Thanks to all that made this story go on top of DIGG. This is just a beginning of viral effect:
Incoming links to the original
Incoming links to the original
Last edited:
Dr. Whelan Speaks Out - Washington Times
- Thread starter Vocalek
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Lotus14,
I watched the video and while absorbing the information, I continued to think to myself, I wonder how much this guy was paid by SmokeStick. It was clearly a SmokeStick commercial right down to the product placement conveniently sitting behind him on the bookshelf. Even if it wasn't, that is certainly what it looked like and I believe it took away from the legitamacy of the video.
Riot,
Please don't be too mad at me, but I'm blown away. All this activity and still no response from the ECA and still nothing on their website. Perhaps they're on vacation using the funds they're receiving.
I hope in addition to DIGGing many members here also submited this article and any other E-Cig SUPPORTING information to CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, government, and yes, even the FDA. If you can find an email or a submit form send it in!
In case you're curious why -I- care?
I have been smoking for 24 years and now, NOT A SINGLE cigarette in over a month. I've tried to quit several times in the past. Nothing has worked. Electronic smoking is the FIRST thing that worked for me, and it worked well. It was a simple transition from an analog to my vape. It was... easy.
I believe this to truly be a safer alternative to a traditional tobacco cigarette. I believe in its ability to help people. Not only has it given me an alternative to traditional cigarettes, but it's given me a new hobby in trying different hardware, different liquids, and meeting all of you. I see it as a way to back off my nicotine addiction (I've gone from a 24mg to a 18mg to a 11mg with 6 and zero on order) and eventually inhale nothing except the air we all breath. Until the FDA bans that as well.
I watched the video and while absorbing the information, I continued to think to myself, I wonder how much this guy was paid by SmokeStick. It was clearly a SmokeStick commercial right down to the product placement conveniently sitting behind him on the bookshelf. Even if it wasn't, that is certainly what it looked like and I believe it took away from the legitamacy of the video.
Riot,
Please don't be too mad at me, but I'm blown away. All this activity and still no response from the ECA and still nothing on their website. Perhaps they're on vacation using the funds they're receiving.
I hope in addition to DIGGing many members here also submited this article and any other E-Cig SUPPORTING information to CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, government, and yes, even the FDA. If you can find an email or a submit form send it in!
In case you're curious why -I- care?
I have been smoking for 24 years and now, NOT A SINGLE cigarette in over a month. I've tried to quit several times in the past. Nothing has worked. Electronic smoking is the FIRST thing that worked for me, and it worked well. It was a simple transition from an analog to my vape. It was... easy.
I believe this to truly be a safer alternative to a traditional tobacco cigarette. I believe in its ability to help people. Not only has it given me an alternative to traditional cigarettes, but it's given me a new hobby in trying different hardware, different liquids, and meeting all of you. I see it as a way to back off my nicotine addiction (I've gone from a 24mg to a 18mg to a 11mg with 6 and zero on order) and eventually inhale nothing except the air we all breath. Until the FDA bans that as well.
I don't really think that SmokeStick paid the UCLA doctor for the video, I think as a researcher he was probably approached to do a review of electronic cigarettes and given that its a hot item right now he was probably interested. They simply provided the materials for free for he and his team to study, provided he would do the video.
I'm actually approaching some contacts in the oncology field that I have with the same offer seeking the same ends.
I'm actually approaching some contacts in the oncology field that I have with the same offer seeking the same ends.
Sorry to interrupt the digging, but I would just like to mention here since I've seen you post this elsewhere as well, that, as I understand it, ECA members are not paid staff - they volunteer their time (over and above the jobs that they are paid to do professionally)
I'm very surprised by the number of people who are sticking up for this silent voice who is requesting funding and is supposed to be helping us.
I'm very surprised you continue to waste time on something so pointless.
I'm surprised you continue to waste time replying to a post that you deem to be pointless and a waste of time.
I'm surprised that you continue to waste time on.... wasting time... or... something.
just be happy we got this thing over 600
just be happy we got this thing over 600
We're sitting at 678, not too far from 700 now.
