SmokeFree Wisconsin on a misinformation campaign about smokeless tobacco

[Stubby]

SmokeFree Wisconsin: Trick or Treat: Camel Orbs

A load of bad information about smokeless tobacco from our friends at Smokefree Wisconsin. They have been on a terror campaign on smokeless tobacco products this week. It appears there will be more to follow as the weeks goes on.

If you go to the facebook page you can leave comments. They're not to big on letting critical comments on the main blog page

 

[Luisa]

Emily is back--the wannabe journalist. I wonder what her Halloween costume might be this year.

 

[Stubby]

Emily is back--the wannabe journalist. I wonder what her Halloween costume might be this year.

I believe this is a different Emily than the one your thinking of. Emily Post works for the daily page. This one is written by Emily Rohloff who works for SmokeFree Wisconsin

 

[Sainted_S]

I wanted to post this comment, but I don't have an account.

"However you see the product, e-cigarettes do deliver nicotine, not unlike inhalers, lozenges, or gum. All cessation products are regulated by the FDA either as over-the-counter or by prescription."

Most manufactures and suppliers for the e-cig market don't claim that this is a smoking cessation product, rather that it is an alternative to those who don't want to breathe in the 4,000+ toxins of cigarettes. Oh, by the way, what about users of ecigs who choose not to use nicotine.

Yes, I have quit analogs, because this product addresses the habit of smoking. In my personal experience the nicotine addiction is most assuredly the weakest part of the habit. I can use my electric cigarette without nicotine and still remain smoke-free.

This product is in no way marketed to children and the manufactures and suppliers I have dealt with actively discourage minors from buying their products. The flavorings are used by adults because it is a further enticement not to return to cigarettes.

You have lost sight of your mission. This is a product that does allow smokers an alternative to continuing a habit that causes loss of life and debilitating health problems.
You are being short-sighted. There will never be a time when everyone is smoke free. Despite whatever deterrents, legal restrictions or inducements are put out there to remain a non-smoker, people are going to smoke, it is a reality. At least with an electronic cigarette there will be an alternative to smoking cigarettes. Why are you so critical of a device that can provide this? Regulation of this product will decrease the affordability to those who could have the opportunity to stop smoking cigarettes with a VIABLE alternative (quitting is not an option for some who cannot quit on their own with traditional methods).

 

[Stubby]

Well.... that's all fine and good Sainted.... but the article is about Camel Orbs which is another reduced harm product. Not the best of what is out there but they all have a place at the harm reduction table.

 

[Sainted_S]

Sorry, I did a search on the site and found a blog about the ecig and FDA regulation on the site. Should have clarified

 

[kristin]

I answered this on my Wisconsin Vapers Blog: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ading-public-about-orbs-risk.html#post2090251

Please comment and share!

 

[Stubby]

This is the latest installment of SmokeFree Wisconsin's assault on reason

SmokeFree Wisconsin: Trick or Treat: Camel Sticks

The problem is that they are actually taken seriously in WI. They often show up being quoted in newspaper articles and newscast on anything tobacco related. Looks like they're getting some blowback on there facebook page, but it will likely get deleted in short order.

Great article Kristin

 

[Vidi]

You all may as well just walk away from that site. The owner must approve all comments before they can be viewed by the public.

She hasnt had a comment since June 26....no one is reading her blog but us lol.

 

[kristin]

I commented on their Facebook Page.

Regarding Camel Sticks post:

From your blog post: "smokeless tobacco users have an 80 percent higher risk of developing oral cancer and a 60 percent higher risk of developing pancreatic and esophageal cancer."

There were 34,000 reports of oral cancer reported in the U.S. in 2008. The current population of the U.S. listed on the census site is 310,582, 869 (74% reported). That means approximately .011% of the U.S. got oral cancer. So, since the incidence of oral cancer (smoking or non-smoking) is approximately .011% in the U.S, the statement that the risk to U.S. smokers is "80% higher" means that the chances of getting tobacco-related oral cancer is still less than 1/2 of 1%. And the risks from smokeless tobacco have been shown to be 1/2 that of smoking.

