Nope, not a personal attack. Yours is a well-thought-out, well-researched, objective analysis based on all the evidence!
He's ugly?
Washington Post: E-cigarettes raise new questions about smoking
- Thread starter Vocalek
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
He's ugly?
Very well said. I'm starting to gain some confidence that skewed junk science going forward won't work for much longer. They simply cannot find the smoking gun. Not for lack of trying either. I'm sure plenty of scientists have been tasked with funding "the big one" to take down the ecig world. We'll never hear about that though. Not a single peep.
If regulation can get pushed off another 6-12 months I think there will be enough hard evidence in our favor that can't be defended or debunked to the point that regulators may simply throw up their arms and say screw it.
It would be a kick in the teeth to have knee jerk regulation be pre-maturely put into place before overwhelming credible evidence comes to the forefront of the issue (not saying the current studies aren't credible. they just don't have the teeth to sway decision makers). One thing the US doesn't do well...ever...is to go backwards with regulation. De-regulation is a thing of the past. It's like a 4 letter word to a politician.
Last edited:
He's ugly?
I couldn't sit and watch the video as I didn't want to lose brain cells. But, he did say that the tax increase on cigarettes would go first to anti smoking programs. I guess he wants an increase in the grants he's getting from the government, etc. By the look of his "office" it looks like he needs it... He should also spend some of it at a barber shop and upgrading his wardrobe.
That's what bothers me the most; they demanded studies showing that vaping is indeed less harmful than smoking; we provided many such studies, and they simply ignore them. At the same time, they couldn't find an iota of scientific evidence that vaping is harmful--so what do they do? They invoke the children!
So, vaping hasn't been around long enough for long term proof of safety. It hasn't been proven safe. My question has to be, how long is a lack of evidence going to be presented as evidence? Possibly, the burden of proof is being applied to the wrong side.
By the same token, there's no studies saying it is harmful long term either. If they limit, regulate or ban ecigs then there won't be either.
Very little is actually about "public health". Most of the arguements result in control of the marketplace. The studies that have been done demostrate the postive results of vaping in comparison to cigarette smoking and those studies are ignored. Many of those ignored studies have passed even higher evidence standards than what the FDA continually sites.
There is actually quite a bite of evidence, plus some common sense and a lot of clinical reports that indicate vaping is much, much better than smoking. There is nothing - zero - doesn't exist - that leads to the conclusion that vaping is worse than smoking. Attempting to modify that last position to give the appearance of being "fair" is also doing a lot of people and public health an injustice.
Ecigs are for smokers. They should not be compared with not smoking. 70% of smokers want to quit, most of those have tried other smoking cessation products previously and the results has been that less than 10% of smokers actually do quit for 6 months or more. Do I see the FDA or NIH or any other authority interested in discovering what the quit rates are for ecigs? Nope. I don't even hear the words "tobacco harm reduction" as part of the discussion from the FDA. That concept is also ignored.
Has the FDA expressed concerns over battery safety, quality of VG/PG inhaled, level of nicotine, labeling, child safety caps, clinical medical improvements (tests, xrays, etc) or other measures of personal health or ANYTHING that would be of value to the average person? Nope. The FDA website still shows a tiny flash drive as an example of what an ecig can look like. The FDA doesn't even care to know what they are regulating.
Cigarettes are legal. Smokers don't know what is in them, they don't know the nicotine content, additives are allowed that are known cacrenigeans and increase addiction, worsening personal health, kill people, public health dollar drain, contribute to enviromental waste and heavily taxed which contributes to general funds. For every few smokers that quit, some kid may not be able to get heallth care. Cigarettes are not under fire.
The approved cessation products do not work, are expensive and some have horrific side effects, including death. Children have also been known to die after gaining access to gums and lozenges (which I think is more attractive than a pipe) and the FDA approves those.
I read where the NIH was sponsering a large study of ecigs / vaping, however the control group used for comparison was going to be non-smokers (Rice University). The study is worthless by design.
Why would you expect anything different?
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong ...
ANTZ couldn't give a damn about helping smokers improve their health.
What they want is to purge even the memory of tobacco, smoking, and nicotine
from the face of the planet ... Well, FDA Approved patches and gums are OK.
Taxes that are paid to people like Glantz to make a living through grants from the government. It's a bit more complicated than pointing a finger at only one industry or entity.
I have heard Glantz on the radio make outrageous statements that have nothing to do with long-term studies. He is well-known for immediately deleting any counter-evidence on his website. He is not a liar by the lawyers' definition, but as a scientist's daughter and an engineer I believe he clearly IS a liar by the science defintion. Misrepresenting facts to make people think something factually opposite is "fair" in court, but highly unethical in science.
There are a lot of anti-ecig people that we treat with respect even in disagreement. There are a handful we have trouble according that respect to, and he is one of them. That lady running the EU committee for tobacco rules is another. They are making ZERO effort to search for truth, or hear it. ZERO.
