Greg Gutfeld Takes on Doctor Over E-Cigarette Risks

[Painter_]

He could of tore her a new one on the comment about PG. She named a bunch of things that it is in but she forgot to name atomized medications, or pumped into ventilation systems to control bacteria. She owned him from the start. I was screaming at the TV when he asked what studies and her response was "lots of them" and he let her get away with it. Anyone of us could debunk her without thinking to hard.

"Dr" Nina Radcliff is a wanted to a be beauty queen, and up and coming Dr. Oz.

 

[caramel]

Executive summary:

 

[nicnik]

He could of tore her a new one on the comment about PG. She named a bunch of things that it is in but she forgot to name atomized medications, or pumped into ventilation systems to control bacteria.

PG is also what makes the "vapor", or "fog" in vapor toys. Why is PG vapor OK for kids to play with, but not for saving lives of adults?

 

[Kent C]

It wasn't terrible but wasn't his best. She kept claiming "studies show" (without citations) - and there are some that do show that - or claim to, but only people who post here (or similar ecig forums) know the Burstyn, Hayek, Polosa and other studies that kicked those studies she mentioned, like caramel's gif only with her being the recipient. If Gutfeld would participate here or just lurk, he would have known stuff like that - although he did bring up the 'studies were of mice' - mice that have been genetically bred to get cancer readily, btw - a factor that I believe Hayek showed in one of his studies.

I just watched the whole show and there were a few more 'bites' - mainly attacking her credibility by Greg, and some of the others in the show, all of whom appear to be pro-ecig and one was even vaping.

Greg did say "Wasn't Chromium" supposed to be good for you a few years back?? ... it was as a supplement - burns carbs, increases HDL cholesterol.

 

[azb8496]

From reading the comments, I take it Greg didn't fare too well. I'm disappointed, but I can only hope that the internet equivalent ANTZ anti-e-cig forum is saying the same things, and building confidence to go interview with opponents, themselves. I'm sure they'll all be just darling until they hit an informed journalist. Then, it could go viral.

Try to look on the bright side, guys.

 

[azb8496]

I just watched the video (the link on this forum produced no audio, for me). I don't know guys. I say it was a wash for both of them. Gutfeld should've taken the obvious facts about chemicals in cigs vs. E-cigs at the end, and a few other routes of discussion would have fared better with this fame-seeking bimbo. However, and maybe its because I was just on the road for ten hours, but I feel that anyone who talked as much as that "Dr." did would find their words losing weight the more they abused them.

 

[azb8496]

On the other hand, she made some good points. Sorry guys; it's been fun, but I think you should all follow my lead and return to smoking. We've been defying reason for too long now.

 

[EBates]

On the other hand, she made some good points. Sorry guys; it's been fun, but I think you should all follow my lead and return to smoking. We've been defying reason for too long now.

No way, Bud. I hope to progress to the point that I can quit both vaping (when it is finally legislated out of existence) and smoking. Then just sit back and watch the 'House of Cards' fall in on these Money Grubbing A-Holes who (supposedly) represent us.

 

[mcclintock]

He tried to rely on his attitude instead of knowledge, which makes him come across as shrill when he could have been decisive. I couldn't watch all of it. I appreciate more people on our side but they need to be better than the usual TV loudmouths. I do kind of think as painful as it is, just by going around and around in the public ecigs will become familiar.

 

[nicnik]

He tried to rely on his attitude instead of knowledge, which makes him come across as shrill when he could have been decisive. I couldn't watch all of it. I appreciate more people on our side but they need to be better than the usual TV loudmouths. I do kind of think as painful as it is, just by going around and around in the public ecigs will become familiar.

I guess your right about his debating, but I enjoy his e-cig rants, probably because I feel like ranting about it, too. Maybe the rants are effective for the non-vaping public, maybe not, but I doubt he's gonna be helpful in any debate against a well-rehearsed representative of the ANTZ community.

