The New York Nanny Times

[Saint57]

You can always count on the New York Times for "All the News That's Worth Printing". In lockstep with Nanny Bloomberg, the Times article is so slanted that real smoke will be coming out of your ears. Just the title alone "More people are smoking e-cigarettes, but as a quitting tool, they may be all smoke and mirrors" sounds like e-cigs are a dismal failure. But as read on (nausea growing acutely) you find that they have zero evidence to back it up. The bottom line of the story is the same old story that the government is pushing. "We just don't know enough yet". You don't know enough for what? To declare e-cigs totally safe and free from any risk whatsoever? Can you name me one thing that we can put that label on? We know one thing as absolute fact. E-cigs are safer then smoking tobacco! Just reading this made me go from 18mg to 24mg.


Read more: More people are smoking e-cigarettes, but as a quitting tool, they may be all smoke and mirrors - NY Daily News


Source: Nydailynews
View: Another Slanted Article

 

[williebb123]

i just love how every body wants to control every aspect of how we live and even how we die like they even give two ....z about us, i tell you what it is ...its the fact that in their miserable lives if they cant control ,conform ,distort the truth , put everybody out of their way from cradle to grave then they feel they have not accomplished anything after all misery loves company

 

[Vocalek]

I emailed the reporter. Told her that the person she selected as her subject matter expert didn't know anything about the products.

Extract:

Dr Strasser may be the tobacco products expert at the University of Pennsylvania, but he is not an expert on electronic cigarettes. In fact, I’d be willing to wager that he has no first-hand experience with the products at all. He is ignorant of the fact that vapor delivers a smaller amount of nicotine than smoke (about 1/10 to 1/3) and that puffing harder does not increase the amount of nicotine taken in. (Laugesen, Health New Zealand).

He says, "Just replacing some of your daily cigarettes [with e-cigarettes] is not really a harm reduction strategy." Actually, it has been a successful harm reduction strategy that has worked for millions of smokers. Many people start out as dual users and gradually reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke until they don’t smoke tobacco at all. This works for them because they are not forced to give up the beneficial effects of nicotine in order to rid themselves of the harmful effects of inhaling smoke.

Italian researchers tested this hypothesis directly on smokers who had no desire to quit, and found that by using an e-cigarette, 80% reduced their cigarette consumption by 50% or more, and 20% even quit smoking altogether, although that was not the goal of the project.

You would have been better served by contacting Dr. Jonathan Foulds, Professor of Public Health Sciences and Psychiatry at Penn State University, Dr. Brad Rodu at the University of Louisville, or Dr. Walton Sumner at the University of St. Louis for accurate scientific information about e-cigarette use. For reference purposes, I am attaching the list of scientific research on Electronic Cigarettes that I maintain for my organization. (I did not find Dr. Strasser’s name listed among the research authors.) Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

My list of articles is up to 9 pages. However that does include a cover page where I highlight the research and the last page and a half consists of a list of the clinical trials from Clinical Trials.gov and the Australian clinical trials registry.

 

[Petrodus]

I emailed the reporter. Told her that the person she selected as her subject matter expert didn't know anything about the products.

Let us know if you get a reply

 

[GregoTX]

I don't remember what state it was, but they were moving forward with legislation to ban e-cigs "because we don't know enough about them". Yeah, that makes sense. The FDA or whoever has already OK'd the ingredients used in the juice for human consumption, but "we don't know enough about them"??? Politicians drive me effin' CRAZY with their idiocy. I think they're just buying some time to stand up some ridiculous tax scheme on them before "allowing" them to be sold/used. Ughhhhhhh