TC propaganda against vaping exposed as dogmatic anti-science drivel

[DrMA]

«opponents of electronic cigarettes are so concerned about the potential downsides that they advocate for an anti-e-cigarette regulatory and research approach that may be bad for public health. This approach of “deep precaution,” they argue, “has served as a kind of trump argument, hostile to the notion of trade-offs, seeing in them perilous compromise. Such a posture does not serve either science or policy well.”»

Electronic Cigarettes: What the Latest Science Says About E-Cigs

 

[Niten13]

Again Bookmarked for more reading!
Thanks for the Link!

 

[Kent C]

"Columbia public health professors Amy Fairchild and Ronald Bayer argue in Science magazine that the staunchest opponents of electronic cigarettes are so concerned about the potential downsides that they advocate for an anti-e-cigarette regulatory and research approach that may be bad for public health. This approach of “deep precaution,” they argue, “has served as a kind of trump argument, hostile to the notion of trade-offs, seeing in them perilous compromise. Such a posture does not serve either science or policy well.”


wiki:

Galen (Galen of Pergamon) AD129 - 200, was a prominent Greek physician, surgeon and philosopher in the Roman empire. Galen's understanding of anatomy and medicine was principally influenced by the then-current theory of humorism, as advanced by ancient Greek physicians such as Hippocrates. His theories dominated and influenced Western medical science for more than 1,300 years.

Galen's theory of the physiology of the circulatory system endured until 1628, when William Harvey published his treatise entitled De motu cordis, in which he established that blood circulates, with the heart acting as a pump. Medical students continued to study Galen's writings until well into the 19th century.

William Harvey (1 April 1578 – 3 June 1657) was an English physician. He was the first known to describe completely and in detail the systemic circulation and properties of blood being pumped to the brain and body by the heart, though earlier writers had provided precursors of the theory.

Harvey's discoveries inevitably and historically came into conflict with Galen's teachings and the publication of his treatise De Motu Cordis incited considerable controversy within the medical community. Some doctors affirmed they would "rather err with Galen than proclaim the truth with Harvey."
---------

This last viewpoint tended to freeze medical research and advancement for 200 years. The ignorance and bias that we're seeing now, could very well delay, for years, the benefits to public health that ecigarettes can provide.

 

[Hattivatti]

I am not sure if anyone has previously pointed that ANTZ's leaflets usually advices to contact poisoning central if vaper has a skin contact from e-liquid. As we all vapers know there isn't any vapers who has not had skin contact with e-liquid when refilling atomizer without any issues, even with DIYers. Is it one tactic to scare authorities that e-liquid causes poisoning and therefor should ban e-cigs?

 

[caramel]

Anyone willing to elaborate how this principle of "deep precaution" was applied to fracking for example? Or is it a selective principle to be applied only in certain circumstances?

 

[JeremyR]

Its a free country let me vape with out paying sin tax!

 

[Kent C]

Its a free country let me vape with out paying sin tax!

In a free country, you could. So therefore....

 

[Uma]

Anyone willing to elaborate how this principle of "deep precaution" was applied to fracking for example? Or is it a selective principle to be applied only in certain circumstances?

It pops up everywhere, in a prepping the public method.
As far as detail about it with fracking, this documentary titled FrackNation (best fracking documentary you will ever see) sheds a lot of info & exposes the misrepresentations, junk science, fear mongering that the original documentary (x Justin something?) scared everyone into a ban frenzy with.
http://www.indicrat.com/search?upda...:00-08:00&max-results=4&start=4&by-date=false

 

[readeuler]

I'm confused. The Time article seemed to give very little weight to any positive outcomes of e-cigarettes' existence, and seemed to mention all the negative FUD type arguments. I've typed up my list of points, which is a little deceptive, IMO. "The Good" is all squished into 3-4 sentences sprinkled throughout, while "The Bad" makes up the majority of the article and tinges my entire perception.

The Good:
-Calling ANTZ by their name (Well, not really, but emphasizing the Zealotry)
-Admitting that e-cigs could be harm reducing
-Arguing for a rational regulatory approach; i.e., not what's currently happening
-Mentioning studies showing that e-cigarettes can help actual people quit smoking with less harm, compared to cigarettes, to bystanders

The Bad:
-"save the children" gateway nonsense
-gateway to dual use nonsense (who in their right mind would have totally quit smoking were e-cigs unavailable, but dual use because they are? That's completely irrational)
-Devoting an entire large paragraph to the formaldehyde study, including how e-cigs could cause more cancerz than even teh smoking!!1, and how formaldehyde-releasing agents could have physiological properties making them MORE dangerous that regular formaldehyde
-Invoking the CDC and data on calls to poison control centers (which could be due to actual poisonings, or could simply be benign inquiries, but they don't mention that possibility. I just felt we could use more of the word "could")
-"We just don't know" about the long term effects of inhaling PG, brought to you by, surprise, the American Cancer Society.
-CDC's data on youth e-cigarette use, which has been shown to be deceptive

A fact I've never fully processed, but mentioned in the article:
-The teen e-cigarette use rates in Hawaii

I'd say the gem of the article is their very strong and eloquent (sarcasm intended) closing statement:

The FDA has suggested a ban on sale of e-cigarettes to minors, and admits that there is a lot consumers don’t know about the product like whether they attract kids and teens or just how much nicotine is inhaled when a person vapes.

I like how the FDA is the one "admitting" that consumers don't know a lot about the products. Shouldn't we be doing the admitting, since we're the ignorant masses who know so little?

They also have some funniness going on with the link to Fairchild and Bayer's most recent publication - unless 2004 is considered recent and they meant to say Bioethics when they said it was in Science. They did publish something in Science on January 23, which I will read shortly, but it's not what Time linked to.

Sorry for my tone, but the article just didn't live up to my expectations. I must just feel like a curmudgeon today

 

[Kent C]

Sorry for my tone, but the article just didn't live up to my expectations.

I agree. The ONLY positive is that it is from the lapdog media and it has some positive points - a rarity....

This: on PG inhalation....
"“As for long-term effects, we don’t know what happens when you breathe the vapor into the lungs regularly,” Thomas Glynn, the director of science and trends at the American Cancer Society, told ABC News. “No one knows the answer to that.”

... an outright lie or incredible ignorance and a failure to even look for any studies. Dow Chemical and other producers of PG are required to have inhalation studies done and they have on a regular basis going back to 1947. Result - no ill effects on the factory workers.

 

[readeuler]

I can thankfully access PubMed to the actual article I linked above. Head and shoulders above the Time article, it paints a very accurate portrait of this war on vapor as a clash of world-views, and suggests that one is rather mis-guided.

It's sadly very balanced, but subtly slams the glANTZ mainframe of "deep precaution."

Decision-making may draw on elements of both precautionary thinking and harm reduction, but weighing the risks and benefits is unavoidable. It is imperative to recognize that deep precaution precludes that possibility. It has served as a kind of trump argument, hostile to the notion of trade-offs, seeing in them perilous compromise. Such a posture does not serve either science or policy well.

I've got the PDF if anyone can't access it. I'm just a PM away.

 

[catlady60]

Its a free country let me vape with out paying sin tax!

Vaping is not the sin. So why are ANTZ so eager to impose sin taxes on something that isn't sinful?

 

[caramel]

Vaping is not the sin. So why are ANTZ so eager to impose sin taxes on something that isn't sinful?

cause that's how they're earning their money