News Releases 20AUG2009 - Medical News Today and ASH

[sherid]

I know how you feel about smoking, Sheri, but I think you give WAY too much credit to ASH. I hardly recognized that they existed until they stepped into the e-cig fray. I smoked for 50 years, and ASH didn't blip my radar.

Other groups, in my opinion, have been far more influential in getting smoking restrictions in place. Note that ASH's e-cig bashes didn't make the mainstream press. When the FDA speaks, all media ears go on full alert. ASH? Not a chance. ASH is just not that important, to anybody but itself. The ALA, AHA and tobacco-Free Kids are far, far more important.

As is a certain senator from New Jersey.

ASH has been around since the late 1970's. ASH has enormous power throughout the world. All anti-smoking groups by whatever name they are known are funded directly and indirectly through the American Legacy Foundation and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. Sometimes, they go by other acronmyms to create an impression that they are separate entities, but you can be certain that if you trace the money, they will all circle around from their primary source and benefactor: RWJF.
Here are just a few
Active Grants
Active Grants
Tobacco Use & Exposure

Order By: Title Start Date End Date Amount Ascending Descending

Legal technical assistance to the tobacco control community May 2007 -
Apr 2009 $1,056,448

Tobacco-free policy adoption for local school districts in order to promote policy passage across North Carolina Apr 2007 -
Aug 2007 $29,469

Technical assistance and direction for Smoke-Free Families: Innovations to Stop Smoking During and Beyond Pregnancy Mar 2007 -
Mar 2008 $222,000

Analysis of the US Department of Justice's Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit against the tobacco industry Mar 2007 -
Sep 2007 $29,606

Effectiveness of state and federal government agreements with major credit card and shipping companies to block Internet cigarette sales Mar 2007 -
Feb 2008 $99,990

Pilot study for a new method of measuring cigarette tax evasion in the United States Mar 2007 -
Feb 2008 $99,000

Cigarette price sensitivity of smokers with comorbid alcohol, drug or mental disorders Mar 2007 -
Feb 2008 $99,999

Conference on disseminating novel approaches to understanding the consumer perspective on tobacco cessation Feb 2007 -
Aug 2007 $46,440

Legal support for public health plaintiff intervenors in appeal of the Department of Justice tobacco suit Feb 2007 -
Jan 2008 $300,000

Supporting tobacco control policy priorities among northwestern tribes, including clean indoor air laws and higher taxes on cigarettes Feb 2007 -
Jan 2008 $75,000

Support for the Tobacco Etiology Research Network to analyze data from foundation-supported studies Jan 2007 -
Dec 2009 $513,463

Improving the potential of U.S. quitlines to capitalize on tobacco policy control success Dec 2006 -
Dec 2008 $399,925

Expanding tobacco policy control among the Nez Perce Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $66,974

Colorado Youth Access Project Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $102,409

Promoting clean indoor air in the greater Cleveland area Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $150,000

Sustaining Medicaid smoking cessation benefits in Massachusetts Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $92,300

Implementing and enforcing a commercial tobacco-free ordinance among a Native American tribe Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $75,000

Supporting smoke-free indoor workplace and public place ordinances in South Carolina Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $81,000

Developing and strengthening a clean indoor air policy for the Northern Plains Tribes Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $75,000

Efforts to restrict tobacco sponsorship of rodeos Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $149,996

Core support and infrastructure development for the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation Dec 2006 -
Dec 2008 $3,000,000

Pursuing a public policy change to mandated coverage of smoking cessation services by Medicaid Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $71,120

Promoting policies to deter the tobacco industry from targeting minority youth Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $75,000

Building a grassroots campaign to support the introduction and passage of a smoke-free ordinance in Jackson, Mississippi Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $95,000

Advocating for programs to reduce adult smoking and address disparities in treatment among low-income and mentally ill people in Vermont Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $85,000

Developing and conducting a smoke-free campaign in Tuscaloosa, Alabama Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $138,720

Review of barriers to consumer demand for and use of smoking cessation medications and dissemination of the findings for policy implications Dec 2006 -
Oct 2007 $29,833

Building grassroots support for an increased tobacco tax to fund tobacco cessation programs and expand health coverage for low-income Floridians Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $75,000

