Nicotine

@William,

william, i am really touched! and i did truly send that message to you out of love.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;69265 wrote:

Aedes is a practicing medical doctor. He happens to be a freakin' expert in the field.

DT,
That is precisely why I emphasized those words in "red". I never said that I mistrusted him. HIs scholarship was never in question. I did't ask anyone's advice on "smoking's" harmful effects. I knew emphatically what his opinion would be. The only thing that ired me, was his "bedside manner" as he took it on his own to accuse me of denial. I never asked for him to give me a run down on my Afib or my heart problem. I am not a idiot by a long shot and I am fully aware of those frailties that could have caused it. and in all truth probably did. And yes one day I will most definitely die because of what i have experienced in my life. Of that I have no doubt. I do not have that fear of desperation that many have as they try and remedy what they are doing in order for them to "save their life".

Being "saved" or saving my life has never been an issue for me. Never! All of that "red" was merely to identify how "freedom of speech" can be manipulated to besmear the truth of what I did say. As you see, it even altered your perception of what I said. I don't feel guilty about my life in any respect whatsoever, and I truly resent anyone efforting to make me do so as they render me null and void and out of control and seek to assimilate me into the masses to make me think like the masses think. In all due respect, it worked on you; it will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER work on me.

William

2 Replies

@William,

William,

As I read over all your posts, I think you are being brutally open and honest. I think I do hear what you are trying to say, but do you really hear what you are trying to say?

"My biggest problem and it has been one ever since I can remember that caused misery on everyone is my zero tolerance at being told what to do."

"Now since I never really focused on myself, my life has been through the ringer."

Just a thought,

Peace.

1 Reply

@Jay phil,

Jay;69393 wrote:

William,

As I read over all your posts, I think you are being brutally open and honest. I think I do hear what you are trying to say, but do you really hear what you are trying to say?

"My biggest problem and it has been one ever since I can remember that caused misery on everyone is my zero tolerance at being told what to do."

"Now since I never really focused on myself, my life has been through the ringer."

Just a thought,

Peace.

Good thinking and I appreciate your perceptiveness. If you will read on, I couldn't control other people trying to control me. There were just too many doing that. I, so very much, understand "exactly" what you are saying. If you like being controlled, then by all means, this reality we are living in is just your cup of tea. You see Jay, that is the problem in that we focus so much on self we tend to ignore other people and tune them out, or don't hear them and that leads to not being able to communicate with them. Self is all that matters. I just wanted to control my anger. That was my only focus I was concerned about as far as "I" was concerned. I went though those informative years when I would try to assimilate with the masses and just couldn't. I couldn't be what society was programming me to be. The fact is "I" was me and I couldn't change "me", let alone society trying to. I had no alternative but to understand where the control was coming from. So yes, I am fully aware of the toll it has taken on me.

Thanks for responding,
William

0 Replies

@William,

William;69389 wrote:

The only thing that ired me, was his "bedside manner" as he took it on his own to accuse me of denial. I never asked for him to give me a run down on my Afib or my heart problem.

I'm speaking on this topic with professional knowledge of it, but I am in no way going to stand for you to turn this around as if I'm actually treating you as a patient. You've given me two variables, smoking and Afib, which I've commented on generically -- without even attempting to garner more information about you. In other words, I am not making specific medical commentary about you, I do not regard you as my patient even for the purposes of this discussion, I have not and do not give you any advice, and in the absence of a clinical relationship (and in this setting of anonymity) there is no "bedside manner" to speak of.

I hold myself to only one standard with respect to medical discussions here, and that is to prevent people from causing harm to others through misinformation. If you believe x and y about your habits, it's your body and you get to take responsibility for it. But we're all on a level playing field in forum discussions, and when you start spouting crap that might actually dissuade someone from quitting smoking, then I claim my right to contradict you.

And if you take it personally, as if I'm acting like your doctor and an arrogant one at that, you can think again. I'm not concerned about what you do to yourself, and I'm not going to waste a drop of sweat to try and change your mind.

---------- Post added at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 AM ----------

Didymos Thomas;69265 wrote:

Aedes is a practicing medical doctor. He happens to be a freakin' expert in the field.

I'm not a "subject expert" on a-fib or on smoking, though I spend a helluva lot of time taking care of both (and I spend more time taking care of a-fib than I do for the things I am a subject expert in). I'm not going to use my career in and of itself to be the last line on any discussion, and if rich or william or whomever doesn't believe me, I'd accept their challenge to go and support my assertions with evidence.

Rich's point is well taken that medical science changes. That said, we have strength and confidence in certain areas of medicine based on repeated demonstrations, and if we fundamentally doubt everything just because some day the science might change, then we're going to take crappy care of our patients.

