Positive news: WHO E-cigarette criticisms exposed as 'alarmist'

[Nate760]

It's hard not to notice that in the UK, where they don't have a for-profit private health care system, the response to e-cigs on the part of the medical community and public health authorities has generally been much more pragmatic and well-reasoned than it has been here in the US. I suspect this is not a coincidence.

 

[Kent C]

It's hard not to notice that in the UK, where they don't have a for-profit private health care system, the response to e-cigs on the part of the medical community and public health authorities has generally been much more pragmatic and well-reasoned than it has been here in the US. I suspect this is not a coincidence.

I would think it would be just the opposite. Private health insurers would see ecigarettes as a way to reduce cost. (that is were it not for the ANTZ propaganda against them). One could say that the full court press against ecigs was a result of Obamacare. That would be more of a coincidence, but I don't think that's the case. When health care (or anything) is "free", it's overused, and will be underfunded - so anything that looks like it might cut costs would be as welcome as it would be in private enterprise. Perhaps the UK leadership is not as brainwashed as ours is in anti-smoking campaigns.

 

[Nate760]

I would think it would be just the opposite. Private health insurers would see ecigarettes as a way to reduce cost.

If I'm an insurer concerned about my overall bottom line, I want more people smoking, not fewer. A smoker who dies (quickly) from a single catastrophic illness in his 60s requires a lot less total health care maintenance than a nonsmoker who lives well into his 80s or 90s.

Edit: smoking really gives health insurers the best of both worlds; they get to charge smokers higher premiums based on the conventional wisdom that says smokers accrue higher health care costs, when in fact this is the opposite of the truth. People who die younger require less health care than people who live into extreme old age; it doesn't make any difference what their cause of death happens to be.

 

[Kent C]

If I'm an insurer concerned about my overall bottom line, I want more people smoking, not fewer. A smoker who dies (quickly) from a single catastrophic illness in his 60s requires a lot less total health care maintenance than a nonsmoker who lives well into his 80s or 90s.

Edit: smoking really gives health insurers the best of both worlds; they get to charge smokers higher premiums based on the conventional wisdom that says smokers accrue higher health care costs, when in fact this is the opposite of the truth. People who die younger require less health care than people who live into extreme old age; it doesn't make any difference what their cause of death happens to be.

Figured I might get that argument A person who dies of a stroke or heart attack takes much less health care of someone with lung cancer, copd, emphysema. I'm sure there are studies out there that make both cases. I'm not going to bother with them and even if yours is the case, I'd never willingly give up my health care to a government, so would never advocate gov't run health care or use it as a justification for anything 'pramatic'. IOW, you're on your own on this issue

 

[Nate760]

Figured I might get that argument A person who dies of a stroke or heart attack takes much less health care of someone with lung cancer, copd, emphysema. I'm sure there are studies out there that make both cases. I'm not going to bother with them and even if yours is the case, I'd never willingly give up my health care to a government, so would never advocate gov't run health care or use it as a justification for anything 'pramatic'. IOW, you're on your own on this issue

I was making no argument about the overall relative merits of government health care vs. private health care (each has its own advantages and drawbacks, and as with most complicated questions, the best solution probably lies somewhere between the two extremes). I was merely positing that on this particular issue, the disparity in the opinions being expressed may be at least partially attributable to the absence of the underlying profit motive that exists in one system and not in the other.

 

[DrMA]

It's hard not to notice that in the UK, where they don't have a for-profit private health care system, the response to e-cigs on the part of the medical community and public health authorities has generally been much more pragmatic and well-reasoned than it has been here in the US. I suspect this is not a coincidence.

IMO, the difference between the UK and US situation is fueled by the TMSA racket. In the US, the ANTZ terrorist network has landed a huge score for BG, and they've both been riding in style on the tobacco gravy train, fueled by hundreds of billions in TMSA payments. They had no plans for that cash cow drying up anytime soon, and vaping is the single largest threat they've ever faced in that respect. ANTZ in UK by comparison, subsist on a tiny trickle of cash from tobacco taxes and whatever BP fnds they can scrounge up. Their purchasing power is a tiny fraction compared to the ANTZ in the US, thus the UK ANTZ haven't been able to infiltrate all levels of govt and "public health" infrastructure to the same extent.

 

[Nate760]

IMO, the difference between the UK and US situation is fueled by the TMSA racket. In the US, the ANTZ terrorist network has landed a huge score for BG, and they've both been riding in style on the tobacco gravy train, fueled by hundreds of billions in TMSA payments. They had no plans for that cash cow drying up anytime soon, and vaping is the single largest threat they've ever faced in that respect. ANTZ in UK by comparison, subsist on a tiny trickle of cash from tobacco taxes and whatever BP fnds they can scrounge up. Their purchasing power is a tiny fraction compared to the ANTZ in the US, thus the UK ANTZ haven't been able to infiltrate all levels of govt and "public health" infrastructure to the same extent.

