Dr. Siegel Takes on the "Deeply Troubled" CDC

[AgentAnia]

Sounds like the CDC is trying to backpedal about their analysis of ecigs as gateway to youthful smoking. I'm delighted we're not letting them get away with these irresponsible public proclamations.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com...-max=2014-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=35

 

[TyPie]

Very powerful condemnation of a very high-level public health official and his motives. (THE DIRECTOR of the CDC, no less.) Time to demand a complete, PUBLIC retraction of his (Mr Frieden's) 'findings', methinks. And maybe a resignation to go along with it, for completely irresponsible (and untruthful) public statements that affect public policy.

It also clearly illustrates how difficult it is to get to the simple TRUTH. I realize there are many that would not ever accept e-cigarettes simply because they look like smoking. There are also likely many e-cig users who would not accept 'negative findings' about e-cig use. I, for one, would like to know the truth. If it were determined that there were significant risks to using e-cig vapor, I certainly would re-consider what I was doing. But would the e-cig users that want to go back to smoking please raise your hands and be counted??? (There are probably SOME, simply because cigarettes are SO ADDICTIVE (as in, worse than h......., according to many), but YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME........)

We are clearly at the point, that if you are issuing public health studies, opinions or edicts and on the payroll of, or have some relationship to an interested party, your studies, opinions and conclusions are highly suspect, and should clearly be labeled as such (the same as if you are peddling investment advice). Public health is far more important.

So, can we just get to the simple TRUTH, please? Sooner, rather than later?

 

[Anjaffm]

Great find, AgentAnia!

And that alleged "slip of the tongue" reminds me of a "study" that one WHO sponsored woman working at the (get this, hahaha!) German cancer research institute (DKFZ) in Heidelberg once spread all over the media in Germany, deliberately starting a big huge FUD campaign against e-cigs in December 2011.

That woman claimed that she had been in a room where two e-cigs were being used, and that she experienced "irritation of the breathing organs" and "a feeling of drowsiness". That crap went all over the media in my country, as "scientific proof" that e-cigs were dangerous and must definitely be banned.

We German vapers were like: WTH??? THAT is supposed to be a "scientific study" by somebody working at a research institute? Are you flippin' kidding us???

Well, that female later (much later) admitted that - now get this! - this "personal experiment" had never taken place. She had just picked up some things from vaping forums. It had all been "an anecdote".

Anecdote? How about a lie? Not to put too fine a point on it.
Make up a lie, and spread it all over the place.

= the ANTZ do the same crap wherever you look. Lies, fabrications, untruths, horse manure, bovine excrement. But blast it all over the media, and some of it might just stick. Manure, when thrown, does have a tendency to soil things.

And coming back to Dr. Siegel: Yes, that "antifreeze" nonsense from 2009 is still being used in FUD campaigns today. Also in my country, on another continent. Yes, manure will stick.

edit:
why did I say "cancer research institute, hahaha!" ?
Well, what happens to grants to a cancer research institute if the incidence rate of cancer, e.g. lung cancer, in a society declines? Ey?

 

[Anjaffm]

Excuse me while I go and throw up
Yesterday, some article came out in a German "scientific publication" that wrote that same gateway crap, linking to precisely that crap story that Dr. Siegel debunked. Study: Children's use of e-cigarettes increasing : Record Searchlight

Throw manure, and it will soil things. Even on another continent
Same as that silly 2009 FDA nonsense which is still "happily" quoted by all ANTZ in Europe

 

[AgentAnia]

I find it incredible that the ANTZ don't seem the least embarrassed that the best evidence they can come up with to discredit ecigs are a 2009 FDA study that has since been debunked as bad science, a blatantly misrepresented CDC analysis of an incomplete survey on youthful ecig habits, and the oft repeated "we just don't know" excuse. Pitiful, really... But then, I guess they are too far gone in their fanaticism to appreciate what's going on in the real world. Will they ever accept what an embarrassment they are to the legitimate, ethical public health movement? I doubt it...

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Fear mongering and lies, it's all they have left. I think it is why FDA, MHRA, WHO and the rest of BPs alphabet groups are pushing so hard at this point, if they don't they have lost as we are busy proving through our experiment at the population level that we're right. They really are 99.9% safer than burning tobacco. BP and the politicians see their cash cow going down the tubes.

I personally thank god that the government takes so long to do anything as it's given us time to prove our point.

 

[Petrodus]

Fear mongering and lies, it's all they have left.

Pretty much sums it up !!

