RE: smoking (was: Lance Armstrong & physical abilities)

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>How could one statement discredit an entire movement (which is much larger

>than Sally Fallon herself)?

To be clear, I should have said that it could discredit the entire movement

in the eyes of the general public. I took that as implicit, but I

should've been explicit anyway.

I personally take my information where I can find it and try to evaluate

everything separately. IOW I don't rely on the word and " credibility " of

authority figures. Most people, though, proceed in a rather different

manner, and thus a ridiculous statement like " smoking in moderation can be

good for asthma " is likely to cast major doubt on ALL the statements from

that quarter.

-

[Guest guest]

> Re: smoking (was: Lance Armstrong & physical abilities)

>

>

>Suze-

>

>>How could one statement discredit an entire movement (which is much larger

>>than Sally Fallon herself)?

>

>To be clear, I should have said that it could discredit the entire

>movement

>in the eyes of the general public. I took that as implicit, but I

>should've been explicit anyway.

Well, I pretty much understood that, although I had vegan and other

alternative health movements in mind too, when reading your statement.

I think that the general public already discredits the WAPF for the most

part anyway for their stance on any number of things, primary among them,

their stance on cholesterol and saturated fat. Any general public type folks

I've discussed this with think I'm a total moron for thinking that

cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease. They think I'm discredited on that

account already, never mind smoking.

Anyway, the WAPF doesn't have a stand on smoking to my knowledge, and

Sally's comment in question to a chapterleader probably would've never been

read by anyone ever again outside the CL list, had it not been brought up

here. So " the public " would probably never know what Sally thinks about the

subject, thus the WAPF credibility could continue to be discredited by the

general public by the usual issues like saturated fat and soy. And we'd all

go on our merry way :-)

>

>I personally take my information where I can find it and try to evaluate

>everything separately. IOW I don't rely on the word and " credibility " of

>authority figures.

I think many WAPers approach information similarly, which is why I tend to

gravitate towards them.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>I think that the general public already discredits the WAPF for the most

>part anyway for their stance on any number of things, primary among them,

>their stance on cholesterol and saturated fat. Any general public type folks

>I've discussed this with think I'm a total moron for thinking that

>cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease. They think I'm discredited on that

>account already, never mind smoking.

That's true, but there's a difference between taking a stand that's

actually abundantly supported by actual facts and taking one which is not

only considered absurd by most people but which also has no available

supporting evidence.

>Anyway, the WAPF doesn't have a stand on smoking to my knowledge, and

>Sally's comment in question to a chapterleader probably would've never been

>read by anyone ever again outside the CL list, had it not been brought up

>here. So " the public " would probably never know what Sally thinks about the

>subject, thus the WAPF credibility could continue to be discredited by the

>general public by the usual issues like saturated fat and soy. And we'd all

>go on our merry way :-)

I think you're mistaken -- Sally tells a chapter leader something on a list

which other chapter leaders read, the recipient and probably other chapter

leaders read it and potentially disseminate it to members and potential

members and before you know it, it's out there -- though of course it's of

a different order than an official foundation publication.

>I think many WAPers approach information similarly, which is why I tend to

>gravitate towards them.

I don't think the WAPF membership is unusually immune to messiah worship

and trust in authorities. Inasmuch as you have to go against mainstream

thinking to participate, yes, it undoubtedly has more than an average

number of free thinkers, but it also seems to have its share of religious

zealots and people who've merely transferred their trust from mainstream

authorities to new WAPF figures.

Obviously evolution selected fairly strongly for follow-the-leader

tendencies, which is understandable though not always useful.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> I think you're mistaken -- Sally tells a chapter leader something on a list

> which other chapter leaders read, the recipient and probably other chapter

> leaders read it and potentially disseminate it to members and potential

> members and before you know it, it's out there -- though of course it's of

> a different order than an official foundation publication.

