Reason, Sullum nails NY Times.....

[Kent C]

Snus and E-Cigarettes Are Indisputably Safer Than Smoking, Contrary to What The New York Times Wants You to Think - Hit & Run : Reason.com

"The New York Times has a long history of producing inane editorials that read like they were written by a sleepy committee of high school students. Its usual approach is to regurgitate information from a recent news story about some perceived problem, then endorse a half-baked statist solution that restricts individual freedom in the name of public safety. Yesterday the paper ran a fine example of the genre, headlined "The Perils of Smokeless tobacco."

...

"The Times displays the same inability to comprehend the difference between safer and safe in its discussion of electronic cigarettes, which it misleadingly shoehorns into an editorial about "smokeless tobacco products." That's misleading not because e-cigarettes are not smokeless but because they are not tobacco products. As with snus, the Times brushes aside the product's huge health advantages:

Even without burning tobacco, e-cigarettes carry real health risks. Nicotine can harm the developing adolescent brain and cause lasting cognitive damage. It is also possible that once addicted to nicotine, young people will progress to smoking traditional cigarettes.

The Times cites two alleged health risks, both of which are speculative at best. "It is unlikely that the sporadic exposure to the low levels of nicotine delivered by e-cigarettes is sufficient to cause serious brain damage," notes Boston University public health professor Michael Siegel on his tobacco policy blog. "There is absolutely no evidence to support this contention." As for progression to conventional cigarettes, it was never a very plausible concern, and it plainly is not happening in any significant way, since vaping and smoking rates among teenagers are moving in opposite directions."

The NYT is just another example of major news media "reporting" what they believe to be "fair and balanced" by throwing in a few light positive notes but bringing up all the false and negative aspects of ecigs promoted by the fascistic scientists who get gov't grants for that purpose only - or they wouldn't get any grants

 

[Mossy]

This article is just a rehash of ones that have gone before, they obviously have an agenda driven by someone. Every article they have published associates E cigs with tobacco, and if thats not good enough drag out the dangerous nicotine is as bad as ...... angle, everything they have published to date has been totally misleading............ just like the CDC and FDA really.

 

[nicnik]

This article is just a rehash of ones that have gone before, they obviously have an agenda driven by someone. Every article they have published associates E cigs with tobacco, and if thats not good enough drag out the dangerous nicotine is as bad as ****** angle, everything they have published to date has been totally misleading............ just like the CDC and FDA really.

I believe you are referring to the NYT article, not the Reason article. Boy, that NYT article is trash. The dangerous kind.

 

[Mossy]

Yep the NYT.......... another article like this they loose my subscription.

 

[AndriaD]

I really don't think that any of the mainstream media can be counted on for anything approaching 'fair an balanced' on e-cigs, because all the major media are owned by the Big Corp monster -- who definitely prefer the status quo; anything new and world-changing is anathema to them on general principle.

Andria

 

[Mossy]

I was so angry with the NYT I didn't click the link to see the reason article here.......I just did and I'm so glad there are people out there that use words so much better than I can to get the message across.

 

[nicnik]

Yep the NYT.......... another article like this they loose my subscription.

Maybe you should demand a refund, too.

 

[Mossy]

I really don't think that any of the mainstream media can be counted on for anything approaching 'fair an balanced' on e-cigs, because all the major media are owned by the Big Corp monster -- who definitely prefer the status quo; anything new and world-changing is anathema to them on general principle.

Andria

I think they just don't like not having control of everything they touch.I saw a good quote about News Corp or News Ltd (Down Under) which is Murdoch's company, it should be on a T shirt.........." Is That The Truth or Is your News Limited "

 

[nicnik]

I was so angry with the NYT I didn't click the link to see the reason article here.......I just did and I'm so glad there are people out there that use words so much better than I can to get the message across.

I agree. They do a great job of it. Way better than I could do.

