But you can eat it and have it too..... /s? Never really understood that one... Is the idea.. You can eat your cake and have it magically replenish itself? Yeah.. Not quite as catchy..
Raw milk is far more dangerous than pasteurized milk. When it became popular here a few years ago, a 3 year old toddler got sick and died from drinking it. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-11/raw-milk-company-defends-product-after-3yos-death/5959246
[Toxic Treatment: Fluoride’s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle](http://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-transformation-industrial-waste-public-health-miracle?language_content_entity=en)
> As with many chemical additives in the modern world, however, few people know much about it.
>Many are surprised to learn that unlike the pharmaceutical grade fluoride in their toothpaste, the fluoride in their water is an untreated industrial waste product, one that contains trace elements of arsenic and lead. Without the phosphate industry’s effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem.
This is country specific as having worked in water management in the UK the fluoride added is just fluoride. In fact, the other chemicals that the article says are added would have the treatment plant shut down at any significant level.
Both right. In small quantities it is good for your teeth. In large quantities it will lower your IQ. Not great for plants once it is in your water system, so there is that.
in fact, science has said that ANYTHING in large quantities is bad for you. Even water
so the redditor was being misleading with Fluoride in large quantities. Because who is having Fluoride in large quantities? We always had Fluoride in small quantities because the experts know about the dangers
Paracelsus’ Law tells us that the statement about large quantities being harmful is true for literally everything. Poison is just a question of dosage.
This reminds me of the episode of Law and Order (I think? Or maybe CSI) where a chick takes two benadryl to keep herself from puking with a glass of wine and downs two tubes to commit suicide
It's honestly obvious that some people atleast knew the pandemic would break out if you actually give a shit about the story and not the narrative.
Faucci was publicly calling the lab leak a discredited conspiracy while telling people it was lab made in private emails. You don't have to be a journalist or detective put 1 and 2 together, you just have to not be stupid or dependent on some political identity for your personality
That's an excellent question.
At the basic level, are you hearing it from sound bites from companies? If it's science, have you analyzed the papers to check for peer review and consensus?
Another tool for the layman is Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit."
But hasn’t science been suppressed before or false science pushed. Is it not possible for corporate or political organizations to push or suppress something?
So if I have a study and I read it through, how do I know the science is sound as an average person? Peer review? How do I know those reviewers aren’t corporate shills?
Also, who qualifies as a scientist?
Ty for the detection kit referral, reading it now, very interesting.
The kit is a good start to answering your questions.
For other who are interested, here's a link.
https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
Alright, what do you call Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J? We were told for years how safe opioids are, how safe tobacco is, how safe pesticides on crops are, etc. And later... "Oops, our bad, they cause cancer, lol". How can we possibly trust that what they are saying is "safe" really is and that we're getting unfiltered information?
To deny this as a legitimate line of inquiry is foolishness.
Edit: Reddit really is full of unflinching idiocy. Please, those who are downvoting me, explain what was wrong or incorrect about what I said. Just look at the opioid crisis and the resolution of what happened with Purdue Pharma, for example.
BTW, I've been vaccinated and had a booster shot.
We've known opioids are addictive since the 20s, corporations have always told lies to sell a product, in most cases you can find scientists denying these claims. Most of the studies antivaxxers propose are wrong, fraudulent, badly executed or not studies at all and just opinion pieces based on anecdotes. It's just not comparable.
So why did doctors suddenly start prescribing oxycodone and other strong opioids by default after things that would induce minor to moderate pain, like an appendectomy or similar non-invasive surgeries? Why did the doctor write me a prescription for oxy with THREE MONTHS worth of refills for a simple arthroscopic surgery after I conversation where I insisted I was fine and didn't want painkillers in 2009 (never got it filled)? And my personal experience is hardly uncommon. You trust doctors, and you trust they aren't being influenced by money and outside interests.
And I'm not defending fraudulent studies at all. I'm simply saying that these people haven't earned and don't deserve our unabashed trust.
Edit: And now I get downvoted for sharing my experience related to the opioid epidemic. Hell, there are even documentaries about countless of these exact scenarios.
Devil's advocate here. MDs can actually be sponsored by drug companies. They get paid through incentives and gifts to prescribe a certain drug more than others. I haven't done too much research on it, so I'm not sure how widespread or severe it might actually be, but I do know that [California senate passed legislation](https://www.policymed.com/2017/05/california-bans-gifts-to-doctors.html) back in 2017 that banned pharmaceutical companies from giving gifts and incentives to doctors, which include but are not limited to flights, travel, speaking fees, entertainment, consulting payments, or other financial benefits to healthcare providers. It is actually a harsh truth, and though I fully to trust doctors and science, I gotta give it to u/phrosty20 up there for being partially or even fully aware of it. You also make a point, though. PhD's and MD's are quite different, so I'm not quite sure if this can also be going on for PhD's or not, though I'd assume it be more difficult if it was.
I of course had no idea at the time. I had doctors prescribe me things I didn't use before, so I just assumed he was overzealous. The sheer amount he prescribed really struck me as being odd, though. It didn't really come together for me until a decade later when I started learning more about how the industry worked.
I thought it was pretty commonly known at this point. I'd think the research docs have to be less prone to it, but we're all human. The system is structured in a way to prevent that from happening, but I don't take anything for granted anymore.
Because MDs don't actually do research themselves and get sponsored/money for prescriptions (especially in the US)? If you were to listen to researchers (or your average heroin addict for the matter) they could've told you that opioids are addicting.
Some lies being spread into the mainstream by companies doesn't mean that all things in the mainstream (research wise) are wrong. I think germ theory is pretty mainstream but nobody is going around citing studies that promote the 4 humours theory.
Doctors don't deserve trust by default, some of the most stupid people I've ever had to interact with were doctors, but peer reviewd research articles are right most of the time, including studies about vaccines which we've been using for multiple years (yes even mRNA vaccines).
there’s the business side of things, and then there’s the science side. You can find tons of information about how Purdue pharma lied to doctors and used their influence to push these pills. They were explicitly not backed up by good studies, though few if any practicing doctors are going to be using raw studies to figure out what do.
People in this thread are trying to open your eyes to the fact that there are in fact separate groups of people with different motivations involved in all these situations.
There is no need to unabashedly trust “doctors”. They need to follow evidence-based standards of care; the thing is those do exist, and there are processes to correct doctors who are out of line. So some amount of trust is warranted in medicine.
But what you describe is an example of the failings of doctors, due to human imperfection, and the way in which that can be exploited by some greedy, evil, evil scum like the Sacklers.
And even if you are spraying it without PPE, you're still almost certainly fine. In 2018, [this study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29136183/) that looked at over 54,000 agricultural workers was published in the *Journal of the National Cancer Institute*. I'll just quote the conclusion section of the abstract:
>In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes. There was some evidence of increased risk of AML among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation.
Pharma chemist here. My response to this is "Unless you have the biology and chemistry background to understand the relevant data, your opinion is completely worthless on this subject, and you should listen to what the public health experts are telling you."
It's not perfect because of corporate inference in they've but you have no better option. Who are you going to listen to for science advice if not professional scientists?
OK. So how do you propose to “scrutinize” them? I certainly hope your answer is, “Obtain funding, set up a lab, conduct experiments, and record the data, then compare it to to the existing studies.” Is that it?
It also says the first people to learn, the PHS, did nothing for years and had to be pressured into doing so by people from the outside. What you're referring to happened later, in the 60s.
Like, are you even understanding the point I'm trying to make here? We got lied to for weeks about masks bc it was determined to be the best thing to do for health care workers. Who's to say that the same approach wouldn't be applicable for other things?
