The war against electronic cigarettes

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

Yes...Soon or later they will get the message
No one wants to create articles knowing in advance there
will be many thumbs down ratings

What we need is members posting reminders suggesting
a 1 star rating to articles as we see them pop-up on this forum.
Doesn't take but a minute...

On the other hand, a rating of any kind means someone has read the article—not the same, exactly, as a hit count—and been exposed to the advertising therein.

 

[Vocalek]

I did select the one-star rating on the first article. The second link (to chinapost.com) allows comments. I left this one and received a message that comments will be posted within 24 hours.

The 80% of e-cigarette customers who have successfully substituted clean vaporized nicotine for inhaling dangerous smoke say that opponents of the electronic cigarette are undermining the ability of smokers to save their health and their lives. The body of scientific research on the effectiveness and safety of the products is growing, and all of it is positive. Over 90% of consumers say their health has improved since making the switch. Why is it that anti-tobacco "experts" claim there is no evidence the products work and are safe? Do they just not keep up with research in their field, or do they have an ulterior motive for wanting to prevent smokers from switching to a safer alternative? Unless Prof. Martinet is a smoker who tried electronic cigarettes and is among the 20% who could not stop smoking, he has no business claiming the products are a rip off. It is outside his field of expertise. If you want to know, ask the consumers who use the products. The site e-cigarette-forum.com has over 50,000 members from around the world.

 

[Petrodus]

On the other hand, a rating of any kind means someone has read the article—not the same, exactly, as a hit count—and been exposed to the advertising therein.

Good point... Don't really understand all the implications
so will sit back and hopefully others will jump in.

 

[JonnyVapΣ]

"tobacco sellers meanwhile reject manufacturers' claims that sales of the device are taking off.

“It doesn't sell at all, some of our members still have stocks from last year,” said Gerard Bohelay, the head of an association of tobacco retailers in the French capital. - Sapa-AFP"



Blatant ignorance or blatant lies?
Either way, they're "fighting" a losing battle.

 

[mauzey]

There is not a lot of incentive for tobacco retailers to display or advertise E-Cigs, why would they want to kill the golden goose.

 

[rothenbj]

I did select the one-star rating on the first article. The second link (to chinapost.com) allows comments. I left this one and received a message that comments will be posted within 24 hours.

Elaine, the one thing that has bothered me for a time is what we have quoted as E Cig quit rates identified in the various surveys. The Dr. Seigel brought that issue up a week or so ago about ACS and Free & Clear-

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary


THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2010
Free & Clear and American Cancer Society Quit for Life Program Using Fraudulent Marketing Claims to Recruit Users

Suppose I have a smoking cessation intervention. For the purposes of demonstration, let us say that my intervention consists of consuming a Vienna Finger every time a smoker trying to quit has a desire for a cigarette. I assemble a group of 100 people who want to quit and enter them into my Vienna Finger-assisted smoking cessation program.

After 6 months, I want to assess the percentage of participants who have successfully quit smoking. So I send out a survey to the 100 participants asking them if they are smoking at the present time.

Let's say I receive 20 surveys back, and 10 of those 20 respondents indicate that they have quit smoking.

I then have two basic choices for reporting the quit rate for my intervention:

First, I could base the quit rate only on those who have responded to the survey. There were 20 respondents and 10 indicated that they quit, so I could boast that the quit rate for my intervention is 50%. This is called a responder analysis or a responder quit rate.

Second, I could base the quit rate on all those who participated in the program. There were 100 participants, but I can only confirm that 10 of them quit smoking. Eighty respondents were lost to follow-up in the sense that they did not complete the evaluation survey. Chances are that a high proportion of the non-responders failed to quit smoking. One way to handle this is to assume that every non-responder failed to quit smoking. This is called an "intention-to-treat" analysis. The intention-to-treat quit rate would be 10 confirmed quitters out of 100 participants, or 10%.

