Discovery News: "The Dirty Truth About E-Cigs" so wrong.

[illuxion]

https ://www. youtube. com/watch?v=jiUXXx6kPbk

I normally consider Discovery to be fairly middle road, but this has to the biggest load of biased filth I've seen coming from them. With their level of exposure, this is really sad.

 

[sonicdsl]

This appears to be ALL the lies about Ecigs wrapped in one neat little video package.

 

[catilley1092]

That is a highly edited, as one can see by the breaks & totally stupid video. She needs to polish up her acting skills badly.

The one whom produced it has no idea of what e-cigarettes are, except what junk arrives in her email spam box, which again, what it isn't about.

Cat

 

[illuxion]

It just makes me really antsy when over 100K people in less than 24 hours get this information from a supposed reputable source. Seeing all of the "I knew it!" comments make me very sad. We have enough trouble with misinformation without someone like Discovery spreading it.

 

[Ripshod]

Don't watch this carp guys, you'll only add to their hits!!

 

[illuxion]

Don't watch this carp guys, you'll only add to their hits!!

They have 800,000 subs, viewing it, disliking it, and leaving a little bit of truth is better than ignoring it.

Edit: This is Discovery, as in Discovery Channel.

 

[aubergine]

Aaagh, frikkin avalanche of propaganda, everywhere you turn. Insane.

 

[DrMA]

How disappointing. I wish DSC would've staid out of this ugly debate. As it stands, though, they have lost my respect.

 

[rothenbj]

What an idiot. Lost respect for Discovery. I posted one reply and was done with it. Science is dead.

 

[DetraMental]

Wow, what a load of BS. Old misleading information that's been dis proven. I guess they don't have a research team or they would have found evidence to the contrary, of course it wouldn't have made e-cigs look as bad 0.o I had to leave a comment on that page about their lack of reporting all the evidence or science behind e-cigs.....I'm still wondering how they can even do real reporting when the FDA doesn't even have enough information to make a call on it at a hearing in Washington. The fact that she compared the ingredients to cigarettes was laughable since she only named a handful and cigs have several thousand....this is just a network trying to jump on the bandwagon with no real merit.

 

[bigdancehawk]

I doubt it will make a dent, but just to relieve some of my anger I posted this in the comment section:


So, what’s this video based on? There are six sources cited:

1. The author of this is Stanton Glantz, whose sole academic credentials are those of a mechanical engineer. Glantz has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. Now, AFTER he got his Ph.D he did something about the mechanical structure of the heart. My sense is that it was simply a postdoctoral project of some kind and in no way gave him any medical qualifications. Yet, he is the biggest critic of e-cigarettes on the planet. He is funded primarily by large pharmaceutical companies which make and sell smoking cessation products like nicotine inhalers, nicotine patches and nicotine chewing gum. The cited piece contains absolutely no research and the only research it cites is #2, below.

2. You can’t read this study without paying for a subscription. The abstract summarizes findings which contradict the video:

“Results We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.
Conclusions Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study.”

3. This is a report on a study which found that only 10% of all high school students surveyed had ever even TRIED an e-cigarette. Only 2.8% had tried an e-cigarette, even if only once, during the month prior to the survey. No attempt was made to establish how many of these were regular users or how many were former smokers or smokers trying to quit. There is absolutely nothing in this study to support the notion that e-cigarettes are a "gateway" to smoking cigarettes among teens or that they're addictive. All it shows is that teens will try all kinds of new things. I think most of us probably already knew that.

4. This contains no original research material, nor was it written by physicians or scientists. I am familiar with some of the studies they cite and these either do not support the statements made in the article or they are laughably biased. It’s purely a one sided diatribe which grudgingly concludes, “E-cigarettes have not been around long enough to determine if they are harmful to users in the long run.” In other words, they don’t know anything.

