Health
Comments [ new ]
- Nicotine Stimulated Dopamine Release
- Posted by Hua Kul on Saturday, 22-Sep-2007
Does the following indicate that a smoker also taking a calcium channel blocker for hypertension may tend to smoke more than if he was not on the drug?
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ topic | top ]
"A major factor underlying compulsive tobacco use is nicotine-induced modulation of dopamine release in the mesolimbic reward pathway (Wise and Rompre, 1989). An established biochemical mechanism for nicotine-enhanced dopamine release is by activating presynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) (Wonnacott, 1997). Prolonged application of 10(-7) to 10(-5) m nicotine to striatal synaptosomes promoted a sustained efflux of [3H]dopamine. This nicotine effect was mediated by non-alpha7 nAChRs, because it was blocked by 5 mum mecamylamine but was resistant to 100 nm alpha-bungarotoxin (alphaBgTx). Dopamine release was diminished by omitting Na+ or by applying peptide calcium channel blockers, indicating that nAChRs trigger release by depolarizing the nerve terminals. However, because alpha7 receptors rapidly desensitize in the continuous presence of agonists, a repetitive stimulation protocol was used to evaluate the possible significance of desensitization. This protocol produced a transient increase in [3H]dopamine released by depolarization and a significant increase in the response to hypertonic solutions that measure the size of the readily releasable pool (RRP) of synaptic vesicles. The nicotine-induced increase in the size of the readily releasable pool was blocked by alphaBgTx and by the calmodulin antagonist calmidazolium, suggesting that Ca2+ entry through alpha7 nAChRs specifically enhances synaptic vesicle mobilization at dopamine terminals. Thus, nicotine enhances dopamine release by two complementary actions mediated by discrete nAChR subtypes and suggest that the alpha7 nAChR-mediated pathway is tightly and specifically coupled to refilling of the RRP of vesicles in dopamine terminals." [link]
--Hua Kul
- Re: Nicotine Stimulated Dopamine Release
- Posted by Jo on Wednesday, 26-Sep-2007
All I know about dopamine is that it is said to be what is affected when you take nerve pills. I think it is in the pleasure area of your brain. I read that the herb St. John's Wart increases your dopamine.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | topic | top ]
Come to think of it, everyone that I know that has quit smoking now take some kind of nerve pill. I guess they keep their pleasure center happy that way.
- Re: Health
- Posted by Clarence Walker on Wednesday, 05-Sep-2007
NEWS JUST IN! HAND ROLLED CIGARETTES CAUSE CANCER
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ topic | top ]
[link]
Look at the picture. A manufacturing plant in Korea mass producing hand rolled cigarettes. What kind of 'scientific" study was this? The study references only filterless cigarettes and those being made in this manufacturing facility aren't exactly indicative of worldwide techniques in making SYO. Dare we educate REUTERS for some truth and unbiased, i.e., accurate reporting?!
- Re: Health
- Posted by Matt on Wednesday, 05-Sep-2007
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | topic | top ]
The most disturbing sentence in the whole article...
"There is, perhaps, an indication that we should be concerned if rising prices for manufactured cigarettes would lead to substitutions."
- Re: Health
- Posted by Gumby on Thursday, 06-Sep-2007
I was reading the board the second this post hit, and within mere minutes I had emailed my friend in Norway with the link and gotten a response of "Mike, I can send you some tobacco"
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | topic | top ]
so a trading I go, I'll report on what I get, and if he sends me the carcinogenic stuff I'm counting on you to inform so I can bitch
- Re: Health
- Posted by Hua Kul on Thursday, 06-Sep-2007
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | topic | top ]
"SEOUL (Reuters) - Smokers of hand-rolled cigarettes tend to consume less tobacco, but face a greater risk of developing lung cancer than those who smoke manufactured cigarettes, a study on Norwegian lung cancer patients has found."
Maybe it's something on their hands.
--Hua Kul
- Re: Health
- Posted by Wazmo Nariz on Thursday, 06-Sep-2007
Indeed...lung cancer, despite what the Nannies want us to believe, is caused by myriad factors besides smoking. Without a complete study analysing environmental factors, diet, genetics, geographic location specifics, etc., it's just another meaningless free-floating statistic.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | OP | topic | top ]
- Re: Health
- Posted by Michael on Saturday, 25-Aug-2007
Warren,
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ topic | top ]
I want to thank you for the time and efffort that you put into your search for the truth regarding smoking.and the time you put into your posts and responses. I never even considered that smoking could actually be good for me. A big thank you for that enlightenment. Now I have a great answer when people ask me why I smoke.
Thanks again,
Michael
- Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Warren on Wednesday, 09-May-2007
***
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
After _carefully_ reading heaps of scientific literature from antismoking scientists themselves, I have gradually realized that this ancient medicinal plant is the best substance, natural or synthetic, bar none, you can take for your health and the closest thing to "youth elixir" humans have ever known. As result, the smoking, free of the "death curse" from our "witch doctors" (which is the _only_ thing that harms you [link] ), became for me even more enjoyable.
In order to give this highly unexpected understanding a bit of a 'trial by fire' I have injected the topic into several health forums, where participants are well read in scientific literature. After each such experiment, where papers and logical arguments were brought up and discussed, rationally, politely and to any depth they wished to go or could handle, I came out with a realization -- whoa, it is even better for ones health than I thought when I came in here!
Below are few links to couple recent discussions illustrating this strange reinforcing effect (I post as "nightlight"; my links there point to much more info than presented in the threads themselves):
1. Nootropic ("smart drugs") forum, with lots of college/grad students and working scientists [link] , where I joined the initial discussion on the biochemical mechanism behind the protective effects of smoking against Parkinson's (also Alzheimer's) disease. That quickly evolved into a debate on the presently popular myths about various "harms" from smoking, which were thoroughly dismantled by the end of the thread (plus a brief extension here [link] ).
