Dr. F quantifies how TC lies about vaping lead to more smoking

[DrMA]

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research/2015/194-dual

Tell TC their plan is working: by disparaging the cure for smoking they're keeping the tobacco gravy train rolling and their pockets full at the expense of 1.24 billions lives worldwide.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

The importance of proper information: Risk perception about e-cigarettes is the strongest predictor of dual use

Tell TC their plan is working: by disparaging the cure for smoking they're keeping the tobacco gravy train rolling and their pockets full at the expense of 1.24 billions lives worldwide.

BT must be sitting back and laughing, the BP and BG FUD spreading desk murders are doing their dirty work for them while they're doing their best to be the only legal suppliers of e-cigarettes left standing. If it wasn't our lives they were screwing with it would be fun to watch.

 

[Jman8]

As dual user and politically aware vaper myself, I take this study with mixed opinions.

"Cure for smoking" is so loaded and such a political hot potato that it amazes me that (some in the) vaping community really wants to put our eggs in that basket.

Even more amazing is that there is continued desire to point out how FUD is allowed to rule reported knowledge of eCigs, but seemingly little desire to point out how FUD is allowed to rule reported knowledge of smoking. Or that a cure to smoking, in general, is necessary. How that doesn't make one appear as (partially) ANTZ is beyond me. As one who has cured his addiction to smoking via vaping, but enjoys smoking still, I think I get what our message really ought to be, but alas seems to be out of reach under current political paradigm. Instead, it's like we have to side with ANTZ on one key aspect of the ongoing debate but then completely disassociate with ANTZ on other key aspect of ongoing debate.

Vapers gonna die someday too. And ANTZ will be right there letting everyone know "vaping kills." A passionate paper will (forever) dispute that meme. A wise vaper will wish to challenge the meme of "smoking kills." And if they are truly wise, they will do so with great passion.

 

[DrMA]

I thought you might have something to say about that, jman. And half of me agrees with you, but the other half thinks turning anti-smoker extremist propaganda into weapon against them is an effective rhetorical device.

 

[Kent C]

I had a similar take as jman on this. It looks a bit like a preplanned 'take the dual user argument off the table' study.

I not only find this hard to believe: "The most important finding was that the strongest predictor of dual use was high risk perception for e-cigarettes."... but it doesn't align with the cases I've seen personally or online here - where the 'transition' didn't work as well with some here, than others. Some attribute it to WTA stuff, and with some it's just part of the habit that ecigs don't fully handle - but almost none, of whom I'm aware, have a hesitancy on 'higher risk'. And while I'll acknowledge that people who visit ECF may be more knowledgeable, I find it hard to believe that the ANTZ studies have that much affect on people who already know they are at an elevated risk from smoking.

 

[sparkky1]

Ya it's nice no toxicology reports available but they do have case studies, the should compare case studies with CHANTIX.......

 

[BuGlen]

I had a similar take as jman on this. It looks a bit like a preplanned 'take the dual user argument off the table' study.

I not only find this hard to believe: "The most important finding was that the strongest predictor of dual use was high risk perception for e-cigarettes."... but it doesn't align with the cases I've seen personally or online here - where the 'transition' didn't work as well with some here, than others. Some attribute it to WTA stuff, and with some it's just part of the habit that ecigs don't fully handle - but almost none, of whom I'm aware, have a hesitancy on 'higher risk'. And while I'll acknowledge that people who visit ECF may be more knowledgeable, I find it hard to believe that the ANTZ studies have that much affect on people who already know they are at an elevated risk from smoking.

Some of those that don't fit that scenario may fall into the other end of the spectrum, where they understand that the smoking risks have been blown out of proportion. So, they see the reduction in smoking as a benefit, but also understand that everything in moderation (including smoking) is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[xtwosm0kesx]

As dual user and politically aware vaper myself, I take this study with mixed opinions.

"Cure for smoking" is so loaded and such a political hot potato that it amazes me that (some in the) vaping community really wants to put our eggs in that basket.

Even more amazing is that there is continued desire to point out how FUD is allowed to rule reported knowledge of eCigs, but seemingly little desire to point out how FUD is allowed to rule reported knowledge of smoking. Or that a cure to smoking, in general, is necessary. How that doesn't make one appear as (partially) ANTZ is beyond me. As one who has cured his addiction to smoking via vaping, but enjoys smoking still, I think I get what our message really ought to be, but alas seems to be out of reach under current political paradigm. Instead, it's like we have to side with ANTZ on one key aspect of the ongoing debate but then completely disassociate with ANTZ on other key aspect of ongoing debate.

Vapers gonna die someday too. And ANTZ will be right there letting everyone know "vaping kills." A passionate paper will (forever) dispute that meme. A wise vaper will wish to challenge the meme of "smoking kills." And if they are truly wise, they will do so with great passion.

I think you may be the only person on this site, maybe the whole planet, that doesn't believe 'smoking kills'.

 

[Uma]

I think you may be the only person on this site, maybe the whole planet, that doesn't believe 'smoking kills'.

Guess again bubba.

 

[xtwosm0kesx]

Guess again bubba.

I definitely appreciate the patronizing 'bubba'

I was gonna try to argue with you, but obviously the world is still flat wherever you are.

 

[Kent C]

Some of those that don't fit that scenario may fall into the other end of the spectrum, where they understand that the smoking risks have been blown out of proportion. So, they see the reduction in smoking as a benefit, but also understand that everything in moderation (including smoking) is not necessarily a bad thing.

I wouldn't accept the 'everything in moderation' premise - Goldwater: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." (not for debate, just to offer an example of a valid view thar shows the error of that concept). Moderation in the truth of ANTZ studies would also defeat such an idea

But moderation with regard to some things like smoking, eating, and other things certainly tends to make sense, and does tend to offer another reason for dual use, but it might fall under the 'transition' from cigarettes only, even though there's no intent to stop entirely. However, that has nothing to do with what the study attempts to show - a 'fear' of ecigs, which imo, is doubtful among smokers. Non-smokers maybe, but not smokers or if so, a very small percentage of them.

 

[Jman8]

I definitely appreciate the patronizing 'bubba'

I was gonna try to argue with you, but obviously the world is still flat wherever you are.

Hey, I'm always up for considering the data. You got any? Is it from the same sources that are sure eCigs are harmful? I reckon it is, but if you have other data to support the smoking kills meme, I'd be very interested in taking a look.

In the meantime, do you think "vaping kills?"

Cause if you are so sure that smoking kills, then one day, probably pretty soon, you'll be a ripe believer for "vaping kills."

 

[DrMA]

Some of those that don't fit that scenario may fall into the other end of the spectrum, where they understand that the smoking risks have been blown out of proportion. So, they see the reduction in smoking as a benefit, but also understand that everything in moderation (including smoking) is not necessarily a bad thing.

This ^^^ +1

 

[Racehorse]

I don't know if smoking kills. However, I read a very indepth study on exactly HOW smoking does the damage it does, to cells, to tissues, etc.

Somebody (who was pro vaping) posted it when I first joined here and it was quite illuminating. Now I can't find it.

My feeling after reading is, seeing exactly what happens from lips to mouth to esophagus/windpipe to lungs and stomach, I would not want to smoke even one cigarette because it DOES do damage. At cell level. And this has been watched using instruments that can "see" what it does.

This is no bash on dual users. If you need to do that, then you need to do that. I am not judging you. But I am saying that I think you are kinda fooling yourself a little by saying "oh 2 a day won't hurt" because you do not know exactly what damage it will do. Will 2 be the number that triggers a *disease process*? Or will it take 10 cigs?

It is a risk, that is what I am saying......and you shouldn't pretend that it isn't.

I do understand though, "damage" is not "death", so I cannot and will not say that smoking kills. There is a whole lot that also has to "happen" for that to happen, and it would be hard to separate that event from a hundred other factors.

But it does do damage. *Each* one. Make no mistake about that.


However, I can say that about strong sunlight and my aging skin. That I've had to have suspicious looking "things" cut off my skin. So, I do avoid the sun at hottest time of day. I would have to live in a bubble to avoid UV entirely of course. With cigs, I feel I have more control. I can just not smoke them at all.

Every individual here is at a completely DIFFERENT level of accepting risk. That is something I have noticed --- and that is why there are so many debates. nobody has a right to tell others what risks they should or should not accept. That doesn't mean people shouldn't point out their own theories ---- esp. about AVOIDABLE RISKS.

I am dealing with a very difficult situation right now, a family member has a very bad cancer. People say to me all the time "what is the point of taking great care of yourself when you may end up getting cancer anyway?"

The answer to that has been made VERY CLEAR this week: if you are healthy, if you have taken reasonably good care of yourself, then chances are your body will be able to WITHSTAND the rigors of treatment, surgeries, chemos, radiation, etc. In the case of my family member, that may not be the case. Despite not being old, they may even be unable to have the necessary treatments because their heart and some other organs aren't very healthy (years of being sedentary, not exercizing, eating badly, overweight and pre-diabetic, etc.)

