More information here: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/anti-smoking-groups-that-oppose.html?m=1
American Lung Association
- Thread starter wacdenney
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I belive its a combo of a few things the ALA doesnt want anyone to take anything into their lungs and find the best way is cold turkey. Which is so crazy, cold turkey has the highest failure rate. Drug companies of course place a huge influance in what these other organizations think. We all know that all the other methiods have a 80 to 80% failure rate. But they all act like and say things like they have perfect rate. Its big money. Money talks. One of the cig companies bought Blu. So we will see if they get on board with e-cigs in the long run. I can see drug companies getting on board if they feel they will make big money from it.
The ALA (and the ACS and AMA) gets money from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Any "charity" that gets money from that foundation is therefore directly linked to Big Pharma via the largest benefactor for RWJF - Johnson & Johnson Co, makers of Nicoderm and other smoking cessation drugs.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/will-there-be-investigation-into-this.html
(Yes, this is "just some blog" I used in the interest of time but it has links to actual documentation.)
This is established information that is known to CASAA and other THR advocates. RWF is absolutely, positively proven to be linked to both J&J and numerous "health" charities that profit from demonizing tobacco and non-therapeutic nicotine products. If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself. This is from RWJF and explains exactly how they paid the ALA and other ANTZ groups via "grants" to lobby on the Foundation's behalf: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/web-assets/2005/01/the-smokeless-states-program)
I assure you, the accusation that the ANTZ groups are being paid off by BP and dependent upon continued tobacco tax dollars for their very existence is NOT irrational paranoia.
Research for treatments is one thing, but e-cigarettes are not a treatment for anything. They are a reduced harm alternative. If any of these groups truly cares about the health of smokers, then they would endorse such alternatives even if it only could reduce harm 10%. There is absolutely no argument anymore from the ANTZ that e-cigarettes cannot possibly be as potentially harmful as smoking. The ALA, ACS, AMA and other ANTZ calling for e-cigarettes to be withheld from smokers because of the low risk that youth MIGHT try using them, leaky cartridges and because they aren't approved by the FDA as a nicotine cessation treatment, all while admitting they are obviously a lower health risk, is highly suspect. To ignore 99% risk reduction for smokers while focusing on maybe the 0.5% risk of youth use or hazards from leaky carts or a small potential of some health risks long term is unethical and unconscionable, especially considering the thousands of consumers reporting health benefits, the ability to refrain from smoking and no reports of significant adverse health affects since they came on the market in 2003. There is no question hundreds of thousands are using them instead of smoking and no question that they are less toxic and contain less chemicals and carcinogens than smoke. This is completely different than some off-the-wall "cure" for some disease.
Last edited:
Except that doesn't explain the ALA's stance against low-risk, smoke-free tobacco products like snus/strips/lozenges/sticks, which do not affect the lungs in any way. Maybe the ACS or AMA can justify that ST may have a slight increase in risk than tobacco abstinence, but if the ALA truly cared about lung health, anything that gets people from exposing their lungs to smoke should be supported, especially if they cannot or will not quit all tobacco use, right? But the ALA tells people that ST is just as bad as smoking.
Lies, damn lies and more lies from the ANTZ.
Right from the horse's mouth...
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) grant archive...
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...
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) grant archive...
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...
What it comes down to If and when the PV prove to do what they do and show no bad effects, its going to put alot of people out of business, all those drugs, and smoking cessations that drug companies toot their horns about, tobacco companies, and of course the anti-smoking associations wont beable to fund the drug companies anymore and have their agenda pushed along.
Tobacco companies see, one of them already jumped on board. And the rest are looking into it.
It does come down to the almighty buck. And each and everyone of thems agenda.
Wouldnt you think that if the PV works for people get away from analogs the world should be happy? Their not because its stand in the way of many many agendas. If you look around the world and at the countries that have ban PV, who stands to gain from the ban, tobacco companies, drug companies.
