Can someone write to this guy and give him some facts?

Status
Not open for further replies.

twohandedcreations

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 19, 2011
527
450
45
orlando florida
he's definitely mis-informed... it seems like he read one bad article and formed his opinion. i truly hope one of the more knowledgable members writes and informs him on the reality of this topic! Ive found that ex-smokers that had to quit without the luxury of e-smokes are the first ones to shoot them down! it seems like they cant stand the fact that there might be an easier way (other then the white knuckle method) of quitting, because they had to suffer through it. i have a handful of friends that WE'RE smokers and Ive gotten them all on board and not one of them still smokes analogs!! 100% success rate. that beats every other alternative!!!
 

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,405
ECF Towers
I note from his website that he is one of the Harvard Health group members.

In that case you are almost certainly wasting your time since it appears they are owned by the pharmaceutical industry, and seem to act as a conduit for anti-ecigarette propaganda.

This form of astroturfing is highly successful and there's little to be done about it. You could point out that he appears to be extremely ignorant, is rehashing pharma propaganda that relies on extreme twisting and misrepresentation of the facts, is stating a point of view directly opposed to that of senior colleagues expert in the field (which he is not), and going against the advice of the AAPHP and ACSH, who are both far more knowledgeable about the issues than him.

You could point out that Professors Rodu, Siegel, Philips and Bergen would completely disagree with him, and they are senior to him, and also experts in the field.

But I doubt if that will do any good because we know who pays the bills.

It's not possible to describe his article as outright lies because there is a tiny grain of truth in every fact he mentions, though completely misrepresented. But it's as close to lying as you can get without being exposed as a paid liar for the pharma industry.

Some of the aforementioned professors of public health have described colleagues of this type as crooks and liars. No doubt they know what they are talking about. I wouldn't know as I don't have access to details of his private bank accounts, conditions of employment, and sources of funding. It seems hard to believe, though, that any entirely independent doctor would come out with this level of dangerous codswallop - there is usually some kind of motive and strangely enough it's normally linked to funding.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong here and the gentleman in question actually believes his statements and receives no benefits of any kind from those who are determined to shut down e-cigarettes. If that were indeed the case, he shouldn't really be practising as a doctor - and certainly not advising the general public.

And given that he is a Harvard Health member, the very existence of an unsolicited communication published as a letter here is probably somewhat suspect.

Most people who know the background would write this off as astroturfing: to be laughed at due to the obvious bias and apparent complete ignorance of the facts.
 
Last edited:

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
I could swear that I saw this exact column somewhere else several months ago.

Be that as it may, the web site offered a place to submit a question to Dr. K. I don't expect an answer.

I'm confused regarding your column on e-cigarettes. You stated that "preliminary studies from New Zealand, Greece and the FDA itself raise concerns." I have read all three studies. The New Zealand study stated, “Relative to lethal tobacco smoke emissions, e-cigarette emissions appear to be several magnitudes safer. E-cigarettes are akin to a medicinal nicotine inhalator in safety, dose, and addiction potential.” The study from Greece showed neutral results.

Only the FDA's press release took a negative stance, and a press release should never be relied upon as a scientific source. The FDA published their lab test results in a "Final Report" that paints a different picture. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf

The lab report revealed that the FDA found "approximately 1%" diethylene glycol (DEG) in the liquid of one of 18 cartridges tested. That's approximately 10 milligrams--not enough to make a mouse sick. The NOAEL is 850-1000 mg/kg/ bw/d. The FDA did not find any DEG at all in the vapor, so it is not accurate to state that e-cigarettes deliver DEG.

The FDA failed to report the quantity of "powerful carcinogens" they detected, but from the New Zealand report we learn that in the liquid of a one ml cartridge containing 1.6% nicotine, there are 8 nanograms of TSNAs--equivalent to the quantity in a Nicoderm patch. TSNAs have never been shown to cause cancer at this tiny dose. In fact, snus user exposed to daily doses of 2000 ng or more do not develop cancer. Furthermore, the FDA did not report finding any TSNAs "delivered" (i.e., in the vapor).

The FDA's lab report states that in simulated use (i.e., the vapor), "nicotine was not observed in cartridges identified as containing no nicotine." While it is true that FDA found the nicotine to vary between 26.8 and 43.2 micrograms per puff, what's your point? Cigarette smoke delivers about 100 micrograms per puff. The "four other chemicals" you mention are alkaloids found in tobacco. They are not suspected of being harmful to humans when present at the quantities FDA detected--measured in parts per billion. So I am not following why you think there is reason to worry. Cigarette smoke contains all these chemicals in much, much larger quantities plus many other harmful constituents (e.g. tar, particulates, numerous chemicals created by combustion, etc.)

There is a growing body of research showing that simulating the smoking experience helps smokers switch from inhaling deadly smoke to inhaling vapor. Bullen & Etter surveyed over 3,500 people and found that 77% of daily users of e-cigarettes have stopped smoking. Recently, Palosa, et al. reported a 22% smoking cessation rate among subjects who were not interested in quitting. That's more than twice the spontaneous quit rate seen with NRTs.

We have been told that every cigarette smoked shortens our life by 7 minutes. Wouldn’t you agree, then, that the safest course for smokers is to stop inhaling smoke as soon as possible? If I had followed your "buyer beware" advice, I would have been inhaling smoke for the past 2 years and 8 months instead of being counted among the ranks of former smokers. I suspect that I would still be wheezing all night and coughing up phlegm every morning. In fact, I might have progressed to full-blown COPD by now.
 

rothenbj

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2009
8,285
7,707
Green Lane, Pa
Elaine, I believe you're right but, like you, it's foggy. Perhaps it's just that the same misinformation/disinformation has been repeated so often, that they all run together in our minds and become truth in the minds of the casual reader. The latter may actually be the intent of seeing the same rhetoric reported so often.
 

tommy2bad

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 1, 2011
461
506
Kilkenny
Perhaps it's just that the same misinformation/disinformation has been repeated so often, that they all run together in our minds and become truth in the minds of the casual reader. The latter may actually be the intent of seeing the same rhetoric reported so often.
Indeed, that's the point of propaganda.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Last edited by a moderator:

MattZuke

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 28, 2011
317
83
A, A
Ask Dr. K is Dr. Anthony Komaroff, Editor in Chief of Harvard Health Publications
Phone: 617 432 4714
Fax: 617 432 4719
e-mail: komaroff @ hms.harvard.edu
[fix spaces]

www. health.harvard .edu/editors/Anthony_Komaroff_MD.htm
[fix spaces]
Anthony L. Komaroff, M.D. - Harvard Health Publications

anthonykomaroff.gather .com
[fix spaces]
Anthony Komaroff, M.D., Harvard Medical School | Gather

researchfaculty.brighamandwomens.org/BRIProfile.aspx?id=6100
[fix spaces]
Anthony L Komaroff - Department of Medicine

He likes Jazz and pop.

HHP has a FB
www. facebook .com/HarvardHealthPublications
[fix spaces]
Harvard Health Publications - Publisher - Boston, MA | Facebook
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
Ask Dr. K is Dr. Anthony Komaroff, Editor in Chief of Harvard Health Publications
I'm going to try and remember to call this ......... tomorrow.

I don't think there is a whole lot of reason to be civil with him.
I'm pretty sure he knows the truth, and chooses to ignore it for personal (monetary) reasons.

This will give me a chance to let off a little bit of steam.
Because I really hate having to be so generous, loving, understanding, and forgiving sometimes.

There is still time for somebody to convince me not to call this excrement-elimination-hole.
So let me know if it won't be a good idea for some reason.
:)
 

windwalker

Unregistered Supplier
Aug 8, 2011
69
154
Michigan USA
www.akstonhughes.com
@DC2 -

This thread was going earlier today: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/238362-harvard-medical-school-adviser-lies-about-health-risks-benefits-e-cigarettes.html

I did a fair bit of research, and from I can tell - Dr. K is not the author and the article is falsely attributed to him. Also, from what I can, the article is over 20 months old and somehow has resurfaced on the syndication wire with Dr. K as the author...

My bet is that it's an artifact of article curation for adsense (old content spun and republished) - and at present, it has replicated and resyndicated across 45 websites...

You can check the link I posted above for Bill's first contact attempt, and my research on the topic...

That info in tow, I think calling Dr. K and letting him know articles in fairly wide publications are getting attributed to him as well as Harvard might be a healthy 'results getting' approach... His website (the base of his syndication feed), does not take credit for the article, and the article originally appeared long before he became: "The Harvard Medical Adviser" . . .

gl...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread