CDC and FDA are Undermining Anti-Smoking Messages and Protecting the Cigarette Industry

[Kent C]

Dr. Siegel

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/05/cdc-and-fda-are-undermining-anti.html

"It is remarkable that despite all of the widespread marketing of electronic cigarettes and the claims that these products represent a safer alternative to smoking, the public is still split down the middle as to whether cigarette smoking is any more hazardous than vaping.

These results demonstrate that the public health messages regarding the severe hazards of cigarette smoking (and the safer alternative represented by e-cigarettes) being disseminated by e-cigarette companies are being successfully undermined by opposing messages from the CDC, FDA, policy makers, and other health groups."

It is remarkable. We always had the GL-ANTZ stuff but it was balance or challenged well. Until, what, a month or two ago? Then the barrage of all major media sources and a stepped up assault of lies of poison, kids, now how it aids in MRSA??

I have to think that it was a planned and co-ordinated barrage just prior to the deeming doc, to give it more leverage.

I was thinking what could be a good counter to all of this, and frankly I think the opponents know. That the boom of ecigs had the direct result of lowering the percentage of smokers. Any studies from our side that would give good proof of that would be the anecdote, imo. Not that they wouldn't try to spin it in other ways. But the sales of ecigs from 2010 to now, has to mean that ecigs are cutting into cig sales and reducing the number of smokers - something the CDC has been trying to do and failing for years.

Imagine if, in the two years or so to 'final rule' that the percentage of smokers dropped from 18/1% now to say 12% or even lower. The harm reduction aspect and lives saved would be a significant factor, and you'd think that might be the case even for the FDA. I can't think of any other counter-indicator that would have any effect that to have studies that showed this to be the case.

 

[Nate760]

"According to the new study, of adults who are aware of electronic cigarettes, about half (49.3%) believe that cigarettes are no more harmful than e-cigarettes, which contain no tobacco, involve no combustion, and have been shown to have much lower levels of carcinogens and other toxins."

This speaks to the overwhelming power of misleading, alarmist headlines in major media outlets, because that's all most people can be bothered to read. The more conscientious set might read the first paragraph, but hardly anyone reads these articles thoroughly and comprehensively, much less checks the credibility of the sources they reference.

No matter how dubious your conclusions, how flawed your methodology, or how screamingly obvious your ulterior motives, all you need to do is generate headlines like "NEW HEALTH RISKS FROM E-CIGS!!" and the battle is effectively won. It makes it even easier when the majority of the population already 1) conflates vaping with smoking, and the e-cig industry with the tobacco industry, 2) is conditioned to uncritically accept any claims made by people who are ostensibly "anti-tobacco", and 3) finds confirmation for their pre-existing social prejudices in such headlines.

 

[AndriaD]

I still think CASAA needs to mount a major PR campaign, to counter all the recent bad press with some actual FACTS. Yes it will cost money; why not setup a "E-Cig Truth PR Fund," dedicated exclusively to TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT E-CIGS.

Andria

 

[trailblazer6]

Here is a good start. Look. I am a DIY and ni no way affiliated with this site. But there facts are on the money.
E-Cigarettes: Myth Vs. Reality, A Comprehensive List | E-Juice Connoisseur

 

[aubergine]

It seems to me that the many, many success stories that have accumulated in here for years (I think CASAA has compiled them?) need to be effectively disseminated now, not amongst vapers, who are the chief audience for so much accurate info, but in the general public. (I mean, who reads E-Juice Connoisseur? We do a lot of preachin' to the choir.)

From a scientific POV they're just anecdotal, but they're extremely powerful and represent a very broad cross-section of vapers.

How could that be done? Are there privacy or other issues preventing their publication elsewhere? I think they'd have a real impact on public opinion.

I've even thought that it'd be terrific if there were a separate site just containing those stories hat we could send as a link to Congresspersons and others without tangling them in the whole forum.
People enjoy reading that sort of thing, too - human interest.

 

[Nate760]

I still think CASAA needs to mount a major PR campaign, to counter all the recent bad press with some actual FACTS. Yes it will cost money; why not setup a "E-Cig Truth PR Fund," dedicated exclusively to TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT E-CIGS.

Andria

The pro-choice movement had great success in swaying public opinion in the early 70s when they took out full-page ads, in major newspapers across the country, with the banner headline "I HAVE HAD AN ABORTION" and a list of several hundred names beneath it; one group of names were those of nationally famous celebrities, athletes, etc., and the remainder were those of women from the area in which the particular newspaper circulated.

Obviously, we live in a much different and more fragmented media climate today in which fewer people read newspapers, but the goal of our PR campaign should probably be along those same lines: to bombard our opponents with sheer force of numbers, to make the general public acknowledge that we are real people with real names and faces, and to state in no uncertain terms that vaping has saved our lives.

