Regarding "cancer" organizations and ecigarettes

[dr g]

It occured to me today as I was reading the ACS's position page on ecigarettes (What about electronic cigarettes? Aren?t they safe?), that the prevalence of that position and the kind of words stated on that page, show that many if not most of these organizations are shams.

I know this won't be news to the conspiracy theorists and cynics out there, but for the mainstream, these organizations are looked upon as standardbearers.

In the relatively short time ecigarettes have been around, the anecdotal evidence of their effectiveness as a NRT has piled up sky high. The anecdotal evidence of their health benefits has also piled up. Many doctors now look favorably upon them.

For organizations purportedly interested in fighting cancer to take a default-negative stance on nicotine vaping, even if they claim as ACS does "we have no official position," is completely hypocritical.

If ecigs can be made as safe as existing NRT, they could be one of the best important weapons in fighting preventable cancers ... possibly in history. With that kind of potential, EVERY cancer organization out there should be actively FUNDING studies on ecigs. If an organization is not actively supporting the development of possibly the best antismoking method ever, that organization is a sham and a scam.

For these organizations to not be hearing overwhelming evidence in favor of ecigarettes would mean they are not fighting the battle in the trenches. If they know about this and are not supporting it, then they simply are not interested in winning the war.

 

[Ken_A]

oops - go back and research...
"If ecigs can be made as safe as existing NRT"

is an incorrect statement. Personal Vaporizers are already safer than many NRTs and vaping is NOT more harmful than using the other NRTs

 

[dr g]

oops - go back and research...
"If ecigs can be made as safe as existing NRT"

is an incorrect statement. Personal Vaporizers are already safer than many NRTs and vaping is NOT more harmful than using the other NRTs

I'm not making that statement. I personally believe like you said that they are as safe or safer, but in fairness no clinical testing has demonstrated that yet. That is a standard used by "cancer" organizations, one that would make their opposition patently absurd.

What I'm saying is that if that is their standard, they should be working to achieve that via research ... actively, and if they aren't they are full of .....

 

[bosun]

Think about these anti-cancer "organizations". Think of how they get their funding and how they spend it. They get their money from contributions. They spend their money on salary and "public service advertisements", with a little on anti-cancer research. They ride the "anti-smoking" bandwagon, beating their chest how bad it is and how they are fighting to save you and the "children" from the evils of tobacco. If something comes along and demonstrates a high success rate in getting smokers to quit cigarettes ( TWO Months without a coffin nail!) then they are out of business. Electronic cigarettes are the greatest peril to them to lose their source of easy money!

 

[dr g]

I get that that sort of borderline conspiratorial viewpoint is common and not entirely unwarranted, but IMO it's a bit too cynical. Technically other NRTs also get smokers to quit right?

EDIT: Sort of the point of my viewpoint is that it doesn't rely on any cynicism.

 

[Sa Da Tay]

Think about these anti-cancer "organizations". Think of how they get their funding and how they spend it. They get their money from contributions. They spend their money on salary and "public service advertisements", with a little on anti-cancer research. They ride the "anti-smoking" bandwagon, beating their chest how bad it is and how they are fighting to save you and the "children" from the evils of tobacco. If something comes along and demonstrates a high success rate in getting smokers to quit cigarettes ( TWO Months without a coffin nail!) then they are out of business. Electronic cigarettes are the greatest peril to them to lose their source of easy money!

The OP's point here is a valid one. As the premiere cancer-fighting org, ACS should have more interest in vetting e-cigs as a viable option for tobacco users. It's true that they should be bound by stringent clinical criteria/proof before assuming any official stance, but at the least they should be more actively supporting further research on e-cigs.

However, the point I quoted above is too far outside rationality. Any thought that orgs like ACS are purposefully preventing a cure for cancer or propagating tobacco use just so they can stay in business is outlandish. Slow-moving and without vision, yes. But it doesn't have a structural agenda to let people die.

 

[DC2]

I know this won't be news to the conspiracy theorists and cynics out there, but for the mainstream, these organizations are looked upon as standardbearers.

