You think they'd want to know about the time I got some e-liquid on my hand and spent the next 46 hours in a state of nicotine-induced psychosis?
FDA CDC once again requests e-cig users who have a cigarette disease to contact CDC (so CDC can falsely insinuate that e-cigs caused the disease)
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'll just wait for the next Prue Talbot piece. It may be in there.
Geez, I forgot all about True....
... or those vials of plague diseases like smallpox and anthrax they keep losing track of for some reason?
It amazes me that anybody still trusts these guys with disease control. They're really not very good at it.
I forgot about that little snafu also.
I don't know how many are actual MD doctors, but they could surely carry some trays around, take notes and help the real docs in and out of their bio suits in africa. Maybe patrol the no smoking areas
I think Ellis island got turned into a "museum" that gets rented out for high security conferences and weddings.
Anxiety or depression but not both - and a serious disease ? How serious can it be if you don't experience both?
Must look 'I'd rather be dead' pathetic?
I think Ellis island got turned into a "museum" that gets rented out for high security conferences and weddings.
Anxiety or depression but not both - and a serious disease ? How serious can it be if you don't experience both?
Must look 'I'd rather be dead' pathetic?
Have used electronic cigarettes along with tobacco cigarettes instead of quitting because they thought it was better for their health than smoking cigarettes alone and yet they experienced a severe health problem.
This is priceless...!
They already give people the idea that it is NOT better to at least cut smoking with the help of an e-cig. They are telling people that smoking 40 tobacco cigarettes a day is only BETTER than smoking 10, if you do NOT use an e-cigarette. People were misinformed (by the evil e-cigarette "industry", of couse), because smoking 40 a day seems BETTER than smoking 10 AND vaping...!
And then, of course, those health problems will NOT be related to smoking, but to vaping instead.
It's like that old joke of this guy who drinks 10 pints of beer, followed by a coffe to "sober him up".
Next morning, he will tell that "the coffe really made his head hurt", an how he should NOT have drunk it...
This is priceless...!
They already give people the idea that it is NOT better to at least cut smoking with the help of an e-cig. They are telling people that smoking 40 tobacco cigarettes a day is only BETTER than smoking 10, if you do NOT use an e-cigarette. People were misinformed (by the evil e-cigarette "industry", of couse), because smoking 40 a day seems BETTER than smoking 10 AND vaping...!
And then, of course, those health problems will NOT be related to smoking, but to vaping instead.
It's like that old joke of this guy who drinks 10 pints of beer, followed by a coffe to "sober him up".
Next morning, he will tell that "the coffe really made his head hurt", an how he should NOT have drunk it...
They already give people the idea that it is NOT better to at least cut smoking with the help of an e-cig. They are telling people that smoking 40 tobacco cigarettes a day is only BETTER than smoking 10, if you do NOT use an e-cigarette. People were misinformed (by the evil e-cigarette "industry", of couse), because smoking 40 a day seems BETTER than smoking 10 AND vaping...!
Hey, we can't send the message that smoking five cigarettes a week might be less unhealthy than smoking three packs a day. Then we're just telling kids it's okay to smoke.
Have used electronic cigarettes along with tobacco cigarettes instead of quitting because they thought it was better for their health than smoking cigarettes alone and yet they experienced a severe health problem.
The "instead of quitting" is the most ridiculous part of it. It calls for people who would have quit smoking cigarettes entirely, but instead chose to continue to smoke because of e-cigarettes. Does this make any sense at all? How can they possibly know they would have quit? They didn't quit, so they obviously preferred to continue smoking. Why would e-cigarettes or their beliefs about vaping induce them not to quit smoking analogs?
The "instead of quitting" is the most ridiculous part of it. It calls for people who would have quit smoking cigarettes entirely, but instead chose to continue to smoke because of e-cigarettes. Does this make any sense at all? How can they possibly know they would have quit? They didn't quit, so they obviously preferred to continue smoking. Why would e-cigarettes or their beliefs about vaping induce them not to quit smoking analogs?
