Huffington Post article basically declaring e-cigs to be harmful.
- Thread starter sk8man121
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Seems like just when you think it Isn't Possible, the Huffington Post Hits a New Low.
Way to Go Huffington Post !!!
---
BTW - Have you Contacted the Huffington Post and Told them what you think about their Article?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contact/
Way to Go Huffington Post !!!
---
BTW - Have you Contacted the Huffington Post and Told them what you think about their Article?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contact/
Here is the sad part about HuffPost when it comes to this.. they have articles/blogs on that very website in favor of vaping. The gods be damned when it comes to the mainstream media in today's age.
My Wife Sent me the article after I fogged out my home office/vape lounge. May contain, Might have, Could Possibly....Buzz words that let you say anything you want and damn the consequences
It's time to Put a Halt to the Junk Science and FUD being Spewed by the Media.
If you want to Hit them where it Hurts, Contact Anyone who Sponsors the Huffington Post and Tell them you Can't buy Products from People who Support this type of Skewed Quasi-Journalism .
If you want to Hit them where it Hurts, Contact Anyone who Sponsors the Huffington Post and Tell them you Can't buy Products from People who Support this type of Skewed Quasi-Journalism .
The folks over at the Huffington Post and those who post in the comments section are rank hypocrites when you take into consideration how they celebrate what's going on in Colorado and Washington (a substance that our hosts here don't want mentioned for valid reasons).
My first reaction is to post in the comment section and attempt to get through to them but it does no good. Tobacco products have been so villianized by them that any variant (i.e. something containing nicotine) is deemed to be flat-out evil. For instance, the most common refrain is that they may be safer than actual cigarettes but you're still hooked on nicotine. I'd bring up the fact that our President can still be caught at public events chomping on nicotine gum years after he quit smoking but somehow that would be dismissed. We're dealing with people who have already made up their minds on the whole issue.
My first reaction is to post in the comment section and attempt to get through to them but it does no good. Tobacco products have been so villianized by them that any variant (i.e. something containing nicotine) is deemed to be flat-out evil. For instance, the most common refrain is that they may be safer than actual cigarettes but you're still hooked on nicotine. I'd bring up the fact that our President can still be caught at public events chomping on nicotine gum years after he quit smoking but somehow that would be dismissed. We're dealing with people who have already made up their minds on the whole issue.
Honestly, most of the comments on the article actually argue AGAINST what HuffPost says, outside of some, but that's a given. I've read their articles and the comments and most of them are people either speaking in favor of them using the same studies we use, or people who have switched and are giving their story.
I don't like all these confusing articles either.... but who is the authority without an agenda?
we vapers are at one extreme, and those against us are at the other extreme.........
good or bad, the FDA will eventually solve those issues.....
they will more than likely state that this is bad, how bad, legal or how illegal, and that's what the media will have to run with that
just my thoughts.........
g
we vapers are at one extreme, and those against us are at the other extreme.........
good or bad, the FDA will eventually solve those issues.....
they will more than likely state that this is bad, how bad, legal or how illegal, and that's what the media will have to run with that
just my thoughts.........
g
I've been doing my part in the comments. If nothing else, it's a good way to work off nervous energy when you're one wind-shift away from your neighborhood burning down. 
I have learned not to take many Huffington Post articles with a grain of salt & go on, as in the past I've been embarassed by posting links to their articles as evidence or to back a point.
At least 3 times, the data in their articles were wrong, outdated or rumors. So I don't bother with the site anymore.
Cat
At least 3 times, the data in their articles were wrong, outdated or rumors. So I don't bother with the site anymore.
Cat
The San Marcos fire was several hundred yards away from us on the adjacent hillside late this afternoon, but mercifully, the winds died down and it looks as though they've beaten it back for now. We've actually had closer calls before (the Cedar Fire was within 100 feet of our house in '03), so at least our nerves are nice and steely.
Let's step back.
Three days ago, the junk paper/junk studies factory at UCSF's Tobacco Control Research Institute got a review of 84 articles published in the journal Circulation. The authors might be familiar to many folks here: Grana, Benowitz and of course Glantz. This journal article presented no new information, but simply analyzed and recrunched data from 84 cherry-picked junk studies on vaping.
The Grana, Benowitz & Glantz Journal article has spawned many media stories, and we have a tendency here at ECF to look at each of these media articles in isolation, without realizing that the same underlying scientific journal article is being cited and reported on, in all of them.