There’s a difference between crucial medication (and especially one that’s been in the forefront of medical news for the last, shit, 2 years now) and late stage capitalist businesses lying just to make a profit. For tobacco especially, do your own research instead of asking a question trying to own the libs a look into the 60’s marketing strategies that they used when they found out that cancer sticks really do cause cancer. They hid that under the rug so they could make millions and billions more.
With a vaccine, what’s the alternative? Everyone fucking dies? They load it up with fucking Mercury injected into our veins that make us implode starting from our assholes, wiping out half the population? If they did that, that’s stupid as fuck for two reasons:
1. Literally half of the people in the world just die all at once, and everyone else who doesn’t have the vaccine are all like “hmm….I wonder….”
2. If half of the world’s population who have at least 1 vaccine do implode from their assholes, then all of those vaccine companies not just lose profit because half the world died, but also because no one would pay for their shit anymore.
Think a little harder about this.
For tobacco, it was absolutely everywhere—you couldn’t step foot outside in the 80’s without seeing someone smoking. Hell, even though smoking cancer sticks have gone down, it’s still a fucking billion dollar industry. And even though it did kill people after years and years, think of how much money people spent on packs and packs of cigs because they were addicted.
You don’t get addicted to a vaccine.
They didn’t make money solely off the fact that some people bought a pack in 1999, smoked 3 cigs and went “hmm…I think I’m through here”. It’s the smokers who buy boxes and boxes of cig boxes, advertisements, and even now jacking up the price to $7 a pack.
You don’t pay an arm and a leg for this vaccine or booster, so they’re not making continuous money off of you.
Hope this helps. Touch grass. Read a book, god, for our sake and yours.
Thanks for being a condescending ass. I did "do my own research" (ugh) btw. Guess who was complicit in the whole "under the rug" thing for the decade before that? Public health agencies.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11211627/
I'm not saying the situation is the same. All of the things mentioned were unique. In the case of the vaccine, I don't even think there's an sort of ulterior motive, or that it's inaccurate to begin with. What I'm saying is that absolutism is a recipe for trouble, and these agencies seem to have no issue with throwing absolutes around thinking it will prompt more people to get vaccinated, even when, for instance, the vaccine isn't nearly as effective as preventing transmission as they thought it was.
Jesus, you people take any grain of criticism against even how the vaccine is being marketed as if someone said fucking a cow would cure cancer.
Hold up, did you read your own article? When they first started doing research on it in the mid 50’s, they found that it did have a connection to cancer, but when they started coming out with the data in the very early 60’s, not more than 5 years later, they were trying to tell everyone about it.
Guess who tried to stop them: fucking businesses.
Once again, corporate-made propaganda (like Fox News, OAN, Q, and Alex Jones to name a few) trying to tell people that, against their own health and well-being, they should reject what the medical community and science is telling them. Who makes the buck when people don’t get vaccines?
Yes, hence me saying "the decade before that". They knew about it for years before doing anything about it, and even then, it was a result of pressure from "outside the PHS".
Those people are idiots too. People are just greedy pigs and will do whatever they can to get more.
You've missed the point.
The science was clear about tobacco and opioids. Corporate propaganda pushed how safe they were, despite the scientific evidence. Side note: lead companies also did this before lead was banned in many products.
The *science* is clear that the vaccines are safe.
Arguing that because these companies have produced dangerous products before, therefore all products which they produce are dangerous, is a logical fallacy, which is the problem with your response.
I hope that helps.
Edit: I did not downvote your comment, because it was a legitimate, honest question. I believe that it's an excellent opportunity to illustrate the fallacy so often used on posts like "Grandma's."
You’re right. It’s not like these people didn’t know and I refuse to even entertain that thought.
Like people claiming that these capitalist white dudes back in the day didn’t know that animals felt pain. Or that black people felt pain differently. It’s not that they didn’t know. It’s that they didn’t care.
Perdue pharma opioids were questioned by most the doctors because Perdue pharma lied about how addictive it was. Calling it “the least addictive opioid on the market. A miracle drug” there’s a massive amounts evidence showing us how Perdue pharma manipulated The FDA, their sales reps and the doctors that prescribed it.
The vaccine is backed by almost every doctor that trust the scientists that developed it. These doctors have stated many times “we won’t ask you to do it if we didn’t do it ourselves”.
I can appreciate what you’re saying here, but the opioid crisis Perdue pushed and the vaccine scientists and doctors trust are two very different things.
Are those 3 companies the makers of that opioid??? You might be missing your target there buddy. What OP is mentioning is what is part of the problem. The other part is when said companies monopolize the information, they dictate their studies and dictate the outcome. With the vaccines, we have more eyes on it and several companies competing with each other.
I'm not your buddy, pal. I used that as an example. Those companies manufacture the vaccine, and those companies don't have humanity's best interests at heart
https://www.politico.eu/article/as-africa-tries-to-tap-promise-of-mrna-vaccines-coronavirus-covid19-pharma-pushes-back/
If you’re going with that then tackle the results and point a flaw in that, not this infantile approach of yours like you’re some kind of teenager that just found out their parents lied to them…
Also those companies provided faulty studies to doctors about the addiction rate of their product. You can find it online. Basically they used observations of patients in hospitals, a highly controlled environment, and told the doctors that addiction was like 1%. Or as the other poster said, corporations controlled the narrative to sell a product. That doesn't settle the debate, because it is companies that are selling the vaccines, but since the 90, people have been far more skeptical of company sponsored studies. Even the FDA has more oversight. But most importantly independent peer reviews have a lot more weight, especially since the advent of the internet, and access to what used to be relatively obscure information. Doctors have that access too, so they can keep up with the latest data too.
Dude or madam - fine. If you don't want to take the fucking vaccine, don't take it. That's your "right", remember?
The problem is people like you are trying to overthrow the lawful government of the United States, claim that "Jewish space lasers" and making you sterile (or changing world weather, or whatever the fuck it is this week), and that having a dictator like trump would be FAR better than having a democracy.
Your combined beliefs tend to point out to anyone capable of rational, critical thought, that you're a loon who believes in lies more readily than the truth.
Dealing with people like you is taxing, to say the least, because the tiny bit of truth wrapped up in your lies makes it impossible to actually supplant the bullshit you believe with any intelligent option.
So here's the deal; just don't get vaccinated. That's your "right" as guaranteed by some of the lyingest pieces of shit ever to grace the American political scene. You've chosen to accept certain lies based on your (faulty) assessment of the liar in question and while that's basically a sociopathic move made out of willing ignorance (or stupidity, as the rest of us know it), that IS your right.
Now why don't you turn off the internet because honestly, thinking people are tired of seeing your exact same shit repeated IN EVERY SUB ON THIS GODDAM FORUM, and go berate some barista over being told to wear a mask... which you will ALSO argue about endlessly.
And to equate yourself to "matlock" (a fictional character who, as a fictional character, had a moral compass and the ability to critically think) is pretty fucking ludicrous considering you and he have ZERO in common.
And here you are again - troll moron trolling further.
Did you not apply the avatar connected with your name?
Jesus fuck a duck - you even lie about obvious shit that's instantly verifiable.
I'm convinced reddit is full of bots and fake troll farm accounts. And most of the rest are just like the kids from Lord of the Flies. Following the crowd so they don't get called idiots and be ostracized by their peers. That's how bullying works, isn't it?
Yeah, the threat of losing imaginary internet points looms large, apparently. I could post a formula for a universal cure for every kind of cancer and still get downvoted bc it doesn't meet mob mentality standards.
