How Big Vaping is misinforming the public about e-cigarettes

[Painter_]

http://www.vox .com/2015/3/28/8301923/e-cigarette-information

It was bound to happen, the "public health" factions in CA have turned advocacy into "Big vaping is misinforming the public".

For public health workers, the quick counterattack is reminiscent of early fights over cigarettes.

The World Health Organization has called e-cigarettes safety "illusive," since the ingredients they contain are not always disclosed and there is not "adequate data on emissions." The Centers for Disease Control takes a similar stance: that there is not enough evidence to understand the health impact of vaping. They warn of the potential for nicotine addiction and poisoning, and believe the devices should be more tightly regulated. Like many other research groups, both the CDC and WHO are concerned about the still-unknown long-term biological effects. What's more, when it comes to helping people quit smoking, the science is mixed at best.

Anyone who suggests e-cigs are short of miraculous seems to be targeted

The California health department’s Twitter and Facebook pages are clogged with [messages from vaping advocates]," said Stanton Glantz, a University of California, San Francisco–based professor and longtime tobacco-control advocate who has been watching the campaign and counterattacks unfold this week. "It’s making it hard for them to communicate with anybody.

Anyone who suggests e-cigs are short of miraculous seems to be targeted

And the article has no place to make a comment.

 

[BuGlen]

...And the article has no place to make a comment.

Of course they don't. They cite glANTZ twice in the article and attempt to paint vape advocates as shills and vapor manufacturers as BT subsidiaries. They know what type of response they're going to get, so they don't even bother to allow the conversation on their page.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

http://www.vox .com/2015/3/28/8301923/e-cigarette-information

It was bound to happen, the "public health" factions in CA have turned advocacy into "Big Vaping is misinforming the public".












And the article has no place to make a comment.

The propagandists are not going to allow anyone to post the truth with links because if they allow that the comments turn into a pro vaping list of their lies.

 

[philoshop]

The truth is harmful to their agenda and they simply won't allow it. They have real reason to fear any dissemination of factual information on this issue.

It's the classic ad hominem attack. Shift the argument away from the issue itself and attempt to refocus it on the person(s) making the counterargument. It's a sign of weakness in both the veracity of the claims and the depth of support for them. Eventually this is all they'll have, but it's going to take the constant pressure of reality fighting against the propaganda stream.

 

[WhiteHighlights]

I saw this response to the vox garbage, nicely taking it apart. Oh, and he allow for comments too

rgbFilter » Who is “Big Vaping”: a small slice of the e-cigarette misinformation war

 

[DC2]

Of course they don't. They cite glANTZ twice in the article and attempt to paint vape advocates as shills and vapor manufacturers as BT subsidiaries. They know what type of response they're going to get, so they don't even bother to allow the conversation on their page.

Just like GlANTZ won't allow comments from vapers on his blog.

 

[DC2]

It's the classic ad hominem attack. Shift the argument away from the issue itself and attempt to refocus it on the person(s) making the counterargument. It's a sign of weakness in both the veracity of the claims and the depth of support for them. Eventually this is all they'll have, but it's going to take the constant pressure of reality fighting against the propaganda stream.

It's a ploy straight from the decades-old playbook on how to demonize us...
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger