smoking helps protect against lung cancer

8/12/2019 Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

1/7

Smoking Helps Protect Against LungCancer

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 Vialls Home

Steve Seymour, Software Design, Click Here

Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of theAnti-Smoking Inquisitionspend billions ofdollars 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 sinningby en'oying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritansinterceded 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 fromthemselves, 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.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/vialls.net/vialls/laetrile1.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/vialls.net/vialls/laetrile1.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/subliminalsuggestion/oil2.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/subliminalsuggestion/oil2.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/nuke/bali_micro_nuke.htmhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/vialls.net/index.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/steveseymour.0catch.com/http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/vialls.net/donate.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/goldstats.com/cgi-bin/do/link2.cgi?id=h%5Dlael%5Blavilsbumi%5Bchttp://web.archive.org/web/20050206012117/http:/www.goldstats.com/cgi-bin/do/link2.cgi?id=h%5Dlael%5Blavilsbumi%5Bchttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/vialls.net/vialls/laetrile1.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/subliminalsuggestion/oil2.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/nuke/bali_micro_nuke.htmhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/vialls.net/index.htmlhttp://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http:/steveseymour.0catch.com/


2/7

&ot all governments around the world share the same problem. apan and )reece have the highest numbers of adultcigarette 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 smokingcauses lung cancer.

/he first European contact with tobacco was in #0$1, when +olumbus and fellow e*plorer odriguo de ere" sawnatives 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 andnative 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 promptlyarrested 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 mankinds ills. 4y the early 15th +entury almost one in every twopeople 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. Atabout 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 lowerpart 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 ofthe 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,


3/7

but the American )overnment did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for anylong-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 asingle 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(


4/7

largest part of thesmokein any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons ofmaterial 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 havecontaminated 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 'ustfade away, at least not in your lifetime or thatof 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 deathsfrom 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 governmentto 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 peopleinhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. oorly qualified

medicalresearcherssuddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed atachieving the same end-result2rove that smoking causes lung cancer. eal scientists =especially some notablenuclear 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. 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 sciencehas never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. @es,you did read that correctly.


5/7

they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps toprotect 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 contaminatedby the real or imagined effects of another substance. /hen one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the

smoking e*perimentaccidentallyfound 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 percentof 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 notcompletely 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#$1 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-

carcinogens =anti-cancer agents> in test animals. ;e continued that when known carcinogens =cancercausing 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 thatnoingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer, adding thatno-one hasbeen 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 andput the essential facts on the written congressional recordB

redictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medicalresearchersinto a fren"yof rage. 4y #$1 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

othersecretingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies.@es, that must be itBtheyclamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these samesecretingredients 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 anti-

smoking funding had started in the early si*ties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed throughmedical 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 reallymake the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions.Smoking causeslung cancerconverted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became asubstitute for proof.


6/7

Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertisingagencies 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 dont quitnow. 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(


7/7

smoking helps protect against lung cancer

Documents