/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10179262]

Is smoking actually bad for you, /sci/? Give me some scientific evidence either way.

[Anonymous No.10179270]

>>10179262
yes

[Anonymous No.10179273]

>Is inhaling burning plant matter, along with small amounts of ash, really bad for me?

Go stand in the middle of one of the California forest fires and find out for me.

[Anonymous No.10179275]

>>10179262
No, it actually increases longevity and is being looked into as a cure for aging.

[Anonymous No.10179276]

why do you need scientific evidence? it's trivially unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.10179278]

>>10179262
fucked up lungs are a pretty good if you want to die early

[Anonymous No.10179279]

>>10179262
It causes heart disease and lung cancer, what else do you want?

[Anonymous No.10179287]

>>10179262
No, it's good. It prevents the extremely painful and depressing condition called octogenarianhood.

[Anonymous No.10179288]

>>10179262
Don't worry, guy who doesn't know how to search for scholarly articles, I got you
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2541142/pdf/bmj00460-0017.pdf
>Results-Excess mortality associated with
smoking was about twice as extreme during the
second half of the study as it had been during the
first half. The death rate ratios during 1971-91
(comparing continuing cigarette smokers with lifelong
non-smokers) were approximately threefold at
ages 45-64 and twofold at ages 65-84. The excess
mortality was chiefly from diseases that can be
caused by smoking. Positive associations with
smoking were confirmed for death from cancers
of the mouth, oesophagus, pharynx, larynx, lung,
pancreas, and bladder; from chronic obstruictive
pulmonary disease and other respiratory diseases;
from vascular diseases; from peptic ulcer; and
(perhaps because of confounding by personality and
alcohol use) from cirrhosis, suicide, and poisoning.
A negative association was confirmed with death
from Parkinson's disease. Those who stopped
smoking before middle age subsequently avoided
almost all ofthe excess risk that they would otherwise
have suffered, but even those who stopped smoking
in middle age were subsequently at substantially less
risk than those who continued to smoke.
Conclusion-Results from the first 20 years of this
study, and ofother studies at that time, substantially
underestimated the hazards of long term use of
tobacco. It now seems that about half of all regular
cigarettte smokers will eventually be killed by their
habit.

[Anonymous No.10179291]

>>10179287
>>10179278
*Blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.10179295]

>>10179262
No. At the very least, it's nowhere as bad as it is made out to be.
Read Whitby M.D.'s books and think for yourself. An intelligent man examines an argument even if he disagrees with it.


>The Smoking Scare Debunked
http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/Whitby.pdf

>Smoking is Good For You
https://www.scribd.com/document/44685607/Smoking-is-Good-for-You-William-T-Whitby

>>10179273
Simpleton logic and straw man.
>>10179275
This.
>>10179276
>SMOKE = BAD!
NPC spotted
>>10179278
Smoking will not lead to "fucked up lungs"
>>10179279
It doesn't "cause" either of those. It's statistically associated with them at only slightly higher rates than the general population, and this is no surprise whenever the participants self-select and the researchers already set out with biased hypotheses and are looking to prove themselves right. Also, the US studies showing this statistical relationship failed to correct for dietary and lifestyle factors and grouped smokers, a population in the US who is not the least bit health conscious, as a lump because the researchers wanted to make smoking out to be the bad guy from the start. The studies out of Japan of the 1990s and 2000s, stand in direct contradiction to the adverse cardiovascular effects and also show much lower rates of lung cancer, now referred to as the Smoker's Paradox. Coincidentally, those Japanese studies were not funded by the American Lung Association
>>10179288
>associations
>reader is too stupid to dissect the methodology used to derive these and accepts their validity without question

[Anonymous No.10179300]

>>10179291
Yeah, not with 100% accuracy, but there are plenty of other options for folks with genetic resistance.

[Anonymous No.10179310]

>>10179295
>posts a 4chan screencap as evidence
>posts links that refer to 2 books, not published research, written by some nobody with no scientific references

I can get decades worth of research that says cigarettes cause cancer, but if you really think they don't, go smoke another pack for me.