Eliminating smoking in rental housing units Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $74,901

Implementing a comprehensive tobacco-free policy for the Navajo nation Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $74,965

Implementing a grassroots education and advocacy campaign to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $74,985

Supporting an ordinance to end smoking in bars and private clubs Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $69,855

Developing and implementing a statewide tribal smoke-free advocacy campaign Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $99,939

Eliminating secondhand smoke exposure by supporting clean indoor air policies and the use Master Settlement funds for tobacco prevention and cessation Dec 2006 -
Dec 2007 $50,000

Outreach and educational efforts for restaurants, bars, hotels and labor unions on the positive impact of clean indoor air policy Nov 2006 -
Nov 2008 $480,280

Evaluation of the New Jersey Smoke-Free Air Act Nov 2006 -
Oct 2007 $160,000

Smoke-Free Families National Dissemination Office Sep 2006 -
Aug 2008 $588,190

Integrated communications plan to assist in the implementation of the New Jersey Smoke-Free Air Act Jun 2006 -
Jun 2007 $117,455

Providing rapid response funding to enable communities and groups to support, protect or implement smoke-free policies Jun 2006 -
Dec 2007 $1,000,000

Helping Young Smokers Quit: Identifying Best Practices for Tobacco Cessation Jun 2006 -
Jul 2007 $918,770

Program activities for the 13th World Conference on Tobacco OR Health May 2006 -
May 2007 $50,000

Technical assistance for the Policy Advocacy on Tobacco and Health program Apr 2006 -
Apr 2007 $500,000

Legal technical assistance to the tobacco control community Feb 2006 -
May 2007 $250,000

Expanding and enhancing the database system to track and report on tobacco-related laws Feb 2006 -
Jan 2008 $148,178

Online database on state tobacco control policy, analysis of the data, trend tracking, communications, and technical assistance Jan 2006 -
Dec 2008 $150,000

Co-funding an update of the national clinical guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence Jan 2006 -
Jun 2007 $100,000

Continued tobacco research on young adults in college and the military and a working meeting on tobacco and socioeconomic status Dec 2005 -
Dec 2008 $100,000

Dissemination activities for Partners with Tobacco Use Research Centers: Advancing Transdisciplinary Science and Policy Studies Dec 2005 -
Nov 2007 $100,000

Study on smoker perceptions on reduced-risk cigarettes and counter-marketing efforts Dec 2005 -
Nov 2007 $99,179

Bridging the Gap: Research Informing Practice and Policy for Healthy Youth Behavior Nov 2005 -
Oct 2008 $2,032,895

Effects of flavored and natural cigarette claims on adolescents' perceptions and behavioral intentions Nov 2005 -
Apr 2007 $99,904

Effect of tobacco control policy on tobacco use in alcohol and drug-dependent populations Nov 2005 -
Oct 2007 $99,614

Measuring the public health impact of increased access to potential reduced exposure products for smokers Oct 2005 -
Sep 2007 $61,119

Secondary effects of the Madison, Wisconsin, smoke-free ordinance Oct 2005 -
Dec 2007 $99,988

Improving therapeutic justice courts to effectively identify and treat co-occurring substance abuse and mental illness Sep 2005 -
Sep 2007 $371,324

New evidence on smoking behavior: Comparing responses to experimental and real price increases Sep 2005 -
May 2007 $99,123

Effectiveness of cigarette taxation in deterring smoking from one pregnancy to the next Sep 2005 -
Aug 2007 $36,331

Reducing or expanding substance use disorder treatment programs: Evaluating impact from the health care decision-makers' perspective Sep 2005 -
Aug 2008 $173,119

Educational campaign for restaurant owners on smoke-free restaurants Aug 2005 -
Nov 2007 $399,000

Network to sustain and expand tobacco-related health care policy and systems change Aug 2005 -
Jul 2007 $400,000

< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >

Studying the impact of state tobacco control policies on heart disease mortality Feb 2005 -
Jul 2007 $94,611

Helping Young Smokers Quit: Identifying Best Practices for Tobacco Cessation Feb 2005 -
Jul 2007 $2,996,867

