Ridiculous FUD Article of the Week - Helena Independent Record

[Nate760]

helenair dot com/news/local/e-cigarettes-more-harm-than-good/article_32d68832-9dba-562b-8705-5ff1492c58cd.html

[h=1]E-cigarettes: More harm than good?[/h]By Melanie Reynolds, Lewis and Clark County "Health Officer"

A colleague of mine recently attended a family gathering where a relative puffed away on an electronic cigarette. The relative assured everyone that she was trying to quit tobacco and that the “smoke” from her device wouldn’t hurt them. My colleague was rightly skeptical.

Well I guess these things really are deadly! I, for one, always base my judgements on the emotional reaction of a single co-worker to an isolated event which I didn't witness. Why? Because science.

I applaud the relative’s desire to quit. tobacco is still the leading cause of death and disease in our country.

Uhh...Ms. Reynolds, I think you forgot to include "preventable" in the above sentence.

In Montana, it’s responsible for almost 1,400 deaths a year. Quitting -- hard as it is -- is one of the best steps any of us can take to improve our health.

But there’s no proof that e-cigarettes are the answer. Because they contain nicotine, a highly toxic and addictive substance, they may even serve as a gateway to the use of other tobacco products.

Here we have another "public health" official who doesn't understand the distinction between "tobacco" and "cigarette smoking," or the distinction between "nicotine" and "tobacco," and who apparently has no idea the nicotine in vapor products is optional. Shocking.

Most health experts recommend using methods that have been proven effective -- like counseling and nicotine-replacement therapies.

In other words, there's no point in quitting smoking unless you do it in a manner approved by Ms. Reynolds, who has taken it upon herself to speak on behalf of "most health experts." Newsflash: the best way to quit smoking is whatever way results in you not smoking anymore. "Public health" officials really shouldn't need this explained to them over and over again.

And many health organizations have called for strict regulation of e-cigarettes – including the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society, just to name a few.

Because we know full well none of those organizations has any ulterior motives, political agendas, or financial conflicts of interest that might influence their policy positions in this area.

E-cigarettes (or e-cigs) are typically shaped like conventional cigarettes.

Well, no, not really.

Each holds a replaceable cartridge of liquid nicotine.

I'm sure what she meant to say here was "Some types of electronic cigarette hold a replaceable cartridge with a liquid solution that may contain a maximum of 4.5% liquid nicotine." Surely a "public health officer" wouldn't spew a bunch of comically misinformed drivel wherein she gets even the most basic facts completely wrong.

A rechargeable, battery-operated heating coil vaporizes the liquid so it can be inhaled.

Umm....how exactly does one go about "recharging" a heating coil, Ms. Reynolds?

The vapor (or, more accurately, the aerosol) is not harmless water vapor.

Correct. It's a mixture of harmless water vapor and several other harmless things. Also, straw man much?

The nicotine is usually dissolved in propylene glycol, a clear and colorless liquid that can irritate the eyes, throat, and airway and trigger asthma symptoms.

Yes, its asthma-triggering properties are the main reason it's been used as the carrier ingredient in asthma inhalers for the last 60 years. Can't get anything past these "public health" experts.

Heavy metals and cancer-causing substances like formaldehyde have also been found in the aerosol.

"Heavy metals and cancer-causing substances like formaldehyde have also been found in the aerosol air you breathe every moment of every day." There, I fixed that for her.

The amount of nicotine in the cartridges can vary significantly.

Imagine that. A variable-nicotine product with varying amounts of nicotine. What'll they think of next, beers with different amounts of alcohol?

More than 400 e-cig brands have flooded the market since they first became available in 2007, and sales have increased significantly since 2011.

Gasp! Run for the hills!

According to the state health department, they’re especially popular with young adult Montanans. Nearly one in four aged 18-34 has tried them, mostly because of their novelty.

Or maybe (outlandish hypothesis alert) because they were trying to quit smoking? Also, it's reassuring to know I was still a "young adult" when my oldest kid was in 10th grade.

As the controversy around e-cigarettes smolders, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been developing regulations that would allow it to restrict the manufacture, sales, and marketing of e-cigarettes in much the same way it restricts tobacco products. For example, the FDA bans tobacco advertising in the media. There are no such prohibitions against advertising e-cigs. There’s also no federal age restriction on who can buy e-cigs, although individual states and stores can set their own.