Regarding long-term studies, vapers have been BEGGING folks to do studies for years. The ANTZ have a moral policy against doing or supporting any tobacco-related studies (even though they call for them!) and lobby against the Gov't doing such studies, AND repeatedly deny any credibility to studies funded by any tobacco-related industry OR any advocates of anything nicotine-related. So, draw a picture of this in set theory and tell me who IS going to do the studies.
If what has happened to snus (after 30 years showing NO long-term, negative health effects) is any indication, "long-term" studies of e-cigs showing no harm will have no impact whatsoever on ANTZ lying about the health effects and still trying to ban them. Nor will long-term studies showing no negative health effects improve social acceptance, taxation or regulation (based on the snus history, as well.)
It's not about health, it's about controlling behavior, elitism, idealism, power and a paycheck (not necessarily in that order.)
This is why it is important to know of the ANTZ history as tobacco prohibitionists, to really understand their tactics and their true goals.
Our only hope is to expose the lies about both low-risk tobacco AND e-cigarettes and be as loud about the facts as possible. E-cigarettes have something snus never had - a extremely huge and growing fan club that can make some noise - if they are so inclined.
Last edited:
Isn't snuss basically chew, which has been known to burn holes in gums and cause mouth cancer?
Please stick around and please research the history of the ongoing battle that began about 5 years ago. Had it not been for people on this forum,CASAA,and the 2009 lawsuit brought AGAINST the FDA and won by SE and Njoy you would not have found this life saving product. Please go to CASAA and read the history of this movement. There is a reason for the distrust of people like Mr. Glantz and organizations such as ALA,ACS,AHA,Matt Myers etc.
No, snus (Swedish snus) is the the safest and most extensively studied tobacco (smoking) substitute. It's been used in Sweden for 200 years and has been proven to to have almost no ill effects on users.
Snus is considered and regulated as food product in Sweden and has to meet strict quality and manufacturing standards. Swedish snus has the lowest levels of TSNAs in comparison to any other snus or chewing tobacco.
Last edited:
Tobacco taxes are a significant source of income for states, as well as the tobacco settlement funds which are payments made based on the number of cigarettes sold in each state. They get more money with more people smoking.
Per agreement in the tobacco settlement, the funds were to be used to cover smoker's health problems and for quit smoking campaigns. 43 states got an "F" score for using the money that way. I don't recall the exact watchdog group, but they have compiled a chart showing what states are really using the money for and it's going for other things, often very essential needs that would make it hard for states to live without those funds.
Just watching the first few minutes of Gantz statements, most of what he said is twisted.
No, Snus is processed (probably washed and other things) to remove contaminants. There are some snuffs and/or chews in some countries which even smokeless advocates consider too dangerous, I think in India, and there is also one that is LEGAL (unlike snus) in Europe that comes from China and is in-between.
The legality or illegality is not related to harm or harmlessness, it's based on lobbying by either BT, BP, or ANTZ. Safe Snus are illegal in India, along with their dangerous stuff, but cigarettes are still legal. Safe Snus are illegal in the EU but imported unsafe chew or snuff is legal (grandfathered or something.)
Everybody goes by what they hear, nobody goes by science. It's scary.
LOL! I know you know better than that, Steve.
For anyone else reading this that still thinks that the common myth Steve posted IS true: CASAA: Smoke-free Tobacco
Last edited:
LOL! I know you know better than that, Steve.
For anyone else reading this that still thinks that the common myth Steve posted IS true: CASAA: Smoke-free Tobacco
Another good source of information about smokeless tobacco products is the "For Smokers Only" site, written by Dr. Brad Rodu. Links on this page lead to descriptions of research on the safety of ST products.
For Smokers Only
Dr. Rodu is the author of "The Scientific Foundation of Tobacco Harm Reduction, 20006-2011." HRJ | Full text | The Scientific Foundation for Tobacco Harm Reduction, 2006-2011
Vocalek, thanks for the amazing post! This will give me hours of stuff to research!
It does appear from this information that Glantz is E-cig enemy #1, although I don't feel that came through at all in the Washington Post article. I find this to be a positive aspect of the article as it does a pretty good job of staying neutral. Any casual reader would simply find out that one expert (and he must be considered an expert even if his position is antagonistic to our own) is stating that, "Theres no question that e-cigarettes deliver fewer [toxic substances] than conventional cigarettes," and that more research is needed. This is perfect! No casual reader will remember his name 30 seconds after reading it, but they've been informed by an expert of things that are essentially true. I think this is why I believed it was an unjustified inflammatory statement. Now I understand that it was justified, however I still believe not in the context of this article.
Back to reading...
The article is really not balanced because they intentionally did not reach out to or quote any of the very respected Public Health experts, such as Bill Godshaw or Dr Seigel of Boston University or reference the recent study from Drexel University. This information is not hidden from them or difficult to find, nor are these long-time anti-smoking experts difficult to reach out to. You have to learn to look "behind" the written story and read between the lines to know if there is a bias within the article.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
