Brad Rodu debunks the ecig TV ads & kids myth

[AgentAnia]

He puts the issue into perspective quite handily. A quick but useful read:

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/06/e-cigarette-tv-ads-adults-exposure-much.html

 

[Anjaffm]

Good one!

This data shows that 234 million adults 18 years or older were the primary recipients of e-cigarette advertising.

 

[Kent C]

As suspected:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...t-saw-msn-under-kids-health.html#post13323328

lol... nice follow-up with the ad numbers! Amazing how they extrapolate and exaggerate.

 

[AgentAnia]

Do the junk scientists and twisted statisticians really not think that real scientists aren't going to debunk their propagandized "results"? The mind boggles...

 

[Kent C]

Do the junk scientists and twisted statisticians really not think that real scientists aren't going to debunk their propagandized "results"? The mind boggles...

They are confident that there will be 'two sides to every issue' and that they have the better numbers on their side. At some point that may change but it's going to be a while.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Do the junk scientists and twisted statisticians really not think that real scientists aren't going to debunk their propagandized "results"? The mind boggles...

They know they are, but they don't care as the headlines they need are already printed and spread on the web.

Dont you love their use of percentages instead of numbers and graphs, all I got from the graph was to many youngins are up way to late watching TV and mostly adults are seeing the commercials.

Parent problem again.

 

[Jake6731]

The box in this article says:
"WHAT’S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Electronic cigarettes have unknown health risks and youth and young adults increasingly use them."
They could have written it like this: "Electronic cigarettes have no known health risks and youth and young adults increasingly use them." But that would be too much to hope for I guess..

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

The box in this article says:
"WHAT’S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Electronic cigarettes have unknown health risks and youth and young adults increasingly use them."
They could have written it like this: "Electronic cigarettes have no known health risks and youth and young adults increasingly use them." But that would be too much to hope for I guess..

That would be good news , totally useless to the media.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

I guess I don't see the good news here. Even though adults showed higher peaks, exposure to the kiddies also spiked which is what zealots will focus on. They are basically saying the 12-17 year olds are innocent casualties of the mean e-cig ads because of successful adult marketing.

What am I missing?

 

[Kent C]

I guess I don't see the good news here. Even though adults showed higher peaks, exposure to the kiddies also spiked which is what zealots will focus on. They are basically saying the 12-17 year olds are innocent casualties of the mean e-cig ads because of successful adult marketing.

What am I missing?

The only thing that 'spiked' was exposure. But the levels of exposure to the young was .000x% of the total exposure numbers. Doesn't mean they actually bought and again, kids are going to experiment and no bans on ads are going to stop that. The anti's only take the percentage difference and like I pointed out in the post linked above is that there were few ads to ecigs before their 'starting date' so you're going to get those 'rises' even though what they represent is questionable.

 

[DrMA]

Do the junk scientists and twisted statisticians really not think that real scientists aren't going to debunk their propagandized "results"? The mind boggles...

Unfortunately, few real scientists want to get involved in the tobacco field, because it's highly politically charged and can get very ugly, as we all know. Getting involved with tobacco research on either side puts an indelible mark on your record with severe career-limiting consequences. I'm fairly certain that the only way to make a name for yourself in the tobacco research field is to act exactly like glANTZ and his gang: do whatever it takes to sing the TCI song.

That being said, I don't know how Siegel, Rodu, Bates, Farsalinos et al. manage to survive in this kind of field while going against the TCI dogma, but they certainly have my utmost respect and gratitude for having the moral fortitude to do the right thing.

 

[AgentAnia]

Let me throw in a related observation here.

I have the TV running in the background most of every day. During the 1.5 yrs I've been vaping, I've seen maybe 8-10 ecig ads.* Total. During that same period, I see at least 8-10 smoke-free[wherever], CDC hole-in-your-throat, or Pharma NRT ads EVERY DAY.

Would it be correct to conclude, given their hysteria over children being influenced by ecig ads, that the ANTZs are admitting their anti-tobacco TV campaign is a dismal failure?

*On a side note, two of my regional B&Ms have started advertising on local TV channels!

 

[Kent C]

Let me throw in a related observation here.

I have the TV running in the background most of every day. During the 1.5 yrs I've been vaping, I've seen maybe 8-10 ecig ads.* Total. During that same period, I see at least 8-10 smoke-free[wherever], CDC hole-in-your-throat, or Pharma NRT ads EVERY DAY.

Would it be correct to conclude, given their hysteria over children being influenced by ecig ads, that the ANTZs are admitting their anti-tobacco TV campaign is a dismal failure?

*On a side note, two of my regional B&Ms have started advertising on local TV channels!

 

[Jman8]

Unfortunately, few real scientists want to get involved in the tobacco field, because it's highly politically charged and can get very ugly, as we all know. Getting involved with tobacco research on either side puts an indelible mark on your record with severe career-limiting consequences. I'm fairly certain that the only way to make a name for yourself in the tobacco research field is to act exactly like glANTZ and his gang: do whatever it takes to sing the TCI song.

This speaks incredibly poorly of modern day science. Not disputing what you are saying nor trying to put you on the defense. I realize the politics are the issue, but science has great history of squarely dealing with popularly held beliefs (that were false thinking) and shedding light where there was ignorance. Now, the system is gamed so scientists would put career aspirations ahead of fundamental aspects of science.

 

[patkin]

Let me throw in a related observation here.

I have the TV running in the background most of every day. During the 1.5 yrs I've been vaping, I've seen maybe 8-10 ecig ads.* Total. During that same period, I see at least 8-10 smoke-free[wherever], CDC hole-in-your-throat, or Pharma NRT ads EVERY DAY.

Would it be correct to conclude, given their hysteria over children being influenced by ecig ads, that the ANTZs are admitting their anti-tobacco TV campaign is a dismal failure?

*On a side note, two of my regional B&Ms have started advertising on local TV channels!

I've seen the same and with the FDA looming on advertising, I've wondered just exactly why it is that BP gets a pass advertising nicotine. Do they really think kids aren't out there experimenting with the "highly addictive drug" in the form of flavored gum? Booze gets a pass too as long as no one is seen actually drinking it. Partiers can hold it in their hand while laughing with each other but they can't put it near their lips (so silly.) Maybe that form of advertising will be okay for ecigs... hold it, just don't puff or blow clouds.

 

[DrMA]

This speaks incredibly poorly of modern day science. Not disputing what you are saying nor trying to put you on the defense. I realize the politics are the issue, but science has great history of squarely dealing with popularly held beliefs (that were false thinking) and shedding light where there was ignorance. Now, the system is gamed so scientists would put career aspirations ahead of fundamental aspects of science.

It's always been incredibly difficult to overturn long-standing beliefs thru science or any other means. That's why it took 600 years of scientific and social strife to overturn the flat-earth concept. Once a hypothesis becomes entrenched as dogma or common knowledge, any chance of fighting it thru science is all but lost. Researchers who try are ridiculed, marginalized, and sometimes burned at the stake as heretics (figuratively speaking).