Health is important. The impact of proper information for smokers making choices about their health is more important. The health impacts e-cigarettes make on less smoking are beyond the wildest dreams of those genuinely interested in less smoking.
A more common objective is biased information permeating public opinion through the media – who always seem happy to oblige. Unethical hypocrites censor valuable information for fear of their own fiscal health. It isn’t what they tell you behind a shroud of important titles, it’s what they decide to tell you. Is there an underlying method to their approach?
When someone reaches a point in their lives where they choose to stop smoking, manipulation and lies are not needed. Offering false promises and *unicornian hopes of approved methods to stop smoking, smokers only become disappointed in themselves. The bullying words “smoking is evil” is manufactured propaganda. If less harm is truly the goal, speak often and loudly. If the strategy of convincing the public only of dangers sounds like a tragedy, it certainly is.
What are the health impacts of e-cigarettes? The “health impacts” of e-cigarettes are covered more than a few times in this blog. From “anecdotal” evidence in my and other surveys – right down to a science on the left colum in the links provided.
There are health impacts a smoker may be concerned about before using e-cigarettes, but public health “experts” pick and choose what the public is told. They won’t tell you what they don’t want you to know. The moralistic approach needs to stop.
First, ethical standards are not something these holier than thou idiots adhere to. The impact health officials parade around are about morality. Morals are standards set by those who want their standards met by others. If your revenue depends directly on the sales of what you’re fighting against by design, there is a conflict of interest. Period. Misrepresentation, fraud and criminal activity comes to mind.
Next, if you believe the goal of “less smoking” is the final goal, why are “experts” still babbling about anything aside from science. Hypothetical opinions and deceptive rants portrayed as “expertise” are deterring people from doing what the intended purpose supposedly is… that’s counterproductive. This isn’t about health. The desire to instill control over smokers outweighs the alleged “desired” end result. They don’t want you to know.
Third, what incentive is there for government to fail? What impact is there to deny information to the public? What is the return on investment on an estimated $20 million FDA initiative of tax dollars to determine people can keep smoking tobacco?
The CDC fails to recognize the harm reduction benefits of smokeless tobacco, instead telling curious smokers looking for accurate information that there is simply not enough research to confirm that these products carry far less health risks than cigarettes.
What are the health implications?
The idea of e-cigarettes took most of these experts by surprise, beyond comprehension. There’s obvious health advantages, yet the impact of e-cigarettes are disrupting all aspects of “anti” and tobacco control so much they claim it is “partially understood”. They can’t completely comprehend “less smoking”.
Practical Implications for Continuing Education
- The use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has become very popular in the United States, including among youth.
- The health impacts of ENDS are only partly understood, but the preponderance of research suggests that using current-generation ENDS is significantly less harmful than using combustible tobacco products.
At NO time, regardless of any shite you may read in the press, is it safer to smoke than to use an #ecig. That is all.
— Andy Morrison (@GMFCfantasy) January 4, 2018
Potential deaths averted
The health impact is less smoking.
However, evidence is mounting that e-cigarettes deliver only a small percentage of the toxicants delivered by cigarettes. (26–32) In addition, newer e-cigarettes models have been shown to more efficiently deliver nicotine (29 30 33) than older models and provide sensorimotor experiences and ‘throat-hit’ similar to smoking, (34) thus increasing their potential to serve as effective substitutes for cigarettes.
This isn’t about health
If this were about health there’d be a much different tone from those “in charge”. If those in charge were truly trying to “help” people stop smoking, they would gladly taking on the challenge to make e-cigs better, and put themselves out of business. There is a monumental difference in smoking and using an e-cigarette. There is NO tobacco, no combustion. That, on its own, should be more than enough to spark interest in anyone “fighting” smoking, but it isn’t, and no mainstream “organization” cares.
E-cigarette emissions span most of this range with the preponderance of products having potencies<1% of tobacco smoke and falling within two orders of magnitude of a medicinal nicotine inhaler
What is appropriate for “public health”?
Really? At this point, those who pretend they know what they’re talking about need to shut up. Those who know better need to stand up. Those who are deceiving the public need to be put in their place now, not later.
Distorting research makes academic opinions sound scary and is supported by mainstream media more than the truth can ever be. Calling nicotine “tobacco” is a license to print money.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is regulating nicotine as tobacco.
Let me rephrase that.
The act mandates that FDA’s action not be “arbitrary or capricious,” and that actions be “appropriate for the protection of the public health,” the primary phrase of focus for this project.
Controlling health challenges ahead
The plot thickens… not only do “experts” want more smoking (predicted here), they have invested now over 100 MILLION dollars to keep tobacco burning. Not only do they want more smoking, nobody cares. In fact, they want to use cigarettes to prescribe smoking.
The impact of less smoking is less revenue.
Below, bold and red are my
The FDA together with other agencies of the U.S. government have invested over $100 million in several independent medical studies which have shown the health benefits of the company’s proprietary tobacco cigarettes.
Dr. Dorothy Hatsukami a principal investigator in the trial has publicly indicated that an immediate reduction in consumption of nicotine is “most likely to lead to less harm.”
You can read that again, but I’m here to help.
Dr. Hatsukami thinks smoking cigarettes is “most likely to lead to less harm“. Are you stupid?
Oh look, more cigarettes…
Philip Morris wants to quit smoking
Much to their surprise and humor, tobacco control is now watching tobacco giant Philip Morris take the battle on themselves to fight – themselves.
Where it makes no sense, tobacco control and anti-tobacco are now fighting against a “smoke-free world“.
If it looks like a duck and lies like a duck, it must be a pigeon.
Dick explains: Tobacco Control Pigeons, Meet Philip Morris’s Cat
Like most things, distractions and propaganda designed to look like truthful information, aren’t.
— O_O (@AgentAnia) November 12, 2016
Have you met
my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk?
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
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.