SMOKING PREVENTS LUNG CANCER

In July, 2003, Joe Vialls raised a lot of eyebrows with a widely-circulated article entitled SMOKING HELPS PROTECT AGAINST LUNG CANCER.  [Originally posted at http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/smoking.html  but that site was taken down after Joe was murdered.  Still available in many caches; a user-friendly example is at http://www.sott.net/articles/show/226999-Smoking-Helps-Protect-Against-Lung-Cancer ].  Sample quote:  “Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer. Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight “C” doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. ‘Smoking causes lung cancer’ [was] converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof.”  Joe’s thesis in the article is that lung cancer’s main cause is inhalation of radioactive particles placed into the atmosphere as the result of nuclear testing. 

An excellent review of scientific evidence supporting that fallout hypothesis can be found at http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/113920.html .  Joe was a conspiracy theorist par excellence, so he ties his assertion in with other plots or illuminatist methodology (as in the quote above).  That argument is supported at

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/01/02/how_mass_media_may_shape.htm

along with extensive links to medical evidence which supports Joe’s primary thesis. For a detailed data base, currently at 411 published medical journal studies which support the assertion that smoking reduces the risk of cancer and other diseases, visit http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/liars.htm and http://www.forces.org/Scientific_Portal/ .  Another major pro-smoking site with links to medical evidence is at http://www.smokinglobby.com/forum/forums.html .  Findings include statements such as:  [smoking will] “protect against oxidative DNA damage and thereby protect against cancer” [From www.chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/123/1_suppl/21S.full]  In the late 1990s, both the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society were puzzled, in following up on participants of 1960s studies, that children exposed to the second-hand smoke of their parents were at lower risk for cancer than children of non-smokers in the original control groups.

Chemicals, from toxic mercury in tooth fillings, foods and vaccines; from industrial waste; from hexafluorosilicic acid added (with fluoride) to our drinking water; from herbicides and pesticides in vegetables and fruits; from mosquito spray and chemtrails liberally distributed in the air; and biotics from hormone-fed animals; from man-made viruses which have ‘escaped’ the labs (E.coli was once beneficial; now there are 158 man-made known harmful mutations) -- these are ever increasing and contribute to rising levels of illness.  See http://consumerlawpage.com/article/household-chemicals.shtml . Newborn babies have over 200 toxins in their bodies at birth, and in Ontario it is the law to add another 27 by vaccination by the age of two.  Yet, only tobacco smoke gets blamed (see http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/tobacco_blamed.htm ).  It is a false flag.

Every year since 1978, the number of smokers per capita in North America has declined, marginally until 1994 but accelerating each year since then (1994 was the year of wide-spread legislation against smoking in both Canada and the USA).  Lung cancer has increased inversely to the decline in smoking, with lung cancer in non-smokers accelerating faster than in smokers.  Lung cancer in smokers also began to decline when tobacco companies stopped using asbestos in the cigarette filters.

Humans have smoked weeds and grasses for millenia.  A human found frozen near a 40,000 year-old mastodon was in possession of a prehistoric variant of marijuana, as was a 5,000 year-old frozen man in the Alps, and the Mound Builders in Ohio smoked more than one thousand years ago.  Smoke and water store memories (check out the work of Maseru Emoto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_dmYT83ZKY ), and that is the original purpose of using incense (smoke) in religious ceremony [to ‘remember’ another person’s/god’s DNA into your own DNA].  Tobacco (another weed) smoking is more recent; we have been smoking tobacco for slightly more than 500 years.  I have commented elsewhere (http://southoftuk.blogspot.ca/2011/03/south-of-tuk-104.html) about the prominent role smoking played in Ben Jonson’s The Alchemist as early as 1610.

In 1975 I had a four-month contract with the Ministry of National Defence, taking spectroscopic photographs of ice core samples.  We worked out of Tuktoyaktuk in the Canadian Arctic.  The ice forms layers every year which can be counted like the rings of a tree trunk.  The samples we took ranged back to 10,000 years ago, and with one odd exception, everything prior to about 1840 was pristine, as expected.  We were able to document major volcanic eruptions (we found evidence of Krakatoa in 1883) where the ash fallout was world-wide, and major regional (i.e., within about 1500 miles) forest fires in Russia and Canada.  The process we used was high-powered illumination through the core sample to create a prism which was photographed.  The ice was thereafter also examined chemically.  In samples from about 1840, we started getting pollutants in the ice, more each year.  This would be part of the down-side to the Industrial Revolution.  The one oddball item was that we found evidence of a nuclear war in 2024 BC, give or take 3 years.  [This would confirm Alan Alford and Zecharia Sitchin’s (The Wars of Gods and Men) assertions.]  [By the way, our evidence also pointed to global cooling, not global warming – but that’s another article.]  I have two points here:  1)a major event will leave fallout worldwide [recall about four months ago, the public warnings issued in Calgary when the fallout from the Japanese nuclear accident started falling east of the Rocky Mountains]; and 2)the illness-causing defilement of the planet began with the Industrial Revolution circa 1840.

One of the problems with Joe Vialls’ radioactive argument is that a link between smoking and lung cancer is first noted in the medical literature in 1883 – well before the atomic age.  A good site for this counter-argument is http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventlungcancer.htm which makes many references to this older literature.  Many of these include mention of the industrial pollution of cities wherein the cancer begins to appear.  All of the quotes are from private observations – doctors making general observations from their own practice; there are absolutely no studies cited which have been conducted to current scientific standards.  The site uses stern language and urges the prosecution of tobacconists on murder charges, and implies the arrest of smokers on suicide charges.

None of the modern studies have had a control group to eliminate strontium/cesium poisoning as a factor, perhaps the major factor, in lung cancer.  And this is with good reason:  such a study is impossible because all organic material on the planet (via world-wide fallout) has been contaminated, right down to every single blade of grass.  The concentrations increase as you move up the food chain.  And we still don’t know all of the potential effects of these contaminants.

My personal opinion is that cancer is caused by “too much”, period.  Too much of this causes Cancer A, too much of that causes Cancer B, and everything is on the list!  It is the logical and inevitable result of direct disobedience to the commandment:  “Let your moderation be known to all men”.

So I vote with Joe Vialls on this issue.  If ya got em, light em up!