Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

1100101103105106358

Replies

  • jseams1234
    jseams1234 Posts: 1,202 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?

    Every product has an inherent risk/reward.

    DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.

    No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.

    BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.

    Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...


    "Less irritating" = still irritating, just less than other brands. There is also a Surgeons General warning on that advertisement.

    I know Doctors even today that smoke. Just because they participate in a behavior doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with it.


    I thought I saw a warning, but I couldn't find a better resolution image to confirm it.

    Ah, actually my mistake - it's not a warning, just an explanation of the "*". It's a certification that the figures have been checked... my point still stands. Neither of the advertisement is stating that smoking is good/healthy.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    tiasommer wrote: »
    It's pointless. It will inevitably be argued otherwise. After all, they've been approved for use in food. But I don't believe that necessarily means they are safe. I still have my concerns.
    If you must know, some of the additives I try to avoid BHA or BHT, artificial sweeteners, food dyes like blue # 1 & 2, red # 3 - just to name a few -sodium nitrate, sulfur dioxide, sodium benzoate, potassium bromate, high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and of course trans fats. Pesticides, artificial hormones, antibiotics… And the list goes on.

    If science saying they're safe is not enough for you to believe they're safe, how do you eat ANYTHING? After all, apples contain cyanide.
    Science has not shown that eating a plethora of foods laced with those additives for years upon years is safe, however. I'm not saying that eating foods like that occasionally or as a very small minority of the diet are a big issue.

    Also, apples are naturally found in nature. You cannot say the same thing amount most of those other things listed like MSG, trans fats, and food dyes.

    MSG is in tomatoes.

    Lamb and beef naturally contain small amounts of trans fats and several food dyes are extracts from vegetables (beetroot and carrots for example) and insects (cochineal).

    It's present in small amounts in some plant foods too (Cronometer shows I've had a bit over the last week and I don't eat animal products).
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?

    Every product has an inherent risk/reward.

    DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.

    No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.

    BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.

    Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...

    af9puqmal968.jpg
    9ipvc8idtvyj.jpg


    Yeah - that's marketing "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV", not science.
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,484 Member
    edited July 2017
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?

    Every product has an inherent risk/reward.

    DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.

    No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.

    BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.

    Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...


    "Less irritating" = still irritating, just less than other brands. There is also a Surgeons General warning on that advertisement.

    I know Doctors even today that smoke. Just because they participate in a behavior doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with it.

    These advertise that smoking has no "adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses..." and that smoking will "give your throat a vacation". Pretty indefensible in light of modern medical knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Yet I bet that if MFP was in existence in this era a lot of people would be bashing anti-smokers because tobacco is natural and smoke exists in nature...

    az874q3ftp5x.jpg
    j6cc8obhiogg.jpg
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,484 Member
    edited July 2017
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?

    Every product has an inherent risk/reward.

    DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.

    No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.

    BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.

    Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...


    "Less irritating" = still irritating, just less than other brands. There is also a Surgeons General warning on that advertisement.

    I know Doctors even today that smoke. Just because they participate in a behavior doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with it.

    These advertise that smoking has no "adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses..." and that smoking will "give your throat a vacation". Pretty indefensible in light of modern medical knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Yet I bet that if MFP was in existence in this era a lot of people would be bashing anti-smokers because tobacco is natural and smoke exists in nature...

    az874q3ftp5x.jpg
    j6cc8obhiogg.jpg

    Marketing and advertising.

    Rarely confused with a scientific journal.

    Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.

    Problem(s) found.

    1: No 10 year studies. Supposedly a 10 [i[]month[/i] study. So, it doesn't actually say what you claim.
    2: Just because they said so, doesn't mean any of it's true. There may or may not have been a "medical specialist" - whatever the *puppy* that means - involved. There may or may not have been any supposed study.

    Don't believe everything you see/hear - especially in advertising.

    1) - you are right, the average smoking habit per smoker was over 10 years.
    2) If you Google "doctors smoking" and look at the images, there are pages and pages of these ads featuring doctors. Whether they had information that would be acceptable today as a "scientific study" or not, they apparently believed what they were endorsing and put their professional reputations on the line to advocate for smoking. It was accepted by the medical community that cigarettes were safe for decades, and we all know that to be untrue (I would hope).
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,331 Member
    tiasommer wrote: »
    It's pointless. It will inevitably be argued otherwise. After all, they've been approved for use in food. But I don't believe that necessarily means they are safe. I still have my concerns.
    If you must know, some of the additives I try to avoid BHA or BHT, artificial sweeteners, food dyes like blue # 1 & 2, red # 3 - just to name a few -sodium nitrate, sulfur dioxide, sodium benzoate, potassium bromate, high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and of course trans fats. Pesticides, artificial hormones, antibiotics… And the list goes on.

    If science saying they're safe is not enough for you to believe they're safe, how do you eat ANYTHING? After all, apples contain cyanide.
    Science has not shown that eating a plethora of foods laced with those additives for years upon years is safe, however. I'm not saying that eating foods like that occasionally or as a very small minority of the diet are a big issue.

