4 ms·
Except mask wearing actually has scientific evidence for its effectiveness, and is why governments around the world recommend it. [1] Your rationale is based o
by nvarsj 5y ago
Except mask wearing actually has scientific evidence for its effectiveness, and is why governments around the world recommend it. [1]
Your rationale is based on personal bias against "artificial" substances. The same kind of quack reasoning that drives anti vaxers and other nonsense movements.
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536
- twerkmonsta 5y agoAren’t most “artificial” substances more likely to be carcinogenic or toxic than something occurring naturally? Or is that just my wacky personal bias talking?
- jaggederest 5y agoThere are plenty of "natural" carcinogens. Tobacco, for example, is perhaps the largest single cause of cancer in human history.
- twerkmonsta 5y agoI know there are natural carcinogens. That wasn’t my question. Tobacco is a plant. Cigarettes are a product made from tobacco with many “artificial” chemicals added. Cigarettes are the cause.
- jaggederest 5y agoTobacco is the cause. Raw tobacco usage straight off the plant is cancer-causing, there's no manipulation needed.
- SapporoChris 5y agoI will not disagree completely. But I will point out that nicotine by itself can actually have benefits that outweight the risks. Search "benefits of nicotine", yields a wealth of articles supporting this such as: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/
- jaggederest 5y agoAbsolutely, there are few weight loss / irritable bowel syndrome drugs more effective, though it is of course horribly addictive. But tobacco is a lot more than just pure nicotine, and that's where the problems come in.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Tobacco is a plant. That is full of carcinogens. And nicotine, which IIRC isn't a carcinogen itself but instead promotes tumor growth once they form. > Cigarettes are the cause. Chewing tobacco is a great way to get (a different set of kinds of) cancer, too.
- zug_zug 5y agoI don't know if this addresses the root of the question though, which is - of things occurring naturally vs those man-made, is there a statistically significant difference in safety of ingesting those found in nature. I'd imagine there is, or at the very least we'd have millions of years worth of evolution to learn to dislike the taste of naturally occurring things that are bad for us in the vast majority of cases.
- sillysaurusx 5y agoBeing insulting isn't going to change anyone's mind. In fact, it'll probably persuade people in the opposite direction.
- parineum 5y agoArtificial sweeteners have even more evidence for the safety. I agree with your second point but I generally take a lot more issue with the lack of skepticism put towards the alternatives rather than the skepticism towards science. Evenly applied skepticism leads you to accept the thing which has the most evidence in support while also letting you change your mind if the evidence changes. The problem with the "alternative" medicine crowd is that evidence didn't lead them to their conclusion so evidence can't lead them out.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Johnny555 5y agoWhere is the science showing that artificial sweeteners are actually good for me? Or even better than natural sugars? Like I said, I don't know if artificial sweeteners are bad for me but I also don't know that they are good for me, so why use them? I don't eschew everything that might be bad for me I still enjoy wine and even the occasional slice of cake (which even if it's loaded with all-natural sugar which I am sure is not "good" for me), but it's not like my quality of life is lessened by not having more aspartame or even stevia in my diet.
- gruez 5y ago>Or even better than natural sugars? lower calories?