180 replies to this topic

[nightlight]

Well, what positive health effects does tobacco smoke have that non-smokable forms of tobacco do not have (e.g. snus)?

I haven't seen any animal experiments in which the non-smoked tobacco or pure nicotine extended lifespans of animals, let alone by 20%, or protected against industrial toxins (e.g. as TS did the large NCI co-exposure experiments on hamsters). As noted in the R.A. experiments mentioned earlier, tobacco smoke has resulted in additional anti-inflammatory effects, beyond those of nicotine. The anti-apoptotic effects of TS are due in part to low dose carbon monoxide. The vasodilating effects of low dose nitric oxide are also exclusive to smoked form. The potent upregulation of detox & antixoidant enzymes (near doubling of glutathione, catalase and SOD) is a hormetic effect specific to smoked form. I also haven't seen papers on MAO B inhibition by nicotine or non-smoked tobacco (while it is 35-40% lower MAO B from smoked form). The same goes for protective effects against amyloidosis, which only smoked form seems to have. Angiogenic effects of nicotine are also distributed diffferently in smoked than in transdermal absorption: on lungs & heart in smoked form, on skin or mouth/tongue in transdermal form. The former targets for angiogenesis seems preferable. Then, there is also a major difference in speeds of biological feedbacks, which are much faster and crispier in smoked form than in transdermal form, which allows for better fine tuning of dosing and timing. The transdermal forms also lack the protective breaks against nicotine overdosing that smoked form provides -- you can easily kill yourself via nicotine poisoning in transdermal form (e.g. from patches or moist tobacco leaves), while that's impossible for smoked form. With the latter, the feedback and on/off control is so fast and clear, that after 10-15 cigarettes smoked at a very fast pace, you're so sick you can't take another drag (but that's only 10-15mg of nicotine, 4-6 times lower than the lethal dose of 60 mg). In contrast, by the time you start feeling sick from the transdermal nicotine, there is still another big load of nicotine which can't be stopped, still making its way through the skin and peripheral capillaries.

Finally, the pharmaceutical industry (along with the rest of sickness industry) has focused its most vicious attacks by far on the smoked form of tobacco, which considering their underlying motivation (more sickness => more profits), implies they see the smoked form as the most potent & most competitive medicinal substance vs their products. Since they know the best how their sales & profits shift with the changes in smoking rates, I consider the intensity of their attacks on tobacco smoking and on any other natural medicine, including snus, as a high quality indirect gauge of their beneficial medicinal effects.

Edited by nightlight, 08 February 2013 - 12:14 AM.

[hippocampus]

ok, if smoke is so good for ya, how do you explain millions of smokers who die from cancer and other diseases?
btw, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[nightlight]

ok, if smoke is so good for ya, how do you explain millions of smokers who die from cancer and other diseases?
btw, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You apparently didn't read or comprehend the two previous replies. Such statistical associations on nonrandomized sample can be due to either causative or protective/therapeutic role of tobacco smoke. People, matched by age and SES, taking prescription meds will suffer more health problems and have shorter lifespan than those not taking prescription meds. All that such association tells you is that substance X and disease D are in a common web of causes and effects but it doesn't tell you what is nature of the links tying X into this web (causative or protective/therapeutic links). You need hard science, such as animal experiments or randomized trials, to disentangle which is which. And that's what that thread linked to earlier was about -- bringing up and discussing hard science about tobacco smoke. As you will see if you read it, there was no contest -- all the hard science was on one side, all the junk science on the other (some members even started smoking based on the evidence presented).

Edited by nightlight, 25 February 2013 - 02:35 AM.

[YOLF]

Intelligent smoker? ROFL I used to be a smoker, I don't mean that comment to be an insult, but it is pretty dumb for a smoker to smoke. I didn't quit then, because I fell into a spell of apathy, I let myself start when I was a kid because I thought to myself that I could pray it away with magical mustard seeds. Ignorance aside, why do you smoke now? Is it cool now because it was cool then? Did the other kids really smoke at any time other than in front of you? Did it give you then what you have from it now? We all think it's different for us or that we don't care if it hurts us when we start smoking, but we know better now. Why let that baggage hold us down? Face facts, if governments wanted us healthy they'd ban smoking and tobacco altogether. It benefits government and society in the eyes of some that you die earlier than everyone else. Smoking is like being ostracized or exiled. Take a stand, it's your freedom that's killing you when it's your freedom to live forever! So what are you doing? Why not quit? Nothing we have currently will let you smoke indefinitely and yet live unless you die of something else first. But we're trying not to die at all. Smoking? Just quit. The truth is that there is alot of anxiety holding you back, at least if you started young and felt pressured into not quitting by your own rebellious statements for fear of losing your identity and street cred, you would have realized much sooner that you needed to quit. Wake up!