You were Angela. Sorry.
To the others... come on, I did all this other stuff too:
I hope in addition to DIGGing many members here also submited this article and any other E-Cig SUPPORTING information to CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, government, and yes, even the FDA. If you can find an email or a submit form send it in!
And I sent it into ECA and I Dugg it and Facebooked it.
That buys me a little time to waste doesn't it?
Besides, I don't think pointing out the shortcomings of an organization 1) is requesting funding 2) is supposed to be helping us, 3) had made no comment here or on their website about the importance of the article, etc is a waste of time at all. I believe it needs to be discussed.
They are supposed to be our voice. So far the only voices I hear (other than the ones in my head) are the good folks of this forum.
Let them post something here or there and I'll shut up (for a while). If there are really people paying this group upwards of 10K per month, I believe that warrents some kind of response.
To the others... come on, I did all this other stuff too:
I hope in addition to DIGGing many members here also submited this article and any other E-Cig SUPPORTING information to CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, government, and yes, even the FDA. If you can find an email or a submit form send it in!
And I sent it into ECA and I Dugg it and Facebooked it.
That buys me a little time to waste doesn't it?
Besides, I don't think pointing out the shortcomings of an organization 1) is requesting funding 2) is supposed to be helping us, 3) had made no comment here or on their website about the importance of the article, etc is a waste of time at all. I believe it needs to be discussed.
They are supposed to be our voice. So far the only voices I hear (other than the ones in my head) are the good folks of this forum.
Let them post something here or there and I'll shut up (for a while). If there are really people paying this group upwards of 10K per month, I believe that warrents some kind of response.
The ECA has their own board on this forum. Have you looked there? That would be a much better place to voice your concerns about this issue. Perhaps they are spending their volunteered time elsewhere as opposed to posting on the other boards (such as this one) here on the forums.
In general though there are thousands upon thousands of NFPs out there asking for money, wanting to be the voice of this group of people or that, that do absolutely nothing. Either because the volunteers get swamped with their personal/professional lives outside of said volunteer project, or they lack the funding to execute their planned lobbying efforts. On occasion there are even those that just want to steal your money. Excessively dragging them through the muck of threads all over the forums probably doesn't entice them to want to help you, or listen to you.
The count is now 683.
In general though there are thousands upon thousands of NFPs out there asking for money, wanting to be the voice of this group of people or that, that do absolutely nothing. Either because the volunteers get swamped with their personal/professional lives outside of said volunteer project, or they lack the funding to execute their planned lobbying efforts. On occasion there are even those that just want to steal your money. Excessively dragging them through the muck of threads all over the forums probably doesn't entice them to want to help you, or listen to you.
The count is now 683.
This is what I submitted to the DIGG thingy, but have also sent it and numerous similar posts to many people and organisations. I see it as raising awareness, offering a little knowledge and stimulating people into finding out for themselves. Pointing out certain injustices might also help our cause if presented in the correct manner.
John.
It is up to the really knowledgeable, sensible and honest people to change people's perceptions.
Electronic Cigarettes are the socially acceptable face of smoking and will eventually consign tobacco
to the history books. You only have to look back through history at the number of products that were
'feared' at first because they were new and 'unknown'. We can either fear the unknown and remain
trapped in the dark ages huddled around a fire in our cave, or we can embrace new technology and
make it work for OUR benefit safely. Just because a revolutionary new product with the potential to
save millions of lives every year is not yet 'perfect' (the FDA testing methods and figures
have been presented somewhat irresponsibly) do we ban it? No! We make sure that there is
enough development and testing to ensure that it poses no significant threat. Respected Doctors,
Scientists and Physicians have publicly stated that Electronic Cigarettes are several magnitudes
safer than smoking tobacco, that is the undeniable truth. Acceptance and regulation will ensure that
those millions of lives that are lost to tobacco related illnesses each year will be reduced and, over
the coming years, that figure will become lower and lower.
