medicinal uses of tobacco?
- Thread starter Man of Tanith
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Folks looked at the world a little differently in the past.....and saliva isn't toxic. Why do you think animals all lick their wounds ? It debrides, it breaks down gunk and the toxins it harbours. By chewing the tobacco first it not only opened up the herb, wetted it and started it's particular usage, but it made it into a paste that will adhere to the wound.
Oh, and onions, not good in a wound. Fine for some things, nasal, throats, etc., but not that.
You can cover a bad graze with the micro inner skin though, but tbh, you'd be better with the inner skin of an eggshell if you can't find a better herb and some honey.
cheers,
Toddy
Oh, and onions, not good in a wound. Fine for some things, nasal, throats, etc., but not that.
You can cover a bad graze with the micro inner skin though, but tbh, you'd be better with the inner skin of an eggshell if you can't find a better herb and some honey.
cheers,
Toddy
Ahhh but testing by the FDA has shown otherwise:
Recent extensive testing on laboratory rats has proven that saliva causes cancer; but only when ingested in small amounts over a long period of time.
THe USA ran a medical survey for decades, using tens of thousands of nurses etc as a base-line - still running it as far as I know.
One of their less-publicised findings was that non-smoking partners of smoking spouses actually lived longer than non-smoking spouses of non-smoking partners. Not too surprising I suppose, it would be a brave politician to note that secondary tobacco smoke statistically appears to prolong life........... (and apparently that smokers suffer less from dementia than non-smokers on an age-comparable basis - obviously smokers die younger therefore tend not to get to the age where dementia becomes the norm rather than the exception...)
One of their less-publicised findings was that non-smoking partners of smoking spouses actually lived longer than non-smoking spouses of non-smoking partners. Not too surprising I suppose, it would be a brave politician to note that secondary tobacco smoke statistically appears to prolong life........... (and apparently that smokers suffer less from dementia than non-smokers on an age-comparable basis - obviously smokers die younger therefore tend not to get to the age where dementia becomes the norm rather than the exception...)
I'd like to see the documentation on this claim. Especially since all known evidence points opposite. My own family experience has been quite the opposite; 3 dead non-smoking spouses and/or children.
Humans aren't rats, and our saliva isn't theirs.
Besides, that's stupid; rats and humans ingest their own saliva day in day out......I suppose life is terminal though, and cancer gets everything eventually, if we live long enough, and rats are kind of prone to it.
Ever feel sorry for rats ? Apparantly anything can kill them, cause them heart disease, cancer, ms, etc., etc., even McDonalds
cheers,
Toddy
Besides, that's stupid; rats and humans ingest their own saliva day in day out......I suppose life is terminal though, and cancer gets everything eventually, if we live long enough, and rats are kind of prone to it.
Ever feel sorry for rats ? Apparantly anything can kill them, cause them heart disease, cancer, ms, etc., etc., even McDonalds
cheers,
Toddy
check out Google etc - shouldn't be too hard to find. I'm going from memory, and the results were so surprising that the memory stuck! As to the "all known evidence pointing to the opposite", again - sources? Did they have tens of thousands of test subjects monitored over a 30+ year period to give a valid statistical sample? I'd suggest not.... And as far as using an personal but statistically invalid data is concerned, I could point out that my non-smoking m-i-l is 94, still going strong and most of her life has been spent around smokers including her husband for 50+years, my grandfather was a heavy smoker and lived to 85 - his non-smoking wife outlived him and died at 92. Which is why non-statistical samples aren't worth the paper they're not wrritten on...........
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating smoking to prolong your non-smoking spouse's life - anyone who smokes nowadays knows the damage they're doing to themselves and almost certainly their children too, both actively and by setting a bad example. Just pointing out that, as far as I'm aware, the only long-term, mass, statistically-valid survey ever done (which as a side-result gave info on passive smoking in adults) came to some surprising (and massively unpopular from a PC viewpoint) results.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating smoking to prolong your non-smoking spouse's life - anyone who smokes nowadays knows the damage they're doing to themselves and almost certainly their children too, both actively and by setting a bad example. Just pointing out that, as far as I'm aware, the only long-term, mass, statistically-valid survey ever done (which as a side-result gave info on passive smoking in adults) came to some surprising (and massively unpopular from a PC viewpoint) results.
Actually, while I'm bleating on about mistaken opinions, how about the following:
World Health Organisation
In March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not “statistically significant”. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer had been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people’s tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people’s eyes, it is no risk at all. Andy BB note - I've done the maths for you - it increases the risk from 0.01% to 0.0117%.........
Greater London Assembly report
In April 2002, following an exhaustive six-month investigation during which written and oral evidence was supplied by organisations including ASH, Cancer Research UK and Forest, the Greater London Assembly Investigative Committee on Smoking in Public Places declined to recommend ANY further restrictions on smoking in public places, stating very clearly that it is not easy to prove a link between passive smoking and lung cancer. As joint author of the report, Angie Bray put on record her opposition to a total ban on smoking in public places in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (5 July 2003). According to Bray: “The assembly spent six months investigating whether a smoking ban should be imposed in public places in London. After taking evidence from all sides, including health experts, it was decided that the evidence gathered did not justify a total smoking ban.”
Enstrom/Kabat study
In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study that seriously questioned the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health. According to the study, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.
