A call to action item
- Thread starter Robert Cromwell
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
... here I was... thinking a site called Consumer Reports based their articles on Reports from Consumers of the product at hand...
Then again what do I know. The only thing I'm fairly certain of is that I have not made my last mistake.
Can't help noticing the myriad of replies giving it some counterweight. Good going!
Then again what do I know. The only thing I'm fairly certain of is that I have not made my last mistake.
Can't help noticing the myriad of replies giving it some counterweight. Good going!
I'm not sure what that "0 comments" in the middle is referring to, but to the left, you see the ACTUAL number of comments, and they haven't gone anywhere; still all there at 12:42pm Sunday.
Andria
I posted a comment but it pulled my work info, presumably from Facebook, and put my name, job title, and company at the top of the comment. Since I feel my onion does not reflect my occupation or company I deleted the comment.
Here I will just add this; Consumer Reports, brought to you your friends at Phillip Morris - welcome to Marlboro Country.
Here I will just add this; Consumer Reports, brought to you your friends at Phillip Morris - welcome to Marlboro Country.
I suppose that's possible, given how utterly ineffective the pharma NRT is, but what makes more sense is that it's brought to us by a) the greedy villains in BP, and/or b) the stupid utterly-clueless villains in "public health." They're pushing the hell out of "approved methods," so it could also be the greedy AND clueless villains in the gov't. The only real way that Phillip Morris benefits is because the pharma crap is so ineffective, people will just continue smoking. But, since BT is now getting into e-cigs themselves, it's really all the same to them.
Andria
Ok so it says the article was edited again today and I have loaded and reloaded the page and if the comment section is still there I can't see it on multiple devices.
I think they removed all the comments. Did anyone take screen shots?
I think they removed all the comments. Did anyone take screen shots?
Looks like they did remove the comments. that's ok; I'm about to post it to my FB page, and then my Twitter, pointing out how there had been over 1300 comments that contradicted the article, but they were such spoilsports, they REMOVED THE COMMENTS.
Andria
ETA: Ok, done -- posted to my FB and Twitter how they removed over 1300 comments that contradicted their idiotic article, but that they'[re such total idiots, they couldn't stand that THEY'RE WRONG!
Last edited:
At last count 1353 folks responded to this story. Yesterday (updated again today), CR published a response to the that response: "
Readers Respond: E-Cigarettes Help Them Quit Traditional Smokes"
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health/what-Consumer-Reports-readers-say-about-e-cigarettes
Readers Respond: E-Cigarettes Help Them Quit Traditional Smokes"
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health/what-Consumer-Reports-readers-say-about-e-cigarettes
Unfortunately, that response dredges up the debunked formaldehyde claims and more Save the Children stuff. Then concludes by saying that people who want to stop smoking should use a smoking cessation counselor for help. Yeah, right!
Yep I noticed that too; thought about leaving a comment about it, but considering how they just rode roughshod over everything that was said to them, what's the point? They're completely obtuse and locked on the subject, and I'll never read another word they have to say about anything.
Andria
Andria
I love when I see these posts. Posted on this report a long time ago and didn't even think to put it in here. Fight together or die together people! Keep up the great work!
The formaldehyde claim is from a new (published Sept 2015) paper that I hadn't seen before. They don't go into their testing method so it's hard to evaluate what they did.
Here's a link to what the author referred to:
http://www.ceh.org/campaigns/legal-action/current-work/e-cigs/
I suspect that they didn't go into their testing method simply because it had as many problems with it as the previous report.
I think you're right. I sent a note asking for the method and results from the study they did and got this as a response:
"The information is part of a confidential legal case. You can stay updated at ceh.org/ecigs"
I'd expect they are purposely using the flawed methodology to bolster their legal case.
Wow. It seems this organization is suing 19 different ejuice/ecig companies because they don't have warnings on their products required by California law regarding reproductive dangers.
My reply:
"Thanks for the reply.
As someone who vapes I like to keep up to date on current research. If your results are genuine it is quite alarming and cause for concern. I asked for your methodology and results because there have been several previous studies that have had similar results but their methodologies was flawed. In those cases the acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were only observed when they were operating devices at voltages/wattages that were too high for the device/coil and overheated the e liquid. This is what's know to vapers as a 'dry hit'. Dry hits are avoided by everyone who vapes because it's extremely harsh to the point of being intolerable. The most recent information I have seen has shown that when operated correctly e cigarettes should not create any acetaldehyde or formaldehyde.
I would love to see how the devices were tested."
Their response:
"as our report states, we are aware of the previous studies, but almost all of the products we tested do not have variable temperature settings, so overheating could not be an issue. Again, as our report says, for the few devices we tested that did have heat settings, we used the manufacturers recommended settings"
I'm even more intrigued now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
