My Rheumatologist and The E-Cig

[CarolT]

Besides, according to these statistics 60% of children/adults and 90% of the elderly should be dying of smoking related diseases right now by your assumption:

Cytomegalovirus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"58.9% of individuals aged 6 and older are infected with CMV while 90.8% of individuals aged 80 and older are positive for HCMV"

People ARE dying from CMV! Even your Wickipedia page admits that "CMV seems to have a large impact on immune parameters in later life and may contribute to increased morbidity and eventual mortality." And the quacks with lifestyle questionnaires are either blaming whatever's politically correct or incorrect with the privileged class (who are less likely to have CMV), or just saying they don't know.

http://www.smokershistory.com/CMVimmun.html

 

[my2heartboys]

Folks, what is the point? Pretty soon it will be hazardous to everybody's health just to breathe because of all of the stuff that is dumped into the environment....

 

[Rosa]

People ARE dying from CMV! Even your Wickipedia page admits that "CMV seems to have a large impact on immune parameters in later life and may contribute to increased morbidity and eventual mortality." And the quacks with lifestyle questionnaires are either blaming whatever's politically correct or incorrect with the privileged class (who are less likely to have CMV), or just saying they don't know.

http://www.smokershistory.com/CMVimmun.html

I still don't understand why this info is on this forum. It SOUNDS like what you are saying is;

"hey everybody you were lied to. Cigarettes are perfectly safe and we are all dying of some totally other virus! So, go ahead and light up, because you'll die from this other virus either way."

I'm saying who cares HOW safe cigarettes are... e-cigarettes are 4000x safER.

 

[CarolT]

Your fantasy world of safety won't last. If vapers are more likely to infected by CMV than non-smoking non-vapers, those fraudulent studies based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore infection will falsely blame vaping. All they do is compare the rates of users versus non-users, and blame the difference on whatever it is the users do that the non-users don't do - instead of on what they HAVE. Considering that many vapers are former smokers, you can count of those quacks to pull this trick to fear-monger about "the health risks of vaping." They have a racket going on!

 

[Rosa]

Your fantasy world of safety won't last. If vapers are more likely to infected by CMV than non-smoking non-vapers, those fraudulent studies based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore infection will falsely blame vaping. All they do is compare the rates of users versus non-users, and blame the difference on whatever it is the users do that the non-users don't do - instead of on what they HAVE. Considering that many vapers are former smokers, you can count of those quacks to pull this trick to fear-monger about "the health risks of vaping." They have a racket going on!

I still don't get what you are trying to say we should DO about it. As far as I can see there's nothing we can DO about it anyway? What's the point?

Nobody ever said we are safe, we only know that we are safER. E-cigarettes are not about being safe, they are about being safER.

QUOTE: "If vapers are more likely to infected by CMV than non-smoking non-vapers"

BUT we aren't non-smokers. WE are smokers who now vape our nicotine instead. The slim minority of us want to eventually give up vaping too, but the great majority do not. If we don't vape we will smoke and vaping is safER than smoking.

 

[CarolT]

I still don't get what you are trying to say we should DO about it. As far as I can see there's nothing we can DO about it anyway? What's the point?

Nobody ever said we are safe, we only know that we are safER. E-cigarettes are not about being safe, they are about being safER.

QUOTE: "If vapers are more likely to infected by CMV than non-smoking non-vapers"

BUT we aren't non-smokers. WE are smokers who now vape our nicotine instead. The slim minority of us want to eventually give up vaping too, but the great majority do not. If we don't vape we will smoke and vaping is safER than smoking.

The anti-smokers' quack studies will say that vaping is NOT safer than smoking, because they're based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignored the role of infection. They're running a racket!

As for what you can DO about the anti-smokers, the only thing you can do is protest their scientific fraud. As of the present, you can't do anything about the CMV. But at least you don't have to be sucker and let them take your e-cigs away under false pretenses.

 

[Rosa]

The anti-smokers' quack studies will say that vaping is NOT safer than smoking, because they're based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignored the role of infection. They're running a racket!

As for what you can DO about the anti-smokers, the only thing you can do is protest their scientific fraud. As of the present, you can't do anything about the CMV. But at least you don't have to be sucker and let them take your e-cigs away under false pretenses.

Ahh, now I'm getting where you are coming from. Are there petitions to sign? Rally's to go to? Letters to write? Anything?

 

[CarolT]

Ahh, now I'm getting where you are coming from. Are there petitions to sign? Rally's to go to? Letters to write? Anything?

For now, all you can do is write to your elected officials and complain that the anti-smokers are committing fraud, and explain how. And make sure other people know! I've been compiling the information about all the diseases they falsely blame on smoking and COULD blame on vaping even if they haven't done so yet, on smokershistory.com.

 

[OwnedByAGrey]

This is what I think Carol's driving at:

Almost every disease, illness, virus, and secondary bacterial infection, in the lists of causes or predeterming factors, will include "smoking" somewhere. If someone dies of heart disease and that person is reported to have smoked at any time, in any amount, the heart disease will be blamed on smoking, not upon a prossible genetic predisposition. Instead of an aggravator, smoking is most often mained as THE cause.

Following this trend of the Social Paraiah Du Jour being the cause of every malady under the sun, should studies like this not be vigorously challenged, vaping could very well end up becoming the next cause of ingrown toenails.

I don't think it was necessary to become defensive when Rosa questioned your initial post, though, Carol. She's one of the nicest folks on the forum, and I like that she questions new ideas or something that might not be "clicking". (Unfortunately, we get alot of the "anti-smoking nazis" here, in the form of trolls. *BOO*! )

 

[Rosa]

ahhhh... there's the rub. I can't imagine any law maker seriously reading a letter that complains about the lyin' cheatin' non-smokers.

The law, big tobacco and big pharmaceuticals are already on the side of the smokers. They NEED us to keep smoking so we can pay for their yachts and private jets.

Trust me when I tell you that they merely deign to pretend to have your/my/our welfare in mind and care not one diddly-doo whether smoking is killing us or not - as long as we continue to buy and to smoke and to use Chantix and chemo they will be happy.

 

[Rosa]

T Instead of an aggravator, smoking is most often mained as THE cause.

It's true. And here's another one that not everyone knows:

Almost all cancers regardless of origin will eventually come to rest in the lungs. Therefore lung cancer is a huge killer? So if anyone who ever took one drag off a cigarette eventually dies of lung cancer (regardless of the fact that it started as toe cancer and moved to the lungs) goes on the list of smokers who died of lung cancer.

 

[CarolT]

This is what I think Carol's driving at:

Almost every disease, illness, virus, and secondary bacterial infection, in the lists of causes or predeterming factors, will include "smoking" somewhere. If someone dies of heart disease and that person is reported to have smoked at any time, in any amount, the heart disease will be blamed on smoking, not upon a prossible genetic predisposition. Instead of an aggravator, smoking is most often mained as THE cause.

Following this trend of the Social Paraiah Du Jour being the cause of every malady under the sun, should studies like this not be vigorously challenged, vaping could very well end up becoming the next cause of ingrown toenails.

I don't think it was necessary to become defensive when Rosa questioned your initial post, though, Carol. She's one of the nicest folks on the forum, and I like that she questions new ideas or something that might not be "clicking". (Unfortunately, we get alot of the "anti-smoking nazis" here, in the form of trolls. *BOO*! )

It's not as complicated as you make it look. If their studies don't look for infections, they won't find infections. If all they look at is lifestyles, then all they'll find is which group of people is more likely to have been infected. They're playing a dirty little game of denial about the major differences between the classes in this. And don't let them try to get away with claiming that they "adjusted for social class" by using income or education, for example. The odds ratios for infection are high when infection is causal, so if they even miss a few cases, it will make it appear as if there's a risk due to lifestyle when there isn't. That's called "residual confounding."

 

[GMoney]

Exactly! Studies are "rigged" to come to the politically correct or financially beneficial conclusion.

Additionally, and more on point here, No major studies will be funded by "the powers that be" unless they are predisposed to concluding that e-cigs are dangerous and must be banned or heavily taxed at least.

 

[Tracyd]

So glad I read this! I have had Lupus/Fibro for about 17 yrs now and this is good news! I am curious to see how much my joints improve when I am fully off analogs.

 

[Rosa]

Exactly! Studies are "rigged" to come to the politically correct or financially beneficial conclusion.

Additionally, and more on point here, No major studies will be funded by "the powers that be" unless they are predisposed to concluding that e-cigs are dangerous and must be banned or heavily taxed at least.

Good thing most of it either can't be classified either way or can be produced by me in my kitchen LOL

 

[CarolT]

ahhhh... there's the rub. I can't imagine any law maker seriously reading a letter that complains about the lyin' cheatin' non-smokers.

The law, big tobacco and big pharmaceuticals are already on the side of the smokers. They NEED us to keep smoking so we can pay for their yachts and private jets.

Trust me when I tell you that they merely deign to pretend to have your/my/our welfare in mind and care not one diddly-doo whether smoking is killing us or not - as long as we continue to buy and to smoke and to use Chantix and chemo they will be happy.

The law is on the side of the anti-smokers. There hasn't been one single lawsuit, ever, by a smoker against the anti-smokers. I've looked for a lawyer, but all the big law firms that could afford it say that they're conflicted because they've done work for the anti-smokers and/or the governor, etc.

The pharmaceutical companies don't care. They make very little money from quit-smoking drugs compared to things like allergy and high blood pressure and cholesterol medicines.

The tobacco companies have NEVER attacked the anti-smokers' scientific frauds. That shows they were taken over by the anti-smokers. Ed Lasker, the stepson of the head of the American Cancer Society, Mary Woodard Lasker, who started the war on smokers and was the most powerful health funding lobbyist in history, was on the board of directors of Philip Morris for 20 years! The anti-smokers are rich people, who buy their way into anything they please so they can control it. And they want to turn the country into a tyranny where the government controls all the details of our personal lives. That's what will make them happy.

 

[Rosa]

If the law was against smokers, they wouldn't be trying to shut down electronic cigarettes IMO. The proof is there that these are a reduced harm alternative to smoking and yet they fight us tooth and nail to keep them from being sold anywhere at any time (while at the same time big tobacco is applying for patents to produce them too).

If they were as anti-smoking as they like to claim, they'd be promoting e-cigs not trying to sweep them away and under the rug.

It doesn't have (never has had) anything to do with health or the well being of the masses -- it's all about money. Just like almost everything that passes through our judicial system. Sorry to be a cynic (or maybe I just pay attention).

 

[CarolT]

If the law was against smokers, they wouldn't be trying to shut down electronic cigarettes IMO. The proof is there that these are a reduced harm alternative to smoking and yet they fight us tooth and nail to keep them from being sold anywhere at any time (while at the same time big tobacco is applying for patents to produce them too).

If they were as anti-smoking as they like to claim, they'd be promoting e-cigs not trying to sweep them away and under the rug.

It doesn't have (never has had) anything to do with health or the well being of the masses -- it's all about money. Just like almost everything that passes through our judicial system. Sorry to be a cynic (or maybe I just pay attention).

Shutting down e-cigs doesn't help smokers. And the health fascists want to ban both tobacco and e-cigs, they merely disagree over whether to do it now or later. The people who care only about money are merely their tools.

 

[Rosa]

Shutting down e-cigs doesn't help smokers. And the health fascists want to ban both tobacco and e-cigs, they merely disagree over whether to do it now or later. The people who care only about money are merely their tools.

Shutting down e-cigs would be a huge (mammoth, enormous) win for Big Tobacco.

 

[GMoney]

Shutting down e-cigs would be a huge (mammoth, enormous) win for Big Tobacco.

IMHO, the biggest danger to e-cigs is the pharmaceutical companies, health advocacy groups that live on anti-tobacco money, and the States which desperately need tobacco tax dollars. If tomorrow e-cigs were all of a sudden considered acceptable in our society, "Big Tobacco" would do just fine selling e-Marlboros and e-Camels.