Is lung cancer from smoking legit, or is it another Jewish lie?

Is lung cancer from smoking legit, or is it another Jewish lie?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/D8M8I2SYEiA
smokescreens.org/does-smoking-harm-health/
smokescreens.org/arm-yourself-with-facts/
smokescreens.org/secondhand-smoke-firsthand-lies/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

there are 100 year old ladies smoking in cuba without access to the white mans cancer sticks

the issue isnt smoke or nicotine for that matter its the 500 chemicals that are added to increase addiction

So smoke Natural American Spirit and you'll be fine?

Yep becuase inhaling super heated air and plant material into your lungs is A ok.

>thinks people INHALE cigar smoke

are you 12?

correlation =/= causation :^)

The spirit of his post is still right though. Tobacco companies do add ingredients to their already unhealthy products to increase addiction.

I knew an old school IRA guy that did that. He died of like 3 types of cancer.

tabacoo is not the main problem. It´s stuff like Tar they put into them. My grandpa used to get his cigarettes out of czech with some other guys from the Villagepub. Everyone of them got lung cancer and died early. But that´s just a personal experience

Yes, all the negative effects of smoking are lies. You should smoke a lot and around kids, it's not bad. In fact, you should let your kids smoke from very early, it's good for them.

The jews are demonizing the tobacco industry because they're historically anti jewish

Nope all cigs have additives in them, or they would go out when you stop puffing on them like cigars do. They also have chemicals to numb your throat so you won't gag like you do if you inhale a cigar.

Smoke cigars, they use pure tobaccos. Or pipes, pipe tobacco uses additives but they are food grade (vinegar to balance the pH, and food type flavorings) and harmless. Don't inhale either unless you like throwing up, they don't include anasthetics like cigarettes.

Well...it's definitely not a lie. But the chances of getting lung cancer from smoking exclusively are pretty severely exaggerated, or greatly misunderstood depending how you look at it. Doesn't make smoking any healthier for you though.

Those images are though. They're pure shock material. Smoking doesn't completely black out your lungs. Or even stain them for that matter. Unless someone has pretty severe COPD (which isn't exclusively caused by smoking either) a smoker's lung doesn't really appear unhealthy to the naked eye.

>thinks people INHALE cigar smoke

I'm one of the people who inhale cigar smoke. It's not for the feint of heart. But MAN do you get a buzz from it.

Please keep smoking goy... guys! It's very good for my medical pract... I mean It's very good for you! Don't believe the media's lies!

They're not necessarily added just "created" when the tobacco, paper, etc... is burned.

Please don't tell me they used an asshole to shop that

well even a pure organic cigarillo has health effects, but ti's not even in the same league as cigarettes. interesting enough during the 50s and 60s maybe up till the 70s cigarettes had all sorts of additives that are now banned, and were unfiltered, later it was determined that the original filters for cigarettes had fucking asbestos.

now there's all sorts of nasty shit in darts, those new menthol squeeze packs wtf

inhaling heated plant matter will cause a free radicals and minor tissue damage on it's own to an extend, add pesticides, rat poison, bleached paper, artificial flavouring agents, etc.

notwithstanding the addictive properties.

I've heard that you actually shit yourself when you inhale too much.

Please educate those of us who aren't degenerate enough to smoke then, user

i can smoke a whole pack of spirits and cough less than if i smoke 3-4 marbs.

Smoking is bad but governments try to use the anti-smoking campaign for their own purposes. Check out Jacob Sullum's book For Your Own Good. The concept of public health was founded as a way of quietly establishing totalitarianism (you can see parallels with environmentalism). Compare the sincere Nazi campaign against vivisection.

>well even a pure organic cigarillo has health effects, but ti's not even in the same league as cigarettes

True (higher chance for tongue and nose cancer) but it doesn't affect your lungs which is the biggest plus (next to superior taste)

You are retarded.
Seriously, consider it.

How would you know yourself, how could you notice when you are an imbecile?