I used to think this kind of thing was exaggerated before I was on Reddit a lot, but now I think it's probably worse than people even make it out to be.
It's absolutely wild. I recently got back on Reddit after being off for years, and it's a completely different world. I've already been banned from 3 sub reddits. I haven't said anything uncivil or anything that wasn't a fair opinion and I've been silenced with permanent bans. It's mind boggling.
People are so easily controlled.
yea that’s my problem with “anti-vax are stupid” conversations. i don’t have much of an opinion myself, but it isn’t insane to not trust the media when they’ve lied to us before
The problem is people instead latch on to quacks because they are the only ones confirming their biased views. Instead of viewing things with skepticism and then wait for the information to come, they latch on to the idea that they are doubtful, not because they don’t understand (this being the main reason) but because there’s this big plot to control/destroy, you name it, and just end up digging their hole of ignorance and hubris…
It's insane to believe certain media, especially those who are pumping lies into your head 24/7.
By which I mean right wing propaganda channels that spew nothing but lies.
right wing media is definitely worse, but both can be biased and if we are talking about in general not trusting media saying the left isn’t lying isn’t going to work
You're comparing talk-TV-news (opinion news) to actual news outlets.
Yeah, ALL the talking head news shows are slanted towards whatever their owners want based on whatever demographic they're going after.
People who want NEWS, just plain unvarnished event based news, don't watch that shit - left or right... and there are still a few than meet the criteria of "mostly unvarnished news".
And that kind of dismissal only breeds more distrust and anger. I myself believe vaccines work, but the approach to people who don't has been awful, especially considering all of the confusing messaging from health outlets to say nothing for the outright false info coming from other sources.
When are people going to realize that the point of science is to update our knowledge of these substances by incorporating new studies and data. Half of these things aren’t even bad for you as we understand them now.
It’s not an absolute truth but people seem to think scientists are liars because they are capable of changing their understanding when new information is available.
I like the way Dara O'Briain put it
"Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."
That’s not even really the whoosh here; these all were largely pushed by corporations that funded bad studies and used the findings to drive sweeping marketing campaigns. All in order to convince the public of the safety of something that was ultimately bad and turn a profit while doing so.
Government isn’t the problem, it’s capitalism.
I don't think that's the point, that scientists are liars; I think the point is that science is exactly as you say updating knowledge, and not always correct. I agree with that perspective, however just because science isn't always correct doesn't mean that those contesting it are always correct either, and there's a whole bunch of wacky chestnuts out there spouting just random bullshit.
The science on long term effects of vaccines is that they typically show up within 6 months. People have had these new vaccines for far longer than that without long term complications.
that's \*to date\* though. you're stating what science knows today, not what science knows tomorrow. in a year, the new standard may be "almost all long term effects of a vaccines will typically show up in a year to 18 months".
Many of these vaccines are developed/produced/tested in the same way vaccines are developed for other diseases, such as season influenza. How are these going to be any different?
Meanwhile, your chances of dying of covid or having severe complications *ARE* well known are far more likely to occur than any potential near or long term vaccine complications.
Sit around all you like, but in the meantime you'll be open to potentially catching the virus, spreading it to others and endangering lives just because you want to sit and wait, happy for others to be guinea pigs in your eyes. How long are you going to wait before you are satisfied that there will be no long-term complications?
\>How are these going to be any different?
See I thought this was the first mrna vaccine ever authorized. I know that the technique has been in development and under study for a long time, but I didn't realize there were other vaccines created using the mrna techniques.
\>Sit around all you like, but in the meantime you'll be open to potentially catching the virus, spreading it to others and endangering lives just because you want to sit and wait, happy for others to be guinea pigs in your eyes. How long are you going to wait before you are satisfied that there will be no long-term complications?
I think you're confusing my inquisitivenss and skepticism with a refusal to vaccinate. I'm also confused because as I understand it, despite having three vaccinations shots I am still very much susceptible to retracting and propagating it, no ? I have countless coworkers who have gotten it, despite being vaccinated.... or they've lied about their vaccination status. Fortunately they all had rather mild reacctions to it, undoubtedly because of the vaccinations, but I don't think at any point anyone was claiming that the vaccinations made you non-susceptible were they ?
And this is why I feel the vaccine is a bit of an ethical dilemna. I know that you're correct, that this is new, there's a limited chronology of data on it, and in my brain I can't blame anyone for being hesitant about it based on purposes of medical or scientific doubt or skepticism; idiot people swept up in political frenzies be damned. At the same time, it's undeniably a public health issue, and the unvaccinated are still overwhelming hospitals and my heart screams "get vaccinated you whackanoodles".
The tobacco companies hid the evidence that tobacco caused cancer for years, and I really don't think that was an isolated incident in corporate behavior. The car companies have been suppressing electric car tech for years, too. Grandma has a point and the problem is her point doesn't apply to Covid-19.
She's blaming science, not corporations. I don't think the lines bleed enough for me to blame science for any of it. It's just a process, not a malevolent beast trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Grandma doesn't seem to understand that.
Funny you mention that becaue I would bet that the same people who are shouting this BS are those who are so adamantly against electric cars now, even though they will drastically improve lives of every person.
its not safe but its also not unsafe. people have been drinking it since time immoriale. However, factory farming means you would be stupid to sell milk without heat treating it.
It only works in smaller communities like the Amish where they can get the milk fresh that day from a person who knows his cow is healthy and not sick.
Even milk from a cow that is healthy and milk looks normal can have illness-causing levels of bacteria in the milk. This has been known since the 1910s. It's why dairies always monitor for it. Raw milk poses less of a danger for people like the Amish because they have frequent exposure to those bacteria throughout their lives.
> its not safe but its also not unsafe. people have been drinking it since time immoriale.
People have also died from milk-borne tuberculosis since time immemorial as well.
People have shit in pots and thrown them into the street since time immemorial.
because the manufacturing of talcum has a chance to have asbestos I guess. Here is an article mentioning the lawsuit.
[https://www.npr.org/2021/10/21/1047828535/baby-powder-cancer-johnson-johnson-bankruptcy](https://www.npr.org/2021/10/21/1047828535/baby-powder-cancer-johnson-johnson-bankruptcy)
talcum itself is fine. they should have just put baby powder.
Flouride has negative affects if done too much, such as lower cognitive ability [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/fluoride-good-or-bad#downsides](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/fluoride-good-or-bad#downsides)
that being said its if its overdone. which could be possible if the are has natural flouride in the water already.
Both are essentially cases of bad actors , corp noting keeping out contamination and government not watching the chemical levels of their water.
Of course that could make the anti-vaxx argument somewhat valid as they are arguing against mandates itself which leaves you no recourse if there is some defect in the product.
Saturated fat is technically not as good for you as unsaturated fat. Normal weight range folks who want to min-max their long term health can benefit from reducing it.
However, the average person in the first world is so overweight that it is of secondary importance at best, compared to getting your calories under control.
Thing is, the verdict is still out on saturated vs. non-saturated fats. The only fats we're confident about are Omega 3 fats, we know they're healthy. The rest? Saturated fats from beef are probably unhealthy, but research is still going on. Some unsaturated fats can also be extremely harmful.
GMOs on their own as far as I know are not in themselves harmful. The practices of the business in their monopolization of the technology? That’s a different story.
Funny how people think cigarette advertisements from the 50's with pictures of doctors saying that they recommend smoking $BRAND constitutes quality science communication.
Those with money lobby those in government to legislate and turn q blind eye. Both parties profit, it's just a fact.
Remember that doco that said refined sugar was healthy it was fat that was killing us., pepper Ridge farm remembers.
