Full page article in the paper

[K-Sound Krew]

I get the Boston paper and the central Mass paper at my work
I've never seen E-cigs mentioned in the Boston one.

But the central Mass paper ran a few small stories in late 07 and August of 08,

They just ran this story yesterday; it was full color and took up almost an entire page
telegram.com News

 

[The Widow]

But he said there is also no proof his product causes cancer. What he wants is more testing to show that his product is a safer alternative to cigarettes, and an electronic cigarette association has been formed to help pay the costs of the testing.

Are they referring to the ECA?

 

[Jim Davis]

Are they referring to the ECA?

They may be. I added my comment.

 

[cyberwolf]

I am thinking that each and every one of us should post a reply to everyone of these articles we find; each of us telling a short success story. If we avoid the negatives and simply explain the positives we may just have an impact on the coverage.

 

[K-Sound Krew]

last 2 articles in this paper were positive, this one was a bit more in depth

But they had a story in 07, when ecigs were well below the radar

 

[Jim Davis]

I am thinking that each and every one of us should post a reply to everyone of these articles we find; each of us telling a short success story. If we avoid the negatives and simply explain the positives we may just have an impact on the coverage.

Right - We should *all* post replies to every news story out there. More people will see the positives.

 

[eplanet]

Are they referring to the ECA?

Yes, they are founding members as well...

 

[TheEmperorOfIceCream]

Charge!!!!

 

[dumwaldo]

I don't get it. George Barnes, the author of the article lists the ingredients of the liquid himelf but then later includes a comment from Erika Sward claiming we have no idea what is in E-cigs.

Did the author just stare blankly when she offered that comment or did he point out that it was a lie and we do know what is in the liquids?

It just seems shady and dishonest to me to have included a sensationalistic comment that the author of the article knows for fact to be wrong.

DW

 

[K-Sound Krew]

I don't get it. George Barnes, the author of the article lists the ingredients of the liquid himelf but then later includes a comment from Erika Sward claiming we have no idea what is in E-cigs.

Did the author just stare blankly when she offered that comment or did he point out that it was a lie and we do know what is in the liquids?

It just seems shady and dishonest to me to have included a sensationalistic comment that the author of the article knows for fact to be wrong.

DW

I disagree
The FDA, the NALA, as well as others are taking the stand of ignorance, they don't want to do a study because they know what the results will be, and by keeping themselves in the dark they are able to make statements like
"We don't know what is in these things and we don't know if they are safe"

It was a direct quote, I do not see the author as being hypocritical, they presented general facts and then quotes from 2 opposing view points, in real journalism the author should not add their opinion.

As far as Miss Swards comment; it is true, their have been no official studies on the contents of the liquid or it's long term effects by any official organization recognized by the US

There have been 3 analysis of the liquid to my knowledge, the Chinese and the TW lab reports seem a little sketchy

The New Zealand report seems to me to be the most reliable, but as far as world health organizations are concerned that report is inadmissible

 

[Oldnamenomore]

I hate politics

 

[Cancer]

We are no longer free in this country! I knew as soon as a "ultra liberal" smoker/non smoker president entered office, that the CIGARETTE Tax money would be defended at all costs! I am a democrat, but come on Obama (FIND THE MONEY ELSEWHERE). Make no mistake about it, this is about the federal and state tax money...little else. Oh and as far as the the Lung Association, how would they get funded if we quit???? See the similarites?

 

[StratOvation]

as far as the the Lung Association, how would they get funded if we quit???? See the similarites?

Ya know, I try to be a trusting sorta guy for the most part, I tend to avoid all the conversations about the supposed conspiracy theories and ulterior motives... BUT.... God! I am getting so tired of these supposed Health org.s just claiming ignorance on the topic!! If they still have not done any self education or investigation on this potentially revolutionary product what the hell are they good for?!?!?

They consistantly add a negative comment after their standard qualifying "We dont know anything about them" statement! It's always "We are concerned about their use" , "We suggest avoiding these devices" , etc...

If they are too lazy to do some cursory internet browsing or, Dare I suggest, actually sponser some scientific studies or surveys then I suggest they simply decline to comment!

It really smacks of an ulterior motive to see this industry fail and I would just be naive to not give your suggestion some validity as, at least, a possible explanation for their consistant comments.

Just sickens me to think that these "Health Org.s" are placing their own funding intrests above the purposes for which they were founded on. Not to mention the health and lives of countless people!