[Anonymous No.10179314]

>>10179295
>It doesn't "cause" either of those. It's statistically associated with them at only slightly higher rates than the general population, and this is no surprise whenever the participants self-select and the researchers already set out with biased hypotheses and are looking to prove themselves right.
What an astounding level of delusion
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16100660
20-40x higher rate is not "slightly higher", and participants in large cohort studies aren't "self-selected". Did you form this opinion just to be a contrarian, or are you a smoker desperate to rationalize your habit?

[Anonymous No.10179319]

>>10179314
>it's statistically associated
one of the pdfs he linked to talks about how statistics are meaningless and faulty. You can't reason with this level of retard.

[Anonymous No.10179326]

>>10179300
>y-yeah not with 100% accuracy [???]
>it-it's genetic resistance
How peculiar that the documented oldest people who ever lived, some 75%+ of them were tobacco smokers. For something that was cited earlier as killing 50% of all it's users, then, why on earth would 75% of the most extreme aged population be smokers? It makes little sense. Even if they had some "genetic resistance", then why wouldn't we see more non-smoker's among the ranks at the very least.

If you study the pharmacological properties of tobacco smoke, you can see actions associated with it that would increase longevity. KLOTO expression upregulation, IGF1 decreases, etc.

>>10179310
>I can get decades worth of research that says cigarettes cause cancer
All epidemiological studies with flawed methodology with non-randomized sampling from an ever increasingly non-health conscious population (many health conscious people bought into the lie, acting on this information stopped smoking, and most health conscious people never pick it up because "SMOKE=BAD" is so drilled into most people's heads.).
>>10179314
>I'll make up things about the study design because the abstract doesn't say it!
>here is this absurdly high figure from the prestigious Turkish journal of Tuberk Toraks, which I take at face value!
>there is no selection bias in retrospective cohort studies guise!
What an astounding levels of scientific illiteracy and stupidity.

[Anonymous No.10179335]

>>10179326
I'll admit it, that abstract was just the first result I found on google, because after looking through the studies a few years ago when I decided to quit smoking, the evidence was so rock-solid I can't be bothered to look into it again.

I'd be genuinely interested to hear how you came to have this opinion though. What causes cranks?

[Anonymous No.10179339]

>>10179326
>the documented oldest people who ever lived, some 75%+ of them were tobacco smokers
Baby, you know how I love a good citation; serve it up!
>The studies out of Japan of the 1990s and 2000s, stand in direct contradiction to the adverse cardiovascular effects
Oh God, I'm so fucking hard over those citations I know you have at the ready to provide creedence to those wild claims!

[Anonymous No.10179389]

Nofap for 5 years and smoking 2 packs of Gitanes a day for 10. I can literally see through walls. Don't believe the MSM take the red pill.

[Anonymous No.10179398]

>>10179262
>Is inhaling particuate matter actually bad for you
What do you think, Genius?

[Anonymous No.10179527]

>>10179291
Probably coulda made it to two hundred if she quit smoking..

I'm just kidding. Smoke them if you got them.

[Anonymous No.10179601]

>>10179262
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqiCLuOtXts

[Anonymous No.10179619]

>>10179262
I had to see a cardiologist once, we talked about many things including smoking and said this to me. "We have no scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer because we have never conducted a study in which we forced people to smoke in a controlled environment and compared them against those who don't smoke who were also in an controlled environment".

His point was that there's a big difference between what we know to be true and what is scientifically provable as true. Nevertheless smoking is bad for you anon and you should try to quit.

[Anonymous No.10179670]

It's probably not good for you, but also likely not nearly as bad as you have been led to believe.

[Anonymous No.10179677]

>>10179262
No, its healthy.
Just wait for a couple of years, doctors will prescribe cigarettes

[Anonymous No.10179703]

>>10179262
Go look for pictures of biopsies of smoker lungs. They look worse than lungs of people who worked in coal mines for decades.

