Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Melbourne VIC
    Posts
    1,992

    Big Pharma is paying who's salaries?

    I found this story early from a post on ECF and figured it deserved a quick SS article. The SS blog posts includes additional links. The original news story was:

    "Inquiry demanded into health staff gifts"

    "Who's In Who's Pocket?"

    File this one under “Sad but true”.

    Whenever you read an article, particularly from government health departments across the world, warning of the “dangers” of electronic usage you usually here the same few points repeated ad-nauseum. I have taken some examples from the TGA website to illustrate my point:

    1.“Unlike Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products…for medically-supervised use to quit smoking…”

    2.“the quality and safety of electronic cigarettes is not known”

    3.“nicotine is a dangerous poison”

    4.“containing toxic chemicals or carcinogens”


    And then often ending with a recommendation to use “approved” NRT products such as gum, lozenges, patches, or pharmaceutical treatements.

    This isn’t meant to be a full deconstruction piece, but I feel it is important to tackle these issues briefly below getting onto my final point.

    1.NRT products are now available from most local supermarkets. How is this “medically supervised?”

    2.Outright falsehood. We know what is inside ejuice better than we know what is inside tobacco smoke. When challenged, they will usually fall back on the focus to “quality” as testing as shown some quality-control issues, but none dangerous enough to warrant an outright ban. As to safety, we know by now that anti-tobacco groups use the straw-man standard of absolute safety rather than relative safety to push their agendas.

    3.Nicotine is a dangerous poison, but by the Poison Standard 2010′s own definitions, at 3% or less (for animal treatment) it’s considered Schedule 6 – exactly the same as eucalyptus oil. While nicotine in tobacco (including cigarettes, the most dangerous delivery mechanism available) is exempt from scheduling completely.

    4.Carcinogens? Sure, they’re present in SOME ejuice, but at levels no higher than in other NRTs. So again, no problem.

    We know they are either delibrately lieing, or at the very least only telling half of the story. The only cases of nicotine poisoning (that wasn't a suicide attempt) I have been able to find in the passed few years have been related to either toddlers eating cigarettes or a teenager who ate 45 sticks of nicotine gum. Meanwhile Champix is causing suicides across the globe, and it’s much worse than we originally thought.

    This means we know that “approved” NRTs are certainly no safer than e-cigs, and in some cases significantly less so. So why do our health departments keep defending them?

    I wonder if this has anything to do with it:
    “Inquiry Demanded Into Health Staff Gifts”

    Over $700,000 in perks in just 8 months – just in Western Australia. How much would this figure be Australia wide?

    I wonder if Ruyan and Bogetech started paying for politician junkets if we’d start to see a change in official policy?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    143
    Nice Work.

    I don't mean to criticise but around absolute safety v relative safety, I would not rubbish champix too much. I do know smokers who have quit using it. For myself it was effective at preventing me enjoying smokes, I chose to stop using champix. I know this sounds harsh but worldwide there have been suicides is potentially a small price to pay to get many many thousands off the smokes. I imagine at some point the perception will be that someone has died from an ecig and again this is a small price to pay compared to the good it is doing for 10s of 1000s.

    for me champix did not work but e-cigarettes have worked but that is not to say their is no room for either of them IMO. I suspect there would be some for which e cigs do not work and champx would. I don't think we want to sink to their level unless it is for comparitive purposes.

    Of course it is ludicrous when you look across this forum and ECF that anyone would even consider banning e cigs when they are so effective! if smoking truly costs this joint 32bn a year (bullshit of course) then why not spend a billion researching and developing the ultimate e cig / nic juice! That is a worth project for the CSIRO and a research hospital IMO. Australia might even have somethign we can export!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by tom32 View Post
    I know this sounds harsh but worldwide there have been suicides is potentially a small price to pay to get many many thousands off the smokes.
    I've gotta disagree with you there - while it is useful for getting people off cigarettes, when there are other methods available ANY death is unacceptable. Managing one risk (smoking) by enhancing another risk (suicide) is completely ridiculous and counter-intuitive. Yes, I understand that instances of this are low, but given that there are alternatives already, the risk to society posed by Champix is simply too great.

  4. #4
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lake Macquarie, NSW
    Posts
    500
    I quite once using Champix, and the quit lasted for about 11 months or so. Personally I thought that it went ok, but my wife and kids said then and have repeated it many times since, that my personality definitely changed and not for the better. I didnt see it, but then again how could I? Would I take it again? Not a chance on your life, nor would I recommend it to anyone else.
    _______________________________________________
    Richard

    VVF Grip 1 (Yukatan Rosewood Frame / Cocobolo Panels); VVF Grip 2 (Lacewood Sycamore Frame / Gmelia Burl Panels with Indian Rosewood Plunger); VAMO, Launcher, ATB (Kamagong), N-Zonic V III, Limited Sioux, Zen 2, Mini ATB, Vicious Ant Cyclone, ERA 1.5 dripper, ERA 1.5 bottom feeder, Immortalizer, AGA-T, RSST

  5. #5
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,409
    I know this link has been up before but here it is again
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43187290...h-health_care/

    I think the risk is too high a price to pay personally....

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Melbourne VIC
    Posts
    1,992
    In a perfect world where doctor know their patients full history and monitor the usage I would have no problems with Champix. Unfortunately we don't and there s far too much "prescribe and forget" going on.

    Despite the way some of my writing might sound I fully support every smoking alternative. We already have pills, gum, patches and lozenges and for some people these work great. What we need is MORE alternatives for those who keep failing using the approved methods. We should be able to buy nic juice and snus just has easily as we can buy nicotine gum or ciggies and there-in lies the problem.

    E-cig manufacturers are all too small or not interested in Australia enough to spend the money on approval, while the anti-tobacco stance of health groups means snus, despite it's relative safety compared to smokes, also got the gong.

    Just because it makes sense doesn't mean that's what happens.

    My primarily argument is that ecigs are safer than Champix and as safe as NRT. Why then is it not legal?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by soundasleep View Post
    In a perfect world where doctor know their patients full history and monitor the usage I would have no problems with Champix. Unfortunately we don't and there s far too much "prescribe and forget" going on.

    Despite the way some of my writing might sound I fully support every smoking alternative. We already have pills, gum, patches and lozenges and for some people these work great. What we need is MORE alternatives for those who keep failing using the approved methods. We should be able to buy nic juice and snus just has easily as we can buy nicotine gum or ciggies and there-in lies the problem.

    E-cig manufacturers are all too small or not interested in Australia enough to spend the money on approval, while the anti-tobacco stance of health groups means snus, despite it's relative safety compared to smokes, also got the gong.

    Just because it makes sense doesn't mean that's what happens.

    My primarily argument is that ecigs are safer than Champix and as safe as NRT. Why then is it not legal?
    Absolutely.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 12:50 AM.