Regarding "cancer" organizations and ecigarettes

[dr g]

Now we just need the mainstream media to agree with you.

Well, it has to start somewhere. In every ecig interview if the pro viewpoint gives this framework, it could create weighty unanswered questions. In every ecig article on a news site, if comments point this out, who knows.

Idealistic, probably. But sometimes a small idea can take root.

 

[2coils]

Then again I'm not planning to quit vaping anytime soon, if ever ...
I get it though, but even a small positive clinical result is still a positive clinical result.



It'd be hard if not impossible to do that based on science since as you note the science dollars come from vested interests. The value of this approach is it doesn't rely on disproving what's already out there with limited resources to do so. Instead it sets up forward-looking framework for people to notice that these organizations' actions do not line up with their words.

In the conspiratorial framework the lack of science is a liability. In my proposed framework, the lack of science is probative.

"We just don't know, there isn't enough science." "Why aren't you doing something about that?" "Duhhhh"
versus
"We think you are serving an agenda!" "No we're not, and here are the flaws in your theory."

Great thread guys! Really a good read. The only thing I would like to add.... As stated earlier, Big Pharma is funding these studies. I think its easier for these organizations to back them. If we want to be added in that conversation, The funding for the studies have to come from somewhere. That is if I am reading this thread correct. I could be way off base.

 

[tA71ana]

For these organizations to not be hearing overwhelming evidence in favor of ecigarettes would mean they are not fighting the battle in the trenches. If they know about this and are not supporting it, then they simply are not interested in winning the war.

Of course they are not going to support it because there is too much money in things remaining the same for all involved, mainly organizations such as these as well as the pharmaceutical and medical industry.
Quite frankly, I believe a cure for cancer has been found but they are not going to tell us about it because treating cancer is expensive and therefore profitable.
Do you really think if there was a cure that they would broadcast it? I doubt it.
If there were a cure, a real one, a lot of these types of organizations and corporations would lose millions/billions in the form of donations and profits. The fact that there is cancer is the reason the organizations you speak of exist.
If the incidence of cancer were greatly reduced or eradicated, these organizations would fold in a NY minute.
These organizations have long ago lost sight of their missions.

 

[bosun]

Talking about NRT that have been approved by the FDA. The below is a direct quote from the Chantix site ( CHANTIX is a non-nicotine quit-smoking treatment


Thinking About Quitting?
About CHANTIX
Important Safety Information
How Your Doctor Can Help
Getting Started with CHANTIX
The GETQUIT® Plan
CHANTIX is covered by many insurance plans.
Ask your provider.



In studies, 44% of CHANTIX (varenicline) users were quit during weeks 9 to 12 of treatment (compared to 18% on sugar pill).
Learn more
How Chantix Works
CHANTIX (varenicline) is a non-nicotine pill. It targets nicotine receptors in the brain, attaches to them, and blocks nicotine from reaching them.
CHANTIX is covered by many insurance plans. Call your provider to find out more.

Important Safety Information

Some people have had changes in behavior, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions while using CHANTIX to help them quit smoking. Some people had these symptoms when they began taking CHANTIX, and others developed them after several weeks of treatment or after stopping CHANTIX. If you, your family, or caregiver notice agitation, hostility, depression, or changes in behavior, thinking, or mood that are not typical for you, or you develop suicidal thoughts or actions, anxiety, panic, aggression, anger, mania, abnormal sensations, hallucinations, paranoia, or confusion, stop taking CHANTIX and call your doctor right away. Also tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems before taking CHANTIX, as these symptoms may worsen while taking CHANTIX.

Do not take CHANTIX if you have had a serious allergic or skin reaction to CHANTIX. Some people can have serious skin reactions while taking CHANTIX, some of which can become life-threatening. These can include rash, swelling, redness, and peeling of the skin. Some people can have allergic reactions to CHANTIX, some of which can be life-threatening and include: swelling of the face, mouth, and throat that can cause trouble breathing. If you have these symptoms or have a rash with peeling skin or blisters in your mouth, stop taking CHANTIX and get medical attention right away.