What are they going to tell them? That Sally said we should have

compassion on people who smoke? I mean, re-read the quotation: she

didn't " reccomend " smoking for asthma by any stretch of the

imagination. She said that smoking can be helpful for certain

conditions (asthma, and maybe she's totally wrong), despite appearing

to be a major problem for other conditions, and we should have

compassion on those who are stuck between the two, and not necessarily

demonize it. I think this is much, much, different than if a chapter

leader had written, " I have a bad asthma problem, what should I do

about it? And Sally responded, " Well, I would recommend trying

picking up smoking. "

Isn't Sally allowed to think outloud anyway, like most of us do on

these lists? I don't think anyone really hits the group forums

like their credibility is on the line and doesn't speculate here and

there. The chapterleader list is a private members-only list, for

one, and Suze is the owner and moderator, so, while Sally's the head

of the WAPF, it's not like she's the list guru who has a unique role

on the list, at least not that I perceive.

I think the reaction to the comment is way overblown and that the

comment is being misconstrued.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I think the reaction to the comment is way overblown and that the

> comment is being misconstrued.

What I found most provocative was that thinks the use of

vegetable oils--not smoking--is the cause of lung cancer. That is the

part I would disseminate.

B.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>What are they going to tell them? That Sally said we should have

>compassion on people who smoke?

Come on, that sort of crap is beneath you.

Here again is what Sally said:

>>American Spirit cigarettes are air cured and have no additives. Smoking in

>>moderation can be helpful for certain conditions, such as asthma. If you

>>smoke, be sure to take extra cod liver oil to protect the lungs. Please don't

>>interpret this as my endorsement of smoking, but we do need to have

>>sympathy on

>>those who do smoke and find it helpful--even to calm their nerves. Enig

>>does not think that smoking causes lung cancer--she believes the culprit is

>>vegetable oils. However, smoking is the number one risk factor for heart

>>disease

>>(although no one has looked at the relation of smoking cigarettes without

>>additives with heart disease.) Sally

I don't think anything I've said can possibly be construed as objecting to

having compassion for smokers, at least not by a reasonable person.

The part I've objected to most strenuously is the second sentence: " Smoking

in moderation can be helpful for certain conditions, such as

asthma. " Surely you recognize that that is a separate thought from the

later sentence on compassion. Note also that Sally did not divorce herself

from that statement in any way. She didn't say something like " some

cultures traditionally believed smoking can be helpful for certain

conditions " , she directly said it herself. And I have never seen a single

shred of evidence to support the idea that smoking ANYTHING can EVER be

beneficial for asthma -- not scientific evidence and not anecdote. But I

sure have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary.

>Isn't Sally allowed to think outloud anyway, like most of us do on

>these lists? I don't think anyone really hits the group forums

>like their credibility is on the line and doesn't speculate here and

>there. The chapterleader list is a private members-only list, for

>one, and Suze is the owner and moderator, so, while Sally's the head

>of the WAPF, it's not like she's the list guru who has a unique role

>on the list, at least not that I perceive.

Well, it's a real problem, and unfortunately I don't see any perfect

solution, but the fact is that leaders are held to a higher standard, and

that's not entirely a bad thing.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>What I found most provocative was that thinks the use of

>vegetable oils--not smoking--is the cause of lung cancer. That is the

>part I would disseminate.

That's certainly interesting, but it doesn't entirely fit the science

either AFAIK. Vegetable oils make people much more susceptible to

oxidative attacks, and they probably cause cancer themselves up to a point,

but the science is abundantly clear that smoking is a heavy oxidative

attack on the body, and as such, consuming vegetable oils is just going to

make someone much more vulnerable to the ravages of smoking (or it'll

potentiate the attack of smoking, depending on how you look at it).

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> I don't think anything I've said can possibly be construed as objecting to

> having compassion for smokers, at least not by a reasonable person.

> The part I've objected to most strenuously is the second sentence: " Smoking

> in moderation can be helpful for certain conditions, such as

> asthma. " Surely you recognize that that is a separate thought from the

> later sentence on compassion. Note also that Sally did not divorce herself

> from that statement in any way.

