Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

And here are some of the mice who helped to prove it!
Copyright Joe Vialls. 16 July 2003

If you would like to help this keep this ailing web site on the Internet, you may do so by clicking on the PayPal link below and making a donation. No amount is too small, and might keep the reports flowing for a few weeks longer. Thank you for any assistance you can provide.

Vitamin B17

Operation Shekhinah Bali Bombing Remote Control Steve Seymour, Software Design, Click Here

Vialls Home

Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the Anti-Smoking Inquisition spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. ith the encouragement of most western governments, these !rwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical "eal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in #$#$ and lasted until #$%%. &owadays we look back on American prohibition with 'ustifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics( Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities. Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly sinning by en'oying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of )od to make them all feel miserable again. Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of "ealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. &owadays e*actly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government "ealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics. +ertain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to e*treme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead. As we will find later in the report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can 'ustifiably claim to provide startling health protection.

&ot all governments around the world share the same problem. ,apan and )reece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, -ussia, and some South .acific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer. /his is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that smoking causes lung cancer.

/he first European contact with tobacco was in #0$1, when +olumbus and fellow e*plorer -odriguo de ,ere" saw natives smoking in +uba. /hat very same day, de ,ere" took his first puff and found it very rela*ing, 'ust as the locals had assured him it would be. /his was an important occasion, because -odriguo de ,ere" discovered what the +ubans and native Americans had known for many centuries2 that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only rela*ing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments. hen he returned home, -odriguo de ,ere" proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. 3e ,ere" thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies. In less than a century, smoking became a much en'oyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind s ills. 4y the early 15th +entury almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. /hen something e*traordinary happened on ,uly #6, #$072 a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As 8. )reisen recalls2 hen the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. /hen someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave travelling along the ground. /he appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. /he color was yellow. /he permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me. After the first rapid e*plosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fi*ed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. /he upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a "ig"ag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. /he smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud. /his was the notorious /rinity /est, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere. A si*kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by e*plosive lenses, /rinity e*ploded over &ew 9e*ico with a force equal to appro*imately 15,555 tons of /&/. ithin seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of si* miles, where high-speed 'et streams could circulate them far and wide. /he American )overnment knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence,

but the American )overnment did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citi"ens in local and more remote areas. If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an e*ceptionally lucky cigarette smoker. /he solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the bodys limited reserves of vitamin 4#:, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication. ;ow can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a sub'ect is internally e*posed( <or real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. <or any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. <irst the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory e*periments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately sub'ecting their lungs to radioactive matter. /he documented scientific results of these various e*periments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. /heory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. /he suspect agent =radioactive matter> caused the claimed result =lung cancer> when inhaled by mammals.

/he overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. 4efore -ussia, 4ritain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 7, #$6%, more than 0,155 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. 4ecause we know that less than one microgram =millionth of a single gram> of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 0,155,555,555 =0.1 4illion> lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 75,555 years. <rightening( ?nfortunately it gets worse. /he plutonium mentioned above e*ists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon s fireball. /hese particles form by far the

largest part of the smoke in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only #,555 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test. 4efore being banned by -ussia, 4ritain and America, a total of :## atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating :##,555 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 0,155 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of :#7,155 kilograms. /here are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than :#7,555,555,555 =:#7 4illion> such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer ##: times in every man, woman and child on earth. 4efore you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not 'ust fade away, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. ith a half-life of 75,555 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. +irculated around the world by powerful 'et streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity. /he once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at 9ichael ,ackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. ;e may look eccentric, but 9ichael will almost certainly outlive most of us.

/welve years after the cataclysmic /rinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a #$7: 4ritish 9edical -esearch +ouncil report stating that global deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period #$07 to #$77 , though no e*planation was offered. 3uring the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate pro*imity of ;iroshima and &agasaki went up threefold. 4y the end of official atmospheric testing in #$6%, the incidence of lung cancer in the .acific Islands had increased fivefold since #$07. ;aving screwed your environment completely for 75,555 years, it was time for big government to start taking heavy diversionary action. ;ow could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted in'ury for which government could never be blamed or sued( /he only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. .oorly qualified medical researchers suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result2 .rove that smoking causes lung cancer. -eal scientists =especially some notable nuclear physicists> smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. /he quasi medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under e*actly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals. -emember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. <irst the suspect agent =tobacco smoke> must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory e*periments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. 3espite e*posing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 155 cigarettes per day for years on end, medical science has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. @es, you did read that correctly. <or more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you. /he real scientists had the quasi medical researchers by the throat, because pairing the deadly radioactive particle e*periment with the benign tobacco smoke e*periment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer. And further, in one large accidental e*periment

they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer. All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific e*periment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally contaminated by the real or imagined effects of another substance. /hen one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking e*periment accidentally found their way into the radioactive particle e*periment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test sub'ects. 4ut this time, completely against the odds, si*ty percent of the smoking mice survived e*posure to the radioactive particles. /he only variable was their prior e*posure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke. 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' Vishnu, Bhagavad-Gita

)overnment pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. /ongue in cheek perhaps, .rofessor Schrau"er, .resident of the International Association of 4io-inorganic +hemists, testified before a ?.S. congressional committee in #$A1 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anticarcinogens =anti-cancer agents> in test animals. ;e continued that when known carcinogens =cancer causing substances> are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them. &or did .rofessor Schrau"er stop there. ;e further testified on oath to the committee that no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer , adding that no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking. It was a neat answer to a rather perple*ing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional recordB .redictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical researchers into a fren"y of rage. 4y #$A1 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment. Cuite suddenly they switched the blame to other secret ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. @es, that must be itB they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same secret ingredients had been included in the mice e*periments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer. /hings were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the antismoking funding had started in the early si*ties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer. 9ost believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight + doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. Smoking causes lung cancer converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof.

Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media. Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened smokers lungs, with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don t quit now. It was all pathetic rubbish of course. !n the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of +amels or 9arlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed.

/he black lungs( <rom a coal miner, who throughout his working life breathed in copious quantities of microscopic black coal dust particles. ,ust like radioactive particles they get caught deep in the tissue of the lungs and stay there forever. If you worked down the coal mines for twenty or more years without a face mask, your lungs will probably look like this on the slab. 9any people ask e*actly how it is that those smoking mice were protected from deadly radioactive particles, and even more are asking why real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers. .rofessor Sterling of the Simon <raser ?niversity in +anada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue. /his is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. 3eadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be e'ected from the body before they could enter the tissue. All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimi"e the risks as far as possible. -ather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their e*pensive second-hand smoke. )o on, don t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. !r perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, 'ust three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer. If you cannot or will not do either of the above, consider phoning 9ichael ,ackson to ask for a spare surgical maskB