Before starting CHANTIX, tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems. If you have new or worse heart or blood vessel symptoms during treatment, tell your doctor. Get emergency medical help right away if you have any symptoms of a heart attack or stroke.

The most common side effects of CHANTIX include nausea (30%), sleep problems, constipation, gas and/or vomiting. If you have side effects that bother you or don't go away, tell your doctor. You may have trouble sleeping, vivid, unusual or strange dreams while taking CHANTIX. Use caution driving or operating machinery until you know how CHANTIX may affect you.

CHANTIX should not be taken with other quit-smoking products. You may need a lower dose of CHANTIX if you have kidney problems or get dialysis.

Before starting CHANTIX, tell your doctor if you are pregnant, plan to become pregnant, or if you take insulin, asthma medicines, or blood thinners. Medicines like these may work differently when you quit smoking.

If you didn't feel like reading all that drivel here is a snippage of the frightening part:

"Some people have had changes in behavior, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions while using CHANTIX to help them quit smoking. Some people had these symptoms when they began taking CHANTIX, and others developed them after several weeks of treatment or after stopping CHANTIX. If you, your family, or caregiver notice agitation, hostility, depression, or changes in behavior, thinking, or mood that are not typical for you, or you develop suicidal thoughts or actions, anxiety, panic, aggression, anger, mania, abnormal sensations, hallucinations, paranoia, or confusion, stop taking CHANTIX and call your doctor right away. Also tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems before taking CHANTIX, as these symptoms may worsen while taking CHANTIX."

Does that strike you as something to take to prevent the possibility of you getting cancer??? And it is approved by the anti-cancer orgs and the government? And they are trying to control/ban e-cigs? Give me a break!

 

[Kabooma]

Chantix is more dangerous than the analog smokes.

 

[dr g]

Folks, please continue to keep in mind that the point of this approach is that it doesn't take a negative angle, it's not trying to disprove pharmaceutical science, no matter how questionable that science may be. IMO that route is futile, we can't compete with the resources. Instead it is fully able to accept pharmaceutical science at face value.

 

[bosun]

Folks, please continue to keep in mind that the point of this approach is that it doesn't take a negative angle, it's not trying to disprove pharmaceutical science, no matter how questionable that science may be. IMO that route is futile, we can't compete with the resources. Instead it is fully able to accept pharmaceutical science at face value.

My bad. It is just too easy to point out that the Emperor has no clothes! We are dealing with the Golden Rule, entrenched viewpoints, and Puritanism. We need more calm, educated, (dare I say 'erudite?') cool, and collected "talking heads" to get on/in the media to show what we feel is the truth. Need more unbiased studies published and discussed. WE need to get the word out without us falling into the trap of ignorant behavior and impoliteness. If someone were to object or ask about 'vaping', I would be happy to show the components, explain the theory, and discuss the health concerns/benefits in relation to tobacco use and how vaping is a much 'safer' habit than smoking. If they don't want to listen, or refuse to discuss (and just want to chant "Die smoking scum"), then I'll just look at them. "I know you are stupid. You know you are stupid. You know I know you are stupid. Now go away."

 

[DC2]

Well, it has to start somewhere. In every ecig interview if the pro viewpoint gives this framework, it could create weighty unanswered questions. In every ecig article on a news site, if comments point this out, who knows.

Idealistic, probably. But sometimes a small idea can take root.

I actually prefer your approach to any approach of trying to expose the "conspiracy" aspect.
And I understand your reasons.

However, I don't think we are actually using the "conspiracy" approach to get our message across.
The approach is currently more along the lines of "here are the studies" when they say nobody knows if they are safe or if they work.

So maybe we should be saying...
--There are studies, and here they are and here is what they say
--And by the way, if these studies aren't enough for you, why aren't you doing anything about it?

 

[dr g]

Advocacy groups do seem to be better about avoiding conspiratorial slants, true, but such angles are quite attractive to individual vapers ... check out this thread! It is good that the evidence is piling up, but in some ways I wonder if citing non-clinical studies might just provide an easy target and a distraction.

 

[DC2]

Advocacy groups do seem to be better about avoiding conspiratorial slants, true, but such angles are quite attractive to individual vapers ... check out this thread!

When it comes to individual vapers, I'm all for educating them in all aspects of what is going on, and what has gone on.
How they choose to use that information is up to them, including ignoring it, or even denying it.


And when the "deeming regulations" come down, we may have some fights to fight.
Knowing your enemy is always a good thing.

 

[2coils]

So maybe we should be saying...
--There are studies, and here they are and here is what they say
--And by the way, if these studies aren't enough for you, why aren't you doing anything about it?

Again, They don't have to do anything about it if our industry isn't sponsoring the clinical research that they are requiring. BP is paying a great deal for their endorsements buy funding the research and im sure more dollars on top of that. I don't believe the e-cig industry is doing this to nearly the same level. There is no reason for any organization to support e-cig industry claims, until our industry steps up to the plate with some significant cash.

Sorry, not trying to crash the thread, just my opinion.

 

[DC2]

Again, They don't have to do anything about it if our industry isn't sponsoring the clinical research that they are requiring. BP is paying a great deal for their endorsements buy funding the research and im sure more dollars on top of that. I don't believe the e-cig industry is doing this to nearly the same level. There is no reason for any organization to support e-cig industry claims, until our industry steps up to the plate with some significant cash.

Sorry, not trying to crash the thread, just my opinion.

What you say seems to be quite true in my opinion...

In fact, we are seeing more and more positive studies being carried out by long-time THR advocates.
People like Murray Laugesen, Michael Siegel, and Brad Rodu for example.

And then there are people like Dr. Farsalinos, and Dr. Polosa, whom I am not sure how to classify.
But one thing I do know is that Dr. Farsalinos is a cardiologist smoker-turned-vaper.

It seems clear to me that electronic cigarettes, organizations like CASAA, and the growing strength of our vaping community has re-energized them.
Our growing numbers and our growing database of truth seems to be giving them new life.

And then there is the scientific advocacy efforts of we, the vapers, helping to fund our own studies through our advocacy organizations...
CASAA for example, and even the National Vaper's Club.

But as you say, the one group that does not seem to be making that much of an impact in all of this progress is the vendors.
It has been that way since the beginning, and I'm not yet seeing any signs of change in that regard.

 

[soba1]

What you say seems to be quite true in my opinion...

In fact, we are seeing more and more positive studies being carried out by long-time THR advocates.
People like Murray Laugesen, Michael Siegel, and Brad Rodu for example.

And then there are people like Dr. Farsalinos, and Dr. Polosa, whom I am not sure how to classify.
But one thing I do know is that Dr. Farsalinos is a cardiologist smoker-turned-vaper.

It seems clear to me that electronic cigarettes, organizations like CASAA, and the growing strength of our vaping community has re-energized them.
Our growing numbers and our growing database of truth seems to be giving them new life.

And then there is the scientific advocacy efforts of we, the vapers, helping to fund our own studies through our advocacy organizations...
CASAA for example, and even the National Vaper's Club.

But as you say, the one group that does not seem to be making that much of an impact in all of this progress is the vendors.
It has been that way since the beginning, and I'm not yet seeing any signs of change in that regard.

You know I was in the local vape store and I told the manager to get their customers and he sated his owner
didn't want to get involved. But he would get his employees to do it low key.
I don't know why they are so scared.

 

[2coils]

What you say seems to be quite true in my opinion...

In fact, we are seeing more and more positive studies being carried out by long-time THR advocates.
People like Murray Laugesen, Michael Siegel, and Brad Rodu for example.