    Also, apples are naturally found in nature. You cannot say the same thing amount most of those other things listed like MSG, trans fats, and food dyes.

    MSG is in tomatoes.

    Lamb and beef naturally contain small amounts of trans fats and several food dyes are extracts from vegetables (beetroot and carrots for example) and insects (cochineal).

    It's present in small amounts in some plant foods too (Cronometer shows I've had a bit over the last week and I don't eat animal products).

    Cronometer shows there are trace amounts in mustard and sunflower oil, even if they don't register in grams, so I wouldn't be surprised they're found in some other non-animal sources. Generally, I find fried foods register on the trans fat scale regardless of their origin.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    edited July 2017
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?

    Every product has an inherent risk/reward.

    DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.

    No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.

    BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.

    Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...


    "Less irritating" = still irritating, just less than other brands. There is also a Surgeons General warning on that advertisement.

    I know Doctors even today that smoke. Just because they participate in a behavior doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with it.

    These advertise that smoking has no "adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses..." and that smoking will "give your throat a vacation". Pretty indefensible in light of modern medical knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Yet I bet that if MFP was in existence in this era a lot of people would be bashing anti-smokers because tobacco is natural and smoke exists in nature...

    az874q3ftp5x.jpg
    j6cc8obhiogg.jpg

    Marketing and advertising.

    Rarely confused with a scientific journal.

    Yes, marketing and advertising that resulted in millions of deaths and multi-billion dollar lawsuits.

    Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.

    Explain to me how this in any way supports 'science claimed that smoking was good for your health'?

    No one is arguing that there were ad campaigns that said it, or MDs that participated, or that the general populace is woefully ignorant about whom to trust for proper scientific references.

    If that study they mention wasn't actually published in a decently respectable peer reviewed journal (and I can about guarantee it wasn't because there's not so much as a journal referenced) then it means nothing. It has about as much worth as the results of a politico poll. Less, since at least politico publishes their methods for 'transparency'.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?

    Every product has an inherent risk/reward.

    DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.

    No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.

    BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.

    Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...


    "Less irritating" = still irritating, just less than other brands. There is also a Surgeons General warning on that advertisement.

    I know Doctors even today that smoke. Just because they participate in a behavior doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with it.

    These advertise that smoking has no "adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses..." and that smoking will "give your throat a vacation". Pretty indefensible in light of modern medical knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Yet I bet that if MFP was in existence in this era a lot of people would be bashing anti-smokers because tobacco is natural and smoke exists in nature...

    az874q3ftp5x.jpg
    j6cc8obhiogg.jpg

    Marketing and advertising.

    Rarely confused with a scientific journal.

    Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.

    Problem(s) found.

    1: No 10 year studies. Supposedly a 10 [i[]month[/i] study. So, it doesn't actually say what you claim.
    2: Just because they said so, doesn't mean any of it's true. There may or may not have been a "medical specialist" - whatever the *puppy* that means - involved. There may or may not have been any supposed study.

    Don't believe everything you see/hear - especially in advertising.

    1) - you are right, the average smoking habit per smoker was over 10 years.
    2) If you Google "doctors smoking" and look at the images, there are pages and pages of these ads featuring doctors. Whether they had information that would be acceptable today as a "scientific study" or not, they apparently believed what they were endorsing and put their professional reputations on the line to advocate for smoking. It was accepted by the medical community that cigarettes were safe for decades, and we all know that to be untrue (I would hope).


    Pages and pages of old cartoon drawings, and that's what you're putting up as proof? Seriously?
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?

    Every product has an inherent risk/reward.

    DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.

    No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.

    BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.

    Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...


    "Less irritating" = still irritating, just less than other brands. There is also a Surgeons General warning on that advertisement.

    I know Doctors even today that smoke. Just because they participate in a behavior doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with it.

    These advertise that smoking has no "adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses..." and that smoking will "give your throat a vacation". Pretty indefensible in light of modern medical knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Yet I bet that if MFP was in existence in this era a lot of people would be bashing anti-smokers because tobacco is natural and smoke exists in nature...

    az874q3ftp5x.jpg
    j6cc8obhiogg.jpg

    Marketing and advertising.

    Rarely confused with a scientific journal.

    Yes, marketing and advertising that resulted in millions of deaths and multi-billion dollar lawsuits.

    Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.

    Yes, real doctors. But just because someone is a real doctor doesn't render their opinion useful or relevant.

    My optometrist may offer opinions on my diet/weight/exercise, and I'll smile and nod, unless the opinion is egregiously wrong.

    My dentist may offer an opinion on my weight/joint mobility/activity level and again... Smile and nod.

    Doctors are people too.

    And most doctors(except cancer/cardiologists) smoke... A LOT. So do most nurses. It's often the thing that keeps them from going home and smoking a shotgun. People in high stress, high tension work, don't always practice what they know or what they preach.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,738 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?

    Every product has an inherent risk/reward.

    DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.

    No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.

    BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.

    Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...


    "Less irritating" = still irritating, just less than other brands. There is also a Surgeons General warning on that advertisement.

