Live data from Hacker News

When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)

history.com

181–190 of 208 posts

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

#181

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…

> 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.

...It's complicated, apparently, depending on how much you smoke, and whether you were a former smoker: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4401671/

> Overall, current smokers were less likely to be obese than never smokers (adjusted OR 0.83 95% CI 0.81-0.86). However, there was no significant association in the youngest sub-group (≤40 years). Former smokers were more likely to be obese than both current smokers (adjusted OR 1.33 95% CI 1.30-1.37) and never smokers (adjusted OR 1.14 95% CI 1.12-1.15). Among smokers, the risk of obesity increased with the amount smoked and former heavy smokers were more likely to be obese than former light smokers (adjusted OR 1.60, 95% 1.56-1.64, p<0.001). Risk of obesity fell with time from quitting. After 30 years, former smokers still had higher risk of obesity than current smokers but the same risk as never smokers.

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

#182

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?

When it becomes impossible to be able to reasonably comfortably speak against a consensus, that consensus loses any sort of meaning because it becomes impossible to determine whether it's being upheld by coercion or not. It also becomes completely impossible to carry out science in such an environment because such pressures invariably leak into e.g. universities, career opportunities, grants, and so on.

So without being able to reasonably comfortably speak against a scientific consensus you end up with neither science nor a consensus.

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

#183
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,…

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?

There certainly were doctors and scientists who saw the harm of smoking prior to the general consensus. It seems as though this consensus is a result of both mounting medical evidence and a fundemental shift in the way medicine approaches disease, with the field of epidimiology expanding from the study of infectious disease to include a variety of chronic disease and cancers. IIRC, I've read references and anecdotes of smoking and tobacco having obvious negative health impacts as far back as the US Civil War (1860s).

There's a good record in "Research on Smoking and Lung Cancer: A Landmark in the History of Chronic Disease" (The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 1989) [0]:

> By the 1930s, some evidence had been obtained that the incidence of lung cancer among males was increasing. The evidence came from three sources: official mortality statistics, pathologists' reports of autopsy findings, and the observations of physicians who specialized in the treatment of lung disease.

> Speculation about these factors continued, but there was also much criticism of the view that the reported increase in lung cancer was credible. . . . Factors which were listed as likely to be responsible for an artificial increase were better diagnosis of the disease and increased longevity of the population.

[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2589239/pdf/yjb...

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

#184
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, especially historically, psychiatry intersects with "managing bothersome people". Children who wouldn't sit still. Elders who wouldn't stay quiet. Wives with independent personalities. Lobotomies fixed those "problems". It hasn't really fully separated itself from that today. Some cynical types describe the extremely high rates of psychotropic drugs used in American schools and retirement homes as "che…

Yeah. It seems like alot of things within the practice of medicine are brutal and crazy looking back.

I wonder what things from present time future humans will look back on and marvel at how insane they were.

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

#185

It's a bit funny that some commenters relate this to vaccines. I also see a similarity, but maybe in a slightly different way. The tobacco industry paid doctors to become outliers and promoted them to imply expert consensus and push their product. People not very fond of vaccines also promote outliers attempting to imply some form of consensus or at least scientific validity. Quite a few of them also have products or…

Do you really believe the financial and other incentives are greater for the people pushing _against_ vaccines and Big Pharma as opposed to the politicians, “experts“, and doctors who are pushing the vaccines so aggressively to the point where they are okay if you lose your job if you don’t take them? That is a bit of an upside down view of the power structure in society. Pharmaceutical companies are literally making…

> Do you really believe the financial and other incentives are greater for the people pushing _against_ vaccines and Big Pharma as opposed to the politicians, “experts“, and doctors who are pushing the vaccines so aggressively to the point where they are okay if you lose your job if you don’t take them?

Definitely. I must confess that I am much more familiar with the situation in Germany, where the commercial entanglement of doctors and pharma companies may be much weaker. We do have a lot of Anti-Vax propaganda, however, which I follow somewhat, so I do know their ways. From what I know they are similar (if not more radicalized) than their counter parts in the US.

> Pharmaceutical companies are literally making hundreds of billions of dollars off of their products. These companies are not exactly innocent. They have very little morals and are generally okay with mass suffering as long as their profits are increasing (look at the opioid epidemic as an example).

I agree! They must be tightly controlled. They're not all evil, though. Like most companies they also have some utility to society: They produce medicine that clearly works, in some cases even remarkably well (sure, arguably at inflated prices). This is the case with vaccines.

> In addition, there is a social stigma where if you take an unpopular view here, you will likely be seen as a “conspiracy theorist”, or face the possibility of losing your job, friends, family members.

I try not to do this, but you're right. Sometimes it's a bit hard because the stereotype is often true. I do have an anti-(corona)vaccine friend and while I think her considerations are irrational here, it's not like she's malicious herself. Especially when wanting to convince her of my changing her mind, there's nothing good not treating her respectfully will do.

> Most of the people against Big Pharma promote living a healthy lifestyle, taking supplements, going outside, getting sunlight, eating well, exercising, etc.

This is where things get hairy. Going outside, getting sunlight, eating well and exercising are all fabulous things and I am all for promoting them.

The issue begins to appear when you insinuate that these can be better than a proven treatment for a given sickness, like telling people to just take more walks outside and the cancer will solve itself. That is what harms people. And it's something a large portion of people in this bubble definitely do. That is where the issue lies.

> It is not like they are trying to sell you some expensive products.

Many influencers out of this bubble absolutely are, especially regarding the supplements you previously mentioned (plus some weird devices, sculptures, things with magnets ...). They can contain nothing of much value and just be ineffective at curing illnesses, leading to people not seeking real treatment and wasting their money, they can also be actively harmful, see "Miracle Mineral Solution", which contains literal bleach [0]. That is doubly harmful and absolutely to be fought. These people are enriching themselves from gullible people by telling them fantasy stories and it is highly despicable.

------

Of course there's a spectrum. Not everyone who as safety concerns about the vaccines automatically believes in wild conspiracy theories. However the seed of "look at what shady things people up there are doing" can often grow into "all the system is evil and we must fight it with fire" and that's what I'm afraid of. That this radicalization frequently happens is at least supported ancedotally (I have been in that loop for a short while myself) and why I'm so passionate about this topic.

Real conspiracies exist! But please use your critical thinking skills to evaluate the evidence and likelihoods of things.

End of rant, I guess.

[0]: https://scimoms.com/coronavirus-mms/

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

#186

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)

some humans have been drinking animal dairy for so many thousands of years that some ethnicities have evolved to have a lactose breaking down mutation into adulthood

>evolved

Not disagreeing, but that's a much nicer way of saying that nobody wanted to mate with the ones having constant diarrhea.

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

#187
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, especially historically, psychiatry intersects with "managing bothersome people". Children who wouldn't sit still. Elders who wouldn't stay quiet. Wives with independent personalities. Lobotomies fixed those "problems". It hasn't really fully separated itself from that today. Some cynical types describe the extremely high rates of psychotropic drugs used in American schools and retirement homes as "che…

Yeah. It seems like alot of things within the practice of medicine are brutal and crazy looking back. I wonder what things from present time future humans will look back on and marvel at how insane they were.

I guess that when an appropriate treatment for dental cavities is found, the current practice will be seen as barbaric.

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

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. It seems like alot of things within the practice of medicine are brutal and crazy looking back. I wonder what things from present time future humans will look back on and marvel at how insane they were.

I guess that when an appropriate treatment for dental cavities is found, the current practice will be seen as barbaric.

When genetic engineering to give humans regeneration happens all modern medicine will probably look barbaric.

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

#189
post #177

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...

One in a long history of barbarism-as-medicine. Some would say we're still in that era.

I can think of some recent experimental treatments recommended by the medical establishment that appear less effective than advertised and the long term effects unclear.

Shock therapy for one.

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

#190

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.

Using the word "science" to frame your argument automatically discredits any counterpoint.
Post reply on HN