0 Replies

@William,

"Nicotine is a colorless and poisonous substance extracted from the tobacco plant that is used as an insecticide. Nicotine is what causes tobacco smokers to become addicted".

The above is the most common definition of nicotine. Now please forgive my wild imagination here. What if..........we really thought about what an "insecticide" does; "It eliminates pests." Outside the box thinking. What is penicillin. Is it not an "insecticide" of sorts, or a "germicide" or an Antibiotic. It fights that which harms the body, just like insecticides to plants. Now I am not justifying smoking, so nobody go there. What is poison? Poison kills. No doubt about that. Could it be that nicotine could be an "insecticide" for the body in fighting that which makes us ill physically or mentally. It's just smoking is not the way it should be administered, nor in that quanity. Call me the eternal optimist. I see there is good in everything if is used for that which it is "designed", when not it is bad. That's what life is about. Learning what "that" is.

One has to go through one hell of an ordeal to "start" smoking. It is horrendous. You cough your guts up the first time you inhale that smoke into your lungs. Common sense tells us that anyone who would attempt to repeat that is "nuts". Then why is it so common? There is something there "the body" needs. MAYBE? Don't get blown away, please. Penicillin is found in fungus and that is classified right up with the virus and it is benefical for the body, in most cases. Let's face it, as in Salima's grandmother and people I know, some live long a very long time smoking into ripe old ages. Consider the "peace pipe" of native Americans? Perhaps I shoud have put this in the OP. Live and learn. Could there be any possible good derived from nicotine we don't know? We are just administering it wrong. For someone to go through what it takes to 'become a smoker', there has to be something there. Botton line is addiction a term we use because we are compelled to find something that gives us enjoyment since we are having a hard time finding enjoyment in life that prevents those natural endorphins to kick in. Just a thought.
William

1 Reply

@William,

William;69407 wrote:

Penicillin is found in fungus and that is classified right up with the virus and it is benefical for the body, in most cases.

That's not really true. Fungi are a kingdom of life combining a number of different species, some are poisonous to humans and some edible, some poisonous or edible depending on how they are consumed.

Viruses (or is it virii?) are not "classed right up with" fungi. Viruses are not even agreed upon by biologists as forms of life as they don't display all the characteristics thought to be classical of life. "The virus" could specify a number of different species, some of them would be considered dangerous if found in the human body, some of them not so.

Penicillin is not really beneficial for the body beyond the fact that it kills bacteria. Unless someone is actually suffering from a bacterial infection they should avoid penicillin as it may kill bacteria that are symbiotic with the body and required for it to work as well as it should.

0 Replies

@William,

William, I wouldn't derive too much except by analogy with the poison concept. The fields of TOXICOLOGY and PHARMACOLOGY are nearly identical, and most chemicals -- even naturally occurring ones -- have toxic properties under certain circumstances. Two drugs that are commonly used in the treatment of atrial fibrillation, warfarin (aka coumadin) and digoxin (aka digitalis) are well known poisons, and theophylline which is used to treat COPD (the spectrum of emphysema and chronic bronchitis that occurs nearly exclusively in smokers) is yet another.

You are 100% correct that smoking cannot be separated from the personal issues that a smoker faces, though nicotine is sufficiently addictive that quitting is hard for nearly everyone.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

And Dave is right about fungi, viruses, etc. Not worth expounding on much except that viruses aren't even truly alive, they're subcellular parasites, whereas fungi are complex organisms and they are more closely related to animals than any other kingdom. Penicillium produces penicillin, but it can also cause disease (P marnefii is a major pathogen in AIDS patients from SE Asia)

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;69420 wrote:

William,
,,,,,You are 100% correct that smoking cannot be separated from the personal issues that a smoker faces, though nicotine is sufficiently addictive that quitting is hard for nearly everyone........

Thank you for your kind response. Let's not get to involve with my ailments, though I appreciate it and thanks. I trust my doctors as I would also trust you. Please believe that. I am not a war with medicine. I understand why we have doctors. We do need them. If you would address the comment I made about endorphins and the effects of nicotine on neurochemistry of men and women as it relates to nicotine. The international neuropharmacological journal has articles relating to it. You are much smarter than I and perhaps you will be able to explain some of their findings in terms I can understand. (and the affect it has on testosterone levels). I know nicotine is addictive; as I mentioned anything can be. What I think creates addiction is the brain's craving for something
that is lacking and please forgive my ignorant way of communicating here. I am in foreign territory so I am asking for your help. Smile

Thank You,
William

0 Replies

@salima,

HowStuffWorks "How can nicotine be good for me?"

this article gives a few examples of some beefits thought to be associated with nicotine

