Intentional, malicious disinformation campaigns should be viewed as fraud against the American public.
So, the entire advertizing industry, then?
When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
101–110 of 208 posts
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah who knows what unequivocal advice we could be getting from experts right now that will be thoroughly debunked 70 years from now. (Are dairy and grains still food groups... I could easily go on)
>(Are dairy and grains still food groups... I could easily go on) I don't get it. Are you saying that grain shouldn't be a food group? I think for the purposes of categorizing foods, "starchy staples" is a pretty useful categorization, even if the recommendation to eat 8 servings a day or whatever is misguided.
He's probably referring to the food pyramid, in which those food groups were put forth as foundational building blocks of a healthy diet according to the USDA. [1] That saga overlapped with the sugar lobby blaming fats for heart issues [2], and using their weight with the FDA to keep % Daily Values for sugars off food labels until very recently. [3]
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8375951/
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
[3] https://www.vox.com/2016/5/20/11719796/new-nutrition-label-a...
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19524224/ "Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis"
"Clinical studies show this cigarette improves throat irritation"
The medical establishment is mostly government funded. The govermemt is in bed with big ag, ABCDs, and soy producers. I dont trust them on this.
Regardless a newer paper concludes more research needed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32824177/
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#104Look at the timeline: 1930 - first cigarette company uses physicians in their ads 1950s - evidence starts mounting that smoking causes lung cancer 1964 - US Surgeon General report on the link between smoking and cancer 1998 - cigarette companies still maintained that the link is controversial So it takes 70 years, or nearly an entire generation, before all of the machinery at play (businesses, government, healthcare,…
That's a great reminder to not get too dogmatic about anything, even when business, government, healthcare and scientists are all aligned.
I'm curious if there were doctors and scientists who dissented from the cigarette consensus prior to the 60s? And how were they treated in such an environment?
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#105It seems that lately, questioning the "doctors" in public places can make you a pariah (and I won't go any further with that). On another note, I was prescribed a medicine 20 years ago called Propulsid. When I went to fill the prescription, the pharmacist told me that he would not recommend I take it. I contacted the doctor and he was pissed that the pharmacist had given me that recommendation. In the end I didn't ta…
It’s fine to question magazine articles that contain lines like “4 out of 5 doctors recommend…”. It’s fine to question individual doctors. It’s fine to question corporate-sponsored think tanks. Is it fine to question a scientific consensus on effective ways to fight a global pandemic?
>Is it fine to question a scientific consensus on effective ways to fight a global pandemic?
Yes, it is always fine to question scientific conclusions with legitimate concerns.
Or we could always revert to letting the church decide what valid science is, I guess.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#106fun fact: cigarette usage does appear to at least decrease the chance of you getting ulcerative colitis still a shitty habit to pick up though
A highly addictive habit. If 99% of smokers could enjoy one cigarette a day with morning coffee or afternoon drink then smoking would never become a big issue. Most of them end up with 1-2 packs a day damaging theirs and their family health.
I remember hearing somewhere that even one cigarette will paralyze your alveoli for 24 hours. This would, I assume, make you more susceptible to contagions since foreign particles will make contact with your blood for longer period. If this were true, then even one cig a day would be a real problem, especially in Covid-times.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#107It seems that lately, questioning the "doctors" in public places can make you a pariah (and I won't go any further with that). On another note, I was prescribed a medicine 20 years ago called Propulsid. When I went to fill the prescription, the pharmacist told me that he would not recommend I take it. I contacted the doctor and he was pissed that the pharmacist had given me that recommendation. In the end I didn't ta…
It’s fine to question magazine articles that contain lines like “4 out of 5 doctors recommend…”. It’s fine to question individual doctors. It’s fine to question corporate-sponsored think tanks. Is it fine to question a scientific consensus on effective ways to fight a global pandemic?
In high-context environments that correctly incentivize truth seeking and long form debate? Sure!
In low-context, short form meme warfare with the only intention of spreading an opinion that the consensus believes is both incorrect and detrimental? Absolutely not. That's what you're doing right now. Knock it off.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#108And now Tobacco companies have latched on to, and are promoting Marijuana - something that is even more addictive, and both mentally and physically more harmful (in the long run).
> Marijuana also affects brain development. When people begin using marijuana as teenagers, the drug may impair thinking, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions. Researchers are still studying how long marijuana's effects last and whether some changes may be permanent. Long-term marijuana use has been linked to mental illness in some people, such as: temporary hallucinations, temporary paranoia, worsening symptoms in patients with schizophrenia ...
Source: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
there was plenty of research available that smoking was bad as early as the 1920s, it just got silenced. Mainly because Germany was one of the countries that led the movement. Plus billions of dollars working to stop anybody trying to end the money printing from the tobacco industry >In 1930s Germany, scientific research for the first time revealed a connection between lung cancer and smoking, so the use of cigarette…
>After the Second World War, the German research was effectively silenced due to perceived associations with Nazism That's really interesting. I dug a little more into it[0]. Apparently the underlying reasoning was that the Nazis associated smoking with "degenerates" and damage to "bodily purity." So when the research hit the US, people must have associated anti-smoking with those Nazi ideas. I wonder if tobacco comp…
That tradition hasn't died out yet. There are a ton of common sense things done in many European countries that aren't implemented in the US because of apparent links to "communism."
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
A highly addictive habit. If 99% of smokers could enjoy one cigarette a day with morning coffee or afternoon drink then smoking would never become a big issue. Most of them end up with 1-2 packs a day damaging theirs and their family health.
I remember hearing somewhere that even one cigarette will paralyze your alveoli for 24 hours. This would, I assume, make you more susceptible to contagions since foreign particles will make contact with your blood for longer period. If this were true, then even one cig a day would be a real problem, especially in Covid-times.
There isn't evidence to suggest cigarette smokers are more likely to catch covid