Two new surveys put the final nail in the coffin of "gateway" fantasy

[DC2]

Well the libertarian argument is backed up by nothing less than the constitution, and has quite a large group of followers (including me fwiw). Carol is pretty much alone and given the nature of her argument, an easy pray to various forms of ridiculing. This may explain why she became aggressive over time (see PM). I plead for being more understanding.

To be perfectly honest, the arguments about infection come off as a bit nutty to me.
But for all I know they may be right, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

We vapers, however, don't have time to take up that cause.

Just like we don't have time to take up a "let the children vape" cause.
Or the "second hand smoke issue is almost all lies" cause.

I think it's called political expediency.
And it's wrong on the face of it, that much I can admit.

I don't like it one bit.
But I don't run the world.

 

[Kent C]

And if, on occasion, that happens to play out as a left/right issue...
Well, it is what it is.

Since 'left/right' has no basis in reality - it sometimes goes to a libertarian vs. Dem(left) and Republican (right) issue. I start very few of those but I'll respond to them And to the derogatory remarks by some here - ignoramus, simpletons, etc. I've been banned for less than that.

 

[caramel]

To be perfectly honest, the arguments about infection come off as a bit nutty to me.
But for all I know they may be right, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

In the light of Gardasil, it is a plausible hypothesis. "Public healthcare" has at least to investigate it, and either debunk it or develop an anti-virus. Summary dismissal and Failure to investigate are, in the context, "criminal negligence". It's not enough just to say "stop smoking" as it affects a good portion of the non-smoking population too.

We vapers, however, don't have time to take up that cause.

But we don't need to ridicule those taking it either. As much as I'm a vaper now, I was a smoker before and I strongly resent what the TC crooks did over the years.

 

[CarolT]

To be perfectly honest, the arguments about infection come off as a bit nutty to me.
But for all I know they may be right, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

We vapers, however, don't have time to take up that cause.

Just like we don't have time to take up a "let the children vape" cause.
Or the "second hand smoke issue is almost all lies" cause.

I think it's called political expediency.
And it's wrong on the face of it, that much I can admit.

I don't like it one bit.
But I don't run the world.

While you may not feel that you have the time to take up the second hand smoke issue, unfortunately the enemy does. They're simply repeating the same pseudo-science they used against tobacco cigarettes. Here's a review by Glantz, which cites claims that e-cigs can produce even higher levels of particulates than conventional cigarettes, and other fear-mongering dreck -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018182/
As everyone knows, Glantz and his ilk are the ones in the driver's seat, so they determine what the issues shall be.

And what you should be finding nutty is the fact that these charlatans have gotten away with using the same 1940s-era pseudo-science as the National Socialist Third Reich for the last 70 years, while ignoring MODERN evidence that clearly and unequivocally proves that infections causes a multitude of the diseases they blame on smoking. And those infections are not uniformly distributed among smokers and non-smokers for socioeconomic reasons, which they exploit to manufacture their bogus results.

 

[CarolT]

Since 'left/right' has no basis in reality - it sometimes goes to a libertarian vs. Dem(left) and Republican (right) issue. I start very few of those but I'll respond to them And to the derogatory remarks by some here - ignoramus, simpletons, etc. I've been banned for less than that.

So you think that I should be banned for referring to "any ignoramus on the street" and "masses of simpletons," while you yourself get away with insinuating that I personally am a "nutcase"? It seems to me that I'm the one who has a case.

 

[schatz]

This was just getting interesting,where did everybody go?

 

[skoony]

This was just getting interesting,where did everybody go?

i think they got lost.

regards
mike

 

[Kent C]

So you think that I should be banned for referring to "any ignoramus on the street" and "masses of simpletons," while you yourself get away with insinuating that I personally am a "nutcase"? It seems to me that I'm the one who has a case.

It was "nutcase Alex Jones" - are you Alex Jones?

 

[CarolT]

It was "nutcase Alex Jones" - are you Alex Jones?

Here's your complete sentence: "And your infection causes cancer theory sounds more like something from nutcase Alex Jones." Which was followed by something from Alex Jones' website, not from mine. Are you afraid to tackle anything from MY website so you punched out a strawman from his to show how tough you are?

Also by implication you're calling the real scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the International Agency for Research on Cancer "nutcases" as well, while tacitly approving of the charlatans, who are more than happy to ignore the role of infection because that's how their pseudo-science works. So, do you deny that HPV, EBV, HBV, HCV, and Helicobacter pylori cause cancer?
The Percentage of Cancer Caused By Infection

 

[Kent C]

Here's your complete sentence: "And your infection causes cancer theory sounds more like something from nutcase Alex Jones." Which was followed by something from Alex Jones' website, not from mine.

Ok, so you're not Alex Jones. Don't know your website...No interest in furthering the discussion. So you win! :- )

 

[Robino1]

ENOUGH

We can move this to The OUTSIDE where the current discussion is headed.