Award-winning independent filmmaker Aaron Biebert is on the move again. He and his core team are ready to get to work on his new ground-breaking documentary, “You Don’t Know Nicotine”. In just four days, momentum is building quickly towards the first goal of funding this new film.
Here’s a great and exclusive deal from Lunar Rover!
Simply use “vapinglinks” at checkout for 15% off your entire cart!
Is there a controversy?
The subject matter of this film is intriguing to me. In March of 2017, and in collaboration with others, I conducted a “30-day NicotineChallenge (with criteria: still uncontested).
What I expect from Aaron Biebart and his seasoned team is thought-provoking truth. I am looking foward to their findings, good or bad.
Why has this not been explored before?
Like his last award-winning independent film, I’m fascinated to see this subject taken head-on. I expect the public health community to line up (in an orderly fashion) to take unprecedented opportunity to explain themselves intelligently and end the debate publicly.
I also expect some to ignore it.
We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. ~John F. Kennedy
Searching for answers
While getting to the bottom of this, I expect – and predict – this director will enlighten us in the process, bringing this subject front and center, telling the world what we don’t know about nicotine.
I fully support this project because I understand the freedom of expression without outside influence. I understand educating the public is much less about ego and much more about education.
Regardless of the outcome, I look forward to the opportunity of discomfort of thought.
I’ll leave you with what the Kickstarter page says:
“We will chase down as many experts (willing & unwilling) as our budget allows. It’s time to get answers from all sides of this debate.”
If you’re interested, you can pitch in as little as $5.00 or much more, with levels and rewards being different, such as your name in the credits, an early streaming link, honoring a loved one who died from a smoking-related or brain-related illness, a public screening license, and much more – up to and including the “Tater Tot” level.
Vaping In The News covers media stories on smoking, vaping, snus, heat not burn, e-cigarettes, tobacco control, public health, government, regulations, policies and more worldwide.
“The largest threat to Public Health is an informed consumer.”
You Don’t Know Nicotine ~ The great American youth vaping epidemic. Really? ~ The FDA hearing that wasn’t ~ The Impact of E-Cigarette Warnings ~ Burning Sub-Ohm ~ Bucking Bad Legislation in the Buckeye State ~ Electronic Cigarette Fires and Explosions (U.S.A.) 2009 – 2016 ~ A Meme
You Don’t Know Nicotine
Aaron Biebert, Director of A Billion Lives, announced his new project during his visit in Oklahoma City at Vapers Carnivale:
If you’re interested, you can pitch in as little as $5.00 or much more, with levels and rewards being different, up to and including the “Tater Tot” level!
With the lack of being a professional statistician or researcher, I did my improvisational best covering the Surgeon General’s affirmation of the U.S. teen ‘epidemic’. I questioned the absence of daily data and babbled about it as I do.
Here, Clive Bates, someone I admire, explains what I could not, well beyond my expectations.
Speaking of curing children, and a fraudulent epidemic, the FDA took it upon itself to hold a public hearing on the youth vaping “epidemic”. Instead of a balanced conversation between harm reduction proponents and anti-tobacco activists, the hearing became a one-sided stage for fanatics.
Next up… contrived epidemic. Our friend Chris just below explains the “epidemic” was a plot (graphic below found here) to start with from this tweet in November of last year.
I’m not sure what to call this study. Note it was submitted on the 21st of September 2018. In the theme of warnings, something the ‘epidemic’ was based on, this short paper shows an “online experiment” and ‘“brain” and “chemicals” warnings’ were higher discouraging youth from e-cigarettes.
Electronic Cigarette Fires and Explosions (U.S.A.) 2009 – 2016
“Reports of 195 separate e-cigarette fire and explosion incidents in the U.S. were found, dating from January 2009 to Dec 31, 2016. In 68 percent of these incidents, 133 acute injuries were reported. No deaths were reported during the study period.”
Over the course of time, I’ve made my share of amateur graphics, “memes”. In the spirit and need for ALL of us to change the conversation, I asked Chris Hughes if I could use his photos for this blog in 2016, and again below.
Thanks to you who’ve shared it. It seems to have hit a nerve.
