Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By supersports600

Thread: Imagine 13 copper pennies.......

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064

    Imagine 13 copper pennies.......

    ....amongst 1 billion silver pennies. That's how much formaldehyde there is in e-cig vapour compared to air.


    Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights shamelessly promotes continued smoking; makes false claims about hazards of electronic cigarettes

    Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights (ANR), a proponent of the "quit or die" approach to smoking cessation, is misleading the public about hazards of electronic cigarettes, according to Elaine Keller, President of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA). A recent ANR press release also falsely claims that there is "a lack of independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence demonstrating the safety or efficacy" of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

    FDA-approved nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, nasal sprays, and oral inhalers are referred to as Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products, but all these products are aimed at reducing the daily intake of nicotine to zero, and all have a 93% mid-year failure rate.

    In contrast, a growing body of scientific evidence is showing that providing smokers with a low-risk alternative such as electronic cigarettes is a much more effective way than nicotine-abstinence to achieve abstinence from smoking.


    Read full article here



    A really good quote from the article;

    "Discouraging the use of alternatives that are up to 99% less hazardous than smoking for the users, and that are essentially harmless to bystanders, shows an appalling disregard for human health and life on the part of groups like ANR"

    My thoughts exactly.

  2. #2
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    1,316
    I wonder if anyone that raves on about the trace amounts of formaldehyde in ecig vapor knows what formaldehyde actually smells like.
    Kind of like trying to detect trace amounts of fart with a detector.

    I'm no expert in psychology but I am seeing 2 types of people there.
    1. those with an alternate agenda (money, politics etc)
    2. those that want to make themselves feel better because their life is so f'd up that they have a need to pick on someone elses.
    ElDubya and Fatman like this.
    Shop at Supersports600 eBay Store for all your Battery and Nicotine testing needs

  3. #3
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Sydney NSW
    Posts
    1,316
    Actually, I'm going to second my last post and jump on my own band wagon.
    Do these ANR people even know what formaldehyde is?
    Who are these ANR people, do you have thier press release Mav?

    Sounds like a bunch of people pointing fingers to shift the harm focus away from themselves to me.

    ecigs are a difficult issue with too many variables to come to conclusive proof of anything. Very difficult to follow the correct approval process.

    A couple of decades ago, HIV was a prominent world wide concern. Protocols for approval of treatments were abandoned as it was recognised that it was just plain callus (can't spell it in context) to have double blind studies where the placebo group were dying while the active group had a drug that may have helped. Now we have treatments pretty down packed to consider HIV as a medical condition rather than a terminal illness (like diabetes). It would be stupid to bark at the possible side effects that we don't yet know about with these treatment that were not properly approved, and with hold it from use.

    (just trying to make an analogy. Diabetes, hiv, vaping/somking etc are completely different kettles of fish, and no offence was intended comparing these.)
    Shop at Supersports600 eBay Store for all your Battery and Nicotine testing needs

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by supersports600 View Post
    I wonder if anyone that raves on about the trace amounts of formaldehyde in ecig vapor knows what formaldehyde actually smells like.
    Kind of like trying to detect trace amounts of fart with a detector.

    I'm no expert in psychology but I am seeing 2 types of people there.
    1. those with an alternate agenda (money, politics etc)
    2. those that want to make themselves feel better because their life is so f'd up that they have a need to pick on someone elses.

    What spun this whole uproar was Stan Glantz when he tried to use a paper which intentionally mislead its readers in their conclusions.

    http://forums.aussievapers.com/polit...d-studies.html

    Glantz and Chapman are very much at war with Tobacco Harm Reduction advocate Carl V Phillips. Time after time, Professor Phillips exposes both of them for the bullcrap that they spout, and he's been doing it prior to their attacks on e-cigs when Chapman and Glantz were (and still are) attacking smokeless tobacco products.