5. This is a USA Today article that says nothing substantive about the safety of e-cigarettes. Rather it contains quotes from e-cigarette opponents who are critical of the way the products are marketed “to children” and other quotes from people saying they’re not marketing to children. So, what exactly does this article prove?

6. This article cites a study as a basis for saying there’s a lack of evidence to show that e-cigarettes are a useful aid to smoking cessation. Well, duh. The study wasn’t intended to measure whether e-cigarettes are useful for that purpose. There actually are a number of studies, notably a large scale study done in Great Britain, which do show e-cigarettes are a useful aid, and in fact more useful that the expensive products sold by big pharmaceutical companies.

 

[LaraC]

The opening sentence in retainer55's comment made me burst out laughing!

"Why is there a talking basketball with glasses telling everyone that vaping is just like smoking cigarettes?" 




Thanks, bigdancehawk, for trying to straighten out some of the misinformation contained throughout that ill conceived video.

 

[Vocalek]

So bigdancehalk, where have you been hiding? You joined in January of 2010 and have only made 33 posts? You should speak up more often. And if you haven't already done so, join CASAA and put your writing skills to good use. We need as many voices as possible these days.

I went back to the Discover article, sorted by Newest, and found your comment. I gave it a Like by clicking on the icon showing a "thumbs up". We should give it lots and lots of likes to elevate it into Top Comments so it shows up first when people view the comments.

 

[Burnie]

I liked the comment & disliked the video, but don't think my vote will matter in the long run.

Vape On
Burnie

 

[bigdancehawk]

So bigdancehalk, where have you been hiding? You joined in January of 2010 and have only made 33 posts? You should speak up more often. And if you haven't already done so, join CASAA and put your writing skills to good use. We need as many voices as possible these days.

I went back to the Discover article, sorted by Newest, and found your comment. I gave it a Like by clicking on the icon showing a "thumbs up". We should give it lots and lots of likes to elevate it into Top Comments so it shows up first when people view the comments.

Thanks for the "like." I've already joined CASAA, despite its awkward acronym. I lurked around here for a few years just to educate myself on new products and technology. As a smoker for 40 years, I doubt I would have ever quit had it not been for e-cigarettes. I haven't smoked a traditional cigarette in over 2-1/2 years.

I wasn't really motivated to post until the proposed FDA regulations. That's kinda got my blood boiling.

 

[Vocalek]

Thanks for the "like." I've already joined CASAA, despite its awkward acronym. I lurked around here for a few years just to educate myself on new products and technology. As a smoker for 40 years, I doubt I would have ever quit had it not been for e-cigarettes. I haven't smoked a traditional cigarette in over 2-1/2 years.

I wasn't really motivated to post until the proposed FDA regulations. That's kinda got my blood boiling.

If you think the acronym is awkward, try answering the phone with "Thank you for calling the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association." I gasp loudly afterwards (if I managed to get it out all in one breath) and then say, "We call it 'cuh-SAH' for short."

The response is usually something like, "I can understand why...."

[Hey the name was voted upon by ECF members, from among a list of many different suggestions. We wanted the name to reflect the fact that switching to any smoke-free source of nicotine is an improvement over inhaling smoke. And the vast body of our knowledge about the safety of nicotine comes from studies of smokeless tobacco products.]

 

[Kent C]

Ah... I always thought in the "mi casa, su casa" mode.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Or you might have picked VADER: Vapers Against Dumb E-cigarette Regulations. But it's all good.

 

[Harley23]

I saw this last night. I stopped watching once they showed the research paper with Stanton Glantz's name on it. I have boycotted Discovery because I am tired of wanting to see something relatively educational, and getting only fake crap like Amish Mafia and Moonshiners.

-Harley

 

[Anjaffm]

Discovery Channel spreading lies?

What a pity. I used to have positive feelings about "Discovery Channel" - being in Germany, I cannot watch that channel, but I most certainly enjoyed this song by The Bloodhound Gang (Caution before opening link: adult theme - although they played it up and down on German radio at the time )