Wow, three consecutive sentences with no factual errors. What's the old saying about the blind squirrel and the acorn?

Montana has not barred the sale of e-cigs to minors, but the state attorney general has indicated he plans to propose legislation during the 2015 session. For the moment, even an 8-year-old could theoretically buy an e-cig -- over the internet if necessary.

When my 8-year-old misbehaves, the first thing I always do is take away her credit cards and ground her from online shopping for at least two weeks.

And tobacco companies appear to be luring youth with bright-colored packaging and candy-flavored products like gummy bear, cotton candy, and cookies and cream.

There is not a single tobacco company-made vapor product that fits this description.

That may be one reason the popularity of e-cigs among middle- and high-schoolers in Montana doubled from 2011 to 2012.

Yes, when more people have ever tried a product than had ever tried it one year ago, clearly we have a public health epidemic on our hands.

The combination of easy access and uncontrolled nicotine content make e-cigs especially dangerous for children and youth. The cartridges typically contain enough nicotine to poison a child.

I would love to hear Ms. Reynolds' theory of how a child would go about extracting the nicotine from a cartomizer and then poisoning themselves with it. Is there an instructional video on Youtube or something?

Poison centers are reporting an uptick in calls about exposure to e-cigarette devices and liquid nicotine. Slightly more than half have involved children under the age of 6 who inhaled, ate, or simply touched the products. Some of these children became very ill. Some required emergency room visits.

Meanwhile, 20,000 Americans are hospitalized each year for toothpaste poisoning.

The state health department reports that nine Montanans, including four children under age 6, have been treated for nicotine poisoning since 2011.

Why, that's 1.5 children per year! When will our leaders finally act to put a stop to this crisis?

The bottom line is this: Until the FDA and others fully research e-cigs, any claims about using them to quit smoking or reduce its harm are not backed by science.

That's right. You haven't really quit smoking until "science" confirms it. You people need to stop deluding yourselves into believing that just because you haven't smoked a cigarette in 2-3 years, that you're an ex-smoker. That's just crazy talk.

Why risk your health on claims made by the tobacco industry?

The tobacco industry hasn't really made any claims about e-cigs, except the claim that everybody's products should be banned except theirs.

We need conclusive evidence of what impact e-cigarettes -- or secondhand exposure to their aerosol -- could have on our health.

TRANTZLATION: "These studies that suggest no health concerns just aren't doing it for me. I need studies that say these things are every bit as hazardous as cigarettes and you can die just from looking at one."

What the science does tell us is that there’s already a safe and effective way to quit. A combination of counseling and FDA-approved nicotine-replacement therapies have been proven to work.

1. Ms. Reynolds must be an adherent of the scientific philosophy that says 95% failure is in fact a resounding success.

2. Wasn't she just saying a moment ago that nicotine is an addictive, toxic poison that kills little children? Let me guess, it magically becomes "safe and effective" when it's made by Big Pharma, upstanding guardians of consumer health and safety that they are.

 

[kakiser56]

And the one comment on the 'story' was "They need to stop allowing these things to be used inside business's ASAP. These are not harmless. They are poison. Liquid Nicotine is very dangerous."

I guess if you get your news from hysterical 'experts' you would say something like that.

 

[twgbonehead]

My guess is that Melanie is RJ's daughter.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

Montanans can get free or reduced-cost access to these therapies by calling the Montana Tobacco Quit Line at 1-800-QUIT NOW or emailing infotobaccofree@mt.gov.

Melanie Reynolds is the Lewis and Clark County health officer.

There's the hidden meaning - It's never hard to find. Melanie is basically saying, "Use my therapies. Keep me relevant".

 

[Nate760]

There's the hidden meaning - It's never hard to find. Melanie is basically saying, "Use my therapies. Keep me relevant".

We see it over and over again from these "public health" bureaucrats: they don't really care if you quit smoking, they just want you to do it in such a way that they can take credit for it.

 

[DrMA]

We see it over and over again from these "public health" bureaucrats: they don't really care if you quit smoking, they just want you to do it in such a way that they can take credit for it.

