5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
I don't personally disagree with the article. However, that entire piece looks like a fight between Lex Luther and Magneto...meaning, they're all asshats.
What's shown in the article is a corrupt and overzealous group of government funded cronies, not willing to share their info with equally overzealous big tobacco shills. Some BT funded academic is pissing and moaning because ACS and CDC refuses to share their data with him to spin at his leisure.
Smh.
The only problem with that would be that the author Brad Rodu has NEVER worked for big tobacco.
http://www.rstreet.org/people/brad-rodu/
https://www.google.com/#q=Brad+Rodu
Or are you one of those "Smokeless tobacco bad" - "vaping good" types?
just think if big pharma grants led to researchers being called "shills" even two or three decades later.
no scientist on the planet would be taken seriously.
i would think that a big pharma conflict of interest would be as bad if not worse in the field of tobacco control than a big tobacco conflict of interest.
It's absurd to think that BT created "lights" and "ultralights" because they cared! They only created those products, so they could sell more of them!
You're as blind as a new born kitten if you think that BT introduced lights to conserve their market base.And why was it they could sell more of them? BECAUSE FEWER OF THEIR CUSTOMERS DIED WHO SMOKED THEM! It doesn't serve their bottom line at all, if half their customers are constantly dying!
Andria
You're as blind as a new born kitten if you think that BT introduced lights to conserve their market base.
Think of the scale that were dealing with.
How many people smoke?
How many people die per year due to it?
Do you really think that smoking lights is any better than full flavors?
Bottom line,it's nothing more than a marketing ploy to get and keep people using their product.
Their product kills their market base,they know this.... The public knows this....
It's nothing more than deep pockets playing a game.
If you smoked the same amount of them as full-flavors, they're definitely less harmful. Less tar = less harm. The problem was they also reduced the nic, which resulted in many people smoking more lights a day than they would have smoked full-flavors.Do you really think that smoking lights is any better than full flavors?
This might be just a bit of an over-generalization. There are plenty of scientists working in fields that BP does not fund at all -- astronomers, physicists, geologists, oceanographers, etc, etc.just think if big pharma grants led to researchers being called "shills" even two or three decades later.
no scientist on the planet would be taken seriously.
If you smoked the same amount of them as full-flavors, they're definitely less harmful. Less tar = less harm. The problem was they also reduced the nic, which resulted in many people smoking more lights a day than they would have smoked full-flavors.
It's absurd to think that BT created "lights" and "ultralights" because they cared! They only created those products, so they could sell more of them!
You're as blind as a new born kitten if you think that BT introduced lights to conserve their market base.
Think of the scale that were dealing with.
How many people smoke?
How many people die per year due to it?
Do you really think that smoking lights is any better than full flavors?
Bottom line,it's nothing more than a marketing ploy to get and keep people using their product.
Their product kills their market base,they know this.... The public knows this....
It's nothing more than deep pockets playing a game.