2. HealthierTalk (natural medicine, supplements) [link] where I joined a thread on evils of smoking.
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Ralph on Saturday, 12-May-2007
As you point out, there are benefits to users of tobacco and I think that is a scientific fact. That said, I don't believe for minute that there AREN'T health risks associated with tobacco use. It almost appears that you are in a state of denial in regards to this fact.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
Furthermore, people who experience second hand smoke don't get the benefits that a tobacco user experiences. Even if there was no health risk associated with SHS, you might as well be telling me that people have a right to fart in my face. There aren't health risks associated with farts but cigarette smoke is probably as pleasant as a fart to many non-smokers.
I've resigned myself to public smoking bans. I'm all for HVAC systems that segregate smokers and non-smokers. I doubt it will happen. Instead, I see a full frontal assault on the rights and freedoms of individuals. No big surprise in that given the current state of affairs in this country. Will big brother be able to stop you from puffing in your car or home? That's the $64,000 question at this point.
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Warren on Saturday, 12-May-2007
> That said, I don't believe for minute that there
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
> AREN'T health risks associated with tobacco use.
You are welcome to go over those two threads in health discussion boards, where I threw in the thesis not just that 'smoking is good for you' but that it is the single most potent medicinal substance and youth elixir, natural or synthetic, humans have ever known (which isn't anything new at all, but something that over two billion lifelong smokers tested and experienced over the past eight millenia [link] ). Well educated, quite intelligent folks in both places took their best shots at it for weeks and every study they brought in turned after the analysis to support the very thesis it was meant to take down. I left both places with a realization that tobacco smoking is even better than I thought when I came in.
Check those threads out and if you see something missed by others or have some other study (mere self-serving empty proclamations by some 'authority' don't count; the proof has to be a _real science_, which means a published, peer reviewed scientific experiment, reproduced by others), bring it in and let's see how it holds against a careful reading (see example of one such attempt and its results here: [link] ).
After half a century of antismoking "science" they are still in the "hint phase" (they have only statistical correlations, which on their own are consistent with either causal or therapeutic role of smoking, and their statistics doesn't tell you which is the case) and haven't moved it forward [link] , despite enormous research efforts and money poured into the antismoking enterprise. As quoted there, already in 1958, Sir Ronald A. Fisher (famous British mathematician and the father of modern statistics as we know it today) pointed out this flaw of antismoking "science":
"But the time has passed, and although further investigation, in a sense, has taken place, it has consisted largely of the repetition of observations of the same kind as those which Hill and his colleagues called attention several years ago. I read a recent article to the effect that nineteen different investigations in different parts of the world had all concurred in in confirming Dr. Hill's findings. I think they had concurred, but I think they were mere repetitions of evidence of the same kind..."
Half a century has gone since Fisher wrote that, and their "science" hasn't moved an inch from those same statistical correlations they already had in 1950s. They just made thousands of virtual xerox copies of the same "statistical hint" and that's all they have to this day. Every time they tried hard science, to get beyond the hint at the _causal_ level, it backfired badly -- smoking turned therapeutic and protective against the very diseases they blamed it for (e.g. heart attacks, lung cancers, asthma, diabetes,...). You simply cannot scientifically prove, no matter how much money and effort you put into it, that something so good for you in so many ways and tested for so long by so many, is bad for you. The best "they" (the Big Pharma, profiting enormously from antismoking [link] ) could do is buy off piles of pseudo-science along with politicians and bureaucrats to act as the enforcers of the "theory" which makes lots of money for all of them (out of our pockets; that's why most of us came here in the first place).
Just because someone who is a smoker has a health problem and a doctor declares that smoking 'caused' the problem, that doesn't make a scientific proof that smoking _caused_ the problem. It could equally well mean that the person got the problem despite of smoking, since in either case the smoking and that type of problem will statistically correlate, just as the use of aspirin and headaches or the use of sunglasses and sunburns statistically go together.
Dr. W.T. Whitby who wrote a truly enlightening book "Smoking is Good for You" (and advised his patients to smoke for variety of problems) that every smoker ought to read [link] , offered publicly $10,000 award to anyone who can scientifically prove that tobacco smoking _causes_ any health problem at all. That award was never collected and not for lack of people hating his guts or wanting to take his $10,000 (it stood open from 1970s through 1990s, which is as far as I could track it).
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Ralph on Sunday, 13-May-2007
I'm not interested in going on statistical searches to back an argument like this one. In the end, I could provide you all manner of numbers that you could merely dismiss with your psychological "power of suggestion" argument.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
I've seen with my own eyes people in hospitals dying with lung cancer who were chronic smokers. I used to use snuff and I had a tumor in my mouth which had to be removed. I watched my father weezing for breath in his old age. I've seen numerous smokers huffin' and a puffin'.
You want a black and white argument. Life is shades of gray with trade offs.
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Wazmo Nariz on Sunday, 13-May-2007
Undoubtedly it falls back on the old adage, "Everything in moderation." And from reading the latest in gene research and biomedical technolgies, it seems that most people who get cancer are predisposed to getting it; what hastens the onset of the cancer is the only variable (barring environmental exposure to ionising radiation and such). My grandfather blew through three packs of Luckies or Old Golds his entire life; he died at 92 from complications of food poisoning. I have a friend dying from lung cancer right now who has never smoked anything in his life. Go figure.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Warren on Sunday, 13-May-2007
> Undoubtedly it falls back on the old adage,
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
> "Everything in moderation."
Good point. Even drinking plain water will kill you (about a gallon will do it for most people). The process of smoking, by virtue of sending the medicinal compounds of tobacco smoke directly into the arterial bloodstream, has a much quicker natural feedback for optimal dosing pacing than eating or drinking, taking pills or even faster than regular IV injection. This quick feedback, along with control over puffs (rate, pause, depth,...), pause between cigarettes or other longer daily pauses, provides an extremely fine control over the process that no other matter delivery system has.