[JLL]

ok, if smoke is so good for ya, how do you explain millions of smokers who die from cancer and other diseases?
btw, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You apparently didn't read or comprehend the two previous replies. Such statistical associations on nonrandomized sample can be due to either causative or protective/therapeutic role of tobacco smoke. People, matched by age and SES, taking prescription meds will suffer more health problems and have shorter lifespan than those not taking prescription meds. All that such association tells you is that substance X and disease D are in a common web of causes and effects but it doesn't tell you what is nature of the links tying X into this web (causative or protective/therapeutic links). You need hard science, such as animal experiments or randomized trials, to disentangle which is which. And that's what that thread linked to earlier was about -- bringing up and discussing hard science about tobacco smoke. As you will see if you read it, there was no contest -- all the hard science was on one side, all the junk science on the other (some members even started smoking based on the evidence presented).

What is your stance on tobacco and radioactive substances in tobacco leaf? Do you think polonium is a real risk factor and that organic tobacco (like American Spirit) contains less polonium and lead? I know the theory is that organic fertilizer has less of them but the only studies I've found only measured some of the bigger brand names like Marlboro etc.

[YOLF]

Can you link to the polonium level studies by brand? I don't think I found any when I looked. From what I understand, the fertilizers, even the organics use rock phosphate which is mined and contains the lead and polonium that accumulates in plants. Rock phosphate it considered organic, so organics might actually have more. However, rock phosphate is cheap so it probably winds up in other sources and is used liberally in everything we eat. I sat down and tried to figure out how much radiation smoking actually causes and arrived and extra year's worth of radiation for every four years of smoking some time back when I was still a smoker. It's not too bad for the young people who quit young, but for older people it's a significant harm over time. The average yearly dose of radiation is within supposedly "safe limits." I disagree with those figures of course as indefinite lifespans mean living longer with the effects of radiation and thus being more susceptible to the diseases it will cause. However, if you agree with conventional science that's all about "you gotta die someday" then it's not terribly bad for a person to smoke for four years. As far as life insurance goes, quitting for 30 days to a year from what I'm told will get you rates pretty close to those of people who have never smoked. But again, life insurance assumes you're going to die someday anyways, but they use statistics to determine prices, so as long as you stay quit, your chances of dieing should be pretty normal. Though, I bet most x-smokers like myself try to get and stay as healthy as possible after quitting and that minimizes death rates too. It would be nice if pharma came out with a drug or therapy that could purge the lungs of tar for quitters. I bet that would cut deaths down too and provide more information on whether the radiation is good or bad for us.

[JLL]

There's some data here:

cetp.fmed.ulaval.ca/tabagisme/medias/66722/pdf/module7_1.pdf

As for quitting, I dunno, seems like cold turkey might be a bad idea, as it increases cancer risk in animal experiments.

Edited by JLL, 26 February 2013 - 07:11 PM.

[nightlight]

What is your stance on tobacco and radioactive substances in tobacco leaf? Do you think polonium is a real risk factor and that organic tobacco (like American Spirit) contains less polonium and lead? I know the theory is that organic fertilizer has less of them but the only studies I've found only measured some of the bigger brand names like Marlboro etc.

The radiation from tobacco smoke is a red herring for the ignorant. Whether radioactive atoms are absorbed from fertilizer or from rain water (picking radioactive fallout after decades of nuclear tests), any plant and animal will pick them, hence our food is vastly greater source of that radioactivity simply because smoker inhales 20-50 mg of tobacco leaf matter per cigarette or 1 gram per pack (of which only 20% is retained in the lungs). Between food and beverages you consume thousands times more matter, along with whatever it contains, radioactive atoms or pesticides or other chemical carcinogens and toxins. (Of course, the secondary smoke dilutes the intake from tobacco by further factors of tens of thousands or more. [1])

For example, a recent New York Times article [2] (antismoking as usual) "Puffing on Polonium" cites 0.04 pCi (unit for # of alpha particle emitting atoms) inhaled per cigarette, hence 0.8 pCi per pack, call it 1 pCi per pack. A glass of water (250ml) has 3-10 pCi of alpha emitters [3]. As one might have expected, the New York Times didn't consider it 'fit to print' to inform readers that a glass of water will give you as many radioactive atoms as 3-10 packs of cigarettes. They even had to twist the plain fact of 'smoker longevity' [4] in Caucasus into a clumsy half-truth "tobacco growers' longevity in the Caucasus", since putting 'smoker' and 'longevity' together must have grated too much on the author's & editor's ears (the author was a court witness against tobacco industry).

Most foods and beverages have tens of times more alpha emitters per unit of weight than water [5]:

* Beer= 390 pCi/liter
* Tap Water= 20 pCi/liter
* Milk= 1,400 pCi/liter
* Salad Oil= 4,900 pCi/liter
* Whiskey= 1,200 pCi/liter
* Brazil Nuts= 14 pCi/g
* Bananas= 3 pCi/g
* Flour= 0.14 pCi/g
* Peanuts 8 Peanut Butter= 0.12 pCi/g
* Tea= 0.40 pCi/g

Further, not only you take in much less of tobacco leaf matter (by factors into thousands), but unlike most agricultural products, tobacco leaf is cured and aged, hence even in the little of tobacco leaf matter you take in, the Po-210 (which has half life 138 days) will be mostly gone by the time you end up smoking the leaf (a year or two later).

Note that you will also find in antismoking literature theoretical figures of absorbed radiation (in mrad units) based on a 1960s study (which was never reproduced, being based on a ridiculous "model" according to which all of the lifelong inhaled smoke is compressed into a microscopic cube, few cells large, and permanently stuck, somehow, onto this handful of poor cells). That often cited 8000 mrad/year (for 2 packs/day smoker) is a bogus antismoking "fact" (by virtue of repetition) which has been debunked [6] by Colby in several usenet discussions (see also my post there for additional refs [7]). In view of lawsuits against tobacco industry, had anyone been able to validate that often cited mrad figure, tobacco companies would have been required by law & EPA regulations to remove Po-210 from tobacco years ago (e.g. by by just aging it couple years, 97.5% of Po-210 will decay). Similarly, it would have been trivial to induce lung cancers in lab animals by exposing them to tobacco smoke (yet antismoking "science" still can't do it and it still has to rely on blind statistical associations, half a century later).

References

1. ETS Test data from American Cancer Society and OSHA
http://cleanairquali...st-results.html

2. NYT Puffing on Polonium, by Robert N. Proctor
http://www.commondre...s06/1201-26.htm

3. http://www.google.co...G=Google Search

4. http://www.forces.or...ther/oldest.htm

5. http://www.fusrapmay...heet/radenv.htm

6. http://groups.google...&hl=en&filter=0

7. http://groups.google...f899dcdd?hl=en;

[Luminosity]

It's hard to see by a nightlight.

Here's the deal; tobacco is bad for you. On average it takes five to fifteen years off your life. It is the leading preventable cause of death. It also harms the people around you. There's really nothing you can do to mitigate the harm of smoking that will do anything like the effect of quitting smoking. When you take hot smoke full of tar and chemicals into your delicate lungs, you are causing death and disease. A few vitamins or whatever will not effectively counteract that harm from that. It may shave off a few percentage points, but not enough.

Addicts have many denial mechanisms. Here there is an unusual tendency to claim that "science" somehow supports their beliefs. It does not.

You have to quit smoking. Many have. You can do it.

Edited by Luminosity, 27 February 2013 - 03:11 AM.

[JLL]

It's hard to see by a nightlight.

Here's the deal; tobacco is bad for you. On average it takes five to fifteen years off your life. It is the leading preventable cause of death. It also harms the people around you. There's really nothing you can do to mitigate the harm of smoking that will do anything like the effect of quitting smoking. When you take hot smoke full of tar and chemicals into your delicate lungs, you are causing death and disease. A few vitamins or whatever will not effectively counteract that harm from that. It may shave off a few percentage points, but not enough.

Addicts have many denial mechanisms. Here there is an unusual tendency to claim that "science" somehow supports their beliefs. It does not.

You have to quit smoking. Many have. You can do it.