I'd rather say they want you to try and fail multiple times in such a way that they can take credit for your attempts but also point out that the failures mean they require more funding and more power.

 

[skex]

I'd rather say they want you to try and fail multiple times in such a way that they can take credit for your attempts but also point out that the failures mean they require more funding and more power.

I think that many people here forget that most of the people on the other side of this debate cut their teeth battling Big Tobacco and thus have learned to fight dirty and for keeps, they are not predisposed to claims that they see to be "too good to be true" nor are they particularly troubled by a little misinformation in the name of a good cause (considering they are used to fighting opponents who were willing to outright lie to milk the teet of suffering a little longer), And can you really blame them? They spent over a generation fighting the Tobacco companies who used every sleazy underhanded pseudo-scientific tactic possible to defend their murderous industry. Worse many of the advocates of vaping are using arguments that sound very familiar to the ANTI's ears. It doesn't help that many of our number use the same obnoxious rhetoric that they had used previously in defense of actual smoking. I don't particularly care if you think the health dangers of smoking and second hand smoke are all bunk the majority of the population don't agree with you. Further Vaping is not smoking so why would we want to get involved with that fight?

Nor are we particularly well served by alliances with other tobacco concerns like snus and dip, to hell with them they aren't our friends most of the polulation views their products are nearly as awful as smoking, and the "ANTI's: are justifiably suspicious of products coming from the Tobacco industry claiming to "help" fix the problem that same industry just spent decades and billions of dollars denying even existed.

Most of these people spent their entire adult lives fighting to end what is undeniably a disgusting and unhealthy habit. Then just as they are in view of their final goal of eradicating the practice, along comes this new technology that threatens to undermine their life's work, I'd say they are understandably suspicious of this new product that claims that people can have all the fun and coolness of smoking with little or none of the downside.

I think they are on the wrong side of this particular fight. but I totally get why they think the way they do and I really don't think that this bunch of "do gooders" who got into this field in order to combat one evil corporate master (Big Tobacco) are now deliberate witting pawns of another (Big Pharma).

The question in my mind is not how to beat them, but how to bring them over to this side of the debate (or more accurately how to move vaping to the anti-smoking side of the conversation). What will it take to convince the "ANTIs" that this is a legitimate movement interested in freeing people from an unhealthy dependence on a substance and habit that shortens and lowers the quality of our lives and stinks up the environment around us rather than a bunch addiction driven useful idiots or astro-turfing shills for the tobacco industry?

I promise you this though, accusing them of being the same for Big Pharma is not going to bring people over to our side, particularly as the right has spent generations perfecting the art of projection (accusing the opposition of being exactly what they are) the liberal activists on the other side of this recognize that tactic and will assume that vapers are more of the same, worse it sets this up as a partisan fight, and it would be bad for vaping to become associated with right wing politics.

For Pete's (profanity filter wouldn't let me use the appropriate word here) sake we're trying to use science to support our case the last thing we need is to become associated with science denying young earth creation pushing, climate change deniers who call Evolution "just a theory", because at that point we can kiss the movement's credibility goodbye.

If I were not a smoker who quit due to vaping I'd most probably be on the other side of this debate myself and every time I see someone going off on the ole "big gubmint" "all about the tax revenue" "FREEDOM" claptrap it first makes me cringe then makes me want to disassociate myself from the movement because as a life long pinko-commie, big government loving, tax and spend liberal yellow dog democrat socialist I generally assume that anything conservatives support is probably a bad thing and anything they oppose is a good one and most of those on the anti side of the debate think the same way.

Vapers need to understand that this is how the majority of anti-smoking activists are going to view this situation. If you want a successful movement you have to veer away from typical partisan talking points and go to the opposition with rhetoric and arguments that they won't instantly discount and dismiss.

Stick to the facts on what we know, be frank about what we don't, focus on emotional appeals and anecdotes that will make them sympathetic, avoid the kinds of attacks and rhetoric that will put their guard up. Most importantly don't make this into a partisan fight, there are plenty on the left who will be sympathetic if we make our case in the a way that doesn't automatically associate it with causes they're already opposed to.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

I'd rather say they want you to try and fail multiple times in such a way that they can take credit for your attempts but also point out that the failures mean they require more funding and more power.

Oh the tangled webs....

Perhaps a little off the reservation but:

I have this retired friend who was just your basic, every day, run of the mill custodian for a school. During his first year he goes up to the principal (his boss) and says, "Hey. You know I can save the school about half the cost of those there chemicals the district keeps buying me."

The principal then begins to indoctrinate this custodian into the rule of "tax payer funded budget requests". Meaning, if you spend less than you asked for you'll be expected to do this every year. Therefore, you always ask for more than you need and make sure you use it. All of it. Even if it means dumping it down a drain.

Perhaps our Health Official in this article just hasn't peddled enough of her own NRT's to make it look like she's doing her job.

 

[Nate760]

I think that many people here forget that most of the people on the other side of this debate cut their teeth battling Big Tobacco and thus have learned to fight dirty and for keeps, they are not predisposed to claims that they see to be "too good to be true" nor are they particularly troubled by a little misinformation in the name of a good cause (considering they are used to fighting opponents who were willing to outright lie to milk the teet of suffering a little longer), And can you really blame them?

Yes, you're damn right I can blame them. I blame them for taking a good and worthwhile cause (educating people about the dangers of cigarette smoking) and turning it into an ideological jihad against all tobacco and nicotine products and anyone who chooses to use them.

They spent over a generation fighting the Tobacco companies who used every sleazy underhanded pseudo-scientific tactic possible to defend their murderous industry.

Newsflash: no tobacco company ever forced me, or you, or anyone else to buy a pack of cigarettes. We did it of our own free will because we wanted to. I have no compunction about taking responsibility for my own actions and the results of those actions. Your mileage, I guess, may vary.

Worse many of the advocates of vaping are using arguments that sound very familiar to the ANTI's ears. It doesn't help that many of our number use the same obnoxious rhetoric that they had used previously in defense of actual smoking.

People who smoke don't deserve to be made into lepers and pariahs, and they don't deserve to bear the burden of pseudo-fascist laws and hideously unjust regressive taxes designed as punitive retribution for their choice to be law-abiding citizens who partake of a legal consumer product. If you no longer believe this simply because you no longer smoke, you have abandoned any pretext of objectivity. Unfortunately, many vapers have chosen to do so.

I don't particularly care if you think the health dangers of smoking and second hand smoke are all bunk the majority of the population don't agree with you.

Your spurious appeal to popular opinion is duly noted.

Nor are we particularly well served by alliances with other tobacco concerns like snus and dip, to hell with them they aren't our friends most of the polulation views their products are nearly as awful as smoking,

This is exactly the same logic whereby the ANTZ argue that pharmaceutical NRTs are "safe and effective" because they succeed 5% of the time. And your second spurious appeal to popular opinion is duly noted.

and the "ANTI's: are justifiably suspicious of products coming from the Tobacco industry claiming to "help" fix the problem that same industry just spent decades and billions of dollars denying even existed.

Do you have any actual evidence that tobacco company vapor products are more hazardous than any other vapor products, or do you just like borrowing Stan Glantz's arguments?

Most of these people spent their entire adult lives fighting to end what is undeniably a disgusting and unhealthy habit.

So what? Does that mean they can say and do any damn thing they please without being subject to criticism and scrutiny?

Then just as they are in view of their final goal of eradicating the practice, along comes this new technology that threatens to undermine their life's work,

Am I the only one who hears the sound of violins in the background as I'm reading this ridiculous twaddle?

I'd say they are understandably suspicious of this new product that claims that people can have all the fun and coolness of smoking with little or none of the downside.

Good, so you're a fan of magical thinking that has no basis in evidence or reality. You could've just said so.

I think they are on the wrong side of this particular fight. but I totally get why they think the way they do and I really don't think that this bunch of "do gooders" who got into this field in order to combat one evil corporate master (Big Tobacco) are now deliberate witting pawns of another (Big Pharma).

They think the way they do because they're social engineering public utilitarians who detest living in a society that values the rights of the individual.

The question in my mind is not how to beat them, but how to bring them over to this side of the debate (or more accurately how to move vaping to the anti-smoking side of the conversation).