 

[redddog]

He blew it completely on the formeldehyde issue, the PG issue and the Nicotene issue. Not much else to blow.

He also let her get away with SEVERAL generalizations, antz BS and ghost references to studies.

I honestly don't think he could have done worse.

 

[TyPie]

I didn't see the show yet, but Greg seems to me to usually be well-informed on most topics they discuss. I'm surprised that he didn't load up on the main (expected) talking points.

 

[nicnik]

I didn't see the show yet, but Greg seems to me to usually be well-informed on most topics they discuss. I'm surprised that he didn't load up on the main (expected) talking points.

The expected, plus some further twisted variants:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/1/nina-radcliff-e-cigarettes-are-safer-not-safe/

Surprising to see Nina's trash in a right-wing rag like the Washington Times, instead of something more along the lines of NPR or Huffington Post.

 

[azb8496]

The expected, plus some further twisted variants:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/1/nina-radcliff-e-cigarettes-are-safer-not-safe/

Surprising to see Nina's trash in a right-wing rag like the Washington Times, instead of something more along the lines of NPR or Huffington Post.

Poor article, great comments

 

[nicnik]

Poor article, great comments

One of the commenters posted her tweet about the article. Comments there aren't any more complimentary.

https://twitter.com/DrNinaRadcliff/status/598068306671640576

 

[CarolT]

Sounds like deja vu all over again. It's exactly the same as how various media personalities always threw the fight to let the anti-smokers win. So I have never trusted the media ever since. I think they've all been given their jobs because they believe all the lies, and they only pretend to fight back because they're role playing.

 

[nicnik]

Sounds like deja vu all over again. It's exactly the same as how various media personalities always threw the fight to let the anti-smokers win. So I have never trusted the media ever since. I think they've all been given their jobs because they believe all the lies, and they only pretend to fight back because they're role playing.

Doesn't apply in this case. Gutfeld is sincere about it and he wasn't trying to throw the fight.

 

[BuGlen]

Doesn't apply in this case. Gutfeld is sincere about it and he wasn't trying to throw the fight.

Agreed. He is generally sincere in most (if not all) of the topics he brings up on his show. It's just very unfortunate that he wasn't better informed on this one.

 

[AXIOM_1]

It amazes me how Gutfeld was suddenly "misinformed" in a time when he needed to be more informed than ever. I watch Gutfeld every single day and also read lots of his articles and he is a very sharp dude. For him to hand over the debate to a bimbo who obviously gets her answers from others who have brain washed her is appalling to me. I don't know as much as many members on this forum but even I could have thrashed that silly bimbo in that debate. To me, this suggests that there is some type of media hanky panky going on here. If anyone thinks that most media outlets do not have various agendas from the people who are providing their funding, no matter what the subject is about, then you are deluding yourself.

 

[CarolT]

It amazes me how Gutfeld was suddenly "misinformed" in a time when he needed to be more informed than ever. I watch Gutfeld every single day and also read lots of his articles and he is a very sharp dude. For him to hand over the debate to a bimbo who obviously gets her answers from others who have brain washed her is appalling to me. I don't know as much as many members on this forum be even I could have thrashed that silly bimbo in that debate. To me, this suggests that there is some type of media hanky panky going on here. If anyone thinks that most media outlets do not have various agendas from the people who are providing their funding, no matter what the subject is about, then you are deluding yourself.

I agree completely. And as I said, it's deja vu all over again. Gutfield could easily have acquainted himself with his opponent's own favorite talking points - apparently she is a columnist at the Washington Times whose function is to purvey New York Times-style "healthy lifestyle" pablum to people who presumably hate the NYT. It proves that the enemy controls both sides of the supposed political divide.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/1/nina-radcliff-e-cigarettes-are-safer-not-safe/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/dr-nina-radcliff/
In particular, note that Radcliffe uses that old "nicotine causes heart disease" garbage that they used to use against smokers, but have largely abandoned lately. This is where they'll try to invent the most phony health risks from vaping.