Identifying facilitators and impediments to adopting US Public Health Service guidelines for smoking cessation treatment Dec 2004 -
Nov 2007 $399,792

Enhancing and sustaining smoke-free environments Nov 2004 -
Oct 2007 $1,500,000

Evaluating the effects of tobacco control budget cuts on tobacco-related outcomes among Florida youth Sep 2004 -
Oct 2007 $363,287

Studying the relationship among sleep problems, mood, and postpartum smoking relapse Sep 2004 -
Aug 2007 $199,996

Evaluating the characteristics, costs, and potential for relapse in low-income pregnant smokers Sep 2004 -
May 2007 $180,617

Studying the feasibility of brief smoking cessation counseling of parents in pediatric settings to reduce tobacco smoke exposure of young children Sep 2004 -
Aug 2007 $250,000

Testing the feasibility and efficacy of a tobacco control strategy for parents of newborns Sep 2004 -
Dec 2007 $250,000

Studying a pediatric office-based smoking cessation program Sep 2004 -
Aug 2007 $250,000

Technical assistance and direction for Partners with Tobacco Use Research Centers: Advancing Transdisciplinary Science and Policy Studies Aug 2004 -
Jul 2007 $723,520

Evaluating programs of care for individuals with co-occurring substance-related and mental disorders Jul 2004 -
Jun 2007 $99,478

Studying factors associated with postpartum smoking relapse Jun 2004 -
May 2007 $51,467

Studying the impact of new federal education legislation on school-based substance abuse prevention programs Apr 2004 -
Mar 2008 $319,552

Studying the barriers to smoking cessation among mature smokers Mar 2004 -
Aug 2007 $399,997

Study of issues management strategies by US tobacco companies before and after the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement Jan 2004 -
Jun 2007 $279,047

Tobacco-free nurses: Helping nurses quit Aug 2003 -
Jul 2007 $1,800,000

Bridging the Gap: Research Informing Practice and Policy for Healthy Youth Behavior Mar 2003 -
Feb 2008 $6,665,636

Bridging the Gap: Research Informing Practice and Policy for Healthy Youth Behavior Mar 2003 -
Feb 2008 $2,334,365

Activities of the Smoking Cessation Leadership Center Feb 2003 -
Jan 2010 $9,871,538
Do national-level tobacco policies decrease smoking: A four-country tobacco policy study Aug 2002 -
Jul 2007 $1,500,000

Marketing and communications support for the Smoke-Free Families National Partnership to Help Pregnant Smokers Quit May 2002 -
Jun 2007 $1,399,902

Junior faculty mentoring program associated with the Tobacco Etiology Research Network Jan 2002 -
Jun 2007 $552,825

Tracking the media and political impact of state-level tobacco control: Smokeless States evaluation Nov 2001 -
Jun 2007 $2,320,914

Research Network on the Etiology of Tobacco Dependence Oct 2001 -
Apr 2007 $4,557,328

Bridging the Gap: Research Informing Practice and Policy for Healthy Youth Behavior Nov 1997 -
Oct 2007 $7,000,000

 

[catwoman19]

i'M SORRY IF I FELL ASLEEP THIS PAST WEEK, BUT SINCE WHEN DID THE FDA MAKE E CIGS ILLEGAL AS THOSE TWO ARTICLES ARE CLAIMING. I ADMIT I DIDN'T READ ALL OF THE FOUR PAGES OF RESPONSES, BUT DID NO ONE ELSE MAKE NOTE OF THIS CLAIM?

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

i'M SORRY IF I FELL ASLEEP THIS PAST WEEK, BUT SINCE WHEN DID THE FDA MAKE E CIGS ILLEGAL AS THOSE TWO ARTICLES ARE CLAIMING. I ADMIT I DIDN'T READ ALL OF THE FOUR PAGES OF RESPONSES, BUT DID NO ONE ELSE MAKE NOTE OF THIS CLAIM?

Catwoman:

That is what is under contention in the SE v FDA case. According to the FDA, electronic cigarettes are a new drug, and subject to regulation. As such, it is illegal to sell, market, or import them. That case will decide whether this claim is accurate as the law sees it.