Yes, we've managed to create quite a perverse situation in this country, where the people charged with promoting smoking cessation run the risk of financial ruin if large numbers of people actually stop buying cigarettes.

 

[DrMA]

Exactly. Therefore tobacco control groups are fatally and irreparably conflicted from providing any opinion when it comes to tobacco control. That's why Judge Leon's ruling on COI's withing TPSAC was absolutely accurate: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...hol-report-orders-fda-reconstitute-tpsac.html

 

[twgbonehead]

I would think it would be just the opposite. Private health insurers would see ecigarettes as a way to reduce cost. (that is were it not for the ANTZ propaganda against them). One could say that the full court press against ecigs was a result of Obamacare. That would be more of a coincidence, but I don't think that's the case. When health care (or anything) is "free", it's overused, and will be underfunded - so anything that looks like it might cut costs would be as welcome as it would be in private enterprise. Perhaps the UK leadership is not as brainwashed as ours is in anti-smoking campaigns.

The insurance racket has two sides - revenue and expenses. Insurers definitely WANT people to use e-cigarettes, as they will save on costs. But they DON'T want e-cig users to avoid paying the higher "smoker premium". So they have to come out on the side of being against e-cig use, or otherwise they'll lose the ability to collect higher premiums (and premiums are NOW, costs are later).

Public health care only has one side. The cost.

 

[Kent C]

I was making no argument about the overall relative merits of government health care vs. private health care (each has its own advantages and drawbacks, and as with most complicated questions, the best solution probably lies somewhere between the two extremes). I was merely positing that on this particular issue, the disparity in the opinions being expressed may be at least partially attributable to the absence of the underlying profit motive that exists in one system and not in the other.

Understood. After watching the ebb and flow of the commentary and studies on ecigs, there are times when the coverage is more positive and times when it is negative and that is from the medical communities on both sides of the ocean. I welcome the current one in this thread, but we've seen some just as discouraging on the negative side. I don't know if anyone has been keeping count, so I'm not so sure whether this is a trend or just a blip. With all the various aspects of the industry and it's relation to healthcare, I would not state any causal or correlation as even a suggestion that I know which it is or isn't. It's encouraging, but I'll wait a week Usually too much positivity toward ecigs results in a barrage of negatives to follow.

 

[Kent C]

The insurance racket has two sides - revenue and expenses. Insurers definitely WANT people to use e-cigarettes, as they will save on costs. But they DON'T want e-cig users to avoid paying the higher "smoker premium". So they have to come out on the side of being against e-cig use, or otherwise they'll lose the ability to collect higher premiums (and premiums are NOW, costs are later).

Public health care only has one side. The cost.

And it is not uncommon for the socialization of an industry to be done quietly at first where demands are made once it is firmly in place. For example, there may be some encouragement for ecigs in some sectors where if when it becomes more common than smoking, then the difference is between inhaling air or vapor and vapor will lose that one, unless the benefits of nicotine are clearly a positive for other ailments.

 

[Kent C]

IMO, the difference between the UK and US situation is fueled by the TMSA racket. In the US, the ANTZ terrorist network has landed a huge score for BG, and they've both been riding in style on the tobacco gravy train, fueled by hundreds of billions in TMSA payments. They had no plans for that cash cow drying up anytime soon, and vaping is the single largest threat they've ever faced in that respect. ANTZ in UK by comparison, subsist on a tiny trickle of cash from tobacco taxes and whatever BP fnds they can scrounge up. Their purchasing power is a tiny fraction compared to the ANTZ in the US, thus the UK ANTZ haven't been able to infiltrate all levels of govt and "public health" infrastructure to the same extent.

That, imo, is less than a coincidence And where I should have went - I thought of it but have been watching golf

 

[Nate760]

Understood. After watching the ebb and flow of the commentary and studies on ecigs, there are times when the coverage is more positive and times when it is negative and that is from the medical communities on both sides of the ocean. I welcome the current one in this thread, but we've seen some just as discouraging on the negative side. I don't know if anyone has been keeping count, so I'm not so sure whether this is a trend or just a blip. With all the various aspects of the industry and it's relation to healthcare, I would not state any causal or correlation as even a suggestion that I know which it is or isn't. It's encouraging, but I'll wait a week Usually too much positivity toward ecigs results in a barrage of negatives to follow.

You're correct, of course, in noting that there has been no shortage of negative rhetoric emanating from the other side of the ocean, just as there's no shortage of it over here. But here's where I see a rather striking difference: on the American side, when there's a non-negative commentary from a health care authority (excepting, of course, people like Drs. Siegel and Ross, who are still largely voices in the wilderness), it tends to be couched in ambiguity and bet-hedging, i.e. "Well, these devices may have some potential for smoking cessation, but we need to wait for more data before we understand the long-term risks." On the other hand, it seems like British doctors and medical groups have been the only ones willing to come out and say, unequivocally, "This technology can save millions of lives."