You can see that with a low response rate, there is a vast difference between the responder quit rate and the intention-to-treat quit rate. What you need to recognize is that the true quit rate is somewhere in between the two quit rates. But most likely, it is much closer to the intention-to-treat quit rate. Why? Because research has demonstrated that non-responders are much, much more likely to be continuing or relapsing smokers.

The responder quit rate assumes that the rate of quitting among non-responders is the same as that among responders. This is an untenable assumption because non-response is almost certainly differential with respect to smoking status. In other words, those who are successful quitting are probably more excited about filling out the survey to tell you how successful the program was. Those for whom the program failed are much less likely to be excited and motivated to take the time to complete the survey.

Any company which only provides its responder quit rate is misrepresenting the true quit rate, unless the response rate to the survey was extremely high. In the case of Free & Clear, it appears that the survey response rate was not high enough to allow the company to use the responder quit rate as a valid indication of the effectiveness of the program.

I know we have no way of really establishing how many people have bought E cigs and reverted back to smoking because they didn't work for them. I know the quit rate in my household was 50%. A lot of those failures could be attributed to people buying the wrong equipment and never finding places like the ECF where your question could be answered and where they could be led from their original mistake to something that works. Heck, most people that I've got to try them are again smoking because they didn't bother to listen to or read what I had told them to check out, ECF for instance.

Just thought I'd mention it.

 

[Exylos]

On the other hand, a rating of any kind means someone has read the article—not the same, exactly, as a hit count—and been exposed to the advertising therein.

While I do agree with you, the rating systems on most sites work on a percentage. There will be people who read this Shyte we can't change that, we are not the FDA. BUT if 1000 of us give it 1 star vote, and 1000 give it a 6 star vote(Think 5 is the max most use so I will say 6 just to be sure. Then the percentage will split the difference equally and give it a 2.5 or 3 star rating. BUT if we do not rate it down, and make our voices heard, then the report will receive a full star rating because the opposing 1000 was not there to counter weight it.

In this case doing nothing can be worse, that the possibility of letting them know that we have read it.

 

[Petrodus]

In this case doing nothing can be worse, that the possibility
of letting them know that we have read it.

I think we all can agree that most of those viewing
these web pages are not members of the ECF so they
are not as informed as we are.

So....If the public sees a page with no comments or possibly
vague comments like "yes I heard E-cigs might be dangerous"...
That would signal the lies and misinformation on the web page
to be true.

The absence of protesting comments is a confirmation of
information on the page. The assumption is IF the information
is misleading or lies...Surely there would be some who would have
taken the time to protest.

If comments are not allowed…Then star ratings are the only way
to signal the public there are issues on the web page

Makes sense?

 

[Exylos]

It makes perfect sense to me

 

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

...if we do not rate it down, and make our voices heard, then the report will receive a full star rating because the opposing 1000 was not there to counter weight it.

If comments are not allowed…Then star ratings are the only way
to signal the public there are issues on the web page

Makes sense?

Perhaps, perhaps not. There's no way of knowing how things will play out.

The question is, in the absence of a provision for comments—to articulate disapproval of substandard journalism, of willful omissions and/or mangling of facts, of the advertisers providing the lifeblood—what does a star count of less than 5 ultimately mean?

From the perspective of advertisers, it could—when coupled with a high hit count—simply mean the piece generated a brushfire of controversy, which translated into a large number of eyes seeing the products they're selling. Will any of them consider the possibility of negative guilt by association?

I could easily be wrong, but I doubt that. My choice in this small battle in the larger war is to fight it economically by denying the Sunday Independent my vote—a singular item of data to be transferred into dollars and cents.

 

[Petrodus]

It all depends on our individual points of view.

Anytime we put the truth on the web...There will be those that read it.
Damage will be done by those posting lies and misinformation...
However, as I see it...When they do this they give us FREE advertising space
and so why not at least take advantage of it.

