[Did you know Lysol concentrate was originally advertised as a vaginal douche product?](https://www.google.com/search?q=lysol+douche+ad&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiIuoOu3rLtAhVuFt8KHdD8AbwQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=lysol+douche+ad&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzICCAAyAggAMgQIABBDMgIIADIGCAAQBRAeMgYIABAFEB46BAgAEB46BAgAEBhQmOABWL_lAWDi6QFoAHAAeACAAVKIAesBkgEBM5gBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=FFbJX4jgOO6s_AbQ-YfgCw&bih=657&biw=1366)
A heroin HCl sounds good right now
A heroin HCl sounds good right now
'Nico Time Cigarettes' is from the
Oh the mass media, Reuters:
Before the 1964 surgeon general’s report on smoking, tobacco companies in the U.S. did produce advertisements downplaying the risks of smoking, here.
and
In September 1965, the Public Health Service established a small unit called the National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health. This unit—later the Office on Smoking and Health, under the CDC—has been responsible for 29 reports on the health consequences of smoking, here. It is therefore false that the CDC promoted smoking, or the use of nicotine.
What these 'investigative journalists' somehow omit in their article: Women started being propagandazied by ads to smoke starting in 1920s. That's 40 years give or take.
How many lives and cripples did CDC's negligence cost? Hm. Bet your ass there were women smoking while pregnant all that time. AND THERE CURRENTLY ARE because these bitches can't stop smoking due to addiction even when pregnant. A fucking nation on drugs thanks to advertising.
The 'fact checking' fuck media thus concludes:
VERDICT
False: Although in the U.S. the use of certain harmful products has been historically promoted, it is false that the CDC actively supported their use
Without reiterating that 3 out of 4 images (DDT, Heroine-Cl and Asbestos) are in fact sad truth. No, just focusing on the 'yeah we have fact-checked so well, we're only gonna mention CDC to state 'it is false' in the verdict.'
PS: The article's point was to see if 'CDC supported' these as stated by some online poster, yet my point stands.
'Nico Time Cigarettes' is from the [Bioshock universe](https://bioshock.fandom.com/wiki/Nico-Time)
Oh the mass media, Reuters:
> Before the 1964 surgeon general’s report on smoking, tobacco companies in the U.S. did produce advertisements downplaying the risks of smoking, here.
and
> In September 1965, the Public Health Service established a small unit called the National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health. This unit—later the Office on Smoking and Health, under the CDC—has been responsible for 29 reports on the health consequences of smoking, here. It is therefore false that the CDC promoted smoking, or the use of nicotine.
What these 'investigative journalists' somehow omit in their article: Women started being propagandazied by ads to smoke starting in 1920s. That's 40 years give or take.
How many lives and cripples did CDC's negligence cost? Hm. Bet your ass there were women smoking while pregnant all that time. AND THERE CURRENTLY ARE because these bitches can't stop smoking due to addiction even when pregnant. A fucking nation on drugs thanks to advertising.
The 'fact checking' fuck media thus concludes:
> VERDICT
> False: Although in the U.S. the use of certain harmful products has been historically promoted, it is false that the CDC actively supported their use
Without reiterating that 3 out of 4 images (DDT, Heroine-Cl and Asbestos) are in fact sad truth. No, just focusing on the 'yeah we have fact-checked so well, we're only gonna mention CDC to state 'it is false' in the verdict.'
PS: The article's point was to see if 'CDC supported' these as stated by some online poster, yet my point stands.
Fun fact: The LD50 (Lethal Dose for 50% of the population) of DDT for humans is quite high, ie. it's not very toxic for us at all. If it wasn't so bad for other species we'd probably still be using it. DDT is devastating for birds for example.
Additionally DDT is persistent in the environment, which means that it accumulates in organisms which results in it moving up the food chain to the top predators. Eagles for instance were particularly harmed by DDT in the environment.
[edit] Woops my bad, I initially said that the LD50 for humans is low which would mean that it's quite toxic. The opposite is true in fact.
Fun fact: The LD50 (Lethal Dose for 50% of the population) of DDT for humans is quite high, ie. it's not very toxic for us at all. If it wasn't so bad for other species we'd probably still be using it. DDT is devastating for birds for example.
Additionally DDT is persistent in the environment, which means that it accumulates in organisms which results in it moving up the food chain to the top predators. Eagles for instance were particularly harmed by DDT in the environment.
[edit] Woops my bad, I initially said that the LD50 for humans is low which would mean that it's quite toxic. The opposite is true in fact.
I've been through this with someone else. It's actually toxic to humans. Lethal dose doesn't mean anything
I've been through this with someone else. It's actually toxic to humans. Lethal dose doesn't mean anything
It was probably me, small world eh.
And again I'm not claiming that it isn't toxic to humans, however the toxicity is low.
"Lethal dose doesn't mean anything" what are you even talking about?
On that note LD50 has been used for years exactly because it is a useful measure of toxicity by species.
It was probably me, small world eh.
And again I'm not claiming that it isn't toxic to humans, however the toxicity is low.
"Lethal dose doesn't mean anything" what are you even talking about?
On that note LD50 has been used for years exactly because it is a useful measure of toxicity by species.
(post is archived)