So to answer your question, electronic cigarettes *may* be illegal to sell, import, or market. Certainly, no matter the outcome, they are not illegal to buy, use, or possess.

 

[TropicalBob]

HOW TO KILL A THREAD THAT WAS PRETTY DARN GOOD 101 by Sherid. 3 credit hours, just to read the synopsis.

What a waste of bandwidth to copy your hard drive saves into a thread. Just state your case. We'll all read that and you bring a smoker's perspective that needs exposure.

This was a good thread ... can it get back on point?

 

[sherid]

HOW TO KILL A THREAD THAT WAS PRETTY DARN GOOD 101 by Sherid. 3 credit hours, just to read the synopsis.

What a waste of bandwidth to copy your hard drive saves into a thread. Just state your case. We'll all read that and you bring a smoker's perspective that needs exposure.

This was a good thread ... can it get back on point?

You can always get back on what you define as the "point" Bob. Just because someone else sees it differently from you or wants to share something with the audience does not give you the right to be a smartass. You could always just ignore it. For the record, it was not saved to my hard drive. Frankly, sometimes your gloom and doom is a bit much also.

 

[palermo45]

Yes...I actually saw this one coming...how can the smoke police tell the difference between an e-cig's vapor and a cigarette to issue a fine or citation? The whole body of tobacco control efforts are hanging in the balance since smokers and quitting habits have declined the past 3 years and jobs are the issue of the day. The e-cig has been a boon to bump up their budgets for this new danger to health and....yikes...morality. These groups are positionoing themselves for the new fiscal year beginning October 1st. That is why ASH is promising more trouble for the e-cig in weeks to come.

The FDA report did simulate e-smoking via a higher temperature apparatus and again via the lower temp of standard e-cig:

"Simulated Use: Nicotine and tobacco Specific Impurities by Head Space GC-MS (HSGC-MS) and sparging apparatus
HSGC is likely to be less sensitive than the GC-MS technique that takes advantage of injecting all of the soluble components and then volatilizing them at 280 °C; however, the head space analyzer can be set to a specific temperature to mimic what may be volatilized during use of the products.
The temperature of the heating element in each e-cigarette was determined by inserting a thermocouple and then activating the e-cigarette by drawing air through it. These temperatures ranged from 40 to 65°C. HSGC-MS analysis was conducted at 60°C to simulate the temperature that would be encountered during activation of an e-cigarette. Nicotine was detected in both products for all cartridges containing low, medium and high levels of nicotine but was not observed in cartridges identified as containing no nicotine. Screening for the possible tobacco specific impurities cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, nornicotine, anabasine and myosmine was negative. β-Nicotyrine was detected in all Njoy cartridges but was not detected in the Smoking Everywhere cartridges."

Please note the above statement of impurities directly disproves ASH's contention that the vapor contained anabasine, myosmine, and nornicotine, cotinine, and nicotine-N-oxide (which is posted on their site via links to PR sites). Very artful liars who are bold enough to misquote the FDA report. No matter to them because they have been making truth for quite a while. The links can be found at Introduction to Action on Smoking and Health, ASH

Can't ASH be sued for intentionally posting false statements?

 

[bizzyb0t]

I just can't see the fear of vaping in public. Really, it's one of the few themes around here that gets on my nerves.

I vape everywhere I go and explain to everyone in earshot what the device is when asked. Haven't had a single major confrontation in months. Let me reiterate... I vape EVERYWHERE. Stores, gas stations, banks, supermarkets, coffee shops, fast food joints, and even on the airplane. I've got a big fat E-pipe that I take with me everywhere, so that tells you how discreet I am about vaping.

People aren't fearful or offended by vaping or the vapor and most people are actually quite curious. Even here, in anti-smoking-nazi Denver CO, I don't have any trouble. This is a city where you can be smoking while walking down the sidewalk and have people come up to you and chastise you for polluting the open air.

I think lumping vaping into the fear and stigma of "smoking" is silly. It'll either get banned, or it won't but it definitely won't get banned because we vape in public.

Now if management at an establishment wanted me to stop, I'd explain what it was and if they insisted that I put it away, I'd let them know that I'll gladly put it away, and instead go somewhere that is okay with vaping.