One of the principal signaling compounds in the smoke used for proper dosing and pacing is nicotine. Hence, using light or even filtered cigarettes skews the ratio of signaling component vs the rest of medicinal payload, usually toward a less optimal balance than the one of the well honed traditional tobacco leaf smoke. For example filtered cigarettes increase by 30-50% the proportion of the carbon monoxide component, which in the low concentration of plain leaf smoke is beneficial (it acts as a signaling molecule, stimulating blood flow and tissue oxygenation).
Another aspect of importance is that smoking, being a biochemical aerobic for immune, endocrine and neuro-transmitter systems, upregulates these systems, just as regular exercises strengthen your muscles and cardiovascular system. Hence smoker needs greater amounts of most supplements, especially selenium and vitamins E, C (which are essential for recycling of glutathione, which is doubled in smokers). These requirements are analogous to the greater need for high protein foods in athletes.
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Ralph on Sunday, 20-May-2007
Agreed Wazmo. If there was a history of lung cancer in my family, I wouldn't be smoking right now. Pops smoked Chesterfields for years. Lived to 89. Things got ugly in the end but it wasn't the smoking.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Warren on Sunday, 13-May-2007
> I've seen with my own eyes people in hospitals
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
> dying with lung cancer who were chronic smokers.
You will see plenty of people in hospitals on respirators, too. If you observe them, you will find that they will die sooner than subjects of matching age in general population who don't use respirators. Similarly, you will find that former respirator users will fall in between the current users and never-users. Does that mean those deadly respirators shorten your life?
Of course, not. To test that, you need to take people _randomly_ off it and see how long they live compared to those left to use them. Those respirators addicts made to quit using them will die much more quickly than those addicts left to use the evil tubes as they wish.
In fact, that same kind of _randomized_ quitting test was done for smokers, where the randomly selected "quit group" was compared over years and decades with "control group" (smokers left alone to smoke as they wish). Few times only, since they all went the "wrong" way -- the smokers _randomly_ picked into the 'quit group' ended up with more cancers, including over 20% more lung cancers, more heart attacks, more accidents (smoking speeds up your reaction time and improves brain function) and overall shorter lifespan than those left alone. See links [1]-[6] here [link] .
In other words, whether some substance X helps protect against or causes some disease D, the X will tend to go together with the disease D more often than chance. To find out which is the case, whether X helps or causes D, you need randomized human test or an animal experiment (which is the most accurate if the selected animals can get D).
It just so happens that both kinds of hard science methods capable of disentangling causal relations, the randomized human trials and the animal experiments, show that smoking goes together with the so-called "smoking related diseases" because it is protective (or provides relief) either against the disease itself or against the causes of the disease. Several biochemical mechanisms of this protection are already known (e.g. doubled levels of internal antioxidants and detox enzymes, such as glutathione, SOD, catalase..., in smokers).
Hence, the smokers you are talking about got sick _despite_ of smoking, not because of smoking. That's what _hard science_ says, even though the researchers producing it were paid and were trying their hardest for half a century to show at least some actual harm from tobacco smoking. Every time they went at the _causal_ level via hard science, it backfired and the data went the "wrong" way. They gave up on hard science and all they have is junk science force fed to the population the traditional commie brainwashing ways.
To immunize yourself against that kind of fraud, check a very readable online book: "Science Without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research" [link] and a site "Number Watch" [link] .
PS. Regarding snuff and mouth tumors, since I don't use it, I haven't studied that aspect as yet to comment on it.
As a common sense observation, though, since people have been smoking, chewing and making tea from _plain_ tobacco leaves for at least eight millennia (that's how long they cultivated it, the use goes back at least couple more), after over two billion lifelong test subjects, I would say any of those ancient forms of tobacco use is not just harmless but very good for you. As with junk foods and beverages, for pets or humans, or anything else optimized for the short term manufacturer profitability, using such products amounts to serving as their guinea pig and paying them for it.
> You want a black and white argument. Life is
> shades of gray with trade offs.
We surely got plenty of trade-offs with tobacco smoking -- we are the most socially abused and economically exploited minority today. That's already much more of gray than I care for. If you happen to enjoy smoking so much that you need more than that on the other side to balance it out, well, simply convince yourself that it is going to kill you, and the "witch doctor effect" will make it happen [link] . And if that's not enough and you feel you need some real heavy duty load of negatives to repay for all the benefits and pleasure you derived from this ancient 'gift of gods', then quit and the resulting biochemical meltdown followed by the Big Pharma fixes for it will most surely do it.
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Warren on Sunday, 13-May-2007
> making tea from _plain_ tobacco leaves
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
I should have inserted a warning above, since a tobacco leaf tea (or a brew), is not something you should try at home. Only one tenth of nicotine from tobacco makes it into the smoke (about 1-2mg) and your lungs absorb about 1/5th of the nicotine from the inhaled smoke. Hence, eating or drinking a tea from tobacco of one cigarette will give you as much as 50 times more nicotine than what you get from smoking it, which is easily into the lethal dose of nicotine. Unlike the nearly instant dosing feedback you get from regular smoke, which prevents fatal overdose, with the slow feedback with eating or drinking, by the time you start feeling sick you have already heavily overdosed and much worse is to follow.
The tobacco tea/brew was traditionally used only in religious ceremonies by experienced shamans and medicine men and only after years of preparation, during which they gradually increased the nicotine dosing in different forms, including smoking three foot long cigars with a diameter of a man's arm, to adapt to these enormous nicotine hits (which would be deadly to the heaviest modern-day chain smokers).
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Ralph on Sunday, 20-May-2007
I don't have a problem with your arguments Warren. You know the old sign at the entrance. "Enter at your own risk." Trying to couch this as healthy is beyond the pale. I know guys who didn't smoke, ran 5 miles a day and their knees are blown out in old age. Can barely hobble around. Good for your health?
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
Like I said, you would bat the ole "power of suggestion" argument back in my face. Sho nuff. Doesn't mean I'll jump on the bandwagon. It's all about trade offs.
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Warren on Sunday, 20-May-2007
> Trying to couch this as healthy is beyond the pale.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
Not at all. That's how over two billion "test subjects" experienced it over the last ten thousand years. Tobacco was cultivated and honed for eight millennia as the most potent medicinal plant known to man. Our modern day antismoking hysteria, which is only few decaded old, is merely a cover for a huge extortion racket (of us, smokers) [link] . With all the money poured into the antismoking "research", if there was any scientific proof that smoking causes any disease at all, there would have been one by now, after half a century of this great search. As you can see in those threads, the best educated, quite smart and well informed folks could not produce one bit of _science_, not one scientific paper, which upon closer reading doesn't turn out to prove just the opposite (e.g. see item (f) here [link] ). No matter how much they 'squirm on the hook' the brute fact remains that smoking lab animals, even at 5-10 packs equivalent per day, live significantly longer and in better health than non-smoking ones (and that experiment was the climax of antismoking science as of 2004!). That's how good it is, this ancient "gift of gods". The only thing that can _actually_ harm you is the "witch doctor" effect, provided you believe our witch doctors.
Try enjoying it as you would an apple or a glass of freshly sqeezed orange juice, feeling its wholesome magic in each puff, the way it was done over millenia by couple billion other fellow smokers, and only then you will discover how truly good it is for you, outside of our modern day antismoking 'matrix'. It's the best thing for your health money can buy (happy family life and the true, deep faith are better, but you can't buy any of that).
> I know guys who didn't smoke, ran 5 miles a day
> and their knees are blown out in old age. Can
> barely hobble around. Good for your health?
If only they smoked, their odds of getting osteoarthritis in the knees would have been _three_ times lower (for citation see item (a) here: [link] ). Tobacco was soldiers best friend over thousands of years and to this day [link] . It's not just to calm nerves or improve mental focus, which it does quite well, but tobacco smoke boosts, among others, the "youth hormones" testosterone and DHEA (and lot more, see that whole thread), which are protective against tissue damage under any strenuous physical exertion (traditionally, physical laborers & miners are also smokers more often than general population). It also reduces pain (I even recall that my grandmother used it as a toothache remedy), improves growth and regeneration of blood vessels, improves cellular energy conversion (energy booster Conezyme Q10 is made from tobacco leaf), reduces cell damage in harsh conditions (due to doubled internal antioxidants, such as glutathione, SOD, catalase), protects against infections (due to boosted neutrophiles),... or in two words -- miracle medicine.
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Jim on Thursday, 19-Jul-2007
I think it's interesting how much tobacco tax money is being spent by militant anti-smoking groups. These groups use scare tactics and generalities to convince people of the hazards of smoking. They don't give any specific information. Why?
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | topic | top ]
Could it bethat it isn't the tobacco that's responsible for the cancers? Read the pages linked below:
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Commercial fertilizers containing Polonium 210, Lead 210, Radon, and even Uranium? Fields contaminated with buildup of these elements? No wonder the anti-smoking campaign doesn't give detailed info. If they did people would realize that the threat isn't just tobacco but all crops grown using these fertilizers. Imagine the possible consequences if people knew that the majority of commercial agricultural products may contain these radioactive elements.
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Warren on Thursday, 19-Jul-2007
The alleged danger of polonium in tobacco smoke is a hoax. The often repeated tale of "300 X-rays per year" is a made up figure based on a "model" in which all of tobacco smoke you inhale in a year is concentrated on a microscopic area, few cells in size.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | topic | top ]
In reality tobacco, which like all plants takes in radioactive atoms via water, air and fertilizers contains no more radioactive atoms per unit of weight than anything else you ingest. The only difference is that while your lungs take in less than a gram of tobacco smoke matter per pack, the food and beverages bring in thousands time more, hence thousands times more radioactive atoms.
For example, from a glass of plain water, which is the least dangerous among the foods and beverages, you will ingest as many radioactive atoms as you will from 3-10 packs of cigarettes (see mypost here [link] for more figures and references).
- Re: Smoking is Good for You (trials by fire)
- Posted by Hua Kul on Monday, 27-Aug-2007
Warren schreib, "...I have injected the topic into several health forums, where participants are well read in scientific literature."
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | topic | top ]
I would love to see this subject debated on the usenet group sci.life-extension ( [link] ), where topics such as "Reactive carbonyls and oxidative stress: Potential for therapeutic intervention" are discussed. Some of the contributors are leading global researchers in the health, aging, and/or life extension fields. There are a lot of open minds and some fantastically well read correspondents and researchers who post there, if you can ignore the background noise.
--Hua Kul
- Tobacco Smoking: Potent Youth Elixir
- Posted by Warren on Sunday, 25-Mar-2007
This may surprise some folks here, but tobacco smoking is not merely a pleasant, harmless habit, but it is the most potent "youth elixir" humans have ever had. Here are few posts I wrote on another forum (as "nightlight") with links to scientific paper by antismoking scientists which "somehow" didn't seem newsworthy to the mass media:
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
== Rejuvenating magic of tobacco smoke: [link] and [link]
== Smoker's skin aging myths: [link] and [link]
== Neuroprotective properties of tobacco smoke: [link]
- Re: Tobacco Smoking: Potent Youth Elixir
- Posted by Dano on Thursday, 29-Mar-2007
I see, SO.... nicotine is a terribly BAD thing in a cigarette, but it's a really GOOD thing when you pay a pharmaceutical company for it in a patch?
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
- Smoker's & Sinus Problems
- Posted by lipps1948 on Sunday, 04-Feb-2007
This is an old East Indian thing updated and sold at local Pharmacies, bought mine at Walgreens, [link]
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
Kindest regards, Pete
- Re: Smoker's & Sinus Problems
- Posted by Jderringer on Sunday, 04-Feb-2007
Yeah... It's called a neti pot. I used to have awful sinus problems up until a year ago...(wow, went away about the same time I started SYO!) It does provide relief, and is very pleasurable to use after you get used to it (you won't remember the last time you could breathe so good thru your nose!). Google "neti pot" and you can find all diferent sizes and styles, and find out how to make your own isotonic saline to use with it. Just make sure you 1. use kosher or pickling salt, as common table salt stings a little, due to the iodine and anti caking agents, and 2.DO NOT blow your nose hard after using it. You could drive water in to your eustachian tube (the little tube in your ear that "pops" when you're on an airplane) and cause a nasty ear infection...
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
- Re: Smoker's & Sinus Problems
- Posted by scott johnson on Sunday, 04-Feb-2007
Ya know, I hadn't paid much attention, but my sinus problems went away when I started SYO also! Goes to show the damages done by the additives in pre-mades. I also don't sneeze much anymore.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
I use a basic saline spray at night and I don't seem to have any trouble at all, even with the dry winter air.
sj
- Re: Smoker's & Sinus Problems
- Posted by Captain U-96 aka Mike on Sunday, 04-Feb-2007
I have that problem every Winter, and end up breathing through my mouth most of the time--I 'll have to try it and see if it helps. Mike
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
- Tobacco is Medicinal Miracle
- Posted by Warren on Saturday, 10-Feb-2007
> Holy cow, i bought some american grown AS from a
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
> local tobacco shop and was blown away at how much
> nicotine one cigarette has. If you never experienced
> what a nicotine rush feels like then smoke a couple
> of these.
There was a post in AS section on this topic -- AS has over 10 times more free nicotine (the form absorbed immediately into bloodstream & brain) than Camel, 6 times more than Winston cigarettes, over 3 times more than Marlboro FF. See here: [link]
Nicotine, of course, in the doses absorbed from tobacco smoke is highly beneficial alkaloid, especially for brain. Further, "nicotinic acid" (niacin [link] , B3) and its salts are used as a general food supplement and in cardiovascular pharmaceuticals as well. Recently popular health supplement Coenzyme Q10, which is all the rage in some health circles lately (for heart & immune health, cellular energy metabolism, general vitality and youth restoration) is still manufactured from tobacco leaf which is the richest source of CoQ10 (even though CoQ10 can be now synthesized synthetically, the highest quality formulations, mostly Japanese, are made from tobacco leaf where it comes with the full naturally occurring synergistic biochemical complex).
Nicotine is but one among multitudes of medicinally active ingredients of tobacco smoke (most of which are not known explicitly but are only inferred from their beneficial effects: [link] and [link] ). For example, smoking cuts down the risks of getting Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or schizophrenia in half (at any given age), although nicotine alone only replicates smaller part of these therapeutic & neuro-protective effects of the real tobacco smoke. For the early onset Alzheimer's (40s & 50s), smoking cuts the risk _tenfold_. Interestingly, even though schizophrenics smoke at a huge rates (90% are smokers, mostly chain smokers), since it provides relief for their symptoms without turning them into drooling idiots (as neuroleptics do), they get 30-50 percent _fewer_ lung cancers, and similarly other cancers, than general population (which smokes at 20-25 percent rates and smokes fewer cigarettes per smoker).
Contrary to the conventional wisdom and antismoking propaganda, at the hard science level smoking is _protective_ against cancers, especially against lung cancer. For example in animal experiments, smoking mice gets fewer lung cancers than non-smoking mice and the relation is dose-response sensitive i.e. the more the mice smokes (well over 5 packs a day equivalent through surgically implanted tubes), the fewer lung cancers they get. See here: [link] and [link] [link] .
Similarly, in _randomized_ intervention trials on humans, where a random subset of smokers is selected into a quit group, the quit group ends up years later with over 20 percent more lung cancers than those left alone to smoke as they wish. Another "anomaly" shows up in smoking vs lung cancer relation: if you ask smokers whether they inhale or not (e.g. in UK there are many cigarette smokers who don't inhale smoke, but merely puff), it turns out that lung cancers are much more prevalent among those who do _not_ inhale tobacco smoke! (see here [link] and [link] ). If contact with tobacco smoke causes lung cells to turn cancerous, then it is surely strange (it's actually absurd) that the less contact and farther away the cells are from the smoke, the more likely they will turn cancerous. Kind of backwards (as are hundreds of other "anomalies" in the antismoking voodoo "science").
The only relation between smoking and lung cancer is statistical i.e. you will find more lung cancers among smokers. But one could say the same thing about relation between the breast cancers and wearing a bra -- the breast cancer is 12,500 times more prevalent ( [link] )among those wearing bras than those not wearing them (man can get breast cancer too, albeit rarely). Or between skin cancers and use of sunscreens -- in general population, those who use sunscreen will get more sunburns & skin cancers than those who don't use them (e.g. many of whom may not live in sunny regions or who don't go much in the sun). If you were to make comparison between users and non-users of sunscreens, while ignoring sun exposure factor, you equally well "conclude" that sunscreens "cause" skin cancers since skin cancers will be more prevalent among the users (people more exposed to sun) than non-users (indoor types or those living in cloudy or rainy regions). That is exactly the type of leap and comparison of apples with oranges that antismoking "science" makes (motivated & financed from huge "profits" from the antismoking extortion racket [link] ).
As you can see, when you have statistical connection between two things, A (smoking) and B (disease), one could have A causing B, B causing A, or some third thing, C, causing A and B. With smoking and cancers the antismoking "science" has not managed to differentiate these 3 possibilities, after half a century of intense attempts (normally science moves within a year or two from observing statistical association to uncovering what is the underlying causal relation).
Every time they try to get at the cause, and prove that smoking _causes_ some disease, it turned out that it was the case of some third factor C leading to smoking and cancers (analogous to sunscreen & skin cancers relation, where sunscreen use is simply an indirect marker of sun exposure, which is the common factor C, which in turn causes both, the use of sunscreens and the skin cancers, thus leading to statistical association between the two).