I'm just wondering how it took you this long to figure it out.
Maybe you don't venture into the campaigning or legislation forums that often?

Once you learn about the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, it all starts to become clear...
FORCES International - News Portal

It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but really it's just business.

It's not like the money trails aren't there for anyone interested in looking at them...
Grant Archive - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Here are some fun ones...
American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation ($3,000,000.00)
American Lung Association of Arkansas ($1,179,496.00)
American Lung Association of New Hampshire ($1,160,000.00)
American Lung Association of Georgia ($965,918.00)
American Cancer Society ($956,370.00)
American Cancer Society of Ohio ($1.100,000.00)

I could keep going...

Technically other NRTs also get smokers to quit right?

Not really... cold turkey is more effective than the patches or the gum.

 

[dr g]

I'm just wondering how it took you this long to figure it out.
Maybe you don't venture into the campaigning or legislation forums that often?

Once you learn about the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, it all starts to become clear...
FORCES International - News Portal

It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but really it's just business.

It's not like the money trails aren't there for anyone interested in looking at them...
Grant Archive - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Here are some fun ones...
American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation ($3,000,000.00)
American Lung Association of Arkansas ($1,179,496.00)
American Lung Association of New Hampshire ($1,160,000.00)
American Lung Association of Georgia ($965,918.00)
American Cancer Society ($956,370.00)
American Cancer Society of Ohio ($1.100,000.00)

I could keep going...

My angle does not rely on that, that's kind of the point.

Not really... cold turkey is more effective than the patches or the gum.

This is not valid, it may be more effective as a rate but that has no bearing on whether it helps smokers quit. If even just a few people, even for placebo reasons, quit using patches or gum when they failed cold turkey, that means those methods helped additional people quit smoking. These methods are not tried to the exclusion of others.

 

[Sa Da Tay]

I'm just wondering how it took you this long to figure it out.
Maybe you don't venture into the campaigning or legislation forums that often?

Once you learn about the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, it all starts to become clear...
FORCES International - News Portal

It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but really it's just business.

I read the article you linked to. I genuinely want to know if I'm missing a point, because it seems to me this article spends a lot of strongly-worded sentences just trying to prove that ACS and others have received funding from RWJF and NRT companies to create smoking cessation programs and provide free NRT to people. And? ACS' goal to lower cancer incidence by lowering smoking rates coincides with a corporation's desire to profit off of NRT sales. I can think of a lot more devious partnerships accomplishing much more horrible things than this. The part of the equation left out of this article is that NRT efficacy has been clinically supported by much research. So for me to buy into this conspiracy, I would have to swallow the idea that a sizeable number of researchers around the world are all in on this.

The site you link to posits this on their "About" page:

The message of FORCES is based on the values of liberty for every individual in his personal choices. In this, FORCES is aligned with those who fight the antismoking movement, which is essentially false and oppressive.

They basically deny all claims that secondhand smoke is a health detriment and assert their right to smoke anywhere. Not great for credibility.

 

[BlueMoods]

Other NRT getting people to quit, Um only about 6-7% of those who try it actually quit. Vaping , well I don't know the number but by reading the forums, talking to others and, my own experience I'd say that's closer to 60-70% quit smoking by vaping. So yep, vaping is hazardous to them. If even 60% of all smokers quit, that's going to hurt them big time.

Of course they don't want e-cigs to be proven a safer alternative, and the sure don't want any proof e-cigs do actually help people reduce or quit nicotine entirely but, we all know that is the case more often than not.

We won't get into big tobacco funding lung cancer research - oh boy. (Yes they have and do.)

 

[dr g]

Again, my point deliberately does not hinge on any of that. That stuff is conspiratorial and once you start going down that road, your credibility suffers. Instead my view stipulates to these organizations' missions at face value.

 

[VANA]

I'll tell you the honest truth... Money.. Cancer research facilities wastefully use money to keep money coming in. If they find a cure yes they will make billions by providing the said cure. Now will they dump money into a pot that will show positive results... No because they want people to think their way is the only way to save the humanity from the harmful affects of tobacco products.

