Terrible.
- Thread starter KiloWatts
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
We owe a lot to the commenters that debunked this faux news story. Anyone who reads this joke of an article will be exposed to the facts you've provided and that goes a loooong way in helping to dispell the propoganda that people who don't know any better constantly have thrown at them.
She is either on the take or just a very unhappy person...actually the first generally also means the second, deep down. Poor thing. Life must be awful for desperate antis always having to defend lies.
If nicotine itself caused oral cancer, why is there no increase in it with swedish snus users? And the way she just kept pasting in the same post over and over, at least that is how it came up, makes me think someone needs their harddrive defragged...she's getting glitchy, her cpu is overheating from so much angry juju in her tiny little brain.
The stuff Susan says on there is verbatim from the slander site one post up nicfits.ca
odd isn't it? I mean that person has been on the forum as johnny, bernice and others... gender has no boundaries on the internet
odd isn't it? I mean that person has been on the forum as johnny, bernice and others... gender has no boundaries on the internet
I was thinking "she" was the owner/operator of the website that pipeous referenced (.com though). She even referenced the site in one or two of her comments.
Last edited:
I read this whole article... Why don't reporters do the research instead of taking biased opinions from the select people they interview. A simple good search could verify/falsify what they are saying and would make the article much for credible. Boy do I wanna smack that Susan in the face. They can't get it through their heads and look at the facts. Even if we are just guinea pigs for another way of nicotine ingestion, one should have enough common sense to realize that a max of what, 20 chemicals?, would pose a far lesser risk than say, 4000+ KNOWN chemicals in cigarettes. Like seriously woman? Come on, have some common sense. The statement about CASAA is just garbage.
Golly. I haven't even linked over to read the post and comments yet, and just from what people were saying about the comments, I got to thinking about my favorite master debater.
Would somebody who already has a login there post this comment for me as a reply to Susan's comment that begins with
Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture nicotine replacement products have petitioned the FDA to approve NRTs for long term use. The FDA held hearings on the topic last fall. Dr. Neal Benowitz, who serves on the FDA's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on nicotine safety and toxicity. One of his slides stated that there is "No evidence that nicotine causes or promotes cancer" and "Nicotine may slightly increase the risk of MI and stroke. If so the risks are far lower than those of cigarettes smoking." Whenever a possible "link" shows up at a cellular level in a research lab, the hypothesis this generates must be proven by studies on animal and then in human subjects. As it happens, we already have decades of research on human smokers who switched to Swedish snus. These studies show no increased incidence of oral cancers compared to smokers who became totally abstinent from all tobacco. The incidence, however, is far lower than in continuing smokers.
The reason I ask someone else to post this is because the site wants me to grant permission for them to go digging around in my Facebook account. I have a policy of not granting other sites access to my Facebook or my email accounts. But if somebody else has already obtained access, please post the above. Thanks.
Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture nicotine replacement products have petitioned the FDA to approve NRTs for long term use. The FDA held hearings on the topic last fall. Dr. Neal Benowitz, who serves on the FDA's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on nicotine safety and toxicity. One of his slides stated that there is "No evidence that nicotine causes or promotes cancer" and "Nicotine may slightly increase the risk of MI and stroke. If so the risks are far lower than those of cigarettes smoking." Whenever a possible "link" shows up at a cellular level in a research lab, the hypothesis this generates must be proven by studies on animal and then in human subjects. As it happens, we already have decades of research on human smokers who switched to Swedish snus. These studies show no increased incidence of oral cancers compared to smokers who became totally abstinent from all tobacco. The incidence, however, is far lower than in continuing smokers.
The reason I ask someone else to post this is because the site wants me to grant permission for them to go digging around in my Facebook account. I have a policy of not granting other sites access to my Facebook or my email accounts. But if somebody else has already obtained access, please post the above. Thanks.
Going out on a limb here but have they ever thought about the fact that maybe the nicotine is binding with one of those lovely 4000 chemicals during combustion and thats what causing the increase in OC. Hmmmm
Florida media needs to decide where theyy stand...sorta confusing ?? 1st SWFL e-Cigarette store opens doors.flv - YouTube But even in the end of this piece they sorta get a "jab" in....
I find it quite the coincidence that Susan pops up on the radar at just about the same time as the nicfit site and she is quoting it like it is a well known site.
I just checked out NicFits.com. They are doing what everyone does when they want to stop adults from making choices about their own lives and bodies - curtailing liberty "for the children."
I lived in Washington State when the state-imposed smoking bans were implemented "for the children." The campaigns were financed by the local Indian tribes, whose casinos were coincidentally exempt from the state law. The "for the children" campaign worked, and competing casinos were bankrupted. I hate the children so, so much.
I lived in Washington State when the state-imposed smoking bans were implemented "for the children." The campaigns were financed by the local Indian tribes, whose casinos were coincidentally exempt from the state law. The "for the children" campaign worked, and competing casinos were bankrupted. I hate the children so, so much.
- Status
Similar threads
