Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using the word "science" to frame your argument automatically discredits any counterpoint.
This is why there is supposed to be separation of church and stage, but such rules didn't anticipate "science" becoming religion that is exempt from the criticism of religion. We need some updated principles that separate dogma and faith from legitimate motivations
When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
201–208 of 208 posts
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Questioning something does not require an opinion.
Questioning something without facts to back it up is pointless.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#203It'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…
> It's a bit funny that some commenters relate this to vaccines. This is literally the only comment chain in the entire thread to reference vaccines
It looks like they were rightfully flagged.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really convinced that, from a medical perspective, those are on the same playing field as tobacco?
Curiously enough, there are some legitimate medical uses for nicotine, just as there are some legitimate medical uses for opiates and amphetamines. > Colleen McBride, director of the cancer prevention, detection and control program at Duke University Medical Center... says there is a growing body of evidence that nicotine actually relieves some symptoms of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, and appears to help thos…
But cigarettes are also in a whole another other ballgame than nicotine
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Questioning something does not require an opinion.
Questioning something without facts to back it up is pointless.
I'm not sure what that means. Whoever makes the claim provides the facts. If you aren't convinced by those facts then you don't accept the claim. You don't need to bring facts of your own to refuse to believe a claim.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are better means to that end.. such as immuno-modulating parasites. The good old hookworm is a fine example. (Not actually kidding)
That trial failed
Last thing I've read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403024/ seems to leave it at the very least as an open question. It's not a matter of 'a study' passing or failing. It's not controversial to assert that many parasites are immunomodulating , and there are no shortage of cases where it at least appears on the surface that they may ease some autoimmune maladies. My personal anecdote is from a friend whose allergies were strongly suppressed after getting worms.
I don't really have skin in this game, though, and mostly posted to make the humorous juxtaposition of literally getting worms as a preferable and less harmful alternative to smoking for autoimmune relief.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would never agree with this comment above, but today we see nurses fired over this whole vaccine issue. Nurses, who worked frontlines during the first wave when vaccines weren't available, contracted and recovered from covid, and have antibodies to prove it. They were called heroes. Today, none of that apparently matters, valuable medical staff were fired anyway, in a middle of pandemic. Why??? Only to turn around,…
> They've done that in 2020, and if they are willing to do that again, are they not heroes, risking their own lives to save others? Well, suddenly they are now pariahs instead of heroes, and must be fired and ridiclued. If you treat a gunshot victim with napkins from McDonalds because it's the only thing you have, that's great. If a year later you've got better options and you're still using the napkins, you're an as…
> “ It is stupid to take that risk now”
This is just handwaving. Where is your data to support that it’s in your own words “stupid”? This seems like an emotional feeling rather than a thesis well supported by data.
I’ve specifically stated “with antibodies to prove it”, which you conveniently ignored. This would be a much higher bar than even previous infection, and perhaps even unnecessary.
Vaccination isn’t some ritual we must perform to exorcise some mythical ghost.
It’s a medical intervention, with measurable results and risks, but also consumes a scarce resource, and therefore must be offered ONLY when appropriate.
vaccinating people who don’t even need it results in denying life-saving vaccines for people who actually DO need them. Like the entirely unvaccinated billions around the world who live on 2 dollars per day. Numerous guidelines recommend postponing vaccination after positive results by months. Mayo clinic recommends 90 days or even longer, depending on the situation at hand. Is Mayo Clinic “stupid”?
Please explain how this guideline is “stupid”: https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-if-a...
As you can see below, from BMC and Lancet, reputable journals, reinfection is very infrequent in health care workers. 2-8 incidents per 100,000 people-hours. Case fatality is at 0.13%, nearly 30 times lower than non-HCW, and I believe a lot of these have been primary infections too.
Do you have any numbers to provide support your thesis that it’s “stupid” at all? You’d only have to prove that infection controls and previous exposure is a less effective intervention than a vaccine, specifically in HCW setting, and that its so ineffective it supports denying vaccine supply to those at 30 TIMES MORE RISK.
In essence your statement reads: 1) “hospitals can’t control infectious agents”, 2) “we should NOT prioritize those 30x at risk and too poor to afford it”, 3) “HCW are too “stupid” (in your own words” to assess risks of infection controls they themselves institute and operate; and risks of the disease they themselves see every day”
Seems like big claims to me.
Looking forward to your data to support your thesis.
Actual data: Reinfection rate in HCW: “2.5 reinfections per 100,000 person-days)”
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128...
“The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13–0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days.”
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
“case fatality (0.13% versus 2.77%, phttps://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(21)00564-6/ful...
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd probably change your mind as soon as you'd receive a devastating diagnosis, such as parkinson's. if you knew, that nicotine could at least potentially arrest the progression, how sick would you need to get before you would try nicotine patches? would you rather wait until you are unable to walk, talk, eat, wear adult diapers, but never ever attempt anything on your own? "clinical recommendation" is nothing more…
> Marijuana is being used medicinally en masse in many countries today I suspect "medicinal" marijuana is just a ruse to get it legalized. Not to say there are not medicinally beneficial compounds. I also support legalization. But it's a pretty big coincidence that the only medicine with "roll it into a joint and smoke it" as the delivery mechanism happens to be used recreationally in exactly the same way. Just like…
Where does the line between recreational and medicinal really end?
Having a glass of wine after a stressful day, instead of Xanax, is that medicinal or recreational? You could argue either way, I suppose.
I don't think medicinal is smoked.