In a recent post, James Jarvis discussed common myths about vaping, stating “Let’s get this out of the way for 2019.”
Not only is James Jarvis is President of Ohio Vapor Trade Association (OHVTA), he’s also a consumer. I’ve been to Columbus a couple times to see him, and I’ll describe James simply as good people. He cares about smokers having proper information and he cares about the industry.
To the point, a post on his Facebook page got me to thinking… if some vapers genuinely don’t know or are confused about information, how can the public know?
Let’s change that. Now. Let’s get this out of the way: Educators and legislators must learn.
On Public Record.
With the battle preconceived and one-sided (predetermined in some instances) for power and funding, authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) of their respective township, town, city, and state must be made aware of all sides of this issue in their communities.
If an opportunity arises for three minutes at a podium, this can be read, memorized – as is – or modified, printed to dispel myths about vaping products and nicotine.
Politely – and directly engaging each concern immediately in front of decision-makers, with proper sources for authorities given the task of deciding the fate of (your) regulations, restrictions, taxes, and bans shows a proactive approach to their concerns no matter what the opposition.
I saw his list and was inspired. I have provided his points about vaping (numbered) from his post and link(s) to each point made.
James said: “Let’s get this out of the way for 2019″… ” I agree.
Let’s get this out of the way
1. Popcorn Lung is not caused from vapor products
From Dr Farsalinos, Brad Rodu, Dr. Siegel and more, a collection of evidence to the contrary:
The changes being recommended by FDA include a removal of the warning that consumers should not use an NRT product if they are still smoking, chewing tobacco, using snuff or any other product that contains nicotine—including another NRT.”
4. Tomato, Eggplant, and all nightshade veggies contain nicotine
“Nicotine is an alkaloid found in the nightshade family of plants (Solanaceae), predominantly in tobacco, and in lower quantities in tomato, potato, eggplant (aubergine), and green pepper. Nicotine alkaloids are also found in the leaves of the coca plant.”
Simply use “vapinglinks” at checkout for 15% off your entire cart!
Please visit my proud sponsor
Let’s get this out of the way
12. Tobacco 21
A movement in the United States is raising the age of sale of tobacco to 21. While valiant in effort, it both restricts 18-year-old adults from products (e-cigs, snus, etc.) that can help them quit smoking and shows little progress to reduce smoking rates.
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) released this statement about “Tobacco 21” laws:
Here, a study showed “Increasing the minimum legal purchase age (MLPA) to 21 years in NYC did not accelerate reductions in youth tobacco use any more rapidly than declines observed in comparison sites.”
“Beginning in 1997, Washington required states to report underage sales via the Synar Program (here). The latest Synar data shows that 9.6% of retailers were noncompliant in 2013. The FDA also conducts compliance checks of tobacco retailers. In 2016, the FDA reported a noncompliance rate of 11% (here). The FDA should focus on this far more dangerous illegal cigarette sales issue, rather than obsessing over e-cigarettes. “
Ignored since 2011, Hanan Frenk and Reuven Dar submitted this to the Harm Reduction Journal:
“We show that the nicotine addiction model presented in this chapter, which closely resembles its 22 years old predecessor, could only be sustained by systematically ignoring all contradictory evidence.”
This shows “The effects of nicotine on the brain are similar to those of sugar, salt, exercise, and other harmless substances and events. “There are so many findings that conflict so starkly with the view that nicotine is addictive that it increasingly appears that adhering to the nicotine addiction thesis is only defensible on extra-scientific grounds.”
From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health :
“We evaluated concerns about exposure to vaping-related chemicals in a vape shop. Exposure to flavoring chemicals (diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, acetaldehyde), formaldehyde, nicotine, and propylene glycol were all below occupational exposure limits.”
It is not anti-freeze. Simply absurd. As of the publishing of this post, the well respected American Academy of Pediatrics is still eluding to ‘anti-freeze’ as an ingredient on their ‘quick facts’ section here.
