Stanford Pulmonologist tells smokers to Quit or Die, ignorant about nicotine

[Berylanna]

E-cigarettes' dangers uncertain - SFGate

Can Bill call Stanford please?

I lost my temper and made a very nasty comment to this article.

 

[transamspirit]

3 words..... lie, uh, bility

 

[Berylanna]

Then she could say "I cannot comment, please contact someone else."

 

[Bill Godshall]

Pulmonary specialists know very little about smoking cessation, and nearly all the smoker patients they see already suffer from advanced emphysema or terminal lung cancer (when there is little or no health benefit to quitting).

 

[AttyPops]

Well, sorry, but I don't find that article particularly offensive. A little CYA maybe, but not offensive. Maybe a bit fear-based. The last paragraph is actually encouraging as to the potential for harm reduction.

It's true... there's a lot we don't know. The nicotine thing is a bit...over simplified.

Meh.

 

[Berylanna]

Well, sorry, but I don't find that article particularly offensive. A little CYA maybe, but not offensive. Maybe a bit fear-based. The last paragraph is actually encouraging as to the potential for harm reduction.

It's true... there's a lot we don't know. The nicotine thing is a bit...over simplified.

Meh.

I think the reason I got so upset is because this came 4 days after I emailed someone at the Cron giving them a bunch of points for our side, and a bunch of informational links, and my feeling was that this is the Cron's answer to all the info I gave them. I was pointing out
reasons to oppose SB 648, saying second-hand vaping is not a public health risk.

The article's beginning line, about "public health concerns", made me think this was pretty much "no, we'll support SB648 because you vapers are spewing poison."

In THAT context this article is offensive as hell. But maybe it was just a coincidence.