Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree12Likes
  • 3 Post By Vapers Nightly News
  • 1 Post By mavinry4
  • 1 Post By mavinry4
  • 2 Post By SmokeHead
  • 1 Post By mavinry4
  • 1 Post By mavinry4
  • 1 Post By Vapes of Groth
  • 2 Post By mavinry4

Thread: When You Don't Like the Evidence, Ignore It: The New Anti-Tobacco Mantra

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    129

    When You Don't Like the Evidence, Ignore It: The New Anti-Tobacco Mantra

    Yesterday I alerted AVF about Professor Stanton Glantz, America's most influential anti-vaping professor, who is no longer accepting individual vaper's testimonials.

    Professor Micheal Siegel sheds some light on Stanton Glantz's inabilty to accept the truth about electronic cigarettes;

    Anti-tobacco groups, researchers, and advocates who have a pre-existing bias against electronic cigarettes and who have already made up their minds that these cigarette-like substitutes are evil are faced with a perplexing problem: how to respond to the personal stories of literally hundreds of thousands of vapers who have successfully used these products to quit smoking or to cut down substantially on the amount that they smoke.

    This is a major problem for these anti-tobacco researchers and advocates because they must continue to assert that there is no evidence electronic cigarettes are helpful in smoking reduction or cessation. Once the acknowledge that electronic cigarettes are useful for smoking cessation or reduction, then their ideological opposition to these products becomes untenable.

    So how to respond to the fact that more than 2.5 million smokers in the United States find these products helpful in their efforts to quit smoking or to cut down on the amount that they smoke? How to respond to the hundreds of thousands of personal testimonials of vapers who have succeeded in using these alternatives to cigarettes?

    To me, this would seem like a vexing problem. After all, you can't simply ignore this evidence, can you?

    Yes - you can ignore the evidence!

    This is the modern-day anti-tobacco movement and in 2013, ignoring the scientific evidence is perfectly acceptable in the movement.

    Yesterday, a leading anti-tobacco researcher - Dr. Stan Glantz - admitted that his approach to the evidence that millions of smokers are using electronic cigarettes successfully as an alternative to the real ones is very simple:

    Ignore it.


    Read the rest of the story here
    margyb, Fatman and mrsgruffy like this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Tooter likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    This one's better

    Vapes of Groth likes this.

  4. #4
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    carrara on the gc
    Posts
    2,470
    if he aint careful my size 12 may find his arse sticking up while his head so far in the sand
    http://sincemylastcigarette.com/bann...12_default.png
    So far only about $1200 spent on vapeing

  5. #5
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    243
    I know that Stanton Glantz is a deeply ignorant man, but I had no idea he is also an outrageous fraud. Who is this guy? He's not qualified to be giving anything other than his two-bit personal opinion. Really, he should be ignored. From the comments section:

    "I do *NOT* think you should be referring to Stanton Glantz as "Dr. Glantz" when talking about medical efficacy of placebo devices or just about anything else outside of problems dealing with mechanical engineering. He's NOT an M.D.

    ...and I consider Stanton Glantz a liar each and every time he appears in an interview and accepts being introduced as "Dr. Glantz" without correction while offering his opinions on medical matters.

    I don't think you should cooperate with his delusions. If you feel uncomfortable calling him "Mr." (which I could understand), then simply call him Stanton Glantz."
    Last edited by SmokeHead; 16-01-13 at 01:15 PM.
    mavinry4 and Vapes of Groth like this.
    The clean break: Last smoke on 2/12/2012, first vape on 3/12/2012.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Scumbag Professor

    Vapes of Groth likes this.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Professor Carl V Phillips weighs in on the topic.

    Read the whole article here : Is Stanton Glantz unable to figure out light switches? | Anti-THR Lie of the Day


    I will give Glantz some more credit here, though. It is true that it is difficult to assess exactly how often something happens based on personal testimonials alone. Unfortunately, his longitudinal study would not provide very useful information about that either, since it would be for a particular population at a particular time, and would be almost impossible to extrapolate to anyone else given how rapidly circumstances are changing with respect to e-cigarettes. He also gets credit for not calling for clinical trials. Again, people who half understand science think that clinical trials are always useful, or even always best. But while they are great for studying people’s biology under fairly simple circumstances (e.g., for assessing most disease treatment options), they are generally quite poor for studying anything else, like behavior. Something like smoking cessation involves the effects of countless complicated real-world factors that are absent from an artificial clinical setting. (Of course, it is possible that Glantz’s real motive is that a longitudinal study would take much longer than clinical trials, and he just wants to stall. If that turns out to be the case, I will take back several of the things I have given him credit for.)

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Posted this on Prof Carl V Phillips blog

    Glantz is heavily involved in trying to cut tobacco smoking from Hollywood movies. His whole agenda is to denormalise tobacco smoking. Because electronic cigarettes “look like” tobacco smoking, he sees vaping as a threat to his agenda.

    Glantz is merely taking advantage of the fact that the electronic cigarette industry can’t not afford to pay for clinical trials. He spouts the “no clinical proof”, but there’s a fundamental flaw in that whole argument that I wish THR advocates would see.

    What is frustrating is that reasons given to ban electronic cigarettes and nicotine solutions are based on non scientific evidence. A single bottle of ejuice (out of hundreds) is found to have some toxin, and that’s somehow justifcation to ban all of them. A single person reports nausea, and that’s some how justifucation for a ban. One guy’s battery explodes, and that’s justification to ban all the millions of ecigs.

    But literally MILLIONS of individual success stories are completely ignored.

    The flaw in spouting the lack of clinical trials is the question as to; why electronic cigarettes have to be proven as “cessation” aids anyway? Why do they need to be regulated as either a “tobacco product” or as a some kind of “therapy”?

    Why can’t they be regulated as their own form of recreation product, as caffeine or alcohol is? The only reason I see is because of the history of nicotine in tobacco cigarettes. See this parody on Coffee Leaves ;

    The Land of Coffee Smoking; a parody

    Tobacco Smoking cessation is a definite by-product of electronic cigarette usage. That should be recognised, particularly from a THR point of view, but I don’t think that should be a prerequisite for legality.

    The anti-tobacco groups will always exploit the ecig industry’s inabilty to finacially afford a clinial trial. Which is why ecigs shouldn’t be marketed as a cessation aid.

    E-cigarette usage is NOT a gateway to tobacco smoking and there is plenty of evidence showing that they contain 99% less toxins than tobacco smoke. All that is needed is a regulatory framework to ensure good product standards.
    Vapes of Groth likes this.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    537
    Thanks for using my parody. It's very flattering.

    Another analogy I've been thinking of is a bridge. It is made up of things like concrete, steel, etc. Things that we know will be safe for cars to cross if constructed according to proper engineering principles and plans. But do we have evidence that it will be safe? Real, hard evidence? No. We think it will, because we know the components are safe and strong. But the sort of hard epidemiological evidence of efficacy and safety in carrying cars can only be measured after years of use.

    But common sense says we can safely assume it is safe.

    Same with e-cigs. We know that propylene glycol, VG and nicotine are perfectly safe after multiple trials in humans and animals. There is perhaps a question about some flavourings, which are only a tiny component, and anyway the type of thing that is routinely added to combustible cigarettes.

    But common sense says that we can safely assume it is far, far safer than cigarettes. Even Simon Chapman admits to this!

    Hate mail and cyber trolls: the view from inside public health

    Scroll down the comments section and read the 4th last comment. He admits it is safer but then goes on to spout nonsense about the theatrics of vaping and how they will somehow lead to smoking tobacco. An interesting insight into his psychological illness.
    mavinry4 likes this.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapes of Groth View Post
    Thanks for using my parody. It's very flattering.

    Another analogy I've been thinking of is a bridge. It is made up of things like concrete, steel, etc. Things that we know will be safe for cars to cross if constructed according to proper engineering principles and plans. But do we have evidence that it will be safe? Real, hard evidence? No. We think it will, because we know the components are safe and strong. But the sort of hard epidemiological evidence of efficacy and safety in carrying cars can only be measured after years of use.

    But common sense says we can safely assume it is safe.

    Same with e-cigs. We know that propylene glycol, VG and nicotine are perfectly safe after multiple trials in humans and animals. There is perhaps a question about some flavourings, which are only a tiny component, and anyway the type of thing that is routinely added to combustible cigarettes.

    But common sense says that we can safely assume it is far, far safer than cigarettes. Even Simon Chapman admits to this!

    Hate mail and cyber trolls: the view from inside public health

    Scroll down the comments section and read the 4th last comment. He admits it is safer but then goes on to spout nonsense about the theatrics of vaping and how they will somehow lead to smoking tobacco. An interesting insight into his psychological illness.
    I remember when Chapman wrote that article and posted about it here. I chatted with "Jack Mohan" on IRC channel (who was more concerned with the plain packs debate), and even saw his comments before they were deleted. I think I have a screenshot somewhere in my nicotine folder.

    Simon Chapman is a proponent of two anti-vaping arguments;

    The first is that he believes that electronic cigarettes will be used "dually" with tobacco smoking.
    The second is that he believes vaping will be a gateway to tobacco smoking.

    None of his claims are substantiated, they are riddled with logical fallacies, he often uses emotional tactics such as "think of the children", avoids debate, and even censors people who point out his fallacies as that Jack Mohan did. Like Glantz, Chapman exploits the electronic cigarettes industry's inability to finacially fund a clinical trial, and so he can spout these kinds of myths. But there are millions of indivudal success stories that contradict his arguments. I am one of them.

    His tactics are cheap and unethical. He is blinded by ideology that the only way to end the practice of inhaling tobacco smoke is to completely abstain from nicotine. The fact that he places his ideology over the public's health makes him dispicable.
    Last edited by mavinry4; 17-01-13 at 12:30 AM.
    Vapes of Groth and Rocksie like this.

 

 

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 © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 06:07 AM.