- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Glantz still hasn't allowed the posting of comments by me and others criticizing his statements.
A Glantzing Blow to Science
- Thread starter Vocalek
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Comments welcomed ...
Gives the illusion of free speech
and when opposing views are blocked ...
It gives the illusion the author is speaking the truth.
Unfortunately, when there is no scientific accuracy to a stated position, the only recourse is censorship.
I posted this :"Post all comments, have a real discussion. Or else don't post,comments. Selectively posting comments smacks of dishonesty, or perhaps an indefensible position?"
My little toadstool will never see the light of day either
It's really sneaky of them, I read the original article, then I read your comments. Being a layman I thought, "huh, we'll she has a point there."
Then I read his reply and thought "huh, we'll that's reasonable sounding, he's got a good point there."
Then nothing! Not until I read your reply here do I realize that his (the author's) final reply is actually
Unabletoholdmorefecalmatter. Sneaky, gives the illusion that objections have been raised and suitably responded to, instead of cut-off mid discussion. That behavior is more worrisome than the bogus assertions. It's obvious that you are dealing with people with zero integrity. Here I thought you all were being abit harsh, now I see that you are certainly not!
My little toadstool will never see the light of day either
It's really sneaky of them, I read the original article, then I read your comments. Being a layman I thought, "huh, we'll she has a point there."
Then I read his reply and thought "huh, we'll that's reasonable sounding, he's got a good point there."
Then nothing! Not until I read your reply here do I realize that his (the author's) final reply is actually
Unabletoholdmorefecalmatter. Sneaky, gives the illusion that objections have been raised and suitably responded to, instead of cut-off mid discussion. That behavior is more worrisome than the bogus assertions. It's obvious that you are dealing with people with zero integrity. Here I thought you all were being abit harsh, now I see that you are certainly not!
Last edited:
thros" data-source="post: 7318866" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">Good !!I posted this :"Post all comments, have a real discussion. Or else don't post,comments. Selectively posting comments smacks of dishonesty, or perhaps an indefensible position?"
My little toadstool will never see the light of day either
Just send messages to them via the Comments ...
My quick observations:
German study and Diskin, et al. study appear to be entirely different. There is no way a comparison can be made.One measures air space pollutants and the other measures breath.Also breath measurements are not correlated with time of esmoking.
German study and Diskin, et al. study appear to be entirely different. There is no way a comparison can be made.One measures air space pollutants and the other measures breath.Also breath measurements are not correlated with time of esmoking.
Last edited:
quote : acetic acid, acetone, isoprene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, averaging around 20% of what the conventional cigarette put into the air....
Some chinese juices (Dekang ?) contain acetic acid to nuetralize nicotine(For better flavor). The other constituents , if the report is correct, might be from flavors or their breakdown compounds.
This report could be usefull in that the consumers can try to reduce flavors by going the DIY route.
If i am reading the report right,The reported constituents are from 7 puffs in an enclose air space and any comparison made for PEL or other values needs to take this in to account.
Some chinese juices (Dekang ?) contain acetic acid to nuetralize nicotine(For better flavor). The other constituents , if the report is correct, might be from flavors or their breakdown compounds.
This report could be usefull in that the consumers can try to reduce flavors by going the DIY route.
If i am reading the report right,The reported constituents are from 7 puffs in an enclose air space and any comparison made for PEL or other values needs to take this in to account.
Last edited:
My reply to one of the commenters was apparently not approved. Nonetheless, this is what I had to say:
(Commenter's words are in italics.)
"We have every right to ban the unregulated use of any delivery method for a toxic recreational drug that has any potential to harm others whatsoever."
Until you can prove that e-cig vapor is harmful to others, your claimed right does not exist.
"Until it is conclusively proven that exposure to e-cig vapour in the concentration, duration, and frequency generated if vaping is permitted everywhere is as safe as or safer than not being exposed to it--the only acceptable standard for a non-essential such as nicotine--e-cigs must and should be banned from use in public."
First of all, your opinion of essentiality is irrelevant. Second of all, my right of liberty requires you to reasonably prove harm before you can legitimately seek to limit that right.
"There is also the risk of normalizing addiction, so e-cigs should also be banned in any public place, including outdoors, where people under the legal age for consent may be present."
