For the life of me, I do not comprehend how anyone could trust “public health officials” or the CDC or FDA. I pretty much do the opposite of what is recommended these days. Stay indoors during lockdown? I went outside. Get an injection…or six, no thanks. Eat food approved as safe by the FDA…nope, no thanks. Wear a mask…or two…nope. I think red dye and nicotine are pretty much the least of our problems at this point. Those are merely breadcrumbs meant to appease and justify ginormous, bloated and captured agencies. I continue to encounter parents who’s 9-12 year old children are on a host of truly dangerous psych meds, though. Crazy….just nuts.
Both "health authorities" and "regulatory bodies" are increasingly losing all credibility. They pretend to "protect public health" by focusing on non-issues, while ignoring other obvious bad actors who happen to be aligned with their vested interests.
The example discussed here on nicotine regulation is a good one. Another one I recently discussed is the US Surgeon General's last-minute call to place cancer warning labels prominently on alcohol containers. While there is scientific and common sense evidence that drinking five bottles of rye a day has severe negative health impacts, the same is not true at all for moderate, casual consumption. In fact, an objective analysis of the "evidence" brought up by the Surgeon General could lead with equal plausibility to his interpretation of it "being a string causal link" as to the interpretation that it is "inconclusive abuse of statistics." Let's just say that more research is needed, which definitely does not warrant stigmatizing casual consumption of a glass of wine by ugly "health warnings:"
As stated both here and in my post, these same authorities fail to act in a long list of other examples of substances, medication and food additives that have evidence against them that is far more convincing than the one presented against casual alcohol consumption.
Cigarettes contain over 600 ingredients. These added chemicals can include harmful substances like arsenic, acetone, lead, and formaldehyde. When lit, these ingredients create thousands of additional chemical compounds, with over 7,000 chemicals identified in cigarette smoke. Among these, at least 70 chemicals are known to cause cancer.
They should take all the chemicals out of the cigarettes along with the food. People who roll their own, use organic tobacco, with papers made from tree or cotton pulp and water and nothing else are way ahead of the average addicted smoker. Going organic hand rolled is also a way to transition to quitting. The chemicals make the cigarettes more addictive.
Meanwhile, the fire retardant glue that's now in the cigarette paper is more carcinogenic than the tobacco. They might as well bring back the Micronite filters. 🤪
EXACTLY! I remember studying the subject in law school, at which time I believe there were as many as thirteen different glues used in cigarettes. They play watch-the-birdie, just like the senate confirmation hearings of Bobby!
As a lifelong nicotine addict who requires a certain level of my fix daily, I can tell you that reducing nicotine content in cigarettes is just going to induce people to smoke more cigarettes. Granted, the states will love that, as vice taxes are a nice income stream for them. If the FDA wants to cut back on people getting sick and dying from inhaling cigarette smoke they need to deregulate nicotine substitutes and open the market up for more alternatives. I find it so funny too, that while they're signalling all this moral concern towards smokers, every few years or so they up the permissible amounts of glyphosate and other nasty pesticides in our foods. All US gov departments are so corrupt these days, it's rather incredible.
Agreed. (I smoked for 20 years -- extremely hard to quit: only when I got Lyme and could hardly walk was I able to permanently throw them away). As with other drugs, dependency breeds government control, and addiction to cost-inflating products fuels poverty and despair for the most vulnerable -- increasing escapist addictions. It is a vicious circle, well understood by our would-be rulers.
Limiting nicotine because leading studies show that medium strength nicotine and vitamin c will totally destroy the nano robotics they have inserted in our blood. DR. ANA PHD.
Nicotine isn't the addicting part of a cigarette. It's the 595 other things that are. Dr. Ardis talks about this all the time. All CEO's went to Congress (awhile back) and testified that nicotine is not addicting. Tobacco has the highest. Eggplant has 2nd highest. Anyone addicted to eggplant?
For the life of me, I do not comprehend how anyone could trust “public health officials” or the CDC or FDA. I pretty much do the opposite of what is recommended these days. Stay indoors during lockdown? I went outside. Get an injection…or six, no thanks. Eat food approved as safe by the FDA…nope, no thanks. Wear a mask…or two…nope. I think red dye and nicotine are pretty much the least of our problems at this point. Those are merely breadcrumbs meant to appease and justify ginormous, bloated and captured agencies. I continue to encounter parents who’s 9-12 year old children are on a host of truly dangerous psych meds, though. Crazy….just nuts.
Both "health authorities" and "regulatory bodies" are increasingly losing all credibility. They pretend to "protect public health" by focusing on non-issues, while ignoring other obvious bad actors who happen to be aligned with their vested interests.
The example discussed here on nicotine regulation is a good one. Another one I recently discussed is the US Surgeon General's last-minute call to place cancer warning labels prominently on alcohol containers. While there is scientific and common sense evidence that drinking five bottles of rye a day has severe negative health impacts, the same is not true at all for moderate, casual consumption. In fact, an objective analysis of the "evidence" brought up by the Surgeon General could lead with equal plausibility to his interpretation of it "being a string causal link" as to the interpretation that it is "inconclusive abuse of statistics." Let's just say that more research is needed, which definitely does not warrant stigmatizing casual consumption of a glass of wine by ugly "health warnings:"
https://www.wildhorsewisdom.xyz/p/horses-will-always-like-beer?r=31a4ti&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
As stated both here and in my post, these same authorities fail to act in a long list of other examples of substances, medication and food additives that have evidence against them that is far more convincing than the one presented against casual alcohol consumption.
Agreed! (Though one study detected glyphosate in ten out of ten wine samples -- even organic. Perhaps THAT should be on the label! :) ).
Good point.
You are 100% correct. A pretense of response as a watch-the-birdie distraction.... Horrifying times.
Oh, it’s horrifying alright. Have a nice day, Mr. Klar.
Cigarettes contain over 600 ingredients. These added chemicals can include harmful substances like arsenic, acetone, lead, and formaldehyde. When lit, these ingredients create thousands of additional chemical compounds, with over 7,000 chemicals identified in cigarette smoke. Among these, at least 70 chemicals are known to cause cancer.
They should take all the chemicals out of the cigarettes along with the food. People who roll their own, use organic tobacco, with papers made from tree or cotton pulp and water and nothing else are way ahead of the average addicted smoker. Going organic hand rolled is also a way to transition to quitting. The chemicals make the cigarettes more addictive.
This is what I was saying back when I was a smoker 30 years ago!
Meanwhile, the fire retardant glue that's now in the cigarette paper is more carcinogenic than the tobacco. They might as well bring back the Micronite filters. 🤪
EXACTLY! I remember studying the subject in law school, at which time I believe there were as many as thirteen different glues used in cigarettes. They play watch-the-birdie, just like the senate confirmation hearings of Bobby!
As a lifelong nicotine addict who requires a certain level of my fix daily, I can tell you that reducing nicotine content in cigarettes is just going to induce people to smoke more cigarettes. Granted, the states will love that, as vice taxes are a nice income stream for them. If the FDA wants to cut back on people getting sick and dying from inhaling cigarette smoke they need to deregulate nicotine substitutes and open the market up for more alternatives. I find it so funny too, that while they're signalling all this moral concern towards smokers, every few years or so they up the permissible amounts of glyphosate and other nasty pesticides in our foods. All US gov departments are so corrupt these days, it's rather incredible.
Agreed. (I smoked for 20 years -- extremely hard to quit: only when I got Lyme and could hardly walk was I able to permanently throw them away). As with other drugs, dependency breeds government control, and addiction to cost-inflating products fuels poverty and despair for the most vulnerable -- increasing escapist addictions. It is a vicious circle, well understood by our would-be rulers.
Limiting nicotine because leading studies show that medium strength nicotine and vitamin c will totally destroy the nano robotics they have inserted in our blood. DR. ANA PHD.
Nicotine isn't the addicting part of a cigarette. It's the 595 other things that are. Dr. Ardis talks about this all the time. All CEO's went to Congress (awhile back) and testified that nicotine is not addicting. Tobacco has the highest. Eggplant has 2nd highest. Anyone addicted to eggplant?
Me! But not for the nicotine....