Mike

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

There was a quote out there - long time ago, about paranormal studies....and it keeps sticking in my brain about the studies done on the liquid by New Zeland, China, and by TW.


"Not 10 times the evidence to the positive will even convince me that paranormal abilities exist."


I keep getting the gut feeling that those in authority have formed their own opinions, and not even a hand-written letter from God himself stating the safety of these gizmos will make them change their minds....WHY is the New Zeland study not admissable?

 

[nitewriter]

Ya know, I try to be a trusting sorta guy for the most part, I tend to avoid all the conversations about the supposed conspiracy theories and ulterior motives... BUT.... God! I am getting so tired of these supposed Health org.s just claiming ignorance on the topic!! If they still have not done any self education or investigation on this potentially revolutionary product what the hell are they good for?!?!?

They consistantly add a negative comment after their standard qualifying "We dont know anything about them" statement! It's always "We are concerned about their use" , "We suggest avoiding these devices" , etc...

If they are too lazy to do some cursory internet browsing or, Dare I suggest, actually sponser some scientific studies or surveys then I suggest they simply decline to comment!

It really smacks of an ulterior motive to see this industry fail and I would just be naive to not give your suggestion some validity as, at least, a possible explanation for their consistant comments.

Just sickens me to think that these "Health Org.s" are placing their own funding intrests above the purposes for which they were founded on. Not to mention the health and lives of countless people!

Mike

I totally agree!

It seems to me that anything with a remote possibility of being healthier than analogs would get their vote, for at least testing and studies. They should be THRILLED that a POTENTIALLY healthier alternative exists. But because they are so blinded by the funding provided by BT and BP, they'd rather shoot it out of the water before it even has a chance.

I can't help but wonder if this is where our letters should be directed instead of the poiticians? Would it do any good to let THEM hear our voice?

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

I totally agree!

It seems to me that anything with a remote possibility of being healthier than analogs would get their vote, for at least testing and studies. They should be THRILLED that a POTENTIALLY healthier alternative exists. But because they are so blinded by the funding provided by BT and BP, they'd rather shoot it out of the water before it even has a chance.

I can't help but wonder if this is where our letters should be directed instead of the poiticians? Would it do any good to let THEM hear our voice?

Sarcasm alert!!!
BT & BP don't give a bloody rats booty to what we (their customers) think, only what substance is in our wallets that they can put into theirs. After all, they know SOOOOO much better than us.

 

[StratOvation]

I can't help but wonder if this is where our letters should be directed instead of the poiticians? Would it do any good to let THEM hear our voice?

I made my voice heard via my wallet! Back when the Lautenberg news hit, I wrote to the Health Org.s listed as supporting his "InstaBan" request.

I've been a constant financial supporter of a couple of them for 20+ yrs. and made it very clear that I would no longer offer my financial support to any "Health" institution that would so blindly and carelessly through their support behind such a rash and apparently uninformed politician without as much questioning his agenda. Have not received a reply from either regarding my letters.

I'm figuring they will be sure to contact me for another donation again soon, Then we can "Chat" ! My luck it wil probably be some poor telemarketing operator that has no Idea what I'm rambling on about though. lol

 

[Kate51]

AGREE!!!!!!!!! with all! The electronic cigarette is nothing more than a pipe until you add tobacco. Yes, where in the world is the thinking coming from that we all need protection from ourselves. SO SICK OF THAT. IT'S A MEESCHAUM, IDIOTS! If they were to look at the disposables, yes they come ready to go, but those are not what we are all talking about. Hate it when people who know nothing claim to be experts.
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE DO!!

 

[MlrGrl]

The government is forcing the car companies to come up with cars so we don't have to keep paying big oil companies....yet come up with a way to not pay big tobacco - and make us healthier in the process - and suddenly it needs to be banned?

Things that make you go Hmmm.....

 

[SharonLM]

I've just added a comment, but have to wait for email verification before it will appear.

My father who is 86 and quite wise asked me today why I would smoke something I wasn't sure wouldn't harm me.

I said, Dad, if you put two guns on a table and told me I had to pick up one of them and put it to my temple and pull the trigger, well, I guess I would knew that I was more than likely going to die. Unless that is you pointed to one of the guns and said this one has all the chambers loaded, 6 chambers, 6 bullets. Then you pointed to the other one and said, this has 6 chambers but only 2 bullets. Now, which one do you think I'd choose?

He understood. He understood that I wasn't saying that I KNEW these were safe, he knew I knew that maybe these e-cigs could harm me too, but he understood I have a better chance with these than I do with analogs.