Funny how these smoking threads are always full of posts like this. One side (nightlight) argues using logic and scientific references, the other side (you and others) simply repeats the mantras. How does saying "Here's the deal; tobacco is bad for you" bring anything useful to the table? Just because you *say* it's bad for you doesn't make it so. That's the whole point of these threads. Somehow you seem to ignore all the science.

I used to think it obvious that smoking is unhealthy, but then, I'd never actually read any studies. Maybe it is unhealthy, but no one here certainly hasn't made an effort to prove it.

[hippocampus]

Oh, really?

http://ije.oxfordjou...38/5/1175.short
Let me quote that for you:

The magnitude of the excess lung-cancer risk among cigarette smokers is so great that the results can not be interpreted as arising from an indirect association of cigarette smoking with some other agent or characteristic, since this hypothetical agent would have to be at least as strongly associated with lung cancer as cigarette use; no such agent has been found or suggested.

http://www.cabdirect...3.20-5-ga6ad01a
http://www.sciencedi...007122684900110
http://gut.bmj.com/c...1/1192.abstract

Some of you guys think that science is only good if there are experiments. We have experiments on animals, we have some human experiments (albeit not so long that we could conclude that smoking directly causes cancer, but it's proven that it causes some other physiologic changes that can contribute to cancer), major carcinogens in tobacco have been identified, there are tons of epidemiological data and there is a plausible theory. "Somehow you seem to ignore all the science." How do you comment all this epidemiological data? I want numbers and facts, not just "epidemiological data is good only for making hypothesis, it's not really science yet".
OTOH, I doubt that there have been a lot of experiments regarding absestos causing cancer for the same problems as with tobacco smoking and I also doubt that anyone here would be willing to live in a house full of absestos.

[YOLF]

There's some data here:

cetp.fmed.ulaval.ca/tabagisme/medias/66722/pdf/module7_1.pdf

As for quitting, I dunno, seems like cold turkey might be a bad idea, as it increases cancer risk in animal experiments.

Can you elaborate on that find? Under what circumstances are cancer risks elevated?

[YOLF]

I've read different information concerning the amount of lead 210 in cigarettes and what stays in your lungs. Certainly, most of the polonium is gone, but the lead adheres to the tar and has a half life of something like 22 years. You might not live for 3 half lives at that rate and I'm pretty sure more than 20% stays in the lungs. I didn't read the articles, but I'd assume 20% got measured as an end of life, or cancer biopsy result. The other import thing you make no note of is that damage done younger is damage done longer. As the rate of growth is much faster when we are young, there are more cells being created that are effected by the carcinogens and radiological damage from the cigarette, especially at close proximity to the cells in the lungs. Cigarette tar also persists much longer than other tars from inhaled substances. What about the studies showing the radiation levels of smokers and non smokers (Geiger counter readings)?

Anyways, the dilemma of smoking isn't really the health risks. It's the choice and what it means to people, how people perceive their lifestyle. We can argue health risks and cancer all day and no one is going to quit. But let me ask you this? Can you tell me objectively how nicotine/tobacco effect your energy levels and quality of life right now? Can you tell what you've been missing out in the past and even right now because you're a smoker? No you can't, because we're all aging and we think it's normal to lose some of our health each year. The clincher? You've gotten older and lost more health at a slightly higher rate each year for as many years as you've been a smoker and you don't know how much it affects you, and can't perceive it until you've quit for at least 6 months. It worth it to find out, even at two months. Are you familiar with how a mortgage works? Over 30 years, you'll pay nearly 3 times as much as sticker on your home said. Yet still others took that mortgage payment and invested in their health. That's the divide you don't and can't understand, in contrast, the person who devotes themselves to their health appears in all relativity to benefit from the law of accelerating returns. What's the existential risk to your life experience that is a result of the smoking habit? How does smoking improve your life? I first decided to smoke because I looked around and the world looked too corrupt and disequitable for me to want to live in it, I had no hope of living forever or living with the health of an indefinite lifespan. I couldn't afford cryonics, or anything that would let me make a difference and I gave up. What are you giving up on, and what are the costs to your existence? Aging is suffering, why are you choosing to suffer more? What if you were just a few percent healthier than you were supposed to be each year instead of the opposite? Where would you be now? Just quit for 6 months and stay away from smokers altogether. Keep a journal of how you feel better everyday after you get over the initial withdrawal.

No replies necessary, I'm not committed to following this thread.

Edited by cryonicsculture, 02 March 2013 - 04:58 AM.

