News Article Comment "Shills & Plants"

[ClippinWings]

Is it just me or has there been a drastic uptick in Anti-ecig commentators on news articles in the last 2-3 weeks?

Could this be an actual active, organized campaign?

Seems odd to me that out of no where these people have suddenly decided to be vocal opponents.

 

[Vocalek]

It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[2coils]

There is no doubt the CDC report did not help. Its really discouraging that media outlets have taken to report the drama versus reporting the truth via the Burstyn Study. IMHO its more dramatic that truths are now available in regard to e-cigs and what that means to ALL of the involved parties. The question needs to be brought to the public. "why is a life saving device under so much scrutiny?" That is a GREAT story for what ever outlet wants to report on it!!

As I said earlier, the timing of the CDC report is suspect at best!

 

[ClippinWings]

for instance... here

look at this user: Jon Krueger (click his name) the vast majority of his comments are on cigarette issues.

another one I keep seeing is "Sue"... she's a crazy ANTZ that uses a few different variation of her screen name.

Maybe we need a list of ANTZ commentors... a repository of their usual rhetoric and tactics

 

[SonHouse]

I tend to doubt it. I think the news media is just like the rest of us humans. They have one thing pop up that's a story. If something on the same topic comes across their desk, the odds of them publishing it increase. And they don't get the attention they want if it's a happy story, give them train wrecks, murders, devices everyone thought were harmless killing people. That grabs folks attention. vaping helping folks quit, small news, battery explosion leaves vaper permanently maimed? Big news.

 

[Spazmelda]

I think Jon Krueger had some discussion on one of Michael Seigel's blog posts. Iirc, his views are a little more nuanced than the run of the mill ANTZ. He expresses frustration that NRTs receive all of the government praise and support, when research seems to indicate that cold turkey is the way most successful quitters have managed to do it (so far). And this is not a terrible point he has.

I have also noticed a dramatic increase in frothing anti comments, and I was wondering if there was an organized effort similar to what we have over here and on various other vaping sites. Used to be you could only count on seeing Electricman as a regular commenter. Now there are quite a few more,

What I think is fabulous though, in at least half of the comments sections I have read, several people have asked for advice in how to get started with ecigs, received lots of good tips, and expressed that they were going to follow through. Many people are recommending non cig-alikes, and many who have tried cig-alikes with variable success are considering trying again with better models.

Pretty soon this idea that "ecigs haven't been proven to help people quit" is going to start sounding more and more ludicrous, or maybe irrelevant is a better word. With the increase in anti posts, I've also noticed in increase in sympathetic non-smokers posting comments. Often they have a friend or family member (or multiple friends/family) who were able to quit by switching to ecigs. As the phenomon continues to snowball, more non-smokers are going to personally know someone who was successful with ecigs. When you personally know 3, 4, or 5 smokers who successfully switched to ecigs, whether they have been shown to be successful in clinical trials becomes a moot question.

 

[Spazmelda]

Oh, I was wondering about this the other night, speaking of battery explosions... I wonder if you could do an experiment. Have two people from different cities call various local news outlets about a fake explosion. Have one person say it was a cell phone that exploded and one person say it was an ecig battery. Compare the interest from the news outlets. Would there be a difference in the number that wanted to do a story between the two different scenarios? It would have to be a fairly mundane explosion, like you couldn't say it burned your house down or killed your beloved family pet. Just burned a hole in the carpet, or something like that.

That's kind of a morally icky thing do do though, and it might not be legal. So I'd never do it, but I do wonder what the results would be.

 

[ClippinWings]

Pretty soon this idea that "ecigs haven't been proven to help people quit" is going to start sounding more and more ludicrous, or maybe irrelevant is a better word. With the increase in anti posts, I've also noticed in increase in sympathetic non-smokers posting comments. Often they have a friend or family member (or multiple friends/family) who were able to quit by switching to ecigs. As the phenomon continues to snowball, more non-smokers are going to personally know someone who was successful with ecigs. When you personally know 3, 4, or 5 smokers who successfully switched to ecigs, whether they have been shown to be successful in clinical trials becomes a moot question.

