Huffing ton's view on E-Cigs

[JoeDerty]

Man i hate main stream media!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/07/danger-e-cigarettes-regulation_n_4228654.html

 

[bluecat]

Well the article is correct about long term effects. Yet horribly wrong on fda regulations. Just look at anything the government gets involved in and the costly mistakes thar happen. All administrations for the last few.

 

[retired1]

Moved to Media and General News

 

[rico942]

Snowflakes are "dangerously unregulated" too. Guess I'll never leave the house again ...

Seriously, the scaremongering is just getting tiresome. Nothing is totally "safe", from birth to the grave. If I choose to use a product, and the results seem favorable to me, how is that the business of any government agency. Really ...

Our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves ...

 

[JoeDerty]

Im a big gun guy and after they turned on our 2nd amendment rights i wont pay them attention but my buddy sent me this. I know there right about some of the stuff but why are they ok with people smoking knowing so much about them then make vaping look so much worse.

 

[Vocalek]

Was it something that I said?

Left this comment:

If you ask me, the media is "dangerously unregulated." This story is claiming that e-cigarettes require FDA regulation to be able to call the products safe. Do you mean safe like tobacco cigarettes, which have been under FDA regulation for nearly 5 years, but are still credited with over 400,000 deaths per year? Or do you mean safe like Chantix, which has the dubious honor of receiving the most Adverse Event Reports of any drug in history in a single quarter? E-cigarettes don't need to be 100% safe. They only need to be safer than the product they are replacing. Given the fact that my wheezing and coughing abated after switching from smoke to vapor, and my "bad" cholesterol is at a lifetime low, I'd vote for "safer." Anyone else?

And received this message:

Due to the potentially sensitive nature of this article, your comment may take longer to appear publicly.

 

[rothenbj]

Well the article is correct about long term effects. Yet horribly wrong on fda regulations. Just look at anything the government gets involved in and the costly mistakes thar happen. All administrations for the last few.

Look, we don't know the long term effects of anything new today. There's only one way to find out, unfortunately, and that is to have long term use. Take all the composite wood products that are used today. We just don't know the long term effects. They release formaldehyde emissions. Perhaps they should be banned until further study takes place.

"We just don't know" is a marketing scheme for "We don't want the sale of your product to impact the profit from ours". We don't know the long term effect of any Pharma new product introduced to the market and has been proven, a lot have major unknown issues.

 

[Petrodus]

Was it something that I said? .......

They posted your comment !!

 

[bosun]

I am so glad that the government is concerned about my safety and doing such a great job making sure that medicines are safe for me! There I was, feeling a little weak and 'lackluster', not like when I was in my teens! Watching TV, I find that my problem was "Low T"! Amazing!! Gotta get me some!! Too late now, seems that it causes heart attack, stroke, etc. I'm surprised I haven't seen any of the lawyer ads yet. "If you took this and suffered--------, contact us and you might get a very small share of the legal settlement". So this product had extensive medical testing for side affects/safety, gets approved for use by the FDA, and three months later it is killing enough people that the media find out???

 

[patkin]

Thanks but I don't venture onto Huffington's having learned my lesson years ago. I don't want to muddy my mind with the nasty, narrow-minded (if not totally absent-minded,) swill I've seen there. Most there are sheeple anyway and, as such, their opinions can't be trusted so its a total waste of time.

 

[Harlen]

Im a big gun guy and after they turned on our 2nd amendment rights i wont pay them attention but my buddy sent me this. I know there right about some of the stuff but why are they ok with people smoking knowing so much about them then make vaping look so much worse.

Money,money and money they make a lot more money if you keep smoking !

 

[Vocalek]

My comment began with "If you ask me, the media is 'dangerously unregulated.'"

Someone responded, "We didn't ask you Elaine."

My rebuttal: "Of course you didn't. People never ask when they are afraid of the answer."

 

[Bill Godshall]

During the past several years, the Huffington Post has published more than two dozen articles that make false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigs. And this article (actually the video on it) is the worst attack I've ever seen on e-cigs.

In contrast, I recall just one article in Huffington Post (written by Lynn Kozlowski) that pointed out the facts and truth about e-cigs.

 

[spaceballsrules]

The biggest problem is that the 2 vendors that were interviewed were not ready at all for even softball questions from the interviewer. If they weren't ready for those, let alone hardball questions, then they should have refused the interview in the first place. Even I could have knocked those questions out of the park, and I have no real vested interest in vaping other than being one. If I were actually in the ecig business, I would have powerhouse canned answers ready for any naysayers, as well as all the info that is available on casaa.org, such as the studies and surveys, in my hand. Those two idiots just made themselves, and vaping, look bad.

 

[Petrodus]

During the past several years, the Huffington Post has published more than two dozen articles that make false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigs. And this article (actually the video on it) is the worst attack I've ever seen on e-cigs.

In contrast, I recall just one article in Huffington Post (written by Lynn Kozlowski) that pointed out the facts and truth about e-cigs.

24 negative ecig articles and 1 pro-ecig article
is Ye OLE Huff Post's "fair and balanced"
(sarcasm)

Huff Post is a rag

 

[vape-addict]

What do u expect from a progressive publication

 

[rothenbj]

What do u expect from a progressive publication

Progressive is such a misnomer.

 

[Credo]

How insensitive of them!
I'm not a LAB RAT!!!

I'm a RESEARCH MONKEY!

 

[Credo]

The biggest problem is that the 2 vendors that were interviewed were not ready at all for even softball questions from the interviewer. If they weren't ready for those, let alone hardball questions, then they should have refused the interview in the first place. Even I could have knocked those questions out of the park, and I have no real vested interest in vaping other than being one. If I were actually in the ecig business, I would have powerhouse canned answers ready for any naysayers, as well as all the info that is available on casaa.org, such as the studies and surveys, in my hand. Those two idiots just made themselves, and vaping, look bad.

With all due respect...

I've worked in the news business before, even in a quazi 'conservative' area of the Union, and someone like you who COULD present an intelligent response would have been WEEDED OUT. Your tape would so be on the cutting room floor (ok, now it's all on a hard-drive or flash card, but hopefully you get the idea).

Your interview would have been replaced by the editors with a dog curled up licking himself or something.

If we had a way of proving it...I'd lay money they DID get solid rebuttals and interviews, but cherry picked the worst ones to make their point.

The news business used to be regulated by healthy 'inter-competition'. Now...a hand full of international companies run the entire heap and on purposely slant things to garner 'precious ratings and market shares'. No, they don't 'make' all the stories...but they DO cherry pick what to run, and when to run it.