One of the concrete protective biochemical mechanisms of tobacco smoking discovered so far is the near doubling of the levels of glutathione in smokers (see here [link] and [link] ). Glutathione is the chief antioxidant and detox enzyme in human body (it exists in every cell). Hence, people exposed to toxic or carcinogenic environments (at home or work), will find smoking more pleasing since their double glutathione will double the rate of elimination of toxins, hence provide relief, even though there may still be damaged by the remaining toxins & carcinogens. In other words, smoking is a simple marker, an indirect gauge of exposure to various toxins, and it will naturally associate with the diseases caused by these toxins (but only if the study & statistical sample don't control for toxin exposure levels).
One can view tobacco smoking as an _aerobics_ of immune & detox systems, analogous to taking a quickie exercise break 20-30 times day, to step away from your desk and do pushups, situps or threadmill workout for few minutes each time. After while your muscles and heart would surely show the difference. Smoking does the same thing for your immune (more glutathione and other antioxidants), endocrine (more of "youth hormones", testosterone & DHEA and their slower decline with aging), energy metabolism (more Conezyme Q10, an internal 'youth marker' enzyme, which is commercially produced as a supplement from tobacco leaves, which are its richest natural source) and neurotransmitter/receptors (dopamine, serotonin [link] and [link] ) systems. Tobacco is the single most beneficial and most potent _medicinal plant_ humans have ever had, the true 'gift of gods' as the ancient shamans and medicine men clamed.
There is a neat book (scanned copy is available online, free) by Dr. W. T. Whitby "Smoking is Good for You" here: [link] . He used to prescribe smoking to his patients! (In fact even medical textbooks advised smoking until 1950s for asthma, allergies and other ailments [link] .) Additional info (followed with some debate) is my posts as "nightlight" on alt.smokers [link] and speakeasy [link] .
- Re: Tobacco is a medicinal miracle
- Posted by anna on Thursday, 15-Feb-2007
WOW Warren, this is just the best thing I've read for a long time. I'm a smoker of fifty years, and except for a cough, I'm in very good health. My lung xrays are always clear. I going to keep smoking. Thanks for this interesting information.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
- Re: Tobacco is a medicinal miracle
- Posted by Warren on Friday, 16-Feb-2007
Thanks. I have been studying health aspects of tobacco for a while now and the more I learn, the better tobacco looks. You can find more info & links in a recent discussion [link] at a "health" forum, with quite a few skeptical readers, as one might expect. Check also other posts from that link on (I am posting as "nightlight"), in particular:
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
* Neroprotective effects [link] and [link]
* Antismoking Death Curse [link]
* Big Pharma [link]
* Alzheimer's & Junk Science [link]
* Toward even more healthy smoking [link]
* What is "addiction" [link]
* Emphysema [link]
* Lung Cancer [link] [link]
* Getting organized [link] [link] [link] [link]
- Re: Tobacco is a medicinal miracle
- Posted by Kent on Thursday, 15-Feb-2007
Another good link about the junk science used by the EPA to promote the 'dangers of secondhand smoke':
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
[link]
- Re: Tobacco is Medicinal Miracle
- Posted by Captain U-96 aka Mike on Saturday, 10-Feb-2007
Dam! That's interesting. I think I get some AS and see what all the hubbub is about. Capt.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
- Re: Tobacco is Medicinal Miracle
- Posted by Warren on Sunday, 11-Feb-2007
Check also another recent post with info & links on beneficial effects of tobacco smoke for brain (along with variety of other positive effects studied by pharmaceutical industry trying to "steal" and bottle up few bits of the healing magic of tobacco). Nicotine is only a small part of the real thing. [link]
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ parent | top ]
- Dr. W. T. Whitby: "Smoking is Good for You" (book)
- Posted by Warren on Friday, 01-Dec-2006
Australian medical doctor and a lawyer W. T. Whitby wrote in 1978 a book "Smoking is Good for You". In 1986 he updated and extended it under the title "The Smoking Scare Debunked". Both editions are now available online (scanned PDF, 6.9Mb): [link]
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Tobacco smoke healthy for smoker's kids & wife
- Posted by Warren on Friday, 17-Nov-2006
...
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
Interesting study by the World Health Organization (WHO) found that 'second hand smoke' (SHS) is protective against lung cancers for the smokers' kids and wives. In other words, the tobacco smoke is not merely harmless for the smoker's family, but it has outright positive effects on their health compared to the non-smoker families.
WHO repudiated the study, which it funded, after it went the "wrong" way, but the authors (all 27 of them), published it, anyway, in the "Journal of the National Cancer Institute" in 1998. Our current mass media, as usually dead set on vilifying, oops "denormalizing", smokers, chose to ignore this study as well. An earlier study by different authors also found similar protective effects of secondary tobacco smoke against lung cancers.
You can read about the study, the study itself, along with the lively debate, in a thread on the Liberty Forum (I am posting there as "laser"):
The main thread on the 1998 WHO study showing protective effect of SHS for children of smokers: [link]
Review of 1992 study showing the same protective effect: [link]
Links to the study & its repudiation by WHO: [link]
Sir Ronald Fisher, one of the greatest British mathematician of 20th century and the father of modern statistics as we know it, debunking the fraudelant use of statistics by the early anti-smoking movement (from the late 1950s, early 1960s): [link]
Photos & video of actor Jack Palance, life long smoker, receiving Oscar at age 73 and doing one armed push-ups on the award podium in front the astonished Hollywood crowd: [link]
On therapeutic & protective effects of tobacco smoke against Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, schizophrenia: [link]
- Re: Tobacco smoke healthy for smoker's kids & wife
- Posted by Warren on Friday, 17-Nov-2006
> ...
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
The correct link for the second study showing the same protective effect (uncovered by Ray Johnstone):
[link]
Professor Ray Johnstone's page on smoking: [link]
See especially his article (with prof. P.D.Finch) "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking": [link]
- Tobacco And Thrush Mouth
- Posted by Denny on Friday, 14-Oct-2005
Hi Ive been stuffing my own since July, and found this great site in August. At first I tried what most of us do, and that was looking for that same cigarette that we used to buy down at the corner store only to find some better, and worse tobacco out there. A true experience for the nicotine fiend!