A new study shows higher nicotine levels are safe – “nicotine on its own, outside of tobacco products, has limited addictive potential, and that higher doses are safe and well tolerated“
As I typed the title of this blog, I could almost hear the thump of foreheads hitting desks of various alphabet soup groups, the heads of the FDA and other distinguished ‘experts’.
You know what? Good.
Thirty+ years of outright lies (or incompetence) need to stop.
“We’ve always done it this way”
If you’re in the business specifically of “helping smokers”, pay attention.
I’ve said this before. It is imperative: do not limit nicotine strength.
Now new research shows HIGHER levels of nicotine may help.
Of the 50 participants, 90 per cent progressed to at least three patches, while 72 per cent progressed to four patches.
82 per cent of participants achieved four weeks validated abstinence from smoking, and experienced no significant increase in withdrawal symptoms, including urges to smoke.
Cigarette consumption, smoke intake and enjoyment of smoking declined significantly during the pre-quit period, and the intervention was rated as helpful and easy to adhere to.
I didn’t see this coming.
Evidence then emerged that nicotine on its own, outside of tobacco products, has limited addictive potential
higher doses are safe and well tolerated
Are you intrigued? I’m intrigued. You ponder that, dear reader, I’ll move along.
Now two questions!
Will quitlines and tobacco control groups be able to say those two things above without hurting their lies and egos for the past 30 years?
Will drug companies rush to make levels of nicotine higher to get back in the game and bring their success rates up?
On #1, I expect abruptly changing their standard nicotine statements – or changing public opinion – would not be difficult to do, but will be difficult to swallow. Face it, if they succeed doing what they’re designed to do – helping smokers quit, they will go out of ‘business’. They don’t want that.
On #2, Will drug companies begin offering increased nicotine levels/strengths in patches? I’ll bet they will. It makes good business sense.
Above, I typed the words “do not limit nicotine strength”. You’ve been taught scolded like a child about nicotine “addiction”.
Dependence, like caffeine? Possibly. I’ll almost accept dependence. I’m still on the fence.
The study went on to say “Our results also suggests that one of the reasons e-cigarettes are so much more popular and potentially more effective than other nicotine replacement treatments is that smokers can adjust their nicotine intake according to their needs.”
How many times have you tried to stop smoking? Did you think to ask about success rates with the product you were using? Slick marketing, heavy support from ‘non-profit’ organizations of ineffective products having 93% failure rates make big companies donating big money to those non-profits richer.
It is not you. It is them.
It also gives a license to the “morally superior” ‘authority’ to blame you. Keep trying. Try harder. You can do it. You’re not trying hard enough.
They’re not trying hard enough.
Nicotine Failure Rates
While patches (and presumably gums, inhalers, etc.) are at certain strengths, we know they have very low (7%) success rates, and it takes an average of THIRTY tries for smokers trying to quit.
“Morals are standards set by those who want their standards met by others.”
Interesting, because the stigma wrongly associated with nicotine is addictive” and “bad”. Public health professionals have been instilling fear in soccer moms by demonizing nicotine for over 30 years- while beating smokers to death with hate and pointing fingers as if it were your fault.
“Convincing smokers that nicotine is addictive is a multi-billion dollar global lie.”
Things they don’t talk about in public. That’s the agenda. By actively concealing the truth (or doing as they’re told), they’ve lied about nicotine very effectively for a very long time.
Nicotine Experts Are Not Experts
According to this article from 2017, Philip Morris studied nicotine replacement therapies in the 90’s and found they were not hurting sales. No worries. This makes sense, and they were obviously right. Those are experts.
Tobacco control cult member Professor Glantz admits anti-smoking is 20 or 30 years behind the tobacco companies. In fact, self-proclaimed experts like Glantz have falsely recommended these products for years without a grasp on how they, or nicotine works.
“The assertion of nicotine “addiction” by “public health” is profitable and absurd.”
Glantz, while blaming lack of money “they have much more resources”, has had no problem (*wink*) taking money to promote (nicotine replacement therapy”) as proven (*wink*) to help smokers quit, (*wink*) adding that smokers need “regular counseling to use it properly” and displays ZERO expertise or integrity.