[Logic]

People read the heading of this thread!
I'll repeat it here: "...what should a take to nullify harm?"
This same arguement about wether smoking is good for you has been agrued to death elsewhere on this forum.
While everybody loves a good agruement; WTF not do so in the appropriate thread!?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------






N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) and glutathione (GSH): Antioxidant and chemopreventive properties, with special reference to lung cancer

http://onlinelibrary...590805/abstract


"...The antimutagenic and anticarcinogenic properties of NAC could be ascribed to multiple protective mechanisms, such as NAC nucleophilicity, antioxidant activity, its ability to act as a precursor of intracellular reduced GSH, modulation of detoxification, and DNA repair processes. On these grounds, NAC has emerged as a most promising cancer chemopreventive agent..."


The effects of phenethyl isothiocyanate, N-acetylcysteine and green tea on tobacco smoke-induced lung tumors in strain A/J mice.
http://carcin.oxford...9/10/1789.short

[Next]

People read the heading of this thread!
I'll repeat it here: "...what should a take to nullify harm?"
This same arguement about wether smoking is good for you has been agrued to death elsewhere on this forum.
While everybody loves a good agruement; WTF not do so in the appropriate thread!?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------






N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) and glutathione (GSH): Antioxidant and chemopreventive properties, with special reference to lung cancer

http://onlinelibrary...590805/abstract


"...The antimutagenic and anticarcinogenic properties of NAC could be ascribed to multiple protective mechanisms, such as NAC nucleophilicity, antioxidant activity, its ability to act as a precursor of intracellular reduced GSH, modulation of detoxification, and DNA repair processes. On these grounds, NAC has emerged as a most promising cancer chemopreventive agent..."


The effects of phenethyl isothiocyanate, N-acetylcysteine and green tea on tobacco smoke-induced lung tumors in strain A/J mice.
http://carcin.oxford...9/10/1789.short

Has anybody considered the mechanism of delivery for these chemicals?

I was thinking of buying some sort of vaporizer so I can directly inhale curcumin or NAC or green tea extract directly into my lungs.

It seems like I would get more cellular coverage by hitting the potentially damaged cells (former smoker of about 2 years) from both the bloodstream and the inhaled vapors.

I'm thinking of buying this: http://www.wired.com...012/12/le-whaf/

to help fix my lungs up.

[BLimitless]

Supposedly DMSO (dimethylsulfoxide) can be used in a nebulizer to remove tar from the lungs:

12/29/2008: Ted from Bangkok, Thailand replies: "Dear Betsy: I am happy to hear of your improvement!
As to your condition, the constant phlegm is the body is obviously detoxing itself trying to get rid of the tar and smoke. This can be noticed by spitting it onto a white sink. A healthy phlegm is colorless, but a body trying to rid of the smoke or sooth (tar is more difficult) the colors will be noted. An N Acetyl Cysteine (non-effervescent kind as the effervescent contains toxic aspartame will definitely worsen the condition) will liquefy tne phlegm, but the tar requires a separate treatment. A colloidal silver, one tablespoon a day (it helps if drops of H2O2 3% is added in per bottle) so that the silver is broken down smaller still. The colloidal silver for some reason or another helps the lungs to regenerate tissues in the air sacs, as the body slowly removes tar from the system using a 50/50 DMSO solution humidifier, slowly, but surely. An MSM (methylsulfonylmethane), in some cases 1/4 teaspoon, plenty of water may further rid of tar in the bloodstream (with lecithin) as tar is slowly dissolved into the blood stream from the clog lungs. Some regenerative capacity of the lungs (stem cells) are created with colloidal silver, but I have also found aloe vera oil, to be very helpful for such regeneration. That dose, is taken 1 tablespoon every week, is a good dose, without taking too much. While aloe vera oil, may not be easily be found, certain products may have aloe vera in them. Those have a lower aloe vera oil content, in which case it's taken daily, in available food forms.

http://www.earthclin...l#Question_2517


You don't need that expensive and useless 'Le Whaf'. That's there for people who want to smell beer, if you read the article it notes that alcohol is not even delivered to the system in any appreciable dose let alone heavy particulates.

Instead, use a nebuliser. They are very cheap. I may yet have a go at nebulising N-Acetyl-Cysteine solution now.