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
Well as most of us have been there, and done that, I acquired some dried tobacco and decided to rehydrate the tobaccos. I used tap water and paper towels separate from the tobacco. This seemed to work quite well, and I did not notice any mold neither by sight or smell, so I naturally assumed everything was OK.
In late August, I started having trouble tasting foods and drinks. I also noticed that my tongue was a light to chocolate brown. In September nothing tasted good, and even the good quality tobaccos left a funny aftertaste and were harsh.
About a week ago my wife and I developed a cold. Yesterday I took my wife to our family doctor. He asked me how I was feeling. I told him about this weird stuff that was going on in my mouth, and he examined me. He told me that I have what appears to be Thrush Mouth. I asked him what it is, and he said it a type of yeast infection in the mouth. I am 54 years old, and been smoking since Ive been 15. I have never herd of this in my life. Has anybody ever had a similar experience?
- Re: Tobacco And Thrush Mouth
- Posted by Wabo on Friday, 14-Oct-2005
Never heard of it before but this is taken from the Web MD website:
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
"Thrush
What Increases Your Risk
There are several factors that can increase your risk of developing thrush.
Age
Newborns and infants don't have fully developed immune systems, which increases their risk of developing infections, including thrush.
Newborns are also in the process of developing a healthy balance of bacteria and fungi in their mouths. If this balance is upset, the child may develop thrush.
Older adults, especially those who have serious health problems, are more likely to develop thrush because their immune systems are likely to be weaker.
Behavior
The yeast that causes thrush can be spread by oral sex.
Heavy smoking can lower the body's ability to fight off infections, making thrush more likely to develop."
- Re: Tobacco And Thrush Mouth
- Posted by Denny on Friday, 14-Oct-2005
Very interesting! It seems that I may fit into the heavy smoking category, and also the older adult with a suppressed immune system. But I have noticed that since I began to stuff my own, I have actually been smoking less. Not a lot less, but but less.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
I had read that when you rehydrate tobacco, that you should use only distilled water, as tap water may have contaminates that may cause mold (maybe even fungi). I was just wondering if this Thrush has ever happened to anyone else who is stuffing their own? I am certainly not going to stop stuffing my own, but I don't want to go through this again as I can not afford the medical bills.
Currently my doctor has me taking Levaquin tab 500 mg once a day, and also Mycelex Tro tablets 10 mg 5 times daily. At this time even the best tobacco tastes like crap
- Re: Tobacco And Thrush Mouth
- Posted by Dan on Friday, 14-Oct-2005
I don't know if I had that or some thing else. I had this black hairy crap on my tongue. So I ripped it off with my fingers and it never came back. I read that you can get this from chewing tobacco and I rarely do that but maybe that was it.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
Dan
- Re: Tobacco And Thrush Mouth
- Posted by john doe on Saturday, 15-Oct-2005
from someone that has been there and done that. it' not the tobacco. it is from a female that has a yeast infection. the black (brown) hairy tounge is an advanced sympton. if you stop what you are doing, in time it will go away. :)
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: Tobacco And Thrush Mouth
- Posted by Tim S. on Sunday, 16-Oct-2005
WOW that is what I have had, I got a kero heater and got it after using it some time. But never thought about it much, I would bush it off with a thooth bush, then some time later it would come back.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
It's a dark brown striggy stuff, at the back of my tounge my girl friend had it as well. Now I know what it is, and can get treatment for it. But I'm 100% sure it was the kero heater, as we never had it before using that.
I first knew about it, after drinking some OJ. A little went into my throat, and it keep brothering me so I look and seen it. Then bushed it of good, I need to go see the doctor and get some thing for it. But I'm really glad you psoted this, now I know what it is.
- Re: Tobacco And Thrush Mouth
- Posted by Denny on Sunday, 16-Oct-2005
Sorry but I am a happily married man, that has not had oral sex with my wife in over two months! But I do kiss my wife often. When we went to the doctor he checked my wife's mouth, and did not find thrush in her. Iam really thinking that either I got some tobacco that had been re hydrated improperly, or that I had improperly re hydrated some tobacco. I found this posting, and I do qualify for a few categories, but oral sex ain't one of them.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: Tobacco And Thrush Mouth
- Posted by Tim S. on Sunday, 16-Oct-2005
The same with me I never do that, but as I said. I got it after running the kero heater, and my girl friend don't even smoke and she has it as well.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
It come back worst every time, with the running of the kero heater so I'm 100% it's that doing it. I think you are right, it was the tobacco being re hydrated wrong in your case.
- I'll bet that 95% of us who smoke more than 3-4 cigs/day wish we never started.
- Posted by jake on Tuesday, 26-Jul-2005
Sweet young Tiffany, Stop Now!
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
Sickness, stinkin' hair and clothing and house is what's in this rotten habit. I'm in my '60s and have smoked for over 40 years. I regret every butt I've ever consumed.
- Re: I'll bet that 95% of us who smoke more than 3-4 cigs/day wish we never started.
- Posted by irishguyincc on Wednesday, 27-Jul-2005
If you regret and hate it so much then quit. Anyone can quit doing anything if they really want to. If she wants to smoke she can, if you don't like smoking then quit.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
I've been smoking for about ten years now and I still smoke less than half a pack a day. Also I never smoke a cigarette first thing in the morning, usually on weekends I am awake for over five hours before I smoke a cig, so maybe this isn't so addictive after all.
- Re: I'll bet that 95% of us who smoke more than 3-4 cigs/day wish we never started.
- Posted by Tiffany on Wednesday, 27-Jul-2005
Thank you very much! Glad to see someone still has a grip on things... lol I was beginning to think I'd joined the anti forum by mistake!