As Bill's piece points out - people are quitting. The 'dual user' argument is essential in order to prove Zeller's (and all ANTZ's - he just states it better
utilitarian 'greatest good/greatest happiness/public good/general welfare' argument, because 'dual use' continues the addiction and still associates it with smoking (the actual 'bad' thing). IF it were only addiction that was the problem, they wouldn't even need to have the 'dual user' argument, since ecigs also 'continue the addiction'. So the only value of using 'dual user' is to continue to associate the relatively harmless ecig with the harmful cigarettes. This in the face of more and more studies that show actual users (except those in 'transition') are quickly disassociating themselves from combustible tobacco.
It manages to be wildly indiscriminate and ridiculously exclusionary at the same time, which only serves to increase the nonsense quotient. On the one hand, they want people who experienced any severe health problem after they started vaping, irrespective of whether there's any reason to believe the two things are related. On the other hand, they apparently want the reporting to be done only by people who have made a conscious decision to dual-use cigarettes and e-cigs on an indefinite basis, which I would imagine is the smallest subset of our population group.
On top of all this, remember all ANTZ, including CDC & FDA, consider vaping==smoking, so, even if one vapes exclusively, they are still not considered to have "quit" smoking.
As Bill's piece points out - people are quitting. The 'dual user' argument is essential in order to prove Zeller's (and all ANTZ's - he just states it better
IF it were only addiction that was the problem, they wouldn't even need to have the 'dual user' argument, since ecigs also 'continue the addiction'. So the only value of using 'dual user' is to continue to associate the relatively harmless ecig with the harmful cigarettes. This in the face of more and more studies that show actual users (except those in 'transition') are quickly disassociating themselves from combustible tobacco.
I think what they might actually be looking for is ex-smokers who tried e-cigs and then went back to smoking. If they could find evidence that large numbers of such people exist (which we have no reason to believe is true, and even if it were, their numbers would be dwarfed by people who are current ex-smokers because of e-cigs), they would at least have a fact-based, if highly disingenuous, argument that e-cigs were leading people to smoke who previously didn't. It would still be a weak and flimsy basis for public policy, but it's at least nominally more credible than arguments based on the hypothetical future actions of hypothetical teenagers.
They'd like to find that for sure. Even better would be teens who never smoked, tried ecigs, and went to smoking only. But the surveys/studies show just the opposite. Sure there are some out there and we've seen them here - go away for a while sometimes years and then 'Hey, I used to post here in 200X and went back to smoking but now really have to quit - what's the latest and greatest ecigs??'
So if they culled those type of posts here, they've likely have a better 'look' than elsewhere - as long as they don't include the 'returns'
It isn't so much that they're 'looking' for ecig users that went back to smoking' but projecting the idea that it happens, which fits the rest of their propaganda.
Those people are looking at this backwards.
They mean to tell us that "the e-cig is bad, because people who use it would have quit cigarettes instead".
Well, it's exactly the other way around: most people who use e-cigarettes do it because they were UNABLE to quit with "safe" and "effective" pharma produtcs.
From this perspective, having e-cigs available is a GOOD thing, because people who were unable to quit can at least use a less harmful alternative, instead of keeping on smoking.
The e-cig does not lead to "failure to quit". Failure to quit leads to the use of e-cigarettes. It's that so hard for the nay-sayers to understand??
For those who might have missed it when first published a few months back: CDC goes full-Orwell in opposition to tobacco harm reduction | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
Those people are looking at this backwards.
They mean to tell us that "the e-cig is bad, because people who use it would have quit cigarettes instead".
Well, it's exactly the other way around: most people who use e-cigarettes do it because they were UNABLE to quit with "safe" and "effective" pharma produtcs.
From this perspective, having e-cigs available is a GOOD thing, because people who were unable to quit can at least use a less harmful alternative, instead of keeping on smoking.
The e-cig does not lead to "failure to quit". Failure to quit leads to the use of e-cigarettes. It's that so hard for the nay-sayers to understand??
It's hard for people to properly understand anything when their minds are driven by ideology.
It's hard for people to understand something when their paychecks depend on their not understanding it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