And then there are people like Dr. Farsalinos, and Dr. Polosa, whom I am not sure how to classify.
But one thing I do know is that Dr. Farsalinos is a cardiologist smoker-turned-vaper.

It seems clear to me that electronic cigarettes, organizations like CASAA, and the growing strength of our vaping community has re-energized them.
Our growing numbers and our growing database of truth seems to be giving them new life.

And then there is the scientific advocacy efforts of we, the vapers, helping to fund our own studies through our advocacy organizations...
CASAA for example, and even the National Vaper's Club.

But as you say, the one group that does not seem to be making that much of an impact in all of this progress is the vendors.
It has been that way since the beginning, and I'm not yet seeing any signs of change in that regard.

I am anxious to see whats up CASAA's sleeve next. I truly believe this latest move was brilliant. I will be happy to crack the piggy bank open again for the next drive! Have to start attending the meetings. Looks like for now, us vapers are going to have to lead the surge! I am ready,able and willing!! As for the ACS, I am sure its a matter of one hand washes the other. We are not washing enough hands for them to jump on board!

 

[kristin]

I get that that sort of borderline conspiratorial viewpoint is common and not entirely unwarranted, but IMO it's a bit too cynical. Technically other NRTs also get smokers to quit right?

My angle does not rely on that, that's kind of the point.
This is not valid, it may be more effective as a rate but that has no bearing on whether it helps smokers quit. If even just a few people, even for placebo reasons, quit using patches or gum when they failed cold turkey, that means those methods helped additional people quit smoking. These methods are not tried to the exclusion of others.

The ACS and other ANTZ don't consider e-cigarettes NRT because they don't require the user to wean off and become abstinent. There are 2 reasons why ANTZ recommend NRT: 1) It is a method to wean completely off of tobacco and nicotine and become 100% abstinent of nicotine and 2) their funding comes from the drug companies (both through open partnerships and front "foundations" like the RWJ foundation) that sell NRT.

As long as e-cigarettes allow the continued use of nicotine, groups like the ACS will NOT back them. They are completely opposed to tobacco harm reduction policies. It's "quit or die." They're ultimate goal is to wipe this planet clean of tobacco/nicotine use and shut down tobacco companies. This is not conjecture - we have seen the anti-tobacco "manifesto" they don't share with the public and our friends on the "inside" forward their secret communications to us. (See: http://rampant-antismoking.com/)

ACS' goal to lower cancer incidence by lowering smoking rates coincides with a corporation's desire to profit off of NRT sales. I can think of a lot more devious partnerships accomplishing much more horrible things than this. The part of the equation left out of this article is that NRT efficacy has been clinically supported by much research. So for me to buy into this conspiracy, I would have to swallow the idea that a sizeable number of researchers around the world are all in on this.

Except they poo-poo any e-cigarette studies that are funded by industry money. Stan Glantz just did that to the CASAA study - claimed it was done by tobacco shills. If getting industry money taints research, why does that not also apply to NRT research? Especially since all of the claims made about the efficacy of NRT have been shown to be lies?

Then again I'm not planning to quit vaping anytime soon, if ever ...
I get it though, but even a small positive clinical result is still a positive clinical result.

NRT has been proven to be less effective long term than cold turkey, yet they claim it "doubles your chances." Sure - SHORT TERM. In fact, until recently, NRT actually required you to go cold turkey after 12 weeks. And the claim Chantix works 44% was also shown to be a bold-faced lie. What they would do is treat say, 100 smokers then follow up at the end of treatment. (That means immediately after they stopped taking it.) But they could only reach say, 50 smokers and 22 OF THOSE said they quit. So they reported that 44% of 1/2 the actual test subjects. In reality, that is only 22%. (I don't have the actual numbers off the top of my head, so this is just an example of what they did.) But then they didn't follow up after 6 months or a year. Once independent researchers did that, they found that the quit rate was actually around 14% at 6 months and a second independent study found it to be 7% for both NRT and Chantix. (The quit rate for cold turkey has been shown in many studies to actually be twice as effective long term than using any medication.)

So, is it really a small "positive result" when it has 1/2 the effectiveness of NOT using it?

Again, They don't have to do anything about it if our industry isn't sponsoring the clinical research that they are requiring. BP is paying a great deal for their endorsements buy funding the research and im sure more dollars on top of that. I don't believe the e-cig industry is doing this to nearly the same level. There is no reason for any organization to support e-cig industry claims, until our industry steps up to the plate with some significant cash.

Sorry, not trying to crash the thread, just my opinion.

Unfortunately, any study funded by the e-cigarette industry would be dismissed as biased. People are accusing the Drexel study of being biased even though it wasn't funded by any industry, but by a non-profit, tobacco harm reduction organization and the researcher has absolutely ZERO ties to the e-cigarette, tobacco or tobacco control industries or to THR advocacy. Of course, the idea that a respected researcher could be bought off by CASAA to lie and risk his career for a measly $15k is ridiculous, but the accusation of bias is made nonetheless. It would make no sense for him to lie in his conclusions, because any real scientist would be able to tear the research apart. When they can't tear down the research, first they call into question the researcher and if they can't do that they point to the funding source. But if THEY can do real, unbiased science about NRT getting drug company funding, why couldn't anyone else? It's complete hypocrisy.

 

[wv2win]

I'm not making that statement. I personally believe like you said that they are as safe or safer, but in fairness no clinical testing has demonstrated that yet. That is a standard used by "cancer" organizations, one that would make their opposition patently absurd.

What I'm saying is that if that is their standard, they should be working to achieve that via research ... actively, and if they aren't they are full of .....

Think about these anti-cancer "organizations". Think of how they get their funding and how they spend it. They get their money from contributions. They spend their money on salary and "public service advertisements", with a little on anti-cancer research. They ride the "anti-smoking" bandwagon, beating their chest how bad it is and how they are fighting to save you and the "children" from the evils of tobacco. If something comes along and demonstrates a high success rate in getting smokers to quit cigarettes ( TWO Months without a coffin nail!) then they are out of business. Electronic cigarettes are the greatest peril to them to lose their source of easy money!

Two points: there is a new study out of Drexel University (to go along with the several other studies) that prove that vaping is basically safe for the user and definitely safe for any bystander:

CASAA: New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk -- PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 8, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Hopefully you are ALL members of CASAA and are supporting the funding of this study.

Second point: the majority of funding for groups like the ALA, AHA, ASC, etc comes from Big Pharm. So who is pulling their hypocritical strings??

 

[2coils]

As long as e-cigarettes allow the continued use of nicotine, groups like the ACS will NOT back them. They are completely opposed to tobacco harm reduction policies. It's "quit or die." They're ultimate goal is to wipe this planet clean of tobacco/nicotine use and shut down tobacco companies. (See: Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger)

Unfortunately, any study funded by the e-cigarette industry would be dismissed as biased. People are accusing the Drexel study of being biased even though it wasn't funded by any industry, but by a non-profit, tobacco harm reduction organization and the researcher has absolutely ZERO ties to the e-cigarette, tobacco or tobacco control industries or to THR advocacy. Of course, the idea that a respected researcher could be bought off by CASAA to lie and risk his career for a measly $15k is ridiculous, but the accusation of bias is made nonetheless. It would make no sense for him to lie in his conclusions, because any real scientist would be able to tear the research apart. When they can't tear down the research, first they call into question the researcher and if they can't do that they point to the funding source. But if THEY can do real, unbiased science about NRT getting drug company funding, why couldn't anyone else? It's complete hypocrisy.

Yea, I would have thought, If OUR industry had the same money to throw around as BP (as far as supporting research), we would get the endorsement from these associations. I guess only BP can get away with this, without it being a conflict of interest. Being they will not support Harm Reduction, its back to the drawing board!! Thank you for your input!!