Live data from Hacker News

When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

history.com

161–170 of 208 posts

Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is evidence that if you smoke and catch COVID, it will be more severe. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/27/smokers-much...

No evidence of that there. Only that "current smokers were 80% more likely to be admitted to hospital and significantly more likely to die from Covid-19 if they became infected" -- did they control for other factors, that tend to go along with smoking, like obesity (and socioeconomic status)? Where's the link to their paper? All the genetic stuff too is super suspicious, I would be _shocked_ if "genetic predispositio…

Current anecdata says what smoker's lungs are more 'trained' for an abuse so smokers are less susceptible for infection.

I find this slightly amusing, considering what there are multiple cases where otherwise healthy non-smokers have a very severe symptoms.

Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is evidence that if you smoke and catch COVID, it will be more severe. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/27/smokers-much...

No evidence of that there. Only that "current smokers were 80% more likely to be admitted to hospital and significantly more likely to die from Covid-19 if they became infected" -- did they control for other factors, that tend to go along with smoking, like obesity (and socioeconomic status)? Where's the link to their paper? All the genetic stuff too is super suspicious, I would be _shocked_ if "genetic predispositio…

> did they control for other factors, that tend to go along with smoking, like obesity

Obesity is anti-correlated with smoking, though smoking can cause a lot of the same health problems as obesity.

Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

#163

What is the current state of research into the safety of e-cigs? The things have been around for over a decade now, but I haven't seen studies to show how much of a carcinogen they are for regular users. Has the product not been on the market lot enough for studies to be able to prove much of anything in either direction?

Research is great but common sense is a good starting point.

We know lungs are very sensitive and easily accumulate shit in them. Therefore the reasonable position is to assume that anything you point into your lungs is harmful, unless you have extremely strong evidence that it's not (as opposed to assume that something is safe until evidence that it's not.)

So: assume that e-cigs will give you lung cancer.

Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have sources, sorry, and probably shouldn't have replied because my remark falls under what HN likes to dismiss as anecdotal : I have trouble tolerating soy. Someone I trust suggested to me it might not be soy per se that I have an issue with. It might be GMO soy that is an issue for me. Some years ago, I did look up stats verifying that soy was GMO at a shockingly high percentage. I had no reason to track th…

> I have trouble tolerating soy Trouble tolerating soy is one of the more common problems with food tolerance. > Someone I trust suggested to me it might not be soy per se that I have an issue with. It might be GMO soy that is an issue for me. It's theoretically possible that this could be the case, even though GMO foods are much more extensively tested for general safety than crops developed through means that aren'…

I've been here more than twelve years. I've interacted with you enough that I'm fairly confident you are someone who recognizes my name.

I get endless flak from the world for me being me. One part of that is that I have a genetic disorder -- which I'm quite open about -- and I'm getting well when the entire world tells me that's simply not possible and openly hates on me for -- as best I can tell -- being a former homemaker who spent years homeless who has the audacity to be so incredibly rude as to figure out how to manage my condition with diet and lifestyle instead of drugs and surgeries, thereby making doctors and scientists look "stupid" I guess and we can't have none of that, so no one takes it seriously that I know anything at all about medical anything -- and yet there is this comment about how fluid circulates in the human body with 121 upvotes for whatever damn reason: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25427090

And the way I get treated on HN on that detail of my life aggravates me to no end because I feel like the evidence that I'm not lying or making shit up can be found in my twelve plus year track record of posting here in that my comments are no longer routinely typo-riddled gibberish like they used to so frequently be because I'm generally in less pain, etc these days, having gotten myself healthier.

And in spite of my significant handicap, I seem to be the only openly female member who has ever made the leaderboard and I've done it twice under two different handles, yet the degree to which I get treated differently from other members and also told it's not due to my gender persists and makes me nuts, which may or may not be a factor in me spending less time here in recent months. I really don't know what exactly is driving that. There are too many confounding variables for me to sort that question myself.

Feel free to chalk this up to "Doreen is a loon imagining she is getting better when everyone knows that's not possible, so let's just say she's crazy because her experiences rudely fall outside the all important Overton Window of what people are allowed to believe. And this is one of those utterly nutty things she says rooted in her delusion." and please move on because other than "anecdote" and "I think I know stuff because my damn body works better than it is supposed to" I don't have a leg to stand on here and I am so sick of this entire thing.

With all the smart self made millionaires and people with PhDs and what not that hang here, you would think someone would be able to think for themselves and conclude "Maybe the lady is not nuts and not making shit up and in actual fact has done what she claims."

But, no, no girls actually allowed in the old boys club filled with the best of the best of the best, sir!

Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

#165
post #22

Look 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,…

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)

Yet the current zeitgeist is "Trust the experts, fool!"

We never frikkin learn.

Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

#166
post #150
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Could you give some examples? I am from a post communist country and am interested in what could be percieved as communist in the US. My guesses are publi transport and universal health care on the top 2 spots.

Any sort of employee protection, paid vacation, maternity leave or sick time. Public transit as well.

Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

#167

Earlier 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)

Yet the current zeitgeist is "Trust the experts, fool!" We never frikkin learn.

[deleted]

Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

#168

It 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?

If it cannot be questioned, is there really a consensus?

Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labomotomies won the Nobel prize. They were supported by the mainstream medical and science establishments. Rosemary Kennedy, JFKs relative got one. People were giving labotomies to their kids to calm them down, advised by their doctor. Great article on Howard Dulley one of the kids whose parents gave him a lobotomy advised by a doctor. https://www.npr.org/2005/11/16/5014080/my-lobotomy-howard-du...

> Labomotomies

Fat fingered! Great catch!
Post reply on HN