Future possible headlines:
When Pharmaceutical Companies Used Doctors to Push Opiates
When Pharmaceutical Companies Used Psychiatrists to Push Amphetamines
When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
41–50 of 208 posts
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
The absolute worst part is that all of the above are actually extremely valuable and useful tools, that now have unnecessary hysteria and stigma around them.
How do you see cigarettes as a valuable tool? As an ex smoker, I agree smoking is enjoyable, but it's so addictive and objectively unhealthy I don't really see a place for it (of course I do support people's right to make their own choices, but I'd never call it valuable)
Read above, ulcerative colitis.
Chemicals are just tools.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#43Look 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)
>(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.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#44It'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…
Mercola and RFK Jr both make a good living from their anti-vax positioning.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#45Quoted post unavailable.
This is a good reminder of how fallacious the "appeal to experts" really is. Critical thinking is underrated. (At the time of editing, the parent comment is flagged. That's too bad, I think the comment is a succinct reminder why, as I say, you should make up your own mind and not assume "expertise" means someone is acting in your interest)
While I agree with you, unfortunately a lot of people saying this do it to cast doubt on vaccines/mRNA/anything they don't like, further cementing the political divide and damaging public trust.
Even if I am a firm believer in individual freedom - including the possibility of self informed individuals to refuse vaccination if they think their individual risk is more important than group immunity, I fear we may see the consequence of a lack of trust in science for the next decades to come (while I'd personally be delighted to get a yearly vaccine against the latest strain of whatever, and get vaccines against things we couldn't envision fighting before mRNA technology, such as EBV or HSV)
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you see cigarettes as a valuable tool? As an ex smoker, I agree smoking is enjoyable, but it's so addictive and objectively unhealthy I don't really see a place for it (of course I do support people's right to make their own choices, but I'd never call it valuable)
Read above, ulcerative colitis. Chemicals are just tools.
I'd be very suspicious of a claim that even if some compound(s) in tobacco smoke help with ulcerative colitis or any condition, that the clinical recommendation is to take up smoking cigarettes. But I'm open to being proven wrong
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#47Yeah, but that is past. Now we can absolutely, truly believe on doctors, as it is all based on science.
Since you used "absolutely" and "truly" I'm assuming you're being sarcastic? If not, you just need to look at OxyContin to know this isn't true.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#48If it was that bad in the 40s, imagine now with a mountain of student debt. Money is more tempting than ever.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#49Bringing these things up during the early days of the pandemic would have gotten you blacklisted/shadowbanned on sites such as this one, as "please don't spread unfounded rumors - dang"
No post body was provided.
Re: When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018)
#50Look 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,…
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 companies latched onto this momentum to keep their public image healthy?
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_...