quote: (post)

Originally posted by shiv
some scientists people are so naughty


look at Big Tobbacco and Science Big Tobbacco buying Scientists


If you're reading this and you have a drink in one hand and a digital device in the other

uh... you might want to put that drink down

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...arettes/481116/

United States of America v. Philip Morris USA

In a landmark ruling nearly a decade ago, a federal judge ordered tobacco companies to stop lying.

After listening to 84 witnesses and perusing tens of thousands of exhibits, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia took a year to write a 1,652-page opinion detailing the companies’ elaborate strategy to deny the harmful effects of smoking.

“In short, [the companies] have marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted,” Kessler wrote in United States of America v. Philip Morris USA.

Kessler noted that the Justice Department, in a racketeering lawsuit, had presented “overwhelming evidence” of a conspiracy to defraud the public. She ordered the companies to take a number of actions, including ceasing to claim there was such a thing as a low-tar cigarette that reduced the risk of disease. The evidence showed this simply was not true.

Yet in about a dozen pending lawsuits, Philip Morris continues to do just that. As of 2010, it still routinely argued that the nation’s top-selling cigarette, once known as Marlboro Lights and now called Marlboro Gold, reduces the risk of cancer.

To find scientists willing to make this claim, Philip Morris turned to consultants for the chemical industry. The experts Philip Morris hired for firms whose scientists regularly contend in medical journals, courtrooms, and regulatory arenas that their clients’ chemical products pose little or no health risks to the public. The firms have been instrumental in delaying new regulations by criticizing the work of other scientists, and emphasizing the doubt inherent in health science. The resultant uncertainty has helped delay attempts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to crack down on ubiquitous chemicals with known dangers, such as formaldehyde, arsenic, and hexavalent chromium.

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcom...cardio-tobacco/

https://www.healio.com/hematology-o...tested-approved

Hey, I'm just saying, like uh no offense to anyone, no offense intended.

Some scientists talk total fiction.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by The Lost
You have more patience than me. I already want to drop a cinderblock on my own head talking with this dude in another thread.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Sable
Again another great post just skipped over. Proving scientists can be complete shitholes and sell outs pushing an agenda like they did for big tabacco.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Sable
Again another great post just skipped over. Proving scientists can be complete shitholes and sell outs pushing an agenda like they did for big tabacco.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
So using this logic we can safely assume that all gun owners are dangerous murders just waiting to murder. Cos you know, I can pull up some gun murderers. Go to know

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Surtur
Lady, just no. You've tried and failed. Provide you with a step by step breakdown? Lol.

People are getting triggered over asking for credentials. I'm not going to play your game, it's asinine.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Surtur
So you won't answer my question? Okay.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
So using this logic we can safely assume that all gun owners are dangerous murders just waiting to murder. Cos you know, I can pull up some gun murderers. Go to know

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
So using this logic we can safely assume that all gun owners are dangerous murders just waiting to murder. Cos you know, I can pull up some gun murderers. Go to know

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
Nope. It's using one smaller example and applying it to the greater, in a negative manner. Works both ways.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Sable
I'm not saying it as a blanket statement but it proves scientists can be shitholes.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
So using this logic we can safely assume that all gun owners are dangerous murders just waiting to murder. Cos you know, I can pull up some gun murderers. Go to know

quote:

Dr. Light submitted her work and the committee came back with what we saw as our nation’s food pyramid. Here is a quotation from Dr. Light:

quote:

Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard). Our recommendation of 3-4 daily servings of whole-grain breads and cereals was changed to a whopping 6-11 servings forming the base of the Food Pyramid as a concession to the processed wheat and corn industries. Moreover, my nutritionist group had placed baked goods made with white flour - including crackers, sweets and other low-nutrient foods laden with sugars and fats - at the peak of the pyramid, recommending that they be eaten sparingly. To our alarm, in the “revised” Food Guide, they were now made part of the Pyramid’s base. And, in yet one more assault on dietary logic, changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies.

But even this neutralized wording of the revised Guidelines created a firestorm of angry responses from the food industry and their Congressional allies who believed that the “farmers’ department” (USDA) should not be telling the public to eat less of anything, including saturated fat and cholesterol, meat, eggs and sugar.

I vehemently protested that the changes, if followed, could lead to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes - and couldn’t be justified on either health or nutritional grounds. To my amazement, I was a lone voice on this issue, as my colleagues appeared to accept the “policy level” decision. Over my objections, the Food Guide Pyramid was finalized, although it only saw the light of day 12 years later, in 1992. Yet it appears my warning has come to pass.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by cdtm
What about :

The food pyramid:

https://breakingmuscle.com/healthy-...mid-upside-down






More then a few bad apples, this is the very definition of an entire institution, backed by the government, being formed by politics. The pyramid was made based on a concession to the grain/corn industry. And we've been paying for it in all the diseases that come from overconsumption of carbs..

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Sable
there are big bucks to be made on climate change. Just ask Al Gore, read those articles about scientists can fake tests and manufacture proof.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
Sure, there are some rotten apples in the barrel. Doesn't mean you throw them all out.

Is antiscience really something you want to get behind?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
Sure, there are some rotten apples in the barrel. Doesn't mean you throw them all out.

Is antiscience really something you want to get behind?