Because Some of Us Don't think that the CDC is Going to Paint e-Cigarette use in a Very Good Light.
Unless of course, the CDC could have done a COMPLETE 180 and is Now somehow in Favor of e-Cigarettes. But What are the Chances of that?
CDC TV Ad - A $2,500 Dirty Trick?
- Thread starter zoiDman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Because Some of Us Don't think that the CDC is Going to Paint e-Cigarette use in a Very Good Light.
Unless of course, the CDC could have done a COMPLETE 180 and is Now somehow in Favor of e-Cigarettes. But What are the Chances of that?
It doesn't matter what their motives are. Paying people to appear in a TV ad ain't SCIENCE!!!!!!
I want them to sponsor real scientific studies with my money--not to make TV ads.
Trust the CDC to play fair, along it's their brother FDA.
Oh Yeah... I Trust the CDC to be Completely Unbiased.
BTW - Where did the FDA Get a Lot of their Skewed and Slanted Studies that they Keep Mentioning?
Keep Mentioning as a Basis of Why they Have to Regulate e-Cigarettes.
It doesn't matter what their motives are. Paying people to appear in a TV ad ain't SCIENCE!!!!!!
I want them to sponsor real scientific studies with my money--not to make TV ads.
This was the Main Premise of the e-Mail I sent the CDC this Morning.
I hear yah, we know the BS they keep coming up with and how they get it to their audience.
But we shall not sit still while,these atrocities take place.
I hope Not.
Because I see Hundreds of Posts about this Terrible News Article or that Horrible Web Story. But when you Mention to People that Maybe they should Contact the Article's Editor or send an e-Mail to a Web Site, you can Almost hear the Tumbleweeds blowing by.
Ad number 1:
My name is Joe Camel and I was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer, possibly due to cigarette smoking.
I switched to e-cigarettes and I still have lung cancer.
Ergo--e-cigarettes are no good because they didn't cure my cancer--actually, they may have made my cancer worse. .
BTW I'm Asian and I speak English.
My name is Joe Camel and I was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer, possibly due to cigarette smoking.
I switched to e-cigarettes and I still have lung cancer.
Ergo--e-cigarettes are no good because they didn't cure my cancer--actually, they may have made my cancer worse. .
BTW I'm Asian and I speak English.
BTW - Do you think if we Found an X-Smoker with Colon Cancer who Used and e-Cigarette to Quit Smoking, and Wanted to Tell How Much his Quality of Life had Improved since he Started Using an e-Cigarette, do you think the CDC would Interview him and then put Him on their Ad?
Do You Really?
Last edited:
Ad number 1:
My name is Joe Camel and I was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer, possibly due to cigarette smoking.
I switched to e-cigarettes and I still have lung cancer.
Ergo--e-cigarettes are no good because they didn't cure my cancer--actually, they may have made my cancer worse. .
BTW I'm Asian and I speak English.
Yeah... Doesn't Take much more than a Big Red Crayon to Connect those Dots.
I Wonder if the CDC Plans to Blanket the Air the Waves with Ads a few days After the FDA Public Comment Period is Over.
Of Course they Wouldn't do it During the Public Comment Period. That would just be Plain Silly.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what their motives are. Paying people to appear in a TV ad ain't SCIENCE!!!!!!
I want them to sponsor real scientific studies with my money--not to make TV ads.
That was part the gist of my email and when I called, I wanted answers about the fact that they even mention e-cig use ...
"Thought using e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to cut back on some cigarettes
would be good for your health; and
Despite cutting back, you were later diagnosed with a serious health condition.
An ex-smoker who quit all tobacco
products at least six months ago"...
I'm going to all again tomorrow!
Yeah. Do they want dual users or ex-smokers?
And why are they only interested in people who tried harm reduction products while continuing to smoke and then got diagnosed with a disease?
How about e-cigarette users who quit smoking successfully and are disease free? How bout those who switched to e-cigs and their health improved? Those need not apply?
Yeah right.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention my aunt fanny.
And why are they only interested in people who tried harm reduction products while continuing to smoke and then got diagnosed with a disease?
How about e-cigarette users who quit smoking successfully and are disease free? How bout those who switched to e-cigs and their health improved? Those need not apply?
Yeah right.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention my aunt fanny.
Last edited:
BTW - Do you think if we Found an X-Smoker with Colon Cancer who Used and e-Cigarette to Quit Smoking, and Wanted to Tell How Much his Quality of Life had Improved since he Started Using an e-Cigarette, do you think the CDC would Interview him and then put Him on their Ad?
Do You Really?
No, they state specifically that they are only interested in e-cigarette dual users who:
Has anyone written their representing congressmen to point out that this is a waste of taxpayers money, especially in Republican States? Why should we pay for this when we aren't able to help people who are devastated by hurricanes?
From nowhere to the world. Thanks taptalk!
From nowhere to the world. Thanks taptalk!
If I had any, I'd bet you money that the next thing you hear is the CDC blaming the casting company for coming up with this idea and that the CDC had nothing to do with it. Then they will fire them.
Wishful thinking!
They've been cooperating happily for 3 years.
That really sucks.
My father-in-law quit smoking in 1968 and died in 1993 of lung cancer. My brother quit smoking in 1994 and died of Alzheimer's in 2001. Obviously, quitting smoking killed them. Perhaps the CDC should put together a commercial about that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
