Editor of journal Tobacco Control refuses to discuss the issues - Page 2
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 61
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Editor of journal Tobacco Control refuses to discuss the issues

  1. #11
    Super Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    377

    Default

    My apologies, Dr. Malone...

  2. #12
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    the_vape_nerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    2,617

    Default

    vocalek and mssam...i think this back and forth between you two is informative..kudos to you both for keeping your disagreement respectable and not getting personal
    ByStander1 likes this.

  3. #13
    PV Master ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vocalek View Post
    Since FDA has made the requirements so complex, they can smile and tell Congress, "Yes, of course we are following the law" while they chuckle as they pass the "Tobacco-free Zone" signs posted all over the FDA offices. Those signs, by the way, also specify that use of e-cigarettes is prohibited, along with smokeless products. They haven't started to institute mouth inspections of staff and visitors yet, so I'm no sure how they can enforce their prohibition.
    The FDA is on a mission ... !!
    I speculate the regulations they will reveal in April
    were chiseled in stone ... Last year
    and they were not happy when told they were
    to hold off regulating until AFTER the Election !!
    Last edited by Petrodus; 02-04-2013 at 03:54 PM.
    the_vape_nerd likes this.

  4. #14
    TTK
    TTK is offline
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Johnson City, TN
    Posts
    486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teissenb View Post
    For the record, it is Dr. Malone.
    Is it an MD, PhD,JD or EdD, or what? I don't much care for Dr. preceding a name in print because you can't tell just by that prefix. Malone, MD would be fine if that is true. I am a Dr too, but PhD, so I don't use the Dr. preceding my name because of the confusion factor. On any given subject, it can be important to know.

    Edit just to add: Even for a person who has a doctorate, it is not improper to call them Ms. or Mr. or Mrs. etc.
    Last edited by TTK; 02-04-2013 at 04:56 PM.
    ByStander1, TomCatt and RosaJ like this.

  5. #15
    Full Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    76

    Default

    | UCSF School of Nursing

    There is a long history of women in science being referred to without their titles while men frequently get their titles included. I think we need to be particularly careful in this regard.

  6. #16
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    727

    Default

    Still some one with a PHD in basket weaving can use the title DR.
    So it never hurts to check.

    I have seen my share of health care story's, by folks using the title DR. Who were not MDs or any where related to heath care.

  7. #17
    TTK
    TTK is offline
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Johnson City, TN
    Posts
    486

    Default

    Well, Ruth E. Malone, RN, PhD, FAAN is the most appropriate in my opinion.

  8. #18
    CASAA Activist Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    Vocalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Springfield, VA
    Posts
    7,166
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    To quote Jesse Kline, writer for the National Post, "Anti-tobacco advocates need to get over their deep-seated antipathy toward smokers."

    As for the demonization practice, it just may be a dud when it comes to helping smokers.

    Smoking dropped sharply after the Surgeon General’s landmark report on the dangers of tobacco was published in 1964, but rates have plateaued during the past two decades despite increasingly stringent measures to persuade people to quit. The study found biological evidence that may help explain why some people respond to anti-smoking inducements, such as higher taxes and the expansion of clean-air laws, and why others do not.

    “We found that for people who are genetically predisposed to tobacco addiction, higher cigarette taxes were not enough to dissuade them from smoking,” said lead researcher Jason M. Fletcher, associate professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Yale School of Public Health.

    The “gene-policy interaction” study, the first of its kind, found that variations in the nicotine receptor were linked to the influence of higher taxes on multiple measures of tobacco use. Individuals with a specific genetic variant decreased their tobacco use by nearly 30 percent when facing high tobacco taxes, while individuals with an alternative genetic variant had no response.

    “This study is an important first step in considering how to further reduce adult smoking rates,” said Fletcher. “We need to understand why existing policies do not work for everyone so that we can develop more effective approaches.”

    The gap in the effectiveness of tobacco-control policies remains poorly understood. The findings suggest that strategies that do not rely on financial or social consequences may be needed to persuade a still-significant segment of the population to quit, notes Fletcher.
    Study Shows that Genetics Play an Important Role in Anti-Tobacco Policies | SciTech Daily

    Oh, but I am forgetting. It isn't about saving the lives of smokers.
    Rickajho, sonicdsl and Fiamma like this.


    ----
    Support CASAA -http://www.casaa.org/Donate_LKWE.html ---

  9. #19
    PV Master Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    kristin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    CASAA Board of Directors - Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,854

    Default

    To quote Dr. Carl Phillips about this topic:

    "...those who advocate eliminating all tobacco use, or even all smoking, do not qualify as a third party. They are every bit as biased as the industry is. Indeed, it is almost impossible to find an example of a major tobacco company producing junk science or otherwise misleading the public and regulators about their research, whereas there are so many examples of anti-tobacco activist researchers doing so that it would be impossible to even begin to list them. If the [tobacco] industry is not trusted to control this research then they [anti-tobacco researchers] should not be trusted either."
    Folks, PLEASE start reevaluating your long-held beliefs about "Big Tobacco." Think about it - everything you still think of as "known facts" was told to us by the same ANTZ who are now lying about e-cigarettes and low-risk smokeless tobacco products! Don't you think that at least makes those "known facts" worthy of review and doubt? Do you think they just lie about e-cigarettes (or just need to be "convinced") and everything they told us about Big Tobacco was not warped, twisted or downright lies but absolute truth? They really just learned how to lie so skillfully since e-cigarettes came on the market? The truth is that much of what we think we know about "Big Tobacco," smokeless tobacco, smoking and the benevolent mantle taken on by the ANTZ isn't "truth" at all.
    Last edited by kristin; 02-06-2013 at 06:18 PM.
    jamie, CJsKee, Vocalek and 10 others like this.


  10. #20
    PV Master ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,663

    Default

    Believe It OR Not
    Kristin is speaking the truth
    CJsKee, rothenbj, kristin and 4 others like this.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks