Article : Do Stop-Smoking Products Really Work?
- Thread starter Baldr
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Worked for me. I have read many of these articles and I am sorry they just don't seem to have a lot of science behind them. Most, like this one are sensationalized tabloid innuendo that do not honestly look at both sides of the issue. Do I think E-cigs are 100% safe, no. They are correct they are not regulated (yet). However I do know that in my case I feel great, can run and exercise again without losing my breath, and I don't have lung butter (sorry, that's gross) in the morning.
I know of very little in life that is 100% safe but I do feel healthier, far less addicted to nic in this form, and no desire in the least to return to smoking. Could there be a long term cost to my health? Perhaps. But I feel like I have a long term again and that is a great feeling.
We may have only anecdotal evidence for the benefits of E-cigs, but the opposition has only speculative opinions and scare tactics for their case. If and when they find something else I may reconsider, till then vape on my friends.
I know of very little in life that is 100% safe but I do feel healthier, far less addicted to nic in this form, and no desire in the least to return to smoking. Could there be a long term cost to my health? Perhaps. But I feel like I have a long term again and that is a great feeling.
We may have only anecdotal evidence for the benefits of E-cigs, but the opposition has only speculative opinions and scare tactics for their case. If and when they find something else I may reconsider, till then vape on my friends.
Part of the problem is that the authors of such articles find the first person with an MD or PhD behind their name and, if that person has an opinion, s/he qualifies as an expert. Unfortunately, the concept of tobacco harm reduction is not well accepted in the medical community, so the authors will have a tough time tracking down an expert who knows what they are talking about.
There were so many factual errors in that article that I had to leave four comments to deal with the most egregious of them. And then there was the troll who hangs out online for the sake of belittling others. I guess it makes him feel important. I hope that guy has to drive home next to someone who is so deeply in the throes of nicotine withdrawal that he or she can't see straight. I find it ironic that when I am abstinent from nicotine, I have about the same operational capacity as someone who is quite drunk.
There were so many factual errors in that article that I had to leave four comments to deal with the most egregious of them. And then there was the troll who hangs out online for the sake of belittling others. I guess it makes him feel important. I hope that guy has to drive home next to someone who is so deeply in the throes of nicotine withdrawal that he or she can't see straight. I find it ironic that when I am abstinent from nicotine, I have about the same operational capacity as someone who is quite drunk.
I agree with you, this article was less informed than most of this bent. I appreciate your insight when it comes to these type of articles Volcalek. Thanks
Anyone notice that that date on the article is today, but the comments started 11/27/2010. Also one of the QSMB fanatics had to get involved and throw their fanaticism into the replies.
http://www.quitsmokingmessageboard....&t=39774&sid=3d335d5969f11703bbf8288dfe948eb7
Warning, go there and read all you like, but avoid getting involved. Instead of Quit Smoking Message Board, it should be call Quit nicotine message board. There are some extremists there that feel ANY use of nicotine interrupts "the quit".
ECF members can get kicked off here for getting involved over there. I signed up one morning to make a comment that there was a difference between quitting smoking and nicotine/tobacco abstinence. My comment was waiting approval as I found I had walked into Al Qaeda of the tobacco world and quickly had the admin remove my membership and comment.
Warning, go there and read all you like, but avoid getting involved. Instead of Quit Smoking Message Board, it should be call Quit nicotine message board. There are some extremists there that feel ANY use of nicotine interrupts "the quit".
ECF members can get kicked off here for getting involved over there. I signed up one morning to make a comment that there was a difference between quitting smoking and nicotine/tobacco abstinence. My comment was waiting approval as I found I had walked into Al Qaeda of the tobacco world and quickly had the admin remove my membership and comment.
No, what I find is sad is that there is a strong movement towards harm reduction for many different legal and illegal drugs that work. However, there is a such a strong opposition to the same efforts for tobacco. E-ciggs work for many people, but that effort is squashed by extremists.
You know, when someone over here in the Netherlands produces a bogus report, they get fired. Really:
Dutch University Sacks Social Psychologist Over Faked Data - ScienceInsider
To me it seems appropriate to post this reply in every topic in the Media and General News section. Hey so called journalist/expert/MD/PhD, don't come to Europe. You'll get fired.
Dutch University Sacks Social Psychologist Over Faked Data - ScienceInsider
To me it seems appropriate to post this reply in every topic in the Media and General News section. Hey so called journalist/expert/MD/PhD, don't come to Europe. You'll get fired.
Last edited:
I nominate whoever is
Case in point: Cigarette Smoking Among Adults and Trends in Smoking Cessation
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults and Trends in Smoking CessationUnited States, 2008
They state, with a perfectly straight face, "Although the percentage of adults who are current smokers trended downward during 1998-2008, the proportion did not change from 2007 to 2008."
Year----# (M)--% Adults
2007----43.4-----19.8
2008--- 46.0-----20.6
So, an increase of 2.6 million smokers, with a change of +0.8% of the adult population = "unchanged"
My, don't we look good!!
Last edited:
The problem I see with most stop smoking "thingy's" is they refuse to separate nicotine from smoking. As far as they're concerned smoking = nicotine, and anything that has nicotine is as dangerous as smoking. But no amount of facts or science is going to get through to people whose mind is so narrow and closed.
I nominate whoever isfakingwriting the reports on smoking statistics for the Centers for Disease Control.
Case in point: Cigarette Smoking Among Adults and Trends in Smoking Cessation
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults and Trends in Smoking CessationUnited States, 2008
They state, with a perfectly straight face, "Although the percentage of adults who are current smokers trended downward during 1998-2008, the proportion did not change from 2007 to 2008."
