Did they go after nicotine because of money

[quintessentone]

My Mrs was a smoker when COVID-19 materialised, me also, we had it before there were any vaccines, she nearly died, rather scary time, i have to say.

Hospitals were so full that the ambulance crew, which we waited 8 hours for to arrive, could not take her, or give her anything.

She was out of the game for a few weeks, the first of such, she could hardly breathe and took months to recover fully.

I, on the other hand, beat it in 3 days, with a bottle of gin(probably not the gin). 

Think it's down to predispositions and comorbidity if im honest. 

Just my opinion, all the same.

Thought I would chime in about gin and to tell you that 'it was the gin'.

"The 7 Health Benefits of Gin Will Make You Pour a Nightcap Tonight"

"How many of you know that one person who drinks gin like it's going out of style, but never gets sick? Well, there's a reason for it. Gin is loaded with juniper berries. Juniper berries are a natural medicine that contains anti-microbial and anti-fungal properties along with some antioxidants. Consuming them lowers your chances of sickness and improves your general health."

7 Health Benefits of Gin, From a Strong Heart to a Long Life

[andy06shake]

this one took five seconds

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7836994/


another good one

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-29118-6

The problem is that any good effects that tobacco may bestow where COVID-19 is concerned, could be outweighed by the harm.

Additionally, one would imagine that if nicotine or some other chemical in tobacco had any real use, they could isolate it without the rest of the toxic smoke that comes with cigarettes.

[quintessentone]

The problem is that any good effects that tobacco may bestow where COVID-19 is concerned, could be outweighed by the harm.

Additionally, one would imagine that if nicotine or some other chemical in tobacco had any real use, they could isolate it without the rest of the toxic smoke that comes with cigarettes.

The study I posted was only on nicotine and not tobacco. I found more information as to why nicotine can act as a healing agent, and why it can also act as a harmful agent.

"More and more, scientists are demonstrating nicotine’s powers beyond its addictiveness. Recent studiesTrusted Source suggest that nicotine has several cancer-causing effects:

• In small doses, nicotine speeds up cell growth. In larger doses, it’s poisonous to cells.
  
• Nicotine kick-starts a process called epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). EMT is one of the important steps in the path toward malignant cell growth.
  
• Nicotine decreases the tumor suppressor CHK2. This may allow nicotine to overcome one of the body’s natural defenses against cancer.
  
• Nicotine can abnormally speed up the growth of new cells. This has been shown in tumor cells in the breast, colon, and lung.
  
• Nicotine can lower the effectiveness of cancer treatment."
  

Does Nicotine Cause Cancer? Know the Facts

[andy06shake]

The study I posted was only on nicotine and not tobacco. I found more information as to why nicotine can act as a healing agent, and why it can also act as a harmful agent.

"More and more, scientists are demonstrating nicotine’s powers beyond its addictiveness. Recent studiesTrusted Source suggest that nicotine has several cancer-causing effects:

• In small doses, nicotine speeds up cell growth. In larger doses, it’s poisonous to cell
  
• s.
  
• Nicotine kick-starts a process called epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). EMT is one of the important steps in the path toward malignant cell growth.
  
• Nicotine decreases the tumor suppressor CHK2. This may allow nicotine to overcome one of the body’s natural defenses against cancer.
  
• Nicotine can abnormally speed up the growth of new cells. This has been shown in tumor cells in the breast, colon, and lung.
  
• Nicotine can lower the effectiveness of cancer treatment."
  

Does Nicotine Cause Cancer? Know the Facts

The main cancer risk from smoking comes from the other chemicals in tobacco smoke like the nitrosamines and benzene.

I dont think Nicotine causes cancer, but apparently it can make cancer cells more resistant to treatment.

Nicotine's main danger is addiction, and i think we all tick that box to one degree or another.

Should we bring up sugar next? 

Because long-term, that stuff is worse for us than coc@ine.

[annonentity]

The lack of critical thinking in this matter is pretty big.   You have to ask Why Monsanto would pay an antismoking activist over a thousand dollars a day back in ninety eighties, to say smoking was the cause of most illness, but at the same time having to pay people to say that their products like agent orange were safe and effective. It might be a bit of a hike for most people after they have been targeted and propagandized to realize that they might just have been fooled a little bit.
 Take a study done by a PHD on behalf of an insurance company to prove that smoking mothers put their unborn babies at risk, why it is almost child abuse...but the outcome was that the smoking mothers had a significantly better outcome for their babies for various reasons, this was shelved simply because the insurance companies have to do what the government says. It did not fit the agenda which is smoking is the scapegoat for the greater pollution for profit. They know when atmospheric testing was conducted it was going to kill a massive amount of the unlucky souls who breathed in that random radio active particle, the irony is that a smoke would have more protection because of the mucous shield. Have a read if you can be bothered.......The Health & Wellness Show: The Truth About Tobacco with Richard White — Health & Wellness — Sott.net

[sahgwa]

Those studies don't refute what you disagreed with on the chart from the study I posted.

Can you find studies where nicotine does not cause cancer and other diseases listed on that chart?

I am sorry I should have been more specific, I disagree that smoking necessarily leads to respiratory infections.
The studies both refute that, as the nicotine shows to inhibit certain viruses.
I also agree that its the nicotine that is doing the heavy lifting, all the additives in commercial cigarette smoke, especially the tar formation are really bad.
If you are going to smoke you should buy pipe tobacco, or loose rolling tobacco with less to no additives.

[quintessentone]

I am sorry I should have been more specific, I disagree that smoking necessarily leads to respiratory infections.
The studies both refute that, as the nicotine shows to inhibit certain viruses.
I also agree that its the nicotine that is doing the heavy lifting, all the additives in commercial cigarette smoke, especially the tar formation are really bad.
If you are going to smoke you should buy pipe tobacco, or loose rolling tobacco with less to no additives.

Yes, I thought you were refuting all negative outcomes using nicotine, that's why I focused on cancer.

-------------------
More on cell changes using nicotine:

"Although there is no solid evidence supporting that nicotine is a carcinogen, the carcinogenic potential of the substance has been demonstrated in various animal and cell culture studies over the last ten years.
 It has been shown that nicotine activates MAP kinases, increases adrenergic signalling in bowel cancer and disrupts apoptosis or programmed cell death. This cell death actually clears the body of cells that have been damaged or have undergone mutations.
 
Impairment of apoptosis means damaged and altered cells remain, creating a pathway for cancers to develop. Nicotine has also been shown to promote angiogensis or the formation of new blood vessels which can help a tumour to survive and grow."

Nicotine Toxicology
-----------------------------------

But the cell poisoning of nicotine would depend upon the dosage.

As for nicotine having the ability to clear viruses from the body, hey, that's great, but at what cost? At what dose to avoid cell poisoning and addiction?

[Good Bacteria]

I tried the vaping thing when it was popular but it began to dawn on me that all I was doing was inhaling synthetic flavored nicotine. I couldn't bring myself to just mainline nicotine. Felt ridiculous.

I became ashamed of myself and quit. Hung on to cigarettes off and on until I got bored of it. The taste, the smell everywhere all the time. I never was a pack a day smoker. A pack would last me two to three days. If I was drinking, they would go quicker.

It got to the point where I couldn't even finish a whole cigarette. I would smoke a cigarette divided into two or three sessions. My buddy said that was nasty, but to me, what's the difference?? I had taste fatigue like crazy. And one day long ago, I quit altogether. Had a few 'relapses' but each time the repulsive taste just reaffirmed my resolve.

Everything comes with a cost. The very air you breathe is slowly strangling you. Why make it easy? Give death a challenge.

[andy06shake]

The lack of critical thinking in this matter is pretty big.   You have to ask Why Monsanto would pay an antismoking activist over a thousand dollars a day back in ninety eighties, to say smoking was the cause of most illness, but at the same time having to pay people to say that their products like agent orange were safe and effective. It might be a bit of a hike for most people after they have been targeted and propagandized to realize that they might just have been fooled a little bit.
 Take a study done by a PHD on behalf of an insurance company to prove that smoking mothers put their unborn babies at risk, why it is almost child abuse...but the outcome was that the smoking mothers had a significantly better outcome for their babies for various reasons, this was shelved simply because the insurance companies have to do what the government says. It did not fit the agenda which is smoking is the scapegoat for the greater pollution for profit. They know when atmospheric testing was conducted it was going to kill a massive amount of the unlucky souls who breathed in that random radio active particle, the irony is that a smoke would have more protection because of the mucous shield. Have a read if you can be bothered.......The Health & Wellness Show: The Truth About Tobacco with Richard White — Health & Wellness — Sott.net

So a grand conspiracy with Monsanto, insurance companies, and the government all sitting in a smoke-filled room plotting to make cigarettes look bad? LoL

Distract from radioactive fallout?

Oh dear.

The "smoking mothers have healthier babies" claim has been debunked repeatedly.

Maternal smoking increases risks of low birth weight, stillbirth, and developmental issues.

Agent Orange being "safe" was propaganda, but that doesn't make tobacco smoke suddenly beneficial.

And no, cigarette tar isn't some magical anti-radiation shield, it's just a sticky carcinogenic mess.

This is less whistleblowing and more YouTube rabbit hole fanfiction dressed up as "critical thinking."

Try actual peer-reviewed science next time.

[Vulture]

I've never smoked, but in Scandinavia I started using chew. Looks like this.  From all the research done there has been no link to these pouches or "snus" in general and cancer or other health issues besides being addictive.  In the U.S. I switch between Copenhagen original flavor and wintergreen.  I intend on quitting because the ingredients in the American dip is honestly pretty scary. 

So I'll probably switch over to nicotine gum, and who knows that may be my new form of dip lol.

But I think, like in all things "moderation is key".  Smoking two packs a day probably isn't the best idea, but smoking a few throughout the day probably won't do too much harm. 

(PSA. I am not a doctor, I only play one on the internet.)