MD Anderson Cancer Center lies about and e-cigarettes and other tobacco products

[Vocalek]

There was a news story posted here a week or so ago, but I couldn't find it. Otherwise I would have posted this link as a response.

When I viewed the story, I discovered that it was based on a press release put out by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
[h=1]tobacco Myths Persist 50 Years After the US Surgeon General First Warned Americans of the Dangers of Smoking[/h]
Apparently many different news outlets picked up the story, which resulted in its lies being widely distributed.

Working from the original press release, I wrote this Anti-THR Lies blog post.


MD Anderson Cancer Center lies about and e-cigarettes and other tobacco products | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

 

[Uma]

Ack, it's confusing unless they are both open at the same time. My mind wants to battle #2 headline and toss it. My mind wants you to summarize what they said, and then see your fact sharing rebuttal.
I apparently need more coffee, but, it share this, because others might need more coffee too....

 

[AgentAnia]

I was going to start a new thread but it seems appropriate to include it here. An article today by MD Anderson on the "risks" of alternate tobacco products:

http:/ /www.yourhoustonnews. com/fort_bend/news/md-anderson-sugar-land-expert-warns-of-risks-from-using/article_f45c6f02-5193-11e3-94f7-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=story

In all cases, it's interesting that the Univ. of Texas is one of the newly NIH-funded Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS), and that MD Anderson Center is undertaking one of the projects: Project 3: Informing and Correcting Perceptions Regarding Tobacco Products in Young Adults (Research Project Director: Alexander V. Prokhorov, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center)

Is it safe to assume the MD Anderson staff has (with lightning speed, given the grants were announced just a few months ago) already reached its conclusions about tobacco regulations? hmmmm....

EDIT: Actually, it appears the conclusions on this project were already reached when the project was given a name. The title (before any actually "research" is done, assumes that perceptions of young adults about tobacco projects need correcting....

EDIT #2: At the very least, the article should contain a disclaimer that the author's institution is a recipient of public funds for tobacco control research, which it does not.

 

[Vocalek]

Thanks for this link. Now I'm sorry I did a post on the first story. This one is much, much worse. So basically, you have just pointed out that Dr. Prokhorov is being paid by the government to lie. It wouldn't be so bad if those lies weren't deadly. But they are.

 

[Kent C]

"The liquid nicotine inside e-cigarettes comes in hundreds of different flavors. The only deterrent for kids may be the cost. It’s $10 for one and up to $100 for a kit."

We know which "packaging" they use for ecig control....

 

[Bill Godshall]

The 7 myths that are perpetuated by MD Anderson Cancer Center's press release are that:
- e-cigarettes, cigars and hookahs are just as hazardous as daily cigarette smoking,
- nicotine (not the repeated inhalation of smoke) makes tobacco products harmful,
- five tobacco companies invented and began advertising e-cigs and hookahs in 2008,
- e-cigarettes, cigars and hookahs are gateways to cigarettes for youth,
- e-cigarettes haven’t helped any smokers quit smoking,
- nondaily smokers face similar risks, and should be counted the same as far higher risk daily smokers, and
- 2nd hand smoke outdoors is hazardous and that even a brief exposure can cause harm.
Tobacco Myths Persist on Smoking Dangers | MD Anderson Cancer Center


Regarding Elaine's post exposing and criticizing this press release, the number of smokers who have reported smoking a cigarette in the "past month" has remained around 43-50 million since 1964 (but different DHHS surveys find different numbers), while the daily smoking rate (which is a far more important public health indicator) has declined to about 33-36 million (or 14%-15% of adults).

 

[Uma]

Good points. Plus, saying all eCigs, hookahs, pipes have nicotine is extremely misleading.

On another note, the hookahs that the overweight, curious or bored are experimenting with are zero nic. I'd much prefer to see avoiding addiction classes in the papers and schools, than their ridiculous transparent fear mongering that actually leads their targets to rebel and stray.

 

[Kent C]

"- 2nd hand smoke outdoors is hazardous and that even a brief exposure can cause harm"

This is a big one, imo, because in 'our system' (outside of socialized healthcare), it's the only one that can be said to 'harm others'. And it has been duly promoted by evidence of seeing people doing a 'roundabout' in order to avoid. Just because something might smell bad to some, doesn't mean it's harmful and the junk science on 2nd hand smoke is beyond incredible.

This applies to 'outdoor'. Working in a smoke filled bar for 8 hours is different, but it still should be up to the individual - well informed - if they want to make that choice. There are many other occupations that can be even more harmful - again - up to the individual to make an informed choice.

 

[AgentAnia]

"- 2nd hand smoke outdoors is hazardous and that even a brief exposure can cause harm"

This is a big one, imo, because in 'our system' (outside of socialized healthcare), it's the only one that can be said to 'harm others'. And it has been duly promoted by evidence of seeing people doing a 'roundabout' in order to avoid. Just because something might smell bad to some, doesn't mean it's harmful and the junk science on 2nd hand smoke is beyond incredible.....

I have followed the secondhand-smoke debate since the 60's, done as much reading of original research as I could, and have always had my doubts about the life-threatening properties of SHM. But we have to remember that people have been programmed and propagandized into fearing SHM. Especially recently, with the health and pharmaceutical industries touting the quest for "perfect health," many people are deathly afraid of anything they think (or are led to believe) might stand in the way of that quest.

Tobacco smoke has a distinctive scent and is easily distinguishable, so it's easy for people to identify and fear it. To a certain extent, automotive exhaust also has a distinctive scent, but do people fear it? I don't think so, because they haven't been programmed/taught to.

Frankly, I personally believe the majority of people want to ban smoking because of the smell...

 

[Anjaffm]

Working from the original press release, I wrote this Anti-THR Lies blog post.


MD Anderson Cancer Center lies about and e-cigarettes and other tobacco products | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

I love it!