If Advertisers rate the page high on a list...and promote the info somewhere else
to make money...OK, That will just give us more Free space to advertise the truth.

I don't know for sure what the answer is...All I know is the answer for me
is to take advantage of all free space out there to denounce the lies and
misinformation and spread the truth. Spread the truth not just to fight but to
influence some to try E-cigarettes and save lives. They will tell others and
those will tell others...Just like back in the early days of the movement.

 

[Petrodus]

While I do agree with you, the rating systems on most sites work on a percentage. There will be people who read this Shyte we can't change that, we are not the FDA. BUT if 1000 of us give it 1 star vote, and 1000 give it a 6 star vote(Think 5 is the max most use so I will say 6 just to be sure. Then the percentage will split the difference equally and give it a 2.5 or 3 star rating. BUT if we do not rate it down, and make our voices heard, then the report will receive a full star rating because the opposing 1000 was not there to counter weight it.

In this case doing nothing can be worse, that the possibility of letting them know that we have read it.

A recent post...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-smokers-turn-e-cigarettes-they-try-quit.html
Article Rating
Current Rating: 1.4 of 7 votes (as of the last time I looked at the article)

 

[Ardeagold]

OK...here's where I have a problem with the FDA legally regulating any of it. And perhaps they do too, or they'd already be on a roll...

Equipment is only a bunch of component parts of things that have existed for decades. All are used for various things. Batteries...that's obvious. Atomizers...I suppose they're used for something. Mouthpieces..used for all kinds of things. Fiberfill...obvious.

Flavorings - well, we all know what they are and what they're used for.

PG/VG ... already available OTC for multiple uses.

And that leaves nicotine liquid. I'm not sure if it's already regulated by someone BEFORE it's broken down and shipped to distributors. Is it? If so, who? The FDA? (Is that where the tobacco "regulation" that the courts are referring to comes in?)

If it's already regulated, then I guess the only way they could further regulate is to only allow sales to regular consumers via a pharmacist with a Rx. THAT would create a problem for vapers.

I guess this is too simplistic, but the only real issues I see are two: 1) nicotine liquid; and 2) advertising as smoking cessation devices.

What am I missing here?

 

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

...the answer for me
is to take advantage of all free space out there to denounce the lies and
misinformation and spread the truth. Spread the truth not just to fight but to
influence some to try E-cigarettes and save lives. They will tell others and
those will tell others...Just like back in the early days of the movement.

In any instance in which readers are allowed to comment—to do exactly as you say—there's no excuse for us not to.

Actually, I should say there's no excuse for me not to; I'm guilty of laziness at least as often as anyone.

 

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

...Here's yet another, this one a video segment from an ABC Hawaii affiliate: E-Cigarettes, Are They Safe? - Video - KITV Honolulu

Just the usual: "There's really not a lot of research that is available...the FDA did issue a warning last year saying that they had actually found carcinogens...they're not safe to use...[on nicotine patches, known to contain the same trace levels of carcinogens], you can be sure that they're safe to use."

Comments permitted. 500 characters max.

 

[Vocalek]

Commented.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Sent this comment to the author through Facebook

Mr. Haro,

I was very disappointed to hear you repeat the misleading claim by the FDA that the e-cigarette contains carcinogens. The amount of carcinogens found in an e-cigarette cartridge is equivalent to that of the patch. In other words, one would have to use 1000+ e-cigarette cartridges in order to inhale the number of carcinogens found in a single Marlboro Light.

If you provide me an e-mail address, I'd be glad to send you a study recently published by Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University Department of Public Health in the Journal of Public Health Policy. In it, Dr. Siegel goes through the results of 15 different tests performed on the e-cigarette and outlines what was found. Dr. Siegel concludes that e-cigarettes appear to be considerably safer than real cigarettes (as a result of the fact that 98% of tobacco deaths can be attributed to inhaling burning chemicals) and that any attempt to regulate it as a drug delivery device would inevitably lead to current e-cigarette users being forced to go back to real cigarettes.