[Anonymous No.10179707]

nah just smoke 1 a day and you're good

[Anonymous No.10179866]

>>10179295
>>10179287
>>10179288
Only about 4 posts to get an """expert"""" contrarian to defy scientific consensus. How this place manages to get all these low-brow geniuses is really a feat. Congrats OP, enjoy your """health-boosting""" cancer.

[Anonymous No.10181677]

>>10179703
my grandad worked in a coal mine for long times an smoked since he was 10 he lived til he was 85 he could have been a bit less crispy tho. just look at smokers sputtering their way down the street.
im an ex-smoker. feel much better.. the easiest way to top is to say you moke 10 a day, smoke 10 a day for a period, then 9 a day... and so on. much easier that way. cold turkey is not easy lolz. can breathe better. oxygen = good for you
also your blood is produced in your lungs
blood = good for intelligence and many other things

[Anonymous No.10181893]

>>10179703
>>10181677

[Anonymous No.10181907]

>>10179262
Any smoking is harmful to your lungs. Over time as smoke in your lungs cools off it condenses bit by bit until you get that tar they always warn you about as a kid. This process takes a very long time, and can be reduced by allowing the cells within your lungs to eventually die and reproduce anew, which takes a long time of not smoking. This is also one of the factors at play that causes the famed smoker's cough: tar or resin lined airways which irritate the throat and trachea

[Anonymous No.10181958]

>>10179339
The existence of the Japanese Paradox is well known and even admitted by anti-tobacco research in the West.
Both of these studies show that smoking is NOT a statistically significant risk factor in stroke:
1. Toshima H, Koga Y, Menotti A, Keys A, Blackburn H, Jacobs DR, and Seccareccia F: The seven countries study in Japan. Twenty-five-year experience in cardiovascular and all-causes deaths. Jpn Heart J, 1995; 36:179-189
2. Kiyohara Y, Ueda K, and Fujishima M: Smoking and cardiovascular disease in the general population in Japan. J Hypertens Suppl, 1990; 8:S9-15

Further studies discussing the Japanese Smoker's Paradox (both cardiovascular and lung).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12889681
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350607003290
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/11/1193.full

Find a list of the oldest verified people. You'll find 75% of them smoked well into their 90s and beyond.

[Anonymous No.10182054]

>>10181893
I have actually in real life seen a biopsy and the specimen thus produced. Go fuck yourself with these blatant lies.

[Anonymous No.10182064]

>>10181958
Lower rates (though still high) because Japanese cigarettes are of higher quality. Better filter. Less extras in there. Most US citizens live unhealthy. Other risk factors are lower in Japan.

[Anonymous No.10182067]

>>10182054
And I've seen biopsies of non-smokers who, 'thus produced', likewise terrible samples. Furthermore, imbecile, the health of the population of smokers in the past two decades, is abysmal, so you're drawing from the worst of the worst. They, actually think smoking is bad for them, yet do it anyways and have not one shred of concern for their health. They eat shit, live like shit. This does not mean smoking is to blame for that test result.

[Anonymous No.10183556]

What are some other tobacco harm skeptic resources?

[Anonymous No.10185027]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.10185310]

bumping because I'm interested

[Anon10 No.10186272]

depends on the person

[Anonymous No.10186281]

>>10185310
Honestly, read the Whitby books. At the very least, they should make you think.

[Anonymous No.10186315]

>A review of chronic inhalation studies with mainstream cigarette smoke in rats and mice.
>No statistically significant increase in the incidence of malignant lung tumors was seen in either species as a result of smoke exposure, a finding that does not agree with the results of epidemiological studies in humans. Possible reasons for this lack of correlation are given.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608635

http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/1982/01000/Carcinogenic_Effects_of_Radon_Daughters,_Uranium.4.aspx

>Are lung cancers triggered by stopping smoking?
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(06)00780-8/fulltext

[Anonymous No.10186330]

>>10186315
you guys should uh kill yourselves

[Anonymous No.10186333]

>>10179262
Most people I know that smoke have chronical coughing problems and generally shitty health.

Ergo, based in empirical data, it's bad for your health.

[Anonymous No.10186344]

>>10179291
>what is ecological fallacy

[Anonymous No.10186345]

>>10179262
When you smoke, you are stained with the stench of an ashtray.