No, she didn't, but it was tempered with " Please do not interpret this

as my endorsement of smoking, " which makes it a statement of fact (and

factually wrong, perhaps) rather than a recommendation. So, having

not researched it myself and conceding for the sake of discussion that

you are right, she made a statement that is very wrong. I think that

is different than making a recommendation that is very wrong,

especially a public recommendation that is very wrong, which I would

hold to a much greater standard than a passing factual comment.

I haven't read that smoking helps asthma, but I've read of one study

that found children exposed to second-hand smoke to have less chance

of developing asthma (which doesn't seem entirely ridiculous to me,

since early exposure to what end up being triggers for asthma has been

shown in some cases to prevent development-- like germs and stuff),

and another that found that some particular kind of inflammatory

condition of the lungs improved in reaction to cigarette smoke. So

for this reason it doesn't seem totally ridiculous to me, but you,

having asthma, and being a meticulous researcher, probably know vast

quantities of information more than I do about the subject.

So Sally may have encountered either anecdotes from people she knows

or read a study somewhere or whatever, and repeated it, without having

thoroughly researched the issue. I personally hold myself to a much

greater standard of certainty if I write an article about something

than if I comment on something on a listserv.

I understand that you are disturbed that she made a very wrong

statement, but, assuming that is true (I don't know), I consider that

more or less excusable, whereas I would not consider it excusable for

the WAPF to come out with a position paper on why asthmatics should

smoke without having a thorough and very compelling case for it (which

might not exist.)

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I haven't read that smoking helps asthma, but I've read of one study

>that found children exposed to second-hand smoke to have less chance

>of developing asthma (which doesn't seem entirely ridiculous to me,

>since early exposure to what end up being triggers for asthma has been

>shown in some cases to prevent development-- like germs and stuff),

>and another that found that some particular kind of inflammatory

>condition of the lungs improved in reaction to cigarette smoke. So

>for this reason it doesn't seem totally ridiculous to me, but you,

>having asthma, and being a meticulous researcher, probably know vast

>quantities of information more than I do about the subject.

I've never come across anything like the latter, but there have also been

numerous studies indicating that childhood exposure to second-hand smoke

increases one's likelihood of developing asthma. I'm sure many other

factors are involved, but I'm also sure that my childhood exposure to

second-hand smoke (my mother smoked until I was six) contributed to my

asthma problem mightily despite the relatively good diet she fed me very

early on. (Chicken livers, whole milk albeit pasteurized, other organs

sometimes, etc. It wasn't until later that she started with the tofu and

the low-fat junk and all the other nonsense.)

>So Sally may have encountered either anecdotes from people she knows

>or read a study somewhere or whatever, and repeated it, without having

>thoroughly researched the issue. I personally hold myself to a much

>greater standard of certainty if I write an article about something

>than if I comment on something on a listserv.

You aren't a chapter leader, are you? Much less the head of a

foundation. I agree that on one hand, it's important to allow people, even

leader types, the freedom of casual conversation, but on the other hand,

people attach much greater significance to what they say even casually than

they do to what other people say.

Even given the extreme triviality of my " leadership " position here on this

list, I still think it comes with a heightened burden to be careful to

phrase things carefully and not lead people down harmful paths. Sally, by

contrast, has a genuinely serious position of leadership and a

correspondingly much greater burden on her to be careful about what she

says. So obviously, a pro-smoking position paper from the foundation would

be much more significant than this, but I also think a few hours of

discussion hardly constitutes a tempest in a teapot. (If you recall, I

went on at much greater length about what I consider the serious

deficiencies in their latest book, EFLF.)

-

[Guest guest]

> That's certainly interesting, but it doesn't entirely fit the science

> either AFAIK. Vegetable oils make people much more susceptible to

> oxidative attacks, and they probably cause cancer themselves up to a

point,

> but the science is abundantly clear that smoking is a heavy oxidative

> attack on the body, and as such, consuming vegetable oils is just

going to

> make someone much more vulnerable to the ravages of smoking (or it'll

> potentiate the attack of smoking, depending on how you look at it).