 

[DrMA]

<snip>
British doctors and medical groups have been the only ones willing to come out and say, unequivocally, "This technology can save millions of lives."

And more than that, the Brits had the audacity to call out WHO for the liars they are; using the strongest language I've ever seen in public health as far as criticism of WHO goes - totally worth repeating

WHO report is full of "errors, misinterpretations and misrepresentations" and "using alarmist language to describe findings and to present opinion as though it were evidence;" "distorted by alarmist commentaries dressed up as evidence"

 

[AegisPrime]

It's hard not to notice that in the UK, where they don't have a for-profit private health care system, the response to e-cigs on the part of the medical community and public health authorities has generally been much more pragmatic and well-reasoned than it has been here in the US. I suspect this is not a coincidence.

Don't for a second think that the situation in the UK hasn't been equally fraught. If there's a reason or reasons that vaping is seeming more accepted in government here, I attribute it to the following:

1) Independent studies being performed by respected universities and scientists/doctors

2) Passionate campaigning by people such as Clive Bates (who truly deserves our appreciation and support)

3) Respected anti-smoking organizations such as ASH (Action on Smoking Health) and the NHS being receptive to the aforementioned studies and feedback from the public.

ASH was vehemently anti e-cigs initially but they've since come around to the idea that e-cigs may indeed be a vital tool in getting smokers to switch to something considerably less harmful - I can't help but think that this change of direction is in part due to influential anti-tobacco activists such as Clive (Dr. K, Michael Siegel, Carl Phillips etc.) championing the cause of e-cigs. As far as I'm aware though, Cancer Research UK is still very much against them though so the fight isn't over yet.

The UK government hasn't rushed to implement anything yet but then again, it's going to have to conform somewhat to the EU TPD which is coming into effect in 2015 - there's still a desire for medicinal regulation in some parts of the government which under the TPD they're allowed to do - things could still turn very ugly very quickly but hopefully the input of organizations like ASH will give them pause for thought.

 

[Bassnorma]

This is so full of WIN!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Kent C]

You're correct, of course, in noting that there has been no shortage of negative rhetoric emanating from the other side of the ocean, just as there's no shortage of it over here. But here's where I see a rather striking difference: on the American side, when there's a non-negative commentary from a health care authority (excepting, of course, people like Drs. Siegel and Ross, who are still largely voices in the wilderness), it tends to be couched in ambiguity and bet-hedging, i.e. "Well, these devices may have some potential for smoking cessation, but we need to wait for more data before we understand the long-term risks." On the other hand, it seems like British doctors and medical groups have been the only ones willing to come out and say, unequivocally, "This technology can save millions of lives."

The 'save millions of lives' in the present article is Prof Robert West, Health Psychology at London College. And again, I don't know if there are actual peer reviewed polls/surveys on this and it really depends on what you read:

Survey suggests many UK doctors oppose e-cigarettes | ECigIntelligence

Fairly recent:
Many Doctors Recommend E-Cigarettes as Anti-Smoking Aid, Survey Finds
complete with the caveats mentioned....

 

[Kent C]

And more than that, the Brits had the audacity to call out WHO for the liars they are; using the strongest language I've ever seen in public health as far as criticism of WHO goes - totally worth repeating

WHO report is full of "errors, misinterpretations and misrepresentations" and "using alarmist language to describe findings and to present opinion as though it were evidence;" "distorted by alarmist commentaries dressed up as evidence"

The ASH stuff was spitting in the face of WHO, as well.

 

[Nate760]

The 'save millions of lives' in the present article is Prof Robert West, Health Psychology at London College. And again, I don't know if there are actual peer reviewed polls/surveys on this and it really depends on what you read:

Survey suggests many UK doctors oppose e-cigarettes | ECigIntelligence[/url

When we're talking about surveys of doctors, we must bear in mind that doctors are by no means immune from the same ignorance and misinformation that afflict large segments of the general public. I've told the story before of my experience with my own doctor, who didn't even understand what e-cigs were or how they worked (he thought they still contained tobacco, but that it was simply heated rather than burned). After I'd taken the time to explain the current technology and direct him to some valuable online resources (ECF included), and since he'd already seen for himself the drastic turn for the better that my health had taken after only a few months of vaping instead of smoking, he became an enthusiastic convert and now actively recommends e-cigs to his patients who've had trouble quitting.

In summation, doctors are not automatically smarter or more well-informed just by virtue of the degree that hangs on their wall. Sometimes they need to be educated just like any other person does, and it's up to us, the people who know better, to do the educating.

 

[WillyZee]

I hope we see more of this stuff ... I can't be the only one who sees the progression of vaping possibly bring an end to smoking for everyone ... and I seriously mean every single smoker.

That's right BT ... I'm talking to you ... we got you beat with this healthier vape alternative ... we're about to file you away with Blockbuster and Kodak soon

I'm still young enough to celebrate a smoke free world