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.
Originally posted by Surtur
So you won't answer my question? Okay.
I literally just did, you suggested that there's scientific counter arguments; I asked you to post them as I'm open to change and you dodged posting them.
So it seems your counter argument is that you're disgusted by trans people and this is just how you feel. But we already knew that.
Originally posted by Robtard
I literally just did, you suggested that there's scientific counter arguments; I asked you to post them as I'm open to change and you dodged posting them.So it seems your counter argument is that you're disgusted by trans people and this is just how you feel. But we already knew that.
I asked if you felt it was 100%, etc. I see no answer.
Originally posted by Robtard
Until there's a proper scientific counter argument to the neuroscience (as you suggested), yes. Why would I think otherwise.So, post them now and change my mind? Weird that you're dodging this.
You say post things, but all I asked was how much you believe in it. Why does that trigger you so much? Stand up for your beliefs without whining.
Originally posted by Robtard
Until there's a proper scientific counter argument to the neuroscience (as you suggested), yes. Why would I think otherwise.So, post them now and change my mind? Weird that you're dodging this.
Unless that Neurosurgeon is some one like Ben Carson. Then it don't count.
Because Politics.
Originally posted by Robtard
Just like your breath, your games grow stale, Surt. You clearly asked and questioned the science. I asked you to show the counter argument and that I was open to change, you then became dodge and dance boy.Why do you discredit the neuroscience testing behind it?
You have more patience than me. I already want to drop a cinderblock on my own head talking with this dude in another thread.
Originally posted by shiv
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paperhttps://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/paging-dr-fraud-the-fake-publishers-that-are-ruining-science
[b]Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
June 2017, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 163–170
The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3Silas Boye Nissen, Tali Magidson, Kevin Gross, Carl T Bergstrom
Research: Publication bias and the canonization of false facts
https://elifesciences.org/articles/21451 [/B]
Why was this just skipped over