1 Reply

@William,

These are the disconnected thoughts that are tossing around in my mind. Prior to the beginning of the 2oth century the imbibing of nicotine was a male trait as far back as we can record. It can be found in all cultures. Women didn't start by and large in this country until the early 1900's. I am not sure about other cultures. "If" nicotine has anything to do with testosterone levels it could affect the feminine/masculine differentiations as women would become more masculine "thinking" altering her brain chemistry. That could explain the "rift" that has occured resulting in women becoming more competitive with the male and the birth of radical feminism. That is the only clear "change in diet" that has occured between male and female in recent history. Alcohol consumption could also have something to do with it; but I don't know how long women have been using alcohol. Nicotine and alcohol have been linked to the male forever. Now we can get into the Wheat, rye, barley, hops,corn molasses and sugar and grapes, etc., which is were our alcohol comes from. Bottom line is balance. All of these, I think are natrual substances, though some could be hybrids. I don't know. I think the answer that will return the balance of male and female behavior is in this line of thinking "somehow". This is a root idea, you "smart folks " see it it has room to grow.Ha. What I am saying men and women are not to imbibe the same things for obviouse reasons, or we must reach a diet that is compimentary to both that would not disturb that which is masculine in men and that which is feminine in women with out resorting to genetic manipulation, just a change in what we imbibe. Which over time would institute a return to their natural state. Which brings me to what we are doing to "mass produce" the food we eat and the chemicals that are added to maintain a long shelf life. Thought for another thread. Are these thoughts worth connecting?

Thanks,
William

0 Replies

@William,

William;68881 wrote:

To be a little more concise, it is not alcohol that makes an alcoholic, it is the reason he drinks so much, that does. Eliminate that reason, so goes the desire to drink, as much. I think we can figure all that out. What is good for male and what is good for female. We have a lot to learn.

Thanks Rich,
William

Hi William,

This is pretty much how I look at things. Investigate the source, not the symptoms. Symptoms are an indication, not the cause. Suppressing symptoms does nothing other than setting the stage for an eruption. This is why I entirely avoid Western medicine and its underlying thought process. If one can understand themselves (the source) they are way ahead of the Game. Good luck!

Rich

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;69429 wrote:

HowStuffWorks "How can nicotine be good for me?"

this article gives a few examples of some beefits thought to be associated with nicotine

interesting article. i would especially like to hear aedes' opinion on it.

0 Replies

@William,

Aedes, concerning the below statement;

"....and when you start spouting crap that might actually dissuade someone from quitting smoking, then I claim my right to contradict you".

I would like to say, I have read the OP and have come to the conclusion that you are right; it could have been interpretated the way you interpreted it. I assure it was unintentional, and I duly apoligize. Should I edit it or not. If one follows the thread it will thoroughly explain my intent. If I do edit it, the following posts that caused all the flack will seem nonsensical. What do you think? :perplexed:

William

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;69461 wrote:

Investigate the source, not the symptoms. Symptoms are an indication, not the cause. Suppressing symptoms does nothing other than setting the stage for an eruption. This is why I entirely avoid Western medicine and its underlying thought process.

You've just described Western medicine precisely. We mainly use symptoms in order to recognize patterns. If a 60 year old diabetic smoker presents with crushing chest pain radiating down the left arm and nausea, then the most important diagnosis to consider is a heart attack. The management is directed at the pathogenesis of a heart attack. Sure, we'll give medicine to alleviate pain while we're at it, but we're also going to stent blocked coronary arteries, and give drugs with proven mortality benefits.

---------- Post added at 08:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------

William;69496 wrote:

What do you think?

William, I appreciate the discussion on the point.

What I think is that you are interested in a great many topics, which is commendable. But on occasion you owe your discussions more study and investigation, or at least more reflection before you post. Our last disagreement, about the transmission patterns of HIV in Africa, is something that there is an abundance of evidence about, and it wouldn't take you a lot of effort to learn about this evidence. It's ok to go out on a limb and ok to be wrong -- but on a forum such as this we should spend our time debating philosophy and not debating easily researcheable facts. I acknowledge that "fact" is a tricky concept, but that's a case-by-case problem.

1 Reply

@William,

William,

I know everyone's gone off track by the time of this typing, but I'm very curious if there is any truth in what you said initially in your OP:

Quote:

Just as the active ingredient in cannibis, the poppy, and the cocoa leaf could be beneficial. In the right doses in our daily nutrition, it could help serve as medication for many of our problem.

I'm well aware cigarette smoking is not good for you, as there are tons of harmful chemicals and other agents which don't bode well with the body. However, are there actually any active ingredients in tobacco or cannabis that, if smoked in moderation, can be beneficial? I've heard that this is so with cannabis, but for all I know it's hearsay. Aedes, perhaps you can help me out here.

0 Replies

@William,

Well, without looking into it further smoking cigarettes has been shown to improve symptoms of ulcerative colitis, and smoking probably has a therapeutic effect in people with schizophrenia. But the question becomes whether the benefit is worth the price, especially since the benefit is small compared with other therapies. In other words, if salicylates and other immunomodulators will help ulcerative colitis (and if colectomy is curative), then is all the baggage from cigarette smoking worth it? I think it's not. I'm sure people are studying the components of cigarette smoke to see if a therapeutic chemical can be isolated, though.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;69506 wrote:

Well, without looking into it further smoking cigarettes has been shown to improve symptoms of ulcerative colitis, and smoking probably has a therapeutic effect in people with schizophrenia. But the question becomes whether the benefit is worth the price, especially since the benefit is small compared with other therapies. In other words, if salicylates and other immunomodulators will help ulcerative colitis (and if colectomy is curative), then is all the baggage from cigarette smoking worth it? I think it's not. I'm sure people are studying the components of cigarette smoke to see if a therapeutic chemical can be isolated, though.

I actually meant pure tobacco without all the additives we see in modern cigarette manufacturing.

Or would your point still stand?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;69500 wrote:

You've just described Western medicine precisely. We mainly use symptoms in order to recognize patterns. If a 60 year old diabetic smoker presents with crushing chest pain radiating down the left arm and nausea, then the most important diagnosis to consider is a heart attack. The management is directed at the pathogenesis of a heart attack. Sure, we'll give medicine to alleviate pain while we're at it, but we're also going to stent blocked coronary arteries, and give drugs with proven mortality benefits.

Hi Aedes,

Thanks for the response. I do not want to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate on Western vs. classical Eastern approach to medicine, but there are substantial differences. For example using the Eastern medicine approach, it is recognized that the fundamental cause of the heart disease are the blocked arteries (this is the result), but rather the diet that caused it.

I remember 35 years ago, when medical doctors were laughing Dr. Ornish off the stage because of Ornish's claims that heart disease can be reversed. Times have changed, and now the World Health Organization studies have stated that over 85% of all disease are related to lifestyle. Unfortunately, the Western medical profession is still treating with pills, which does nothing except put off the inevitable. That is why all the side effects.

Rich

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;69507 wrote:

I actually meant pure tobacco without all the additives we see in modern cigarette manufacturing.

Or would your point still stand?

Well, I think nicotine per se is what helps in schizophrenia (I may be wrong, but as I recall it functions as a neurotransmitter, and like antipsychotic medicines has some anti-dopamine activity). As for ulcerative colitis, the data comes from smokers, not people treated with pure chemicals. Tobacco is a plant, and it's chemically exceptionally complex whether or not things are added in manufacturing.

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------

richrf;69513 wrote:

For example using the Eastern medicine approach, it is recognized that the fundamental cause of the heart disease are the blocked arteries (this is the result), but rather the diet that caused it.

And I could point you to probably thousands of articles in the western medical literature that demonstrates the same thing, I could direct you to academic experts in preventative cardiology who say the same thing, and I can tell you that that is exactly what I learned in medical school, and in my cardiology and cardiac intensive care unit rotations. I've given diet and "lifestyle modification" counseling to patients since the day I started this profession for that very reason.

Western medicine is based in pathophysiology and in mechanisms. While it's known without any doubt that the actual event of a heart attack happens in a coronary artery, it's also known that those events happen in people with a certain progression of coronary artery pathology, and those at highest risk are those with cholesterol abnormalities, diabetes, obeseity, and hypertension -- ALL of which can be modified with appropriate diets and exercise. (And smoking is the other of the major preventable risk factors).

There's also a difference between preventative medicine -- i.e. what you do for a well patient who sees you for a checkup -- and what you do when the patient comes in with a heart attack. I'm 100% for preventative medicine, but we also need to know what to do when prevention fails. Since smallpox is the only disease that we've ever eradicated through a preventative intervention, we've got to realize that diseases will still arise no matter how good we get at prevention.

Quote:

Unfortunately, the Western medical profession is still treating with pills, which does nothing except put off the inevitable. That is why all the side effects.

I take Crestor for high cholesterol. My mom has it, my grandfather has it (my grandfather despite still hanging on at 86 years old has had several heart attacks over the last 25 years). I eat a model diet, I exercise nearly obsessively, and it didn't do a lick to touch my cholesterol (though it helped with weight). With 20 mg of Crestor, my LDL dropped from over 200 down to 120, which is a MAJOR difference in my cardiac risk. What can I do? It's not as simple as pills=good or pills=bad. The risks of taking Crestor, while real, are worth it when I've nearly got a death sentence without it.

Lifestyle is critically important, and we are uniformly taught that in "Western" medicine. You haven't gone to a physician since I was 8 years old, and I think you might be pleasantly surprised if you talked to people in my generation, especially in academic medicine.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know