Re: Blowing smoke up my ass (Re: No pains, no gains)

DharmaTroll wrote:
> On May 12, 3:37 am, ****rley Knott <****rleykn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> DharmaTroll wrote:
>>> On May 11, 5:53 pm, ****rley Knott <****rleykn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> DharmaTroll wrote:
>>>>> On May 10, 9:44 am, ****rley Knott <****rleykn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> Tang Huyen wrote:
>>>>>>> ****rley Knott wrote:
>>>>>>>> I quit smoking for 3 years but went, very reluctantly, back on
the
>>>>>>>> coffin nails a year ago because quitting had exacerbated my
medical
>>>>>>>> symptoms to such a point that a prognosis of future cancer was
better to
>>>>>>>> my quality of life than the hideous symptoms I was experiencing.
>>>>>>>> My doctor is wryly amused but agrees, smoking is good for me! :-)
>>>>>>> Freud famously smoked cigars, and got throat
>>>>>>> cancer. He stopped, but the pains of withdrawal
>>>>>>> were intense, so he decided to go back to them.
>>>>>>> To him the gains of smoking were greater than
>>>>>>> the harms of withdrawal. Doctors kept operating
>>>>>>> on the inside of his throat, and by the time he
>>>>>>> gave up the ghost, most of the inside of his
>>>>>>> upper throat had been removed.
>>>>>>> Tang Huyen
>>>>>> For me this wasn't a case of craving cigs.  In fact, although I'm
>>>>>> smoking I hate the taste but it does seem to regulate some of the
>>>>>> endocrine problems I experience through neurological illness.
>>>>>> I think my doctor is brilliant, he says that if something works
that
>>>>>> well it's worth pursuing and trying to gain the same effect from
>>>>>> prescribed medication would probably produce unwanted side effects
>>>>>> that the tobacco isn't.
>>>>>> So, all-in-all, it's a great result!
>>>>> Strange.  I would think it would be well worth pursuing prescribed
>>>>> medication that would avoid the unwanted horrible and often fatal
side-
>>>>> effects of the cigarette smoking!
>>>>> From the abstract of the article to which Lee linked:
>>>>> "Smoking affects pituitary, thyroid, adrenal, testicular and ovarian
>>>>> function, calcium metabolism and the action of insulin. The major
>>>>> salient clinical effects are the increased risk and severity of
>>>>> Graves’ hyperthyroidism and opthalmopathy, osteo****osis and reduced
>>>>> fertility. Smoking also contributes to the development of insulin
>>>>> resistance and hence type 2 diabetes mellitus. An im****tant concern
is
>>>>> also the effect of smoking on the foetus and young children. Passive
>>>>> transfer of thiocyanate can cause disturbance of thyroid size and
>>>>> function. Furthermore, maternal smoking causes increased
catecholamine
>>>>> production, which may contribute to under perfusion of the
>>>>> foetoplacental unit."
>>>>> Sounds like your doc might be pissed off because he hasn't received
>>>>> his usual supply of free samples and all-expense-paid dinners from
the
>>>>> pharmaceutical companies.  In all seriousness, I know pharmaceutical
>>>>> companies are overly demonized, but they save tons of lives and
spend
>>>>> tons of money on very well-done research (unlike the quackery and
>>>>> pseudoscientific remedies sought out by their strongest critics). 
To
>>>>> want to ingest poison that will give you god knows how many cancers
>>>>> and may kill you in the end, to avoid trying out the latest medicine
>>>>> that has had tons of research and development and clinical trials
>>>>> behind them is absurd, don't you think?
>>>>> I know -- get the real medicine, but have it disguised as candy, and
>>>>> then get Lee to convince you that it will prevent nuclear war.  Then
>>>>> you can stop smoking, deal with your illness, and save the world --
>>>>> all in one fell swoop.  Brilliant!
>>>>> --DharmaTroll
>>>> Funny that, the effects of smoking, as those are the problems I was
>>>> experiencing really badly during the three years I quit which I'm not
>>>> now.  Tobacco is merely a herb that can also be used for medicinal
>>>> purposes, like opium it can be good or bad, depending on whether you
are
>>>> in severe pain or after a high.
>>> We have to disagree here.  I claim that nicotine is a poison and a
>>> really disgusting, harmful, addictive poison, no matter what your
>>> intention is when you use it.  It's not medicine, it's poison.
>>>> The illness I have already knocks 25
>>>> years off my life so do you think I'll live long enough to get
cancer?
>>>> I'll be lucky to make it to 65.
>>> If you're going to die soon anyway, then of course it doesn't matter,
>>> as cigarettes, while being poison, are slow poison.  So that
>>> completely changes the game.  I mean, if you're going to die soon, go
>>> ahead and smoke, have unprotected ***, ride motorcycles without a
>>> helmet, whatever.
>>> You see I plan on living another 60 years or so because my family
>>> members mostly have lived to the century mark in good health, and I
>>> don't eat animal products or refined or fried food, which probably
>>> adds a couple of decades.  And I'm not allergic to anything
>>> whatsoever.  So for me the price of smoking is incredibly high.  For
>>> you it is next to nothing if you are terminally ill.
>>>> To be frank, I couldn't give a monkeys what you think as you are
being
>>>> almost as ignorant and arrogant as all those people out there who
treat
>>>> others as though they know what it's like to live inside their skin.
>>> No, I'm just giving practical advise about not using poison.  Don't
>>> get pissed off at me -- it's your mom and dad that gave you those
>>> genes, not I.  But as I said, if you're terminally ill and about to
>>> die soon, go ahead and smoke, and shoot up heroin if it relieves the
>>> pain.  I have no problem with that.  Just don't smoke if you have
>>> another good healthy half-century to go -- that is a stupid waste.
>>> --DharmaTroll
>> No, you are lecturing me in a way that suggests you think you are smart
>> and I am stupid.
>>
> I'm only responding to the comments that you made, which suggest to me
> not that you are stupid, but that you weren't thinking clearly about
> the matter.  If you are terminally ill, I then added, that's a
> different game, and then long-term self-destructive behavior isn't
> going to matter.
> 
>> Do you really think I didn't research the pro's and con's for myself,
>> without being sheepled into government propoganda, medical spin and
>> media hysteria before making a hard decision?
> 
> You're talk of "government propaganda" and "media spin" suggest
> extreme paranoia to me; sounds like you're a conspiracy theorist.  So
> perhaps you're deluded as well as ignorant.  I'm just looking at the
> words you use.
> 
>> I experiment on myself with diet and all aspects of everyday life to
>> find what improves the situation and what impairs it.  If you have
never
>> had a medical condition that imacts on daily living and compromises it
>> completely, you can't understand what it means just to produce a 5%
>> improvement in physical mobility and cognition.
> 
> I guess I can't understand then, as I'm in perfect health.
> 
>> Go ask an MS patient if smoking weed is good.  Your yardstick of
>> judgement is useless when removed outside of normal.  I'm so grateful
>> I'm abinormal or I could end up as preachy and self-righteous as you.
> 
> Well I'm likely to live another 50 years of perfect health and you
> apparently will soon be eaten by worms.  Looks like Darwinian justice
> to me.  But go ahead, insult me with the time you have left, if that's
> the way you wish to spend whatever time you have left.
> 
> --DharmaTroll

