Historically, smoking in a variety of plants were believed to be of benefit. But we know better, right?
Assuming that smoking is unhealthy, science should therefore support, "what everybody knows."
But following Sott.net produced video, it does not.
Science is not always possible to make the distant sounds, search for information, though it may often seem like such an outsider. Sometimes the story can be very different.We all know that smoking is a health hazard.
The Government says, medical experts say, even as tobacco companies are behaving in a way to suggest that.
But whether Science supports this statement?
Turns out, it wasn't.
So take a look at the science behind smoking.
Throughout history, there were people who thought that smoking in something useful to relieve asthma and fight infections, while others thought it was disgusting, dangerous, and deadly in the long term.
In favour of or against these statements not supported by much evidence in any direction until the first medical scientists tried to look into this question in 1950.
In the same year, Richard Doll and Bradford Hill published a paper in which they showed that smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer.
This started the anti-smoking movement.
But shortly after the publication of meritorious statistician Sir Ronald Fisher, noticed a strange anomaly in survey results: they were asked for the subject, whether or not they inhale smoke from their cigarettes.
Fisher showed that the men who, if they are inhaled cigarette smoke if less likely to develop lung cancer than those who did not.
As Fisher said: "even though equality would be a fair knock-out theory of the smoke causes lung cancer."In 1968, the second-the Whitehall-research-commissioned, with the involvement of officials of the United Kingdom to 1400 Hour divided into two: similar to the one encouraged and advised to stop, the second one was left alone.
Both groups were followed for 10 years, the results were surprising: the group that showed an improvement in life expectancy in the end, and nothing else in the frequency of death from cancer or heart attacks, with one exception: certain cancers were more than twice as common as the group that to stop.
The research was extended to a 20-year follow-up with the same result.
This type of research is called a randomized controlled intervention trial and is the "gold standard" to compare the new treatment with another one or no treatment.
It prevents bias built in observational studies, such as the doll and Hill people who choose themselves, stop and continue smoking.
In addition, six more such research was conducted on the subject of the combined monitoring of the almost 800 ' 000 years-all with the same result: no association between smoking and life expectancy, cancer or death from any cause.
The medical literature has shown us that Smoking does not appear to be associated with premature death, but whether all potential health benefits related to smoking?
In fact, there is quite a long list.
There is good evidence that Smoking lowers the risk of Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's by up to 60 percent.
Unlike the pictures on the cigarette box of smokers are much less likely to develop serious gum disease.
In men, Smoking lowers the risk of needing a joint replacement surgery by 50%.
In addition, nicotine has been shown to stop the growth of tuberculosis in laboratory experiments, even if used in small amounts, according to Saleh Ali, an associate professor of Microbiology and molecular biology at UCF, and seems to be working better than about 10 other substances, also tested.
Nicotine is also addressed to the cognitive performance than the fast data processing, immediate and long-term memory, and problem solving are a wide range of interests.
Last but not least, smokers seems to reduce the ulcerative colitis, a chronic inflammatory bowel disease.
Why is there a difference between the 1960s and the studies done in the 90s, which showed that Smoking does not increase the risk of disease and the recent studies that show the opposite?
There is probably a number of reasons.
The first is that the tobacco industry has gradually increased the additives in the tobacco to make a "more appealing" to the product more addictive-smokers.
In the list, that tobacco manufacturers are to US Department of Health and Human Services is the 599 additives that may or may not be used for a given character.
They have been approved, "food additives", and have not been tested by burning them.
When these compounds are burned, they create more than 4,000 compounds.
This is the main argument for why additive-free cigarettes, smoking tobacco is undoubtedly healthier than commercial.
The second reason is that the research on the dangers of smoking are mainly sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry's best selling drug, smoking bans and to facilitate smoking cessation.
And who pays also calls the shots!
Otherwise, these treatments has been shown to increase smoking cessation is not independent research.
But it still is a billion dollar industry.
Last but not least, the end of the second world war, 528 nuclear bombs detonate the atmosphere and still radioactive particles, spewing tonnes of 1525 underground (in particular, plutonium) high in the atmosphere, which is distributed around the world in jet streams. If swallowed or inhaled particles increase the risk of cancer of the massively and has enough plutonium to kill every human being on the atmosphere several times over.
Is the Hour to become the perfect scapegoat to cover up the cancer caused by other factors, which were introduced in today's society because of anti-smoking propaganda, was set in motion? "
In summary, there is little scientific evidence that smoking tobacco is a health risk, that mainstream medicine is trying to paint.
In fact, often can be beneficial.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق