When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

Post by errantmind » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 12:59 PM UTC

f6v wrote: post #149

ratsmack wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> Yes, it is always fine to question scientific conclusions with legitimate concerns. See, scientific consensus is usually based on data and certain statistics. Those who question it usually express opinions without addressing the data and methodology. An opinion is not enough, you need to be very specific.

Post by retrac » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 2:14 PM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #143

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #25

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...

What a disturbingly scary article! > He objects to going to bed but then sleeps well. He does a good deal of daydreaming and when asked about it he says 'I don't know.' Doesn't this description fit most kids in the world? It was used to justify the lobotomy of a poor boy.

Post by publicola1990 » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 2:40 PM UTC

dfghdfhs wrote: post #163

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #31

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.

Post by rswskg » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 3:26 PM UTC

Post by Nav_Panel » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 3:43 PM UTC

justsomehnguy wrote: post #161

Nav_Panel wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.