    Carl V Phillips has listed the kinds of people that exaggerate the dangers of Tobacco Harm Reduction, including e-cigs ;

    • anti-tobacco extremists (those who take the most extreme possible position toward tobacco and nicotine use, considering it to all be so bad that specific characteristics — such as reducing the health effects to an undetectably low level — make no difference to them)
    • prohibitionists (who know that once low-risk tobacco and nicotine products dominate the market, there will be little incentive for users to quit and little popular support for prohibitionism; thus they need to make sure that people keep smoking)
    • those who hate industry more than they care about health (similar practical goals as the prohibitionists: if THR succeeds, there will be companies that profit from selling the products indefinitely, and some of these will be the companies that dominated cigarette sales; thus their only hope of destroying the companies is to make sure they stay only in the cigarette business)
    • those who fear losing their government and pharmaceutical funding (while the tobacco industry could survive the replacement of cigarettes, the tobacco control industry depends on the continuing popularity of smoking, and most of its jobs will disappear after THR becomes the norm)
    • long-time activists who are so invested in their personal history and ego that they resist the possibility that the health effects from smoking will be reduced in spite of them, rather than because of them.



    The alternate agenda that you mentioned is also something not to be disregarded. If you see my post where Paterson and Simon Chapman debated on television, you'll see that Chapman resorts to saying that anyone who is payed by tobacco companies should not be listened to. Chapman often claims that people should dismiss Prof Phillips' writings because Phillips used to be paid by smokeless tobacco companies.

    But just because they work for the tobacco companies, doesn't make their argument any less valid! I don't know why people accept this statement often spouted by Chapman. And besides, Chapman himself does what he does for money also. He is paid to speak bad about tobacco products, so according to his logic, how does that not make his argument any more invalid than the argument stated by the people he attacks ad hominem ?

    But ultimately, you have to remember that Chapman is also against NRT products like nicorette. He is only interested in people quitting smoking cold turkey. Look at what he teaches his student protégé, Becky Freeman ;


    That link there - it leads straight to Simon Chapman's University of Sydney Profile page.

    Simon Chapman does not care about people getting cancer. He does not care about public health. He has an ulterior agenda, and a moral conviction towards using stimulants. His views, I suspect, have deep religious roots and he simply cloaks his religious agenda with this whole "public health" image. But I assure you, he does not have the Public Interests in mind.

    It gets scarier when you learn that he wrote an entire book urging men not to allow their GP to put a finger up their rectum for prostate exams.

    This book tries to explain why many men make that decision. It seeks to bring their reasons out into the open, and repudiates the facile idea that men who elect not to be tested are nothing more than unmanly “pussies” who are squeamish about having a doctor put a finger up their rectum to feel for prostate enlargement or who are just indifferent to protecting their health. This sort of trivialising focus has been a prominent part of campaigns in Australia with slogans like “Be a man!” designed to get men to be screened. Comic actor Magda Szubanski, whose father died of the disease, told the national 60 Minutes TV audience in 2007: “Don’t be a pussy. Go and get the check” [17]. Our aim in this book is to provide a detailed examination of the main questions that a man should be asking before deciding to get tested. Deciding to have a PSA test can quickly lead to a course of events that for some men may save their life. But as we will show, for many more a test will result in serious, unnecessary surgery and other interventions. In a large proportion of cases, this will cause
    enduring and often permanent, major after-effects in the form of sexual impotence, urinary incontinence and less commonly, faecal incontinence.


    He exaggerates the dangers of the prostate exam. He talks about it as though he had a George Costanza moment during his first prostate exam and has been silently suffering dramatic trauma of sexual abuse ever since.



    I really think the guy is a fraud. I think he is a religious nutjob cloaked in a Public Health uniform, and he's been circulating his religious views in disguise of Public Health Advocacy. He helped get Snus banned back in the 1980's, a product which could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and now he's aiming to get electronic cigarettes banned. Politicians should not be listening to him, and the NHMRC should not be funding his studies.
    Last edited by mavinry4; 03-10-12 at 03:57 AM. Reason: cleaned up the swearing

  5. #5

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    And yes, I edited the long response several times to make sure that what I was saying is my opinion, and to cut out the swearing

 

 

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 12:19 PM.