For example, this thread (also located right here in the media forum) is a result of the very same article: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...smoking-according-84-different-studies-2.html
Siegel has analyzed the journal article (remember, that's what the HuffPo piece is based on) here:
Glantz Review Article is Little More than an Unscientific Hatchet Job on E-Cigarettes and IN MY VIEW: Why the Glantz Scientific Review of E-Cigarettes is Not Only Unscientific, But Dishonest
So let's be clear about one thing: HuffPo had nothing to do with the original science journal article. What the editors at HuffPo did was merely to publish a piece that uncritically summarized this article, and put a title on the piece that was intended to encourage ignorant readers to accept the legitimacy of the science journal article on which the HuffPo piece was based - just as hundreds of media outlets everywhere have.
BTW, I'm not letting HuffPo off the hook completely. HuffPo has paid for its own hit job articles that I've seen nowhere else (except via syndication from HuffPo) which have been written by celebrated distinguished Medical School Professors - pieces that consist of nothing more than speculation, fabrication, and nonsense. It's hard not to believe that the editors purchased this garbage with fat paychecks. (Medical school professors are paid very handsomely for lying, that's one of the perqs. And HuffPo is happy to pony up the cash.)
But that's not what's going on here.
Next time you see an article that ticks you off, I recommend that you take a close look at what the story covers, instead of what the piece claims.
You may find - surprise! - that you aren't looking at a worm, nor a tree trunk.
In fact, what you may be seeing is yet another part of the very same elephant.
Three days ago, the junk paper/junk studies factory at UCSF's Tobacco Control Research Institute got a review of 84 articles published in the journal Circulation. The authors might be familiar to many folks here: Grana, Benowitz and of course Glantz. This journal article presented no new information, but simply analyzed and recrunched data from 84 cherry-picked junk studies on vaping.
The Grana, Benowitz & Glantz Journal article has spawned many media stories, and we have a tendency here at ECF to look at each of these media articles in isolation, without realizing that the same underlying scientific journal article is being cited and reported on, in all of them.
For example, this thread (also located right here in the media forum) is a result of the very same article: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...smoking-according-84-different-studies-2.html
Siegel has analyzed the journal article (remember, that's what the HuffPo piece is based on) here:
Glantz Review Article is Little More than an Unscientific Hatchet Job on E-Cigarettes and IN MY VIEW: Why the Glantz Scientific Review of E-Cigarettes is Not Only Unscientific, But Dishonest
So let's be clear about one thing: HuffPo had nothing to do with the original science journal article. What the editors at HuffPo did was merely to publish a piece that uncritically summarized this article, and put a title on the piece that was intended to encourage ignorant readers to accept the legitimacy of the science journal article on which the HuffPo piece was based - just as hundreds of media outlets everywhere have.
BTW, I'm not letting HuffPo off the hook completely. HuffPo has paid for its own hit job articles that I've seen nowhere else (except via syndication from HuffPo) which have been written by celebrated distinguished Medical School Professors - pieces that consist of nothing more than speculation, fabrication, and nonsense. It's hard not to believe that the editors purchased this garbage with fat paychecks. (Medical school professors are paid very handsomely for lying, that's one of the perqs. And HuffPo is happy to pony up the cash.)
But that's not what's going on here.
Next time you see an article that ticks you off, I recommend that you take a close look at what the story covers, instead of what the piece claims.
You may find - surprise! - that you aren't looking at a worm, nor a tree trunk.
In fact, what you may be seeing is yet another part of the very same elephant.
Last edited:
There's about 50 articles on ecigs at Huffinton/Puffington Post.
I saw one positive article:
It's Disturbing That Health Advocates Are Against E-Cigs That Save Lives by Tony Newman
About 7 or 8 articles about celebs vaping.
A few neutral.
The rest against or reporting articles that were against with few positive 'fair and balanced' comebacks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/electronic-cigarettes/1
I saw one positive article:
It's Disturbing That Health Advocates Are Against E-Cigs That Save Lives by Tony Newman
About 7 or 8 articles about celebs vaping.
A few neutral.
The rest against or reporting articles that were against with few positive 'fair and balanced' comebacks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/electronic-cigarettes/1
I say that the Next Time you read and Article that Ticks You Off that you e-Mail the Author and the Editor of the Article BEFORE you Post to the ECF.
I tend to look at who they are quoting and if i is UC anything goods odds it's a rehash of old rhetoric. The byline should read "review and interpretation of studies that can be interpreted to say what we've been saying all along"
I wanted to leave a comment on HuffPo but refuse to link to my FB account. So I will just say that I find it really sad that so many people are so hateful and small minded that they want to doom smokers to a life of suffering and eventual death. So many people want to quit smoking but feel helpless and hopeless to do so. They might never get a chance to use ecigs in the near future because they won't be available and the general public is busy demonizing current vapers. It seems like the onslaught of junk articles and junk science are never ending these days. It's depressing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
