoking
related illness. Mr. Moreno, better known as "Senor Wences" of the "Ed
Sullivan Show" was 103. During the benighted era when ash resided in
ash trays rather than dictating policy in Washington, Senor Wences
joked, drank and smoked with his puppets on T.V. All his puppets died
of secondhand smoke decades ago. Although his premature passing is sad,
his death is warning to us all that smoking kills.

Mme Jeanne Calment, who was listed as the world's oldest human whose
birth date could be certified, died at 122. She had begun smoking as a
young woman. At 117 she quit smoking (by that age she was just smoking
two or three cigarettes per day because she was blind and was too proud
to ask often for someone to light her cigarettes for her). But she
resumed smoking when she was 118 because, as she said, not smoking made
her miserable and she was too old to be made miserable. She also said
to her doctor: "Once you've lived as long as me, only then can you tell
me not to smoke." Good point! [USA Today, "Way to go, champ,"
10/18/95].

When Mme. Calment died at 122 in l997, the new longevity champ became
116-year-old Marie-Louise Meilleur, of Canada. Mme. Meilleur had
chain-smoked all her adult life (as her grandson said, "She always had
a cigarette dangling from her lips as she worked,"--AP, 8/15/97,
reported in Miami Herald, p. 2A). She did give up smoking, however,
when she was nearly 100.

The world's oldest man is (unless he has died since the last report I
have, which is l997) Christian Mortensen, ll4 in l997,who has been a
cigar smoker for most of his life--and still smokes them. [San
Francisco Chronicle, "114 and Still Smoking," Peter Fimrite, 8/5/97,
p.A13].

Britain's oldest man, George Cook, died at 108 in his sleep in
September, l997. He "smoked heavily for 85 years before giving up
tobacco at the age of 97," ("World Briefs," Houston Chronicle,
9/29/97).

The Scottish Daily Record (12/15/97) reported on Ivy Leighton, 100, who
smoked 20 cigarettes a day for 84 years, but cut down somewhat after
her 100th birthday. April claimed smoking was the key to her long life.

There are two men who claim to be the world's oldest living humans, but
their birth dates cannot be certified. One is Ali Mohammed Hussein, who
claimed to be 135, of Lebanon. He "smokes like a chimney," but does not
drink alcohol [CNN World News, "Born in l862," Brent Sadler,
5/13/l997].

The title is also claimed by Narayan Chaudhari, a Nepalese man who says
he is 141. However, his birth date also cannot be certified. He too is
a heavy smoker and says the secret of his longevity is "raw tobacco and
no alcohol." [Nando net, Agence France-Press, "Nepalese man claims to
be 141, which would make him world's oldest", 2/12/98].

todd benson

SPONSORED LINKS BY GOOGLE

Thanks. That was a very interesting article!

warren

Here is another article posted on Liberty Forum:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat...#Post293859646

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
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.

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

"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.

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


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