Vote for e-cigarettes over cigarettes in online doctors' poll

[Bill Godshall]

The home page of the Annals of Internal Medicine is conducting an online poll (piggybacking on the inaccurate and fearmongering op/ed the journal ran last week against e-cigarettes) asking
"A patient tells you e-cigarettes have helped her reduce her smoking. What would you advise?"

If you have more expertise about e-cigarettes than the authors of the op/ed (who grossly misrepresented existing evidence about e-cigarettes to scare readers, and who urged doctors to counsel their patients to not use e-cigarettes), please go to Annals of Internal Medicine and cast vote.

Currently, "stop using e-cigarettes" has more votes than "increase e-cigarettes to stop smoking altogether". See current vote tally below.

Will be interesting to see how long this poll remains online if/when the vote tally changes in favor of e-cigarettes over cigarettes.

The abstract of the op/ed is at:
E-Cigarettes: A Rapidly Growing Internet Phenomenon — Ann Intern Med
A 10 minute podcast interviewing one of its authors is at:
Annals Podcast Home Page
This op/ed has been discussed on several other ECF news threads last week.

Annals of Internal Medicine Poll

A patient tells you e-cigarettes have helped her reduce her smoking. What would you advise?

- Increase e-cigarettes to stop smoking altogether 23.81% (15 votes)
- Continue e-cigarettes but add pharmacologic smoking cessation treatment 34.92% (22 votes)
- Stop e-cigarettes and start a pharmacologic smoking cessation treatment 41.27% (26 votes)
Total Votes: 63

 

[CGProg]

We're in the lead now with 33 votes.

 

[Neon]

thank you for posting this.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Here's the current vote tally at Annals of Internal Medicine

Increase e-cigarettes to stop smoking altogether 54.21% (58 votes)
Continue e-cigarettes but add pharmacologic smoking cessation treatment 21.5% (23 votes)
Stop e-cigarettes and start a pharmacologic smoking cessation treatment 24.3% (26 votes)
Total Votes: 107

Perhaps someone should issue a press release about this poll entitled:
"Poll finds more doctors support e-cigarettes than drug industry smoking cessation products"
or
"Doctors reject op/ed by medical association opposing e-cigarette use"

 

[rogerdugans]

We now have 64%.

 

[kristin]

I voted, but I think they're going to figure out that it's not doctors taking this poll and a press release stating that "Poll finds more doctors support e-cigarettes than drug industry smoking cessation products" would be disingenuous. So, I'm sure you were just taking a jab at the fact that the anti-ecig groups probably would do just that if the poll were to show the opposite results!

 

[kristin]

They have a Facebook page that they just posted about e-cigarettes on. It would be great to see comments from the patients these doctors are supposed to be treating showing that they know more about e-cigarettes than the doctors and demand accurate information!

Annals of Internal Medicine | Facebook

 

[Mathew R Taylor]

Here's the latest Poll update:

Increase e-cigarettes to stop smoking altogether 58.33% (70 votes)
Continue e-cigarettes but add pharmacologic smoking cessation treatment 19.17% (23 votes)
Stop e-cigarettes and start a pharmacologic smoking cessation treatment 22.5% (27 votes)

 

[Richie G]

I voted, but I think they're going to figure out that it's not doctors taking this poll and a press release stating that "Poll finds more doctors support e-cigarettes than drug industry smoking cessation products" would be disingenuous. So, I'm sure you were just taking a jab at the fact that the anti-ecig groups probably would do just that if the poll were to show the opposite results!

I like the satirical approach.

Are we being any more disingenuous than the many *doctors* who spout their opinions sans doing any research whatsoever? We've all read so many of those *articles* that contain the same old catch phrases, the same tired lines based on little to nothing at all that all the articles run together.

Am I the only one that is reminded of; "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? G'head, laugh... I KNOW the truth. The pod people have landed and they have taken the form of doctors first! Specifically, doctors opposed to electronic cigarettes.

 

[Bill Godshall]

My comment about issuing a press release was a joke. But that's exactly the types of tactics deployed by Banzhaf and other e-cigarette opponents.