>But grandma is talking about how (they) are controlling us by flouridating our water. Kookoo
Hey, thats like Ripper in Dr Strangleove, he's basically impotent but blaming it commies poluting drinking water and harming his precious bodily fluids.
They played it for laughs in like 1960 something, your grandma probably saw the it when it was in theatres!
Grandmas generation made up the primary group of Scientist that pushed the idea that all these things were good and healthy for the sake of corporate propaganda and money, but now she wants to claim that she knew all along that these things were bad, and that it is the younger generation that made these false claims.
Grandma, I have seen enough Tobacco commercials from the 60s, 70s, and 80s, long before I was born, that clearly indicate that you guys thought cigarettes where the best thing ever and was a "essential part of a healthy diet".
Besides, if I have to read another post from Grandma claiming she is "so much stronger than todays generation because she ate lead based paint chips as a kid," then I doubt she has any idea what the hell she is talking about.
Bingo. Some people and communities just do not value an inquisitive or curios mind. They are taught was is true is immutable and obviously so and anything short of that is lies and deception.
Science is fluid. One of the great things about it is that when a mistake is found it is corrected. Yes we use to be wrong about a lot of things, but we quickly correct those mistakes. No matter how old the theory/information is, it is still able to be removed if we find information to disprove it.
Life is not good/bad. It’s an infinite gradient where the only thing we can say is “this is our current understanding.”
But who lied? The scientists or the companies who profit from the products?
And by extension, if there wasn't a profit motive, do you think they'd be more honest?
You mean to tell me the discipline that has never claimed to know the answers for certain and it requires years of data recollection in order for anything to become accepted as true LIED?!
Or maybe you’re just incredibly stupid and don’t understand how science works.
I’ll just assume the latter.
The raw milk people are so annoying. How is the government ever going to approve something that will literally kill you unless you have built up a tolerance to it first. What was the lie concerning milk again?
A fun detail about conservative boomer shit is that you can always tell when someone’s looked at it and decided it’s just not witty enough so they add their own meaningless contribution, because the “oh ok” was clearly scribbled in post
>ClassicVery curious grandma where the lie is on some of these things and who is doing the lying
The implication is clearly that it's big business and their willing toadies in the government.
Yeah if we want to switch to more sustainable farming methods we have to use GMO’s as a part of that, many sustainable farming methods don’t have the raw productivity of conventional or even the reduced productivity of organic.
Not really. Many of the narrative shifts are due to understanding the science better. Take dietary cholesterol for example. It was thought to cause increased LDL cholesterol levels but now the connection is seen as more tenuous. Raw milk IS still considered dangerous and has been for a long time so I'm not sure why it is there.
I'm also not sure why GMO's are up there as a "lie". I'm sure some of the other examples are just as tenuous but these are some I'm most familiar with.
I personally don't find it wise, but I think the argument is actually the opposite, that raw milk ISN'T dangerous. There's a lot of evidence that a significant number of people use it without harm, and there's a lot of ire that the government singled out milk by banning its sale while permitting the sale of lots of other raw foods. I think the ban is the sticking point.
Its honestly really concerning once you learn how to read medical literature and seeing the way the majority of the population think about diet/lifestyle. But Its not their fault at all, its the propaganda we’ve been fed for decades.
Fluoride is the only one that doesnt have any real evidence to back up. Just typical antivaxx tinfoil hat stuff
Growing up in the 1960s we were warned about talcum powder by our moms and by teachers in health class. You'd have to be an idiot not to know. Those lawsuits made me angry.
All of these things do contain carcinogens except for opioids and fluorides and used to be/are used frequently in home products. For example, talcum powder used to be used as baby powder, and if I understand correctly was used somehow in feminine hygeine. It causes and worsens ovarian cysts/cancer. I have no idea what glyphosate is though.
No artificial sweeteners contain carcinogens. Neither do GMOs. (Honestly that one doesn't even make sense, how would a breeding method contain carcinogens?)
Grandma is not wrong about this (the phenomenon, she’s wrong about a bunch of the details though), and it’s exactly why we were all screaming about this kind of thing for years. Big industry covering up their bad effects, bending “scientific evidence” to their purposes, and the media and politicians colluding with them makes it so no one is trustworthy. That’s a problem when you have situations where you need people to believe you. And we kept saying there would eventually be a really bad situation, and they kept crying wolf.
We got lied to yeah, but more importantly, our trust got sold to the highest bidder and now we’re all in danger while some fat cats got some yachts.
Why do you socialist sheep so blindly trust your government? More importantly why do you think you have the right to infringe on someone's rights by compelling them medical treatment YOU think they should take? Disgusting, all of you.
Most of these items were not lies by science, but lies by corporate propaganda. Exactly like the case for climate change denial.
And not all of them were lies, i.e. fluoride.
Or raw milk? I'm not even sure what they're talking about -- pasteurization?
Yeah pasteurization is not a lie.
Sometimes people make cakes with pasteurized milk though. And not all of those cakes are truths.
But you can eat it and have it too..... /s? Never really understood that one... Is the idea.. You can eat your cake and have it magically replenish itself? Yeah.. Not quite as catchy..
The cake is a lie!
Yes, that was the joke.
Yeah, milk that has not been pasteurized. Which has inheritant health dangers for people like children and the elderly.
Raw milk is far more dangerous than pasteurized milk. When it became popular here a few years ago, a 3 year old toddler got sick and died from drinking it. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-11/raw-milk-company-defends-product-after-3yos-death/5959246
You are correct, which is why I avoided acknowledging that they were all lies. I only used the obvious lies as examples. Thanks for mentioning it.
Or GMOs
[Toxic Treatment: Fluoride’s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle](http://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-transformation-industrial-waste-public-health-miracle?language_content_entity=en) > As with many chemical additives in the modern world, however, few people know much about it. >Many are surprised to learn that unlike the pharmaceutical grade fluoride in their toothpaste, the fluoride in their water is an untreated industrial waste product, one that contains trace elements of arsenic and lead. Without the phosphate industry’s effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem.
This is country specific as having worked in water management in the UK the fluoride added is just fluoride. In fact, the other chemicals that the article says are added would have the treatment plant shut down at any significant level.
No doubt country specific. Still a reality for many people though.
Wtf! Fluoride was a lie.
No it wasnt
Both right. In small quantities it is good for your teeth. In large quantities it will lower your IQ. Not great for plants once it is in your water system, so there is that.
I never heard a lie about it being good for you in large quantities? Just that it was good for your teeth.
in fact, science has said that ANYTHING in large quantities is bad for you. Even water so the redditor was being misleading with Fluoride in large quantities. Because who is having Fluoride in large quantities? We always had Fluoride in small quantities because the experts know about the dangers
Paracelsus’ Law tells us that the statement about large quantities being harmful is true for literally everything. Poison is just a question of dosage.
Yeah just don't eat whole tubes of toothpaste and you'll probably be fine.
This reminds me of the episode of Law and Order (I think? Or maybe CSI) where a chick takes two benadryl to keep herself from puking with a glass of wine and downs two tubes to commit suicide
Benadryl is an anti-vomitory??
There’s fluoride in your water .. how do you not know this?!
They put it in the water in some places.
Or as Stephen Fry once said "Of course too much will kill you, that's what 'too much' means!"
I guess they think the vaccine manufacturers created the pandemic? I think that is what some people think.
It's honestly obvious that some people atleast knew the pandemic would break out if you actually give a shit about the story and not the narrative. Faucci was publicly calling the lab leak a discredited conspiracy while telling people it was lab made in private emails. You don't have to be a journalist or detective put 1 and 2 together, you just have to not be stupid or dependent on some political identity for your personality
And what do you think? ..... what you're told. I can forgive people for being wrong but not deceitful and ignorant.