That's like Stan Glantz's statement that most ecig users are "dual users"...

I don't know a single dual user...

I know Vapers who don't smoke, smokers who don't vape, and smokers who tried cig-a-likes, but went back to smoking.

I actually made a poll about it... wondering if my experience is accurate.. or skewed somehow.

 

[Spazmelda]

That's like Stan Glantz's statement that most ecig users are "dual users"...

I don't know a single dual user...

I know Vapers who don't smoke, smokers who don't vape, and smokers who tried cig-a-likes, but went back to smoking.

I know of a few on this site (although they may still be in transition from one group to the other), but I don't know any personally.

Hilariously, when I was using nicotine gum I was doing exactly what Stan is wringing his hands over. I chewed gum when I couldn't smoke, and smoked whenever I could. Heck, sometimes I'd have a cigarette with the gum in my mouth. I used gum this way for YEARS. With attempts to quit scattered throughout those times.

I haven't had a cigarette since the 2nd day I got my first ecig, and the last two I had were a couple of puffs of pure disgust before I put them out.

 

[AgentAnia]

Is it just me or has there been a drastic uptick in Anti-Ecig commentators on news articles in the last 2-3 weeks?

Could this be an actual active, organized campaign?

Seems odd to me that out of no where these people have suddenly decided to be vocal opponents.

No, it isn't just you, and of course it's an active, organized campaign! Just as the ANTZ and the alphabets have been writing legislation and shilling it to state and local governments, the same people have been organizing "grassroots" anti-smoking groups of citizens throughout the country. I discovered recently there's one such where I live, composed mainly of highschool and college students, who are encouraged to carry out the ANTZ agenda at their level. Little ANTZ in the making, if you will...

It doesn't at all surprise me to see so many anti-ecig comments, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the ANTZ are "calling out the troops" to make those comments. The smoke nazis are scared!

(I have to admit, I wish they'd come up with some original complaints! It's becoming so totally tiresome reading the same "we just don't know what's in them," "I don't care, it's still secondhand smoke and I have a right not to breathe it," "you're still addicted," "there's antifreeze in those things" crap over and over. Why don't they just post "I'm a smoke nazi, yada yada blah blah" and we'd get the message... )

 

[AgentAnia]

Spazmelda: I like your idea about comparing media interest in cell phone vs. ecig batteries exploding! But I see so many problems with someone actually doing it that it probably shouldn't be tried. Unfortunately. Unless someone out there is cleverer than I...

Clippin: It's amazes me every time an ANTZ tries the "ooooohh, dual use!" thing. So completely easy to rebut, since BP and FDA have both stated publicly (and even in NRT use instructions) that NRT users can safely smoke a cigarette while using their products. Even Chantix states that you can continue to smoke after starting the drug. If that's not dual use, what is?! And as for the "they're just using their ecig where they aren't allowed to smoke," as Spazmelda points out, people have been doing that with gum for years!

All: Most of the "really frothing" comments (love that!) are indeed coming from a fairly small group of people. I ID a lot of the same writers (though their posting names may differ) by their style. Sue/Suze/etc. has been running amok lately, hasn't she?!

 

[AgentAnia]

I tend to doubt it. I think the news media is just like the rest of us humans. They have one thing pop up that's a story. If something on the same topic comes across their desk, the odds of them publishing it increase. And they don't get the attention they want if it's a happy story, give them train wrecks, murders, devices everyone thought were harmless killing people. That grabs folks attention. Vaping helping folks quit, small news, battery explosion leaves vaper permanently maimed? Big news.

Ha! How true: It's the "If it bleeds, it leads" school of journalism.