This is not about saving money that has to be channeled into health services to pay for those illnesses,
it is not about the governments losing BILLIONS of Dollars, Pounds, Euros etc in lost tax revenue
that they currently receive willingly from smokers who don't matter to those governments (they allow
them to continue killing themselves - it says so on the cigarette packets, SMOKING KILLS), it is not about
electronic cigarette refill cartridges containing minute traces of chemicals, the levels of which would not even
concern the FDA in regard to other products, it is about SAVING LIVES. Over 400,000 American citizens
every year die because of tobacco related illnesses and that figure is mirrored worldwide.
Any kind of ban on electronic cigarettes is a denial of our basic human rights to choose a healthier alternative
and our choice is based on the findings, educated estimations and respected opinions of Independent
Medical Professionals, many of whom contribute to the Tobacco Harm Reduction movement and
donate their time and resources to maintaining the website tobaccoharmreduction.org
Any ban should be considered as contributory negligence as it would be condemning smokers who, for
whatever reason, cannot use conventional NRT products or have found, like so many smokers, that
they are ineffective long term in giving up tobacco.
Electronic Cigarettes have been an unbelievable success and many, many thousands of smokers have
already made the simple transition from tobacco smoke to vapour and no longer feel the need or desire
to inhale poisonous tobacco smoke. I have heard hundreds of times, "Since I got my electronic cigarette
I haven't had a 'normal' cigarette", it is so common for users to either reduce their tobacco usage considerably
or, in most cases, completely. If we try to ignore this evidence, albeit anecdotal, we would be guilty of neglect,
guilty of denying people a chance of a better, healthier alternative. The critics claim that 'no testing has been done
so they can't be safe' and this has been repeated parrot-fashion so many times by people with their own agenda
and their own reasons for wanting electronic cigarettes banned. No matter how many times a lie is repeated,
it is still a lie and the good people who really care will expose that lie. The good people will ensure that
electronic cigarettes and the liquids that they use are properly tested and are designed to be as safe as possible.
If anyone just takes the time to research the subject beyond a few sensationalist headlines, they will find that
the good people are already doing this, they are already producing very high purity liquids using ingredients
with no known harmful effects, they are already having them tested using the very latest high-tech methods
and equipment such as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Why? Because they are responsible
people running businesses that rely on them to be honest, thorough, open and aware of all their legal
and moral obligations. Many of them are reformed smokers who have seen the light and who genuinely
wish to help other to do the same. Yes they make money from it, I make money from it, it is my living
and I work hard each week to earn my wages, there is no crime there surely? If there is, then everyone
who works is guilty!
It has become obvious over the last year or so that electronic cigarettes are hugely popular and
hugely successful in helping smokers to choose a cleaner alternative. They are not going to go away,
too many people have benefited from them, too many people would not accept being condemned to
smoking dirty, poisonous tobacco, too much of the truth has now been presented for a ban to be either
justified or acceptable. We must look to the future and develop this amazing product so that there
are no sensationalist headlines other than:
"400,000 Americans DID NOT die this year of tobacco related illnesses".
They have saved my life as I had been killing myself with tobacco for over 40 years.
I haven't touched a cigarette in the past nine months, I haven't had any nicotine in my system
for over four months. I feel free, I feel much, much healthier. Now I help others to make that transition.
The very least we can do is to allow people the freedom to choose and to make our alternative as
safe and clean and healthy as is possible. We are fulfilling our obligation, now we need goverments
and regulating bodies to fulfill theirs by presenting the truth in an honest and unbiased manner and by
helping consumers to be able to choose a healthier option.
John Chamley,
Intellicig
John.
It is up to the really knowledgeable, sensible and honest people to change people's perceptions.