 

[Katya]

We have to fight back. We have plenty of ammunition:

Mitch Zeller:

FDA Regulation ECigarettes | Video | C-SPAN.org

SEE: 38:30

"If we could get all of those people [who can't or wont quit smoking conventional cigarettes] to completely switch all of their cigarettes to the non-combustible products that would be good for public health."


http://www.cspnet.com/category-mana...s-data/articles/zeller-e-cigs-its-complicated

"It is not the nicotine that kills half of all long-term cigarette smokers," said Zeller. "The nicotine creates and sustains the addictions, but it's not the nicotine that kills people."

E-Cigarette Summit - Prof. Robert West - ECF InfoZone

British and French studies:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ip-out-lets-pay-attention-8.html#post13184394

What you need to know about electronic cigarettes | Royal College of Physicians

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...eport-electronic-cigarettes.html#post13165551

E-cigarette research, studies and papers

The Ultimate List of E-Cig Studies: Are E-Cigs Actually Safe? *Updated 2/16/14 » onVaping

Send this to your papers, radio stations, lawmakers, CDC, Dr. Hamburg, Sen. Harkin, Dr. McAfee, Glantz....

 

[AndriaD]

This is really just an aside, but I got some proof today that media lies are not convincing everybody everywhere.

I went to get the emissions test for our truck, since my birthday is thursday and it's time to renew the tag. So I'm standing there at the counter, paying the $15 for the test, giving the guy the key to the truck; I was wearing my lanyard-pouch with my Sigelei/Kayfun in it since I was driving, and I waved it, and said " is it ok if I use this in here?" The guy shrugs, says "it doesn't smell bad, does it?" So I said no, but see for yourself, had a puff, blew out some vapor, he shrugged again and said "doesn't smell like anything to me, so sure."

Just a tiny ray of sunshine in the midst of all this gloom and doom. Not EVERYONE swallows the media's party line hook, line, and sinker.

Andria

 

[MorpheusPA]

On the up side, American public opinion (probably human public opinion) tends to be stochastic. By that I mean that the starting state, or intermediate state, doesn't have all that much sway in light of new information and the final state we want can evolve from any point in the spectrum of opinion. Also, we have really short attention spans.

People will tend to move in the direction of the latest data they have (but only tend), so the recovery into the positive range can start at any time with good released info.

People also tend to give more weight to information personally given to them by a trusted family member, friend, or acquaintance. So get out there and talk to people you know.

I haven't seen recent data on the number of smokers converting, but my intuition says that it can't possibly be eroding that badly in the light of the negative information blitz. It's too abundantly obvious to most people that this, if not perfect, is far better than sucking combustion fumes through a paper tube.

More or less, if the FDA is counting on smokers not converting, they're probably in for a nasty surprise. We're more immune to propaganda these days than during World War I. We get it every time we turn on the TV and view an ad.

 

[Bobbilly]

From a report for the UK pubic health England, they address dual use
"It has been suggested that there is a risk of sustained dual use among smokers who might otherwise have quit smoking completely, representing missed opportunities to achieve complete cessation. This concern clearly applies equally to NRT, which is licensed for what is in effect dual use and recommended on the grounds that dual use is likely to increase quit attempts. The concern is therefore inconsistent; if dual use is good as a pathway to quitting, that surely applies to dual use involving either NRT or electronic cigarettes."

 

[Nate760]

People also tend to give more weight to information personally given to them by a trusted family member, friend, or acquaintance. So get out there and talk to people you know.

In my own case, I was only vaguely aware of e-cigs and vaping until I saw one of my dad's friends (a 2 PAD smoker for 40+ years) puffing on an eGo. A couple conversations later, my interest was piqued to the point where I wanted to give it a try myself. Within less than a week, I was an ex-smoker.

 

[Katya]

Another thing we can all do--and it's easy. Thanks, DC!

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...eople-do-something-positive.html#post13176866

 

[AndriaD]

The fact is that if e-cigarettes hadn't come along, I would still be smoking, and would have kept smoking until it killed me.

That is a FACT. I had no interest whatsoever in quitting... until a means came along by which I could do it WITHOUT SUFFERING. I'd tried cold turkey, I'd tried the patch twice. Cold turkey is just plain misery, and the patch doesn't work. Period. There is not one thing analogous to smoking in putting a sticky patch on your skin, and smoking is NOT just nicotine, it's behavioral, and it's far harder to break a mental habit, especially one which conveys comfort and stress relief, than abstain from any substance, even when there is physical dependence.

I quit drinking 22 yrs ago. Most of the time in my early recovery I was doing just fine... until I saw a beer commercial and began to salivate. Physical dependence? I licked that inside 30 days. But the mental craving for the taste, the comfort, went on for YEARS.

Andria