🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: ny.general
Article #617

Advertising tricks

#617
From: Fabrikant
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:34
40 lines
3545 bytes
Medical crooks do not cease to amaze me with their ingenuity.
Recently, some dermatologists did the following trick to scare people
into buying the sun blockers.  They came to a beach and offered the
sun-baders to make their pictures in a normal light and . in
ultra-violet light.  In a normal light the faces looked smooth, in
ultra-violet light the faces looked all in dots, which the
dermatologists claimed as evidence of the sun damage to the skin.  The
people were so impressed that started buying sun-blockers in groves.

Nobody bothered to ask some very simple questions.  First, here is my
ass, which is never exposed to sun, let us make a picture to see
whether the dots will be there.  Second, the end of any nose even to a
naked eye looks like the most damaged place, while in ultra-violet
light there were almost no dots there, why?  Third, what is the
evidence that those dots indicate a damage to the skin?  I noticed a
lot of dots on my skin, they are called pores and they have nothing to
do with damage.  Could it be that the dots we see are just that -
pores?

In general, what is the evidence that the skin cancer is caused by the
sun?  White people have more skin cancer, than black and there are more
incidence of skin cancer in the South, than in the North.  On the other
hand, skin cancer often appears on the parts of body, which are never
exposed to sun.  Why?  Less than 10,000 people die from skin cancer in
US each year.  To place this in proper perspective, people in US are 10
times more likely to be killed in a hospital due to a medical error or
twice as likely to be shot to death by a gun.

People are now spending billions on the so-called sun blockers, trying
to save themselves from something, which does not threaten them at all:
out of 300 sun-baders, 299 never get skin cancer.  If the sun was
really responsible for skin cancer, should not the number be much
greater?  Last, but not least:	if sun were the cause of skin cancer,
introduction of sun blockers would have significantly reduced the cases
of skin cancer.  Since it is claimed that it takes many years to
develop a skin cancer, it would be quite long before anything can be
proven.  Here is my prediction: sun blockers will have no effect on the
incidence of skin cancer.

Fabrikant
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1121787273.730277.226730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 10a12a,a44b406cd94a83a5,start
X-Google-Thread: 101049,a44b406cd94a83a5,start
X-Google-Thread: 10e835,a44b406cd94a83a5,start
X-Google-Thread: fc3d0,a44b406cd94a83a5,start
X-Google-Thread: 10643c,a44b406cd94a83a5,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid10a12a,gid101049,gid10e835,gidfc3d0,gid10643c,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Fabrikant" <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,chi.general,ont.general,tor.general
Subject: Advertising tricks
Date: 19 Jul 2005 08:34:33 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <1121787273.730277.226730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.94.148.140
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1121787279 23002 127.0.0.1 (19 Jul 2005 15:34:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:34:39 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.94.148.140;
   posting-account=E9Z6hwwAAABUy-gcIHGR96xMmFfZ4YYK