Sepsis study shows Nicotine to be heavily anti-inflammatory: final piece of the puzzle

Scientific American; Jun2006, Vol. 294 Issue 6, p24-24, 1p

* Nicotine has undergone * an image overhaul, at least biomedically. In
the past few years researchers have found that the substance can
alleviate symptoms of ailments such as Alzheimer's disease and
ulcerative colitis. Just how nicotine battles these foes, however, has
remained unclear. Now, by studying sepsis, Luis Ulloa of North Shore
University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., has evidence elucidating
nicotine's biochemical pathways that could lead to more potent
anti-inflammatory drugs.

And...

Ulloa and his collaborators have found something remarkable: nicotine
can shut down this overshooting inflammatory response, to the point of
reversing sepsis in mice. As far as anti-inflammatory treatments go,
this is powerful stuff. "Nicotine taps into the body's own potent
anti-inflammatory mechanisms," Ulloa explained in February at a Novartis
Foundation meeting in London. "That is the beauty of our approach. By
using nicotine, we are copying physiological mechanisms that have been
selected by evolution to modulate the immune system."

And...

Now Ulloa's group may have provided an explanation for the positive
effects that nicotine has on illnesses as diverse as schizophrenia,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, Tourette's syndrome and ulcerative
colitis. In laboratory experiments, Ulloa demonstrated that nicotine
latches onto the nicotinic receptors on macrophages and stops them from
spewing out inflammatory cytokines. This clampdown is brutally
effective. The researchers also identified the specific receptor
subtype, the alpha-7 acetylcholine receptor, that nicotine binds in
macrophages to stop cytokine production.

Original source: Scientific American - 2006 (paid)

Link to Novartis Foundation with full article (free)

For me this just about is the last piece of the puzzle on why we are told to stop smoking by the Elite.

Let's make something clear:

Smoking too much is definitly not good for your overall health, especially your cardiovascular state. If you do smoke I would stop smoking cigarettes and start rolling your own and growing your own. Try smoking as pure a tobacco as you can find. If you just go for the nicotine benefits and do not wish to smoke, there are alternatives, but remember, there are benefits to inhaling smoke as well (see below).

Trinity -> Cancer -> Smokers -> Protective layers

I think the question of why we are supposed to stop smoking has been sufficiently answered

T4H

Hey here is some good advice, anything The FDA says, approach it from the opposite perspective. However, I encourage do your research just in case.

Ofcourse they want global smoking ban, if nicotine has a good effect on people, it must be banned...

I even read that nicotine can counter the effects of fluoride, so if they want us to take more fluoride and less nicotine, the reason must be obvious...

You make a good point in the OP: If you choose to smoke, buy and roll your own, try and make it organic. I think, however, that cigarettes are from being the staple of a healthy lifestyle. Remember, the ill effects of are well known, with cancer being the big one.

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, but keep in mind that it's not the nicotine that's causing the damage here, it's the other chemicals and tar that are added in the manufacturing process.

-Dev

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
You make a good point in the OP: If you choose to smoke, buy and roll your own, try and make it organic. I think, however, that cigarettes are from being the staple of a healthy lifestyle. Remember, the ill effects of are well known, with cancer being the big one.

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, but keep in mind that it's not the nicotine that's causing the damage here, it's the other chemicals and tar that are added in the manufacturing process.

-Dev

Who knows what they put in cigarettes.

Rethorical ofcourse, we DO know.

Be warned, something is up... I have always been skeptical about the Anti-smoking lobby stepping up their efforts all of a sudden...

reply to post by Truth4hire


The "All of a sudden" stems from long term studies, on the effects of smoking, coming to conclusions. That just about sums it up. There really isn't a conspiracy here. Smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, period.

Smoking home grown tobacco? Who knows? But the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding tends to cause premature death.

-Dev

I'll chuck in my two cents, for what it's worth.

