Excellent Anti-THR Post by Carl Phillips

[sonicdsl]

Another excellent post from our friend Carl Phillips, who is at VaperCon this weekend. He is addressing some Anti-THR lies with his observations at VaperCon.

VaperCon vs. the Lies | Anti-THR Lie of the Day

 

[dirquist]

Someone needs to tell the writer that if you use an acronym in an article you must spell it out first. What in the world is THR? Plus some of what he says is untrue or not known. Like how does he know we are not damaging ourselves. None of us know if we are or arent. Im in the camp that it is much better but far from neutral for us. Im sure inhaling this stuff into our lungs is not 100% safe. Im a huge supporter for vaping. That said, the critics seem to go overboard on their side and we go overboard on ours. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[sonicdsl]

Someone needs to tell the writer that if you use an acronym in an article you must spell it out first. What in the world is THR? Plus some of what he says is untrue or not known. Like how does he know we are not damaging ourselves. None of us know if we are or arent. Im in the camp that it is much better but far from neutral for us. Im sure inhaling this stuff into our lungs is not 100% safe. Im a huge supporter for vaping. That said, the critics seem to go overboard on their side and we go overboard on ours. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

THR = Tobacco Harm Reduction (hover your mouse over "THR" in any thread here, and it will pop up with that).

His entire site is about Anti-THR Lies. If you had clicked "About", you would have seen an explanation of what THR means, and what message he intends to get across with his site. That sort of thing is helpful when reading any unfamiliar site. That way, when you come across an unknown acronym, it's typically explained.

No one is saying vaping is 100% safe. What we do know is that it is at least 98% safer. Read Dr. Phillip's articles, and check out the CASAA website. He is now part of CASAA, so they share many resources.

Read the science. It's looking better for us with every study, but there's loads more to do, which is explained in some of his articles, as well as Bill Godshall's (many, many posts here), and Michael Siegel's (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/), among others.

 

[Vocalek]

Someone needs to tell the writer that if you use an acronym in an article you must spell it out first. What in the world is THR? Plus some of what he says is untrue or not known. Like how does he know we are not damaging ourselves. None of us know if we are or arent. Im in the camp that it is much better but far from neutral for us. Im sure inhaling this stuff into our lungs is not 100% safe. Im a huge supporter for vaping. That said, the critics seem to go overboard on their side and we go overboard on ours. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Hmmm... would you mind quoting the text in that post that you interpreted to mean that we are not damaging ourselves?

The irony of this comment is that Carl has been urging the pro-THR researchers to avoid going overboard in terms of interpreting the findings. Examples:
Why we absolutely positively must avoid pro-THR lies (and honest errors that look like lies) | Anti-THR Lie of the Day
Another study confirms lack of concern about vapor toxicity – too bad about that press release and some of the details | Anti-THR Lie of the Day

Addendum: Just came across Dr. Joel Nitzkin's description of Tobacco Harm Reduction, which captures the concept very well.

THR, in operational terms, is education and counseling to encourage smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit, to switch to a much-lower-risk smoke-free tobacco/nicotine product to reduce their risk of cancer, heart and lung disease. THR differs from smoking cessation in that the hopefully ex-smoker continues to use nicotine for as long as he or she feels the need to do so.

 

[dirquist]

Hmmm... would you mind quoting the text in that post that you interpreted to mean that we are not damaging ourselves?

Just so you know we are on the same side here. Everything I said though I stand by. Especially the acronym thing. I shouldnt have to search the site if this is a journalistic article. But here is for your quote request.

Lie: They may have quit smoking, but they are still addicted.

Response: This is arguably true, depending on what someone means by “addicted”. But who cares? There are a lot of very happy people here whose lives are not being damaged. If this is addiction, then addiction appears to not be something that should be avoided, and definitely not something that warrants massive acts of governmental force against the people.

 

[Vocalek]

Carl is a very precise person. If he meant, "whose health is not being damaged," he would have written that. Instead he wrote "whose lives are not being damaged." One of the diagnostic questions used to differentiate between addiction to alcohol (for example), as opposed to harmless recreational use is, "Are you having more financial, work, school, and/or family problems as a result of your drinking?"

The act of smoking may interfere with family or work, but nicotine use per se does not. For those in need of relief from symptoms of depression, anxiety, memory impairments, and attention deficites, nicotine can increase the odds of avoiding financial, work, school, or family problems.

I'll be writing more about this in one of my future Anti-THR Lie of the Day posts, but for now, suffice it to say that I don't believe that nicotine fits the same profile as addictive drugs that impair cognitive process and judgment.

 

[RosaJ]

I'll be writing more about this in one of my future Anti-THR Lie of the Day posts, but for now, suffice it to say that I don't believe that nicotine fits the same profile as addictive drugs that impair cognitive process and judgment.[/QUOTE]

I remember way back when during the 70's or 80's I read an article in the paper comparing the addiction to nicotine being the same as the addiction to heroine or ........ I knew in my mind then that there were going to be people who read nicotine/heroine/....... mentioned in the same sentence translated to nicotine being the same as the other two drugs. Where actually they were talking about the addiction itself not the substances.

I look forward to your posts as I believe more on the subject of clarification that nicotine is not a mind altering substance and the person does not lose control of their actions and is not in the same category as hard drugs. I will definitely be sharing them on my facebook page as people need to be educated