Deprivation and Infirmity

In the last post, I talked about the lack of real proof that smoking is not beneficial. I know that that is a reversal of our general perception in that we would normally say, “There is a lack of real proof that smoking is harmful”, but I think that my point is significant in that the Health Zealots hold the purse-strings which provide the money to finance studies. As far as I know, the beneficial effects of smoking have never been investigated, or if they have, no great credence or publicity of them has emerged. Most of the beneficial effects are anecdotal, but are none the less real. How often is it that we see people emerge from courts and light a cigarette? Why do they do so? It can only be that the effects of the cigarette are calming on the nerves. There are many similar situations, such as after funerals. It is also said that smoking (specifically the nicotine, I suppose) aids mental acuity. I don’t know, other than that, as I sit here writing, stopping from time to time and taking a puff seems to help the mental processes. I don’t know why, but that seems to be true. I know that there have been studies which have borne the mental acuity thing out to some extent. But Health Zealots consider only the physical effects. The physical effects (if they are true) trump the calming and mental acuity effects, and they will continue to do so as long as the Physical Medical Establishment is in control of “Health”.

Our case, as smokers, is that the beneficial mental effects for us as individuals trump the physical harm (if there is any). Our argument reverses the Physical Medical Establishment argument which exists only on a population wide basis. We are individuals, not mass numbers. The General Smoking Ban overrode thousands of years of Private Property and Individual Personal Responsibility and Rights based upon nothing at all other than emotions.


What is amazing is this.

Smoking rates have been falling now for decades. You would think that certain conditions, like ‘carcinoma of the bronchi, trachea and ? (upper respirator tract’) would also have fallen, gradually but substantially, over those decades. Had there been such a fall, you would expect Tobacco Control to be shouting about it from the rooftops. Why are they not? Because it has not been happening. The Zealots claim that smoking prevalence has gradually fallen, since about 1960, from 60% to 20%. In that period, very roughly, deaths from lung cancer have fallen by about 20%. Bearing in mind earlier prognosis and better treatment as part of the reason for the fall in deaths, to say nothing of Clean Air Acts etc, you would think that LC deaths would be almost non-existent by now. But they are not. National Statistics show that upper respiratory cancer deaths occur occasionally in children and young people, and increase in number as people age – even among young people up to, say, the age of thirty – without any apparent, external cause. There is an age progression in the number of deaths.


But that is only part of my discussion tonight.

I was born in 1939. My sister was born in 1941. My mother lost all her teeth in quick succession. She told me that she was told that it was due to wartime deprivations and the drain of calcium from her body by the baby(ies). She died aged 71, but in the years before her death, she could not straighten here body. Her upper body was angled at about 45 degrees and she could straighten up no further. That also speaks of permanent bone damage at an earlier age. Well, it does to me.

My point is that no one really knows what long-term, permanent damage wartime deprivation and other wartime experiences do to the bodies of individuals who suffered those deprivations and experiences.


This has been bothering me for quite a long time. Hill and Doll started the ‘Doctor Study’, around 1950. They had already done the ‘Hospital Study’. Oddly, in that study, although they found that LC was more prevalent among smokers, a minor consequence seemed to be that inhaling was protective. The question about inhaling was dropped in the Doctors Study.


Perhaps readers are sick of seeing the following graphs, but they are important, so I’ll show them again. This Doll’s graph of survival and not deaths:


The above graph [the gridlines are mine] is Doll’s, but you must note that the vertical axis is squashed up compared with the horizontal axis, which gives an impression of a gradual curve. What it should look like is this:


The above graph is deaths and not survival.


The line on the left is heavy smokers, then moderate smokers, then light smokers and then non-smokers.

I hope that readers can see the difference between the two graphs, which is that deaths among the doctors were not a gentle, smooth curve, but were vastly disproportionate in old age.

But look closely. At the age of 60, some 20% of heavy smoking doctors had died and some 10% of non-smoking doctors had died. It is reasonable to ask is this death-rate was ‘normal’. Why had some 10% of non-smoking doctors died by the age of 60? 34,000 male doctors were involved, and 3,400 non-smoking doctors had died by the age of 60. Why?

A study of National Statistics shows that there is an ‘age related’ progression in deaths, even at a young age (say, between the ages of 1 and 30), and I mean from ‘diseases’ and not from ‘accidents’.


But, when you look at the mortality at the age of 70, non-smoker deaths seem to be about 15%, while heavy smoker (25+ cigs per day) deaths are about 50%. Now, I find it difficult to believe that difference – well, not as a consequence of smoking in itself.

Why did Hill retire at the age of 64? Why, in the following year, did he write his thesis about ‘epidemiology and causation’? Was he pressured? Was Doll fiddling the figures? He was a Zealot through and through, and, as we know, Zealots, like Missionaries, see the end as worthy of the means, regardless of the baseness of the means.


The baseness of the means becomes more and more baseless by the day. I have it on good authority that the ban on smoking in cars ‘with children present’ and PP will happen in the ‘tidying up’ period before the next general election. We can see the trick. Hardly anyone will notice the ‘tidying up’, especially if the MSM gives little prominence to these regulations. Before anyone realises the implications, the general election will be over and done with.


But it is a matter of fact that smoking in cars and PP are irrelevant in themselves. The crunch will come when the Prohibitionists try to dictate what parents, and people in general, do in their own homes. For Tobacco Control to dictate what people do in their own homes is an enormous step. They will do their utmost to justify criminalising parents who enjoy tobacco. The criminalisation of smokers is what they have been doing for the last decade or so.

So, it is obvious, over a period of time, that the Zealots have all along had the objective of making smokers criminals. There is no doubt. Thus, from time to time, a smoker is dragged before the courts and criminalised. This is especially true of parents who smoke in the presence of their children. And yet, there has never been even the most minuscule of proof that the children have been damaged at all. Such prosecutions are the epitome of witch hunts. That is also true of the persecution of mental patient and prisoners.


There is no doubt, in my own mind, that deprivation drives morbidity and death. Japanese people live long lives on the average, and yet they enjoy tobacco a lot. Being islands in the Pacific, the Japanese tend to eat a lot of fish food. And, on the whole, they are happy. Our political machine wants to make us all unhappy, and, with The Smoking Ban, it has done so with great damage to our society. Nothing has been gained, but much has been destroyed.

Tobacco Control is the REAL criminal, just like the Nazis. Thankfully, in modern times, justice tends to catch up with elite criminals rather more quickly that it used to. But it is still true that the elite can and do protect themselves. Only the lowest people are dragged before the courts.

There is always an ELITE.  Always. The worst that can happen, politically, is that the ELITE take over all the major political parties,which is what seems to have happened in recent years. That is why we have to vote for UKIP, despite its faults.

The vast majority of THE PEOPLE just want ‘fair dos’, and to be allowed to enjoy their lives as best they can. What is undoubtedly obvious is that there are more leaches sucking the life-blood of the ‘producers’ than there should be.

11 Responses to “Deprivation and Infirmity”

  1. Rose Says:

    As far as I know, the beneficial effects of smoking have never been investigated, or if they have, no great credence or publicity of them has emerged

    A grudging acceptance of the concept from Australia

    Health ‘benefits’ of smoking?

    But ignore nicotine, it’s all they’ve got, other components of tobacco smoke fit the bill much better.

    For instance, inhaled nitric oxide for sharp thinking.

    Your Brain Boots Up Like a Computer

    “Like a computer booting up its operating system before running more complicated programs, the nitric oxide triggers certain functions that set the stage for more complex brain operations, according to a new study. ”
    http: //

    It has other essential functions too.Lots of research on that if you want it.

    Antidepressant effect, which appears to be 2,3,6-trimethyl-1,4-naphthoquinone, probably derived from the solanesol in tobacco.

    A short explanation here

    Researchers exploring health benefits of — carbon monoxide?
    http: //

    There seem to be quite a few besides the ones in that story, it’s a powerful anti-inflammatory, made in the body itself for those very purposes.

    More details on request.

    This, of course is all very modern science, anti tobacco dogma tried to prove the reverse.

    Solanesol seems to be marvellous stuff and is used in pharmaceuticals apparently and has been for years.

    discovered in 1956 Rowland RL et al

    Chinese turn cigarettes into medicine

    “Beijing – A city in China, a country that’s home to the world’s most enthusiastic smokers, is crushing fake cigarettes to make medicine, Xinhua news agency said on Sunday.”

    “The northwestern city of Xian is using the counterfeit cigarettes to extract solanesol, a compound found in tobacco which is used to treat cardiovascular disease, it said.”

    “A kilo of solanesol is worth about $200 (about R1 200), and 30 tons of tobacco leaf can produce up to 120kg, Xinhua added.”
    http: //

    See Coenzyme Q10, ubiquinone or you’ll find it in anti-tobacco science as part of the deadly “tar”

    Also in nightshade vegetables.

    Tobacco is an ancient and popular herbal medicine, to have no benefits at all would seem highly unlikely.

    No wonder Pharma and it’s minions want you to stop, after all , look what they did to other less popular medicinal herbs.

    EU bans herbal remedies: another victory for corporate interests
    http: //

    I’ve been posting about the benefits of tobacco and the practice of smoking over at Frank’s for years, didn’t you notice? : )

    The answer is in the chemistry.

  2. Rose Says:

    Here’s one Dick Puddlecote spotted.

    The Miracle Medicinal Herb

    Hey! You can’t say this in public!

    “A medical student claims to have cured himself of a debilitating disease by taking up smoking.

    Formerly a non-smoker, Stephen Pendry, 23, struggled with crippling pain, tiredness, shortness of breath and dehydration since he was diagnosed with bowel disease ulcerative colitis four years ago.

    He had to rush to the toilet up to 15 times a day but is now completely symptom-free, thanks to a new four-a-day cigarette habit.

    All coupled with the chappie’s thrilled face as he is about to light up.

    He said: ‘Smoking was my last option. I didn’t really want to wear a colostomy bag at the age of 23.”

    “Dr Sean Kelly, Consultant Gastroenterologist at York Hospital, who has written on the subject in the British Medical Journal, said: ‘It is a well-established medical fact that smoking protects against ulcerative colitis.

    ‘Rarely, we use tobacco as a bridge to conventional medical therapy.

    ‘We sometimes get an ex-smoker to start smoking again – for a short period – to settle the colitis and then allow medicines, such as azathioprine, to maintain remission after they have stopping smoking completely.

    ‘Around 20 years ago there was a lot of interest in using nicotine patches to treat ulcerative colitis, but the research was not terribly effective.’

    But that’s because it seems to be the anti-inflammatory, inhaled carbon monoxide, not nicotine at all.

    Carbon Monoxide Soothes Inflammatory Bowel Disease

    “Doctors have long known that smokers rarely suffer from a common form of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) called ulcerative colitis, but they didn’t know why. A new study in the December 19 issue of The Journal of Experimental Medicine might help explain this apparent resistance. Scott Plevy and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh now show that carbon monoxide (CO), a component of cigarette smoke, helps shut down the intestinal inflammation that causes ulcerative colitis.”

    Unfortunately the scientists are so hung up on nicotine, very few of them seem to have even thought about the possibility that the calming effect on the inflammation could be due to anything else.

    Alarming isn’t it?

    Apparently, developing ulcerative colitis is one of the little mentioned hazards of quitting.

  3. garyk30 Says:

    Due to modern medicine, deaths have declined; but,over the years, lung cancer incidence has not changed much.

    Number of New Cases and Deaths Per 100,000 People (All Races, Males and Females), Age-Adjusted

    Lung cancer……New cases



  4. garyk30 Says:

    34,000 male doctors were involved, and 3,400 non-smoking doctors had died by the age of 60. Why?

    Ummm, I believe there were only about 5,500 nonsmoking docs total and only about half died during the course of the study.

    But then, I think your data showed them to be about 7 years, on average, younger than the smokers.

    I also think the ex-smokers are not properly documented.
    Here is why:

    TC nannies loudly claim that smoking causes 80%-90% of lung cancers; but, the data below shows that the majority of lung cancers are caused by factors other than smoking.

    ” -In 10 years your risk of lung cancer will have returned to that of a never-smoker.”

    11th International Lung Cancer
    Conference (ILCC)
    July 8 – 11, 2010; Rancho Palos Verdes, California

    Conference News

    ILCC Many Lung Cancer Patients Stopped Smoking Years Before Diagnosis
    Medscape Medical News, July 14, 2010
    July 14, 2010 (Los Angeles, California) — Much of what people think they know about smoking and lung cancer might be wrong, according to findings presented here at the 11th International Lung Cancer Conference.

    For example, many if not most patients with a history of smoking quit decades before. In a retrospective study of 626 people with lung cancer treated at a tertiary-care facility in Southern California, 482 (77%) had a history of smoking. Of those, only 71 patients (14.7%) were still smoking at the time of their diagnosis. Of the remaining 411 patients, 245 (60%) had not smoked for a mean of 18 years, 8 of whom had quit 51 to 60 years earlier. The other 166 (40%) had stopped smoking within 10 years of their diagnosis.

    That is a muddled read ; but, can be broken down to show these points.

    1. 23% of the lung cancers were in never-smokers

    2. 11.3% of the lung cancers were in current smokers

    3. 65.6% of the lung cancers were in ex-smokers

    4. 60% of the ex-smokers had not smoked for a mean of 18 years(their chance for lung cancer is no longer higher than that of a non-smoker)

    5. 60% of 65.6% = 39.4% of the lung cancers were in ex-smokers with the same risk for lung cancer as never-smokers

    6. 39.4% + 23% = 62.4% of the lung cancers occured in people with a never-smoker’s risk for getting lung cancer.

    7. 62.4% of the lung cancers were NOT caused by smoking cigarettes.

    • garyk30 Says:

      doll’s docs:
      5,854 non-smokers

      2,917 died = 50%

      As I have said, 84% of them died from the diseases caused by smoking; but, that % would have increased(probably) as the rest of them died in their old age.

      It is possible that 90%, or more, of their deaths would have been from those diseases after all had died.

      • garyk30 Says:

        Before you ask:
        Smokers = 28,585

        Died = 22,429 = 79%

        The 85% deaths from the diseases of smoking will not be changed much with only 20% of the deaths left to occur.

  5. junican Says:

    Thanks, Rose, for the links. I HAVE seen your comments a Frank’s Place from time to time.
    The only thing that bothers me about ‘nicotinic acid’ is whether or not it is derived from the oxidisation of actual nicotine obtained from, say, eating vegetables, or if it is ‘manufactured’ by the human body in some other way. In other words, where does the human body derive the nicotinic acid from?


    There are peculiarities about the Doctors Study. There is a contradiction between the observations of decreasing ‘premature’ mortality as the doctors ceased to smoke and more recent data which show that people who gave up smoking long ago get LC more frequently that current smokers.
    There is also a problem with the precise definition of ‘Lung Cancer’. There are about 15 different types of LC, and the tumours appear in different places. Why did the Doctors Study not note these differences? They are of great importance.
    The biggest fraud of all is the phrase ‘tobacco related’.diseases. All of those diseases could also be called ‘bacon related’ if one wished to describe them as such.

  6. Rose Says:

    In other words, where does the human body derive the nicotinic acid from?

    I wondered about that myself for a long time, I know from industry research the nicotinic acid passes through fire unchanged, but where did it come from, was it in the soil?

    Cometh the hour, cometh the information.

    Vitamin B3 Might Have Been Made in Space, Delivered to Earth by Meteorites
    April 17, 2014

    “Ancient Earth might have had an extraterrestrial supply of vitamin B3 delivered by carbon-rich meteorites, according to a new analysis by NASA-funded researchers. The result supports a theory that the origin of life may have been assisted by a supply of key molecules created in space and brought to Earth by comet and meteor impacts.

    “It is always difficult to put a value on the connection between meteorites and the origin of life; for example, earlier work has shown that vitamin B3 could have been produced non-biologically on ancient Earth, but it’s possible that an added source of vitamin B3 could have been helpful,” said Karen Smith of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, Pa.

    “Vitamin B3, also called nicotinic acid or niacin, is a precursor to NAD (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide), which is essential to metabolism and likely very ancient in origin.”

    “This is not the first time vitamin B3 has been found in meteorites. In 2001 a team led by Sandra Pizzarello of Arizona State University, in Tempe discovered it along with related molecules called pyridine carboxylic acids in the Tagish Lake meteorite.

    In the new work at Goddard’s Astrobiology Analytical Laboratory, Smith and her team analyzed samples from eight different carbon-rich meteorites, called “CM-2 type carbonaceous chondrites” and found vitamin B3 at levels ranging from about 30 to 600 parts-per-billion. They also found other pyridine carboxylic acids at similar concentrations and, for the first time, found pyridine dicarboxylic acids.”

    It’s in the soil.

    Plants take it up from the soil and in the case of the tobacco plant mix it with putrescine to form a pesticide.

    We set fire to it and end up with the nicotinic acid again.

    Foods highest in niacin/nicotinic acid


    Making nicotinic acid from an amino acid.

    “Niacin can be synthesized in the body from the amino acid tryptophan. So in principle, it might be possible for a person to get all of the niacin they need from the tryptophan found in protein-rich foods, even if those foods contained no niacin.

    From a practical standpoint, however, many protein-rich foods (like animal foods) are also rich in niacin, so that there would be no practical need to take the tryptophan in these foods and convert it into niacin. (The rate of conversion from tryptophan to niacin in the human body is estimated to be somewhere in the range of 60:1, meaning that 60 milligrams of tryptophan would be required to create one milligram of niacin.)

    There is no question that the human body—under some circumstances, which are still being actively investigated—takes tryptophan and converts it into niacin. But exactly how important this process is to our B3 status is not clear.”

    In everyday life nicotinic acid is also made by roasting the pyridine alkaloid trigonelline in coffee beans.

    However, there is loads more nicotinic acid in my coffee than in the cigarette that goes with it.

  7. Rose Says:

    Futher explanation of Nicotinic Acid can be found here, where someone had the temerity to dispute with the mighty Leg Iron in the comments, followed by an avalanche of supporting evidence from me.

    Leggy put the matter to rest with this post.

    Nicotine vs. nicotinic acid (niacin).

    Read to the bottom of the comments on both and you’ll find out more about Nicotinic Acid than you ever wanted to know.

    It makes a very handy resource.

    Then look at the small print on your packet of breakfast cereal, the enrichment of white flour with niacin/nicotinic acid for health reasons began because of all this.

    The dispute about fortification continues to this day. In 2010 there was a study finding a correlation between US childhood obesity and niacin fortification over the last three decades, which caused a bit of a stir.
    But correlation is not causation and the niacin has been there since the 40’s.

    • junican Says:

      “It’s in the soil.”
      Just like all the other ‘nutrients’ which plants take out of the soil. But it doesn’t seem to me to make sense that tobacco plants make nicotine from niacin. It just sounds too random. that is not to say that such a molecular change could not occur in nature.

      • Rose Says:

        Sorry, Junican, one of the links on LI’s blog had gone bad.

        “Nicotine is produced in the roots of tobacco by the linking of compounds derived from nicotinic acid and putrescine”

        Nicotine is one of many nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco but is the most prevalent, making up 85-95% of the total of nicotinic alkaloids in typical commercial tobacco.”

        Further details

        “Nicotine is formed primarily in the roots of the tobacco plant and subsequently is transported to the leaves, where it is stored (Tso, Physioloqy and Biochemistry of Tobacco Plants, pp. 233-34, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg, PA (1972)).

        The nicotine molecule is comprised of two heterocyclic rings, a pyridine moiety and a pyrrolidine moiety, each of which is derived from a separate biochemical pathway.

        The pyridine moiety of nicotine is derived from nicotinic acid.

        The pyrrolidine moiety of nicotine is provided through a pathway leading from putrescine to N-methylputrescine and then to N-methylpyrroline.”

        “Some of This article is dedicated to Ray F. Dawson, formerly Professor of Botany at Columbia University, New York. He celebrated his 80th birthday on February 11, 1991. He was a pioneer in the use of sterile root cultures to study the biosynthesis of the tobacco alkaloids and was the first to show that nicotinic acid is a precursor of the pyridine ring of nicotine, 35 years ago”
        http: //

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: