Article View: ny.general
Article #617Advertising tricks
From: Fabrikant
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:34
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:34
40 lines
3545 bytes
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-mailShow 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