E-cigs on Good Day Atlanta this morning-- positive press!
- Thread starter MrsJaaxx
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Just a devil's advocate response to an inconsistency I noticed from Dr. Winawer in the video from a vaper and a healthcare professional. One of the things that I saw as a logical inconsistency was his opening. He starts by stating that he's never heard of these things(ecigs), ostensibly, until right up before the interview. In fact his exact 1st words are "I had never even heard of this actually, but apparently there all over the malls and the kiosks." He then goes into the stock explanation that you can find on any ecig website. Although the interview is, on the whole, positive for ecigs; it is apparent this guy is reading, verbatim, from some ecig website's marketing literature. This does not impress me at all and I wonder why Dr. Winawer would have any professional opinion on a product he has never heard of, much less seen any data on. Any other healthcare professional listening to this interview with a critical ear will pick this out in a heartbeat; which is unfortunate.
How do you know that he didn't do some homework on being asked to do the interview - that he didn't read Dr. Nitzkin's comprehensive petition to the FDA, full of citations to other resources, or some of Dr. Siegel's writings, or Dr. Laugesen's several reports ... ?
He admits it in his 1st sentence. And it's quite obvious from his 1st statement and the WAY he says the statement. He is also getting himself in hot water by being a licensed MD and , in that capacity, touting an as of yet unapproved entity(and the previous "resources and reports" you've mentioned, while, again positive for ecigs; are not accepted peer-reviewed study data proving safety or efficacy - and if he did hear of them, why not cite them by name in his interview rather then simply restating the stock ecig website marketing line). Again , as a healthcare professional, this interview did not impress me, nor will it impress other healthcare professionals listening with a critical ear(that was the point I was trying to make).
Last edited:
He said he "HAD never heard of them." That doesn't mean he didn't research them after the news station contacted him for the interview. And the same thing he says that is found on e-cig websites is also found on many reduced harm sites, the AAPHP site and on the CASAA site. Considering he also followed up with accurate info about the FDA stance, he obviously did research, because you won't find that on most ecig sites. He was also familiar with the fact that some don't look like regular cigarettes. He also said he read e-cig blogs. To me, that makes it clear that he researched beyond stock e-cig web sites.
He also says "there is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, but it just needs more study." So, he didn't exactly recommend that people run out and buy them to quit smoking. He touted why they would be better than smoking and cautioned that there hasn't been a lot of research, so I doubt he'd get in trouble from that.
He also says "there is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, but it just needs more study." So, he didn't exactly recommend that people run out and buy them to quit smoking. He touted why they would be better than smoking and cautioned that there hasn't been a lot of research, so I doubt he'd get in trouble from that.
Last edited:
Let's just say we both saw the interview from different perspectives and leave it that. At the very least, the interview was shed a positive light on ecigs in a time where it's greatly needed.
Hopefully this will become the trend. FDA shoots itself in foot and news media captures it live on TV. Lingering issue of course is the FDA's historical blind eye/ear to criticism not backed with congressional muscle. Of course always cringe when I hear the oh no the kids are gonna love these things bit. Hard to see where to punch when there's mud in your eye.
Tried to post a comment, but not sure when site updates so not sure went through.
Finally someone who learned about them independently of the FDA and explained the pros, not just jumping on the 'I'm not sure' or 'ban them' bandwagon. Quality control is a valid issue, but I am always suspicious of the 'save the kids' talk from opponents. There are few things with more stigma than being a smoker and now that we have found a way to eliminate the smoke and the majority of the health issues, vapers find themselves facing attacks from the FDA and anti-smokers who refuse to see the difference. Again, grateful to FOX for giving a fair accounting of the benefits, not just blindly totting the FDA's water.
Tried to post a comment, but not sure when site updates so not sure went through.
Finally someone who learned about them independently of the FDA and explained the pros, not just jumping on the 'I'm not sure' or 'ban them' bandwagon. Quality control is a valid issue, but I am always suspicious of the 'save the kids' talk from opponents. There are few things with more stigma than being a smoker and now that we have found a way to eliminate the smoke and the majority of the health issues, vapers find themselves facing attacks from the FDA and anti-smokers who refuse to see the difference. Again, grateful to FOX for giving a fair accounting of the benefits, not just blindly totting the FDA's water.
i wish e-cigs would be advertised as a healthier cigarette alternative, rather than as a "stop smoking" device. that way, we could tell the FDA to take a long walk on a short pier.
Apparently, the good doctor spent a little time researching the issue and read blogs/forums to see what users had to say about ecigs. He understands the mechanism behind vaping and seems to have a pretty good handle on the content of ejuice. That makes him 99% more informed than most politicians and government "health officials".
- Status
Similar threads
