I think the only thing that can get to them is if there's enough public talk about the elephant in the room that they're ignoring. In fact, they are already discretely examining the subject. The fact that the Chinese and Japanese and practically everyone else on earth is very much into it is very helpful to our cause.
Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists
- Thread starter BuGlen
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I think the only thing that can get to them is if there's enough public talk about the elephant in the room that they're ignoring. In fact, they are already discretely examining the subject. The fact that the Chinese and Japanese and practically everyone else on earth is very much into it is very helpful to our cause.
Yours is the ONLY argument that has ever had a hearing, and it lost. And now you want to hold everyone back from finding better ones. At a point like that, it's time for division.
I see you are doing it again Carol, as in derailing threads (and this was an important thread, sadly no longer) with your insane ideas about infection causing all smoking related diseases. You did the same thing in Madison where I had numerous encounters with you in local forums.
The best and only thing to do with Carol is to completely ignore her.
How are we drowning infections theory out? Where is the platform to fight against anti-smoking rhetoric for me or anyone to stand on? Please show me that. Cause as soon as you do, I'll have you up there presenting your data and welcoming that as part of a coordinated attack. But would highly regret it if your version of that coordinated attack amounts to, "all the other people on this platform are idiots and only my data matters. They ought to be ignored for providing you with utterly worthless points. But me and my under explained version of causality need to be listened to."
This helps! Thank you. You are now second person on this thread to give me a clue that it is not worth engaging in the debate. My hope was that we might all have diverse ideas that would together lead to better way to attack the "smoking kills" meme. Now, I see that I may never reach that sort of goal without having to completely ignore everything I believe, which would be very challenging for me to abide by from another human who is not prone to explaining the fundamentals of their position, but real quick to lash out at me for anything I might say.
40 years ago the idea that certain classes of cancers are caused by HPV would had been met by some interested parties with the same "insane" classification.
The fact is that, regardless of how crooked their methodology is, the Antz still can't stick more than 2/3 of lung cancers to smoking.
Insisting that there's nothing to be done about the remaining 1/3 cases other than "avoid smoking" is like the cervical cancer experts still declaring that there's nothing to be done about cervical cancer other than "avoid intercourse". Which these days would surely be classified as malpractice or worse.
Let's stick to 40 years old theories and declare anything else "insane" because otherwise our jobs are jeopardised.
The fact is that, regardless of how crooked their methodology is, the Antz still can't stick more than 2/3 of lung cancers to smoking.
Insisting that there's nothing to be done about the remaining 1/3 cases other than "avoid smoking" is like the cervical cancer experts still declaring that there's nothing to be done about cervical cancer other than "avoid intercourse". Which these days would surely be classified as malpractice or worse.
Let's stick to 40 years old theories and declare anything else "insane" because otherwise our jobs are jeopardised.
TC is a multi-billion dollar ideology-based industry. Those who advocate for THR are viewed as a threat to that ideology, and hence, to that industry.
The TC mantra: Quit (using nicotine) or die.
I don't know how I can fight that, as an individual, other than to support every effort of every other individual who's fighting it. We're far to small in this effort to have a single ideology of our own, except for the concept that THR works and should be given credence. The details of who, what, why, etc can be worked out later.
The TC mantra: Quit (using nicotine) or die.
I don't know how I can fight that, as an individual, other than to support every effort of every other individual who's fighting it. We're far to small in this effort to have a single ideology of our own, except for the concept that THR works and should be given credence. The details of who, what, why, etc can be worked out later.
i am not trying to get into this debate as it is mostly over my head.
i just wanted to point out although i am not familiar with the Japanese
smoking culture i know the Chinese have a very large smoking culture
and as such have a vested financial interest to keep it going.
how much this influences their scientific assessments is any ones
guess. i can only go by what i see here in the states.
regards
mike
A glance at any forum discussion of smoking is enough to answer your question. And you know perfectly well that I don't mean this specific thread. You simply refuse to admit that your tired, 20-year-old Levy & Marimont stuff lost. You don't even have a theory of causality, you simply deny that anything is causal and say it's all just association. Your entire outlook is a perfect example of what happens when you only look at what anti-smokers want you to see, and you refuse to search for better explanations. So you are certainly no asset.
It's actually their passive smoking claims that are the most jeopardized by HPV, because passive smokers' exposure to it is more similar to smokers' exposure to HPV. So it could turn out to cause a major proportion of lung cancer in non-smokers. And remember, a lot of those studies reviewed in the EPA report were done in Asian countries, where rates of HPV-related lung cancers are the highest.
With all the draconian bans (here you can't smoke even on a restaurant patio....), an improvement in non-smoker/smoker lung cancer ratio failed to materialize. This pretty much shows that:
- the claims about second hand smoking were bogus
- from a health perspective these bans are a complete fail
Which would suggest that the only purpose of these bans are to protect tobacco companies against lawsuits (since now it's pretty much impossible to be exposed to smoke accidentally / against your will).
Has enough time passed to see declines? I no way expect the bans to cause non-smoker lung cancer rate declines, but are you sure that claim isn't premature? Most of the bans have been fairly recent.
Various bans have started about 1995 here. By 2003 a person who didn't want to be exposed to significant smoke was able to avoid it everywhere in public and workspaces. By now one doesn't even need to consciously try to avoid smoke as it's not permitted anywhere but in open air "designated places".
Yet I fail to see any antz "study" claiming a decrease in non-smoker vs smoker lung cancer rate - which would validate their smoking bans policies as "succesful" in what concerns the protection of innocent non-smokers (and "children").
Time flies! I guess it's been a while. Not sure if enough time has passed, I'm not well informed on that subject.
Well if 12 years of exposure to second hand smoke can't make any difference - then the conclusion is....
We'll have as much chance of seeing that study as we will one on the addictive qualities of pure nicotine. They knew they were lying when they started demonizing SHS 30+ years ago and all that study would do is prove they were lying.
Yeah, they won't even bother trying to find out. They don't want to know.
To me it seems a great deal like fighting any religious idea; you cannot disabuse someone of a belief that they insist is the ONLY belief, that everyone else is "going to hell" (or "insane"). Not even showing them definitive proof, in person, will change their mind, because their mind is closed and locked -- they REFUSE to see anything but their own blinkered point of view.
You cannot fight irrationality with rationality.
Andria
I'm afraid their god is the dollar.
At which point invoking a "free market eceonomy" as a counter-argument is outright encouraging them.
At which point invoking a "free market eceonomy" as a counter-argument is outright encouraging them.
Last edited:
Invoking actual 'free market economy' without the grants and subsidies and regulations is like this:
... to them.
Again, showing either your bias against or ignorance of what free market economics actually is. I'd say a bit of both.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked