Voices: Are e-cigs bad for you? I'm not sure

[LoveVanilla]

Wh00t!!!! I can't argue with these conclusions -- and no reason to break this link... Do we have a winner!?

Are e-cigs bad for you? I'm not sure

Are e-cigarettes a savior for smokers, a lurking global danger … or both?

You might think I’d know. After all, I’m director of the Institute for Global tobacco Control at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. I’ve been involved in tobacco policy research for more than two decades, studying everything from what helps people quit smoking to how tobacco policy is made to how tobacco is packaged. I was recently a voting member on the Food and Drug Administration's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.
...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...e-cigs-bad-for-you-not-sure/72811856/?ref=yfp

 

[Katya]

A step in the right direction!

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Steamix]

Not really a winner, just some fella sensible enough NOT to make a complete fool of himself.
There's simply too much serious research out, that vaping IS less damaging than smoking.
So he's very knowledgeable about things tobacco - does that make him an expert on vaping ?
He's singing the FDA song a bit too loud for my ears...

Regulating a market is one thing - handing it to BT and BP on a silver platter has nothing to do with regulating.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Dr. Cohen has said, 'science doesn't know the long term...,' in a pleasant manner.

I wonder about her intent when she mentions regulatory actions that 'could' be taken.

Were that regulatory constructions subject to Sunset laws...

 

[Painter_]

I must of read this with a cynical eye. I read a typical "we don't know" article with a hit of what we "could" / should do such as banning in public places even though study after study shows that they are safe for bystanders. Sure it was not in your face ANTZ that we are used to. The article is nothing more ANTZ seed planting using softer speech.

 

[EBates]

I see this as by and large another ANTZ propaganda leaflet:
'Child-resistant caps could help prevent accidental poisoning of children, which has spiked as these devices proliferate'. Guess I missed that 'news flash'
'Carcinogens and other toxic chemicals have been found in nicotine liquids and in e-cigarette aerosols'. Guess I missed that one too.
'National Park Service banned e-cigarette use anywhere that traditional cigarettes are prohibited to protect "the health and safety of our visitors and employees". Protect from what?
We Don't Know What, Why, or When We Just Know It's Bad.
That's my take on this Latest Propaganda.

 

[motordude]

I do not know how to digest this article. Interesting read but confusing.

 

[guambred]

I see this as by and large another ANTZ propaganda leaflet:
'Child-resistant caps could help prevent accidental poisoning of children, which has spiked as these devices proliferate'. Guess I missed that 'news flash'
'Carcinogens and other toxic chemicals have been found in nicotine liquids and in e-cigarette aerosols'. Guess I missed that one too.
'National Park Service banned e-cigarette use anywhere that traditional cigarettes are prohibited to protect "the health and safety of our visitors and employees". Protect from what?
We Don't Know What, Why, or When We Just Know It's Bad.
That's my take on this Latest Propaganda.

I had pretty much the same thoughts as I read it, at best it was a middle of the fence opinion written as to offend no one, nor did it provide much information. Just middle of the road drivel with a slight ANTZ slant.

 

[CarolT]

I must of read this with a cynical eye. I read a typical "we don't know" article with a hit of what we "could" / should do such as banning in public places even though study after study shows that they are safe for bystanders. Sure it was not in your face ANTZ that we are used to. The article is nothing more ANTZ seed planting using softer speech.

You are right. Vapers are making the same mistake smokers made, from the same emotional reflex, of being so desperate for approval that they misinterpret softer rhetoric as favoring them. And it especially makes me nauseous the way that POS prattles about science, science, science when not only do her ilk systematically commit scientific fraud, but her own advancement in the field is dependent upon endorsing that fraud 100%.

 

[sofarsogood]

She and all her conflicted tax supported chronies will never be sure because that would put them out of work. She has way more important things on her mind than our health.

In other news, in a day or two I will have been vaping and not smoking for exactly a year and today I put my first liter of 10% nic in the freezer. Those things reassure me, she certainly does not.

 

[Jman8]

"Are ANTZ lying to you? I'm not sure"

Until science can conclude with 100% certainty that they are lying, let's do the smart thing and assume that in all cases they are lying and that they should never be trusted with anything regarding public health.

... is how I read this piece and it's take on how public health advocates ought to approach policies around vaping.

Oh, and politically speaking, the lack of certainty in science does make it appear very weak. Otherwise scientists would be honest and say this (latest conclusion) is closer to personal opinion, rather than scientific fact.