I have heard this before, as well. Not to mention the brutal withdrawal symptoms if you do them for an extended period of time.left me unable to feel any substantial emotions
Citations please. I've not heard nor read anything that would support your conclusion.The hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are of course overjoyed and support the current crusade against all tobacco and nicotine products because they both profit immensely from it.
This I find fascinating, and very hermetic/Vedic.Placebos often work better or as well as the pharmaceutical being tested.
The hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are of course overjoyed and support the current crusade against all tobacco and nicotine products because they both profit immensely from it.
Citations please. I've not heard nor read anything that would support your conclusion.Look at the costs in England for prescriptions to 'help' quit smoking, which are just the tip of the iceberg...the real $$ is further downstream.
http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB21162/stat-stop-smok-serv-eng-q4-1516-rep.pdf
In 2015/16 the Net Ingredient Cost (NIC) of all prescription items used to help people quit smoking was £33.2million.
This is around half the level in 2010/11 when the NIC of all prescription items peaked at £65.9 million.
Pipeman84, I totally agree. And regardless of what others may say, it's only common sense that as opioid, psychiatric, and other prescription drug use has increased greatly in recent years, so have pharmaceutical company profits regarding those same drugs.As I've shown above, over the past 10 years, just in England, Big Pharma sold over £500 million of worthless nicotine patches, gums and dangerous quit smoking drugs such as Zyban. In my book that's an immense bill for taxpayers, because that number should've been 0(nil). Multiply that for the entire world, and you can realize what financial bonanza the antismoking scam is for those involved.
The biggest percentage of smokers who quit smoking did so without any medical 'help', in an era (up to early 90s) when there was little to no stigmatization of smokers (advertising was still allowed, no medical porn on packs, one could still smoke at work, in pubs and restaurants). That exposes the 'nicotine addiction' BS the health authorities use to justify their money grab.
A court case in Washington DC has revealed massive conflicts of interest with three prominent anti-tobacco experts who were on the payroll of the pharmaceutical industry, while they were designated by the US government as scientific editors of the official “Surgeon General” reports on tobacco. These include the report “Nicotine Addiction” in 1988, and the report on secondhand smoke in 2006.
For decades the three experts received money from the pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, which casts serious doubt on the work of the experts. The two drug companies achieved significant economic benefits from of the experts’ conclusions in the reports.
Surgeon General 2006 on passive smoking: The senior scientific editor had close financial ties to giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline
Surgeon General 2006 on passive smoking: The senior scientific editor had close financial ties to giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline
This is particularly the case with the conclusions of the Surgeon 2006 report on passive smoking which had the prominent anti-tobacco expert, Dr. Jonathan Samet as “senior scientific editor”.
His final conclusion in the report was that passive smoking poses a mortal threat, which could only be countered with a total smoking ban, but this conclusion is disputed by many researchers in the field.
The report, however, led to the introduction of the smoking ban in most of the Western world, and subsequently Pfizer & Glaxo earned billions in sales of nicotine replacements and smoking cessation products for smokers who, due to the bans, were forced to refrain from smoking at work and in the hospitality industry.
The three experts’ financial ties to the pharmaceutical giants were revealed in the legal documents from a judgment concerning the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in a federal lawsuit. The judgment was delivered in July 2014 by a US District Court in Washington.
LinkThese massive conflicts of interest obviously raises doubts about the reliability of other scientific reports they have been responsible for over the years. This is especially the case regarding the reports which have recommended smoking bans because of the assumed risk of passive smoking – for smoking bans have led to strong economic benefits for the drug companies, the three experts received money from.
Jonathan Samet, senior scientific editor of the Surgeon General's report in 2006: "There is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke. Period."
Jonathan Samet, senior scientific editor of the Surgeon General’s report in 2006: “There is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke. Period.”
While most authorities around the world have been vocal about the mortal dangers of secondhand smoke because of Samet’s conclusions, there is no consensus in the scientific community that passive smoking poses a risk of death. It is probably not possible, because the amount of smoke ingested by a normal passive smoker who lives and works with smokers, is only about one thousandth (0.1%) of the amount of smoke a smoker inhales. This is equivalent to the consumption of 6-10 cigarettes per year.
“Only a few scientists believe that secondhand smoke poses a risk of death,” writes epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat, who has himself conducted studies in passive smoking, in his book, “Hyping Health Risks”. By far the largest number of studies have not been able to confirm that passive smoking is associated with cancer, even after many decades of exposure. Neither have the latest studies.
However, despite remarkably weak evidence, Jonathan Samet recommended banning smoking everywhere in the world in the Surgeon General’s 2006 report. “The debate is over,” he said after its publication, and: “There’s no safe level of secondhand smoke. Period.”
This nonsensical claim – which rather sounds like the words of an activist than those of a scientist – was repeatedly advocated by Jonathan Samet, despite criticism from other scientists. The figures in the 727-page report contain no basis for the claim. Rather, the report is ripe with large uncertainties – for example the report cannot detect correlation between severe disease and passive smoking in European workplaces.
But as the scientific editor of the Surgeon General’s report claimed that there is no “safe level” of secondhand smoke, it was certainly the reason why many European governments imposed complete bans on smoking in the 00s. And that must have pleased Samet’s pharmaceutical sponsors – as soon as the comprehensive smoking bans were introduced, the sales of nicotine and smoking cessation products from Glaxo and Pfizer exploded.
Jonathan Samet’s ties with the two companies thus make his claim about “no safe level” look like something that is not only “suspect” or “untrustworthy” as Judge Leon puts it – it can rather be seen as blackmail of the European politicians to force them to introduce smoking bans. To the delight of Samet’s pharmaceutical connections.