Edit: Nebulised a little NAC dissolved in water, with dilute <3% hydrogen peroxide to preserve sterility. Not sure what to say other than it does nebulise. The taste is quite intense. I have not given it enough time to really say anything. Hopefully will experiment with DMSO in the few weeks.

Is curcumin a ''hot' chemical? I do wonder about inhaling it. Sounds like it could be amazing if executed properly but there is always that which we do not know that we do not know. which might cause a ruckus here.

Edited by BLimitless, 26 March 2013 - 03:08 PM.

[Logic]

Anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects of resveratrol in healthy smokers a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23298135

[YOLF]

People read the heading of this thread!
I'll repeat it here: "...what should a take to nullify harm?"
This same arguement about wether smoking is good for you has been agrued to death elsewhere on this forum.
While everybody loves a good agruement; WTF not do so in the appropriate thread!?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------






N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) and glutathione (GSH): Antioxidant and chemopreventive properties, with special reference to lung cancer

http://onlinelibrary...590805/abstract


"...The antimutagenic and anticarcinogenic properties of NAC could be ascribed to multiple protective mechanisms, such as NAC nucleophilicity, antioxidant activity, its ability to act as a precursor of intracellular reduced GSH, modulation of detoxification, and DNA repair processes. On these grounds, NAC has emerged as a most promising cancer chemopreventive agent..."


The effects of phenethyl isothiocyanate, N-acetylcysteine and green tea on tobacco smoke-induced lung tumors in strain A/J mice.
http://carcin.oxford...9/10/1789.short

Has anybody considered the mechanism of delivery for these chemicals?

I was thinking of buying some sort of vaporizer so I can directly inhale curcumin or NAC or green tea extract directly into my lungs.

It seems like I would get more cellular coverage by hitting the potentially damaged cells (former smoker of about 2 years) from both the bloodstream and the inhaled vapors.

I'm thinking of buying this: http://www.wired.com...012/12/le-whaf/

to help fix my lungs up.

You can diy that for $10 on ebay and some stuff lying around your house. The idea is note worthy though. Perhaps there is a way to de-tar the lungs and recover capacity?

[BLimitless]

Please read post #46;

Apparently Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO) via nebuliser can remove tar from the lungs

[YOLF]

Please read post #46;

Apparently Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO) via nebuliser can remove tar from the lungs

Any other options? I don't think there is any validity to that. I'd want to see a study, not some stranger from a foreign nation saying it was good for me. The DMSO gets absorbed anywhere and winds up on the tongue and that is a legit report... what "Ted" is talking about is the stuff draining into the stomache and going through the process again... That's stuff's a poison.

Instead let's look at the composition of lung tar and figure out what other food based oils can dissolve it.

[BLimitless]

I'm very interested in any other possible avenues of exploration.

Of course the information presented herein is provided AT YOUR OWN RISK. It is not verified and wholly anecdotal. However I might add that it is certainly quite plausible:

TED'S REMEDIES
01/27/2008: Ted from Bangkok , Thailand writes: "Over the past couple of days I have been researching and performing experiments to find a remedy based on looking into the cause of emphysema/COPD.

Since a large majority of people had emphysema came from smoking I further investigated what components of smoking was responsible for the emphysema and why this situation can't be reversed, but what I found is that it CAN be reversed.

If we look into the components of the smoke as well as photos of lung samples of people with emphysema, this should give you a fair idea what is causing the problem. A smoke from a cigarettes has many volatile oils, smoke particulates, naphtha, nicotine, and tar. What is most interesting is that volatile oils are volatile, so that won't have a lasting effect on the lungs. A smoke particulates basically is expelled when mucus is created, and are often coughed out. A naphtha is less volatile and may slowly sublime. This leaves the sticky resinous component that most people call it tar. It shows itself as dark very sticky spots on the lungs. These resinous sticky black substance are non volatile. It is hydrophobic and can't be dissolved with water, mucous can't lift it out because it is sticky. The body under normal conditions can't remove the tar.