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
As for quitting, you're absolutely right. If one hates it so much, then stop. It's as simple as that, particularly with the overpoweringly strong dislike of smoking that our friend seems to have... It may take him longer than most to quit, but nothing's impossible.
- Re: I'll bet that 95% of us who smoke more than 3-4 cigs/day wish we never started.
- Posted by Ralph on Wednesday, 27-Jul-2005
There is nothing good that you can say about addiction. Perhaps the gentleman above is immune to addiction. The majority of people aren't. I've seen many a person battle through cigarette withdrawl. It is so bad for me, I have quit quitting. I'm middle aged, short of breath and overweight. I've spent a fortune on cigarettes over my lifetime. The worst part of it is that I have to have cigarettes everyday. That is called losing control of your life. I'd like to tell you this a great habit to have but I would be lying. Since you are an adult, you are free to make your own choices and you won't get anymore preaching from me. Good luck.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: I'll bet that 95% of us who smoke more than 3-4 cigs/day wish we never started.
- Posted by Ralph on Thursday, 28-Jul-2005
I agree with you. I was not implying you are preaching. I made a similar post to yours below.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: I'll bet that 95% of us who smoke more than 3-4 cigs/day wish we never started.
- Posted by scott hartwig on Monday, 03-Oct-2005
I smoked better than a pack of Lucky Strike Straights for quite some time. I have switched to rolling my own in attempt to save money. As it is, I can make 60+ Cigarettes, for quite less than I paid for a pack, and on top of it, I find myself smoking much less because I hand roll them only when I want one. Hence, it is such a pain in the ass, I smoke less. So anyone who wants to cut back smoking/save money, this seems to be the way to go.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: I'll bet that 95% of us who smoke more than 3-4 cigs/day wish we never started.
- Posted by V.B. on Tuesday, 04-Oct-2005
Couldn't agree more. I smoked 1 1/2 packs of Marlboro reds for years until I discovered RYO and, later, SYO. The experience was so much more satisfying that I no longer wanted to smoke "in a hurry", but would much rather wait for when I could relax and truly enjoy a cigarette. As a result, I began to smoke 10-13 cigs a day (instead of 30) without any noticeable discomfort.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: I'll bet that 95% of us who smoke more than 3-4 cigs/day wish we never started.
- Posted by Zippy on Tuesday, 04-Oct-2005
Put me in the 5% that don't.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
Pack a day for 27 years. My only regret is sitting back and taking the anti-tobacco rhetoric thinking it would end some day.
My greatest satisfaction comes as I walk down the sidewalk with an unlit cigarette hanging from my lips and a nanny gives me that disguted look. With a wink and a grin I pass them by knowing that I am upholding the founding fathers deepest wishes.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
- Anti-smoking Witch Doctors
- Posted by Warren on Wednesday, 27-Jul-2005
You are letting the anti-tobacco swindlers and their "research-to-order" get to you. While we may be civilized, we are not beyond the witch doctor effects:
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
-- quote:
Almost everybody has heard of death curses: psychological literature is laced with accounts of how Aboriginal witch doctors have quite literally brought about the death of the young and healthy by cursing them. No sooner do these people learn of the fate which has been cast for them than they begin inexplicably to sicken and eventually to die. It appears that through complex biological processes, their simple belief in the curse brings about destruction of their organism.
In civilized society we tend to look upon such phenomena as anthropological curiosities - products of primitive superstition which simply don't touch us in our more enlightened age. What we are not aware of however is that many of us in the civilized world are also under our own brand of `death curses'. They may be subtler than those issued by witch doctors but they can be every bit as potent in bringing about the physical and mental decline ....
--> http://www.lesliekenton.com/circle/aging/think_young.htm
If you're not genetically prone to the diseases correlated with smoking you might even prolong your life by smoking. Your family history should tell you what kind of genes you have regarding smoking (or many other diseases). On average one will shorten ones life 3-4 years by smoking if one believes our witch doctors (as many in USA do), or about 1 year if you don't believe them (as, for example, in Greece). On the other hand, if you're a homosexual (or lesbian), you will shorten your life on average by 35 years. If you listen what they teach kids at so-called schools nowdays, or what the TV and other mass media peddle, you would think it is exactly the opposite. A more useful advice for a young person would thus be to avoid homosexuality. Then eating too much (especially junk food), then visting doctors unless absolutely necessary, walking in the wrong parts of town, ending up in prison, driving while chatting on the cell phone or while drunk,... etc. And only after all these much higher risks behaviors are covered, one might suggest to a kid to avoid smoking, too.
http://www.hostfile.com/home/darlene/healthyliving.jpg
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_culture&Number=293673155
- Re: Anti-smoking Witch Doctors
- Posted by Tiffany on Wednesday, 27-Jul-2005
This is an extremely interesting one, particularly for me, as I major in history and minor in anthropology... I'd never really thought of things this way. I do believe that certain people have connections with the deities of their religions, and possibly may be able to do things through their help, but with respect to Western society, you're totally on the money. We're taught untrue things that we believe and then make a reality, and these things, especially when it comes to smoking, help to promote hatred, violence, and intolerance. They should try teaching the real truth for once, and not the garbage that makes them the billions of dollars that they're stealing from those of us who choose to smoke. Not to mention all that money that's being put into wasted education! Now, am I saying that smoking is the healthiest thing in the world? No, but it's certainly not the monster that they make it out to be. Anyway, I'll read that article in a bit. Thanks for posting.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
- Re: Anti-smoking Witch Doctors
- Posted by Tim Aydt on Wednesday, 27-Jul-2005
LOL. I love that cartoon and the article on aged smokers. You can bet that everyone of them were chalked up as a premature death due to smoking. Nearly half the 'premature deaths' attributed to smoking occur after the age of 75.
[ reply | link ] to this. Go to [ top ]
As for our extended lifespans through healthy living and modern medicine, go to any nursing home, or better yet, an alzheimer ward and see what a wonderful life the residents are leading.
I hope to die, at home, in bed, by the age of seventy.