So, I say, take as little risk as possible with your health. Because you may need stellar health in order to deal with a health crisis. You may need every ounce of everything you've got to beat a bad diagnosis. That is just *my* philosophy because I don't take health lightly. To me, it's everything. Once it is gone, so is most of the joy of living.


Hope this makes sense. We may not be able to *avoid* disease process, but if we are strong enough to undergo all the treatments for that disease process, then chances are you will make it out ................... alive.

Perhaps my perspective has been changed as I deal with this tragedy right now, I mean, I'm sure my perspective HAS changed.

 

[Jman8]

I don't know if smoking kills. However, I read a very indepth study on exactly HOW smoking does the damage it does, to cells, to tissues, etc.

Somebody (who was pro vaping) posted it when I first joined here and it was quite illuminating. Now I can't find it.

My feeling after reading is, seeing exactly what happens from lips to mouth to esophagus/windpipe to lungs and stomach, I would not want to smoke even one cigarette because it DOES do damage. At cell level. And this has been watched using instruments that can "see" what it does.

This is no bash on dual users. If you need to do that, then you need to do that. I am not judging you. But I am saying that I think you are kinda fooling yourself a little by saying "oh 2 a day won't hurt" because you do not know exactly what damage it will do. Will 2 be the number that triggers a *disease process*? Or will it take 10 cigs?

It is a risk, that is what I am saying......and you shouldn't pretend that it isn't.

I do understand though, "damage" is not "death", so I cannot and will not say that smoking kills. There is a whole lot that also has to "happen" for that to happen, and it would be hard to separate that event from a hundred other factors.

But it does do damage. *Each* one. Make no mistake about that.

Agree with all this.

I would add, which you later addressed - but I am elaborating on, is that I am not aware of anything on the planet that doesn't do damage to the human body. Zero exceptions. Please, let us not make a mistake about this. We routinely pretend otherwise, and take life for granted like 98% of the time. But as long as one believes the physical world is (ultimate) existence, I see no way around the issue that everything is prone to damage the body or bring it closer to physical death. Fortunately, I know the physical world is not ultimate reality, but this is perhaps another discussion for another forum.

Every individual here is at a completely DIFFERENT level of accepting risk. That is something I have noticed --- and that is why there are so many debates. nobody has a right to tell others what risks they should or should not accept. That doesn't mean people shouldn't point out their own theories ---- esp. about AVOIDABLE RISKS.

The avoidable risks item is highly pertinent to the discussion, but if we are making no mistake about what does and what doesn't cause damage to the body, then we really don't have many options for avoiding risks (I would argue zero options, unless one understands a thing or two about reality. Hint: you are not your body).

I am dealing with a very difficult situation right now, a family member has a very bad cancer. People say to me all the time "what is the point of taking great care of yourself when you may end up getting cancer anyway?"

The answer to that has been made VERY CLEAR this week: if you are healthy, if you have taken reasonably good care of yourself, then chances are your body will be able to WITHSTAND the rigors of treatment, surgeries, chemos, radiation, etc. In the case of my family member, that may not be the case. Despite not being old, they may even be unable to have the necessary treatments because their heart and some other organs aren't very healthy (years of being sedentary, not exercizing, eating badly, overweight and pre-diabetic, etc.)

So, I say, take as little risk as possible with your health. Because you may need stellar health in order to deal with a health crisis. You may need every ounce of everything you've got to beat a bad diagnosis. That is just *my* philosophy because I don't take health lightly. To me, it's everything. Once it is gone, so is most of the joy of living.


Hope this makes sense. We may not be able to *avoid* disease process, but if we are strong enough to undergo all the treatments for that disease process, then chances are you will make it out ................... alive.

Perhaps my perspective has been changed as I deal with this tragedy right now, I mean, I'm sure my perspective HAS changed.

I can concur with some of this and do believe our perspectives are constantly being updated even while our expressions may appear to be stagnant. I wish you the best in caring for the family member who is dealing with cancer.

 

[DrMA]

I don't know about the direct effects of smoking anymore. I know for a fact everything TC has been saying for the past 3 decades is an expansive, self-reinforcing lie.

We do have abundant evidence, however, that 2nd hand smoke poses zero risk to others: Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe

 

[Kent C]

I don't know about the direct effects of smoking anymore.

If there were a 'direct effect' you wouldn't have people lighting up a cigarette from their 100 yr birthday cake candles. And the overinflated 450,000 deaths/yr. would be 10 times that.

 

[DrMA]

If there were a 'direct effect' you wouldn't have people lighting up a cigarette from their 100 yr birthday cake candles. And the overinflated 450,000 deaths/yr. would be 10 times that.