Electronic Cigarettes are the socially acceptable face of smoking and will eventually consign tobacco
to the history books. You only have to look back through history at the number of products that were
'feared' at first because they were new and 'unknown'. We can either fear the unknown and remain
trapped in the dark ages huddled around a fire in our cave, or we can embrace new technology and
make it work for OUR benefit safely. Just because a revolutionary new product with the potential to
save millions of lives every year is not yet 'perfect' (the FDA testing methods and figures
have been presented somewhat irresponsibly) do we ban it? No! We make sure that there is
enough development and testing to ensure that it poses no significant threat. Respected Doctors,
Scientists and Physicians have publicly stated that Electronic Cigarettes are several magnitudes
safer than smoking tobacco, that is the undeniable truth. Acceptance and regulation will ensure that
those millions of lives that are lost to tobacco related illnesses each year will be reduced and, over
the coming years, that figure will become lower and lower.
This is not about saving money that has to be channeled into health services to pay for those illnesses,
it is not about the governments losing BILLIONS of Dollars, Pounds, Euros etc in lost tax revenue
that they currently receive willingly from smokers who don't matter to those governments (they allow
them to continue killing themselves - it says so on the cigarette packets, SMOKING KILLS), it is not about
electronic cigarette refill cartridges containing minute traces of chemicals, the levels of which would not even
concern the FDA in regard to other products, it is about SAVING LIVES. Over 400,000 American citizens
every year die because of tobacco related illnesses and that figure is mirrored worldwide.
Any kind of ban on electronic cigarettes is a denial of our basic human rights to choose a healthier alternative
and our choice is based on the findings, educated estimations and respected opinions of Independent
Medical Professionals, many of whom contribute to the Tobacco Harm Reduction movement and
donate their time and resources to maintaining the website tobaccoharmreduction.org
Any ban should be considered as contributory negligence as it would be condemning smokers who, for
whatever reason, cannot use conventional NRT products or have found, like so many smokers, that
they are ineffective long term in giving up tobacco.
Electronic Cigarettes have been an unbelievable success and many, many thousands of smokers have
already made the simple transition from tobacco smoke to vapour and no longer feel the need or desire
to inhale poisonous tobacco smoke. I have heard hundreds of times, "Since I got my electronic cigarette
I haven't had a 'normal' cigarette", it is so common for users to either reduce their tobacco usage considerably
or, in most cases, completely. If we try to ignore this evidence, albeit anecdotal, we would be guilty of neglect,
guilty of denying people a chance of a better, healthier alternative. The critics claim that 'no testing has been done
so they can't be safe' and this has been repeated parrot-fashion so many times by people with their own agenda
and their own reasons for wanting electronic cigarettes banned. No matter how many times a lie is repeated,
it is still a lie and the good people who really care will expose that lie. The good people will ensure that
electronic cigarettes and the liquids that they use are properly tested and are designed to be as safe as possible.
If anyone just takes the time to research the subject beyond a few sensationalist headlines, they will find that
the good people are already doing this, they are already producing very high purity liquids using ingredients
with no known harmful effects, they are already having them tested using the very latest high-tech methods
and equipment such as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Why? Because they are responsible
people running businesses that rely on them to be honest, thorough, open and aware of all their legal
and moral obligations. Many of them are reformed smokers who have seen the light and who genuinely
wish to help other to do the same. Yes they make money from it, I make money from it, it is my living
and I work hard each week to earn my wages, there is no crime there surely? If there is, then everyone
who works is guilty!
It has become obvious over the last year or so that electronic cigarettes are hugely popular and
hugely successful in helping smokers to choose a cleaner alternative. They are not going to go away,
too many people have benefited from them, too many people would not accept being condemned to
smoking dirty, poisonous tobacco, too much of the truth has now been presented for a ban to be either
justified or acceptable. We must look to the future and develop this amazing product so that there
are no sensationalist headlines other than:
"400,000 Americans DID NOT die this year of tobacco related illnesses".
They have saved my life as I had been killing myself with tobacco for over 40 years.
I haven't touched a cigarette in the past nine months, I haven't had any nicotine in my system
for over four months. I feel free, I feel much, much healthier. Now I help others to make that transition.