Year----# (M)--% Adults
2007----43.4-----19.8
2008--- 46.0-----20.6
So, an increase of 2.6 million smokers, with a change of +0.8% of the adult population = "unchanged"
My, don't we look good!!
In fairness, I think what the article said in the main is "the proportion did not change significantly from 2007 (19.8%) to 2008 (20.6%)." Note that the percentages are derived from sampling. There is overlap of confidence limits between 2007 and 2008 so "no change" is possible. My suspicion is that e-ciggers who do not smoke cigarettes are included in the ranks of non smokers. In fact it seems possible that a sizable part of the reduction seen from 1998 to 2008 might be attributable to electronic cigarettes. However, it is hard to say how antis and would be regulators might react to such a statistic whatever such a statistic might show.
You see, that's the difference between various types of research. He has nothing to worry about if he changes his research direction to behavioral psychology in tobacco control. I'm sure he'd be very content in sunny CA and they'd understand his methodology.
I find the results shown in Cigarette Smoking Among Adults and Trends in Smoking Cessation a bit odd or, at least less than clear cut, as to meaning. For example, 2008 compared to 2007 - White, non-Hispanic - Up; Black , non-Hispanic - Up; Hispanic - Up; Asian, non-Hispanic - UP, and the sole category down - American Indian/Alaska Native. Yet comment in article "American Indians/Alaska Natives had higher prevalence of current smoking compared with the other racial/ethnic groups (32.4%)." GED'ers - down. People > 65 - up. What does this mean? Better chance of non-smoking if you didn't get high school diploma and went the GED route. More people older than 65 deciding smoking better than not?
Then in CDC editorial note: "Offering and providing effective cessation counseling and treatments are integral to reducing the smoking epidemic, especially in subpopulations with high rates of smoking. Because persons with lower educational attainment generally have higher rates of smoking, are less likely to quit, and have less knowledge about the health effects of smoking but are interested in quitting, health-care providers should take education level into account when communicating with such patients." Then we have "Do Stop-Smoking Products Really Work?" saying "Wrong. The experts we spoke to said that most people use devices with smokeless tobacco to supplement smoking not stop it so they actually increase their nicotine intake." Of course, I think - I believe "the experts" spoken to (if there really where such experts) had not a clue of what they opined to (if they did opine to anything). What baffles me is why do such articles like "Do Stop ..." get any attention at all.
Then in CDC editorial note: "Offering and providing effective cessation counseling and treatments are integral to reducing the smoking epidemic, especially in subpopulations with high rates of smoking. Because persons with lower educational attainment generally have higher rates of smoking, are less likely to quit, and have less knowledge about the health effects of smoking but are interested in quitting, health-care providers should take education level into account when communicating with such patients." Then we have "Do Stop-Smoking Products Really Work?" saying "Wrong. The experts we spoke to said that most people use devices with smokeless tobacco to supplement smoking not stop it so they actually increase their nicotine intake." Of course, I think - I believe "the experts" spoken to (if there really where such experts) had not a clue of what they opined to (if they did opine to anything). What baffles me is why do such articles like "Do Stop ..." get any attention at all.
I may have found the reason why there appeared to be a huge dip in the smoking prevalence for the year 2007.
They oversampled in subgroups that had significant decreases. Statisticians in the house: Is this correct?
Statistically speaking, can't they adjust for this to give us a truer picture of the overall count, instead of a fabricated picture based on subgroups?
As for how all this is described:
An increase of 2.6 million smokers from 2007 to 2008, with a change of +0.8% of the adult population = "unchanged"
But a decrease of 1.9 million smokers from 2006 to 2007, with a change of -1% of the adult population = "significant lower"
And the drop from 2009 to 2010 is described as "Smoking Drops a Little in 2010" in the media: Smoking Drops a Little in 2010: CDC - Maggie Fox - NationalJournal.com
2009 - 46.5 million smokers, 20.6%
2010 - 45.3 million smokers, 19.3%
Net change = 1.2 million fewer smokers, 1.3% lower prevalence
My head is spinning along with the verbiage. I guess it all depends on what political agenda you want to promote.
From 2006 to 2008 the message is: "Look what a great job we've been doing."
In 2010 the message is: "We aren't doing as well as we should be, so let's do more of the same stuff that hasn't worked in the past, and by the way, give us more money!!"
They oversampled in subgroups that had significant decreases. Statisticians in the house: Is this correct?
Statistically speaking, can't they adjust for this to give us a truer picture of the overall count, instead of a fabricated picture based on subgroups?
As for how all this is described:
An increase of 2.6 million smokers from 2007 to 2008, with a change of +0.8% of the adult population = "unchanged"
But a decrease of 1.9 million smokers from 2006 to 2007, with a change of -1% of the adult population = "significant lower"
And the drop from 2009 to 2010 is described as "Smoking Drops a Little in 2010" in the media: Smoking Drops a Little in 2010: CDC - Maggie Fox - NationalJournal.com
2009 - 46.5 million smokers, 20.6%
2010 - 45.3 million smokers, 19.3%
Net change = 1.2 million fewer smokers, 1.3% lower prevalence
My head is spinning along with the verbiage. I guess it all depends on what political agenda you want to promote.
From 2006 to 2008 the message is: "Look what a great job we've been doing."
In 2010 the message is: "We aren't doing as well as we should be, so let's do more of the same stuff that hasn't worked in the past, and by the way, give us more money!!"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
