Was there a debate link between smoking tobacco & health problems i.e lung cancer back in the old days?I keep hearing people from the old generation even my college professor who happens to live and remember the 1950s when medical doctors, the medical community, FDA etc said that smoking tobacco was safe and one of the best things you could do to your health.Also my professor has mentioned that back then there was a debate of a link between smoking & lung cancer, heart disease etc, and that people have long forgot about that.Anyone who dared to link smoking tobacco and lung cancer was ridiculed, harassed by the medical community just like today with linking vaccines with autism, as well as cell phones and brain tumors.But that all came to an end as soon as many insiders came forward, as well as the govt finally admitting it as well as conforming that smoking is bad for health after hiding the data in a safe for 50 years linking smoking to lung cancer.The same way it is today with autism and vaccines, as well as cell phones and brain tumors.
P.C.
It's true that smoking used to be considered ok and even a good thing for your health. That doesn't mean vaccines cause autism and cell phones cause brain tumors, however.
onlymatch4u
There was a man that was very clever and started what we now call "spin." Edward L. Bernays, the cousin of Sigmund Freud, was given the prestigious position in the modern world to be known as the "Father of Spin." This technique of spin and how it has pervaded our learning is well documented in the 2001 book, Trust Us, We're Experts, written by Stauber and Rampton. They show show how "spin doctors," as they are now called, have created techniques and methods in the emerging science of mass persuasion to frame the everyday man's opinion on virtually every buying decision, health decision, and food choices, to name only a few. Instead of making decisions as a result of being educated on a subject, people make decisions based on mass indoctrination as a result of what they hear from sources that, when examined very carefully, have no credibility. Billions of dollars are being spent on medical spin.
This indoctrination goes very deep into our decision-making processes, and with the increased usage of the internet and all kinds of multimedia, we have become even more dependent upon receiving information from those sources to form our opinions. Schools of higher learning are filled with students that are expected to become educated and learn to think, but end up being part of the indoctrination process. I was told to get a college education because it would teach me to think. It seems that in today's world, that old concept of "thinking" has been turned on its head to mean something totally different than it did years ago. A.J. Reb Materi said a long time ago, "So many people spend their health gaining wealth, and then have to spend their wealth to regain their health."
It is not difficult to find, on a daily basis, proof of this concept of indoctrination. One of Bernays' famous marketing challenges that he took on and won was the task of proving cigarettes were good for you. He set up the unlikely combination of the tobacco industry and the American Medical Association. His effectiveness lasted almost fifty years. He convinced the public that cigarettes were beneficial to health. If you examine the ads during the 1940's and 1950's, you will see that doctors were recommending various brands of cigarettes where they told people that cigarettes promoted things like healthy digestion. By having smoking doctors in commercials, it gave the illusion that smoking was healthy or at least not harmful to your health. If a doctor was doing it, it must be just fine, and even good for you. He established the belief that doctors were the ultimate keepers of health knowledge, and if they said something was healthy for you, with all their schooling and training, it must be true. The whole idea of "third party endorsements" was conceived by Bernays as a way to create credibility for a product.
A very quick test that will determine if you have been indoctrinated in some way is to answer these few simple questions. Fill in the blanks: "Pop, pop, fizz, fizz, oh, what a ________ it is;" "M and M melts in your mouth, not in your ________." It's not difficult to find phrase after phrase that has become a popular public opinion that is promoting things that are simply not true that have the masses following and believing they are immutable facts.
Marketing of many things today are still using these principals and the public is being led down this primrose path as a result. Vaccinations have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a major component of autism, yet the marketing "spin doctors" are at work on this one with huge bags of money from pharmaceuticals telling us how vaccines saved the world. They didn't. Only 10% of the world's population got vaccinated for small pox. The vaccine actually caused more disease than it prevented. It was better sanitation, personal hygiene, and quarantine that solved that problem, not the vaccine.
Monsanto is using this indoctrination spin to promote genetic engineering as safe. Nothing could be farther from the truth, yet, many people are believing this lunacy. Recently a court in Iowa declared the FDA to be wrong in claiming rbGH genetically modified hormone milk was the same as NON rbGH milk. The court clearly stated 3 reasons the milks were different and ruled against Monsanto & the FDA. When you get right down to it, it's all about PROFIT and SHAREHOLDER VALUE, not your health. The same thing happened with the tobacco industry that is now incredibly prevalent with so many medical issues today. 100 years the pharmaceutical industry have been telling us they are looking for cancer cures. The best they have come up with is chemotherapy that only 2.1% survive after 5 years when given this very bad science. Ask yourself, "What disease has ANY pharmaceutical company cured in 100 years?" NONE is the answer.
Since a great amount of evidence suggests that Western medicine's over specialization and singular focus on pathology has literally obfuscated its perception and undermined its faith in the preventive and restorative power of the normal requisites of health. To a great extent it thus remains as an inexact and ever shifting system of trial and error, apparently more interested in maintaining its monopolistic pecuniary interests and professional pride, than in opening itself to new avenues of thinking and practice. With all seriousness then we must raise the question as to whether we can realistically expect the self-same medico-industrial system that has for so long offered humankind little more than palliative and pathological inducing vaccines and drugs, to offer us anything better.
good luck to you -- great question
travelingkitkat
Yes, that is true. Partly because many of the people in upper-level positions were tobacco company executives (including the head of the ACS and the Surgeon General at one point) and therefore did not want to lose money by publicizing the link between tobacco and smoking. You must also bear in mind that for a scientific theory to be proven, often it takes decades of research. So, there was also debate because there was not enough solid evidence yet.
well wisher
Smoking tobacco and Health ,this issue is there since old days.
In old age It was a status symbol and side effects were not exposed.
Today we know them and issue is being debated.
That is what exactly we all are doing here as well.
I think it is not right to say that side effect data was not disclosed.
Heidi N
You are absolutely correct. But, today, we have the Internet to give us direct access to the scientists, research, personal stories, etc. It's so amazing. I recovered my children from autism by learning stuff on this Internet, after unsuccessfully spending 9 years doing what mainstream medical said to do.
Orignal From: Was there a debate link between smoking tobacco & health problems i.e lung cancer back in the old days?
No comments:
Post a Comment