So you want to make allies of people who lie for a living? Seriously?

What will it take to convince the "ANTIs" that this is a legitimate movement interested in freeing people from an unhealthy dependence on a substance and habit that shortens and lowers the quality of our lives and stinks up the environment around us rather than a bunch addiction driven useful idiots or astro-turfing shills for the tobacco industry?

As long as we unashamedly consume nicotine products that we have no particular intention of quitting, the people to whom you refer will remain our mortal enemies. This is a simple, self-evident, incontrovertible truth.

I promise you this though, accusing them of being the same for Big Pharma is not going to bring people over to our side, particularly as the right has spent generations perfecting the art of projection (accusing the opposition of being exactly what they are) the liberal activists on the other side of this recognize that tactic and will assume that vapers are more of the same, worse it sets this up as a partisan fight, and it would be bad for vaping to become associated with right wing politics.

Our movement is based on the truth. It is not our concern what the political ideology of any person who chooses to see that truth happens to be.

For Pete's (profanity filter wouldn't let me use the appropriate word here) sake we're trying to use science to support our case the last thing we need is to become associated with science denying young earth creation pushing, climate change deniers who call Evolution "just a theory", because at that point we can kiss the movement's credibility goodbye.

This is a bunch of cloying nonsense. Our words and actions should never be based on trying to attract people to "our side," or dissuading people from "our side," based on their residence in any certain neighborhood of the political spectrum. If we did that, we'd be inviting the very same thing you claim we should be trying to avoid.

If I were not a smoker who quit due to vaping I'd most probably be on the other side of this debate myself and every time I see someone going off on the ole "big gubmint" "all about the tax revenue" "FREEDOM" claptrap it first makes me cringe then makes me want to disassociate myself from the movement because as a life long pinko-commie, big government loving, tax and spend liberal yellow dog democrat socialist I generally assume that anything conservatives support is probably a bad thing and anything they oppose is a good one and most of those on the anti side of the debate think the same way.

Then you're not an objective person. The truth knows no political affiliation.

Vapers need to understand that this is how the majority of anti-smoking activists are going to view this situation. If you want a successful movement you have to veer away from typical partisan talking points and go to the opposition with rhetoric and arguments that they won't instantly discount and dismiss.

In other words, we should tailor our argument to maximally appeal to people we already know are disinclined to thinking rationally about this subject. And your third spurious appeal to popular opinion is duly noted.

Stick to the facts on what we know, be frank about what we don't, focus on emotional appeals and anecdotes that will make them sympathetic, avoid the kinds of attacks and rhetoric that will put their guard up.

People who focus on emotional appeals do so because the facts are not on their side. People who temper their arguments because their interlocutors might get offended are cowards and weaklings.

Most importantly don't make this into a partisan fight, there are plenty on the left who will be sympathetic if we make our case in the a way that doesn't automatically associate it with causes they're already opposed to.

I'm interested in appealing to reasonable people who are inclined to acknowledge the facts about this particular issue and no other. I couldn't care less what they think about anything else. You seem to think vaping should be an ideological litmus test. I reject this thinking in the strongest possible terms.

 

[DC2]

I think that many people here forget that most of the people on the other side of this debate cut their teeth battling Big Tobacco and thus have learned to fight dirty and for keeps, they are not predisposed to claims that they see to be "too good to be true" nor are they particularly troubled by a little misinformation in the name of a good cause (considering they are used to fighting opponents who were willing to outright lie to milk the teet of suffering a little longer), And can you really blame them? They spent over a generation fighting the Tobacco companies who used every sleazy underhanded pseudo-scientific tactic possible to defend their murderous industry. Worse many of the advocates of vaping are using arguments that sound very familiar to the ANTI's ears. It doesn't help that many of our number use the same obnoxious rhetoric that they had used previously in defense of actual smoking. I don't particularly care if you think the health dangers of smoking and second hand smoke are all bunk the majority of the population don't agree with you. Further Vaping is not smoking so why would we want to get involved with that fight?

Nor are we particularly well served by alliances with other tobacco concerns like snus and dip, to hell with them they aren't our friends most of the polulation views their products are nearly as awful as smoking, and the "ANTI's: are justifiably suspicious of products coming from the Tobacco industry claiming to "help" fix the problem that same industry just spent decades and billions of dollars denying even existed.

Most of these people spent their entire adult lives fighting to end what is undeniably a disgusting and unhealthy habit. Then just as they are in view of their final goal of eradicating the practice, along comes this new technology that threatens to undermine their life's work, I'd say they are understandably suspicious of this new product that claims that people can have all the fun and coolness of smoking with little or none of the downside.

I think they are on the wrong side of this particular fight. but I totally get why they think the way they do and I really don't think that this bunch of "do gooders" who got into this field in order to combat one evil corporate master (Big Tobacco) are now deliberate witting pawns of another (Big Pharma).

The question in my mind is not how to beat them, but how to bring them over to this side of the debate (or more accurately how to move vaping to the anti-smoking side of the conversation). What will it take to convince the "ANTIs" that this is a legitimate movement interested in freeing people from an unhealthy dependence on a substance and habit that shortens and lowers the quality of our lives and stinks up the environment around us rather than a bunch addiction driven useful idiots or astro-turfing shills for the tobacco industry?

I promise you this though, accusing them of being the same for Big Pharma is not going to bring people over to our side, particularly as the right has spent generations perfecting the art of projection (accusing the opposition of being exactly what they are) the liberal activists on the other side of this recognize that tactic and will assume that vapers are more of the same, worse it sets this up as a partisan fight, and it would be bad for vaping to become associated with right wing politics.

For Pete's (profanity filter wouldn't let me use the appropriate word here) sake we're trying to use science to support our case the last thing we need is to become associated with science denying young earth creation pushing, climate change deniers who call Evolution "just a theory", because at that point we can kiss the movement's credibility goodbye.

If I were not a smoker who quit due to vaping I'd most probably be on the other side of this debate myself and every time I see someone going off on the ole "big gubmint" "all about the tax revenue" "FREEDOM" claptrap it first makes me cringe then makes me want to disassociate myself from the movement because as a life long pinko-commie, big government loving, tax and spend liberal yellow dog democrat socialist I generally assume that anything conservatives support is probably a bad thing and anything they oppose is a good one and most of those on the anti side of the debate think the same way.

Vapers need to understand that this is how the majority of anti-smoking activists are going to view this situation. If you want a successful movement you have to veer away from typical partisan talking points and go to the opposition with rhetoric and arguments that they won't instantly discount and dismiss.

Stick to the facts on what we know, be frank about what we don't, focus on emotional appeals and anecdotes that will make them sympathetic, avoid the kinds of attacks and rhetoric that will put their guard up. Most importantly don't make this into a partisan fight, there are plenty on the left who will be sympathetic if we make our case in the a way that doesn't automatically associate it with causes they're already opposed to.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with most of what you said.
Except for the idea that our "opponents" are always doing what they think is right.

And the part that I bolded gives me a very uneasy feeling.

I'm terribly sorry that their life's work could be disrupted, if not put to an end.
But isn't that their goal? Shouldn't it be their goal? Or no?

If they aren't being fed a bunch of crap, they should see the good that can come from electronic cigarettes.

The minions in the trenches might see such good, especially if they would stop eating the crap they are fed.
But those that feed them that crap? No.

It is the money that keeps the "feeders" from considering a possibility that there is good to come from all of this.
And until they do so, the minions will continue to be pawns in a game of money, not health.

 

[Kent C]

We see it over and over again from these "public health" bureaucrats: they don't really care if you quit smoking, they just want you to do it in such a way that they can take credit for it.

http://vaping.com/ecigsummit2014/robert-west

Starts around 16:00 but specifically 16:50 - a bit tongue in cheek perhaps - but he did say that his assumption was that none of the decrease in rates of cessation were due to ecigarettes.....

 

[Nate760]

Starts around 16:00 but specifically 16:50 - a bit tongue in cheek perhaps - but he did say that his assumption was that none of the decrease in rates of cessation were due to ecigarettes.....

I believe he was referring to an increase in attempted cessation, and he did preface it by saying it was a conservative assumption done for rhetorical purposes.

