E-Cigarettes: Smoke and Mirrors?
- Thread starter Mr_Phil
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That reads as though Eisenberg finished his new study, I wonder if that's true? If so, I guess there really is no reason for further FDA involvement. Incidentally, they quoted in the article 1.2b smokers with 5m dying each year. That indicates that it would take 240 years to kill off all current smokers or a death rate is .42% per year. Those numbers obviously make no sense. Perhaps they meant that they die of smoking related diseases which non smokers also die of to a lesser extent.
That got me curious so I researched wold population which I found to be about 6.8b with 17.7% being smokers. I also found an estimate of between 55-56m deaths globally which translates to about 121 years to kill off that entire population or a death rate of appx. .83% per year.
Now those numbers make a bit of sense since population grows at over 1% and has been as high as 2% at times so at any time the population is growing younger and the earth grows ever more populated-
World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To imagine that there are nearly 3 times as many people on the earth than when I was born seems impossible. If you look at the population chart and the guestimates made by WHO for the future, the population has been exploding since the late 40's. You have to ask why they would possibly be concerned about adding a few years to the end of fairly long lives by being so concerned about smoking. Perhaps their only concern is about what is brought into their coffers by presenting the front of being anti-smoking.
That got me curious so I researched wold population which I found to be about 6.8b with 17.7% being smokers. I also found an estimate of between 55-56m deaths globally which translates to about 121 years to kill off that entire population or a death rate of appx. .83% per year.
Now those numbers make a bit of sense since population grows at over 1% and has been as high as 2% at times so at any time the population is growing younger and the earth grows ever more populated-
World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To imagine that there are nearly 3 times as many people on the earth than when I was born seems impossible. If you look at the population chart and the guestimates made by WHO for the future, the population has been exploding since the late 40's. You have to ask why they would possibly be concerned about adding a few years to the end of fairly long lives by being so concerned about smoking. Perhaps their only concern is about what is brought into their coffers by presenting the front of being anti-smoking.
If you Google search terms from this story, it appears this story first started appearing on websites in April.
Hopefully Dr. Eissenberg concludes his study and published the nicotine results.
Hopefully Dr. Eissenberg concludes his study and published the nicotine results.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
I suspect that the reporter was simply repeating Eissenberg's quotes from his press release and news stories that were generated back in January 2010 when he first claimed that e-cigarettes emit no nicotine.
But since Eissenberg has refused to retract, correct or clarify his "no nicotine" claims, Eissenberg is at least as much to blame for this as lazy news reporters.
But since Eissenberg has refused to retract, correct or clarify his "no nicotine" claims, Eissenberg is at least as much to blame for this as lazy news reporters.
Yes, this article is clearly referencing the first Eissenberg study that Thomas himself admitted was based on a "flawed" methodology to "prove that e-cigarettes don't work" exactly like cigarettes or deliver a statistically significant amount of nicotine within 5 minutes after someone who's never used one before takes their first 10 small puffs. The ongoing research is debunking this myth, but Thomas Eissenberg is still standing behind this one because he thinks it will help to combat the medicalisation of e-cigarettes, but I don't think I agree.
Yes, this article is clearly referencing the first Eissenberg study that Thomas himself admitted was based on a "flawed" methodology to "prove that e-cigarettes don't work" exactly like cigarettes or deliver a statistically significant amount of nicotine within 5 minutes after someone who's never used one before takes their first 10 small puffs. The ongoing research is debunking this myth, but Thomas Eissenberg is still standing behind this one because he thinks it will help to combat the medicalisation of e-cigarettes, but I don't think I agree.
Which tells me he is not a real scientist, plain and simple. Shame. I had respect for him coming on here and discussing things with us openly. I felt we all learned something. I'm glad he is on our side, but his faulty study is being used for propaganda against us. Doesn't deliver nicotine, so its bad. But wait, delivers nicotine, so its bad. The FDA has been told to back off the medicalisation agenda, and they have. So why promote bad data, and an incorrect picture? The vast majority who are ignorant of, but interested in ecigs will look at this article and say it isn't worth it, and the comments defending the lack of nicotine delivery will only serve as fodder for the quit-or-die crowd...clearly, vapers are not only not getting nicotine, they don't need it either, so just quit like any true red-blooded Amurikan would.
It's time we had a poll:
____________________________________________________________
Is there more junk science in Tobacco Control or Global Warming?