Tobacco companies see, one of them already jumped on board. And the rest are looking into it.
It does come down to the almighty buck. And each and everyone of thems agenda.
Wouldnt you think that if the PV works for people get away from analogs the world should be happy? Their not because its stand in the way of many many agendas. If you look around the world and at the countries that have ban PV, who stands to gain from the ban, tobacco companies, drug companies.
Cultural legacy bias
(Clinging on to traditional assumptions and veiwpoints, being slow to accept new evidence - very typical in science)
Moral panic
(Fear of the new, fabricating negative outcomes associated with new things)
Puritanism
(Quit or die, the wholey unpragmatic veiw that addiction itself is morally bad, and should be removed from the face of the planet. Less realistic than wanting the aliens to land, or pigs to fly)
Funding
Actually, the first ones are the crucial ones. Its a matter of closed minds, self-righteous, non-worldly people and the arrogance that comes with being regarded as an authority. Typical of any health authority.
One day, with some high certainty IMO, all these health organisations are going to end up in court (WHO, ADA, ALA etc), getting their arses sued to hell for harmful advice and loss of health and life...
(Clinging on to traditional assumptions and veiwpoints, being slow to accept new evidence - very typical in science)
Moral panic
(Fear of the new, fabricating negative outcomes associated with new things)
Puritanism
(Quit or die, the wholey unpragmatic veiw that addiction itself is morally bad, and should be removed from the face of the planet. Less realistic than wanting the aliens to land, or pigs to fly)
Funding
Actually, the first ones are the crucial ones. Its a matter of closed minds, self-righteous, non-worldly people and the arrogance that comes with being regarded as an authority. Typical of any health authority.
One day, with some high certainty IMO, all these health organisations are going to end up in court (WHO, ADA, ALA etc), getting their arses sued to hell for harmful advice and loss of health and life...
Last edited:
With the number of deaths each year due to medical malpractice (somewhere along the line of 134,000) it is hard to blame folks for litigation. I have never filed a law suit but I have sure had a lot of bad experiences with doctors. My hubby went to his doc with chest pain (his Mom died of heart failure at 49), the doc said he had an ulcer, 2 days later he had a heart attack. He lived. My grandson went to the ER at 1 year old having a very hard time breathing, the ER doc told us he had the croup, I refused to leave. He ended up in the PICU because he had a major bacterial infection and subglottic shelf, his windpipe was completely blocked. My son ruptured a disc in his back and was in terrible pain, his doc said he pulled a muscle. 6 months later he could barely crawl after 4 visits to his doc and no referral for a specialist so insurance would pay (and strung out on pain meds) he went to a specialist anyway and had to threaten to sue the insurance company and the doc to get them to pay but pay they did. I have more but won't bore you with it. I don't trust doctors any more at all.
This is so true, unless they are looking at if from a total health stand point, not just lung cancer but mouth, throat cancer from smokeless products also. I dont think they have any problem with smoking cessations approved by the FDA.
I do agree they have an agenda and its not because they really care about everyones health, they get alot of funding and money.
Again its comes down to money. And again I would think they would all be happy that people are moving away from the thing they hate, analogs and choosing a healther way to get nicotine. But of course they hate nicotine to.
What it comes down to I dont trust anyone with an agenda, wheather it be a doctor, organization, FDA, or the White House. It seems when ever their is an agenda there is lots of money involved and when there is money involved the right thing to be done goes right out of the window.
When it comes down to it PV need to be proved they are safe so we can all stand on your own two feet with them. And the powers to be wont have a leg to stand on.
When it comes down to it PV need to be proved they are safe so we can all stand on your own two feet with them. And the powers to be wont have a leg to stand on.
Except the risk of oral cancer is also lower with ST (including the much-maligned "chew") than with smoking. In the case of snus, the evidence shows NO increased risk of ANY diseases and for smoke-free tobacco such as the strips, sticks, lozenges, snuff and western chew there is no reason to believe they'd be any higher risk than snus.