    I know Doctors even today that smoke. Just because they participate in a behavior doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with it.

    These advertise that smoking has no "adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses..." and that smoking will "give your throat a vacation". Pretty indefensible in light of modern medical knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Yet I bet that if MFP was in existence in this era a lot of people would be bashing anti-smokers because tobacco is natural and smoke exists in nature...

    az874q3ftp5x.jpg
    j6cc8obhiogg.jpg

    Marketing and advertising.

    Rarely confused with a scientific journal.

    Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.

    Problem(s) found.

    1: No 10 year studies. Supposedly a 10 [i[]month[/i] study. So, it doesn't actually say what you claim.
    2: Just because they said so, doesn't mean any of it's true. There may or may not have been a "medical specialist" - whatever the *puppy* that means - involved. There may or may not have been any supposed study.

    Don't believe everything you see/hear - especially in advertising.

    1) - you are right, the average smoking habit per smoker was over 10 years.
    2) If you Google "doctors smoking" and look at the images, there are pages and pages of these ads featuring doctors. Whether they had information that would be acceptable today as a "scientific study" or not, they apparently believed what they were endorsing and put their professional reputations on the line to advocate for smoking. It was accepted by the medical community that cigarettes were safe for decades, and we all know that to be untrue (I would hope).


    Pages and pages of old cartoon drawings, and that's what you're putting up as proof? Seriously?

    That is very clear proof that medical professionals believed that smoking was not a health hazard during those eras. Seriously.

    *some* medical professionals
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,484 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    It's pointless. It will inevitably be argued otherwise. After all, they've been approved for use in food. But I don't believe that necessarily means they are safe. I still have my concerns.
    If you must know, some of the additives I try to avoid BHA or BHT, artificial sweeteners, food dyes like blue # 1 & 2, red # 3 - just to name a few -sodium nitrate, sulfur dioxide, sodium benzoate, potassium bromate, high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and of course trans fats. Pesticides, artificial hormones, antibiotics… And the list goes on.

    If science saying they're safe is not enough for you to believe they're safe, how do you eat ANYTHING? After all, apples contain cyanide.
    Science has not shown that eating a plethora of foods laced with those additives for years upon years is safe, however. I'm not saying that eating foods like that occasionally or as a very small minority of the diet are a big issue.

    Also, apples are naturally found in nature. You cannot say the same thing amount most of those other things listed like MSG, trans fats, and food dyes.

    MSG is in tomatoes.

    ...and yet companies like the one below are paying off fraud lawsuits for concealing the presence of MSG in their foods. How silly! :|

    https://www.bigclassaction.com/settlement/noodle-soup-maker-settles-msg-consumer-fraud-lawsuit.php

    It's often cheaper to settle than to fight.

    Although not always.

    See the Ford Pinto case study.

    Had they not gone through the trouble of determining that it would be cheaper to pay off the lawsuits than fight/fix the issue they would have done quite well.

    But the larger question is: if the food company is doing nothing wrong by adding MSG to their food, why would they be willing to pay a large settlement for failing to disclose it?
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?

    Every product has an inherent risk/reward.

    DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.

    No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.

    BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.

    Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...


    "Less irritating" = still irritating, just less than other brands. There is also a Surgeons General warning on that advertisement.

    I know Doctors even today that smoke. Just because they participate in a behavior doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with it.

    These advertise that smoking has no "adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses..." and that smoking will "give your throat a vacation". Pretty indefensible in light of modern medical knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Yet I bet that if MFP was in existence in this era a lot of people would be bashing anti-smokers because tobacco is natural and smoke exists in nature...

    az874q3ftp5x.jpg
    j6cc8obhiogg.jpg

    Marketing and advertising.

    Rarely confused with a scientific journal.

    Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.

    Problem(s) found.

    1: No 10 year studies. Supposedly a 10 [i[]month[/i] study. So, it doesn't actually say what you claim.
    2: Just because they said so, doesn't mean any of it's true. There may or may not have been a "medical specialist" - whatever the *puppy* that means - involved. There may or may not have been any supposed study.

    Don't believe everything you see/hear - especially in advertising.

    1) - you are right, the average smoking habit per smoker was over 10 years.
    2) If you Google "doctors smoking" and look at the images, there are pages and pages of these ads featuring doctors. Whether they had information that would be acceptable today as a "scientific study" or not, they apparently believed what they were endorsing and put their professional reputations on the line to advocate for smoking. It was accepted by the medical community that cigarettes were safe for decades, and we all know that to be untrue (I would hope).


    Pages and pages of old cartoon drawings, and that's what you're putting up as proof? Seriously?

    That is very clear proof that medical professionals believed that smoking was not a health hazard during those eras. Seriously.

    It has always been known to be a hazard, but again it's a matter of risk/reward. Cigarettes have a known calming effect. Even though much of this is psychological or associated with the activity of relaxed, conscious breathing. At that time it was associated with a host of lung diseases, but the average life span wasn't as long either (age 61-64). Much of the increases in cancer we see today are primarily due to two factors - increased longevity and increased detection methods.
This discussion has been closed.