Treating and preventing cancer.
Can you imagine the responsibility and privilege of announcing there is “good news for treating cancer and preventing cancer” by smoking combustible tobacco? Neither could I. This is what stupidity looks like, this is what “experts” will persuade the public to believe.
Dr. Norman E. Sharpless (bio) was sworn in as the 15th director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) on October 17, 2017. Among the items on display on his “I love me” wall, he holds medical degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is also an idiot.
Dr. Sharpless announced
confidently arrogantly on Twitter on March 19th – that there was “good news” from sister organizations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Note, he didn’t link a study, no research, not even a hint of proof in his statement. View his tweet and decide if it could easily be taken out of context.
Take your time.
Two big announcements from sister Federal agencies over the weekend. @CMSGov on coverage for NGS and @US_FDA on nicotine levels in combustible tobacco. Both good news for treating cancer and preventing cancer.
— Dr. Ned Sharpless (@NCIDirector) March 19, 2018
“Two big announcements from sister Federal agencies over the weekend.
@CMSGov on coverage for NGS and @US_FDA on nicotine levels in combustible tobacco. Both good news for treating cancer and preventing cancer.”
This is how proof by assertion starts, folks. Not only is “Both good news for treating cancer and preventing cancer”a blatent and misleading LIE, it’s – according to the government, impossible, unless they’re lying about that as well.
The theory is smokers using lower nicotine cigarettes will be less “addicted” with lower levels of nicotine – and (wibbleword alert) may, might, could, or potentially smoke less – or not at all, and allegedly, they then would, could, may, might or potentially reduce their risk of “X”.
My theory (please indulge me) is if they’re minimally or “non-addictive”… smokers (kids, youth, middle-aged, elderly) will smoke all they like.
After all, the government says they’re non or minimally addictive!
Now, with “prevent and cure cancer”… that’ll be so great for.. oh never mind.
Think of the propaganda™.
I asked Ned directly: “Are you clarifying the reduction in nicotine in the product(s) are also reducing other cancer causing chemicals?” (By other, I did not mean nicotine itself.) No response.
Either way, NICOTINE does not cause cancer. While I am not a “qualified expert” like Ned, I’ll safely assume (and correct me if I’m wrong) combustible tobacco in any form, including “very low nicotine” (VLN) probably can’t “cure” cancer. I was STUNNED a professional would say anything close to what I read, let alone tweet it. In writing. In public.
As of the date of this blog, I have received NO response. Wait, I take that back.
I also asked Cliff Douglas (bio), (“VP for Tobacco Control, American Cancer Society, and faculty, University of Michigan School of Public Health”) about the theory, because this isn’t something new… although a generation has passed, it has been tried before.
— Cliff Douglas (@cdoug) March 17, 2018
Beyond believable, I again asked for clarification on the levels of combustion, etc. and have not received a response.
Big surprise. I also KINDLY (I know, right?) asked Cliff to prove nicotine addiction here, where, if he was “able to provide documentation with my criteria” I would personally & publicly donate $50.00 to a charity of his choice.
I’m still waiting.
I’m a curious bastard
I’ve asked Dr. Gottlieb of the FDA about how smoking more cigarettes with lower nicotine could… well, this is becoming silly. Either way, I had JUST asked Dr. Gottlieb just the day before.
I’m asking things THEY should be explaining:
Is combustion reduced? Will health benefits increase? Are other ingredients be reduced? Will this cause more casual smokers? Can you define “minimally” or “non-addictive”? Is this nothing more than prescribing smoking? What is being added to tobacco to reduce nicotine?
Is combustion reduced?
Will health benefits increase?
Are other ingredients be reduced?
Will this cause more casual smokers?
Can you define "minimally" or "non-addictive"?
Is this nothing more than prescribing smoking?
What is being added to tobacco to reduce nicotine?
— VapingIT, SPE, EEI (@Vapingit) March 18, 2018
I am redundant. Repetitive. Repeating myself. Over & Over.
And asked… Stephanie Morain (Asst. Professor of Medical Ethics & Health Policy with Baylor College of Medicine) in May – since she tweeted the the importance of a “substantial” reduction in tobacco-related mortality.
Nobody likes answering my questions.
Does this claim clarify a reduction of #nicotine in cigarettes will also reduce risk and other chemicals – while combustion remains the same? @cdoug , @NCIDirector and @SGottliebFDA still haven't answered my question:https://t.co/mPeO2BGtTm
— VapingIT, SPE, EEI (@Vapingit) May 7, 2018
Who do these people work for? Who makes them accountable for irresponsible statements? Where are the requirements they are held accountable?
Now, if smoking combustible tobacco causes cancer, then how could…
Oh wait….. you could be stunned to know Dihydrogen Monoxide is dangerous.
This is a public health
theme scheme continuing to boil.
I should listen to Carl V. Phillips:
“There are far more of them producing lies than there are honest experts to counter them…”
I respect and admire you, Carl, but I’m not shutting up.
Have you met
my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk?
I proudly joined David on his latest podcast: David G Model Citizen.
You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook
You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter
You can also find me on LinkedIn
Are you familiar with Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life
Medical, Research, Science Professionals:
A Billion Lives
Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog. There is definitely more to come.
Keep ON #Vaping On.