Tell the truth, SmokeFree Wisconsin and quit twisting the facts. People have a right to know that smokeless alternatives are magnitudes safer than smoking, almost to the point of no risk at all.

There is also scant evidence to support that smokeless use leads to smoking. So, if you are truly about a "smoke-free" Wisconsin and care about public health, you should be supporting smokeless alternatives, not trying to make them seem just as dangerous.

Keeping tobacco out of the hands of children is a noble goal - just don't deceive people to do it. The means don't justify the ends when it results in the preventable deaths of millions of smokers who may have otherwise switched.

Regarding a comments about why there are warnings on smokeless packaging:

@Rich Birr Groups like SmokeFree Wisconsin lobbied to have those warnings, but they are deceiving. Sure, there is a risk, but how BIG is the risk? Everything has a risk - you can get poisoned by drinking too much water, for pete's sake. But the risk is LOW. They make is sound like you have a 100% chance of getting cancer, but it is really more like 1-2% chance. So, there is a 98%-99% chance that using those products WON'T give you cancer. That is a big difference. Saying it's not a "safe alternative" is also a trick. It may not be 100% safe, but it's up to 99% SAFER than smoking. Wouldn't it make sense to promote these to smokers to switch and cut down their risk by 99%? We use fat-free foods, we use seat belts, we do a lot of things that don't eliminate risk 100%, but they reduce it to help save lives. Why is it different for nicotine use? If there is a SAFER way for those who cannot or will not quit nicotine, public health should be encouraging it, not making it sound just as dangerous because it's not 100% safe!

This is the latest installment of SmokeFree Wisconsin's assault on reason

SmokeFree Wisconsin: Trick or Treat: Camel Sticks

The problem is that they are actually taken seriously in WI. They often show up being quoted in newspaper articles and newscast on anything tobacco related. Looks like they're getting some blowback on there facebook page, but it will likely get deleted in short order.

Great article Kristin

 

[kristin]

You all may as well just walk away from that sire. The owner must approve all comments before they can be viewed by the public.

She hasnt had a comment since June 26....no one is reading her blog but us lol.

Yes, but they post a link to their blog on their Facebook page, which has 10,200 followers.

 

[kristin]

Can someone help me with the math?

There were 34,000 reported cases of oral cancer (non-tobacco and tobacco) and the census says the U.S. population (per the counter on their site) is at 310,582,869 (and rising). That means approx .011% of the population got oral cancer. Does that make the chances/risk also .011% or do you calculate risk differently?

 

[rothenbj]

Can someone help me with the math?

There were 34,000 reported cases of oral cancer (non-tobacco and tobacco) and the census says the U.S. population (per the counter on their site) is at 310,582,869 (and rising). That means approx .011% of the population got oral cancer. Does that make the chances/risk also .011% or do you calculate risk differently?

I found this at Facts About Oral Cancer

" Smoking in combination with heavy alcohol consumption (30+ drinks per week) is the primary (75%) risk factor for oral cancer. Heavy smokers (more than one pack a day) are at a 24 times higher risk for oral cancer. Smoking cigarettes, cigars or pipes, or using chew or snuff tobacco are the greatest risk factors accounting for 80 to 90% of all oral cancers. However 25% of all people diagnosed with oral cancer have none of these risk factors at all."

You know how these numbers go, they quoted 30,200 new cases of which 8,000 die each year. Based on the number you found, then number of incidences of oral cancer has increased another 12.6% and the risk of oral cancer from smoking has increased. I'm not going to answer your question, but try to explain how ridiculous this whole topic is.