Do you read the Buddhist literture and blindly follow what it says 
whilst desperately trying to rationalise it into your physicalist view 
point?  Don't you learn by the experiences of your life?

Isn't the relief of suffering the name of the game?  If relief of 
suffering is achieved through non-standard methods why does that upset 
you so?  My smoking for symptom relief isn't impacting on you or anyone 
else for that matter, so why does it bother you?  Are you an ex-smoker 
still craving that hit?

As to my paranoia, here's an eg.  The big pharmaceuticals want every one 
to vaccinate their children, it's State sanctioned, not just for herd 
safety, it's big bucks for them.

Do you realise that any child with mitrochondrial dysfunction is more 
likely to develop Autism after the MMR jab?  Mitrochondrial dysfunction 
is far more prevelent than medical science wishes to concede. 
Therefore, to protect the herd those with a susceptability to Autism are 
  sacrificed for the good of the herd.

If these children were identified through a blood test prior to getting 
their immunisations and received them one at a time over a longer 
period, their compromised immune systems (a direct result of 
mitrochondrial dysfunction) would handle the assault much better.  This 
is not done.

You can't homogenise people, there is no such thing as normal, normal 
for me could be really bad news for you and vice versa.

I'm glad you think you're going to live another 50 years but here's a 
salutory thought for you.  Over 40,000 chemicals are stadardly used 
every day in the world, of those only 30 have been *****sed for their 
long term impact.

Have a nice day!