I implore you to please read beyond FDA press releases when you are asked to speak in public on a matter as important to public health as curbing tobacco use.

Thank you

 

[Petrodus]

Posting Comments on web pages

Wish I had the writing skills of kristin (and others) because the following could be condensed to just a couple of paragraphs.

Many articles "In the News" we see posted on this forum allow viewers to post Comments.

Some of us seem to be "quick on the trigger" posting eloquent comments and we see "Here's my Comment that I just posted" KUDOS

In the spirit of discussion and sharing information... Here's what I do.

I have a folder on my desktop named "E-cig Comments"

Inside that folder I have text files with comments that I have posted in the past as well as copies of comments others have posted as well and comments that I have read posted in general discussions. Each of these text files has memory jogger names IE Nicotine is poison OR E-cigs Untested harmful OR ... You get the idea

When I see Crap on the Net and I want to post a comment... I just go to the folder and search for appropriate text and copy and paste to create a comment. Naturally I reword comments a little depending on the articles but I don’t spend a lot of time trying to be creative or trying to impress anyone.

If you think about it...MOST of the E-cig in the News is really NOT anything NEW. They just keep "Recycling" the same old propaganda over and over. Many of the articles in the news are just older articles that are republished using different head-lines and many mix up the text a little to give the illusion of an original thought.

THEY Copy and Paste to create articles with the SAME OLE Lies and Misinformation...I Copy and Paste comments. Same Lies and Misinformation get same or similar comments pointing out the truth and the author’s are idiots!

I have taken comments made here on this forum as well as comments I have seen posted on web pages and re-worded them to fit my personality.

Comments on web pages are read by the authors and thus have an impact on what they will write in the future. However, the general uniformed public sees the comments and finds the truth and some are smokers that decide to try an E-cigarette and lives are saved. They then will tell others and they will tell others. In time the truth will become "Common Knowledge" and, in part, simply because some took the time to post comments.

It's not important that we post eloquent comments...It is important that we post the truth and in Numbers. The general public is not yet well informed and when they see overwhelming numbers of posts pointing out lies and misinformation they assume the information in the article is incorrect.

Proof is in the pudding: 9 page of comments on the King County E-cigarette ban article. Some from us but Many from locals and others around the country. The Overwhelming numbers of Pro E-cigarette comments was an eye opener for me. Many stated they didn't even smoke and know the truth about E-cigarettes. One (non-smoking employer) posted he buys E-cigarettes for his employees that smoke! Where did they learn about the truth? Word of mouth? Yes, however, most pick up information in the media and today the Internet is the first place people look to for the news and truth.

There is no question in my mind that posting comments save lives. We all know everyone who quits smoking because they switched to E-smoking will tell everyone they know about E-cigarettes.

I’m not even slightly concerned about posting the exact (word for word) comments on various "In the News" web pages or anywhere else for that matter.

I suggest….Comments is an arena where we all can easily and quickly participate in the War Against E-cigarettes. Using the Copying and Paste thing makes posting comments not only easy but also rewarding.

I've long since shared the truth about E-cigarettes with every member of my family and all my friends. That doesn't mean I'm out of ammunition and no one left to talk to.

Web pages open to Comments reminds me of the "Gopher Game" - They pop up with lies and misinformation...They will get "boinked" on their little head.

Your thoughts and discussion?

 

[Petrodus]

Sent this comment to the author through Facebook

Thank you for sharing...KUDOS

Loved the comment:

"I implore you to please read beyond FDA press releases when you are asked to speak in public on a matter as important to public health as curbing tobacco use"

 

[Vocalek]

Yes! Very eloquently put, Placebo Effect.

And Petrodus, I love your idea of organizing comment text for later reuse. I often do copy-paste on my commenting, but spend some time searching for what I said on a prior article. My 2011 resolution: Get organized!