I did a Final paper in this for Yale Business school not for ecigs but for an excuse for big corporations to keep the flow of money by projecting and image that there is no other way to combat (x) without their research and their resources . Got a 98 so theirs truth behind my madness.

 

[DC2]

My angle does not rely on that, that's kind of the point.

Then help me out here.

You're saying they are a scam, but not because of anything I posted?
You're saying they, regardless of funding sources, have their own agenda to avoid cures?

Or am I misunderstanding?

This is not valid, it may be more effective as a rate but that has no bearing on whether it helps smokers quit. If even just a few people, even for placebo reasons, quit using patches or gum when they failed cold turkey, that means those methods helped additional people quit smoking. These methods are not tried to the exclusion of others.

If you think certain "non-profit" health organizations are a scam, then I think you should think that NRTs are a scam.
They are paid by Big Pharma to shill these products, including official endorsement deals.

It's a wonderful gravy train for all involved.

Shill the nearly useless Big Pharma products.
Tell the world that those are the only acceptable choices to quit.

Nearly everyone fails, but tries them again and again and again and again and again.
And Big Pharma laughs all the way to the bank while dumping cash on their "non-profit" lackeys.

Again, what am I missing here?

 

[DC2]

I read the article you linked to. I genuinely want to know if I'm missing a point, because it seems to me this article spends a lot of strongly-worded sentences just trying to prove that ACS and others have received funding from RWJF and NRT companies to create smoking cessation programs and provide free NRT to people. And? ACS' goal to lower cancer incidence by lowering smoking rates coincides with a corporation's desire to profit off of NRT sales. I can think of a lot more devious partnerships accomplishing much more horrible things than this. The part of the equation left out of this article is that NRT efficacy has been clinically supported by much research. So for me to buy into this conspiracy, I would have to swallow the idea that a sizeable number of researchers around the world are all in on this.

I don't think you are missing the point, because you stated it clearly.
See my post above for further clarification.

If you think NRTs are effective then there is not much more I can say.
But understanding that, yes a sizeable number of researchers are in on this is most certainly true.

Their research is funded by Big Pharma.
And if they don't get the results Big Pharma is looking for they get no more funding.

Have you ever read the conflict of interest statements at the end of research findings?

And while we're on this topic, here is an article from the Washington Post...
As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias

 

[dr g]

Then help me out here.

You're saying they are a scam, but not because of anything I posted?
You're saying they, regardless of funding sources, have their own agenda to avoid cures?

Or am I misunderstanding?

Yes, no, yes. We cannot be sure of exactly what goes on behind the scenes at every organization, so to hinge on conspiratorial aspects makes a position easy to dismiss. Any one part of the conspiracy being wrong can invalidate it. However by comparing the organizations own stated missions to their actions, they can be judged by their own public standards.

If you think certain "non-profit" health organizations are a scam, then I think you should think that NRTs are a scam.
They are paid by Big Pharma to shill these products, including official endorsement deals.

It's a wonderful gravy train for all involved.

Shill the nearly useless Big Pharma products.
Tell the world that those are the only acceptable choices to quit.

Nearly everyone fails, but tries them again and again and again and again and again.
And Big Pharma laughs all the way to the bank while dumping cash on their "non-profit" lackeys.

Again, what am I missing here?

You are missing that conspiracy theories don't support a position, they tend to make it easier to attack.

 

[DC2]

For anyone that thinks NRTs are effective, why did the FDA just basically approve them for indefinite use?

Or maybe just read these...
Harvard School of Public Health » HSPH News » Nicotine replacement therapies may not be effective in helping people quit smoking
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/11/study-finds-cold.html

I think I remember even more recent studies showing the same thing, but don't quote me on that.
I don't have time right now to go back and research all this again.

But I would like to say that it astounds me that any electronic cigarettes users could believe NRTs are effective.
I really thought nearly every one of us here knew for a fact they are not.

