Live Webcast at Harvard School of Public Health

[Bill Godshall]

Although Warner and Hammond cited some benefits of smokers switching to e-cigs, both of them (along with all of the extremists on the panel) advocated the FDA's deeming regulation (which would ban >99.9% of all e-cigs).

Then again, that was the entire purpose of the panel discussion. Obama's DHHS has probably already sent Harvard a seven figure check for their appreciation.

 

[Tache]

I thought I saw a link to the post discussion media conference call on one of the posts in our forum, but I can't seem to find it. Can anyone direct me to it?

 

[CarolT]

All of this crap is happening because everybody refuses to do the one thing that matters most: ATTACK THE HEALTH LIES. Nobody did it when they attacked smokers, so they've simply re-purposed it to attack vapers. Over and over again, those scumbags prattled about "one billion deaths, one billion deaths," blah blah blah, over and over again. That's the wind in their sails! That's how they justify their existence. That's how they wheedle money from the politicians!

Some particulars: At 35:00, Vaughn Rees, Interim Director of the vainglorious "Global Center for tobacco Control" at Harvard, talked about favoring e-cigarettes "by reducing nicotine delivery in conventional cigarettes." That's exactly what I'd expect the rotten little scumbags to do. And it goes to prove how unctuously deceitful they've been when they "reassure" smokers that 'don't worry, the FDA isn't allowed to reduce the level of nicotine to zero.' As if they think we're so stupid we can't see through that trick.

At 54:00, Kenneth Warner was practically ...... himself in distress because his statistical models showed that 'if we don't do anything different... smoking prevalence will still be above 10% in the year 2050' and 'that's why we've got to start thinking about these endgame notions.'

 

[Tache]

Some particulars: At 35:00, Vaughn Rees, Interim Director of the vainglorious "Global Center for tobacco Control" at Harvard, talked about favoring e-cigarettes "by reducing nicotine delivery in conventional cigarettes." That's exactly what I'd expect the rotten little scumbags to do. And it goes to prove how unctuously deceitful they've been when they "reassure" smokers that 'don't worry', the FDA isn't allowed to reduce the level of nicotine to zero.

'

Did they not learn from the "ultra light" cigarette debacle that smokers are self-titrating, and if you reduce the nicotine they will simply smoke more until their levels hit what they need. This means they would have to take in that much more of the products of combustion to get the nicotine they want.

 

[CarolT]

Did they not learn from the "ultra light" cigarette debacle that smokers are self-titrating, and if you reduce the nicotine they will simply smoke more until their levels hit what they need. This means they would have to take in that much more of the products of combustion to get the nicotine they want.

That clown was talking about doing it to coerce smokers into using e-cigarettes.

 

[caramel]

Did they not learn from the "ultra light" cigarette debacle that smokers are self-titrating, and if you reduce the nicotine they will simply smoke more until their levels hit what they need. This means they would have to take in that much more of the products of combustion to get the nicotine they want.

It went like this:

- ANTZ pressure the tobacco industry to make cigarettes with reduced nicotine delivery
- tobacco industry responds and create cigarettes with less nicotine, denser filters and air intake holes for diluting the intake stream
- smokers adjust and smoke more
- ANTZ accuse tobacco industry of deceiptful practices

 

[Kent C]

It went like this:

- ANTZ pressure the tobacco industry to make cigarettes with reduced nicotine delivery
- tobacco industry responds and create cigarettes with less nicotine, denser filters and air intake holes for diluting the intake stream
- smokers adjust and smoke more
- ANTZ accuse tobacco industry of deceiptful practices

You got it. (supposedly) "Good" intentions -> bad results.

The error was equating nicotine with smoking combustible tobacco. They're still making the same mistake

 

[caramel]

You got it. (supposedly) "Good" intentions -> bad results.

The error was equating nicotine with smoking combustible tobacco. They're still making the same mistake

Problem is that they will never admit their mistakes. They'll insist in them, blaming someone else (usually BT as an easy target) for the outcome ("see, we were sabotaged, we need to do it all over again").

 

[Kent C]

Problem is that they will never admit their mistakes. They'll insist in them, blaming someone else (usually BT as an easy target) for the outcome ("see, we were sabotaged, we need to do it all over again").

Again, correct. Go to wiki or any of the "media" stories during that time and after, and all you'll read is that the tobacco companies 'added chemicals to make cigarettes more addictive'. What actually happened is that they went back to the same nicotine levels before 'lights' and 'ultra lights'. They also kept the tar lower, but that's never mentioned. The 'added chemicals' such as ammonia, etc. were always part of that package even before "lights". The 'added chemical' was merely putting the nicotine back where it was, and smoking went back to normal levels

 

[caramel]

I definitely remember the 'lights' debacle. They later accused BT of using the word to insinuate health benefits (i.e. "healthier" cigarettes).

I never made that connection myself. It's like accusing Svoemesto that their "Kayfun Lite" designation was meant to imply it's a "healthier" version of the Kayfun 3.

 

[Kent C]

I definitely remember the 'lights' debacle. They later accused BT of using the word to insinuate health benefits (i.e. "healthier" cigarettes).

