When cigarette companies used doctors to push smoking (2018) • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by DoreenMichele » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 4:18 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #84

DoreenMichele wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may not be soy per se. It may be GMO soy that's the problem. From what I gather, a very high percentage of soy is GMO, far more than is typical for most food items.

> It may not be soy per se. It may be GMO soy that's the problem No, to the extent there are endocrine issues with soy, it has nothing to do with GMO soy. > From what I gather, a very high percentage of soy is GMO, far more than is typical for most food items. 94%, about the same as corn @ 92%.

No, to the extent there are endocrine issues with soy, it has nothing to do with GMO soy.

I was responding to the first assertion -- that it's "poison." I don't know enough about this topic to really argue about what it does to the endocrine system.

94%, about the same as corn @ 92%.

94% sounds pretty freaking high to me personally.

Thank you for putting some numbers to that for me.

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

#92

Post by soheil » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 4:18 AM UTC

Easy to look back and make fun of those commercials [0]. It's more sad than anything else if someone does that since they'd be applying their current knowledge of harms of tobacco to people who didn't have said knowledge. This is a cognitive bias called the Curse of knowledge [1]. I see so much of this happening not just on Youtube comments, but even here on HN, it's almost disturbing.

The fair thing to wonder about is what things are we doing today that will seem ridiculous and obviously harmful to people in 100 years from now. Staring at a bright flat screen hours a day just to interact with a random stranger who vehemently disagrees with you about petty subjects?

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge

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

#93

Post by hammock » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 4:19 AM UTC

seattle_spring wrote: post #78

DoreenMichele wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may not be soy per se. It may be GMO soy that's the problem. From what I gather, a very high percentage of soy is GMO, far more than is typical for most food items.

What exactly is the health difference between GMO and non-GMO soy? Any reputable sources you can share?

The difference would be pesticide residue

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

#94

Post by DoreenMichele » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 4:23 AM UTC

seattle_spring wrote: post #78

DoreenMichele wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may not be soy per se. It may be GMO soy that's the problem. From what I gather, a very high percentage of soy is GMO, far more than is typical for most food items.

What exactly is the health difference between GMO and non-GMO soy? Any reputable sources you can share?

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 those sources and haven't revisited it recently.

In my case, this seems like a plausible explanation for my issue. Though I have a genetic disorder and I'm very sensitive to all kinds of details of food chemistry and pay close attention to such for my health. But "It works for me" has never been respected anywhere on the planet as any kind of meaningful observation that anyone wants to hear.

Feel free to ignore it.

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

#95

Post by jrockway » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 4:23 AM UTC

champagnois wrote: post #53

version_five wrote: post #23

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)

Quoted post unavailable.

A measured response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8dfiDeJeDU

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

#96

Post by 30002926 » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 4:25 AM UTC

champagnois wrote: post #88

jack1243star wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the Japanese have high life expectancy?

Quoted post unavailable.

How do you know this?

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

#97

Post by 30002926 » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 4:26 AM UTC

champagnois wrote: post #53

version_five wrote: post #23

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)

Quoted post unavailable.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19524224/

"Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis"

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

#98

Post by AlexCoventry » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 4:28 AM UTC

The statistician R. A. Fisher contributed a great deal to the confusion, as well.

https://www.nature.com/articles/182596a0.pdf

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

#99

Post by hypertele-Xii » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 4:31 AM UTC

solarkraft wrote: post #28

shadowgovt wrote: post #7

I'm reminded of the Ethyl corporation funding the studies that said lead wasn't very harmful. ... Of course, that's the thing about science. The people doing research are separate from the ones providing the money. And people will put money behind the research that they believe is correct. This does, of course, incentivize some unethical folks to fudge numbers, but in general, the right way to approach this is to sep…

> people will put money behind the research that they believe is correct s/they believe is correct/the narrative of which benefits them. Unfortunately it's hard to separate funding from the science. What can one do? Ban privately funded research? Force funders of a study to fund another attempting to find contrary results/pick it apart? While I agree that some source of funding doesn't automatically invalidate a stud…

> Force funders of a study to fund another attempting to find contrary results/pick it apart?

That's not a bad idea. The national counter-research unit. Any privately funded research is taxed at some percentage and all proceedings go to debunking that very research!

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

#100

Post by mise_en_place » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 4:31 AM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #41

Future possible headlines: When Pharmaceutical Companies Used Doctors to Push Opiates When Pharmaceutical Companies Used Psychiatrists to Push Amphetamines

In the United States, it’s peculiar that relatively useless pharmaceuticals with a low therapeutic index are heavily advertised, whereas actually useful pharmaceuticals are rarely mentioned at all.