Sunday NY Times Features Debate between Siegal and Glantz

[Roger_Lafayette]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/
health/a-hot-debate-over-e-cigarettes-as-a-path-to-tobacco-or-from-it.html?_r=0

(Link is broken due to junk content. You can paste it right into your browser, the extra line doesn't matter. If you see a pay wall message for NYT, that means that you've read too many articles this month. Close your browser and clear your cookies.)

 

[Uma]

Not too bad of a debate. Dr. Siegel did great, plus they mentioned Dr. Nitzkin and a few others.
What strikes red flags in me, is the talk of lowering the nicotine. First they ban the India cigs with higher nicotine content that allows a user to smoke less often. Now they want to delete the nicotine and force smokers onto eCigs, or Chantix. The part that sends red flags in me, is the fact that nicotine is beneficial, our cells thrive and multiply with it, from our veins to our brain cells. Smoke & tar, on the other hand kills the cells dead. I'm no scientist, but isn't this "plan" a deadly plot? The smoker who is caught in transition, or too broke to switch over yet, will ... up and die or become zombified.

 

[Erncig]

page not found?

 

[claudebo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/h...h-to-tobacco-or-from-it.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

try this one

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

page not found?

It's possible that you didn't paste the entire link into your browser. I "broke" it as per the site rules, on the grounds that it may contain junk science.

(I always break all my links just in case - except those which come from a small handful of trusted sources. One cannot violate the site policy by breaking links - only by not breaking them.)

 

[Thunderball]

One really great article....both sides of the coin. Thanks.

I just know I'm not one of the 480,000 that are gonna die this year from Cig smoking. 37 year habit wiped out over night.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

One really great article....both sides of the coin. Thanks.

Yep. It's like a debate between Galileo and a Catholic Church Bishop, set in the early 17th century. One "side" argued that the earth went around the sun, the other claimed that the reverse was true

(Seriously, a lot of claims that Glantz makes are either pure speculation, or completely at odds with the data. For ex., he says that the "vast majority" of vapers also smoke tobacco cigarettes. He says that vaping "may" prolong "the habit [by which he means smoking tobacco cigarettes]." He also embraces the "concerns" of the FDA regarding the "minor gateway" argument. I could go on and on.)

Glantz is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.

for quitting. 40 years, here. Although it took me about a week, not a day

 

[AgentAnia]

....Glantz is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.

Good one. This is going in the "Quotable Quotes" file.

 

[Anjaffm]

woohoo good find!

@Roger_Lafayette :
great posting!

 

[Bill Godshall]

This article is extremely important since it was on the front page of today's NY Times, and because it exposes our ongoing war to keep e-cigs legal to manufacture, import, sell, buy and use.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/h...garettes-as-a-path-to-tobacco-or-from-it.html


Although the Times reporter misrepresented the scientific evidence and repeated fear mongering claims by e-cig prohibitionists (without any fact checking and without revealing their irreconcilable financial or ideological conflicts of interests), there is no reason anyone should break the link of articles like this one when posting on ECF.

While its helpful to break links of one sided junk science propaganda, it seems like some folks on ECF have misinterpreted that to mean they should break the links to every news article (no matter how important, informative or newsworthy) simply because it includes one or more inaccurate statements about e-cigs.

But doing that only makes it more difficult (and time consuming) for those of us who truly want to find and obtain (and forward to others) important news articles. The last thing ECF should be doing is making it more difficult for e-cig activists to obtain and disseminate information to each other.

And it doesn't help when some folks post notes telling everyone else to break the links of every article that contains an inaccurate statement about e-cigs (as virtually every news article on e-cigs contains at least one inaccurate or misleading statement).

Please remember that there's a huge difference between one sided junk science propaganda stories that are generated by Big Pharma PR firms and ANTZ, and news articles that describe the two different sides in our war, and that discuss the issues and policies we strongly disagree on.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

This article is extremely important since it was on the front page of today's NY Times, and because it exposes our ongoing war to keep e-cigs legal to manufacture, import, sell, buy and use.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/h...garettes-as-a-path-to-tobacco-or-from-it.html


Although the Times reporter misrepresented the scientific evidence and repeated fear mongering claims by e-cig prohibitionists (without any fact checking and without revealing their irreconcilable financial or ideological conflicts of interests), there is no reason anyone should break the link of articles like this one when posting on ECF.

While its helpful to break links of one sided junk science propaganda, it seems like some folks on ECF have misinterpreted that to mean they should break the links to every news article (no matter how important, informative or newsworthy) simply because it includes one or more inaccurate statements about e-cigs.

But doing that only makes it more difficult (and time consuming) for those of us who truly want to find and obtain (and forward to others) important news articles. The last thing ECF should be doing is making it more difficult for e-cig activists to obtain and disseminate information to each other.

And it doesn't help when some folks post notes telling everyone else to break the links of every article that contains an inaccurate statement about e-cigs (as virtually every news article on e-cigs contains at least one inaccurate or misleading statement).

Please remember that there's a huge difference between one sided junk science propaganda stories that are generated by Big Pharma PR firms and ANTZ, and news articles that describe the two different sides in our war, and that discuss the issues and policies we strongly disagree on.

