Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tw
I was raised on propaganda; advertisements that lie by telling half truths. That was my father. Before toothpaste had flouride, back then, all toothpastes and mouthwashes did nothing. Classic suckers for propaganda are easily identified. They even buy Listerene and believe it actually does something.
Do you really believe Pond's Institute makes age defying creams? Sales say so many women do when not one fact is ever provided. Not one fact. Classic worshippers of propaganda.
In another example more based in science: from The Economist of 29 Apr 2006 entitled 'Filtering the evidence': In America, cigarette dangers were well published and broadcast since 1964. Not so in Europe. However if knowledge was so available, then why do 40% of youngest Americans smoke? Have we raised a generation that is manipulated by spin rather than by facts? Whose beliefs 'don't need no stinkin science' to somehow know? At least Europeans have an excuse. Dangers of smoking were not promoted aggressively and continously since 1964 in Europe.
Why, a) with a sudden upsurge in extremist politial views, b) with people actually saying, "Rush says what has to be said", c) with massive attraction to extremist religious beliefs, d) with a generation less technically educated, and e) with people so even inspired by lies of pre-emption; why is this same generation also so easy to addict to cigarettes? This is the first generations fully cognizant of the dangers. Why is this generation, instead, so easily attracted to the 'dark side'? Why are so many younger Americans so easily perverted by propaganda - have so much difficulty cutting through myths and half truths? Notice how many actually believe those 'power drinks' provide more healthy energy? Coca Cola once promoted that myth - by including drugs. Caffine can make anyone feel 'healthier'. He did not say "I feel; therefore I am". And yet 'feeling' somehow becomes how facts are 'proven'.
It's called propaganda. It works when a victim is that naive. So naive as to not see a difference between real news and "Hard Copy".
|
There is a lot of popaganda out there, one that kills me is that shampoo and conditioners can heal or fix hair... hair is dead. Can't be done.
Your smoking example is another, there are no facts to back-up the American Lung and Cancer Associations claims, in fact OSHA and the department in charge of measuring how dangerous second hand smoke is in the workplace for the AMA (I think it was the SEC) got called on the carpet in front of congress for lying about their numbers.
In fact the restarunts were perfectly safe and met OSHA standardards.
There has never been a link between second hand smoke or smoking and cancer in any clinical trials... NEVER. It has never been shown or provenpropagandarestraintsstandards in any way. We are being lied to.
Quote:
information from:www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus.htm
Clrd stats on page 72,smoke % on page 64:
"In the real world of real numbers, realpeople, and real deaths;this is
what the 2005 report by the National Center for Health Statistics has to
say. From 1965 -2002,the % of smokers is down by 47%. From 1980-2002
the death rate from chronic lower repiratory diseases (bronchitis,
emphysema, asthma, etc) is up 54%. The cardiovascular death rate for men
and women from 1979-2002 is down by a whole 3%. From 1979-2002,asthma
alone death rates are up 1.5%. Lung cancer death rates from 1973-2002
are up 27%. From 1979-2002 the Asthma rates for children is up 56%."
|
Quote:
You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**
When we look at the data over a longer period, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A). That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker. It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense to the general public, what a concept!
James P. Siepmann, MD
|
An ironic thing is that smoking may contribute to cancer... sure but hell, many things do... one thing we do know is that cooking fumes are far more toxic than second hand smoke and much that we do is far more toxic than smoking.
The black lung used by the American Lung Association's and the Cancer Association's fear posters on smoking is not just a smoker's lung but one from a miner who smoked who had black lung and rampant lung cancer.
A normal smokers lung cannot be told by a mortician from a non-smokers lung.
A lot of this is on junkscience.com, but I have been reading about it for a while.
Personally I think asphalt and atmospheric nukes have a lot to do with it... funny Japan and France have low lung cancer rates. Think about it.