What a Bunch of BS

[zoiDman]

Could we please stop feeding the troll. I've gotten thoroughly fed up of trying (and seeing others also try) to provide logical, reasoned and thoughtful responses to a particular member. I'm now at the point that if I see that user name or avatar, I simply page on by and don't allow myself to even read, never mind respond, to those posts. I've spent over 50 years working with very beloved animals incorporating classical and operant conditioning into the training (and personal learning) that I share with my gang. One of the things I've learned is that when behaviour is not rewarded - in fact, even ignored - it eventually disappears (although it can take a fair bit of time).

I think I am going to Take your Advise.

 

[Podunk Steam]

When a government is above the law, regime change- elections, and lawsuits are the only options...

When corporations right the laws and are winning law suits against the states for economic benefit our government has failed.

 

[BigEgo]

If somebody's lung collapses, it's because of a problem that is NOT caused by smoking. The fact that collapsed lungs are rare events should be enough of a clue for reasonable people.

This. Collapsed lungs are usually caused by some sort of trauma. It is rare to have this condition from just smoking.

Also, let's assume for the sake of argument that her story is true. What the CDC did here (and they know better) is use an anecdote. Anecdotes are not scientific in the least. They don't want to listen to our "anecdotes" about how e-cigs got us off analogs, yet they are perfectly content to use a single anecdote when it suits their agenda.

Show me a controlled clinical study that even hints that collapsed lungs and COPD are common in vapers. Bueller, Bueller?

 

[Kent C]

Could we please stop feeding the troll. I've gotten thoroughly fed up of trying (and seeing others also try) to provide logical, reasoned and thoughtful responses to a particular member. I'm now at the point that if I see that user name or avatar, I simply page on by and don't allow myself to even read, never mind respond, to those posts. I've spent over 50 years working with very beloved animals incorporating classical and operant conditioning into the training (and personal learning) that I share with my gang. One of the things I've learned is that when behaviour is not rewarded - in fact, even ignored - it eventually disappears (although it can take a fair bit of time).

The best you can do is put him on ignore or 'virtual ignore' (iow, don't respond), but in an active forum there will always be new members showing up that don't know the game being played, or some who want to engage for the sake of communicating, who wrongly believe they can change the person's mind when the actual game is disruption not discussion.

 

[Jman8]

The best you can do is put him on ignore or 'virtual ignore' (iow, don't respond), but in an active forum there will always be new members showing up that don't know the game being played, or some who want to engage for the sake of communicating, who wrongly believe they can change the person's mind when the actual game is disruption not discussion.

I say we keep talking publicly about how we are not going to respond to him. And make it about the poster, instead of what is being posted.

 

[Robino1]

Could we please stop feeding the troll. I've gotten thoroughly fed up of trying (and seeing others also try) to provide logical, reasoned and thoughtful responses to a particular member. I'm now at the point that if I see that user name or avatar, I simply page on by and don't allow myself to even read, never mind respond, to those posts. I've spent over 50 years working with very beloved animals incorporating classical and operant conditioning into the training (and personal learning) that I share with my gang. One of the things I've learned is that when behaviour is not rewarded - in fact, even ignored - it eventually disappears (although it can take a fair bit of time).

Click on the persons name and choose the option to "Ignore" the member

I say we keep talking publicly about how we are not going to respond to him. And make it about the poster, instead of what is being posted.

Let's not, k?



Now to the original piece in the opening post: The ad states: "I started using e-cigarettes but kept smoking. Right up until my lung collapsed".

Now the TRUE story, copied from the CDC's webpage,

Although she cut back on regular cigarettes, Kristy did not quit smoking regular cigarettes completely, which is the best way to protect your health. "I tried e-cigarettes, but I just ended up using both the electronic kind and my regular brand," she said. Eventually, Kristy quit e-cigarettes and went back to just smoking cigarettes. A few months later, Kristy's right lung collapsed.

Why did the CDC find it necessary to omit the fact that she had indeed quit using an ecig, and go back to smoking full time, months before her lung collapsed? Can we say intentional misleading and twisting facts to suit an agenda?

Link to the CDC website with Kristy's story: Copy link and put into your browser. Link intentionally broken: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/stories/kristy.html

 

[Robino1]

can somebody break that link for me please? gotta run and don't have time to figure out how. Thanks in advance!

If you need something done, please just hit the triangle button with the exclamation point on it and when the report box comes up, just type in what you need done and one of us will help you out

 

[skoony]

The collapsed lung is the least of her concerns. That can be fixed; COPD can't be...

its interesting to note that every time some one that
has COPD and vapes and post's on ECF invariably
reports improvement in lung capacity over time.
do none smokers improve?
regards
mike

 

[skoony]

Those cases would simply be attributed to smoking... I'm going with custards with this one. She was fine until she started vaping...

diacetyl causes popcorn lung,not COPD.
mike

 

[skoony]

Could we please stop feeding the troll. I've gotten thoroughly fed up of trying (and seeing others also try) to provide logical, reasoned and thoughtful responses to a particular member. I'm now at the point that if I see that user name or avatar, I simply page on by and don't allow myself to even read, never mind respond, to those posts. I've spent over 50 years working with very beloved animals incorporating classical and operant conditioning into the training (and personal learning) that I share with my gang. One of the things I've learned is that when behaviour is not rewarded - in fact, even ignored - it eventually disappears (although it can take a fair bit of time).

but alas, i feed the squirrels too.

mike

 

[Jman8]

Why did the CDC find it necessary to omit the fact that she had indeed quit using an ecig, and go back to smoking full time, months before her lung collapsed? Can we say intentional misleading and twisting facts to suit an agenda?

Why yes. Yes we can.

They want to play dirty with facts around vaping and some of us (perhaps vast majority) only want to play clean and think that we will win. I think we will, but eventually. Here in the information age, I'm not sure how long 'eventually' will be, but prior to the age where the entire world was connected with everyone, I would've said it'll take hundreds of years to overcome such a campaign in the way it is being waged.

Now, when a popular pro vaper says something along lines of "it's just water vapor" we may criticize entire message based on this (arguably) false notion. And by we (may criticize), I mean us vapers. Our adversaries get the default position of "science doesn't know yet and more time is needed." And yet our side does know that science is filling the current time with studies/research that provides answers to what just 2 to 3 years ago was claimed as needing research that will likely take 30 years to really understand. Great, if that means we will allow it in some fashion, knowing full well a black market will exist should anyone get control happy. But are we (society) going to smear during the 30 years in vain effort to keep children from desiring what clearly many adults find very enjoyable?

If yes to that, if we are going to allow smearing, then why wouldn't we play dirty to fight against that? The main reason I can think of for not playing dirty is that in an age where privacy is no longer taken for granted, then it may not be worth it to be involved. Likewise, in this same age where one side is clearly playing dirty, then it might also not be good to be involved, for burning witches (or vapers) at the stake to set an example is plausible going forward. But if arguing that 'being involved' is very important, then I would suggest playing dirty is also very necessary. Otherwise, we are fighting for vaping rights on two fronts with one hand tied behind our back.

Our side must be willing to engage in 'a bunch of BS' so that those who wish to move beyond BS (from both sides) can see that at least one side can back up their honest claims with science and reason.

 

[WillyZee]

The lies will continue until Taxes have been set in stone.

After vaping has been hijacked by BG ... they will flip on the propaganda and start praising eCigs as if they discovered vaping themselves.


Sent via iPhone

 

[Kent C]

The lies will continue until Taxes have been set in stone.

After vaping has been hijacked by BG ... they will flip on the propaganda and start praising eCigs as if they discovered vaping themselves.


Sent via iPhone

Like they did with cigarettes??

 

[CarolT]

Now to the original piece in the opening post: The ad states: "I started using e-cigarettes but kept smoking. Right up until my lung collapsed".

Now the TRUE story, copied from the CDC's webpage,

Why did the CDC find it necessary to omit the fact that she had indeed quit using an ecig, and go back to smoking full time, months before her lung collapsed? Can we say intentional misleading and twisting facts to suit an agenda?

Link to the CDC website with Kristy's story: Copy link and put into your browser. Link intentionally broken: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/stories/kristy.html

They're even more dishonest than that. First of all, COPD is NOT 'vanishingly rare' in never-smokers, contrary to their stock pretense.

