Just to be Clear - This is Global Warming, Yes?

Scientists will say whatever the people paying them want them to say.



Grok, link to past advertisements, reports, or news items citing science or quoting scientists touting products that were later proven to be harmful or ineffective.


Here are notable historical examples where advertisements, reports, or promotions—often citing "science," doctors, or experts—touted products later proven harmful or ineffective. These cases highlight how industry influence, incomplete evidence, and marketing shaped public perception before fuller risks emerged.


1. Cigarettes (Tobacco Industry)​


Tobacco companies extensively used doctors and pseudo-scientific claims in ads from the 1920s–1950s to counter health concerns, claiming cigarettes were "less irritating," safe, or even beneficial.


  • Lucky Strike "20,679 Physicians" campaign(1930s): Ads claimed thousands of doctors said Luckies were less irritating to throats. The company surveyed physicians with free cartons and leading questions.
    • Example coverage: History.com article on doctor-endorsed cigarette ads.
  • Camel "More Doctors Smoke Camels" (1940s–1950s): Similar surveys at medical events pushed this claim.
  • Broader context: The 1954 "A Frank Statement" ad in newspapers denied links to cancer despite emerging evidence. Stanford's tobacco documents archive has many originals.

Later, the 1964 U.S. Surgeon General's report and subsequent research confirmed smoking's massive harms (cancer, heart disease, etc.).


2. DDT (Pesticide)​


DDT was hailed post-WWII as a "miracle" chemical for killing pests, protecting crops, and fighting disease. Ads and promotions showed it being sprayed on babies, food, and homes, often with scientific or government backing implying safety.


  • Promotional films and ads (e.g., 1940s "Doomsday for Pests") portrayed it as safe and beneficial.
  • Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) and later studies revealed environmental devastation, bioaccumulation, and human health risks (e.g., cancer, reproductive issues). It was banned for most U.S. uses in the 1970s.

3. Thalidomide (Drug for Morning Sickness)​


Marketed in the late 1950s–early 1960s (especially in Europe) as a safe sedative for pregnant women, with claims of no toxicity based on limited testing.


  • Manufacturers and some doctors promoted it widely. It caused severe birth defects (phocomelia) in thousands of babies. The scandal led to stronger drug regulations (e.g., FDA's Frances Kelsey blocked U.S. approval).

4. Opioids like OxyContin (Purdue Pharma)​


In the 1990s–2000s, Purdue aggressively marketed OxyContin as less addictive and safe for chronic non-cancer pain, using doctors, paid speakers, and "scientific" claims (e.g., addiction risk <1%).


  • Sales reps targeted doctors; the company funded studies and advocacy downplaying risks. This contributed to the opioid epidemic (overdoses, addiction). Purdue pleaded guilty to misbranding in 2007 and faced massive later settlements.

5. Asbestos​


Widely advertised as a "miracle" fireproof, durable, safe material for insulation, building, and consumer products into the mid-20th century.


  • Ads promoted it for homes, floors, roofs, etc., with claims of safety. Industry knew of lung disease/mesothelioma risks for decades but suppressed information. Regulations and bans followed as harms became clear.

Other notes: Similar patterns appeared with leaded gasoline, certain pharmaceuticals (e.g., Vioxx, where trial data was allegedly manipulated), and earlier products like heroin or radium (e.g., "Radium Girls"). These often involved conflicts of interest, selective data, or delayed recognition of long-term effects.


Science is self-correcting over time, but these cases show the importance of independent scrutiny, replication, and caution with industry-funded claims. For images of vintage ads, search collections like Stanford's Tobacco Advertising or historical archives. Always check primary sources or fact-checkers like Reuters for context on viral claims.


 
Crepitus said:
Actually it's not funny at all.
Click to expand...
Yes, your stupid comment was hilarious. The way you broadcast your scientific illiteracy is comedy gold.

Crepitus said:
It's a sign of how much damage we are doing to the planet.
Click to expand...
1. What is "it"?
2. What is this "damage" you are claiming"?
3. Who constitutes "we"?
4. How are you claiming that anyone can damage a planet?

Crepitus said:
I'd explain it to you guys again but I doubt you would understand it.
Click to expand...
You are a science denier, plain and simple, and you are incredibly gullible. I'm surprised that you are able to connect to the internet.
 
evince said:
Science is funny to you?
Click to expand...
1. Your WACKY Climate religion is hilarious
2. The fact that you seriously believe that your WACKY religion is somehow science makes you one of the stupidest people on the planet.
3. Did you ever go to school?

evince said:
Now can you provide the studies you depend on to question all these known scientific finding found in the actual scientific realm?
Click to expand...
I have all the science and math to expose you for the scientifically illiterate idiot that you are. I'm ready when you are. Just say the word; it won't take long.
 
IBDaMann said:
Yes, your stupid comment was hilarious. The way you broadcast your scientific illiteracy is comedy gold.


1. What is "it"?
2. What is this "damage" you are claiming"?
3. Who constitutes "we"?
4. How are you claiming that anyone can damage a planet?


You are a science denier, plain and simple, and you are incredibly gullible. I'm surprised that you are able to connect to the internet.
Click to expand...
I've been over this before. The science is there. Deal with it.
 
Crepitus said:
I've been over this before. The science is there. Deal with it.
Click to expand...


The science™.


source.gif
 
Crepitus said:
I've been over this before.
Click to expand...
I don't recall you ever discussing actual science. I don't think you know any, frankly. I see that you reject science and worship a WACKY religion based on physics violations, but actually discussing science is completely beyond you.

Humor me; explain how the earth's average global equilibrium temperature just spontaneously increases because of something other than thermal energy. You probably don't even understand what I just asked.

You probably don't even know what science is. Too funny.

Crepitus said:
The science is there.
Click to expand...
Too funny! You used the definite article "the" to indicate a specific dogma. You did not leave it open, e.g. "there is supporting science." You said "the" science is there. Where? What "The Science" specifically is there? You don't know any because there isn't any.

Deal with it.
 
IBDaMann said:
I don't recall you ever discussing actual science. I don't think you know any, frankly. I see that you reject science and worship a WACKY religion based on physics violations, but actually discussing science is completely beyond you.

Humor me; explain how the earth's average global equilibrium temperature just spontaneously increases because of something other than thermal energy. You probably don't even understand what I just asked.

You probably don't even know what science is. Too funny.


Too funny! You used the definite article "the" to indicate a specific dogma. You did not leave it open, e.g. "there is supporting science." You said "the" science is there. Where? What "The Science" specifically is there? You don't know any because there isn't any.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...
Then you haven't been here long enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top