That alone should be enough. Everytime I go to a bar or pool hall I have to sanitize all my clothes.

[Anonymous No.10186404]

>>10186330
Nice argument.
>>10186333
>confirmation bias, ergo based in empirical data it's bad for your health
>>10186345
Women find the smell of smoke appealing which is why perfumers utilize tobacco scents in expensive cologne like Tom Ford.

[Anonymous No.10186433]

>>10179291
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfTv-APpZHo

[Anonymous No.10186454]

>>10179262
well small particles might enter your bloodstream over your lungs. your body is not intended to permanently protect your lungs from this. you know in nature this hardly happens, only if theres a bushfire.

its like you forgot where you body comes from. go out in nature a bit more OP

I smoke weed but at least I know it's bad for me.

[Anonymous No.10186458]

>>10179295
>>10179326

[Anonymous No.10186468]

>>10179326
I get the feeling you're a /pol/ack based on your posts throughout this thread.

[Anonymous No.10186470]

>>10179619
Don't go back to him, sounds like a fucking moron

[Anonymous No.10186503]

>>10186470
He said nothing that was factually incorrect. You just have an NPC like reaction to controversial information that you can't reconcile. How does it feel to be a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.10186530]

>>10179262
"smoking causing cancer is a myth" is the stoner equivalent of being a flatearther. they all say this shit. what a retarded group of people

[Anonymous No.10186546]

>>10186530
Straw man.
>is the stoner equivalent of being a flatearther
I do not smoke cannabis or subscribe to flat earther beliefs.
>they all say this shit.
The other groups mentioned allege conspiracy. I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm presenting studies and evidence that contradicts the soft epidemiological that most think "prove" smoking causes cancer. You just can't handle it and are utterly befuddled: ERROR DOES NOT COMPUTE!

[Anonymous No.10186562]

>>10186546
The problem is that although you deal in facts and do not mention the conspiracy it exists and your ideas are harmful towards it. Therefore, shills, name calling, ad hom attacks...

[Anonymous No.10186564]

>>10179262
obviously there will be some noticeable effects if you smoke a pack a day

[Anonymous No.10186592]

Its been corrupted with chemicals. Homegrown tobacco is extremely illegal.

[Anonymous No.10186631]

>>10179326
>>10179295
watch out, we got a smokefag here

[Anonymous No.10186666]

>>10186564
Noticeably good effects. Tobacco is a mental elixir and enhances the mind.

[Anonymous No.10186667]

>>10179262
I'm not sure if this thread is retarded or based. Though isn't "smoking is good for you" literally a meme theory off /x/?

[Anonymous No.10186673]

>>10186667
I assume they stole it off me. I saw some imbecile in a pipe thread one time bastardizing the case behind some of the information I was once provided. Perhaps it was him?

[Anonymous No.10186779]

>>10186404
Why would I care what women like?

Smoking smells horrible, and it literally stains everything, including your teeth, clothes, furniture, and walls.

[Anonymous No.10186795]

>>10186779
>Smoking smells horrible
To you.
>literally stains everything, including your teeth
Nowhere near as much as coffee and especially black tea.
>clothes
Not if you wash them.
>furniture, and walls
I don't smoke indoors.

[Anonymous No.10186816]

>>10186795
Once you quit smoking and your sense of smell comes back, you will be horrified of what smokers smell like.

[Anonymous No.10186841]

>>10179262
It gave me emphysema.

[Anonymous No.10186849]

>>10186816
I have a perfect sense of smell. In fact, since I took up smoking, my sense of smell has only improved.
"Smokers" as a generalized group do have a terrible stench because the the average smoker in 2018 is scum who takes little care of his or her personal hygiene. They smoke cheap, mass produced sheet tobacco which is the smell that you recall, probably stuck to some couch or cloth interior of a car. Smoking premium RYO tobacco or even say a high quality unfiltered cigarette such as an American Lucky Strike, the smell is different, and very appealing. Much like pipe tobacco.

