E-Cigarette Forum - Vocalek - Blogs
View RSS Feed


  1. First, Control the Damage

    by , 09-02-2011 at 03:16 PM
    Frankly, I'm getting sick (literally) of doctors and "public health experts" trotting out the "First, do no harm" adage as their justification for aiding and abetting the murder of millions of smokers.

    "I can't prescribe something that's harmful." Oh, really? I'd venture to say that a large percentage of the medications listed in the Physician's Desk Reference are substances that often are harmful when used as directed, can be harmful if prescribed for ...
    Tags: addiction, ethics
  2. What if we told smokers (and their doctors) the truth?

    by , 08-30-2011 at 02:37 PM
    [NOTE: These comments were published in the medical journal Tobacco Control on 9 August 2010 as a response to an article by Adrienne B Mejia, Pamela M Ling, and Stanton A Glantz.

    Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA. Tob Control 2010;19:297-305.

    Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the American Association of Public Health Physicians also commented. He described the article as reporting on "a number of Monte Carlo simulations ...
    Tags: smokeless, truth
  3. Worth Reading: The scientific foundation for tobacco harm reduction (THR)

    by , 08-27-2011 at 10:57 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Vocalek View Post
    This article, recently published in the Harm Reduction Journal is definitely worth reading.


    Those of you who are new to this arena may not realize that e-cigarettes are just one tool that can be used to reduce the harm caused by smoking. Any non-combusted form of nicotine is less hazardous than inhaling smoke. Options would include e-cigarettes, snus, dissolvable tobacco products (orbs, strips, sticks)
  4. Anti-Tobacco Harm Reduction stance makes no sense

    by , 08-26-2011 at 03:48 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Vocalek View Post
    To us, it looks like "stupid"; but "delusional" is a more accurate description of the mind-state of folks like her.

    The point she seems to miss is that she IS doing harm by preventing smokers from switching to products that won't give them COPD or lung cancer, and that will reduce their risks of cancer and cardiovascular disease by 90 to 99%.

    I have heard folks with medical degrees hide behind the "do no harm" mantra. "I took an oath
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12