 

[Uma]

WTG Dr. Siegel! Rip em apart. Tear em a new one. Like you all, I'm so fed up with all the lies. When does this stop?
Here's a good summation from reason.com that fits nicely with CDC fearmongering statements
"In other words, Azzarelli and her fellow activists worry that a product whose main selling point is avoiding the scary hazards and offensive stench of smoking somehow will make smoking more appealing. That fear seems implausible, to say the least, and there is no evidence to support it."

 

[Anjaffm]

But then, I guess they are too far gone in their fanaticism to appreciate what's going on in the real world.

I do not even think it is fanaticism. In the sense of a "belief".

I think it is precisely this

BP and the politicians see their cash cow going down the tubes.

And the ANTZ as well, as they live happy, comfortable, fat lives on the proceeds from BT (that part of the money that they get in the States) and from BP. Why on earth should they give up their fat, cushy grants / payments / easy money - and the wonderful ability to control and vilify anyone they please, for such a silly, completely irrelevant thing as the health of human beings?

It all boils down to money and to power.

 

[Uma]

Was taken wrong. I need more coffee. Sorry.

 

[Anjaffm]

OMG! how stupid can a person get? Or how much money do they receive in br..... uhm.. in payment.. to say such crap?

 

[Uma]

It was meant to be sarcastically funny...
IMO, Nobody in their right mind would say the things the ANTZ say, unless there's a pretty bonus at the end of the day, but there's not enough money in the world to quiet my conscience, I pity them at the beginning, middle & end of every day.

 

[Anjaffm]

@Uma: huh? wrong about what?

And yes, they sell their souls - and their humanity - for money.
Like people in old stories used to sell their souls to the devil, for some temporary advantage.

 

[Uma]

@Uma: huh? wrong about what?

And yes, they sell their souls - and their humanity - for money.
Like people in old stories used to sell their souls to the devil, for some temporary advantage.

I thought your omg! Post was meant for me... I'm so vain, by Carley Simon, is running through my mind right now.

 

[Anjaffm]

Uma, darling, what the heck? - Here, have a nice mug of strong German coffee with milk and sugar and a little whipped cream on top - Would I ever call you stupid?
My comment was, of course, meant about that Azzarelli or whatever .... person .. whom I would call completely different things if the courtesy of a nice forum did not forbid that .

- and yes, I can curse like a truckdriver in English, in German and even some in Russian. But even my nastiest swearwords would not be enough to describe one of those... people. Not by a long shot -

 

[Uma]

I loves ya. I just wasn't awake enough to be posting. We had said about the same thing, at about the same time, but I assumed I had said something stupid (trust me, it wouldn't be the first time I've said something off the wall, out in left field, or that can be taken more than one way). With that said, we totally agree about the article and how they probably rake in bonuses or something, cuz nobody in their right mind would ever stoop so low as these ANTZ do.

 

[rothenbj]

I wonder if that is why the FDA is so reluctant to announce their "direction". If they're not strong enough to satisfy the Pharma industry and those glorious ?non-profit? "health" associations, they will get a firestorm of reaction. If they come down too heavy against what is becoming a powerful but fragmented fledgling industry that they've lost to once in court, they may return in short order. However now there's much more science to battle against them and they have to realize it.

 

[Petrodus]

I wonder if that is why the FDA is so reluctant to announce their "direction". If they're not strong enough to satisfy the Pharma industry and those glorious ?non-profit? "health" associations, they will get a firestorm of reaction. If they come down too heavy against what is becoming a powerful but fragmented fledgling industry that they've lost to once in court, they may return in short order. However now there's much more science to battle against them and they have to realize it.

True ...
Posted before
I suggest the FDA wishes they never heard about ecigarettes

 

[Cavediver]

Regarding that CDC study:
Were the overall numbers / percentages of children using tobacco products ever published? If so, how do they compare to the last few years? I looked but could not find those numbers.

Was enough information published to do a true compare and contrast report, or did they (as I suspect) cherry pick the numbers?





My wife is a teacher, and she had to escort a couple of her classes to the computer labs where the students had to log in (using their normal student identification / log in information) in order to take the "anonymous" risk assessment survey about drug and alcohol use. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm pretty sure I'd be inclined to lie on that survey vs. the truly anonymous fill-in-the-blank version I took in high school.

Perhaps it's just her school system that screwed up. Then again, perhaps not.

 

[Uma]

I hear ya on the so called annonymous surveys. Back in my day, we kids would share the same rolled eyed statement "if it's annonymous, then why are we taking the survey one person at a time instead of in group shuffles." I always answered honestly, however, because the questions were downright insulting as they searched for their "gateway" fear mongering proof.

Volcaltek posted it once, it's here at ECF somewhere. (& hidden deep in my non organized bookmarks).