[Anonymous No.10186910]

I've been put on the patch for about a month now. I was a pack a day smoker at 20yo then became a chronic vaper. Ever since I quit I have more energy, can breath better & smell better, and barely cough.

Went for tests after some health complications. Had trouble breathing. Developed a chronic cough. Would notice that I would begin to yawn every time I entered a crowded room or places with low O2 like the metro. Radiography was fine, they found some scarring in my lungs cause of it but it's relatively benign. Urine was fine. Now I have to go back for a follow up on my blood test and I'm low key worried because they sent the other two by email so I'm pretty sure something's wrong with me.

And the worst was my addiction. When I was a pack a day smoker at least I knew how much I was smoking but when I started vaping every other breath was a hit. I would wake up and spend two hours just vaping before my mind was straight.

I've tried weed, opiates, cocaine, amphetamine, benzos, MDMA, LSD, mushrooms, salvia, ketamine, DMX, mescaline, GHB. The only thing I've ever been addicted to was nicotine.

I use to think that I enjoyed the act of smoking but in all actuality I just enjoy the induced dopamine rush. You realize that when you stop smoking.

Worst thing is that it took me thinking I was dying before I quit even though I was studying how it worked as a biochemistry undergrad. How it was carcinogenic and how it got incorporated into your DNA. What it takes for you to develop cancer. How it was ciliatoxic and this only amplified its carcinogenic effect. How it causes cardiovascular disease by damaging your arteries causing atheroma. How it can lead to bronchitis. How it can lead to emphysema. How your dopamine pathway adapts in response to it.

Smoking is a trap. Get out while you can. You are playing Russian roulette.

[Anonymous No.10186934]

>>10179295
Do you have any studies on smoking and its effects on things like lung function and asthma/bronchitis?

Likewise is there a reason why tobacco needs to be smoked to get the good effects? Could it be delivered via pills/food?

[Anonymous No.10186947]

>>10186666
the trips in the timestamp on top of satanic quads.

[Anonymous No.10186962]

>>10186666
You're retarded. All positive gain you get from smoking is quickly lost because of it's acute effect on tolerance. Also its effects don't last long enough for it to be useful. If you smoke long enough you need it to feel normal. You can't focus unless you smoke.

>>10186934
Gum & patches exist.
When you smoke it it goes directly into your bloodstream so its effects are amplified because of increased bioavailability and avoiding first pass metabolism.

[Anonymous No.10186992]

>>10186503
She only died at 122 because the doctors made her stop eating those things at 119.

[Anonymous No.10187029]

>>10186962
thanks anon

[Anonymous No.10187097]

>>10186673
No it's been there for awhile like a few years. I guess it's more than just some silly meme after all.

[Anonymous No.10187110]

>>10186910
Anecdotal experience. Want mine? I picked up smoking sometime in my mid 20s, and I do not regret it at all. It has improved rheumatoid arthritis almost totally, improve my rhetorical skills and made me more reflective.
I never derived much pleasure from it. I've quit for weeks at a time, and generally smoke 8 unfiltered cigarettes a day. The enjoyment I derive is the break and the quiet moment of contemplation. Not some fiendish dopamine rush compelling me. In fact, I've been out of tobacco for several days yet feel no compulsion to obtain any. It feels therapeutic, remedies basic ailments, sparks creativity. The only thing I regret is refusing to smoke in all of the years leading up to that.
>What it takes for you to develop cancer.
There is no consensus on the mechanism (which is always viewed with a tunnel vision, ignoring the fact that tobacco smoke as a whole fails to exhibit carcinogenicity in any experimental studies conducted on healthy models to date). The best researchers attribute it to benzopyrenes. They neglect to mention that these are found in far greater quantities of charred foods, and, actually are worse undergoing hepatic processing. Moreover, there are constituents within tobacco smoke that bestow anticarcinogenic actions, (e.g.- IGF-1 suppression), which as a whole serve to attenuate the insults inflicted by other components.
>incorporated into your DNA
Tobacco is shown to increase telomere length relative to control. There may be some hormetic mechanism, much like ultra low dose radiation shows paradoxical effects on carcinogenesis.
>How it was ciliatoxic
Debatable. Rats and dogs models were forced to inhale tobacco smoke with surgically implanted devices delivering very hot smoke, which is going cause ciliatoxic injury. In fact, the constituents of tar are ciliaprotective, e.g. polyphehols and CoEnzyme Q10, and the acute effect injury actually leads to permanently increase glutathione production in surrounding tissue.