House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report
In July 2006 the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee published a report on the management of risk. One of the subjects they looked at was passive smoking. The committee, whose members included former Chancellor Lord Lawson, concluded that, “Passive smoking is an example in which [government] policy demonstrates a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health problem, with insufficient regard to statistical evidence.”
I might also as well mention the issue that obesity is twice the killer that tobacco is. Research published in The Lancet suggests that obesity accelerates the ageing of human DNA by nine years and smoking by only 4.6. A 20-a-day life-long smoker into his 70s only has a 16% risk of catching lung cancer, a somewhat lower figure than I thought, but there you go. And 10% of lung cancer sufferers are non-smokers.
So if fag packets need health warnings on them, and TV campaigns etc, surely sweets and burgers need larger and much more graphic ones! Ban food other than salads (without mayonnaise of course) in pubs and restaurants. Don't eat fatty or starchy foods at home as it can damage the kids. Put £5 "health" tax on Smarties tubes and Mars bars - after all, they're twice as deadly as ciggies.
World Health Organisation
In March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not “statistically significant”. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer had been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people’s tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people’s eyes, it is no risk at all. Andy BB note - I've done the maths for you - it increases the risk from 0.01% to 0.0117%.........
Greater London Assembly report
In April 2002, following an exhaustive six-month investigation during which written and oral evidence was supplied by organisations including ASH, Cancer Research UK and Forest, the Greater London Assembly Investigative Committee on Smoking in Public Places declined to recommend ANY further restrictions on smoking in public places, stating very clearly that it is not easy to prove a link between passive smoking and lung cancer. As joint author of the report, Angie Bray put on record her opposition to a total ban on smoking in public places in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (5 July 2003). According to Bray: “The assembly spent six months investigating whether a smoking ban should be imposed in public places in London. After taking evidence from all sides, including health experts, it was decided that the evidence gathered did not justify a total smoking ban.”
Enstrom/Kabat study
In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study that seriously questioned the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health. According to the study, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.
House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report
In July 2006 the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee published a report on the management of risk. One of the subjects they looked at was passive smoking. The committee, whose members included former Chancellor Lord Lawson, concluded that, “Passive smoking is an example in which [government] policy demonstrates a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health problem, with insufficient regard to statistical evidence.”
I might also as well mention the issue that obesity is twice the killer that tobacco is. Research published in The Lancet suggests that obesity accelerates the ageing of human DNA by nine years and smoking by only 4.6. A 20-a-day life-long smoker into his 70s only has a 16% risk of catching lung cancer, a somewhat lower figure than I thought, but there you go. And 10% of lung cancer sufferers are non-smokers.
So if fag packets need health warnings on them, and TV campaigns etc, surely sweets and burgers need larger and much more graphic ones! Ban food other than salads (without mayonnaise of course) in pubs and restaurants. Don't eat fatty or starchy foods at home as it can damage the kids. Put £5 "health" tax on Smarties tubes and Mars bars - after all, they're twice as deadly as ciggies.
Last edited:
Hi Rik - It was a Harvard study - titled I believe the Nurses Health Study, following some 85,000 nurses over a 30+ year period. Clearly this wasn't done to study their resistance to passive smoking, but that result was an unexpected "bonus"! A preliminary Google came up with this relating to the base study http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/03.23/05-suddendeath.html and I'm sure that further info can be followed on from there. Unfortunately got some reports to finish, so I'll try to check out more later!
update - here's their base site http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/
Will probably need a lot more digging to find out the passive smoking cross-reference (assuming - like the UEA climategate stats - it hasn't been "suppressed" on PC grounds!)
Last edited:
AndyBB, we're not totally on opposite sides here.I'm not so fond of governments regulating common sense either; diet and most vices should be left to the individual. I also agree that obesity is a more threatening problem. However you cain't really compare diet (fatty, unhealthy foods and associated obesity) to smoking. After all there's no such thing as "second hand" eating.
The articles you mentioned Post #31 make no claims that the dangers of second hand smoke don't exist, rather they dispute just how large the effect is. I agree that facet is debatable.
The articles you mentioned Post #31 make no claims that the dangers of second hand smoke don't exist, rather they dispute just how large the effect is. I agree that facet is debatable.
I think you're right - the impact of passive smoking is debateable, but best-guesses based on all the facts available to date seem to put it as an increased risk of 0.0117%. Personally, if I had young kids, I wouldn't even take that risk, however miniscule it may be!
However, all the hysteria about smoking does tee me off, when statistically - even as a heavy smoker for 50years plus, you're only 16% likely to get lung cancer. Still not good, but a lot better than the much greater risk of obesity, but that is a no-go area for politicians, for some reason. And if I want to risk my health smoking, or mountain-climbing, or inhaling carcinogenic smoke round a camp-fire (yes, wood-smoke is a carcinogen) - that's my decision as an adult to make. But for the politicians, it's much safer to stick to the "evil" tobacco companies than go after Macdonalds.
Having re-read my last sentence, I'm actually quite embarrassed. Why should "they" go after Macdonalds? After all, surely it's not the governments job to tell me how to live my life, what I can eat, drink, smoke, where and when I can go, and who with - as long as I don't hurt anyone by so doing? Sure, give me the best information available - in a clear, un-"edited" way, without spin or agenda - but the decisions I make on that should be mine, not the state's.
Tobacco smoke triggers my (mild) asthma.
Cancer and coronary heart disease are not the only effects on health.
Cancer and coronary heart disease are not the only effects on health.
Similar threads