The "trusted source" rule is easy to apply. If you and the mods can get together and give us a simple yardstick that we can use, I'm sure we'll all be happy to follow it.

We don't want to make trouble.

And we don't want to get in trouble.

P.S.: I break links by putting a carriage return between them, so they can be immediately pasted into a browser's URL line. This method was suggested to me by Elaine (Keller).

 

[rothenbj]

I agree with Bill on this statement and it's one of the most annoying aspects of MSM, "Although the Times reporter misrepresented the scientific evidence and repeated fear mongering claims by e-cig prohibitionists (without any fact checking and without revealing their irreconcilable financial or ideological conflicts of interests),,,,,,"

We never see how "conflicted" the opinions of people like Slantz and representatives of all those ?non-profit?"health" associations are. Unless you are really involved in this battle and are just a casual observer of the article, the ANTZ position wouldn't look so authoritative.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Overall, I think this NY Times article is a huge victory for vapers and the e-cig industry, as it quotes lots of public health advocates who support e-cigs.

Most other articles falsely claim that all public health advocates and experts oppose e-cigs.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

We never see how "conflicted" the opinions of people like Slantz and representatives of all those ?non-profit?"health" associations are. Unless you are really involved in this battle and are just a casual observer of the article, the ANTZ position wouldn't look so authoritative.

What's really starting to tick me off is that The Legacy Foundation is using MSA funds to buy media space - which isn't identified as an "advertisement" - in order to peddle junk studies on the vaping industry (today is the second day in a row - yesterday it was a SD CA CBS affiliate). I suppose that's no different in a way from having paid (?) ALA reps show up to an public city council hearing in a small MN town to get an anti-vaping ord. passed (Sleepy Eye, MN - last week). Of course state and local Health Dep't Officials and "Tobacco Control" people do that all the time, with our tax dollars.

We're dealing with a professional PR machine that gets greased by public funds, as well as BP money.

 

[PennyLynn]

I was very pleased to see this story on the front page.
As many of us as want to should send letters supporting the cause. It's important to show that many, many long-term smokers have been able to stop, and NO, it's not something people do in addition to smoking. I will.

 

[PennyLynn]

My letter. Not fancy but from the heart:
I was introduced to the current generation of vaping devices by a neighbor, a longtime smoker who had quit easily using his. I also found it very easy to stop smoking this way. I've since seen testimonials from dozens of people who were able to make the switch and get away from deadly cigarettes.
Even though it's true that these are so new that there aren't any long-term studies yet, let's review what we DO know: no tar or any of the other products of combustion, and none of the up to 4,000 other substances added to cigarettes. I can only speak for myself when I tell you that I feel much better and I can't, for the life of me, understand why worrying about the possibility that someone MIGHT decide they look appealing and take it up should impede the possibility that we can get untold, folks off the sure poison of smoking.

 

[DrMA]

I thought that was an excellent article, presenting views from both sides of the debate, with little or no junk science propaganda.

Of course the end threat from Slantz is a bit disconcerting: "The evidence will show their true colors." This, of course, means his army of crony academics and morally-bankrupt researchers on the payroll of BP are all busy manufacturing more junk science to drag down the good name of ecigs.

 

[rothenbj]

I thought that was an excellent article, presenting views from both sides of the debate, with little or no junk science propaganda.

Of course the end threat from Slantz is a bit disconcerting: "The evidence will show their true colors." This, of course, means his army of crony academics and morally-bankrupt researchers on the payroll of BP are all busy manufacturing more junk science to drag down the good name of ecigs.

If people would just look at these studies, they'd realize how weak the science really is coming out of these BP sponsored academic institutions led by prohibitionists like Slantz..

 

[DrMA]

If people would just look at these studies, they'd realize how weak the science really is coming out of these BP sponsored academic institutions led by prohibitionists like Slantz..

If people would just look period, we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. But, for some reason, people love the blindfold thrown on their faces by the powers that be...

 

[Poeia]

Not too bad of a debate. Dr. Siegel did great, plus they mentioned Dr. Nitzkin and a few others.
What strikes red flags in me, is the talk of lowering the nicotine. First they ban the India cigs with higher nicotine content that allows a user to smoke less often. Now they want to delete the nicotine and force smokers onto eCigs, or Chantix. The part that sends red flags in me, is the fact that nicotine is beneficial, our cells thrive and multiply with it, from our veins to our brain cells. Smoke & tar, on the other hand kills the cells dead. I'm no scientist, but isn't this "plan" a deadly plot? The smoker who is caught in transition, or too broke to switch over yet, will ... up and die or become zombified.

Nicotine is NOT beneficial. A little nicotine may have some benefits but that is not the same thing. Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. It can increase blood pressure.

On the other hand, you have much more control over your nicotine intake with PVs than with cigarettes. You can try different nicotine levels until you find the lowest one that works for you. You can take one or two puffs, as needed, and put your PV away. At the current price of cigarettes, who would stub one out after so quickly?

And, of course, nicotine is not a toxin. That honor goes to most of the other ingredients in cigarettes, starting with tar.