Lots of places are willing to be reasonable, I don't need to give my patronage or waste my time or energy arguing the point, to people who won't listen.

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

You can always get back on what you define as the "point" Bob. Just because someone else sees it differently from you or wants to share something with the audience does not give you the right to be a smartass. You could always just ignore it. For the record, it was not saved to my hard drive. Frankly, sometimes your gloom and doom is a bit much also.

He may have been referring to this:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...inking-news-stories-read-before-you-post.html

 

[Territoo]

ASH is in a position to do a lot of good in curbing smoking. They are a powerful organization with a roster of influential politicians, scientists, etc. They obviously have access to a lot of money, and if that money is actually accomplishing their listed goals, then they are doing our country a service.

Then along comes the e-cigarette. ASH has perceived it to be a threat to all they (may) have accomplished and have lashed out with their very heavy hand against it. Trouble is that this lashing out is not based on fact, but claims that not only have no scientific validity, but are opinionated scare tactics and sometimes outright falsehoods.

ASH could be a boon to the e-cigarette industry. They could assure that proper research is done, they could help prevent the sales to minors, they could inform the public of the risks/benefits of vaping BASED ON FACTS not lies and innuendos. The list goes on.

They are choosing however to kill this product in its infancy, because it MIGHT be harmful. Trouble is, they are killing something that, based on what limited knowledge we do have, has a good chance of decreasing smoking in a manner that is relatively safe.

The bottom line is that the reseach HAS to be done for anyone to be able to make valid claims for or against e-cigarette use. Normally that is done before the product is available to the public, but that didn't happen in this case. Given our increasing access to the world via the Internet, this was going to happen w/ some new product, so what is happening w/ ecigs will affect other new products in the future, not just the ecig industry.

Instituting a ban on ecigs at this point will kill the product completely, because without the sales, the industry cannot afford to conduct the necessary studies. This is where ASH could help, but given their ill-informed stance, they won't.

 

[GregH]

They are choosing however to kill this product in its infancy, because it MIGHT be harmful.

But there's the rub. I honestly think ASH could not care less about the possible harm e-cigarettes might cause. E-cigarettes are a threat to their bottom line. If smokers switch to e-cigs instead of trying the NRTs from Pharma, failing, trying them again, failing, ad nauseum, Pharma's profits are hurt. And that, in turn, hurts the amount of money funneled into ASH by Pharma.

This is all about the money.

There can be no other reason that group would want us to go back to tobacco cigarettes. And they can't claim they don't, because they know full well that is what will happen in most cases if they success in getting e-cigs banned.

So they get them banned.

A majority of those who switched go back to tobacco.

A percentage of those try Pharma's NRTs yet again.

Most of those fail and revert back to tobacco.

The cycle goes on.

More money goes to Pharmacy who, in turn, gives more to ASH.

E-cigarettes are rocking their boat. And they can't have that.

 

[TropicalBob]

For ASH, I think this is -- mostly -- about the kill.

ASH is on a hunt, and e-smoking is the new prey. The anti-smoking war is largely over. Smokers have been demonized and driven into private dens, where they log onto the Internet to sulk and verbally lash out at those who condemned them to their present existence. But it was done. That war is winding down, with anti victories everywhere. ASH needed a new villain. E-smoking is it.

You might, or might not, be right about the motive you perceive behind the attack. I see ASH as a fringe group led by a man seeking personal glory. He's charismatic enough to get money. But I don't see money as his primary concern here. It's the kill of e-cigs that will allow him to brag about his influence and power, to notch his obituary with one more example of his "public service".

To me, that's his personal bottom line. He's an egomaniac who will lie to achieve a personal agenda goal, as we've seen.

I bet the guy is loving being called every name in the book by posters here. After all, what fun is a hunt for an animal that lies down and surrenders? Where's the sport? Yep, he is no doubt loving this, including my own nasty comments.

 

[Surf Monkey]

For ASH, I think this is -- mostly -- about the kill.

Agreed. ASH is on the war path because they see e-smoking as vulnerable. Easy prey so to speak.

Doesn't ASH get a healthy percentage of their funding from Pfizer? It seems to me that I read that somewhere...

