CDC looking for exsmokers who were dual users of e-cigs, smokeless tobacco or cigars and were diagnosed with serious health condition

[erazzz]

You know, I use to really like the Tips from Former Smokers campaign. Their shocking advertisements really showed smokers what could happen to them if they continued to smoke by showing real people suffering from the health effects of smoking.

However, now I really question it. This is step up for e-cigarettes to fail. Chances are, a medical issue that arised from smoking or from a pre-existing condition, is going to be blamed on e-cigarettes.

So thanks CDC. No need to recruit liars to share your false claims. If you already know what you want them to say, just hire actors.

 

[aikanae1]

Except we have a heads up on what's coming for a change.

 

[cmknight]

Yeah, but that 'heads-up' isn't going to help us if John Q. Public falls for this garbage. The CDC needs a cease and desist order slammed into their faces.

 

[Uma]

Then Slantz will take the CDC adv data and do an ep spin, and then the CDC will take the ep spin and do a fear monger release, and then the MSA will say... Oh, heavens yes, let's add this to the $$$ list.

 

[aikanae1]

Yeah, but that 'heads-up' isn't going to help us if John Q. Public falls for this garbage. The CDC needs a cease and desist order slammed into their faces.

Yes it does if we can counter the messaging first.

What are "smoking related diseases"? Those same diseases can be caused without exposure to smoke and what is the link to ecigs? Anyone can google "smokers flu" and find lots of information about people feeling worse after they quit "cold turkety". Often that includes COPD and lung disease. It's fairly well known. Even cessation literature mentions it's a possibility. That doesn't mean that quitting smoking caused the disease. It means smoking masked the illness and quitting unmasked it.

They have a hard point to prove. It might make for good ad copy - or so they think it will, but not if we get there first.

 

[rothenbj]

At the rate the prohibitionists are working, every disease know to man will be on the smoking related list, thus keeping the smoking related deaths total high. I'm waiting for the SG report that pushes the avoidable deaths caused by smoking rate to move above the 50% that they currently quote, any year now.

It's not unrealistic that at some point, if they are allowed to continue using political science for their studies, that one day they'll be selling tobacco use as a certainty that you'll die a horrible death. My only question is, why are the non-tobacco/nicotine users dying?

 

[Kent C]

CDC defines smoking related deaths as for anyone who have smoked 100 cigarettes in their lifetime. If you smoked 5 packs from 14-16, then quit, if you die of any respiratory or heart related illness at 99 yrs old, you're a 'smoking related death'. If an infant dies from almost anything and one or both of their parents smoke, then that's included in the statistic. If someone dies from burning where a cigarette is considered the source, that's included in the stat.

Blowing Smoke About Tobacco-Related Deaths | Cato Institute
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1998/10/lies.pdf
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/22832.pdf

FORCES International - Archive

Incredibly, analysis of the ages of the 400K supposed deaths computed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) SAMMEC (Smoking Attributable Mortality, Morbidity and Economic Costs) program shows that tobacco is not a major health threat at all - the supposed victims did not die early!

THE SMOKING "VICTIMS" LIVED LONGER THAN THE REST OF US, BY ABOUT 2 YEARS - 71.9 vs. 70.
OVER 70,000, or about 17%, DIED "PREMATURELY" AT AGES GREATER THAN 85.

 

[aikanae1]

So if I get hit by a car it's a "smoking related death"?
The Onion should get a hold of this.

 

[sonicdsl]

So if I get hit by a car it's a "smoking related death"?
The Onion should get a hold of this.

Of course... if the driver was lighting a cigarette at the time, got distracted, and hit you thereby causing your death... it's smoking related.

"Add that to the tally, stat!!"

 

[AgentAnia]

CDC defines smoking related deaths as for anyone who have smoked 100 cigarettes in their lifetime. If you smoked 5 packs from 14-16, then quit, if you die of any respiratory or heart related illness at 99 yrs old, you're a 'smoking related death'. If an infant dies from almost anything and one or both of their parents smoke, then that's included in the statistic. If someone dies from burning where a cigarette is considered the source, that's included in the stat.

Blowing Smoke About Tobacco-Related Deaths | Cato Institute
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1998/10/lies.pdf
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/22832.pdf

FORCES International - Archive

Incredibly, analysis of the ages of the 400K supposed deaths computed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) SAMMEC (Smoking Attributable Mortality, Morbidity and Economic Costs) program shows that tobacco is not a major health threat at all - the supposed victims did not die early!

THE SMOKING "VICTIMS" LIVED LONGER THAN THE REST OF US, BY ABOUT 2 YEARS - 71.9 vs. 70.
OVER 70,000, or about 17%, DIED "PREMATURELY" AT AGES GREATER THAN 85.

Evidently, if one's death is classified as "smoking related," then by definition one has died prematurely. Ah, the Wonderful World of Twististics!

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Of course... if the driver was lighting a cigarette at the time, got distracted, and hit you thereby causing your death... it's smoking related.

"Add that to the tally, stat!!"

And if they had a beer 2 hours before they get a 2fer, alcohol related.

 

[Kent C]

Evidently, if one's death is classified as "smoking related," then by definition one has died prematurely. Ah, the Wonderful World of Twististics!

That's right. The 'premature' is assumed. The only requirements are 100 cigs and an illness/condition they have linked to smoking. I used to have all the links at hand in the 90's. I was a 'smoker advocate' so to speak and read the whole EPA study in '92 and all the epidemiological studies that made it up. In the links mentioned it points out that the CDC won't actually supply the base data on smoking related deaths, only the numbers but, back then they had a few 'informants' that used to work for them who told of specific incidents - dying from smoking in bed and a reaching for a dropped lit cigarette in a car were the type of things that were included. It wasn't the bulk of the statistic of course but they were counted.

One of the studies for the EPA showed an 'innoculative effect' where the non-smoking spouses of smokers actually had less connected illnesses than the control group. That study was simply thrown out when the EPA did their 'metastudy' for second hand smoke.

 

[Anjaffm]

.... that one day they'll be selling tobacco use as a certainty that you'll die a horrible death. My only question is, why are the non-tobacco/nicotine users dying?

Yeah. Reminds me of a little satirical poem in German that is often said by smokers and / or people who drink alcohol:

Alkohol und Nikotin
rafft die halbe Menschheit hin.
Ohne Schnaps und ohne Rauch
stirbt die andere Hälfte auch.

=
Alcohol and nicotine will kill half of humanity.
Without drinking and without smoking, the other half will die too

And actually, I would not mind dying "prematurely" at 85

 

[Fulgurant]

At the rate the prohibitionists are working, every disease know to man will be on the smoking related list, thus keeping the smoking related deaths total high. I'm waiting for the SG report that pushes the avoidable deaths caused by smoking rate to move above the 50% that they currently quote, any year now.

It's not unrealistic that at some point, if they are allowed to continue using political science for their studies, that one day they'll be selling tobacco use as a certainty that you'll die a horrible death. My only question is, why are the non-tobacco/nicotine users dying?

Duh. Third-hand smoke.

 

[Anjaffm]

Duh. Third-hand smoke.

Bwaaahaaahaaa!!!

 

[wheezal]

Duh. Third-hand smoke.

i actually only generate fourth-hand smoke. that's where the smoke i produced in the past as a smoker traveled even further back into time and killed someone's grandfather, creating a paradox in our present time.

it took me years to master....but i must say it was well worth it.

 

[Anjaffm]

@wheezal:
shame on you!
That poor granddad does not like that one bit!