[Anonymous No.10187115]

>>10186962
There is always a marginal benefit to be derived long after tolerance is incurred. Not as significant but it's still there, much like coffee drinking.

[Anonymous No.10187158]

>>10186934
>Do you have any studies on smoking and its effects on things like lung function and asthma/bronchitis?
This is the result of cigarette filters, which deposit strands of cellulose acetate fibers deep into the lungs and further aerosolize the smoke, making it be drawn into the innermost pulmonary recesses.

Cigarette Filter Ventilation and its Relationship to Increasing Rates of Lung Adenocarcinoma
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/109/12/djx075/3836090/Cigarette-Filter-Ventilation-and-its-Relationship

Cigarettes with defective filters marketed for 40 years: what Philip Morris never told smokers
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i51

>Likewise is there a reason why tobacco needs to be smoked to get the good effects? Could it be delivered via pills/food?
There is no other substance that I am aware of with such a wide-spanning range of pharmacological effects. Go ahead and look around you for something that has this many medicinal benefits – you will find nothing coming close. Even coffee, which I also enjoy, does not come close with regards to the hormonal effects, MAO-B inhibition (tobacco smoke is more potent inhibitor) the reduction of IGF-1… upregulation of the various longevity-antioxidants. The best cocktail to recreate it would be a combination of selegiline, nicotine, glutathione-increasing supplements, perhaps curcumin and coenzyme q10 but that would fall far short of covering all the bases that tobacco would and the bioavailability of oral administration for many of these is poor. However, it's infinity better than doing nothing.

[Anonymous No.10187317]

>>10186934

[Anonymous No.10187334]

>>10187110
You're fucking retarded.

On carcinogenic effects:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53010/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23033231/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206898/

List of carcinogens in tobacco
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/carcinogens-tobacco-smoke.html

On ciliatoxicity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3862616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790614/

On telomere maintenance in cancers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29463031/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003493/

[Anonymous No.10187417]

>>10187334
>totally ignores the case within my post and deflects with studies that are irrelevant or do not contradict my case
I never said carcinogens were absent from tobacco and discussed and brought up benzopyrene carcinogenisis in the very post. Read it again and entertain, even for a moment, the arguments within it.
>On carcinogenic effects
>List of carcinogens in tobacco
Quantitative boogeyman. Most of the carcinogens are found in trace amounts, and are found in other things humans consume. Repeating myself, the only plausible ones to be concerned with are the benzopyrenes.
Despite there being the presence of these carcinogens in tobacco smoke, tobacco smoke, to date, has never induced cancer in healthy subjects (animals) in experimental studies. This indicates there are other constituents within the smoke that offset the damage.
>On ciliatoxicity
I said debatable. As for these studies, the first is in vitro conducted on dead tissue, with hot smoke blown directly on it. It can't utilize any of the pulmonoprotective compounds. It's unrealistic and completely abstract.

As for study #2.
>In 28 endobronchial biopsies, healthy smoker cilia length was reduced by 15% compared to nonsmokers (p<0.05). In 39 air-dried samples of airway epithelial cells, smoker cilia length was reduced by 13% compared to nonsmokers (p<0.0001). Analysis of the length of individual, detached cilia in 27 samples showed that smoker cilia length was reduced by 9% compared to nonsmokers (p<0.05). Finally, in 16 fully hydrated, unfixed samples, smoker cilia length was reduced 7% compared to nonsmokers (p<0.05).

Those decreases are not drastic. I do not see any variables adjusting for income, workplace occupation, income, diet or lifestyle factors. Smoker's, especially by 2009, were non-health conscious and usually lower class. My case still stands.

