Interesting and Humour - page 3998
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
You're a long way from the truth, you're stuck on someone else's truth.
Respectfully.
that's your opinion of me, I'm not interested in it.
With respect.
and yet you wrote about it, when you're not interested you just pass it by )
and yet you have written about it, when not interested just pass by )
Respectfully.
I'm not interested in your opinion of me.
Is that what you want to talk about? )
Is that what you want to talk about? )
i'm not interested in your opinion of me.
I'm done talking to you.
Respectfully.
You don't get it the first time?
I'm not interested in your opinion of me.
I am done talking to you.
Respectfully.
I understood what you were trying to say the first time, why repeat it 3 times?
let's talk about my opinion of you and how much you are not interested in it )
You are confusing truth with truth.
100 people were injected with a quarter of a cube (I don't know how much of this is a lethal dose for humans) of snake venom.
After a while, some of the people died and some felt better. The question is, is snake venom evil or not?
If poison is poured into people in buckets, as it is done in TV commercials, then everyone will die. It's a clichéd phrase about a gram of nicotine and a horse. There are a lot of things which, if you put a gram in your vein, will kill you. And things that look harmless on the surface. Like the video on page 4013. Smoker doesn't smoke, so why show how lungs are pumped by force in an incredibly short period of time with almost all cigarettes, while there is no circulation in these lungs and they do not function at all. It's like the famous trick of blowing through a handkerchief and leaving a trace. Why do they do it, it's a lie, with this little lie you are not protecting children from smoking, you are killing the credibility of anti-tobacco studies and sweats.
The same tired and silent phrase of the supporters of tobacco use-"my grandfather was a smoker and he lived to be 90 years old.
And then. What tobacco statistics are you talking about.
1-People don't smoke tobacco, they smoke the darkness of a cockroach with hundreds of elements in additives. And the statistics were "built" on them. And if tobacco is scientifically proven to be poison, I don't see a single court case on it with jail time for selling and manufacturing.
2-What is meant by statistics, what is it expressed in. Statistics is when a certain number of people (preferably as many and diverse as possible) who do not smoke are selected.
And then they were put on tobacco and watched who died from what, since the products do not affect only one organ, you can always maneuver that a particular product has affected a particular organ, which resulted in death. For example a person died from cholesterol or from smoking, in consideration of "non lung causes of death".
Statistics about which they speak, and similar - it is basically such - take 100 people with lung cancer and look what percent of them are smokers.
I've never seen an animal experiment where the dosage was changed. They only show experiments where they take a group of animals, "use" tobacco in half of them and none in the other half.
And then they study the consequences. I have never seen any research carried out with the same dosage from 0 to lethal. There are no similar smarter experiences either...
3-but there are no such statistics from tobacco proponents either.
...
After a while, some of the people died and some felt better. The question is, is snake venom evil or not?
...
Those who survived could still be immune.
Those who remained alive may still have developed immunity.
After a while, some people got worse and some got better. The question is, is snake venom evil or not? After all, even if we consider that everyone is immune to snake venom, everyone initially should feel worse, some more, others less, but ALL feel worse, that is, it has no effect on the recovery. And in the example, the second one is still better for health reasons.
==========================================
You could have, but the "statisticians" don't really care. Just like the supporters of smoking that grandfather could have lived to 100 despite his smoking (a kind of immunity which everyone has his own strength) or "could not have".
In the same way the opponents of smoking do not care about incorrectness of their experiments and consideration of the tobacco problem separately from other factors harmful in human life.
Let us assume there are three factors, the 1st harmful by 10 per cent (conventional), the 2nd harmful by 20. The 3rd is 30. The 1st bring 10, the 2nd 20, the 3rd 30.
We also know that under the joint activity of all three factors, the harmfulness will amount not to 60 c.u., but to 130 c.u., let's say. If of these three factors to remove one (to risk the least profitable), and to count the effectiveness of 130, the 2nd and 3rd factor for example will give the total harm 70-80, but against the background of 130 it will look a huge difference, and you can reduce to the fact that it is the 1st factor has a huge impact on harm. Similar manipulations with other factors are not shown to us.
But it is so...personal demagogy.
=====================================================
And then there's this. Any antibiotic is essentially poison. With pathogenic bacteria, it also kills beneficial bacteria. Nevertheless, in the right amount and regular doses, it promotes healing.
If you believe the same scientists who "study" cigarettes. Every man has his own abilities to process poisons. Exceeding them, damage will grow, but not exceeding them, I think one can coexist with them for quite a long time. Which, I think, explains the phenomena of the 90-year-old smoker type. And if to consider genetics and that on each separate poison the ability of an organism to process it, head over heels.
PS. I will explain, that having given an analogy with antibiotics I do not call that tobacco positively influences an organism in certain doses, and that in these doses it is harmless. Otherwise, judging by the previous pages, there are those who think so.