The very least we can do is to allow people the freedom to choose and to make our alternative as
safe and clean and healthy as is possible. We are fulfilling our obligation, now we need goverments
and regulating bodies to fulfill theirs by presenting the truth in an honest and unbiased manner and by
helping consumers to be able to choose a healthier option.
John Chamley,
Intellicig
I have no intention of wading through all these posts, but can tell you from personal experience that e-smoking could not have a better friend than Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. I first began reading her many years ago, when I was health editor at a major newspaper. Always, she was on-target, the voice of reason is a world of faddish crap and "alternative" junk stuff.
She is respected. Believe that. Siegel, regrettably, is an outlier, not liked by pro or anti forces. His blog posts are shouting to an empty canyon. He makes sense to us .. but no one else cares. On the other hand, Whelan's piece in the Washington Times reaches the only people who count (and we are not among them). They are regulators and legislators. If she can influence even a few with her wise words, then this will be a major step for e-smoking.
The proper course is as she said: Set out a timeline for regulatory steps to be completed (one week to eliminate all health and/or cessation claims; one month to submit certified tests for all liquids and carts; one year to complete a trial of short-term effects on former cigarette smokers; and leave them on the market while the timeline markers are being met by major sellers).
Bless you, Elizabeth Whelan. You are as rightously reasonable as you always have been, and thank you for taking up our cause.
She is respected. Believe that. Siegel, regrettably, is an outlier, not liked by pro or anti forces. His blog posts are shouting to an empty canyon. He makes sense to us .. but no one else cares. On the other hand, Whelan's piece in the Washington Times reaches the only people who count (and we are not among them). They are regulators and legislators. If she can influence even a few with her wise words, then this will be a major step for e-smoking.
The proper course is as she said: Set out a timeline for regulatory steps to be completed (one week to eliminate all health and/or cessation claims; one month to submit certified tests for all liquids and carts; one year to complete a trial of short-term effects on former cigarette smokers; and leave them on the market while the timeline markers are being met by major sellers).
Bless you, Elizabeth Whelan. You are as rightously reasonable as you always have been, and thank you for taking up our cause.
Thanks for weighing in Bob, glad to hear that there is some support for Dr. Whelan.
I whole heartedly agree that the positioning of this article is a big bonus towards its effectiveness.
I whole heartedly agree that the positioning of this article is a big bonus towards its effectiveness.
Can you expand a little on what this means. e.g. Might the NY Daily News do a followup piece?
Well, i have been gone from the forums for a while but i am happy to read an article like this...it takes this kind of voice to get people to take notice. It's so sad to see such a blatant form of corporate corruption and government greed when the FDA tries to ban a product that could take you off of cigarettes that is considered toxic and harzardous to your health...isnt that the main goal of the FDA...makes you say WTF...also makes you wonder if Big tobbaco has a hand in whether or not pot gets legalized too!?! I mean that would eat into their sales for sure!
Thank You Dr. Elizabeth Whelan!!
Thank You Dr. Elizabeth Whelan!!
First is Internet "authority" of the article. Without boring you to death with techno stuff, the more websites link to that article the better. This link "equity" is single most important element for Search Engine(s) to determine results.
Try searching the web with "FDA" + "electronic cigarette" - all negative headlines. Within a short period, perhaps even this month, that article should rank among the top results. First thing I did, when learning about e-cig, is used that query. Any self-respecting journalist will certainly do the same. Benefits of having positive "expert opinion" ranked so high are huge.
Second, other sites doing re-prints. As you can see, in 24 hours, NYDaylyNews.com (6mil hits/mo), Canada.com (.75 mil hits/mo), Tobacco.org already picked it up. Within a month, you'll see hundreds, if not thousands re-prints clogging up the Net with "distorted, incomplete and misleading statements of FDA" + "electronic cigarette" and variations thereof.
Third, is exposure. Thousands saw it yesterday, and will continue to see it for weeks to come. DIGG is also monitored by major news organization. If story cracks page one, it's obviously worth the air time. Many "investigative journalism" stories are born on DIGG. The chance of major network doing a followup is much grater than it was 24 hours ago.
- Status
Similar threads