That being said, he activated my Pet Peeve Alarm by being another researcher who wants to focus only on "smoking prevalence," and not the actual number of cigarettes being consumed at the population level. I maintain that the former is fraught with imprecision, and the latter is actually a much more instructive measure of smoking trends.

 

[Kent C]

I believe he was referring to an increase in attempted cessation, and he did preface it by saying it was a conservative assumption done for rhetorical purposes.

Agree with your last paragraph, and while I agree with his use of 'assumption' - it is what he said, it wasn't for purely 'rhetorical' flourish. He goes on to say that the effect of ecigs in the decrease was 'point zero five'... imo, even 'without assuming anything that HE thinks can be proven' is a gross underestimation even under those premises. The small number .05, while he translates that into 10,000 lives being saved, is used, again, imo, to show how much more 'his work' and the work of public health UK has done.

I also found it interesting that he put no regard in the big X that is formed by the decrease in NRT (going down) and the increase in ecig use (going up) - in fact he 'dismissed it'. I can see him saying that no causation was found to answer the correlation but to dismiss it out of hand makes nearly the same mistake, imo. And while he (and a few others) had no clue as to the recent ecig use, Dr F and Clive Bates had good answers for that.

 

[Nate760]

I also found it interesting that he put no regard in the big X that is formed by the decrease in NRT (going down) and the increase in ecig use (going up) - in fact he 'dismissed it'. I can see him saying that no causation was found to answer the correlation but to dismiss it out of hand makes nearly the same mistake, imo. And while he (and a few others) had no clue as to the recent ecig use, Dr F and Clive Bates had good answers for that.

I'm as big a fan as anyone of the correlation-is-not-causation razor, but when you have two correlating events that seemingly contradict one another (fewer people are smoking, fewer people are using NRTs), and another correlating event that seems to resolve the contradiction (more people are using vapor products), it starts to border on willful intellectual dishonesty if you dismiss or downplay the possibility that there's a causative interrelationship between all three things. In fact, it strains credulity to imagine that all these events have little or nothing to do with one another.

 

[Kent C]

I'm as big a fan as anyone of the correlation-is-not-causation razor, but when you have two correlating events that seemingly contradict one another (fewer people are smoking, fewer people are using NRTs), and another correlating event that seems to resolve the contradiction (more people are using vapor products), it starts to border on willful intellectual dishonesty if you dismiss or downplay the possibility that there's a causative interrelationship between all three things. In fact, it strains credulity to imagine that all these events have little or nothing to do with one another.

I agree and for me, it sends up a red flag.... esp. in light of the other comments - on second hand smoke and others noted elsewhere.

 

[Nate760]

I agree and for me, it sends up a red flag.... esp. in light of the other comments - on second hand smoke and others noted elsewhere.

As long as someone qualifies their "secondhand smoke kills" statement with "possibly, if you sit in an enclosed, unventilated space with a chain smoker every day for at least 30 years," I'm willing to give them a pass. Otherwise, they're seriously impugning their own credibility and I have to use great caution in evaluating any other claims they make.

 

[Kent C]

As long as someone qualifies their "secondhand smoke kills" statement with "possibly, if you sit in an enclosed, unventilated space with a chain smoker every day for at least 30 years," I'm willing to give them a pass. Otherwise, they're seriously impugning their own credibility and I have to use great caution in evaluating any other claims they make.

I wouldn't even go that far - harm but not kill - but yeah... and here, it was a passing comment as if a given - which it most likely was for 95% of the panel.... and maybe 30% of the audience

 

[Nate760]

I wouldn't even go that far - harm but not kill - but yeah... and here, it was a passing comment as if a given - which it most likely was for 95% of the panel.... and maybe 30% of the audience

Your point is well-taken; I was just trying to be as charitable as possible to the secondhand smoke true believers.

We continue to see this phenomenon (and it's a very regrettable one) with alarming frequency: those in the pro-vaping camp are so overeager to extol its benefits that they end up mindlessly regurgitating absurd lies about tobacco and smoking. This is not the way we should be going about our business. A correct argument does not need to rely on lies and propaganda of any sort. We only damage ourselves when we repeat these things as a matter of rhetorical convenience. The verified dangers of (excessive) cigarette smoking are more than enough. We need not go out of our way to falsely embellish them.