It is not your prerogative to determine what gets normalized. Free individuals will get to decide this by the ways in which they choose to exercise their right to liberty.
"We have spent enough time fighting to protect people from addiction and secondhand smoke. We do not owe it to anyone to become lab rats or sacrificial lambs in yet another scheme by a corrupt industry to enrich its coffers by hooking vulnerable people on a toxic non-essential for life through manipulative and mendacious marketing."
The e-cig did not come from big tobacco. It was invented by a Chinese doctor in honor of his late father who smoked. Real people who actually care are celebrating every smoker who successfully switches to e-cigarettes.
"And while e-cigs may reduce harm for already addicted smokers, they are still considerably more harmful than not using them at all."
Pretending to know something that everyone knows is unknown is devastating to your credibility.
"Makers owe it to us to carefully and rigorously test their product and agree to regulation before, not after, e-cigs are unleashed on the public."
Perhaps so, but now that we have it, you're not taking it away.
(Commenter's words are in italics.)
"We have every right to ban the unregulated use of any delivery method for a toxic recreational drug that has any potential to harm others whatsoever."
Until you can prove that e-cig vapor is harmful to others, your claimed right does not exist.
"Until it is conclusively proven that exposure to e-cig vapour in the concentration, duration, and frequency generated if vaping is permitted everywhere is as safe as or safer than not being exposed to it--the only acceptable standard for a non-essential such as nicotine--e-cigs must and should be banned from use in public."
First of all, your opinion of essentiality is irrelevant. Second of all, my right of liberty requires you to reasonably prove harm before you can legitimately seek to limit that right.
"There is also the risk of normalizing addiction, so e-cigs should also be banned in any public place, including outdoors, where people under the legal age for consent may be present."
It is not your prerogative to determine what gets normalized. Free individuals will get to decide this by the ways in which they choose to exercise their right to liberty.
"We have spent enough time fighting to protect people from addiction and secondhand smoke. We do not owe it to anyone to become lab rats or sacrificial lambs in yet another scheme by a corrupt industry to enrich its coffers by hooking vulnerable people on a toxic non-essential for life through manipulative and mendacious marketing."
The e-cig did not come from big tobacco. It was invented by a Chinese doctor in honor of his late father who smoked. Real people who actually care are celebrating every smoker who successfully switches to e-cigarettes.
"And while e-cigs may reduce harm for already addicted smokers, they are still considerably more harmful than not using them at all."
Pretending to know something that everyone knows is unknown is devastating to your credibility.
"Makers owe it to us to carefully and rigorously test their product and agree to regulation before, not after, e-cigs are unleashed on the public."
Perhaps so, but now that we have it, you're not taking it away.
Sometimes it seems as if poking these kinds of asshats with sticks is not in our best interests. But then again I suspect these high-handed, we know what's best for you better than you do type missives are nothin more than PR releases for an obnoxious bunch of profiteers masquerading as social engineers who fully expect to be able to ram their self-serving points of view down our throats via legislation. Why on earth would they think they could get away with that? Oh, that's right, because they have so many times before! It's a disturbing trend. They don't always win, but if we are not vigilantly guarding against this exact sort of nonsense they will. Thanks for putting this out there, and for continuing to do so. That and as many people a as possible getting involved really is our only shot I think. Clearly the facts are irrelevant to them.
I wonder if there is a way to by-pass Glantz and complain directly to the website or web host or web master, etc., that although it says to post comments, they aren't getting posted and so it's not a fair discussion any longer?
I suspect they can do it if they want to. Much like a vendor that only posts positive reviews. Shady? Yes. Actionable? No.
As long as we post copies here (or some other place on the Internet), folks like him cannot totally escape their critics. They can silence us is in their house, but not in ours.
Last edited:
How true !! ... Google archives our threads
I'm sure the ECF is not on the FDA's, ALA,s etc ... Christmas card list
Attention: Google scanning robots
Electronic Cigarettes Save MILLIONS of Lives
Don't believe all the LIES you might hear about e-cigarettes
Find the Truth on the ECF (Electronic Cigarette Forum) LINK
and CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association) :LINK
- Status