 

[DC2]

Yes, no, yes. We cannot be sure of exactly what goes on behind the scenes at every organization, so to hinge on conspiratorial aspects makes a position easy to dismiss. Any one part of the conspiracy being wrong can invalidate it. However by comparing the organizations own stated missions to their actions, they can be judged by their own public standards.

You are missing that conspiracy theories don't support a position, they tend to make it easier to attack.

Okay, I am pretty sure I get what you're saying...

You say that their position against electronic cigarettes is a lie and should be used against them.
Well that is what I'm saying too, only you don't like the "conspiracy" theory aspect.

So if we are going to use their position against electronic cigarettes against them, we have to prove they are wrong.
How close are we to accomplishing that in our effort to use truth to reveal their lies and overcome their decades of propaganda?

When we are more "believable" to the public than they are, the fight is over.
But how do we become more believable without exposing them for exactly what they are in the first place?

I just don't see how we can get the public to believe us instead of them without discrediting them first.
After all, we are dirty disgusting nicotine addicts and they only want to save the world.

 

[dr g]

For anyone that thinks NRTs are effective, why did the FDA just basically approve them for indefinite use?

Or maybe just read these...
Harvard School of Public Health » HSPH News » Nicotine replacement therapies may not be effective in helping people quit smoking
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/11/study-finds-cold.html

I think I remember even more recent studies showing the same thing, but don't quote me on that.
I don't have time right now to go back and research all this again.

But I would like to say that it astounds me that any electronic cigarettes users could believe NRTs are effective.
I really thought nearly every one of us here knew for a fact they are not.

Then again I'm not planning to quit vaping anytime soon, if ever ...
I get it though, but even a small positive clinical result is still a positive clinical result.

Okay, I am pretty sure I get what you're saying...

You say that their position against electronic cigarettes is a lie and should be used against them.
Well that is what I'm saying too, only you don't like the "conspiracy" theory aspect.

So if we are going to use their position against electronic cigarettes against them, we have to prove they are wrong.
How close are we to accomplishing that in our effort to use truth to reveal their lies and overcome their decades of propaganda?

When we are more "believable" to the public than they are, the fight is over.
But how do we become more believable without exposing them for exactly what they are in the first place?

I just don't see how we can get the public to believe us instead of them without discrediting them first.
After all, we are dirty disgusting nicotine addicts and they only want to save the world.

It'd be hard if not impossible to do that based on science since as you note the science dollars come from vested interests. The value of this approach is it doesn't rely on disproving what's already out there with limited resources to do so. Instead it sets up forward-looking framework for people to notice that these organizations' actions do not line up with their words.

In the conspiratorial framework the lack of science is a liability. In my proposed framework, the lack of science is probative.

"We just don't know, there isn't enough science." "Why aren't you doing something about that?" "Duhhhh"
versus
"We think you are serving an agenda!" "No we're not, and here are the flaws in your theory."

 

[DC2]

Now we just need the mainstream media to agree with you.

 

[7sixtwo]

...Technically other NRTs also get smokers to quit right?...

They might help a few people, but imo they're very very poor "replacements" for those used to smoking cigarettes.

The patch irritates skin and doesn't address the oral fixation at all, and the gum.. well, the gum would be better for those trying to quit chewing tobacco.

I tried both the patch and the gum, (which are both quite expensive if you buy them yourself), and they were not much help to me. I kept the gum around to use on planes and in other situations where I wasn't allowed to smoke, but that's it.

By contrast, I was able to seamlessly transition from analogs to a cig-a-like, and once I got over the whole "works like a cigarette, looks like a cigarette" thing, (which did help me stay off the cancer sticks, at first), I moved to a decent APV and more interesting flavors, cut back the nic level, and haven't backslid or had the desire for an analog in weeks.

Ymmv.

ETA: the big "cancer prevention" organizations don't promote e-cigs 'cause their pals in Big Gubmint and Big Pharma don't yet control the market. If/when that happens and anyone who'd like to vape their nic has 3 terrible Gubmint-approved "flavors" to choose from and 15ml of said liquid costs $30+, i.e. when everybody in their incestuous little circle's pockets are being nicely lined at our expense.. then the American Cancer Society will suddenly be on board.