General Discussion

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)

75. While I don't think you are aware...

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:39 AM

Mar 2015

Your argument has absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with the need for regulated capitalism. You are using a time period where "truth in advertising" was not completely necessary. Often items were advertised during that time with complete lies. I don't recall any peer reviewed, thorough studies, that make the claim this company is making.

You are comparing apples and oranges to make an anti-science argument. The argument you are truly making is of the importance of strong legislation regulating capitalism. Your post truly has nothing to do with science. It has to do completely with capitalism. We would all be better if we could recognize that.

"As recently as 1953...." Blatant agenda based sentence. It could have just as easily read "before most of you were born...."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Remember tobacco? A product once "scientifically" proven to be harmless [View all] pnwmom Mar 2015 OP

Remember marijuana? A plant completely vilified by most governments, based on lies? Rex Mar 2015 #1

Thanks. This adds to my point that not every "scientific" study pnwmom Mar 2015 #2

A scientific study by tobacco lobbyists is not very encouraging. Rex Mar 2015 #6

when was tobacco proven safe by a peer-reviewed scientific study? geek tragedy Mar 2015 #3

The difference between a scientific study and a "scientific" study is not obvious to some hobbit709 Mar 2015 #5

At least people know when they're using tobacco, so epidemiologists pnwmom Mar 2015 #9

My question, though, was whether there was an actual scientific study that showed tobacco was safe. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #11

I don't know. Trim Reducing Aid cigarettes claimed they had 5 clinical studies. pnwmom Mar 2015 #12

I would suspect they had no scientific studies of any merit at all nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #14

Probably so. But the consumer wouldn't know that. pnwmom Mar 2015 #15

Which makes a good case for consumers being aware of what is and isn't junk science Major Nikon Mar 2015 #61

I think it makes a good case for government regulation. The average pnwmom Mar 2015 #62

The government should regulate known health risks when the industry does not Major Nikon Mar 2015 #63

Should it take more than 30 years for the government to finally pnwmom Mar 2015 #66

So you think what happened almost 100 years ago is just as applicable today? Major Nikon Mar 2015 #68

People are just as corruptible today as they were 100 years ago. pnwmom Mar 2015 #72

100 years ago people thought tapeworms were viable medicine Major Nikon Mar 2015 #73

And 100 years from now people will look with horror on many of our pnwmom Mar 2015 #85

You completely ignore 100 years of progress Major Nikon Mar 2015 #88

Progress? Like global warming? pnwmom Mar 2015 #90

Naturally we would all be better off living in trees and throwing shit at each other Major Nikon Mar 2015 #93

Did giving women over 50 mare piss? Who doesn't want breast cancer over hot flashes! KittyWampus Mar 2015 #22

"A product once "scientifically" proven to be harmless" + "I don't know." Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #102

That's because you're ignoring the quotation marks. pnwmom Mar 2015 #103

what about Premarin? Nothing like giving women breast cancer to treat menopause. KittyWampus Mar 2015 #20

I got breast cancer at age 43 after taking Premarin for 3 years. lark Mar 2015 #45

Misinformation by Gov't somehow seems less nefarious when compared to Corporate greed Sheepshank Mar 2015 #76

Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans was the first. Manifestor_of_Light Mar 2015 #4

I have a relative who also has lung damage due to second hand smoke. pnwmom Mar 2015 #10

I went to school with an Ochsner descendent KamaAina Mar 2015 #79

Well. Cough. Us doctors on tee vee like it, too! Octafish Mar 2015 #7

Thanks! pnwmom Mar 2015 #8

My family, too. Octafish Mar 2015 #32

Nevertheless, Reagan was just a layman. What did he know? immoderate Mar 2015 #13

Evil Doktor Reagan helped shut down ''Socialized Medicine'' then JFK got shot. Octafish Mar 2015 #30

Thanks for the reminder, Octafish! pnwmom Mar 2015 #36

But he lived to age 92 . virgogal Mar 2015 #17

And what a life! He made 'Liberal' into a bad word transformed 'Racist' into 'Conservative.' Octafish Mar 2015 #34

Every time I had an earache, my grandpa would blow cigarette smoke in my ear. ScreamingMeemie Mar 2015 #16

The problem with tobacco is not so much lung cancer as copd and other respiratory issues uppityperson Mar 2015 #18

The relative we had who died of lung cancer dragged around an oxygen tank pnwmom Mar 2015 #19

Yep, asthma, allergies and general respiratory hassles. Manifestor_of_Light Mar 2015 #26

circulatory issues too laundry_queen Mar 2015 #41

Wow -- I was wondering the same thing about your grandfather. pnwmom Mar 2015 #47

The Clintons benefitted greatly from the tobacco industry. Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #21

