TONIGHT - E-cigarette segment: Dr. Carl V. Phillips v. Stan Glantz 10:45 pm Eastern

[Uma]

Great find!
Makes me remember the sad Kennedy assassination. They certainly attracted the narcissistic sore losers didn't they.

 

[Vocalek]

I liked this quote from the Velvet Glove Iron Fist link:

The EPA's use of a lowered 90% interval was almost unheard of and, in his 1980 paper, Stanton Glantz had firmly promoted the 95% confidence interval. But when The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition did the same, Glantz sang to a very different tune. Glantz accused it of "attempting to change the scientific standards of proof" and complained that its recommendations "would make it impossible to conclude that secondhand smoke - and thus other environmental toxins - caused diseases." (3) That may have been true but it was hardly the fault of epidemiology if it was unable to back up Glantz's beliefs.

Very clever punch line.

 

[Uma]

Love that hi light Elaine!

I just stumbled across this site. https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.smokers/00WCOc6SRWM titled "Thats a lie!" (He seems very upset with Glantz).
The guy poses an interesting thought.
"- show quoted text -
"Write to OSHA saying they should reduce PELs (Permissible Exposure
Limits) of all known poisons to zero. Let us know when they stop
laughing."

Hey Petrodus....
Or world vaper day,
Or ... Maybe it's time I go for an evening walk. It probably only makes sense to me ATM lol

 

[Uma]

OMG, before I go, I just have to post this!
What's the first thing a habitual liar does? They set up a defence system, warn others that they will be attacked for telling the truth, and then sit back and act all innocent. Right? Right. (Dont argue with me, I know I'm right lol)
With that said, read this.
Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?

(It gets good towards the middle ish)

 

[Vocalek]

Two things:

For those who missed the broadcast, a video has been posted on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT2WZd6-6RE

And then there is this:

Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS)

Notice that one of the grantees is:

University of California San Francisco Improved Models to Inform tobacco Product Regulation (UCSF TCORS) Stanton Glantz

Yeah, we have seen how SG would like to (mis)inform tobacco product regulation. The really sad thing is they are PAYING him to continue bending the truth. What's worse, is that they are using our money. [Yeah, where do you think the tobacco companies got the money that they are using to pay the registration fees to the FDA.]

 

[_sidekick_]

The Glantz guy is just ignorant...

 

[BigBen2k]

His position is based on really old data; "nicotine" alters brain chemistry. If you count the MAOIs naturally present in tobacco, that's right, but this study never took extracted nicotine into account.

Science from the 80's; back when tobacco = nicotine.

 

[Vocalek]

Good point, BigBen2K.

 

[Petrodus]

Oh, come on folks ... Glantz knows the truth about ecigs
He doesn't care ... but he knows the truth.
Glantz is an agenda driven pompous lying ego maniac
and I'm being polite.

 

[BigBen2k]

I never factor in people's personalities, but in this situation, a generalization would be; it's possible he'll stick to his position even after finding out the truth, just to save himself from the embarrassment of admitting he was wrong.

On the other hand, he could become a great advocate for e-cigs, but IMO, it would take some pretty hard data to turn him around: he has a very specific concern.

 

[Petrodus]

Glantz's own words ... see video starting at 2:00 min.

"To say e-cigarettes are less dangerous than cigarettes
is a little bit like saying jumping out of the 10th story
of a building is less dangerous than jumping out of the 50th story."

Give me a fricken break !!

Those here who want to justify his insanities and believe
he can be turned from the dark-side ... Carry on ... I'm going to bed.

 

[DC2]

I never factor in people's personalities, but in this situation, a generalization would be; it's possible he'll stick to his position even after finding out the truth, just to save himself from the embarrassment of admitting he was wrong.

Have you ever read this?
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

 

[cmknight]

Two peer-reviewed population studies? One said e-cigs don't work, and the other said they were ineffective?

I wish I had Glantz's email address, so I could send him my testimonial about using e-cigs to quit smoking, because, obviously, I missed those studies somewhere in my research.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Have you ever read this?
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

Thank you, it's a free download 13.4M, I think I found something that needs reading.

 

[Vocalek]

Two peer-reviewed population studies? One said e-cigs don't work, and the other said they were ineffective?

I wish I had Glantz's email address, so I could send him my testimonial about using e-cigs to quit smoking, because, obviously, I missed those studies somewhere in my research.

Glantz deletes testimonials if they are left as comments on his blog. He says (in a dismissive tone) that they are "anecdotal evidence." So he probably would hit delete the message as soon as he realized what he was reading was a testimonial. One piece of anecdotal evidence is an interesting story. A couple of million might be considered evidence (but not to Stan.)

These are the two "large population studies" he cited in his blog:

(1) Vickerman KA, Carpenter KM, Altman T, Nash CM, Zbikowski SM. Use of electronic cigarettes among state tobacco cessation quitline callers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013 Oct;15(10):1787-91. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntt061. Epub 2013 May 8. Use of Electronic Cigarettes Among State Tobacco Cessation Quitline Callers

(2) Adkison SE, O'Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M, et al. T. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: international tobacco control four-country survey. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Mar;44(3):207-15. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: internat... [Am J Prev Med. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

The sponsor of the first study stated, "The recently published article by Dr. Katrina Vickerman and colleagues has been misinterpreted by many who have written about it. It was never intended to assess the effectiveness of the e-cig as a mechanism to quit." E-Cigs: Are They A Problem Or A Solution?

The other study referred to e-cigarettes as "ENDS" (for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems), and the abstract stated: "Because trial was associated with nondaily smoking and a desire to quit smoking, ENDS may have the potential to serve as a cessation aid."

In addition, a recent clinical trial found, "E-cigarettes, with or without nicotine, were modestly effective at helping smokers to quit, with similar achievement of abstinence as with nicotine patches, and few adverse events."

Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Sep 9. pii: S0140-6736(13)61842-5. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a random... [Lancet. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

The actual abstinence rates were 7.3% for nicotine e-cigarette group, 5.3% for the patch, and 4.1 for no-nicotine e-cigarette group. Since the differences did not reach statistical significance, the authors chose to average them to 5.7%

Most media coverage said that e-cigarettes were as good as the patch. e.g. E-cigarettes as good as nicotine patches in helping smokers quit | Reuters

However, Stan's interpretation was a bit different.

New RCT shows ecig quitting rate no better than nicotine patch | Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education

 

[Petrodus]

Glantz deletes testimonials if they are left as comments on his blog. He says (in a dismissive tone) that they are "anecdotal evidence." So he probably would hit delete the message as soon as he realized what he was reading was a testimonial. One piece of anecdotal evidence is an interesting story. A couple of million might be considered evidence (but not to Stan.)

True

Glantz knows the truth about e-smoking ... He doesn't want to hear it.
He will take ANY positive information about esmoking and reverse it putting a negative spin on it.

AGAIN ... Glantz KNOWS THE TRUTH ... Believe It OR NOT

 

[AgentAnia]

Thank you, it's a free download 13.4M, I think I found something that needs reading.

Absolutely you need to read it! Pay particular attention to the opening remarks (posted on the antirampantetc. website) by Sir George Godber... In fact, never mind, I'll post it here for everyone to read. This is the infamous Godber Blueprint. From 1975. Do the tactics sound familiar? (hint: substitute "e-cigarette" and "nicotine" for "smoking" and "tobacco"...)

"Demonize the tobacco industry. Eradicate all industry advertising. The tobacco industry will be portrayed as always evil, public health as always good. Public health is always right - anyone questioning public health will be smeared (argument ad hominem) as a tobacco industry shill or sympathizer/apologist, i.e., wrong by association.

Smoking will be punished through taxation and the removal of smoking-permitted areas. Any reference to smoking/smokers will always be negative and never positive. Smoking will always be referred to as abnormal behavior. Smoking will be depicted as a non-normal or abnormal behavior. Smokers would be depicted, in a wholly derogatory sense, as ‘nicotine addicts’: Smoking would be ‘reduced’ to no more than nicotine addiction. In short, nonsmokers are ‘superior’, smokers are ‘inferior’.

Those in education and public health will be the first to be brainwashed into antismoking, and should be ‘exemplars’ of ‘normal’, nonsmoking behavior. Those choosing to smoke should have their employment terminated in these ‘exemplar’ industries, to begin with."

Remember, several generations have grown up brainwashed by exactly this. Is it any wonder so many people mistrust vaping?

 

[Petrodus]

AgentAnia ...

 

[Uma]

Absolutely you need to read it! Pay particular attention to the opening remarks (posted on the antirampantetc. website) by Sir George Godber... In fact, never mind, I'll post it here for everyone to read. This is the infamous Godber Blueprint. From 1975. Do the tactics sound familiar? (hint: substitute "e-cigarette" and "nicotine" for "smoking" and "tobacco"...)



Remember, several generations have grown up brainwashed by exactly this. Is it any wonder so many people mistrust vaping?

We can even go far as to replace the words tobacco and smoking with fast food and eating. While I don't glorify fast foods, now, like I did in my youth, I don't like being attacked or watching others being attacked for visiting such places. Especially when they are visited so rarely.
It's sad to see how easily it is to rally bullies and hatred. I just wish it were that easy to rally against the bullies and hatred.

 

[pamdis]

Glantz's own words ... see video starting at 2:00 min.

"To say e-cigarettes are less dangerous than cigarettes
is a little bit like saying jumping out of the 10th story
of a building is less dangerous than jumping out of the 50th story."

When I heard him say this, I thought, "No, you idiot, it's exactly like saying jumping out of the 1st story is less dangerous than jumping out of the 100th story!"