As more and more scientists come to depend on controversial propositions for their jobs, a tidal wave of junk science is enveloping us. They seem to be being paid to find new ways to justify facts or ideas that may or may not be true, but their arguments depend more and more on science that would get a D-minus mark in junior school. Lies, omissions, misinformation and junk science - it's all grist to the mill now. Need a fact or statistic? Just invent one.
So which is it - is there more junk in Tobacco Control or Climate Control?
_____________________________________________________________
All those in favor say Aye and I'll fix it
____________________________________________________________
Is there more junk science in Tobacco Control or Global Warming?
As more and more scientists come to depend on controversial propositions for their jobs, a tidal wave of junk science is enveloping us. They seem to be being paid to find new ways to justify facts or ideas that may or may not be true, but their arguments depend more and more on science that would get a D-minus mark in junior school. Lies, omissions, misinformation and junk science - it's all grist to the mill now. Need a fact or statistic? Just invent one.
So which is it - is there more junk in Tobacco Control or Climate Control?
_____________________________________________________________
All those in favor say Aye and I'll fix it
Last edited:
What Ande said. It's a draw.
But then again, we have government leaders telling us that our economy is on the mend. Meanwhile we still have 10%+ unemployement, and more regulations are issued every day restraining business. Oil companies cannot start new drilling projects in the U.S. (the BP oil spill cost countless jobs that have not reappeared), and the price of bacon is going up to $5 a pound because the farmers can't afford the corn to feed the pigs. The corn has been side-tracked into gasoline additives.
A year ago or so, I was paying $5.99 a pound for salmon (you know, the heart-healthy fish). Today, in BJ's the price was $8.99 a pound.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? (His/her lips are moving.)
But then again, we have government leaders telling us that our economy is on the mend. Meanwhile we still have 10%+ unemployement, and more regulations are issued every day restraining business. Oil companies cannot start new drilling projects in the U.S. (the BP oil spill cost countless jobs that have not reappeared), and the price of bacon is going up to $5 a pound because the farmers can't afford the corn to feed the pigs. The corn has been side-tracked into gasoline additives.
A year ago or so, I was paying $5.99 a pound for salmon (you know, the heart-healthy fish). Today, in BJ's the price was $8.99 a pound.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? (His/her lips are moving.)
I actually do believe there's plenty of evidence for climate change - the question is whether man is involved. No scientists are saying the CAUSE is a definite fact - they just lay out evidence. (Melting ice caps, pictures of glaciers receding, etc). Politicians take that information, spin it, and come out with garbage. On the other hand, I believe Tobacco control tells outright lies and says, "The ends justify the means." So... TC definitely wins.
Yeah. Well I wasn't meaning / asking if 'X' exists, just if there is more 'creative writing' in tobacco control or climate control. Guess it's about even, then
Seems to be a whole new industry. Now manufacturing has gone East, we need more ways to make money without making things. OK, let's get grants and donations for a thinktank that will advise on 'X'.
First job is to employ scientists and technicians who know something about X. Then get them working on it. Eventually they come up with lots of new ways to prove X is getting worse, because as long as it is, they stay in work. If X goes away tomorrow, so does their job.
That is why tobacco control researchers will never agree to anything that radically improves tobacco death rates - their jobs would disappear.
Seems to be a whole new industry. Now manufacturing has gone East, we need more ways to make money without making things. OK, let's get grants and donations for a thinktank that will advise on 'X'.
First job is to employ scientists and technicians who know something about X. Then get them working on it. Eventually they come up with lots of new ways to prove X is getting worse, because as long as it is, they stay in work. If X goes away tomorrow, so does their job.
That is why tobacco control researchers will never agree to anything that radically improves tobacco death rates - their jobs would disappear.
Yeah, I just ran into a copy of this and thought, "Wait a minute, didn't he debunk his own study?"
Oh wow. So, ecigs do or don't deliver nicotine? I read the link and got the impression that "don't" was the clear winner.
Dr. Eissenberg's first study showed that a smoker who has never used an e-cig before taking 10 short puffs does not deliver a significant amount of nicotine within the first 5 minutes.
However, in a subsequent currently ongoing study, Dr. Eissenberg is showing that an experienced e-cig user allowed to vape at will has plasma nicotine levels similar to users of NRT.
In other words, there's no surprises...just flawed methodologies.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
