Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
Like Tree65Likes

Thread: Consequences of Ideological Prats

  1. #11
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    N/E Vic
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by staceman101 View Post
    Ah... there's a blog that tells us we can discount decades of peer reviewed science? Awesome.
    If blogs are where we find the "truth", I guess I can also be certain that the earth is flat, vaccines cause autism and the Illuminati exist - and, with the last, they're a covert group of reptilian aliens...

    Sent from my HTC 2PST1 using Tapatalk
    Possibly get their 'facts' from the front page of the NT times. Looks as though my ride has turned up with the reptilian aliens. I remember the Truth newspaper in Melbourne, competition for Popular Mechanics at the time. A major cause for Mass debating.
    1ynne and staceman101 like this.
    Most metaphors do not bear up to close scrutiny

    Killed the nails before they killed me. 10/02/15 Thanks immensely to AVFers!

  2. #12
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    N/E Vic
    Posts
    1,110
    prat
    prat/Submit
    nouninformal
    1.
    BRITISH
    an incompetent or stupid person; an idiot.
    2.
    a person's buttocks.
    staceman101 likes this.
    Most metaphors do not bear up to close scrutiny

    Killed the nails before they killed me. 10/02/15 Thanks immensely to AVFers!

  3. #13
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,409
    People like Glantz and Chapman are always flinging references around to various "studies " that support their argument.

    I would like to see them called on it occasionally.
    .Which studies? who paid for the studies, who ran them, how many people were used in the studies and do you have references to where they were published in which Journal.?
    Instead of the blithe acceptance that there must be "studies" out there that prove whatever they are trying to convince the other panel members of.
    He should be called on to put his money where his mouth is and produce references to these "studies" and "research"
    Last edited by gert; 16-09-17 at 10:09 AM.

  4. #14
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by staceman101 View Post
    Ah... so evidence based studies linking cigarette smoking to various forms of cancer, emphysema, immune system disorders etc are just "junk science"? Fascinating...

    Same with evidence based studies on the air quality issues of passive smoking?
    Sent from my HTC 2PST1 using Tapatalk
    Smoking, inhaling hot cigarette smoke and being exposed to other peoples cigarette smoke are two different things.
    To assume they are the same from a harm perspective is I think wrong.
    Last edited by gert; 16-09-17 at 10:18 AM.

  5. #15
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,129
    not sure why I thought of it (thats a fib !) but here is an interesting article about cognitive dissonance and smoking - LIBC Blog - Articles - Facing the facts: The cognitive dissonance behind smoking

    I guess I am somewhat bemused that there is any dispute about the health risks of smoking or the potential dangers being subjected to passive smoke - I think the medical journals are full of real medical evidence and the cemeteries are full of people who died as a result of smoking related diseases. Smoking harms your health.. vaping might too or not .. no one really knows... a medical doctor, who signs an oath to do no harm, is in an insidious position with regard to recommending something that is relatively unknown .. would you be happy taking prescribed drugs that had not been through rigorous trials and testing... sadly there was a morning sickness pill way back that had not been fully tested...

    we negotiate life with our own beliefs and values - but thats all they are .. our personal views... and as such they may not be logical or reasonable to others
    Fatman, DocM and staceman101 like this.

    What is a cat's favourite colour? Purrrrrrrple !

  6. #16
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    5,298
    A prat is a bum? Cool. New word for the week Pat my prats

    But seriously, Champix and all who sell it are one of the main reasons why big pharma are so low in my book.
    Even a locum GP seemed to have doubts several years ago when he wrote something on a scrap of paper, folded it in half, and pushed it across the desk at me, as if it was a massive payout/salary sum for a job I was being headhunted for. Very strange indeed.
    The word was 'Champix'.
    He said not a word. I got up and left.
    I'm still kicking myself to this day after nearly ten years, for not asking him why he did that, rather than just say it out loud and tell me about the side effects.
    I'd like to think he did it that way to prompt me to do some research of my own.
    Fifth Vape Year and Four Years Sans Durry.

  7. #17
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    victoria
    Posts
    4,857
    Actually Micheal Seigal is pretty respected also by the vaping and snus community as well as the Tobacco control community - he is not a random


    Dr. Siegel is a Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health. He has 32 years of experience in the field of tobacco control.

    http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com.au/



    I dont think anyone is saying that smoking is not harmful- moreso simply that some of the health risks have been exaggerated- Third hand smoke anyone? Second hand smoke vs pollution and rising lung cancer rates in never smokers in places like Australia even tho smoking in public places is so very low now? Proving a cancer or other issue was in fact caused by smoking - there are lots of grey areas here

    I see no reason that chimpy and co should not provide references when touting what they call 'facts' -

    After all if not for vapers trying to understand vaping and doing their own research on nicotine - we would not know that the accepted lethal dose of nicotine about 60mg is based on research that is well over 100 years old- even tho it has been shown time and again since then that this is not the reality of lethality and nicotine
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880486/



    Personally I dislike notions cognitive dissonance as a theory and even less so in politics - its cruel and manipulative

    Relies heavily on notion of facts- when facts are so easily manipulated to suit agendas - also disregards facts when the agendas suit and assumes a kind of mental illness when people dont agree with what is being touted as facts- facts are also often a matter of perspective even if they come under the heading of 'scientific'

    Cognitive dissonance theory really isnt a holistic take everything into consideration approach - more of a either or thing really isnt it?


    Thing is in harm reduction - is that generally its not about looking for a perfect solution - like the perfect researched drug or vape or whatever - its about finding a better option than complete prohibition or a less harmful way of smoking or doing drugs or whatever -

    Most vapers are people who have come from a smoking background - many have been through the health problems that smoking brings on and are under no illusions about the risks of smoking - but if not for vaping or other harm reduction like snus

    What other options would they have ?

    And then there is the whole other argument about pleasure/ deviance- morality- agendas- corporatism- governance and eugenics - but thats another story for another night
    Last edited by rebelagainstthemachine; 16-09-17 at 02:45 PM.
    gert, DocM and staceman101 like this.
    Support the closed autocratic NNA AU lobby group-
    Give money, sign and fill what we say then STFU- its called unity!

    You actually thought that your action & thoughts matter?Its "experts" only buddy
    Pfft don't like it?... go away and start your own
    All Hail the NNA AU vape overlords!
    Delete & block the negative! It never happened- its in the past MKAY?
    (or face members & supporters wrath & tears...)
    Infiltrate, Dominate & assimilate all unbelievers..Welcome to the new NNA AU echo chamber

  8. #18
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mackay
    Posts
    7,627
    Quote Originally Posted by gert View Post
    People like Glantz and Chapman are always flinging references around to various "studies " that support their argument.

    I would like to see them called on it occasionally.
    .Which studies? who paid for the studies, who ran them, how many people were used in the studies and do you have references to where they were published in which Journal.?
    Instead of the blithe acceptance that there must be "studies" out there that prove whatever they are trying to convince the other panel members of.
    He should be called on to put his money where his mouth is and produce references to these "studies" and "research"
    He does have the studies - the ones that have been challenged by good people like Dr Farsalinos time and time again. The real issue is the peer reviewed journals refusing to publish rebuttals or rescind poor work after it is pointed out. Neither of which would be necessary if the "peers" did the reviewing properly and did not let such poor work through.

    Chapman never gets called out about it because he refuses to be in the same room as the people who are able to do so (Like Colin Mendelsohn and Attila Danko) or at least in a situation where they are able to provide a full rebuttal. In a way it is a shame that BT sent a representative to the hearing in Sydney, because it would have been amusing to see what sort of excuse he used not to turn up to that. One day the opportunity will arise where all three (or any two) are present.
    gert, DocM, Wombats1 and 1 others like this.
    Chris: Tobacco free since 17:00 15th March 2013.


  9. #19
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    N/E Vic
    Posts
    1,110
    Try getting a PhD and thesis assessed without referencing your resources and see how far you get in your written work. "Because my Mum said........"
    gert, disley and staceman101 like this.
    Most metaphors do not bear up to close scrutiny

    Killed the nails before they killed me. 10/02/15 Thanks immensely to AVFers!

  10. #20
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by essiemessy View Post
    A prat is a bum? Cool. New word for the week Pat my prats

    But seriously, Champix and all who sell it are one of the main reasons why big pharma are so low in my book.
    Even a locum GP seemed to have doubts several years ago when he wrote something on a scrap of paper, folded it in half, and pushed it across the desk at me, as if it was a massive payout/salary sum for a job I was being headhunted for. Very strange indeed.
    The word was 'Champix'.
    He said not a word. I got up and left.
    I'm still kicking myself to this day after nearly ten years, for not asking him why he did that, rather than just say it out loud and tell me about the side effects.
    I'd like to think he did it that way to prompt me to do some research of my own.
    True Essy, not just Champix either,sadly..

    A shocking number of people die every year from the side effects of drugs that are approved, tested and properly prescibed.

    Another reason why I find all the whining from the AMA about Vaping being unsafe just laughable-how can they keep a straight face.?
    DocM likes this.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 07:10 AM.