I've been a smoker for 2 years, since I'm at a young age, but I plan to quit soon.
Since I started smoking, I have only been sick with a flu ONCE, and despite what everybody else told me I always felt better after having a smoke while I had the flu.
I use to always get the flu when I was younger, up until I got addicted to smoking I would get sick frequently.

Another thing, a relative of mine was a psych worker. She told me that pretty much ALL her patients smoke cigarettes. I believe there may also be a link between mental illness and cigarette smoking, as in it relieves the symptoms.

I think there is a lot that smoking can help with that isn't researched into because of the bad stigma attached to it.

Nicotine is a very addictive drug. Cigarettes are even more addictive (NOTE: Nicotine isn't the only ingredient in cigarettes!)

I vape nicotine, and I could not be happier or in better health. (see E-Cigarettes)

I would highly recommend not starting nicotine unless you want to make a life-long alteration to your bodies chemistry. The psychological addiction of nicotine is stronger than that of even heroin. It can be an expensive habit, and once you choose to start, you're an addict for life.

Take this article with a grain of salt. If you already smoke, then you can be a tad relieved that you might actually be getting some benefits out of this. Otherwise, steer clear of nicotine.

If you're already an addict, try e-cigarettes.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Truth4hire

 

There really isn't a conspiracy here. Smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, period.
Dev

Melanoma
melanoma that has spread to the lung might be confused with a primary lung cancer (cancer that starts in the lung)
Lung metastases from melanoma

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Remember, the ill effects of [smoking] are well known, with cancer being the big one.

Well, not really. The actual science shows that the risk of dying of cancer before the age of 85 is only about 17% on average for smokers (about a 22% chance for men and about a 12% chance for women). This according to the Cancer Prevention Study II, a study of cancer-related mortality conducted by the American Cancer Society.

In short, smokers actually have only about a 17% chance of dying of cancer before they reach 85, compared to about a 1% chance for those who have never smoked. This is a far cry from the statistics touted by anti-smoking organizations — typically, the foaming anti-smoking lobby insists that 90% of all lung cancer is smoking-related.

Perhaps. But if I, as a smoker, am to believe the American Cancer Society, there is an 83% chance that I will not die of cancer before I reach the age of 85.

Science has never proven that somebody who smokes and who develops cancer is somebody who would not get cancer if he didn't smoke. They can't prove it, short of cloning a human being at birth and raising the clone to adulthood as a control study in a perfectly smoke-free environment.

No, identical twins don't make the case, either, as twins start to diverge biologically from the moment the fertilize egg splits in the womb. Even biological twins aren't truly "identical," and there are indeed cases of a non-smoking twin developing cancer while his tobacco-smoking sibling never develops cancer.

The fact is, if you are genetically disposed to developing cancer, it's going to happen regardless of your healthy or unhealthy lifestyle.

Every day, all around the world, perfectly healthy people who have never smoked, never abused their lungs in any way, are diagnosed with lung cancer. Thousands of never-smokers die of lung cancer in the USA every year — the figure is about 15 in every 100,000. Modern medicine calls this "rare," which is very reassuring... Unless you happen to be one of them.

My contention is this: That we see high cancer rates not because of the wild-ass carcinogens to which we're exposed daily, but because we're heavily overpopulated — thanks to modern medicine — such that the great bulk of the human population is genetically unsound.

In other words, we don't allow the weak to die off naturally, as Nature intended, so we're inundated with genetic weaklings.

Instead, we combat their symptoms with our medicines and therapies, thus prolonging their lives, but we haven't strengthened their genetic integrity. They survive to maturity and reproduce, thus thinning our genetic blueprint by one more generation, and then another.

This is why we see greater and greater numbers of cancer patients at younger and younger ages — not because of tar and nicotine or benzine in the water or any of that other fear-mongering nonsense...it's because the majority of the human population shouldn't even be here with such fragile genetic integrity.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 7/22/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Thank you. Not.

I didn't need to know this. ;(

...But I do roll my own. For what that's worth.