Watch it. Watch it again. Share it with everyone you possibly can. Tell them to watch and share it. Smokers, vapers and especially people who do neither. Because this documentary is not really about vaping, it's about corruption. The corruption of big governments and big companies who are putting money before public health.
A Billion Lives teaser-trailer
- Thread starter DCBD
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Wow, good vid, like it alot. I do agree a bit with Jman though. I don't know any hard facts as far as smoking is concerned, bad/not so bad. I only know what I've read/heard here on ECF. If there is hard evidence that smoking isn't as harmful as we've been led to believe I'm sure the evidence is buried so deep that it may never come to light. As far as the general population goes though, smoking kills and there's no way, at this time, to convince them otherwise. So in that context this vid will probably do a lot of good toward showing people what's going on with vaping/corruption and tobacco will have to be the villain, I don't see a way around that. Maybe in 100 years we'll be able to look back and say that everything happened the way it should have/needed to. 
The "billion" number comes from the WHO (number of people predicted to die from smoking this century) and is completely made up. The number (or any number) doesn't matter. The point is, a lot of people will die from smoking and will live longer if they vape. And there's a lot of money at stake to keep people smoking. IMO, this is beyond corruption, it's criminal.
I believe Clive Bates has said that when we agree with adversaries on smoking propaganda, it makes it hard to say they are wrong about vaping propaganda. I have actually said this before I read CB saying it. If they are 100% right about smoking items and 100% wrong about vaping items, then that seems entirely confusing. I think defense of public health would simply reply with, give us time and we'll show that we are at least a little bit right about vaping items. And by that, they mean just mean let us smear the heck out of vaping items. We've already seen what they've gotten to stick in the last 1 to 3 years with regards vaping. So, if you think the smoking propaganda is not something we can change (ever), then won't be too long for that to be the case wrt to anti-vaping propaganda.
Seriously, just do your own research on the smoking stuff. If only researching CDC and the like, then hope you do the same with vaping and stay consistent.
ETA: It wasn't Clive Bates that said what I purported but Carl Phillips. I corrected this is post #11 below.
Seriously, just do your own research on the smoking stuff. If only researching CDC and the like, then hope you do the same with vaping and stay consistent.
ETA: It wasn't Clive Bates that said what I purported but Carl Phillips. I corrected this is post #11 below.
Last edited:
So, shall we quote / support WHO on their position with regards to vaping? To me, it doesn't matter what WHO says on smoking data. To the degree it matters to any of us, then I think we ought to stay consistent and consider their wonderful words of wisdom (sarcasm) for what they have to say about vaping.
I'd say forget about it, Jman - this film is going to do our side an awful lot of good. It's put together by a truly dispassionate group of filmmakers who are trying to get an accurate picture of ALL the actors (good and bad) in the story.
And I hope vapers can forgive them for accepting some of the entrenched stuff - it's literally impossible for them to wade through everything and be 100% accurate. I mean, just from that intro presentation, you should be able to see how the story is being cast.
And I hope vapers can forgive them for accepting some of the entrenched stuff - it's literally impossible for them to wade through everything and be 100% accurate. I mean, just from that intro presentation, you should be able to see how the story is being cast.
You may be right - I tried to find it but found more of Bates parroting the anti-cigarette line as many THR'ers do. Although I think a lot of them have to realize what they did is affecting what they're up against today with vaping. Perhaps it was Jacob Sullum or Brad Rodu, but didn't give them a search.
Agreed, which is why I decided to like post that started this thread and why I will likely be seeing this film / supporting it first chance I get.
Just as likely someone could use the meme "smoking kills" and spin things the other way (anti-vaping). Rather support those who spin it pro-vaping.
My mistake, it wasn't Clive but Carl Phillips that said this.
I think he has said it on more than one occasion. Here is post I found that says it. And paragraph quote to back up what I was saying:
I must agree with you and Phillips. As tempting as it may be to maximize the contrast between the health effects of smoking vs. vaping, we should consistently rely on good science. And there's plenty of it to show that vaping is a helluva lot less harmful.
I also believe that it's pointless for us to attack BPH for their exaggerated claims regarding second-hand smoke. That's not our fight, and it's so firmly entrenched in the mind of the public that it would be a virtually impossible task.
I mildly disagree in that debunking something that is 'entrenched' may stop something else from being entrenched. Esp. when the ANTZ try to promote 2nd and 3rd hand vapor.
As pointless as it may be, I think it is something to attack them on, and to put them on the defensive. Not like they can gain any more ground from it, and thus does stand a chance to expose it as yet another example of junk science. People can still be annoyed by SHS, but that is a far cry from the meme of "SHS kills" which stems from "smoking kills." As those two are entrenched, and as there are allegedly "dangerous chemicals" in vapor, it won't be too long before a) a vaper dies, b) the meme "vaping kills" starts to gain steam and c) SHV kills is accepted as, 'ya know, they were right about SHS, so they're probably right about SHV.'
Going now to like your post cause the first paragraph is to me the more important consideration.
I certainly see your point, and in a perfect world I would agree. However, if I can't convince any city council members in my own town to vote against a vaping ban, I doubt it's possible to convince them that second-hand smoke is harmless. These bans seem to be occurring in most cities of any size and in some states as well, and I don't think it can be stopped. There are not enough articulate, well organized and motivated opponents.
Maybe one day some of these laws will be repealed, but that would be most unusual, as government gets more and more intrusive and controlling with the passage of time. It will not happen in my lifetime.
First you have to get your foot in the door and get somebody to listen with a somewhat open mind. You are working against a host of cognitive biases, e.g., confirmation bias, illusory correlation, Semmelweis bias*, subjective validation, availability cascade (repeat a lie often enough, etc.), bandwagon effect, conservatism bias (discounting the value of new information).
*Named after the doctor who discovered that the incidence of child bed fever infections could be dramatically reduced by doctors washing their hands. Nobody believed him and he was roundly condemned by the medical community. Eventually, he was confined against his will in a mental asylum, where he was severely beaten by guards and died not long afterward from, ironically, an infection.
Much younger--in the range of 29-102.
An identical point I just made about the CDC -- they've sacrificed their integrity to Big Money, and now EVERYTHING they say must be taken with a VERY LARGE grain of salt. Which is both sad and alarming, considering the role that CDC should play in public health.
Andria
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