These black resin or rosin substance that is very sticky from a plant and has some smoke particulates, but mostly it is referred to as pitch (resin) that stays into the lung forever and the tar accumulates along the lifetime of the smoker and therefore the lungs get more black tar making breathing more difficult. Therefore a simple remedy is simply to find a suitable solvent that will dissolve the tar. Since a tar is hydrophobic, it is somewhat soluble, mostly anyways in alcohol solution. But in organic chemistry the universal organic solvent (almost) that is biologically safe is DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) or a sister MSM which may be a good solvent to dissolve the tar found in the lungs. I remembered at the time of storing a smoker's lung as a student but was particularly lazy and put them into an unknown solution which later proved to be DMSO which removed the tar out of the lungs thus irritating the teacher that I just cleaned out the smokers lungs! At the time I was not aware of the link between emphysema and smokers lung. Another suitable substance of MSM can also be used to dissolve the tar which caused the emphysema. Once the tar removes itself the lungs will no longer have the tar to block the breathing sacs of the aveolar. Not only that but the tar won't cause the irritations to the lungs which leads to inflammation, thus choking the vicitims whenever breathing passages are narrowed from the inflammation.

Therefore a simple remedy is either DMSO or MSM. So I decided to test this by getting a coal tar solution and burn the alcohol off leaving a sticky substance. I added some DMSO and see if they were any soluble to the coal tar. Surprisingly the DMSO was quite soluble of coal tar. As to whether MSM is equally soluble as a DMSO, it may not be as much, but at least what is known is it is can also be used to dissolve a wide range of organic solvents including cigarettes tar. The issue appears to be to take MSM or DMSO in high amounts necessary to remove them may take some time, but continued use will reduce the tar buildup that cause black lungs or black dots as the tar will dissolve itself whenever the blood his high in MSM or DMSO and is eliminated out slowly in the bloodstream as the capilaries with the DMSO, where the tar resin resides get dissolved. Another more direct way is to use a DMSO nebulizer, but so that the DMSO won't cause skin irritation, at least for me a 30-50% DMSO mixed with water should cause minimum irritation, while more dilute may limit its solubility of tar, ti will at least slowly dissolve itself without the irritation. It is therefore needed that to find a higher DMSO concentration used as nebulizers that doesn't cause irritation. So for me an ideal concentration appears to be about 50%, a more conservative number might be 30% so it is possible that some people can try higher concentration that does not cause irritation, but 30-50% is usually the best concentration to at least give it a try for me. When DMSO as nebulizers enter the lungs the resins will uptake the DMSO and gets dissolve. So that not TOO MUCH dissolved out of the lungs into the bloodstream, it should not be done too long such that a person becomes nauseated.

This I might also follow with taking some MSM as MSM don't have the oysters smell, such as one tablespoon with plenty of water. It should be noted that MSM that I tried in the past, if taken too much may lead to sudden thirst in water. This is because MSM has an effect of purifying the body ridding of other resinous material in the body which leads to regularly occuring allergy in certain areas of the body instead of other parts. Resinous tar substance that accumulates in the body is also removed whenever MSM or DMSO is taken, but rather slowly.

Therefore the best remedy based on physical evidence appears to be the use of MSM, the more I can take the better the body can get rid of the substance, but at the time a nebulizer DMSO should also be used. I remember someone has tried for emphysema and was helpful, but at the time no one was aware of how DMSO or MSM works, how much or how long and what it does and then since everyone was at a loss for explaination, the placebo effect was assumed or since no proper explaination was available, everyone at the forum simply forgot about the remedy or its potential effectiveness."

EC: Please read our feedback page on MSM, including little known side effects.

http://curezone.com/...m.asp?i=1396507

Edited by BLimitless, 27 March 2013 - 01:04 AM.

[niner]

Ted from Bangkok didn't find a cure for COPD. Ted doesn't know WTF he's talking about, to be honest. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

[YOLF]

Hmmm... I have some MSM in collagen supplement. I wouldn't mind putting that stuff in my lungs and seeing if there was any benefit. I also have a fogger. I could see myself trying this. Can anyone think of a reason why that might be a bad idea?

[BLimitless]

Ted from Bangkok didn't find a cure for COPD. Ted doesn't know WTF he's talking about, to be honest. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

The question isn't whether COPD can be cured by a dude called Ted from Bangkok, the question is, DOES DMSO remove tar from the lungs? How would we even test this?


Would removing tar increase lung capacity? Then we could compare two people, one nebulising DMSO for a month and another for control and compare their lung capacities.


To say that COPD or lung tar cannot be healed is to entirely ignore the fact that what can be caused, can also be ceased. We're physical machines at the end of the day and removing tar from the lungs isn't very different from removing tar from other things, other than having to deal with the ins and outs of biological tissues. Tar is tar after all, whether in the body or out of the body.




Normally I have very stuffy sinuses. Since I have started ingesting >50g coconut oil every day, my nose is clear all day long. Breathing feels pretty good and I feel very 'here'. It seems to tackle depersonalisation and brain fog pretty well. I use the organic virgin cold-pressed variety as ideally I'd rather squish my own coconuts into oil and that's the closest I'm getting to it.

Edited by BLimitless, 27 March 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[hippocampus]

50 g :O, check your cholesterol and stuff!

[Logic]

As this topic is heading towards reversing and repairing damage; how about adding solvents to this stuff:
http://en.wikipedia....iquid_breathing

[Logic]

This thread is interesting:
http://www.longecity...ed-resveratrol/

Quotes:

The results showed that atomization inhaled resveratrol could alleviate rat COPD lung injury accompanied by amelioration of pathological changes, increase the ratio of forced expiratory volume in 0.3 s (FEV0.3) and forced vital capacity (FVC), and decrease the ICAM-1 level in BALF. The ultimate reduction of inflammatory factors was involved, at least in part, in the mechanism of resveratrol effects.

There is also a body of research pointing to Vitamin A in the form of ATRA can actually regenerated the lung.
I also mentioned that curcumin, NAC, and sulforaphane are basics in my regimen. I also nebulize reduced l-glutathione (GSH).

Lithium can improve lung healing by activation of the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway. Awsome !

[niner]

Ted from Bangkok didn't find a cure for COPD. Ted doesn't know WTF he's talking about, to be honest. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

The question isn't whether COPD can be cured by a dude called Ted from Bangkok, the question is, DOES DMSO remove tar from the lungs? How would we even test this?

Would removing tar increase lung capacity? Then we could compare two people, one nebulising DMSO for a month and another for control and compare their lung capacities.

To say that COPD or lung tar cannot be healed is to entirely ignore the fact that what can be caused, can also be ceased. We're physical machines at the end of the day and removing tar from the lungs isn't very different from removing tar from other things, other than having to deal with the ins and outs of biological tissues. Tar is tar after all, whether in the body or out of the body.

Normally I have very stuffy sinuses. Since I have started ingesting >50g coconut oil every day, my nose is clear all day long. Breathing feels pretty good and I feel very 'here'. It seems to tackle depersonalisation and brain fog pretty well. I use the organic virgin cold-pressed variety as ideally I'd rather squish my own coconuts into oil and that's the closest I'm getting to it.

You have the right idea about the kinds of things you might to do to test this. COPD is not as simple as tar in the lungs, though. COPD is the damage done by years of inflammatory insults to the lungs, and you can't just wash it away. You have to somehow get rid of damaged and scarred tissue and replace it with new healthy tissue. We're physical machines, but we are insanely complicated physical machines. It's very common for guys like Ted to come up with gross oversimplifications that sound plausible but miss the mark by a very long way

Sinus infection and/or inflammation can cause depersonalization, brain fog, or something that feels a lot like depression. There are some viruses that coconut oil can have an impact on- I wonder if that's what's going on here? I would worry a bit about 50g of coconut oil a day; that's a lot of SAFA, even if it is short chain length. You probably ought to check in with an allergist or an ENT and get the sinus thing sorted out. You shouldn't have a constant sinus problem, and you shouldn't need to treat it with an MCT OD. Sinus problems can make life pretty miserable, but they are fixable if you get the right diagnosis and therapy.

[Logic]

Sinus infection and/or inflammation can cause depersonalization, brain fog, or something that feels a lot like depression. There are some viruses that coconut oil can have an impact on- I wonder if that's what's going on here? I would worry a bit about 50g of coconut oil a day; that's a lot of SAFA, even if it is short chain length. You probably ought to check in with an allergist or an ENT and get the sinus thing sorted out. You shouldn't have a constant sinus problem, and you shouldn't need to treat it with an MCT OD. Sinus problems can make life pretty miserable, but they are fixable if you get the right diagnosis and therapy.

I was thinking the same thing.
Lauric acid/Monolaurin is the main anti-viral in Coconut oil and is available as a seperate supp.
As it works by stripping the lipid layer off virii; trying other things that do the same, like BHT, may be a good idea.
Also, perhaps snarfing some coconut oil would be an interesting experiment!?

Edited by Logic, 28 March 2013 - 10:09 AM.

[matthewebbert]

i feel that electronic cigarette witll be more helpful..