A core problem with being stupid is being unable to recognize it - you are so stupid you fail and lose again and again, and then you seek scapegoats other than you to rationalize that you are unfairly suppressed by Jews etc.

Sorry guys, you are human filth.

The best thing you have going for you is that you are White, and that is nothing that you achieved yourself. Your most valuable trait, the best thing about you, is something you have just been born with.

But being retarded is something you are responsible for yourself.

You are mighty idiots, and yet you think of yourself as being somebody better than that.

the higher rate of mouth and nose cancer is because of tha way you smoke, generally you don't inhale, it lingers on the palate.

in any case Cuba has that vaccine now, it's a work in progress but its effective even in those with lung cancer. but fuck i'd rather not get that shit to begin with.

Bitch is ugly
And thats saying alot, given ftv's high quality women

You're right, but you're just as bad for acting all high & mighty and calling people with different opinions "imbeciles".

k i no tell u

slep tite bb grl

as much as i love the post, here's a rebuttal;
Anything you do I can do better, you suck, lol you're on Sup Forums loser.

*ahem* yes... yes....

>Those images are though. They're pure shock material. Smoking doesn't completely black out your lungs. Or even stain them for that matter. Unless someone has pretty severe COPD (which isn't exclusively caused by smoking either) a smoker's lung doesn't really appear unhealthy to the naked eye.

I have a hard time believing that. Just look at a filter after the cigarette has been smoked - and realize that the filters don't really do shit anyway. Tens to hundreds of thousands of cigarettes smoked over a lifetime will definitely leave some nasty shit.

Fuck I havent had a cig in over a year. That shit stinks bad, makes your clothes smell. See retards smoking and think to myself how stupid they look. And they dont think they are drug addicts.
Just because it takes 20 years to kill you doesnt make it less dangerous then heroin

I heard cigars were even more unhealthy than cigarettes.

>but fuck i'd rather not get that shit to begin with

True. I started smoking cigarillos on a daily basis 4 years ago and it is an addiction but due to the ritualistic approach cigar smokers have (me included) the addiction is bundled with the situation.

I'm not longing the cigar but rather the moment (sitting in my room alone with music and an open window).

Dude, I'll be honest, after two hours of cigars, I have an insane need to take a shit.

Daily reminder the NatSoc German regime began the anti smoking campaign. Reminder smoking is a Jewish toll to keep the white man's lungs weak.
Reminder that smoking the nicotine Jew kills you.

Your body also completely refreshes every single cell in it within a few years.

It doesn't matter if it's smoke from tobacco, weed, a cotton shirt, or burning marshmallows. Human lungs aren't designed for smoke.
>but weed is good! E-cigs are healthy!
Smoke kills.

Interesting, with me it's the opposite

E-cigs isn't smoke, though. That's the whole point.

Is

Is this why cigarettes fuck me up so bad?

Because I smoke them like I smoke pot?

kek fuck india

No, you're just a pussy faggot. You're supposed to inhale cigarettes and cigars, that's how you get the smoke inside you

youtu.be/D8M8I2SYEiA

Just say no

Smoking is part of the equation but it is only one part. Japanese people smoke more than any other industrialized nation and have very low rates for lung cancer.

Tar is not put into cigarettes it is a byproduct of burning tobacco.

That must be why nobody ever has scars last more than a few years.

> Smoking is addicting
> Profit
Do you even know how Jews work?

Nonsmoker here. It's a complete farce. Tons of studies have shown that smoking has relatively zero health risks and the idea of a 'smoking related illness' is also false. Secondhand smoke is an even worse charade.

It's just people trying to restrict lifestyle from what I understand.

>tfw just picked up some cigars and all of a sudden no longer have any desire to touch cigarettes ever again

YESSSSSS GOYIM

keep smoking! of course lung cancer is just another jewish hoax!

the pinnacle of Sup Forums shitposting

>Tons of studies have shown that smoking has relatively zero health risk
No, they haven't.
>Secondhand smoke is an even worse charade
A child forced to live with someone who smokes will have health problems from it.
Stop lying, you bastard.

>smokers should be gassed!

They're gassing themselves

Living has a 100% chance of killing you.

So many people are willing to dismiss vaccines causing autism or cellphones causing brain cancer but goddamn all of you have bought into the smoking is bad for you meme. It's actually

>air pollution
>diet (cholesterol etc.)
>genetics
>vitamin deficiencies

And a slew of other shit. The amount of truth out there is just buried by the CDC and other big interest groups. How can Sup Forums not realize this? I mean I know people here are irrational racists but I'm talking about the critical side of Sup Forums.

...

Quit before the age of 35 and you will be unaffected.

Why do Japs have such low cancer then

hitler and nazi germany were the first ones to have an anti-smoking campaign

hitler hated tobacco and alcohol

its not a fucking jewish conspiracy

Oh calm the fuck down dude.

smokescreens.org/does-smoking-harm-health/

smokescreens.org/arm-yourself-with-facts/

smokescreens.org/secondhand-smoke-firsthand-lies/

Here are the actual facts involved. Maybe you'll learn something.

my grandmother smoked for 70 years, she's 93 now and doing fine....

Hitler was an inside job

in modern farming its common/necessary to pump the soil with nutrients using phosphate fertilizers which tend to be radioactive as for nicotice which we're told is bad you should look up "nicotinic acid" which is nothing more than vitamin B. there was a video on youtube but account was suspended. back to radiation pic related shows measurement of radioactivity:

If anything you're the one lying dude.

I don't know.

Nope, it's true. More likely is you'll get COPD first though; might as well be dead at that point.

Smoking isn't that bad for you. Every other country/continent on the planet with smoking on it sees it as relatively harmless. The U.S. has this problem because of other factors that are making people unhealthy, but the government blamed smoking.

Nice info but I am certain it is (K) potash which is radioactive

That's about as wrong as is possible -- either shill, ignorant, or 15.

Cigars are much healthier than cigarettes because the smoke isn't going to your lungs

You know they can isolate smoking reasonably well in relative risk calculations right? Meaning they can ignore the other factors in their calculations. If something makes you 100x more likely to develop lung cancer, probably don't do it.

All I'm hearing is "it's wrong" but I have links that prove otherwise. You have nothing and if you did have something it'd be faulty scientific statistics at best.

So people don't even read links anymore? I have to actually take quotes from said links now and post them so people can figure out the truth?

>The problem with risk factors is that the researchers decide which ones to assess, and which to include in the final report. Further, it cannot be overstated that correlation does not mean causation – after all, 100% of lung cancer victims inhale air, and 100% of heart disease victims eat food, but everyone knows we cannot link breathing to lung cancer and all food to heart disease. Moreover, how can researchers be sure that a particular risk factor was responsible for the heart attack? The only way to deduce a risk factor is by isolating it as the one variable to which anomalous results can be attributed. As such, risk factors are automatically and without fail biased by the researchers’ opinions, as they choose which to include, exclude, study, and, ultimately, whether to reveal their raw data or to alter it to match their hypothesis or premise.

>some dumbass pro-smoking website
Yeah, I'm sure those are some serious facts there.
>Smoking isn't that bad for you
Yes, it is.
Goddamn, where are these retarded pro-smoking threads coming from?

It's a lie, OP. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.

Go look yourself. It's old, proven, and done countless times. You think tobacco handed over $50 billion for fun. Fucking idiots itt, may as well say gravity isn't real.

>smokescreens.org/does-smoking-harm-health/

Don't forget tobacco is one of the best natural plants in regards to lowering estrogen in your body. The constant attacks on tobacco, coupled with the extreme use of xenoestrogens in virtually everything, kinda makes you think.

...

>tobacco filter

You cannot discredit the source because of some flimsy position on your part, only the facts in the source, which you haven't done. Sorry but thats the way it is.

>gravity isn't real

False analogy. The lies about smoking being as deadly as suggested is well known.

Nicotine is also a very effective commercial pesticide.