No, but I remember all the talk about him with a cigar in Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #27

Bill Clinton's Justice department filed racketeering charges against Big Tobacco. pnwmom Mar 2015 #51

Why put "scientifically" in the title? progressoid Mar 2015 #23

Because the products were being marketed as scientifically studied pnwmom Mar 2015 #25

Right, so this about deceptive marketing. progressoid Mar 2015 #31

Not all scientists. The tobacco industry also employed scientists pnwmom Mar 2015 #33

now, now, don't be throwing facts into a good outrage. hobbit709 Mar 2015 #35

The tobacco industry pushed its own set of facts, pnwmom Mar 2015 #37

Publishing carefully sifted data to prove your point is not facts. hobbit709 Mar 2015 #38

But that is what the tobacco industry did. pnwmom Mar 2015 #40

Thank you! THANK YOU! druidity33 Mar 2015 #55

Yes, I thought that Scientific American article was very enlightening. pnwmom Mar 2015 #57

It was market-driven "science" that supported the case. Just like today's market- ND-Dem Mar 2015 #42

Because she wants to discredit studies that show GMOs are safe. jeff47 Mar 2015 #80

We can not only talk about giving cancer causing premarin to menopausal women to illustrate KittyWampus Mar 2015 #24

The ultimate example for the necessity of government oversight and regulation' yallerdawg Mar 2015 #28

Hey, wet chewing was used to treat wounds. Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #29

Thalidomide anyone? DES? Quaalude? Fen-Phen? Vioxx? ND-Dem Mar 2015 #39

We were very lucky that the FDA analyst dragged her feet on approving pnwmom Mar 2015 #44

Remember Fracking? randr Mar 2015 #43

Good point! pnwmom Mar 2015 #46

Theyre using same techniques now for climate change denial. nt ErikJ Mar 2015 #48

Yes, they are. pnwmom Mar 2015 #49

Dr. Spaceman whereisjustice Mar 2015 #50

Remember Global Warming? (Retired tabacco shills with new employment) chknltl Mar 2015 #52

I believe it. Scientists like that are just guns for hire. Unfortunately, pnwmom Mar 2015 #53

To be fair, it was hard for tobacco company executives to understand scientists tclambert Mar 2015 #54

I remember a TV show from the early or mid 1950's. lpbk2713 Mar 2015 #56

It was anecdotally known to be dangerous in the 19th Century jmowreader Mar 2015 #58

Yup. But Big Tobacco had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, pnwmom Mar 2015 #59

Not sure if today's would... jmowreader Mar 2015 #60

Thanks for making my point, once we found out it was dangerous we started...... Logical Mar 2015 #64

The first study that found the connection between lung cancer and smoking pnwmom Mar 2015 #70

Remember when science said tobacco was dangerous... SidDithers Mar 2015 #65

I know it isn't static. The GMO producers want to convince us that it is static -- pnwmom Mar 2015 #67

So somehow something that was known 100 years ago compares to something that isn't known today? Major Nikon Mar 2015 #69

This is what would "satisfy" me: pnwmom Mar 2015 #71

In other words, nothing would satisfy you Major Nikon Mar 2015 #74

Researchers can buy seeds -- but only if they sign a contract. pnwmom Mar 2015 #82

Not true. Over 150 universities have blanket agreements with patent holders Major Nikon Mar 2015 #87

Then why were those 24 corn scientists protesting, according to Scientific American? pnwmom Mar 2015 #94

And how successful were those protests? Major Nikon Mar 2015 #97

Not successful enough. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #98

You have no evidence phil89 Mar 2015 #81

The GMO producers control the research by controlling the seeds. pnwmom Mar 2015 #83

are you going to respond to post #87 snooper2 Mar 2015 #92

I did. And there is also this, from the LA Times: pnwmom Mar 2015 #95

She did, using an old story. HuckleB Mar 2015 #96

Do you even read your own links? pnwmom Mar 2015 #100

Yes, and I wasn't talking to you. HuckleB Mar 2015 #101

You were talking ABOUT me and posts I wrote. pnwmom Mar 2015 #104

I must have missed the part of the OP that said "science is static" GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #77

You'd think science WAS static if you looked at the posts of some GMO labeling detractors. Gormy Cuss Mar 2015 #78

While I don't think you are aware... NCTraveler Mar 2015 #75

We are still living in a capitalist system, and scientists are still human pnwmom Mar 2015 #84

Exactly. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #86

No, and that's why I said, "scientifically" in the OP -- with quotation marks. pnwmom Mar 2015 #91

Nobody believed that but the smokers who were addicted... hunter Mar 2015 #89

Interesting timing for this - just finished "The Insider". closeupready Mar 2015 #99