Royal College Of Physicians Says E-Cigarettes Can 'Prevent Almost All The Harm From Smoking'
- Thread starter kakiser56
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I would like to point out the reason the report from the Royal Collage of Physicians
is so important is because they say at least 95% safer,probably much more.
So what does this mean in the real world?
Morbidity means causes harm. Mortality means causes death. 95% less harm
does not mean 5% will still die. It is not a linear equation. At 95% less harm
the mortality (death) rate may not even be detectable over the non-using
population.
The morbidity (harm,ie, disease) would be extremely hard to differentiate
from any other cause that could cause the same harm.
To make a comparison how much a reduction of harm means here's
a consideration. Diabetics frequently have to stick there fingers to obtain
a blood sample to test there blood sugar. In very rare circumstances a
infection may happen. Even more rarely a very serious life threatening infection.
99.99% of the time if not more this is due to improper sterilization. Similar
to our battery mishaps. Yet even a pin stick is harm.
Now take a ice pick and jam it in up to the hilt between your 4th and fifth
ribs every day. Which is going to kill you quicker if at all?
this it what harm reduction is.
Regards
Mike
is so important is because they say at least 95% safer,probably much more.
So what does this mean in the real world?
Morbidity means causes harm. Mortality means causes death. 95% less harm
does not mean 5% will still die. It is not a linear equation. At 95% less harm
the mortality (death) rate may not even be detectable over the non-using
population.
The morbidity (harm,ie, disease) would be extremely hard to differentiate
from any other cause that could cause the same harm.
To make a comparison how much a reduction of harm means here's
a consideration. Diabetics frequently have to stick there fingers to obtain
a blood sample to test there blood sugar. In very rare circumstances a
infection may happen. Even more rarely a very serious life threatening infection.
99.99% of the time if not more this is due to improper sterilization. Similar
to our battery mishaps. Yet even a pin stick is harm.
Now take a ice pick and jam it in up to the hilt between your 4th and fifth
ribs every day. Which is going to kill you quicker if at all?
this it what harm reduction is.
Regards
Mike
But the FDA says the industry can't say this study exists, the public cannot know that ecigs are healthier than smoking. But I can say it. And so can you as long as you don't own, are employed by, or affilliated with a vaping manufacturer or supplier. It's like "1984", vaping edition.
I have read pro-vaping articles on Forbes for awhile now. I think their take on it is that vaping is an alternative for some and it is far less toxic than smoking. Truthful information. How often do we read the truth?
True for this site. However, how many of them outside of this site? We tried so hard didn't we? We just have to have faith that something will correct this nonsense.
Forbes has been a family business. It's the custom in that family to stand on the moral high ground when it's there. They are going to be a good example to their own kids. They focus on the health aspect but if vaping takes over it becomes the mother of all tax cuts, something the Forbes family would like, and that money goes into the private economy where it will mostly benefit children because of significantly improved family finances and even better, since lower income people are over represented among smokers it helps children the most where it is needed the most. I think the macro economic benefits of vaping are at least as important as the health benefits and that is precisely what terrifies governments.
It's mostly articles from Jacob Sullum. He contributes to Forbes, but his main gig is a senior editor at reason magazine and reason.com, a libertarian website. If you go to the site and type " electronic cigarettes " in the search bar, you'll see he has written dozens of pro ecig articles, going all the way back to 2009.
I went to that site to read some more articles he had written, this is what caught my eye first - The FDA's New Rules for E-Cigarettes Are Already Hurting Vape Shops
A lot of the support for vaping comes from people on account of their political philosophy, not the merits of ecigs per se. For most of us the issue transcends politics. It shouldn't be a political issue but is because of the money. The public discussion about vaping is so weird and tangled because what's really on everybody's minds is the money but they aren't going to talk about that. Any conversation about almost anything is going to be weird when the participants aren't putting their issues on the table.
Sometimes I think we never had a chance.
And sometimes I think our ultimate victory is pretty much inevitable.
I believe my conundrum is generally referred to as cognitive dissonance.
Reality should support our latter fate, while our government supports the former.
Nice world we live in.
Here's the latest Forbes article by Sullum.
FDA Assigns Zero Value To Smokers Who Die Because Of Its E-Cigarette Regulations
FDA Assigns Zero Value To Smokers Who Die Because Of Its E-Cigarette Regulations
The title of that piece pretty much sums it up.
That's why many of us here like to use the term "desk murderers" as appropriate.
So the FDA concludes that if you show someone how to use this device they are a manufacturer. So the computer guy who shows me something is a manufacturer, my cosmetologist who shows me make up tips is a manufacturer. Alright already I get it FDA. Yeah makes perfect sense.
These guys (ooh sorry, the word "guys" is not politically correct) these people are deeming dogs. Some people will understand that line. Lol
These guys (ooh sorry, the word "guys" is not politically correct) these people are deeming dogs. Some people will understand that line. Lol
Last edited:
I like his style. Thanks for letting me know where I can find him.
- Status