Airway obstruction in never smokers: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. BR Celli, RJ Halbert, RJ Nordyke, B Schau. Am J Med 2005 Dec;118(12):1364-1372. "Never smokers represented 42% of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey population aged 30 to 80 years, with obstruction prevalence of 91 per 1000. Never smokers accounted for 4.56 million cases of obstruction, or 23% of the total burden."
Airway obstruction in never smokers: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. - PubMed - NCBI

Second, their worthless studies based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection have resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths. Recent studies implicate cytomegalovirus as a cause of COPD. The CD4+CD28null T cells that they find in the lungs of patients with COPD just happen to be absolutely specific for CMV infection. Nothing else causes them. They arise during primary infection, and are found only in people who are positive for CMV. So, people with COPD could have been treated with gancyclovir, an anti-viral, that prevents CMV replication.
Cytomegalovirus Is Implicated in COPD

 

[Robino1]

In your first link

Recommendations that lung health screening programs be limited to smokers should be reconsidered.

And that was back in 2005! WTH?!?! This is totally maddening and so far out of the scope of morality. They hide this because it doesn't fit with the agenda that only smokers get these illnesses. Raise the rates for smokers and make them pay more even if they aren't the only ones that get the medical community proclaimed 'smoking diseases'.

them! This infuriates me even more than I was. I know there was an article (wish I had kept that link) that lung cancer is on the rise for women that have never smoked or been around the so called second hand smoke. Makes you wonder if they were blaming all lung cancer on smoking, whether it was smokers or people around second hand smoke, when lung cancer should have been treated as what it truly is: Unlucky genetics.

 

[caramel]

Alternatively, one may infer that they wanted to expose smokers to additional X-ray dosage.

 

[Robino1]

Alternatively, one may infer that they wanted to expose smokers to additional X-ray dosage.

A part of me is so incensed that I am actually bordering on activism on behalf of smokers.
I am so thoroughly disgusted and angry about how they have made me feel about being a smoker when I was one. I have so much more sympathy and empathy for those that are still smoking. I want to open their eyes also to what is going on. If they only knew all the lies that have been purported as being truth.

Last night we went to a show. At intermission, I went outside to vape and stretch my legs. There were a lot of older adults out there smoking their cigarettes. I stood off to the side and down the block a bit, only because I am a people watcher and a bit of a loner/shy person. As I am watching these older adults, I finally realize what I am looking at. I am looking at people that have lived a very long time and have paid their dues and do not deserve to be treated the way smokers are traditionally treated.

It is also occurring to me, they are Old. I mean late 80's early 90's old. I thought that (with what all those 3 letter organizations say anyway) that if we continue to smoke, we will die early. These people are clearly enjoying their life to the fullest.

Why can't people just let people be?

I need a drink

 

[caramel]

Drinks are on me this thread.

 

[DC2]

I stood off to the side and down the block a bit, only because I am a people watcher and a bit of a loner/shy person.

When I was smoking I was most definitely NOT a social smoker.
In fact, if anyone talked to me while I was having a cigarette it would ruin it for me.

I always went away from other people to relax, sit down, and have a smoke break.
So the smoking bans never really affected me, nor bothered me.

I never really thought about them.
That was my bad.

As I am watching these older adults, I finally realize what I am looking at. I am looking at people that have lived a very long time and have paid their dues and do not deserve to be treated the way smokers are traditionally treated.

But now that I am a vaper, and now that my eyes have been opened to what they are really doing to smokers...
It's truly horrendous, on a scale that never even occurred to me...

Smokers are a group that society has been given free-reign to bully, shun, and generally look down upon.
No other group is subject to such openly hostile treatment in our society today.

And what's worse, they are taking the smoker's money and using it to do this to them.

 

[Robino1]

Drinks are on me this thread.

Thank you, I really really really need one right now. Just to numb me.

When I was smoking I was most definitely NOT a social smoker.
In fact, if anyone talked to me while I was having a cigarette it would ruin it for me.

I always went away from other people to relax, sit down, and have a smoke break.
So the smoking bans never really affected me, nor bothered me.

I never really thought about them.
That was my bad.


But now that I am a vaper, and now that my eyes have been opened to what they are really doing to smokers...
It's truly horrendous, on a scale that never even occurred to me...

Smokers are a group that society has been given free-reign to bully, shun, and generally look down upon.
No other group is subject to such openly hostile treatment in our society today.

And what's worse, they are taking the smoker's money and using it to do this to them.

It makes my heart hurt. I cry for them, for what we used to be, and what is becoming of us now.
I really do have tears in my eyes at this moment.

This sucks.