If 25% of all oral cancer has non of the risk factors (never smoked, never used smokeless, never drank) we have to assume that had the ever smoked class would also have gotten oral cancer if they hadn't increased their risk. That would give you about 19% more of the user class that more than likely gotten oral cancer anyway. That translates to 43.75% of oral cancers not attributed to anything and 56.25% attributed to all the other explanations. That gives you about a 28.5% higher risk of getting oral cancer with the risk factors than without. Now, if you didn't do the calc assuming that 25% of those with the risk factors would get oral cancer anyway, the percentage changes to about a 67% higher risk with the stated risk factors.

I'm going to continue reducing the risk. I've established that about 56.25% of the oral cancer is from the risky group, us (remember we still exist within that risk classification because we WERE smokers and still use products that they consider risky). Take our heavy drinkers 30 drinks per week and smoking supposedly accounts for 75% Of the risk as they say. They don't say how much you smoke, but based on the number of drinks and the fact that most people tend to smoke more when they drink 42 of that 56.25 of those people in the smoking related class would be attributed to smoking and heavy drinking.
That would translate to 75% of all smoking related oral cancer would fall in the heavy drinking and smoking class.

That's far enough to go with this post as far as risk is concerned. As you can see, there are a lot of ways you can play with statistics to get to the result you wish and from what I've seen the anti movement has been doing it for quite some time. That's why "there's no safe" is such a safe expression. What I found interesting in the quote I provided was-

"Smoking cigarettes, cigars or pipes, or using chew or snuff tobacco are the greatest risk factors accounting for 80 to 90% of all oral cancers. However 25% of all people diagnosed with oral cancer have none of these risk factors at all."

I can only ask this question, if use of tobacco contributes to 80 to 90% of all oral cancers, how can 25% OF ALL PEOPLE WITH ORAL CANCER HAVE NONE OF THE RISK FACTORS AT ALL!

 

[Bill Godshall]

According to epidemiological studies, smokeless tobacco products are attributable for 100-200 oral cancer deaths annually in the US. Since modern smokeless tobacco products contain/emit significantly fewer nitrosamines than smokeless products consumed decades ago (which the epi studies evaluated), it is likely that the number and rates of oral cancers associated with smokeless has been and will continue declining.

The CDC estimated that 3,686 of 4,973 (74%) male oral cancer deaths annually in the U.S. from 1997 through 2001 were attributable to cigarettes.
Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses --- United States, 1997—2001. MMWR July 1, 2005 / 54(25);625-628, CDC, U.S. DHHS.
Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses --- United States, 1997--2001

The CDC also estimated that 303 (6%) of male oral cancer deaths in 2001 were attributable to alcohol.
Alcohol-Attributable Deaths and Years of Potential Life Lost --- United States, 2001, MMWR, September 24, 2004 / 53(37);866-870, CDC, U.S. DHHS. Alcohol-Attributable Deaths and Years of Potential Life Lost --- United States, 2001

Thus, the CDC has estimated that 3,989 of 4,973 (80%) of male oral cancer deaths in this country are due to cigarettes or alcohol.

According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), risk factors for oral cancer include cigarettes, alcohol, cigars, pipe tobacco, SLT, past history of head or neck cancer, and sun exposure.
Oral Cancer, Whose at Risk?, What You Need To Know About Oral Cancer, NCI, 2004.
What You Need To Know About™ Oral Cancer - National Cancer Institute

Other studies suggest that human papillomavirus (HPV) and not eating enough fruits or vegetables also may be risk factors for oral cancer.
Human Papillomavirus Tied to Oral Cancer, Reuters Health, J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1772-1783. http://ctep.cancer.gov/resources/gcig/news121003.html

And as pointed out above, a significant percentage of oral cancer victims had no risk factors.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Interestingly, a study of West Virginians, who have by far the nation's highest smokeless tobacco usage rate (about four times greater than the national average), found that incidence and mortality rates for oral cancer in West Virginia from 1950 to 1980 were lower than the national rates.
Bouquot JE, Meckstroth RL, Oral cancer in a tobacco-chewing US population – no apparent increased incidence or mortality, Oral Surgery Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, 1998, Vol. 86, No. 6. 697-706.