 

[GregH]

You might, or might not, be right about the motive you perceive behind the attack. I see ASH as a fringe group led by a man seeking personal glory. He's charismatic enough to get money. But I don't see money as his primary concern here. It's the kill of e-cigs that will allow him to brag about his influence and power, to notch his obituary with one more example of his "public service".

To me, that's his personal bottom line. He's an egomaniac who will lie to achieve a personal agenda goal, as we've seen.

That's a very valid point. I can see it.

 

[sherid]

He may have been referring to this:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...inking-news-stories-read-before-you-post.html

If I posted something that was too long, I apologize. However, I do not wish to be chastised for the content as if I were some ignorant schoolgirl.

 

[ladyraj]

Yep! We can all agree that Banzhaf is an ego maniac...but one that has a powerful friends and influence. As for ASH being a grass-roots organization...that may have been true years ago before this non-profit started rolling in taxpayer and health group funds. To ASH and their ilk we aren't people, we are smokers/vaporers who can undo all the hard work they've been fighting for 30 years with a product that looks like the act of smoking. It was never about what was safe or safer...it is about making the populace think that any type of smoking was perceived as weak-willed or abnormal. The e-cig is conveniently lumped in with the other smoking alternative, cigarettes. Thus all that was stated about smoking cigarettes will be thrown at the e-cig and only we, who use the product, will know the truth.8-o

 

[SquirrilahFish]

I still buy everything with paypal

me too, ASHoles

 

[palermo45]

"At A Press Conference Called By The Fda, Matthew Mckenna, M.D., And Who Is The Director Of The Cdc's Office Of Smoking And Health, Noted That The E-Cigarettes Can Be Used In Environments That Are Smoke-Free, And Therefore Weaken The Health Benefits Of The Antismoking Efforts."

I find this quite extremely interesting.

Is the CDC's Office of Smoking and Health basically saying that the vapor is not the same as tobacco cigarette smoke?

This would lead one to believe that the vapor is maybe *safer* than smoke?

Wow! BigJim, you really want to do a number on a press release, quote Mckenna like this: "At A Press Conference Called By The Fda, Matthew Mckenna, M.D., And Who Is The Director Of The Cdc's Office Of Smoking And Health, Noted That The E-Cigarettes Can Be Used In Environments That Are Smoke-Free"

Obviously, use proper writing and capitalization as noted in earlier posts

The entire problem is that e-cigs resemble regular cigarettes and "they" simply "don't like it"!! So essentially, the main problem besides the look of the e-cig is the vapor and the vapor is what actually makes this product so effective!! How difficult would it be to manufacture an item which could be hooked up to the current nicotrol inhaler which would produce vapor? After all that is pretty much the only difference!

 

[ladyraj]

When the legislators in Nebraska provided an exemption from the smoking ban for cigar bars...the clean air people came in and sought authorization to regulate the escape of SMOKE from the room. Neb. anti-smoking group wary of where smoke blows: Associated Press Business News - MSN Money

How does this apply to e-cigs??? Vapor looks like smoke. Last I heard...ventilated rooms required tornadic winds to remove exposure to deadly nicotine. It defies common sense but there it is!

 

[westcoast2]

Ladyraj:

Last I heard...ventilated rooms required tornadic winds to remove exposure to deadly nicotine. It defies common sense but there it is!

Which is why all those bars smell so fresh and clean the day a ban goes into operation (How does James explain that then?)

btw - ASH has many heads.

ASH (UK) was instrumental in getting the UK ban passed. As an NGO they were represented in discussions on the UN FCTC.
ASH (Scotland) Virtually control the Scottish parliaments TC policy.
ASH (NZ) were the autors of the infamous twin towers ad.
ASH (US) were instrumental in the use of law suits.

When refering to ASH it is worthwhile noting that each group is apprently autonomous. ASH (UK) has distanced themselves from some of the things ASH (US) have said.

Make no mistake though these groups learn from each other.
----

 

[renderwerks]

I revived this thread because I just got an email notification this last weekend that a rebuttal (opinion) I wrote about the article, was published. Took 10 days before I was notified that they posted it...

I'm surprised that more people don't comment.