2/3/14 - PMI (Altria) buys Green Smoke; Daily Mail retraction; junky Katie Couric segment; UK, Ire., Ca., US States: NY, PA, IA, & IL

[Roger_Lafayette]

Slow day - Altria (PMI) buys Green Smoke; 50,000 Irish smokers reported to have quit via PVs according to PV co. ; dreadful junk segment on Katie Couric;

Coverage: UK, Ire., Ca., US States: NY, PA, IA & IL

***

(UK-based med. jrnl) www . bmj . com/content/348/bmj.g475/rr/684977 [junky anti-PV "be afraid, be very afraid" letter which appears to be science-free other than to reference two papers involving nicotine effects from analogs]

***

(UK Nat'l paper) www . theguardian . com/society/2014/feb/02/e-cigarettes-medicines-nhs [Guardian picks up story that BAT and Nicolite are both applying to NHS for therapeutic status; similar to yesterday's BBC story, no junk. Also see this in the S. China (HK) Morning Post, apparently junk-free: www . scmp . com/news/world/article/1420057/e-cigarettes-could-gain-status-medicine-britains-national-health-service ]

***

(Dublin Ire. local papers' site) www . independent . ie/irish-news/ecigarette-sales-soaring-as-50000-smokers-make-switch-29973483.html [gen'l junk-free article reviews status in Ireland; est.s that 50K Irish smokers have switched to PVs according to quoted PV co. exec.]

***

(Toronto Ca local paper) www . theglobeandmail . com/life/health-and-fitness/health/the-high-stakes-debate-over-e-cigarettes/article16628859/ [already posted, comments here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...570-positive-balanced-article-globe-mail.html

***

(Katie Couric video interview w/ ABC's health expert Dr. Besser) news . yahoo . com/video/clearing-air-e-cigarettes-160326994.html [about the best thing I can say here is that "it could've been a lot worse" - we hear the usual "concerns" "fears" "don't know what's in them" stuff, and of course "marketed to minors." On the plus side, he mentioned greater cessation rates than the patch and doesn't invoke "hit job" studies. But it's clear that the producers want to alarm the public, convince them that PVs aren't worth trying, and also that neither he nor Katie knows very much.]

***

(WSJ US Nat'l Business) online . wsj . com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626804579360552508696542 [Altria = PMI to buy Green Smoke, which makes cartomizer kits and has its own branded e-juice. No junk this is straight business reporting.]

***

(US Nat'l Business) www . marketwatch . com/story/e-cigarette-companies-scramble-while-tobacco-giants-pounce-lorillard-inc-nyse-lo-philip-morris-international-inc-nyse-pmi-vapor-corp-otcqb-vpco-mcig-inc-otcqb-mcig-2014-02-03?reflink=MW_news_stmp [general report on BT acquisitions of small PV co.s; no junk]

***

(Nat'l Ind US web site owned by Anshultz which also owns Clarity) www . examiner . com/article/health-officials-fuming-over-e-cigarette-super-bowl-ads Another pro-vaping review, similar to yesterday's article - junk from cited ANTZ 'experts' - gist seems to be that analogs have "met their match." Caveat lector, I personally wouldn't believe much that this alleged 'publication' suggests as credible, but this article doesn't seem to have any distinctive errors other than the fact that the writer appears unaware of the FDA's postponement on reg.s to 10/31.]

***

(NYC-based VICE group web site) motherboard . vice . com/blog/europe-is-all-confused-about-what-e-cigs-actually-are [this article is supposed to about the legal situation in Europe, although it only discusses the EU and the UK. Not particularly informative, but no junk]

(NYC local paper) nypost . com/2014/02/03/blowing-smoke-over-e-cig-ad/ [already posted, comments here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...19-blowing-smoke-over-e-cig-ad-superbowl.html

(NYC ind. web site video) www . accuweather . com/en/weather-video/video-smoke-alert-the-hidden-dangers-of-e-cigarettes/2395277005001 [dreadful uninformative junky video segment, apparently shown on NYC cable]

***

(Philadelpha PA US NBC affiliate) www . nbcphiladelphia . com/news/local/WHYYPhilly-Considering-a-Ban-on-Indoor-E-Cig-Use-243216941.html [This is actually a fairly balanced article in that the writer lets others do the talking. CASAA's Greg Conoley & Jeff Stier of the Public Policy Research Fnd. are both quoted. ANTZ org. GASP now says: "There’s no proof that e-cigarettes are an effective stop-smoking tool - over the long term. (boldface added - also claims 2nd hand "vapor smoke" makes people ill.) See CASAA call on Philly: CASAA: Call to Action! Philadelphia E-Cigarette Usage Ban - no date has been set for hearing (?).]

***

(Pittsburgh PA US Local paper) www . post-gazette . com/news/health/2014/02/03/THE-ALLURE-THE-DANGERS-OF-E-CIGARETTES/stories/201402030018 [general article on vaping as cessation; some stoking of minor use fears; some junk; writer unaware of exact nature of PG and VG; but little ANTZ propaganda]

***

(ISU IA US student paper) www . iowastatedaily . com/news/article_3c6203a6-89d5-11e3-9924-001a4bcf887a.html [student-written junk-free article on proposed statewide minor ban also covers proposed Story Co. minor ban. ISU hasn't yet included PVs in its Clean Air policy. Also mentions st. A/G Tom Miller's desire to define vaping as smoking for purposes of statewide law. ANTZ orgs in IA have been opposing minor bans on the grounds that they favor Miller's approach, see: Public health groups: Don't ban sale of e-cigarettes to minors « Watchdog.org and This is what local public health looks like, Iowa edition | Anti-THR Lies and related topics ]

***

(Jacksonville IL US - Springfield area - radio station) wlds . com/news/store-specializing-in-e-cigarettes-opens-in-jacksonville/ [article on new vaping store; no junk]

 

[AgentAnia]

Re the UK Daily Mail retraction: One paragraph, and how deeply buried? I went to DM's health page, couldn't find it; searched the site for "retraction" and "e-cigarette" and it didn't come up. Too little, too late. For the Daily Mail, business as usual.

