Greetings from the SRNT Conference

[Bill Godshall]

Vocalek wrote:

How can they fail to realize that they are telling smokers, "Just keep smoking until you can quit altogether." And how can they fail to realize how much harm this does?

They are fully aware that they've been telling smokers to "quit or die" for the past 25 years, and they are also fully aware that far more smokers have died than have quit during that time.

The problem is that many/most of the folks at SRNT mentioned in this thread are abstinence-only tobacco prohibitionists who have conspired to deceive the public to believe that smokeless tobacco products are as hazardous as cigarettes, that e-cigarettes and other new smokefree alternatives are dangerous and should be banned, and that tobacco prohibitionists are public health advocates.

 

[DC2]

I'm sure that Vocalek was just asking a rhetorical question.


Everybody needs to understand that many of these people would just as soon see you die as switch.
And if anyone does not understand that, then they need to get educated.

And after getting educated, if you are not motivated to get involved, then I don't know what to say.

Does anybody have a link to that interview where one of these nutbags actually said we should just go ahead and die?
I'd love to post that for everyone to hear, and I think it's time for that video to make another round.

 

[rolygate]

It seems hard to believe that some academics and medics would take the view that it is better to try and persuade all smokers to quit, instead of implementing cheap, straightforward and reasonably fast (in comparison to quit tactics) methods to reduce smoking prevalence by 40%, as they seem to have achieved in Sweden.

I don't think that we would see a 40% reduction in other countries from Snus take-up alone, due to the cultural issues, but it seems achievable by a combination of factors including a wide range of smokeless products, and - most importantly - telling people the truth. With a 6% take-up of ecigs so far, in a relatively short timescale, they seem highly acceptable to smokers.

If the official and unofficial health agencies were to actually tell the truth about smoking alternatives, the sky is the limit.

A 40% (or greater) reduction in smoking @ around 1% to 2% reduction in prevalence per year, compounded, vs an annual 0.4% reduction. Which will save more lives?

Apparently this is a difficult question to answer, because nobody in a position of power seems to be able to get the answer right; or perhaps there is a financial incentive behind the wrong answer.

 

[Treece]

I'm sure that Vocalek was just asking a rhetorical question.


Everybody needs to understand that many of these people would just as soon see you die as switch.
And if anyone does not understand that, then they need to get educated.

And after getting educated, if you are not motivated to get involved, then I don't know what to say.

Does anybody have a link to that interview where one of these nutbags actually said we should just go ahead and die?
I'd love to post that for everyone to hear, and I think it's time for that video to make another round.

Is this the one you mean, DC2? http://constantlyfurious.blogspot.com/2009/10/nurse-smokers-just-have-to-die.html

(I had an email exchange with Nurse DeVille-Almond over this way back when. Grrrr....)

 

[DC2]

Is this the one you mean, DC2? http://constantlyfurious.blogspot.com/2009/10/nurse-smokers-just-have-to-die.html

(I had an email exchange with Nurse DeVille-Almond over this way back when. Grrrr....)

Yeah, I think that's the one.
And the comments are a fun read as well.

Now I just have to figure out when and where to post that.

Thanks Treece!

 

[Vocalek]

It was gone from YouTube for a while, but I see that it is back now:

HealthNazis SmokeNazis - YouTube

 

[mwa102464]

I have to believe and side with RolyGate on this = " or perhaps there is a financial incentive behind the wrong answer ".

Big tobacco has way to deep of pockets and so does Big Pharma,,, I think it's about time they where brought down when it comes to smoking alternatives, Big Tobacco can go bye bye
( wont happen ) and Big Pharma can work on more valuable interest then smoking alternatives = like curing diseases IF that's where there interest lie's, which I at times doubt as well and think they would rather make drugs that people get addicted to rather then seek out cures for illness & disease.

 

[fumarole]

I can see no functional difference between drug pushers headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland or Medellin, Colombia. I also think you would be more likely to get an honest answer from Pablo Escobar than his equivalent in Geneva or wherever.

But the law says different

 

[Treece]

Yeah, I think that's the one.
And the comments are a fun read as well.

Now I just have to figure out when and where to post that.

Thanks Treece!

You're very welcome, DC2.

That interview rattled me to the core, and I remember it well. I emailed her soon thereafter, and here's our brief exchange:

Me:

My mom died in 2005 from small cell lung cancer. She was never able to quit smoking. The vast majority of the nurses who cared for her were among the most compassionate, kind, generous human beings I've ever met. They made an exceedingly painful, horrific time easier for both my mother and for me and my family. I'll never forget them.

I just finished listening to the interview where you suggest that the man with a heart condition who can't quit smoking "will just have to die."

The only word I can think of to describe this is ... evil. What a disgrace--not only to the profession of nursing, but to everything that is kind and good and decent and forgiving about humanity.

I hope that one day you will understand the true meaning of compassion. Until you do, you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near vulnerable human beings.

And her response:

Dear Patricia,

Actually if you had listened to the whole radio interview you will realise I said no such thing. I simply said that if we have no money (which is already a problem in the NHS)then we will have to start to make choices about treatment. This would mean that people who have already had one heart operation may be denied a second. The radio interviewer asked me what would happen if that patient could not afford to pay for it and I gave the only answer I could. I wonder if you have a happier answer for me and could explain what might happen (this is what happens in the rest of the world) to a patient who has to pay for a life saving op they can not afford. If a patient has a heart op they are advised to not continue smoking because it will damage their new valves (so if they do continue smoking and things go wrong what is your suggestion) bearing in mind it may take the funding from a child.

If you know anything about me I spend my life working voluntarily with vulnerable men and see this happening on a daily basis. Radio shows like this are used to stimulate debate and remind people of the consequences of their action. The message was not dressed up, as may politicians do, so normal everyday people were able to understand. I have had much hate mail from this radio interview and in view of this have now stopped doing any voluntary work and closed all my free clinics (as I am gathering that people like yourself are so concerned you will do it in my place) Many thanks for your email and I trust you have hear the whole programme and not just the propaganda bit from the pro smokers

Her last name suits her, I think.



A very sad state of affairs.

 

[Stop Smoking]

HEMA links:http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924317
Effects of smoking cessation on eight urina... [Chem Res Toxicol. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
linked to bladder ca

NNK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNK
Nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone (NNK), or 4-(methylnitrosamino)- 1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone, is a nitrosamine present in tobacco that is a potential carcinogen.

NNAL http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/NNAL_FactSheet.html- third hand mentioned

CEMA-Acrylonitrile is an IARC class 2B carcinogen present in cigarette smoke. Urinary 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid (CEMA) is an acrylonitrile metabolite and a potential biomarker for acrylonitrile exposure.

shBNA- RNA form associated with lung ca

Hema= associated with curing

hPMA ... with ca. diacetl cmpd