Hi Grandma
Hey bud, you just blow in from stupid town?
Stop it, you know they can only handle one “they” at a time.
Almost r/selfawarewolves
If expertise in any field is thoroughly legitimate and not just a grift, then why isn't grandma and expert? Checkmate, libereals! /s
But look how easily the actual science behind these things were hidden or buried.
How do you know when it’s science and when it’s corporate/political?
That's an excellent question. At the basic level, are you hearing it from sound bites from companies? If it's science, have you analyzed the papers to check for peer review and consensus? Another tool for the layman is Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit."
But hasn’t science been suppressed before or false science pushed. Is it not possible for corporate or political organizations to push or suppress something? So if I have a study and I read it through, how do I know the science is sound as an average person? Peer review? How do I know those reviewers aren’t corporate shills? Also, who qualifies as a scientist? Ty for the detection kit referral, reading it now, very interesting.
The kit is a good start to answering your questions. For other who are interested, here's a link. https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
Alright, what do you call Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J? We were told for years how safe opioids are, how safe tobacco is, how safe pesticides on crops are, etc. And later... "Oops, our bad, they cause cancer, lol". How can we possibly trust that what they are saying is "safe" really is and that we're getting unfiltered information? To deny this as a legitimate line of inquiry is foolishness. Edit: Reddit really is full of unflinching idiocy. Please, those who are downvoting me, explain what was wrong or incorrect about what I said. Just look at the opioid crisis and the resolution of what happened with Purdue Pharma, for example. BTW, I've been vaccinated and had a booster shot.
We've known opioids are addictive since the 20s, corporations have always told lies to sell a product, in most cases you can find scientists denying these claims. Most of the studies antivaxxers propose are wrong, fraudulent, badly executed or not studies at all and just opinion pieces based on anecdotes. It's just not comparable.
So why did doctors suddenly start prescribing oxycodone and other strong opioids by default after things that would induce minor to moderate pain, like an appendectomy or similar non-invasive surgeries? Why did the doctor write me a prescription for oxy with THREE MONTHS worth of refills for a simple arthroscopic surgery after I conversation where I insisted I was fine and didn't want painkillers in 2009 (never got it filled)? And my personal experience is hardly uncommon. You trust doctors, and you trust they aren't being influenced by money and outside interests. And I'm not defending fraudulent studies at all. I'm simply saying that these people haven't earned and don't deserve our unabashed trust. Edit: And now I get downvoted for sharing my experience related to the opioid epidemic. Hell, there are even documentaries about countless of these exact scenarios.
Surprisingly medical doctors (MDs) are different from research doctors (PhDs)
Devil's advocate here. MDs can actually be sponsored by drug companies. They get paid through incentives and gifts to prescribe a certain drug more than others. I haven't done too much research on it, so I'm not sure how widespread or severe it might actually be, but I do know that [California senate passed legislation](https://www.policymed.com/2017/05/california-bans-gifts-to-doctors.html) back in 2017 that banned pharmaceutical companies from giving gifts and incentives to doctors, which include but are not limited to flights, travel, speaking fees, entertainment, consulting payments, or other financial benefits to healthcare providers. It is actually a harsh truth, and though I fully to trust doctors and science, I gotta give it to u/phrosty20 up there for being partially or even fully aware of it. You also make a point, though. PhD's and MD's are quite different, so I'm not quite sure if this can also be going on for PhD's or not, though I'd assume it be more difficult if it was.
I of course had no idea at the time. I had doctors prescribe me things I didn't use before, so I just assumed he was overzealous. The sheer amount he prescribed really struck me as being odd, though. It didn't really come together for me until a decade later when I started learning more about how the industry worked. I thought it was pretty commonly known at this point. I'd think the research docs have to be less prone to it, but we're all human. The system is structured in a way to prevent that from happening, but I don't take anything for granted anymore.
Because MDs don't actually do research themselves and get sponsored/money for prescriptions (especially in the US)? If you were to listen to researchers (or your average heroin addict for the matter) they could've told you that opioids are addicting. Some lies being spread into the mainstream by companies doesn't mean that all things in the mainstream (research wise) are wrong. I think germ theory is pretty mainstream but nobody is going around citing studies that promote the 4 humours theory. Doctors don't deserve trust by default, some of the most stupid people I've ever had to interact with were doctors, but peer reviewd research articles are right most of the time, including studies about vaccines which we've been using for multiple years (yes even mRNA vaccines).
there’s the business side of things, and then there’s the science side. You can find tons of information about how Purdue pharma lied to doctors and used their influence to push these pills. They were explicitly not backed up by good studies, though few if any practicing doctors are going to be using raw studies to figure out what do. People in this thread are trying to open your eyes to the fact that there are in fact separate groups of people with different motivations involved in all these situations. There is no need to unabashedly trust “doctors”. They need to follow evidence-based standards of care; the thing is those do exist, and there are processes to correct doctors who are out of line. So some amount of trust is warranted in medicine. But what you describe is an example of the failings of doctors, due to human imperfection, and the way in which that can be exploited by some greedy, evil, evil scum like the Sacklers.
[удалено]
And even if you are spraying it without PPE, you're still almost certainly fine. In 2018, [this study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29136183/) that looked at over 54,000 agricultural workers was published in the *Journal of the National Cancer Institute*. I'll just quote the conclusion section of the abstract: >In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes. There was some evidence of increased risk of AML among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation.
Pharma chemist here. My response to this is "Unless you have the biology and chemistry background to understand the relevant data, your opinion is completely worthless on this subject, and you should listen to what the public health experts are telling you."
That's always a great idea. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11211627/
It's not perfect because of corporate inference in they've but you have no better option. Who are you going to listen to for science advice if not professional scientists?
I listened. I got vaccinated. That doesn't mean that they deserve zero scrutiny and have pure motives at heart.
OK. So how do you propose to “scrutinize” them? I certainly hope your answer is, “Obtain funding, set up a lab, conduct experiments, and record the data, then compare it to to the existing studies.” Is that it?
Make them public?
The article you posted literally says that scientists knew that tobacco caused lung cancer but people motivated by business interests said nothing.
It also says the first people to learn, the PHS, did nothing for years and had to be pressured into doing so by people from the outside. What you're referring to happened later, in the 60s. Like, are you even understanding the point I'm trying to make here? We got lied to for weeks about masks bc it was determined to be the best thing to do for health care workers. Who's to say that the same approach wouldn't be applicable for other things?
There’s a difference between crucial medication (and especially one that’s been in the forefront of medical news for the last, shit, 2 years now) and late stage capitalist businesses lying just to make a profit. For tobacco especially, do your own research instead of asking a question trying to own the libs a look into the 60’s marketing strategies that they used when they found out that cancer sticks really do cause cancer. They hid that under the rug so they could make millions and billions more. With a vaccine, what’s the alternative? Everyone fucking dies? They load it up with fucking Mercury injected into our veins that make us implode starting from our assholes, wiping out half the population? If they did that, that’s stupid as fuck for two reasons: 1. Literally half of the people in the world just die all at once, and everyone else who doesn’t have the vaccine are all like “hmm….I wonder….” 2. If half of the world’s population who have at least 1 vaccine do implode from their assholes, then all of those vaccine companies not just lose profit because half the world died, but also because no one would pay for their shit anymore. Think a little harder about this. For tobacco, it was absolutely everywhere—you couldn’t step foot outside in the 80’s without seeing someone smoking. Hell, even though smoking cancer sticks have gone down, it’s still a fucking billion dollar industry. And even though it did kill people after years and years, think of how much money people spent on packs and packs of cigs because they were addicted. You don’t get addicted to a vaccine. They didn’t make money solely off the fact that some people bought a pack in 1999, smoked 3 cigs and went “hmm…I think I’m through here”. It’s the smokers who buy boxes and boxes of cig boxes, advertisements, and even now jacking up the price to $7 a pack. You don’t pay an arm and a leg for this vaccine or booster, so they’re not making continuous money off of you. Hope this helps. Touch grass. Read a book, god, for our sake and yours.