But this recent phenomenon is the rather sudden increase in the number of rabid anti-smoking/anti-vaping zealots commenting on this recent spate of articles about ecigs. Actually, I appreciate those comments, because they give up a chance to rebut them and thereby get OUR message to more readers!

 

[Spazmelda]

Spazmelda: I like your idea about comparing media interest in cell phone vs. ecig batteries exploding! But I see so many problems with someone actually doing it that it probably shouldn't be tried. Unfortunately. Unless someone out there is cleverer than I...

Right. I'd never do it. A diligent researcher could get the same information through less problematic ways anyway. If you had some sort of source for all reported cell phone battery explosions (surely there is a database somewhere) and the same for ecig explosions, then just compared number of media reports. Not quite as 'exposé' worthy though.

 

[ennagizer]

That's like Stan Glantz's statement that most ecig users are "dual users"...

I don't know a single dual user...

I know Vapers who don't smoke, smokers who don't vape, and smokers who tried cig-a-likes, but went back to smoking.

I actually made a poll about it... wondering if my experience is accurate.. or skewed somehow.

I posted this in another thread, but seems relevant here as well......
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-9-11-13-point-tom-ashbrook.html#post10649729
Seems like, according to the FDA, dual use is ok now whether it be "NRT with NRT" or "NRT with smoking". That's how I read it.
Nicotine Replacement Therapy Labels May Change

So, the ANTZ dual use argument is pointless, in my opinion. I guess they don't keep up to date with their own findings, or choose to ignore the ones they don't like. I think that FDA announcement should be brought up every time an ANTZ brings up dual use.

 

[Uma]

The new headlines too. The study said more effective than the patch, but the headlines say as effective. ( minus a few who actually declared more effective)

 

[Vocalek]

Both are right.

After six months, 7.3 percent of e-cigarette with nicotine users had stopped smoking, compared to 5.8 percent of people wearing the patch, and 4 percent with the 0 nicotine e-cigarette. So viewed by strictly those numbers, the e-cigarette with nicotine was more effective. However in research, they have this catch called, "Statistical Significance." The differences were not statistically significant (high confidence intervals), but they were not identical.

 

[Uma]

Both are right.

After six months, 7.3 percent of e-cigarette with nicotine users had stopped smoking, compared to 5.8 percent of people wearing the patch, and 4 percent with the 0 nicotine e-cigarette. So viewed by strictly those numbers, the e-cigarette with nicotine was more effective. However in research, they have this catch called, "Statistical Significance." The differences were not statistically significant (high confidence intervals), but they were not identical.

Ok, I'll let them pass this once then.

My wrath is seeping... Where oh where is my prey...

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

But if it was an ANTZ approved drug they would be touting the 25% difference rather than the actual 1.5%, sometimes it sucks to be on the truthful side.

 

[Petrodus]

What's going on today with all the chit-chat regarding the CDC
is nothing more than part of the support the FDA is ramping up
for their demon regulations.

Those opposed to e-smoking know the FDA's regulations
will be the their last glorious stand against e-smoking.
They know the FDA's "PROPOSED" Regulations will be
up for public debate and the CDC was brought into
to influence public opinion.

The whole thing is nothing more than US Corrupt Politics ... as usual.
First decide what you want to to ... Then campaign to get public support
before attempting to push a law through.

Those opposed to e-smoking are preparing for their Last Stand.
What scares them is the memory of Custard's Last Stand.

 

[Uma]

They should have been whooping and hollering about the daughter who cut back 75%! And that Mother should know that 30 days or any set number of days is not the goal. We're all different, require our own pace. The daughter was doing fantastic for not being able to vape as needed. Whenever anyone gets behind on their nic levels, they reach for the immediate fix. That really pisses me off they weren't more supportive of her.

Many of the commenters are bullies, tormentors. They're probably on a payroll.

Speaking of bullies, Glantz really stepped in his own piles a lot didn't he. Lol. Unfortunately, not everyone is intelligent enough to research or educated enough to recognize those piles. He sure was grasping though.