>after all, 100% of lung cancer victims inhale air, and 100% of heart disease victims eat food
What kind of a retard would seriously write this? Is this from that website you linked? Is that your website?
>The lies about smoking being as deadly as suggested is well known.
Yeah, except that isn't true.

I'm actually surprised to say that just about everything I read there is true. I mean, the stats that are supposed to convince you not to smoke because they're scary are often misleading. That said, people who smoke do have much statistically significantly higher rates of lung cancer, emphysema, COPD, etc. than non-smokers. This indicates causation because every conceivable confounding factor has been ruled out.

Oh, and yeah, secondhand smoke is total horse shit.

I see what you're saying, but anecdotal evidence doesn't establish any kind of larger pattern or trend.

Amazing response, are you a scientist who works for the WHO by any chance?

There is no analogy needed. You are either really fucking stupid or a troll. Go debate the moon landings with the rest of the tinfoil idiots.

There is a difference in inhaling and breathing it out and dragging it down in your lungs and letting almost nothing come out.

The "retard" has made a compelling case for why smoking is really just attacked by special interest groups. Many scientists have been discredited by the anti-smoking authority because they don't tow the party line, like James Enstrom.

It will greatly increase the chance of you getting lung cancer, but an average persons risk of getting that is already pretty low. Plus, cancer is looking like a genetic thing every day. If your family has a history of cancer, smoking is a terrible idea.

As for everyone else, a heart attack is gonna be far far far more likely.

>indicates causation because every conceivable confounding factor has been ruled out.

How do we absolutely know this, though? There are many factors involved, like the air we breathe being filled with car pollution, nonsmokers developing lung cancer, emphysema, etc.

You have no argument. You basically have nothing but insults, typical anti-smoker who shouldn't be taken seriously.

we absolutely don't know anything with this logic you fucking dimwit

Some cancers are genetic but the last I heard was that cancer is really just bad luck in most cases. Because it's a cellular mutation that isn't suppressed by the human body it's probabilistic in most cases.

So you're gonna completely deny that the people carrying out these studies did not consider other factors at play?

I said it indicates, not that we know. Even when controlling location (even specific cities so you can control for specific levels of pollution, which are actually carcinogens on their own), other habits, etc. smokers have higher rates of these lung illnesses. Because non-smokers still develop these illnesses it is impossible at this point to say that any one person who has cancer, COPD, etc. got it from smoking. However, we do know that smoking does increase the rates of these diseases in populations, so we can say that smoking does increase your probability of developing these diseases. Another factor is the amount you smoke. Obviously smoking three packs a day will be a lot harder on your lungs than smoking 1-3 cigs per day. People in the lowest smoking bracket have rates of these diseases comparable to non-smokers.

Cool, thanks user.

Actually Nazis were the first to be anti-smoking.

They discovered the cancer links and discouraged Aryan women from smoking because it hurt child bearing stuff.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany

>Nazis being incorrect

Well I guess I'm not surprised.

No goy everything is a lie - when you feel brain fog and have no energy after attempting to multitak it's not because your brain is a chemical machine and it got depleted of resources - mainly glucose and got filled with stress hormone cortisol - it's just a coincidence, nothing science have to say is right - why would God tolerate humans studying the laws He placed into creation? Why would God and science go hand in hand?

Just ignore everything - smoke, drink do w/e you're young and free -remember to buy Jewish products.

On a serious note - you have to take into consideration all information you get about your body - if you received the proper education of how to select good information and put the bad one away you'll be able to pick right scientific studies to shape your own opinion about the world around you - that's it's based as much as it can on reality.

For example they took squirrels and removed their olfactive center in brain - even without the capacity to smell squirrels still found their hidden nuts ... why? Because the hippocampus was left intact and the squirel remembered the spatial position of nuts.

Just go with bioethics if you want useful tldr I think orthodox church of Greece ha an bioethics research center - buy their books.

Jesus, that got dark

I used to love that show tho

How would they profit from selling kess cigs?

all natural cigars do not exist, ALL TOBACCO is HEAVILY treated during the drying process with hundreds of chemicals. Nigggers in Nicaragua, yo.