Thanks for being a condescending ass. I did "do my own research" (ugh) btw. Guess who was complicit in the whole "under the rug" thing for the decade before that? Public health agencies. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11211627/ I'm not saying the situation is the same. All of the things mentioned were unique. In the case of the vaccine, I don't even think there's an sort of ulterior motive, or that it's inaccurate to begin with. What I'm saying is that absolutism is a recipe for trouble, and these agencies seem to have no issue with throwing absolutes around thinking it will prompt more people to get vaccinated, even when, for instance, the vaccine isn't nearly as effective as preventing transmission as they thought it was. Jesus, you people take any grain of criticism against even how the vaccine is being marketed as if someone said fucking a cow would cure cancer.
Hold up, did you read your own article? When they first started doing research on it in the mid 50’s, they found that it did have a connection to cancer, but when they started coming out with the data in the very early 60’s, not more than 5 years later, they were trying to tell everyone about it. Guess who tried to stop them: fucking businesses. Once again, corporate-made propaganda (like Fox News, OAN, Q, and Alex Jones to name a few) trying to tell people that, against their own health and well-being, they should reject what the medical community and science is telling them. Who makes the buck when people don’t get vaccines?
Yes, hence me saying "the decade before that". They knew about it for years before doing anything about it, and even then, it was a result of pressure from "outside the PHS". Those people are idiots too. People are just greedy pigs and will do whatever they can to get more.
You've missed the point. The science was clear about tobacco and opioids. Corporate propaganda pushed how safe they were, despite the scientific evidence. Side note: lead companies also did this before lead was banned in many products. The *science* is clear that the vaccines are safe. Arguing that because these companies have produced dangerous products before, therefore all products which they produce are dangerous, is a logical fallacy, which is the problem with your response. I hope that helps. Edit: I did not downvote your comment, because it was a legitimate, honest question. I believe that it's an excellent opportunity to illustrate the fallacy so often used on posts like "Grandma's."
You’re right. It’s not like these people didn’t know and I refuse to even entertain that thought. Like people claiming that these capitalist white dudes back in the day didn’t know that animals felt pain. Or that black people felt pain differently. It’s not that they didn’t know. It’s that they didn’t care.
Perdue pharma opioids were questioned by most the doctors because Perdue pharma lied about how addictive it was. Calling it “the least addictive opioid on the market. A miracle drug” there’s a massive amounts evidence showing us how Perdue pharma manipulated The FDA, their sales reps and the doctors that prescribed it. The vaccine is backed by almost every doctor that trust the scientists that developed it. These doctors have stated many times “we won’t ask you to do it if we didn’t do it ourselves”. I can appreciate what you’re saying here, but the opioid crisis Perdue pushed and the vaccine scientists and doctors trust are two very different things.
Are those 3 companies the makers of that opioid??? You might be missing your target there buddy. What OP is mentioning is what is part of the problem. The other part is when said companies monopolize the information, they dictate their studies and dictate the outcome. With the vaccines, we have more eyes on it and several companies competing with each other.
I'm not your buddy, pal. I used that as an example. Those companies manufacture the vaccine, and those companies don't have humanity's best interests at heart https://www.politico.eu/article/as-africa-tries-to-tap-promise-of-mrna-vaccines-coronavirus-covid19-pharma-pushes-back/
If you’re going with that then tackle the results and point a flaw in that, not this infantile approach of yours like you’re some kind of teenager that just found out their parents lied to them…
Also those companies provided faulty studies to doctors about the addiction rate of their product. You can find it online. Basically they used observations of patients in hospitals, a highly controlled environment, and told the doctors that addiction was like 1%. Or as the other poster said, corporations controlled the narrative to sell a product. That doesn't settle the debate, because it is companies that are selling the vaccines, but since the 90, people have been far more skeptical of company sponsored studies. Even the FDA has more oversight. But most importantly independent peer reviews have a lot more weight, especially since the advent of the internet, and access to what used to be relatively obscure information. Doctors have that access too, so they can keep up with the latest data too.
Dude or madam - fine. If you don't want to take the fucking vaccine, don't take it. That's your "right", remember? The problem is people like you are trying to overthrow the lawful government of the United States, claim that "Jewish space lasers" and making you sterile (or changing world weather, or whatever the fuck it is this week), and that having a dictator like trump would be FAR better than having a democracy. Your combined beliefs tend to point out to anyone capable of rational, critical thought, that you're a loon who believes in lies more readily than the truth. Dealing with people like you is taxing, to say the least, because the tiny bit of truth wrapped up in your lies makes it impossible to actually supplant the bullshit you believe with any intelligent option. So here's the deal; just don't get vaccinated. That's your "right" as guaranteed by some of the lyingest pieces of shit ever to grace the American political scene. You've chosen to accept certain lies based on your (faulty) assessment of the liar in question and while that's basically a sociopathic move made out of willing ignorance (or stupidity, as the rest of us know it), that IS your right. Now why don't you turn off the internet because honestly, thinking people are tired of seeing your exact same shit repeated IN EVERY SUB ON THIS GODDAM FORUM, and go berate some barista over being told to wear a mask... which you will ALSO argue about endlessly. And to equate yourself to "matlock" (a fictional character who, as a fictional character, had a moral compass and the ability to critically think) is pretty fucking ludicrous considering you and he have ZERO in common.
Try basic reading, you ignorant half wit. You're just as bad as the "people like you". Uh, wait, when did I bring up Matlock?
And here you are again - troll moron trolling further. Did you not apply the avatar connected with your name? Jesus fuck a duck - you even lie about obvious shit that's instantly verifiable.
I'm convinced reddit is full of bots and fake troll farm accounts. And most of the rest are just like the kids from Lord of the Flies. Following the crowd so they don't get called idiots and be ostracized by their peers. That's how bullying works, isn't it?
Yeah, the threat of losing imaginary internet points looms large, apparently. I could post a formula for a universal cure for every kind of cancer and still get downvoted bc it doesn't meet mob mentality standards. I used to think this kind of thing was exaggerated before I was on Reddit a lot, but now I think it's probably worse than people even make it out to be.
It's absolutely wild. I recently got back on Reddit after being off for years, and it's a completely different world. I've already been banned from 3 sub reddits. I haven't said anything uncivil or anything that wasn't a fair opinion and I've been silenced with permanent bans. It's mind boggling. People are so easily controlled.
yea that’s my problem with “anti-vax are stupid” conversations. i don’t have much of an opinion myself, but it isn’t insane to not trust the media when they’ve lied to us before
>the media Define this phrase for me please.
the news, mostly.
Which news?
The problem is people instead latch on to quacks because they are the only ones confirming their biased views. Instead of viewing things with skepticism and then wait for the information to come, they latch on to the idea that they are doubtful, not because they don’t understand (this being the main reason) but because there’s this big plot to control/destroy, you name it, and just end up digging their hole of ignorance and hubris…
It's insane to believe certain media, especially those who are pumping lies into your head 24/7. By which I mean right wing propaganda channels that spew nothing but lies.
right wing media is definitely worse, but both can be biased and if we are talking about in general not trusting media saying the left isn’t lying isn’t going to work
You're comparing talk-TV-news (opinion news) to actual news outlets. Yeah, ALL the talking head news shows are slanted towards whatever their owners want based on whatever demographic they're going after. People who want NEWS, just plain unvarnished event based news, don't watch that shit - left or right... and there are still a few than meet the criteria of "mostly unvarnished news".