Yes, lots of overinflated and alarmist crap comes out of the TC cartel. But the evidence from Sweden is fairly convincing.

 

[xtwosm0kesx]

Hey, I'm always up for considering the data. You got any? Is it from the same sources that are sure eCigs are harmful? I reckon it is, but if you have other data to support the smoking kills meme, I'd be very interested in taking a look.

In the meantime, do you think "vaping kills?"

Cause if you are so sure that smoking kills, then one day, probably pretty soon, you'll be a ripe believer for "vaping kills."

Do i think vaping kills? No.

Do i think vaping is harmless? No.

Do i think smoking kills? I have zero doubt that it does.

My data is my life experience and common sense.

In 1984 I buried my grandfather, a lifelong smoker, after a long terrible battle with non-small cell lung cancer (99% caused by smoking) that had metastasised to his bladder(what eventually killed him).

In 2006 I buried my stepfather, a lifelong smoker, after a nearly 5 year battle (insanely long compared to most cases) with non-small cell lung cancer(99% caused by smoking). Towards the end of his battle, i quit my job to take care of him on a daily basis.

In 2012 my father, a lifelong smoker, was diagnosed with stage 4 non-small cell lung cancer (99% caused by smoking) that had metastasised throughout his body. I again quit my job and spent the next six months actively caring for him and taking him to treatments. A side effect of his condition required nearly constant saline IV's so at one point we were spending 5 days a week, 2-3 hours day at the treatment pavilion. I met many interesting people during this time, and the sobering fact is many of them are no longer with us. On June 13th 2012 i brought my father home from the hospital for the last time, by this point, he was too weak to climb the stairs. So i carried him, the same man who had once hoisted me onto his shoulder with ease, now little more than skin and bones, and laid him is his bed. He died that night.

By denying the fact that smoking does great damage to your health in MANY ways is, in my opinion, an insult to the memory of those now gone.

You claim you're a dual user and still "enjoy smoking" but it has reduced your cigarette consumption. Have you seen no improvement in your health?

How do you explain the constant reports of NUMEROUS health benefits after quitting your supposed 'harmless' cigarettes? Is it all just placebo effect?

Why can i smell things now? Why is the rattle gone in my lungs? Why don't my gums bleed anymore? Why can i run 10x as far without getting winded?

Why do i just feel so much !@#$%^& better after just over a year of not smoking?

Magic? Must be.

 

[T4T3Z0R]

Do i think vaping kills? No.

Do i think vaping is harmless? No.

Do i think smoking kills? I have zero doubt that it does.

My data is my life experience and common sense.

In 1984 I buried my grandfather, a lifelong smoker, after a long terrible battle with non-small cell lung cancer (99% caused by smoking) that had metastasised to his bladder(what eventually killed him).

In 2006 I buried my stepfather, a lifelong smoker, after a nearly 5 year battle (insanely long compared to most cases) with non-small cell lung cancer(99% caused by smoking). Towards the end of his battle, i quit my job to take care of him on a daily basis.

In 2012 my father, a lifelong smoker, was diagnosed with stage 4 non-small cell lung cancer (99% caused by smoking) that had metastasised throughout his body. I again quit my job and spent the next six months actively caring for him and taking him to treatments. A side effect of his condition required nearly constant saline IV's so at one point we were spending 5 days a week, 2-3 hours day at the treatment pavilion. I met many interesting people during this time, and the sobering fact is many of them are no longer with us. On June 13th 2012 i brought my father home from the hospital for the last time, by this point, he was too weak to climb the stairs. So i carried him, the same man who had once hoisted me onto his shoulder with ease, now little more than skin and bones, and laid him is his bed. He died that night.

By denying the fact that smoking does great damage to your health in MANY ways is, in my opinion, an insult to the memory of those now gone.

You claim you're a dual user and still "enjoy smoking" but it has reduced your cigarette consumption. Have you seen no improvement in your health?

How do you explain the constant reports of NUMEROUS health benefits after quitting your supposed 'harmless' cigarettes? Is it all just placebo effect?

Why can i smell things now? Why is the rattle gone in my lungs? Why don't my gums bleed anymore? Why can i run 10x as far without getting winded?

Why do i just feel so much !@#$%^& better after just over a year of not smoking?

Magic? Must be.

Nothing I have read posted in this thread is saying that smoking is harmless. They are saying that smoking doesn't automatically mean your going to die from it. There are so many factors that go into it, such as the amount you smoke and genetics. someone who smokes 2 cigs a day with no genetic history of cancer is in much less danger than a 2 pad smoker who has had several genetic relatives die of smoking. i think what they are trying to get across is smoking does do some harm, but doesnt always kill