Did they go after nicotine because of money

[Maxmars]

It was Big Business that went after "nicotine" products for money...

They spent millions on research specifically to increase the addictive effect (within legal limits.)

As usual, our bad habits and fixations made tobacco a problem, but it was Big Business that made it into a drug... legally... protected from competition... this sounds bad, no?  I think it was commerce killing us off again... (and again, and again, and again....)

But the evil didn't arrive until the vultures circled and was clear they were going to get away with it.

[IDELB2006]

And then, there was the revelation that the tobacco companies new for 40 years that there own products caused cancer, yet denied this fact publicly.

Studies funded, and carried out by tobacco companies proved the cancer causing affects, and yet they lied, just to make a buck.

Polonium 210, yeah, its in there

With all the great health affects of smoking, it is a shame it does not do more for a persons skin. I mean really, when is the last time you heard someone say "They have great skin, they must be a smoker".

Some might call it hypocritical that I smoked for 30 years, but now I'm against smoking. It could just be that I fell for the lies, but now I have learned the truth. People should at least be open to the truth, if they are going to make a decision that could affect there health for the rest of there lives.

[andy06shake]

If you want to stop smoking just get some snuff, and lesson the dose over a couple of weeks, Its made from the ground up stems of the plant. But a Pipe or a cigar or a few rollups are not going to kill anyone, in fact as a stress reliver it is better than Prozac. The do Gooders do more harm, as they get their jollies by stopping other people from getting theirs , it has always been so and probably always will be.
 I think the poor health of the population has a cause, and when looking for the cause of any illness always go for the simplest cause first as it usually is that , IE the food is crap and hasn't got the forty-eight essential elements in the quantities required to keep a human body healthy. They are trace elements, which plants need time to bring up from the soil, rainfall and faster growth mean they are depleted. Just for interest I asked AI what would be the one single food source that would supply a lot of these essential elements, and to my surprise it said one Brazil nut a day would supply the ones that are generally lacking in the modern diet. Take that for what it is, So I have added one Brazill nut nicely shredded up as a garnish to my daily regime lol.

Snuff still delivers nicotine and harmful compounds, just through your nose instead of your lungs, so it's not a harmless "quit aid."

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-i...it-harmful

Pipes, cigars, and roll-ups still carry serious risks, even without inhaling deeply, like cancer and heart disease.

And the stress relief you get from smoking is your nicotine addiction being fed, not magic therapy.

[sahgwa]

It's a double-edged sword and very controversial in the medical communities. Pick your poison.

The double-edged nature of nicotine: toxicities and therapeutic potentials - PMC


[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...wc_abs.jpg]

I disagree with that chart.
I recall reading a lot of studies that showed for the 'covid' for example, that nicotine blocked the ability for the virus to take a hold in the lungs, as those pathways were already 'full' .
This also was the case with certain blood pressure medications as well, I read. 
Nicitinate? seems to stop a lot of viral replication.  Also, anything with the angiotensin receptors.

[quintessentone]

I disagree with that chart.
I recall reading a lot of studies that showed for the 'covid' for example, that nicotine blocked the ability for the virus to take a hold in the lungs, as those pathways were already 'full' .
This also was the case with certain blood pressure medications as well, I read. 
Nicitinate? seems to stop a lot of viral replication.  Also, anything with the angiotensin receptors.

Well, certainly feel free to post studies that refute those claims by those researchers.

[annonentity]

In the Spanish flu epidemic it was noticed quite quickly that smokers were not dying at the rate of non smokers. In fact it sparked a surge in non smokers taking up the habit. During the latest it was also noticed that smokers had some sort of protection, They moved on that as fast as they could because it went against the narrative. Industrialized tobacco is as crappy as industrialized food but it looks like some good was happening.

[sahgwa]

Well, certainly feel free to post studies that refute those claims by those researchers.

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

[quintessentone]

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

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?

[andy06shake]

I disagree with that chart.
I recall reading a lot of studies that showed for the 'covid' for example, that nicotine blocked the ability for the virus to take a hold in the lungs, as those pathways were already 'full' .
This also was the case with certain blood pressure medications as well, I read. 
Nicitinate? seems to stop a lot of viral replication.  Also, anything with the angiotensin receptors.

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.

[andy06shake]

In the Spanish flu epidemic it was noticed quite quickly that smokers were not dying at the rate of non smokers. In fact it sparked a surge in non smokers taking up the habit. During the latest it was also noticed that smokers had some sort of protection, They moved on that as fast as they could because it went against the narrative. Industrialized tobacco is as crappy as industrialized food but it looks like some good was happening.

Where was it noted back then?

Is there any solid proof that smokers were safer?

Keeping in mind that records from back then weren't great, and other factors like age, jobs, living conditions, and diet probably mattered more.

The problem being annonentiity, tobacco smoke of the commercial processed sorts anyway, damages our lungs and weakens immunity, which is a proven fact, so how it could be a shield is questionable imho.