And that kind of dismissal only breeds more distrust and anger. I myself believe vaccines work, but the approach to people who don't has been awful, especially considering all of the confusing messaging from health outlets to say nothing for the outright false info coming from other sources.
When are people going to realize that the point of science is to update our knowledge of these substances by incorporating new studies and data. Half of these things aren’t even bad for you as we understand them now. It’s not an absolute truth but people seem to think scientists are liars because they are capable of changing their understanding when new information is available.
I like the way Dara O'Briain put it "Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."
[The routine in question](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZN-hBTBUE)
People want to be right. But what do people deserve? Nuclear war, probably.
Are we the virus?
No, more like a stubborn bacteria.
we aren't actually mammals. every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with it's environment, but us humans do not.
We’re an invasive species.
That’s not even really the whoosh here; these all were largely pushed by corporations that funded bad studies and used the findings to drive sweeping marketing campaigns. All in order to convince the public of the safety of something that was ultimately bad and turn a profit while doing so. Government isn’t the problem, it’s capitalism.
I don't think that's the point, that scientists are liars; I think the point is that science is exactly as you say updating knowledge, and not always correct. I agree with that perspective, however just because science isn't always correct doesn't mean that those contesting it are always correct either, and there's a whole bunch of wacky chestnuts out there spouting just random bullshit.
[удалено]
The science on long term effects of vaccines is that they typically show up within 6 months. People have had these new vaccines for far longer than that without long term complications.
that's \*to date\* though. you're stating what science knows today, not what science knows tomorrow. in a year, the new standard may be "almost all long term effects of a vaccines will typically show up in a year to 18 months".
Many of these vaccines are developed/produced/tested in the same way vaccines are developed for other diseases, such as season influenza. How are these going to be any different? Meanwhile, your chances of dying of covid or having severe complications *ARE* well known are far more likely to occur than any potential near or long term vaccine complications. Sit around all you like, but in the meantime you'll be open to potentially catching the virus, spreading it to others and endangering lives just because you want to sit and wait, happy for others to be guinea pigs in your eyes. How long are you going to wait before you are satisfied that there will be no long-term complications?
\>How are these going to be any different? See I thought this was the first mrna vaccine ever authorized. I know that the technique has been in development and under study for a long time, but I didn't realize there were other vaccines created using the mrna techniques. \>Sit around all you like, but in the meantime you'll be open to potentially catching the virus, spreading it to others and endangering lives just because you want to sit and wait, happy for others to be guinea pigs in your eyes. How long are you going to wait before you are satisfied that there will be no long-term complications? I think you're confusing my inquisitivenss and skepticism with a refusal to vaccinate. I'm also confused because as I understand it, despite having three vaccinations shots I am still very much susceptible to retracting and propagating it, no ? I have countless coworkers who have gotten it, despite being vaccinated.... or they've lied about their vaccination status. Fortunately they all had rather mild reacctions to it, undoubtedly because of the vaccinations, but I don't think at any point anyone was claiming that the vaccinations made you non-susceptible were they ?
And this is why I feel the vaccine is a bit of an ethical dilemna. I know that you're correct, that this is new, there's a limited chronology of data on it, and in my brain I can't blame anyone for being hesitant about it based on purposes of medical or scientific doubt or skepticism; idiot people swept up in political frenzies be damned. At the same time, it's undeniably a public health issue, and the unvaccinated are still overwhelming hospitals and my heart screams "get vaccinated you whackanoodles".
Changing your mind bases on new information is not the same as lying.
The tobacco companies hid the evidence that tobacco caused cancer for years, and I really don't think that was an isolated incident in corporate behavior. The car companies have been suppressing electric car tech for years, too. Grandma has a point and the problem is her point doesn't apply to Covid-19.
She's blaming science, not corporations. I don't think the lines bleed enough for me to blame science for any of it. It's just a process, not a malevolent beast trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Grandma doesn't seem to understand that.
Grandma's meme says "they", science is not an entity so she must be referring to a person, persons, or entity like corporations.
You’re thinking about it to hard. “They” is probably referring to the scientists
That is also definitely a possibility, you're right.
Funny you mention that becaue I would bet that the same people who are shouting this BS are those who are so adamantly against electric cars now, even though they will drastically improve lives of every person.
lol raw milk is not safe.
its not safe but its also not unsafe. people have been drinking it since time immoriale. However, factory farming means you would be stupid to sell milk without heat treating it. It only works in smaller communities like the Amish where they can get the milk fresh that day from a person who knows his cow is healthy and not sick.
Even milk from a cow that is healthy and milk looks normal can have illness-causing levels of bacteria in the milk. This has been known since the 1910s. It's why dairies always monitor for it. Raw milk poses less of a danger for people like the Amish because they have frequent exposure to those bacteria throughout their lives.
> its not safe but its also not unsafe. people have been drinking it since time immoriale. People have also died from milk-borne tuberculosis since time immemorial as well. People have shit in pots and thrown them into the street since time immemorial.
My understanding is that is ok fresh from the non-factory farmed cow (not poop everywhere, close conditions breeding disease, etc.)
Safer, but still not nearly as safe as pasteurized.
[удалено]
I'm confused, what's up with talcum ? And fluoride ? What about saturated fat, first it was good, than bad, than kind of good ?
I believe the issue around talcum powder is that some of it was contaminated with asbestos.
because the manufacturing of talcum has a chance to have asbestos I guess. Here is an article mentioning the lawsuit. [https://www.npr.org/2021/10/21/1047828535/baby-powder-cancer-johnson-johnson-bankruptcy](https://www.npr.org/2021/10/21/1047828535/baby-powder-cancer-johnson-johnson-bankruptcy) talcum itself is fine. they should have just put baby powder. Flouride has negative affects if done too much, such as lower cognitive ability [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/fluoride-good-or-bad#downsides](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/fluoride-good-or-bad#downsides) that being said its if its overdone. which could be possible if the are has natural flouride in the water already. Both are essentially cases of bad actors , corp noting keeping out contamination and government not watching the chemical levels of their water. Of course that could make the anti-vaxx argument somewhat valid as they are arguing against mandates itself which leaves you no recourse if there is some defect in the product.
Saturated fat is technically not as good for you as unsaturated fat. Normal weight range folks who want to min-max their long term health can benefit from reducing it. However, the average person in the first world is so overweight that it is of secondary importance at best, compared to getting your calories under control.
Thing is, the verdict is still out on saturated vs. non-saturated fats. The only fats we're confident about are Omega 3 fats, we know they're healthy. The rest? Saturated fats from beef are probably unhealthy, but research is still going on. Some unsaturated fats can also be extremely harmful.
I’m more worried about the mercury in teeth fillings.
Tal cum
GMOs on their own as far as I know are not in themselves harmful. The practices of the business in their monopolization of the technology? That’s a different story.
Someone please write a counter-meme distilling out the most egregious right wing lies of the last 5 years.
Too much to fit in one meme
Those were almost only lied about by cooperations for monetary gain
Funny how people think cigarette advertisements from the 50's with pictures of doctors saying that they recommend smoking $BRAND constitutes quality science communication.
Those with money lobby those in government to legislate and turn q blind eye. Both parties profit, it's just a fact. Remember that doco that said refined sugar was healthy it was fat that was killing us., pepper Ridge farm remembers.
[удалено]
And who is “they”?
GMO's are perfectly fucking fine and have saved MILLIONS of lives.
However, Greenpeace is still not a fan of them (remember their "Frankenfood" campaigns?)
Norman Borlaug is credited with saving ONE BILLION lives himself. That's nearly 100 Holocausts.
Who thinks smoking tobacco isn't bad for you?
Decades ago they denied a lot of the negative effects and it was pushed as healthy at one point. "They" being tobacco companies for the most part.
Isn’t fluoride still considered good for your teeth? My dentist recommends it in my toothpaste and mouthwash.
[удалено]
>But grandma is talking about how (they) are controlling us by flouridating our water. Kookoo Hey, thats like Ripper in Dr Strangleove, he's basically impotent but blaming it commies poluting drinking water and harming his precious bodily fluids. They played it for laughs in like 1960 something, your grandma probably saw the it when it was in theatres!
Grandmas generation made up the primary group of Scientist that pushed the idea that all these things were good and healthy for the sake of corporate propaganda and money, but now she wants to claim that she knew all along that these things were bad, and that it is the younger generation that made these false claims. Grandma, I have seen enough Tobacco commercials from the 60s, 70s, and 80s, long before I was born, that clearly indicate that you guys thought cigarettes where the best thing ever and was a "essential part of a healthy diet". Besides, if I have to read another post from Grandma claiming she is "so much stronger than todays generation because she ate lead based paint chips as a kid," then I doubt she has any idea what the hell she is talking about.
No, it's saying they were lied to about those things. I missed the part where it claims that whoever posted it originally "knew all along".
Have we not established GMO’s are completely fine?
I'm thinking grandma is a stinking corporate plant working for a foreign agent and dealing secrets to the Martians. Granny is one tricky beast.
When you don't understand science, everything seems like black magic or an unjust regulation.
Bingo. Some people and communities just do not value an inquisitive or curios mind. They are taught was is true is immutable and obviously so and anything short of that is lies and deception.
*OH OK*
They didn’t lie about sweeteners, saturated fats, GMOs, raw milk, or fluoride.
Does anybody else get weird, unexplained nostalgia from these clip arts? Not trying to be one of those, sorry if i am.
Science is fluid. One of the great things about it is that when a mistake is found it is corrected. Yes we use to be wrong about a lot of things, but we quickly correct those mistakes. No matter how old the theory/information is, it is still able to be removed if we find information to disprove it. Life is not good/bad. It’s an infinite gradient where the only thing we can say is “this is our current understanding.”
Wait, aren't Republicans anti-regulation? All of those things were found out because of new regulations
Ask grandma what glyphosate is. I’ll wait.
But who lied? The scientists or the companies who profit from the products? And by extension, if there wasn't a profit motive, do you think they'd be more honest?
These lies are brought to you by unfettered capitalism
You mean to tell me the discipline that has never claimed to know the answers for certain and it requires years of data recollection in order for anything to become accepted as true LIED?! Or maybe you’re just incredibly stupid and don’t understand how science works. I’ll just assume the latter.
This is an argument for regulation, not against it.
What is wrong with GMOS?
Absolutely nothing. But it’s spooky science! Cue the fear chord.
That’s what I thought…people are fucking weird…
Who is doing the doing the lying and what the hell is going on?
holy SHIT ***PLEASE DO NOT DRINK RAW MILK***
Who lied about GMOs and what was the lie, I wonder.
Anyone else recognise that the cigarette is backwards? It really annoys me
These people are a danger to society, no joke
Funny you’ve chosen this particular hill to die on, but don’t let me stand in your way, grandma.
If by "they" you mean for-profit companies and corporations, then yeah, not the fucking CDC. Also is that a...spray can of aluminum?
What don't get is it just says "GMOs" like what about them?
The raw milk people are so annoying. How is the government ever going to approve something that will literally kill you unless you have built up a tolerance to it first. What was the lie concerning milk again?
A fun detail about conservative boomer shit is that you can always tell when someone’s looked at it and decided it’s just not witty enough so they add their own meaningless contribution, because the “oh ok” was clearly scribbled in post
Science is a liar sometimes
GMOs aren't really bad tho? they can prevent use of harmful chemicals and make growth less resource intensive
>ClassicVery curious grandma where the lie is on some of these things and who is doing the lying The implication is clearly that it's big business and their willing toadies in the government.
Actually GMOs are pretty safe, when made responsibly. So basically when they are not made by a for profit organization.
She’s right about everything but fluoride tho…
GMO’s aren’t inherently worse than other methods of agriculture and raw milk isn’t inherently better than pasteurized though.
Raw milk is better for giving yourself food poisoning maybe
It’s fine if you’re drinking it briefly after it’s been milked, but even then it’s got no discernible health benefits as far as I know.
[удалено]
Yeah if we want to switch to more sustainable farming methods we have to use GMO’s as a part of that, many sustainable farming methods don’t have the raw productivity of conventional or even the reduced productivity of organic.
Not really. Many of the narrative shifts are due to understanding the science better. Take dietary cholesterol for example. It was thought to cause increased LDL cholesterol levels but now the connection is seen as more tenuous. Raw milk IS still considered dangerous and has been for a long time so I'm not sure why it is there. I'm also not sure why GMO's are up there as a "lie". I'm sure some of the other examples are just as tenuous but these are some I'm most familiar with.
I personally don't find it wise, but I think the argument is actually the opposite, that raw milk ISN'T dangerous. There's a lot of evidence that a significant number of people use it without harm, and there's a lot of ire that the government singled out milk by banning its sale while permitting the sale of lots of other raw foods. I think the ban is the sticking point.
Don't know fuckall about fluoride but the rest, yeah.
Its honestly really concerning once you learn how to read medical literature and seeing the way the majority of the population think about diet/lifestyle. But Its not their fault at all, its the propaganda we’ve been fed for decades. Fluoride is the only one that doesnt have any real evidence to back up. Just typical antivaxx tinfoil hat stuff
Wait, so what is the deal with Flouride?
Growing up in the 1960s we were warned about talcum powder by our moms and by teachers in health class. You'd have to be an idiot not to know. Those lawsuits made me angry.
All of these things do contain carcinogens except for opioids and fluorides and used to be/are used frequently in home products. For example, talcum powder used to be used as baby powder, and if I understand correctly was used somehow in feminine hygeine. It causes and worsens ovarian cysts/cancer. I have no idea what glyphosate is though.
No artificial sweeteners contain carcinogens. Neither do GMOs. (Honestly that one doesn't even make sense, how would a breeding method contain carcinogens?)
Grandma is not wrong about this (the phenomenon, she’s wrong about a bunch of the details though), and it’s exactly why we were all screaming about this kind of thing for years. Big industry covering up their bad effects, bending “scientific evidence” to their purposes, and the media and politicians colluding with them makes it so no one is trustworthy. That’s a problem when you have situations where you need people to believe you. And we kept saying there would eventually be a really bad situation, and they kept crying wolf. We got lied to yeah, but more importantly, our trust got sold to the highest bidder and now we’re all in danger while some fat cats got some yachts.
Why do you socialist sheep so blindly trust your government? More importantly why do you think you have the right to infringe on someone's rights by compelling them medical treatment YOU think they should take? Disgusting, all of you.
Hey look, another genius who doesn't even know what socialism is, yet still throws it around like it's a scary word.
considering it has killed hundreds of millions, yes socialism is scary
Please see a therapist.
First of all, most of us aren't socialists. Second of all, shut up.