[Anonymous No.10187430]

>>10187334
>On telomere maintenance in cancers:
If aberrant telomerase expression was induced by tobacco that contributed to cancer, then why do the hard studies (experimental, animals) fail to demonstrate carcinogenesis?

[Anonymous No.10187620]

>>10179270
fpbp

[Anonymous No.10187636]

>>10187620
There is no evidence provided so it's actually the worst post in the entire thread.

[Anonymous No.10187692]

Yawn. Another schizoid infested thread.

[Anonymous No.10187760]

>>10187158
thanks anon

[Anonymous No.10187765]

>>10187760
You are most welcome.

[Anonymous No.10187771]

>>10179326
>smoke cigs for weeks on end
>VO2 max plummets
>get more respiratory infections than any point in my life
>heart rate is spiking uncomfortably
>smell bad, clothes smell
>lose taste
>stop
>everything resets and feel infinitely better
>same results in everyone I've ever seen smoke
>duller than before and need more caffeine for sure but can run and workout more easily
>erections are stronger too
lol whatever man

[Anonymous No.10188596]

>>10187771
>>smoke cigs for weeks on end
>>VO2 max plummets
>>get more respiratory infections than any point in my life
Probably due to your general unhealthiness, poor diet, and idleness. Cheap cigarettes may have played a role too, which contain toxic fire-retardants like polyvinyl acetate among others. Consider that that most smokers smoke filtered cigarettes all the way to the end which causes part of the filter to pyrolysize and be taken into the lung.
I for one have never gotten a respiratory infection
>smell bad, clothes smell
>lose taste
Cheap tobacco and your own preference falsification from others.
>everything resets and feel infinitely better
Placebo
>same results in everyone I've ever seen smoke
Confirmation bias
>duller than before and need more caffeine for sure but can run and workout more easily
Even if true, I would rather have intelligence any day.
>erections are stronger too
It isn't so much that tobacco impairs erectile function, as it does increase nitric oxide much the same way PDE5 inhibitors do, but instead is a mental stimulant, that broadens the bind to be concerned with more than just sex (concerning the latter, the same applies to other mental stimulants). There is a reason why Mendeleev, Einstein, and most significant scientists of the past 500 years were smokers.
>lol whatever man
Emotional low IQ dismissal.

[Anonymous No.10191156]

bump

[Anonymous No.10191163]

>>10188596
>I would rather have intelligence
Because only smart people smoke riiiiiight?

[Anonymous No.10191172]

Bet this thread is a shilling training exercise. God the internet is retarded.

[Anonymous No.10191203]

>>10188596
>smoking is good and makes you smarter
>>why's that, Dr. Anon?
>because it's a stimulant!
cool. i'll stick to coffee, thanks.

[Anonymous No.10191214]

>>10179291
One of her parents was a plant. Air filtering was in her DNA. She would inhale cigarette smoke and exhale settling soot and pure oxygen. Inhaling that shit actually prolonged her life by boosting her immune system.

[Anonymous No.10191618]

>>10187636
what is common knowledge

[Anonymous No.10191629]

Is there a scientific reason for why smoking looks so cool?

[Anonymous No.10191667]

>tfw smoking 75 cigarretes a day

How can I quit?

[Anonymous No.10191679]

>>10186330
Don't worry, they are. It's just gonna take a while.

[Anonymous No.10191680]

>>10186962
>When you smoke it it goes directly into your bloodstream
hahahHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAÃAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAÅ

[Anonymous No.10192725]

>>10179262
yes it is bad, no it is probably not the absolute majority of lung cander cases.

[Anonymous No.10192727]

>>10179295
>pol
lmao so underage

[Anonymous No.10192749]

>>10191629
oral fixation prolly, you're made to find people eating calming, I read it in a body language book once, have no sources at the moment though

[Anonymous No.10192775]

>>10191680

And what do you think your lungs do?

[Anonymous No.10192780]

>>10191680
>he has the play-pretend dunning kreuger version of the normalfag meme from 18 months ago saved and is arguing smoking tobacco isn’t related to cancer