About a month ago, the Univ of Michigan (discussed on previous ECF thread) conducted a push poll that first told folks e-cigarettes were hazardous, then asked those folks if they believed e-cigarettes were hazardous, then issued a press release claiming their poll found that a majority of folks were worried about e-cigarettes.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The only reason I posted this poll here today was because it was already posted yesterday on an anti-tobacco website where dozens of its members are e-cigarette prohibitionists, and where Banzhaf posts all of his inaccurate and misleading press releases opposing e-cigarettes.

The only reason the online poll favored the e-cigarette prohibitionists this morning was because e-cigarette prohibitionists already cast their votes, and because the organization sponsoring the poll had just declared war on e-cigarettes and then asked its members of their views.

 

[Crumpet]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

As long as we continue to call these things 'cigarettes' in any way, shape, or form, this will continue to be the general reaction of the uninformed public.

 

[kristin]

My comment about issuing a press release was a joke. But that's exactly the types of tactics deployed by Banzhaf and other e-cigarette opponents.

About a month ago, the Univ of Michigan (discussed on previous ECF thread) conducted a push poll that first told folks e-cigarettes were hazardous, then asked those folks if they believed e-cigarettes were hazardous, then issued a press release claiming their poll found that a majority of folks were worried about e-cigarettes.

Yeah, like I said, Bill - I suspected you were just taking a jab at THEIR typical tactics! lol!

 

[kristin]

It honestly doesn't matter WHAT we call them, because it's not really about health issues or smoking anymore. It's about controlling behavior and money. We could call them "personal vaporizers," "electronic nicotine systems" or "XYZ devices" and the reaction would have been the same.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

As long as we continue to call these things 'cigarettes' in any way, shape, or form, this will continue to be the general reaction of the uninformed public.

 

[Vocalek]

I left this comment on the A.I.M. Facebook page (we shall see how long it lasts.)

Why would any ethical physician advise their patients to stop using the Smoking Replacement Product that is keeping them smoke free? Three polls of e-cigarette consumers, one of which had more than 2,200 respondants, show that smokers who tried over and over to quit using other methods finally stopped smoking by replacing smoke with inhaled vapor. Over 90% of consumers report their health has improved--even if they haven't completely stopped smoking.

Shortly after this article came out, I wrote a blog about it. http://www.nicotinetruth.blogspot.com/

 

[Bill Godshall]

The poll results are now

Increase e-cigarettes to stop smoking altogether 65.33% (98 votes)
Continue e-cigarettes but add pharmacologic smoking cessation treatment 16% (24 votes)
Stop e-cigarettes and start a pharmacologic smoking cessation treatment 18.67% (28 votes)
Total Votes: 150

I suspect they'll remove the poll as soon as they can get their webmaster to do so.

 

[Our House]

It honestly doesn't matter WHAT we call them, because it's not really about health issues or smoking anymore. It's about controlling behavior and money. We could call them "personal vaporizers," "electronic nicotine systems" or "XYZ devices" and the reaction would have been the same.

As a matter of fact, calling them something other than ecigarettes might actually hurt us. We've already seen tons of anti-propaganda saying "a way to get around the smoking bans", so I'm sure they wouldn't mind adding in a little "deceptively named something different than what it is" on top of it.

 

[Thulium]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

As long as we continue to call these things 'cigarettes' in any way, shape, or form, this will continue to be the general reaction of the uninformed public.

That's why it is so important that we don't allow the public to remain uninformed.

ETA: The poll is up to 104/156 votes for e-cigs--twice the amount of votes for the other two options combined.

 

[CES]

I couldn't find the poll, so I suspect that it's gone. Does anyone else have access to the full text article? the reference list is interesting. especially reference #20...

20.↵ E-Cigarette Forum. E-liquid reviews. Accessed at E-Liquid Reviews on 17 September 2010.

 

[Thulium]

I couldn't find the poll, so I suspect that it's gone. Does anyone else have access to the full text article? the reference list is interesting. especially reference #20...

It's still on the front page of Annals of Internal Medicine on the left side, but you might need to scroll down a little.

From the abstract, I thought this quote was particularly interesting:

Currently in the United States, e-cigarettes are exempt from regulation as drug-delivery devices.