Re NBC Philladelphia "also claims 2nd hand "vapor smoke" makes people ill"... Vapor smoke??? Alert all chemists! Alert all physicists! A new chemical compound has been discovered!

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

W/ ref. to this: (UK Nat'l paper - retraction) www . dailymail . co.uk/health/article-2268702/E-cigarettes-cause-harm-smoking-experts-say.html and the single-paragraph article: "A Health article on January 27 said some experts believe electronic cigarettes can be more harmful than real ones. In fact we are not aware of any experts who hold this view compared to the risks of cancer, heart disease and lung damage from real cigarettes. We apologise for any contrary suggestion."

Re the UK Daily Mail retraction: One paragraph, and how deeply buried? I went to DM's health page, couldn't find it; searched the site for "retraction" and "e-cigarette" and it didn't come up. Too little, too late. For the Daily Mail, business as usual.

The word 'retraction' doesn't appear in the article, neither does 'e-cigarette'. Google picked it up due to the URL, which DM's internal site search may not incorporate.

Try this Google site-specific searcH with the search tools option set to "past week":
electronic cigarettes site:dailymail.co.uk

I.e.: https://www.google.com/#q=electronic+cigarettes++site:dailymail.co.uk&tbs=qdr:w

However - the comments (way below the text) appear to be a year old. I normally check datelines on articles to keep from getting dated stuff which feeds in due to more recent comments. This single-paragraph item had none, and Google's spider algo got confused because the only textually-output year on the page is 2014. It appears that "January 27" in the text of the article may have referred to 2013. I'll have to be a bit more careful about that pitfall in the future. I've edited my original post.

 

[AgentAnia]

W/ ref. to this: (UK Nat'l paper - retraction) www . dailymail . co.uk/health/article-2268702/E-cigarettes-cause-harm-smoking-experts-say.html and the single-paragraph article: "A Health article on January 27 said some experts believe electronic cigarettes can be more harmful than real ones. In fact we are not aware of any experts who hold this view compared to the risks of cancer, heart disease and lung damage from real cigarettes. We apologise for any contrary suggestion."



The word 'retraction' doesn't appear in the article, neither does 'e-cigarette'. Google picked it up due to the URL, which DM's internal site search may not incorporate.

Try this Google site-specific searcH with the search tools option set to "past week":
electronic cigarettes site:dailymail.co.uk

I.e.: https://www.google.com/#q=electronic+cigarettes++site:dailymail.co.uk&tbs=qdr:w

However - the comments (way below the text) appear to be a year old. I normally check datelines on articles to keep from getting dated stuff which feeds in due to more recent comments. This single-paragraph item had none, and Google's spider algo got confused because the only textually-output year on the page is 2014. It appears that "January 27" in the text of the article may have referred to 2013. I'll have to be a bit more careful about that pitfall in the future. I've edited my original post.

I remember, when I first discovered ECF, reading about a DM article and subsequent retraction (forced by incontrovertably fact-based rebuttal comments). General reaction to retraction was (as I recall) pretty much the same as I've commented here. (Interesting, and telling, that the retraction included no link to original article, and no posting date.)

And, as long as I have your attention, thanks for these daily summaries, Roger!

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

[snip]
And, as long as I have your attention, thanks for these daily summaries, Roger!

I think reasonable folks might agree that a daily single-post world-wide summary has certain advantages.

However it definitely is a slightly unorthodox use of the media forum. So certain minor issues have inevitably arisen.

I'm confident that these details (and others that will doubtlessly come up in the future) can be easily resolved, via appropriate small changes ... sometimes known as "tweaks."

I seek maximum achievable utility w/i the constraints (I believe that's called "engineering" ;-)

Thanks for the kudos

 

[Maytwin]

I remember, when I first discovered ECF, reading about a DM article and subsequent retraction (forced by incontrovertably fact-based rebuttal comments). General reaction to retraction was (as I recall) pretty much the same as I've commented here. (Interesting, and telling, that the retraction included no link to original article, and no posting date.)

And, as long as I have your attention, thanks for these daily summaries, Roger!

This sort of thing is why the Daily Mail is known in the UK as The Daily Fail or The Daily Wail

 

[Uma]

Please include south San Fran UPDATE on tomorrow's list. I've posted it 3 days in a row, but it keeps getting ignored.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-variety-e-cig-businesses-2.html#post12072362

Thx

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Please include south San Fran UPDATE on tomorrow's list. I've posted it 3 days in a row, but it keeps getting ignored.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-variety-e-cig-businesses-2.html#post12072362

Thx

Haven't seen any recent stories ... suggest you post in legislation.

 

[Uma]

Haven't seen any recent stories ... suggest you post in legislation.

I did, inside the thread in linked to, but it goes unnoticed. I even posted air of the letter cuz ad won't copy/paste it.

NEW UPDATE TO SOUTH SAN FRAN MEETING. FEB 12, @ 7pm ...

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

I did, inside the thread in linked to, but it goes unnoticed. I even posted air of the letter cuz ad won't copy/paste it.

It might be that the original threat in Legislation was started on Jan 8th, so it's getting ignored. If it were up to me, I'd start a new one, after all it's a new hearing. I don't see anything here for Feb 12th: CASAA Local Alerts ... did the original proposal get tabled or something like that? I did see this: South San Francisco Holds off on Ban, But Enacts Moratorium ... although 45 days from Jan 9th is certainly not Feb 12th, maybe they preponed the hearing.