,

Yes, I agree, I agree, I agree. I already said I think smoking--in

most cases I see/in excess/in this era--is unhealthy. Not just on its

own (de)merit but also as a symptom and cause of other pathologies.

But I won't flog tobacco per se; I think it has valid uses and

pleasures for those who take responsibility.

I see an analogy to the demonization of sunshine: I think vegetable

oil is the culprit in skin damage/cancer as well, but take that and

combine with injudicious amounts of sunshine--which on its own has

tremendous therapeutic value--and havoc ensues.

B.

/beginning to whine

[Guest guest]

> The part I've objected to most strenuously is the second sentence:

" Smoking

> in moderation can be helpful for certain conditions, such as

> asthma. " Surely you recognize that that is a separate thought from the

> later sentence on compassion. Note also that Sally did not divorce

herself

> from that statement in any way. She didn't say something like " some

> cultures traditionally believed smoking can be helpful for certain

> conditions " , she directly said it herself. And I have never seen a

single

> shred of evidence to support the idea that smoking ANYTHING can EVER be

> beneficial for asthma -- not scientific evidence and not anecdote.

But I

> sure have seen a lot of evidence to the contrary.

,

I, OTOH have read many times of smoking being useful in controlling

asthma and other respiratory issues. I never paid much mind to what I

read because it wasn't relevant to me. I know of one hardcore

yogi/scholar who used American Spirits therapeutically for a time--

along with brandy--for a respiratory condition. Not sure what the

results were except, in a lecture once, he was coughing and a student

asked if he was all right and he responded it was just the

consequences of " too much smoking and drinking " and the audience

tittered, thinking he was joking but he was utterly deadpan.

I can make inquiries, but it might take some time--I am curious. In

fact, I'll ask Sally where she got her info. I trust that she doesn't

just spout this stuff out her armpit.

B.

[Guest guest]

>I haven't read that smoking helps asthma, but I've read of one study

>that found children exposed to second-hand smoke to have less chance

>of developing asthma (which doesn't seem entirely ridiculous to me,

>since early exposure to what end up being triggers for asthma has been

>shown in some cases to prevent development-- like germs and stuff),

>and another that found that some particular kind of inflammatory

>condition of the lungs improved in reaction to cigarette smoke. So

>for this reason it doesn't seem totally ridiculous to me, but you,

>having asthma, and being a meticulous researcher, probably know vast

>quantities of information more than I do about the subject.

>

Talk about reaching to the bottom of the barrel!

Ba Ram Ewe

Ba Ram Ewe

To your breed,

your fleece,

your clan,

be true.

Sheep be true!

Ba Ram Ewe

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

>

>>I think that the general public already discredits the WAPF for the most

>>part anyway for their stance on any number of things, primary among them,

>>their stance on cholesterol and saturated fat. Any general public

>type folks

>>I've discussed this with think I'm a total moron for thinking that

>>cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease. They think I'm

>discredited on that

>>account already, never mind smoking.

>

>That's true, but there's a difference between taking a stand that's

>actually abundantly supported by actual facts and taking one which is not

>only considered absurd by most people but which also has no available

>supporting evidence.

I agree. However, the WAPF has NOT taken a stand on smoking. We're talking

about a few comments on an email list that was explicitly explained as not

being an endorsement of smoking.

>

>>Anyway, the WAPF doesn't have a stand on smoking to my knowledge, and

>>Sally's comment in question to a chapterleader probably would've

>never been

>>read by anyone ever again outside the CL list, had it not been brought up

>>here. So " the public " would probably never know what Sally thinks

>about the

>>subject, thus the WAPF credibility could continue to be discredited by the

>>general public by the usual issues like saturated fat and soy.

>And we'd all

>>go on our merry way :-)

>

>I think you're mistaken -- Sally tells a chapter leader something

>on a list

>which other chapter leaders read, the recipient and probably other chapter

>leaders read it and potentially disseminate it to members and potential

>members and before you know it, it's out there -- though of course it's of

>a different order than an official foundation publication.

I *highly* doubt this would happen with Sally's smoking comment for several

reasons.

a) I suspect most of the chapter leaders are against smoking to begin with

At least most of the active list members most often display critical

thinking skills and do not habitually take whatever Sally says as gospel,

from what I've observed. In fact many of us have challenged her on one point

or another over the years.

c) I doubt smoking is an issue that comes up often in local chapters. At

least it's never come up in mine and it's never been discussed before on the

chapter leaders list.

>

>>I think many WAPers approach information similarly, which is why I tend to

>>gravitate towards them.

>

>I don't think the WAPF membership is unusually immune to messiah worship

>and trust in authorities. Inasmuch as you have to go against mainstream

>thinking to participate, yes, it undoubtedly has more than an average

>number of free thinkers, but it also seems to have its share of religious

>zealots and people who've merely transferred their trust from mainstream

>authorities to new WAPF figures.

From what I've observed, I think it has more critical thinkers than other

nutritional paradigms like veganism. Maybe it's just because I gravitate

towards those type of WAPFers, but as you can see even here on this list,

among the active posters there's a LOT of critical thinking going on here

not a heck of a lot of messiah worship. Not that it doesn't happen, and I've

seen it too, but not as much as in the mainstream nor as much as seems to be

present in other nutritional paradigms from what I've seen. Granted my

experience with other nutritional paradigms is limited mostly to what I read

from vegans, vegetarians, Primal Dieters and others on various lists.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

-

>I, OTOH have read many times of smoking being useful in controlling

>asthma and other respiratory issues.

I've _heard_ about it, or rather I've heard people assert it, but I've

never seen anything like a proposed mechanism, let alone proof.

-

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Suze Fisher

>

>>

>>>I think that the general public already discredits the WAPF for the most

>>>part anyway for their stance on any number of things, primary among them,

>>>their stance on cholesterol and saturated fat. Any general public

>>type folks

>>>I've discussed this with think I'm a total moron for thinking that

>>>cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease. They think I'm

>>discredited on that

>>>account already, never mind smoking.

>>

>>That's true, but there's a difference between taking a stand that's

>>actually abundantly supported by actual facts and taking one which is not

>>only considered absurd by most people but which also has no available

>>supporting evidence.

BTW, I forgot to ask, is there " abundant evidence " that smoking

*additive-free* tobacco aggravates asthma? I assume all studies have been

done on regular chock-full-o-toxic-crap cigarettes not American Spirits?

Butter is not butter.

Beef is not beef.

Could smoking not be smoking in terms of asthma when other important

variables are taken into account?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

mentioned earlier in response to some of my anecdotal evidence,

that he had heard of a biker (?) that when his lungs were examined

they were perfectly clean, even though the guy was a smoker.

Well apparently it is VERY difficult to tell from autopsy if someone

was a smoker by looking at their lungs. Below is a very interesting

excerpt:

A common myth about smoking assert that the lungs of smokers become

brown or even black from years of accumulation of tars and goo. Not

true, according to Wray Kephart. Mr. Kephart presently works as an

engineer but he previously worked in a hospital, performing autopsies,

most of which were paid for by insurance companies, seeking to

determine whether the deceased committed suicide, or died from

" natural causes " . Kephart tells me that he's done approximately 1560

autopsies, and he's seen some strange things, such as the lungs of

auto painters, which were " effectively sealed with catalyzed

lacquers " .

Kephart insists, however, that it is normally impossible to tell, from

autopsy, whether the deceased was or was not a smoker. Upon resection,

the lungs are always clear, unless the deceased lived in a large city

where there was significant industrial pollution. In that event,

carbon deposits may be found, but these are unrelated to smoking. So

the " brown lungs " myth is exactly that: a myth.