I never made that connection myself. It's like accusing Svoemesto that their "Kayfun Lite" designation was meant to imply it's a "healthier" version of the Kayfun 3.

Lol.. the fact is that 'lights' were 'lighter' in tar and nicotine but the light nicotine is what caused more smoking - not the tar - that actually was more healthy - had they kept the nic level the same.

 

[CarolT]

Again, correct. Go to wiki or any of the "media" stories during that time and after, and all you'll read is that the tobacco companies 'added chemicals to make cigarettes more addictive'. What actually happened is that they went back to the same nicotine levels before 'lights' and 'ultra lights'. They also kept the tar lower, but that's never mentioned. The 'added chemicals' such as ammonia, etc. were always part of that package even before "lights". The 'added chemical' was merely putting the nicotine back where it was, and smoking went back to normal levels

Media stories are deliberate lies, particularly including the lie that nicotine is addicting. It's nothing but a defamation manufactured by the same criminals who are known commit every possible kind of scientific fraud to attack smokers and smoking.

"The reports of US Surgeon General on smoking are considered the authoritative statement on the scientific state of the art in this field. The previous report on nicotine addiction published in 1988 is one of the most cited references in scientific articles on smoking and often the only citation provided for specific statements of facts regarding nicotine addiction. In this commentary we review the chapter on nicotine addiction presented in the recent report of the Surgeon General. We show that the nicotine addiction model presented in this chapter, which closely resembles its 22 years old predecessor, could only be sustained by systematically ignoring all contradictory evidence. As a result, the present SG's chapter on nicotine addiction, which purportedly "documents how nicotine compares with ...... and ....... in its hold on users and its effects on the brain," is remarkably biased and misleading." (If the data contradict the theory, throw out the data: Nicotine addiction in the 2010 report of the Surgeon General. Frenk H, Dar R. Harm Reduct J. 2011 May 19;8:12.)
If the data contradict the theory, throw out the data: Nicotine addiction in the 2010 report of the Surgeon General
And they didn't "[go] back to the same nicotine levels before 'lights' and 'ultra lights'." The regular cigarettes didn't change, they simply introduced lights and ultra lights as new products. Also, ammonia lowers the pH (makes the smoke alkaline), which makes it harsh. It's the reason why smokers of pipes and cigars seldom inhale that smoke. The lying anti-smokers ignored these facts and falsely pretend that "At higher pH (pH >8.0) more nicotine is in its free uncharged form, which would therefore more easily pass the (lung) membrane i.e. higher absorption leading to higher blood and brain nicotine levels." Except that smokers don't want to inhale that kind of smoke!

 

[Kent C]

Brad Rodu in 2010

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2010/07/who-said-light-cigarettes-are-safer.html

"As I have previously blogged, in 1976 the Cancer Society published research (here) showing that light cigarettes were indeed safer. In 1959-60, over a million people were enrolled by the Cancer Society in a prospective epidemiological study of cancer risk factors. Smokers were classified according to nicotine-tar content, high (2.0-2.7 milligrams nicotine and 26-36 mg tar) or low (less than 1.2 mg nicotine and less than 18 mg tar); detailed records were obtained about the number and dates of deaths.

The study revealed that the death rate from all causes was 16% lower among smokers of low nicotine-tar cigarettes than among smokers of high nicotine-tar cigarettes. Similarly, low nicotine-tar smokers had a 14% lower death rate from heart attacks and a 26% lower rate from lung cancer. "

"American smokers made a large-scale transition from full-flavor to light cigarettes almost 50 years ago; the public health impact remains a highly debated topic even today. One fact is not debatable: The marketing of light cigarettes was not entirely an industry-driven conspiracy. The health advantages of light cigarettes compared with full-flavor brands were documented and promoted by the American Cancer Society in 1976 and 1979."

 

[Kent C]

"In an extraordinary act of contrition, ABC News publicly apologized last night for asserting in a news program that two giant tobacco companies add extra nicotine to their cigarettes.

In joint statements, Capital Cities/ ABC, Philip Morris and R. J. Reynolds said ABC agreed to apologize for a report on its program "Day One" that said Philip Morris and Reynolds controlled and manipulated nicotine levels to addict smokers. "

THE MEDIA BUSINESS - ABC NEWS SETTLES SUITS ON TOBACCO - NYTimes.com

 

[Caro123]

All of this crap is happening because everybody refuses to do the one thing that matters most: ATTACK THE HEALTH LIES. Nobody did it when they attacked smokers, so they've simply re-purposed it to attack vapers. Over and over again, those scumbags prattled about "one billion deaths, one billion deaths," blah blah blah, over and over again. That's the wind in their sails! That's how they justify their existence. That's how they wheedle money from the politicians! Quote]

that is the way I saw it way back when I tried to lobby for elderly people to be permitted to smoke when confined to hospital and was told by a political that I should be ashamed of myself for even suggesting such a thing and then learned that a smoking cessation clinic had been set up in the home riding of our good Premier. Sad and quite disgusting