In view of the fact that all of the clinical trials so far have been conducted like a nicotine cessation experiment, I suspect the researchers were thinking, "This is just another form of NRT. We know what to do, and we know what to expect."
- Status
In view of the fact that all of the clinical trials so far have been conducted like a nicotine cessation experiment, I suspect the researchers were thinking, "This is just another form of NRT. We know what to do, and we know what to expect."
YEP ...
The researchers can't wrap their heads around e-cigarettes
are actually a Smoking Alternative devise that many have used
to stop smoking altogether. So ... They can't compare apples
to oranges ... they have to consider e-cigs as a Smoking Cessation.
It's like a dog chasing its own tail.
Want to really drop the jaw of a researcher ??
Tell them e-cigarettes are NOT a Smoking Cessation devise !!
MANY vapers still smoke some cigarettes from time to time.
NO Big Deal !! ... Nothing to be ashamed of.
Why?
E-cigarettes are a Smoking Alternative
It's simple as that !!
What we really should do is step back and really take a hard look
at what THEY have done to us. All the hype and research and the media
has morphed e-cigs, from a Smoking Alternative, into a Smoking Cessation device
to the point that even many of us now think of e-cigs as a Smoking Cessation device.
EXACTLY! I'm trying to be very careful these days not even to say "I stopped smoking and now I vape." I say "I switched from smoking to vaping." They just can't get their heads around the fact that there are people who :gasp: don't *want* to quit using nicotine and who :double gasp: don't see anything wrong with it!
Yet, to me at least, the basis of the enthusiasm is because of how personalized, how customizable vaping is. It can be a long term safer alternative, or an alternative into transitions from smoking to vaping with zero nicotine, to just being a weekend warrior social habit. I really don't like bowing to what others might think. Give me your thoughts, and I'll be more than happy to give you mine.
No matter what we, as ex-smokers via safer alternative methods, do, they will try to goat us, shame us, trick us, scare us, in order to justify overly taxing us. I just want to be honest as I can at all times. Those times may morph into other times, but all the times under my belt will be honest. Second guessing others will only stub my toe, because there are creative obstacles everywhere I walk.
No matter what we, as ex-smokers via safer alternative methods, do, they will try to goat us, shame us, trick us, scare us, in order to justify overly taxing us. I just want to be honest as I can at all times. Those times may morph into other times, but all the times under my belt will be honest. Second guessing others will only stub my toe, because there are creative obstacles everywhere I walk.
Moffitt is a member of NCCN - National Cancer Centers Network. If they were doing this, you can bet other centers are doing something similar also. Everyone might want to check out the closest one.
NCCN Network - Member Institutions
I'm excited. NCCN writes cancer guidelines and produce the best research in the field. Their mission is to, "wipe out cancer in our lifetime" and they mean it. The NCCN's have lead the way testing and documenting alternative forms of treatment and getting the results published in accredited medical journals, such that every GP has heard of them.
I was treated at M.D. Anderson C.C. and given the option of acupuntuntcure. They handed me patches, followed up, counseling, etc. (no charge). That was pre 2009. You bet I could see them doing something like that with ecigs or giving smokers a choice (at least). I can say that doctors are kept seperate from patient finances so that doesn't affect treatment. That's pretty committed to unbiased treatment.
I know that NCCN has broken the glass ceiling with alternative treatments and suppliments by documenting results and getting them published in accepted medical literature, and into guidelines. However a lot of people would say it's not enough and not fast enough - which is probably true. But the point is that if NCCN didn't take an interest in "wellness", nobody else could have or would have done it. They were the first that could be referenced in general medicine - and there was opposition to that too but the power of their network is enough to shut them up.
Someone mentioned listing ANTZ like ACA, ALA, etc. and .... who else? Traditionally, these are medical orgs that are involved with funding research and setting guidelines that your insurance uses to treat you with. That may not be all they are doing now, but that is still their role. CASAA is probably viewed more as a political organization and not comparable or as well established. That's not a criticism, but observation. As an example, a lot of doctors follow American Lung Society reccomendations for asthma. I hope there are some firewalls in place between the policital and the medical, but I don't know. My point is that vapers, or THR in general doesn't have a coorsponding medical institution - yet.
If NCCN does take an interest in THR, then it'll be a mute point. ANTZ has to quote NCCN results. Not the other way around. If patients adopt vaping more readily, stay with it longer and has better results, I have no doubt NCCN will be on board. What I don't know is how to reduce the years of study it'll take them to prove it - and that's one of my main issues against FDA regulation.
NCCN Network - Member Institutions
I'm excited. NCCN writes cancer guidelines and produce the best research in the field. Their mission is to, "wipe out cancer in our lifetime" and they mean it. The NCCN's have lead the way testing and documenting alternative forms of treatment and getting the results published in accredited medical journals, such that every GP has heard of them.
I was treated at M.D. Anderson C.C. and given the option of acupuntuntcure. They handed me patches, followed up, counseling, etc. (no charge). That was pre 2009. You bet I could see them doing something like that with ecigs or giving smokers a choice (at least). I can say that doctors are kept seperate from patient finances so that doesn't affect treatment. That's pretty committed to unbiased treatment.
I know that NCCN has broken the glass ceiling with alternative treatments and suppliments by documenting results and getting them published in accepted medical literature, and into guidelines. However a lot of people would say it's not enough and not fast enough - which is probably true. But the point is that if NCCN didn't take an interest in "wellness", nobody else could have or would have done it. They were the first that could be referenced in general medicine - and there was opposition to that too but the power of their network is enough to shut them up.
Someone mentioned listing ANTZ like ACA, ALA, etc. and .... who else? Traditionally, these are medical orgs that are involved with funding research and setting guidelines that your insurance uses to treat you with. That may not be all they are doing now, but that is still their role. CASAA is probably viewed more as a political organization and not comparable or as well established. That's not a criticism, but observation. As an example, a lot of doctors follow American Lung Society reccomendations for asthma. I hope there are some firewalls in place between the policital and the medical, but I don't know. My point is that vapers, or THR in general doesn't have a coorsponding medical institution - yet.
If NCCN does take an interest in THR, then it'll be a mute point. ANTZ has to quote NCCN results. Not the other way around. If patients adopt vaping more readily, stay with it longer and has better results, I have no doubt NCCN will be on board. What I don't know is how to reduce the years of study it'll take them to prove it - and that's one of my main issues against FDA regulation.
Very interesting, aikanae1, thanks for this information. I wasn't aware of NCCN. Am going to check them out; thanks for the link. To your knowledge, are they on board with the ACS at all? Or are they a different species, so to speak?
Just looked up member institutions, could get interesting for the Prue/Stan group in a couple of years as UCSF and UC San Diego are both members.
I think it depends on what you mean by "on board". I'm sure they get funding and I wouldn't doubt if there's a revolving door between them. My knowledge of their research is that it appears there's firewalls between research and funding, like it used to be. The doctor's are independent so it's possible to get conflicting opinions too. I have no doubt that a doc who wanted to see patients with lung cancer to stop smoking would trump any adminstrative, political trend.
I did scan some of the clinical trials (link under professional site) and noticed there has been research on ecig completed. Phillip Morris just completed a study and there's been several others ("distilled nicotine delivery"?). These were in conjunction with NIH and NCI.
As long as the firewall is effective, I can be hopeful the NCCNs might produce some effective uses for ecigs in their programs. That would be a tremendous step forward.
Off Topic: the term "distilled nicotine delivery" made me chuckle. I know this isn't what it means, but I have to ask: Does the juice come in Glenlivet flavor? Jim Beam?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