Recently, I posed a question to Ed Uthman, M.D., a pathologist

practicing in Dallas, TX. The question was whether a surgeon, at

autopsy, could determine from an examination of the deceased's lungs,

whether the deceased was or was not a smoker. Here is Dr. Uthman's

response: I don't think one can tell if the deceased were a tobacco

smoker or not by the appearance of the lungs. The absence of any black

pigment suggests that the person was either a nonsmoker or a very

light smoker. Heavy black pigmentation suggests that the person was

either a heavy smoker, or lived in a city with heavy particulate air

pollution, or was a coal miner, or some combination of the three. The

black pigment in question is elemental carbon, which most

investigators believe to be inert in its effects on the lungs

(although in the extremely heavy doses that coal miners used to get,

it may have had a partial role in coal-workers' lung disease).

When I point these things out to anti-smokers, they frequently say,

" But I've seen photographs of smoker's lungs that were shown to me in

grade school, and they looked simply horrible. " I've seen these

photographs also, but they are phonies. A popular Internet web site

features side by side photographs of two lungs. One is labeled

" Smoker's lung - dead at 50 " . The other is labeled " Non-smokers's

lungs, alive at 70 " . The problem is simply that the photograph of the

smoker's lung is a photograph of a lung ravaged by lung cancer; it is

not a photograph of the lung of some smoker who died from some other

disease. Therefore, even if the cancerous lung is from somebody who

smoked, and the " healthy " lung is from somebody who did not, the

photographs prove nothing except that cancerous lungs look different

from non-cancerous lungs.

Of course, both photographs are photographs of dead people's lungs,

because it's not possible to take a photograph of the lung of a living

person. Also, rather obviously, the photographs show the outside

surface of the lungs. The outside surfaces of lungs are not exposed to

either air or smoke; therefore, it would be impossible for smoke to

stain those surfaces.

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap8.htm

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>BTW, I forgot to ask, is there " abundant evidence " that smoking

>*additive-free* tobacco aggravates asthma? I assume all studies have been

>done on regular chock-full-o-toxic-crap cigarettes not American Spirits?

Inasmuch as smoke of all sorts contains tons of well-documented irritants,

I don't see why American Spirits should be a unique exception. Also,

though this is just anecdotal, I've been around American Spirit smoke, and

I found it strongly irritating to my lungs, and at least one smoker I know

said American Spirits are much harsher than " regular " ones.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>A common myth about smoking assert that the lungs of smokers become

>brown or even black from years of accumulation of tars and goo. Not

>true, according to Wray Kephart. Mr. Kephart presently works as an

>engineer but he previously worked in a hospital, performing autopsies,

>most of which were paid for by insurance companies, seeking to

>determine whether the deceased committed suicide, or died from

> " natural causes " . Kephart tells me that he's done approximately 1560

>autopsies, and he's seen some strange things, such as the lungs of

>auto painters, which were " effectively sealed with catalyzed

>lacquers " .

>

>Kephart insists, however, that it is normally impossible to tell, from

>autopsy, whether the deceased was or was not a smoker.

Since I've seen a large number of autopsy photographs of smokers' lungs,

not just the occasional propaganda photo, I'm not inclined to believe

this. It's trivial to find people who will support any party line you'd

like. An alleged engineer who allegedly used to perform autopsies doesn't

strike me as an especially credible source at that.

If someone were to do a systematic study of smokers' lungs after death and

come up with large numbers of clean, pink lungs, then maybe there'd be

something to talk about.

-

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

>Inasmuch as smoke of all sorts contains tons of well-documented irritants,

>I don't see why American Spirits should be a unique exception.

Because they don't contain the *other* toxic crap in other forms of smoke,

at least in forms such as " regular " cigarette smoke, and factory emissions,

for instance.

I'm just curious as to whether pure smoke has been tested, rather than smoke

with added toxicants.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>Because they don't contain the *other* toxic crap in other forms of smoke,

>at least in forms such as " regular " cigarette smoke, and factory emissions,

>for instance.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. When I said " Inasmuch as smoke of all sorts

contains tons of well-documented irritants, I don't see why American

Spirits should be a unique exception " , I wasn't limiting myself to tobacco

smoke. I was talking about ALL TYPES OF SMOKE, from the smoke produced by

burning clean, dry wood on a beautiful and pristine campfire to the smoke

produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Smoke itself,

period, is an irritant, or rather contains numerous irritants.

-

[Guest guest]

>>BTW, I forgot to ask, is there " abundant evidence " that smoking

>>*additive-free* tobacco aggravates asthma? I assume all studies have been

>>done on regular chock-full-o-toxic-crap cigarettes not American Spirits?

>>

>>

>

>Inasmuch as smoke of all sorts contains tons of well-documented irritants,

>I don't see why American Spirits should be a unique exception. Also,

>though this is just anecdotal, I've been around American Spirit smoke, and

>I found it strongly irritating to my lungs, and at least one smoker I know

>said American Spirits are much harsher than " regular " ones.

>

And let's not forget that smoke inhalation can kill. It matters not if

it is burning pristine forest, smoke in the lungs will hurt you. Small

doses of burning plants over the long haul, or big doses short term.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Suze-

>

> >BTW, I forgot to ask, is there " abundant evidence " that smoking

> >*additive-free* tobacco aggravates asthma? I assume all studies have been

> >done on regular chock-full-o-toxic-crap cigarettes not American Spirits?

> Inasmuch as smoke of all sorts contains tons of well-documented irritants,

> I don't see why American Spirits should be a unique exception. Also,

> though this is just anecdotal, I've been around American Spirit smoke, and

> I found it strongly irritating to my lungs, and at least one smoker I know

> said American Spirits are much harsher than " regular " ones.

I wouldn't completely discount your experience, but inhaling

second-hand smoke is much different than first-hand smoke. I'm not

sure why this is, but even smokers are irritated by randomly being

cought in a cloud of someone else's smoke. I think part of it is just

expectation, but I also think that perhaps drawing the smoke into your

mouth first allows a small amount of nicotine to begin temporarily

paralyzing the cilia, so that the smoke passes freely when the drag is

subsequently inhaled.

Full-flavor American Spirits are stronger than their full-flavor

conventional counterparts. I think part of this is that a cigarette

of the same size contains 25% more tobacco leaf in an AS, I think

because of the inclusion of stems and filler crap in conventional

cigarettes. The certified organic AS's are even harsher. People who

find them harsh would enjoy the medium-flavored version.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> The part I've objected to most strenuously is the second sentence:

" Smoking

> in moderation can be helpful for certain conditions, such as

> asthma. " ... Note also that Sally did not divorce herself

> from that statement in any way. She didn't say something like " some

> cultures traditionally believed smoking can be helpful for certain

> conditions " , she directly said it herself. And I have never seen a

single

> shred of evidence to support the idea that smoking ANYTHING can EVER be

> beneficial for asthma -- not scientific evidence and not anecdote. "

,

Okay, I did a look-y around, and this is what I've come up with:

(Wait, mind you, I was merely attempting to satisfy my own curiosity

re: why herbs have been traditionally smoked for asthma and other

respiratory conditions, so if these sites aren't up to your standards,

sorry, but the following paragraphs were good enough for my purposes.)

http://www.drugstoremuseum.com/sections/level_info2.php?level_id=79 & level=2

" The purpose of a pharmacist is to identify drugs that are efficacious

for a particular disease then figure out how to get that drug into the

body. The way to get a drug into the body is called route of

administration. Now most drugs are ingested and brought into the body

via the stomach and intestines. Another route of administration is

injections. The drug is injected directly into the body. One old

fashioned way was to deliver medication by smoking a cigarette

containing herbal drugs.

These cigarettes contained Stramonium (Stinkweed) and Belladonna

(Deadly Nightshade). Stramonium leaves contain the same drugs as

Belladonna, which are anticholinergic chemicals. The anticholinergic

drugs cause a decrease in mucous secretions, pupil dilation, decreased

gastric motility and a dry mouth. This had a very good effect upon

people with COPD, asthma, and Emphysema. Currently a drug that is

widely used for those pulmonary conditions is Atrovent, which contains

the anticholinergic drug ipratropium.

Smoking herbs was one way that lung diseases were treated. The

companies that made these medicated cigarettes were Dr. R.

Schiffmann's Asthmador, Page's Inhalers and Marshall's Prepared Cubeb

Cigarettes. As funny as it seems to smoke a cigarette to get a drug

into your system remember that we are still inhaling albuteral,

steroids, morphine and anticholinergics to treat lung problems. "

As for tobacco, this site has a very unappetizing description:

http://www.viable-herbal.com/herbdesc4/1tobacco.htm

" Tobacco is considered a local irritant; if used as snuff it causes

violent sneezing, also a copious secretion of mucous; chewed, it

increases the flow of saliva by irritating the mucous membrane of the

mouth; injected into the rectum it acts as a cathartic. In large

doses, Tobacco produces nausea, vomiting, sweats and great muscular

weakness.

The alkaloid nicotine is a virulent poison producing great disturbance

in the digestive and circulatory organs. It innervates the heart,

causing palpitation and cardiac irregularities and vascular

contraction, and is considered one of the causes of arterial

degeneration. Nicotine is very like coniine and lobeline in its

pharmacological action, and the pyridines in the smoke modify very

slightly its action "

Yuck. Followed by:

" Tobacco was once used as a relaxant, but is no longer employed except

occasionally in chronic asthma "

Here's Ross in _The Diet Cure_:

" ...most smokers describe tobacco as 'calming.' Somehow, tobacco

seems to counter the effects of the adrenaline that carbos, caffeine

and stress all stimulate. The more 'calming' tobacco you need, the

more concerned you should be about the condition of your adrenal glands. "

So, what I'm thinking is that smoking tobacco stimulates the release

of cortisol which relaxes bronchial spasms because of the drug's fast

action upon the alveoli. Crude, but possibly effective for *some*,

esp. in the days before aerosol inhalers.

Now, from my own experience with asthma, I'd add that the act of

smoking could *possibly* condition the smoker to slow down the rate of

inspiration over time. As long as they didn't collapse in a fit of

choking, of course.

I asked Sally to expand on her comments but she is in Oakland through

the weekend so I don't know when she'll reply.

B.

[Guest guest]

-

>One old

>fashioned way was to deliver medication by smoking a cigarette

>containing herbal drugs.

I'm not disputing that.

>These cigarettes contained Stramonium (Stinkweed) and Belladonna

>(Deadly Nightshade). Stramonium leaves contain the same drugs as

>Belladonna, which are anticholinergic chemicals. The anticholinergic

>drugs cause a decrease in mucous secretions, pupil dilation, decreased

>gastric motility and a dry mouth. This had a very good effect upon

>people with COPD, asthma, and Emphysema. Currently a drug that is

>widely used for those pulmonary conditions is Atrovent, which contains

>the anticholinergic drug ipratropium.

My suspicion is that any benefits from the herb would be outweighed by the

irritation of the smoke. Maybe I need to clarify what I've said before,

though. I've heard plenty of people say things like " cigarettes used to be

used as a remedy for asthma " , one example of course being my pot-smoking

friends who recommended I toke up for my lungs. By contrast, I've never

come across an actual asthmatic who said " I've smoked X and it helped my

asthma " . Quite the contrary, in fact. And until today, I'd never even

come across anything passing for an attempt to explain WHY smoking

something would be effective for asthma. I'm still extremely skeptical,

though, because I think the short-term and long-term impact of the smoke

would far outweigh any effects of herbal compounds that might reach the

lungs intact. Perhaps smoking herbs with a hookah rather than with a

cigarette might have been somewhat useful with certain herbs?

-