 

[AndriaD]

I think they just don't like not having control of everything they touch.I saw a good quote about News Corp or News Ltd (Down Under) which is Murdoch's company, it should be on a T shirt.........." Is That The Truth or Is your News Limited "

Control of, a financial piece of... It's driving them mad that they had a chance in the 60s to work with e-cigs, and all of them, BT, BP, they all passed, so no one developed it, and the idea kinda died, until Hon Lik developed his version -- and before BT and BP knew what hit them, they realized that that ship had sailed and passed them by. It's a complete game-changer, world-changer, and they have no serious financial stake in it -- other than pharmaceutical nicotine, and those piddly cigalikes that BT is trying to foist on the public as "revolutionary new technology." They probably were... in 2009.

Andria

 

[philoshop]

The NYT ran another panic-mongering op-ed the same day titled - "It's time to regulate e-cigs".
http://www nytimes.com/2015/04/23/opinion/its-time-to-regulate-e-cigarettes.html?src=recg

 

[BuGlen]

I really don't think that any of the mainstream media can be counted on for anything approaching 'fair an balanced' on e-cigs, because all the major media are owned by the Big Corp monster -- who definitely prefer the status quo; anything new and world-changing is anathema to them on general principle.

Andria

All media relies on two things mainly: ratings and advertising dollars. For ratings they point and yell and say: "Look, something scary over there that will kill your children so you better tune in or click this link!". This was happening long before e-cigs and it will continue to be the model as long as the American people fall for it.

Advertising dollars drive content to a lesser extent, but you can be sure that the media channels won't run stories that truly damage the reputation or sales of their advertisers. If they do (because everyone else is), then they'll play it down as much as they can and not lead with that story. It is a business after all, so we shouldn't expect them to do things that go against the best interest of the company and its share holders.

ETA: The Reason article is excellent as always, and that site has become one of my regular places for reading up on popular and important topics.

 

[AndriaD]

All media relies on two things mainly: ratings and advertising dollars. For ratings they point and yell and say: "Look, something scary over there that will kill your children so you better tune in or click this link!". This was happening long before e-cigs and it will continue to be the model as long as the American people fall for it.

Advertising dollars drive content to a lesser extent, but you can be sure that the media channels won't run stories that truly damage the reputation or sales of their advertisers. If they do (because everyone else is), then they'll play it down as much as they can and not lead with that story. It is a business after all, so we shouldn't expect them to do things that go against the best interest of the company and its share holders.

ETA: The Reason article is excellent as always, and that site has become one of my regular places for reading up on popular and important topics.

Exactly. One of the local TV channels has this slogan "Keeping the powerful accountable," and everytime I hear that, I bellow at the TV about the sad state of affairs with the FDA and CDC. If something definitive (prosecutable!) could be proven against them, I suspect they'd have a hayday with that, but meantime they want to blather on about how "dangerous" e-cigs are, and PROTECT THE CHILDREN! Nevermind the huge news flash about there FINALLY being an alternative to smoking or suffering. Their corporate overlords wouldn't like that news to be broadcast.

Andria

 

[BuGlen]

Exactly. One of the local TV channels has this slogan "Keeping the powerful accountable," and everytime I hear that, I bellow at the TV about the sad state of affairs with the FDA and CDC. If something definitive (prosecutable!) could be proven against them, I suspect they'd have a hayday with that, but meantime they want to blather on about how "dangerous" e-cigs are, and PROTECT THE CHILDREN! Nevermind the huge news flash about there FINALLY being an alternative to smoking or suffering. Their corporate overlords wouldn't like that news to be broadcast.

Andria

I saw an interview on Real Time with Bill Maher last night where he was talking to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about the history of vaccine regulation (how the manufacturers can't be sued for damages), the content of mercury in certain vaccines, and the growing number of vaccines being given to kids. Kennedy stated that the corruption in the CDC regarding vaccines and the main pharma company that makes them (Merck) is a real problem. So today, there's already news stories from certain outlets calling Kennedy an anti-vaxxer and a conspiracy theorist.

To be fair, Kennedy did appear to try to link the increased autism rates with the mercury content in vaccines, so he made himself an easy target. Had he just discussed mercury content, increased vaccines and profit by Merck, and the CDC corruption, he might have escaped some of that criticism.

 

[AndriaD]

I saw an interview on Real Time with Bill Maher last night where he was talking to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about the history of vaccine regulation (how the manufacturers can't be sued for damages), the content of mercury in certain vaccines, and the growing number of vaccines being given to kids. Kennedy stated that the corruption in the CDC regarding vaccines and the main pharma company that makes them (Merck) is a real problem. So today, there's already news stories from certain outlets calling Kennedy an anti-vaxxer and a conspiracy theorist.

To be fair, Kennedy did appear to try to link the increased autism rates with the mercury content in vaccines, so he made himself an easy target. Had he just discussed mercury content, increased vaccines and profit by Merck, and the CDC corruption, he might have escaped some of that criticism.

I don't really know enough about autism to have an opinion either way regarding the role that vaccines may play -- it was my understanding that autism was a genetic disorder, but I know that genes can be "switched on" by a wide variety of factors. But to me it does seem very short-sighted to risk whole new epidemics of diseases that had been fought into submission via vaccines, just because of some fantastical reportage that vaccines may have some implication in autism, a fairly rare disorder which itself has a very large spectrum of affliction. It's like throwing out the whole baby AND his family AND all his neighbors AND half his town with the bathwater.

It's been known for a very long time how dangerous mercury is, but no one seems to have considered that those "high efficiency" lightbulbs contain it... and lightbulbs break very easily. If they really stick to this insane and inane idea of doing away with incandescents in favor of those, I foresee a whole host of new mercury-related environmental disasters.

Andria

 

[BuGlen]

I don't really know enough about autism to have an opinion either way regarding the role that vaccines may play -- it was my understanding that autism was a genetic disorder, but I know that genes can be "switched on" by a wide variety of factors. But to me it does seem very short-sighted to risk whole new epidemics of diseases that had been fought into submission via vaccines, just because of some fantastical reportage that vaccines may have some implication in autism, a fairly rare disorder which itself has a very large spectrum of affliction. It's like throwing out the whole baby AND his family AND all his neighbors AND half his town with the bathwater.

It's been known for a very long time how dangerous mercury is, but no one seems to have considered that those "high efficiency" lightbulbs contain it... and lightbulbs break very easily. If they really stick to this insane and inane idea of doing away with incandescents in favor of those, I foresee a whole host of new mercury-related environmental disasters.

Andria

My concern about the media coverage of the interview (that's emerging as I type this) is focusing on the one autism comment and ignoring all the other content. Kennedy summarized that the corruption of the CDC with its links to Merck need to be investigated by an oversight committee, and that's being ignored. He also summarized that he's not anti-vaccine at all but concerned about all the other substances going into the vaccines that aren't the active agent, and that's being ignored. He made one comment about autism, and he's being labelled anti-vaxxer first if foremost, so the rest of what he had to say just doesn't matter.

It's just too darn familiar a pattern, and one that we see all too often.

 

[philoshop]

My father is a retired dentist who spoke openly against the use of mercury in amalgam fillings in the early/mid 1970's.
He was censured by the ADA and given the option of "shutting his mouth" or having his license revoked. He chose to keep his license and feed us, so he mostly shut his mouth.
My youngest brother is also a dentist and his dissertation in the mid 1980's about the potential dangers of mercury content in amalgam fillings was highly praised in peer review.
I don't know this for certain, but I don't think mercury-based amalgam fillings are even allowed in the US today.

The wheels of bureaucracy grind slowly.

 

[EleanorR]

Yep the NYT.......... another article like this they lose my subscription.

What?!! I didn't know you had a bird [needing cage liner]!

 

[nicnik]

My father is a retired dentist who spoke openly against the use of mercury in amalgam fillings in the early/mid 1970's.
He was censured by the ADA and given the option of "shutting his mouth" or having his license revoked. He chose to keep his license and feed us, so he mostly shut his mouth.
My youngest brother is also a dentist and his dissertation in the mid 1980's about the potential dangers of mercury content in amalgam fillings was highly praised in peer review.
I don't know this for certain, but I don't think mercury-based amalgam fillings are even allowed in the US today.

The wheels of bureaucracy grind slowly.

I think it's still used in the US, and I am unsure what to believe about the safety, but hats off to your dad and brother for attempting dialogue. I can understand your dad deciding to stop speaking out, but it sure looks like he kept speaking out, albeit through your brother.

I hate the way the ADA has handled the debate, whether they are right or wrong about the fillings, but they are certainly wrong about silencing opposition.