Siegal responds to Glantz claim that reduced use of analogs has minimal health benefits (and therefore PVs don't either, because they promote "dual us

[Roger_Lafayette]

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/02/anti-smoking-advocate-incorrectly-and.html

Background (which you very likely already knew): One of the ANTZ' most important arguments is that PVs lead to "dual use" of PVs and analogs and therefore have little if any health benefits for those vapers who still use analogs to any extent.

And since there is (allegedly) little evidence that a significant number of vapers tend to completely stop using analogs, this means that vaping has a minimal contribution to public health. (Which is presumably outweighed by: the hypothesized "gateway effect" on minors; the alleged effects of second - and now third-hand - vaping; the "re-glamorization" of smoking; and of course the guilt-by-association-with-BT for which all vapers must attone ).

Hence: (Glantz and other ANTZ imply): all restrictions on vaping make sense in terms of public health, up to and including an outright ban - at least until the FDA approves PVs as cessation therapy (in contrast to mere regulation under sec. 900 as "tobacco products"). Or at the very least, there is no public health basis for distinguishing between vaping (in the aggregate) and smoking analogs, given that vaping is (allegedly) little more effective than the patch for complete cessation [as Bloomberg recently claimed].

In a nutshell, Glantz's argument that cutting down on analogs has no health benefits is a crucial lynchpin in the ANTZ ideological framework.


***

Dr. Siegal responds here, to the argument about smoking reduction: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/02/anti-smoking-advocate-incorrectly-and.html

You see, there is no question that huge reductions in cigarette consumption improve respiratory symptoms. My patients who were able to cut down substantially on their smoking experienced immediate improvements in their ability to exercise and were able to enjoy life more because they could do more things without getting short of breath. Research confirms that respiratory symptoms improve when smokers are able to cut down the amount they smoke by at least 50%.

<snip>

But there is another important factor that Glantz is forgetting. In the existing studies, the smokers examined had simply cut down on the amount they smoked without substituting another source of nicotine. Therefore, they were highly likely to be compensating by inhaling much more heavily on the cigarettes that they smoked. In contrast, when dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes cut down substantially on their smoking, they are doing so by substituting non-tobacco, nicotine cigarettes. One would expect much less, if any, compensation. Thus, the studies that Glantz cites are not quite as relevant as they would otherwise be.

A final, important benefit of smoking reduction is that it helps facilitate the possibility that a smoker will subsequently be able to quit. It reduces the level of smoking addiction. It is easier to quit from a level of 5 cigarettes per day than it is to quit from a level of 30 cigarettes per day.

(This is only a small part of: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/02/anti-smoking-advocate-incorrectly-and.html - I highly recommend reading the entire post.)

 

[Uma]

It's about time that was addressed! I hope mr. Etiquette from the parade reads this.