Yet the ALA relies on the few "negative" studies (that show such a tiny increase of risks that, for any other product, they would be considered proof of safety) as suitable evidence to warn smokers not to switch.
Last edited:
At the FDA meeting back in December, a guy from BP said that nicotine replacement therapies have a 95% FAILURE rate after 20 months of smoking cessation. 1/20 people are still not smoking after 20 months. It's abysmal! That's my favourite statistic EVER! I think I've quoted it a thousand times on here, it really says it all! He was using it in the context of short-term use of nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) and advocating a longer term use of them and a longer period of weaning off, though... still...what a load of poop!x
And think about for what he was arguing: Long-term use of nicotine products as replacement for smoking instead of requiring users to wean off in 12 weeks. This is admitting that 95% of smokers may need a long-term solution and that quitting smoking should be a higher priority than treating the nicotine addiction.
Objections of e-cigarettes by ANTZ have included that e-cigarettes have not been proven to address nicotine addiction and continued nicotine use would inevitably lead those addicted to nicotine back to smoking.
Since the ANTZ get funding from BP, they will be forced to support extended nicotine use as a way to reduce smoking and this is why CASAA was involved in supporting it at the FDA hearing. The ANTZ would have a hard time justifying objections to e-cigarettes that "don't treat addiction" while simultaneously supporting other nicotine products being used in that exact manner!
Objections of e-cigarettes by ANTZ have included that e-cigarettes have not been proven to address nicotine addiction and continued nicotine use would inevitably lead those addicted to nicotine back to smoking.
Since the ANTZ get funding from BP, they will be forced to support extended nicotine use as a way to reduce smoking and this is why CASAA was involved in supporting it at the FDA hearing. The ANTZ would have a hard time justifying objections to e-cigarettes that "don't treat addiction" while simultaneously supporting other nicotine products being used in that exact manner!
Anything that removes one of the lies from their arsenal is a good thing.
Now they are left with the following lies...
--Not FDA approved so we don't know what's in them
--Flavors are meant to attract children
Since FDA approved NRT products have flavors, it amazes me that they have the balls to tell the "flavors" lie.
But they really don't care if they speak out of both sides of their mouth, because they know the public won't even notice.
If there is one thing I've learned through all of this, it's just how collectively stupid the American public is.
And I won't hesitate to include myself in that number.
But at least I now know that I don't always know what I think I know.
Last edited:
In the past since I didn't like there stance towards Vaping I went to their Facebook page and told them how I quit smoking with the Ecig and told them how much better I fell since quieting smoking. It can't hurt and if they get enough of us on there all the time they might have to rethink their stance. Even if they don't change there stance maybe another smoker might see that and try out the Ecig.
https://www.facebook.com/lungusa?ref=ts&fref=ts
https://www.facebook.com/lungusa?ref=ts&fref=ts
Ditto! I've decided that donations are for people who want to buy virtue without actually doing anything. I do charity and volunteer work instead.
And the OP is spot on! Why do you think it's called the American Cancer Society instead of the Anti-Cancer Society? They know perfectly well that cancer is curable, but there's just too much money involved to stop the train! Same thing applies to the Red Cross, the Lung Association and all the big charities. It's all a scam.
Lately they have been spamming the crap out of us with these constant commercials (kinda ticking me off too) so I'm sure more will try it and they will make more money. Their side effects sound just like what happens when you quit cold turkey for the most part so why spend money on this crap? Worse, they are the same effect but amped up dramatically. I don't get why people would listen to that and think it's better. Are the not actually listening to what the commercial is telling them or do they mistakenly think it won't happen to them? Ultimately it's up to the person, not the Dr, so why are they agreeing to do it?
These drug commercials absolutely make me crazy! They show people smiling, playing, looking like they have the best life imaginable....meanwhile the announcer is telling you the possible side effects which are nearly always dire. Are people really that stupid? Evidently, the answer is yes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