“Nicotine on its own, outside of tobacco products, has limited addictive potential, higher doses are safe and well tolerated”
Why do ineffective products continue to be promoted – giving smokers the false impression they work?
Because the hype and propaganda of nicotine ‘addiction’ without tobacco and MAOI’s, and ‘brain damage’ in teens, in humans, are unfounded.
Because there is no focus on helping smokers quit. Because more money to help regulate tobacco products and to study the effects of new ‘tobacco’ products keep rolling in.
Think of the progress “anti-tobacco” could have made if they only applied themselves… and tried harder.
Is it on purpose?
Financial Ties and Conflicts of Interest Between Pharmaceutical and Tobacco Companies
3 case studies. One shows how tobacco companies pressured
pharmaceutical companies to scale back their smoking cessation
educational materials that accompanied Nicorette.The second shows how
they restricted to whom the pharmaceutical company could market its
transdermal nicotine patch. In the third case, we show how subsidiary
tobacco and pharmaceutical companies of a parent company collaborated in
the production of a nicotine-release gum. Thus, because tobacco
cessation product marketing has been altered as a result of these
financial conflicts, disclosure would serve the interest of public
ties between tobacco and pharmaceutical companies have resulted in the
weakening of smoking cessation efforts and the sharing of technology to
develop nicotine products that are profitable to both industries.”
This blog is sponsored by LUNAR ROVER|Premium eLiquid. They not only produce cocktail and fruit flavors, they also have a range of tobacco flavors ranging from 0-18 strength.
Here’s a great deal from Lunar Rover!
Simply use “vapinglinks” at checkout for 15% off your entire cart!
Vapers and shops.
I’ve said this before. It is imperative:
Do NOT limit nicotine strength.
With all that above, higher nicotine levels are safe. They are imperative. Think of the popularity (and ease) of Juul. Love them or hate them, they have high nicotine strength. My Grandmother would have adapted to those with ease. No filling, no fuss. Gram wouldn’t have joined Facebook groups to try to figure out ohms, watts, coils, builds.
Out of disgust, Gram would have tossed a blinking or non-working frustrating ‘best thing ever’ mod she paid $150.00 for in the trash the first time it wouldn’t have worked and lit her Pall Mall non-filter without hesitation. She’d have gone for cig-a-likes or ego style kits because nicotine strength and throat hit is that important.
Had Inot started with 18mg (I’m still on it), and started on 3, 6, or 9mg nicotine – I might not be writing this blog, or maybe eventually I’d have picked up a *shudder* Juul.
“I know why the patch & gum didn’t work for me. I was afraid of becoming addicted to nicotine.”
Now, look around your shop – or if you’re not a shop owner, look around the shop you frequent. What is being offered? What is being sold? What nicotine strengths do you carry? Are there ‘old-school’ starter kits or cig-a-likes?
Are there strengths up to at least 18 or 24mg? Choice.
Preaching to the choir.
If you’re using a high powered device and very low nicotine, theories and titrations have been discussed here by our friend Alan Beard:
Vaping In The News covers media stories on smoking, vaping, e-cigarettes, snus, heat not burn, tobacco control, public health, government regulations, policies and more.
“The largest threat to Public Health is an informed consumer.”
Smokers Deserve Improved FDA E-Cigarette Regulation: Pass Cole-Bishop ~ Report from the WCToH 2018 conference in Cape Town ~ #WCTOH2018 (5 of them) ~ Italian Authorities Raid Vaping Expo, Seize Product ~ IQOS?(2 of them) ~ Tobacco Product Taxes Are Regressive. And Punitive.~ The FDA wants to reduce the nicotine in cigarettes to “non-addictive levels” ~ How Will FDA’s Low-Nicotine Cigarettes Affect Vaping? ~ FDA’s Low-Nicotine Cigarettes Rule Is A Dire Threat To Vaping ~ Bonus Section!
Smokers Deserve Improved FDA E-Cigarette Regulation: Pass Cole-Bishop
This isn’t like “lowering nicotine” hasn’t been tried before…
“The ultra-low-nicotine cigarette is the latest entry in an increasingly feverish race among tobacco manufacturersto stop a decline of 2 percent a year in cigarette consumption in the United States. (Sound familiar?)
”It’s a pretty common, patented process that we’re all aware of,” said Douglas Keeney, chairman of C. A. Blockers. He said his company had experimented with eliminating nicotine, but had abandoned it as being too slow and unwieldy.”
I don’t think I’ve ever given out a bonus on my blog… so there’s that. I take my position blogging as a consumer seriously. While I appreciate my regular readers, I also want smokers who are curious (or afraid) to find answers. I ask questions; how will a new idea to reduce smoking and dangers from inhaling smoke (like IQOS above) by choice “work”? Are they better? Are they the same?
Along those lines, same goes with the ever-popular “reduced nicotine” claim.
As far as “other chemicals go”….. “experts” (a term I’ve finally come to admit is rather funny) aren’t saying a reduction of anything but nicotine… if they are making that claim, PLEASE let me know.
Moving on – You knew this was coming. So – I have to ask. This morning, Cliff Doug – “VP for Tobacco Control, American Cancer Society, and faculty, University of Michigan School of Public Health” answered my 1st question “What exactly will be different from 1989?”.
Being a smartass with his response, which I do appreciate, I asked the question again… (***politely for the record***) with obvious repercussions if he answered. We both knew that…..
Cliff Douglass himself recently unblocked us on Twitter – for some strange reason – maybe he likes a challenge. Challenge accepted.
Thanks for engaging, I had this comment on my blog, are you clarifying the reduction in nicotine in the product(s) are also reducing other cancer causing chemicals? pic.twitter.com/2L84UU3ASC
Vaping In The News covers media stories on smoking, vaping, e-cigarettes, snus, tobacco control, public health, government regulations and more.
“The largest threat to Public Health is an informed consumer.”
LOTS of links this week, folks. If you missed it, it is probably here…
This week in the news:
David Goerlitz ~ #GFN18 ~ Philip Morris ~Smoking ~ Stossel ~ California ~ Experts ~ Do Less Harm ~ Clowns ~ Researchers ~ Public Health Leaders ~ Carbonyl Emissions ` Healthy Innovations ~ Vapers On Twitter ~ Cancer Rates Drop ~ Annual Review of Public Health Harm Minimization and more
This is Vaping In The News – January 6th, 2018
GFN 2018 will include the first GFN Film Festival, which will be organised in association with Attention Era Media, the makers of ‘A Billion Lives’.
A startling contrast to what is above – for fair time and value, if you must, Stanton “Puff-N-Stuff” Glantz and David Bareham have thoroughly copied each negative statement(s) they could find or come up with… and produced this contrived, coordinated, coercive manipulative, profitable pile of … well – if the first two items in a takeaway cover “taxing at levels”, what else do you need to know:
To minimize deleterious health effects, we recommend the following measures:
Prohibit the use of e-cigarettes anywhere that use of conventional cigarettes is prohibited, including in smokefree homes;
Tax e-cigarettes at levels comparable to cigarettes
Health is important. The impact of proper information for smokers making choices about their health is more important. The health impacts e-cigarettes make onless 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 thouidiotsadhere 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?
Thanks, in part, to Matt Myers of Tobacco-Free Kids, the cost of lying to adults is now in the BILLIONS.
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.
Apollo E cig is a brand that has been in the market for the past half-decade and has become very popular among its users. We never really got the opportunity to test this brand because of two main reasons. They are comparatively expensive compared to their other competitors in the market.
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.
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.
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
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 printmoney.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is regulating nicotine as tobacco.
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 FDA together with other agencies of the U.S. governmenthave 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?
You wouldn’t thinksmoking is preferred by public health leaders. Any opportunity to “eliminate” smoking should be of the highest priority to those claiming it causesXXX,XXX deaths a year. If it were important, public health would take crucial steps to stop it using any means necessary. Well, the evidence is in, it isn’t that important. They prefer a “middleman”, an illusion of clean hands, fiscal integrity, an indirect conflict of interest, professionally. See, the leading cause of funding for tobacco control is taxes derived from smoking. Let me put that another way: Smoking funds finance tobacco control.
When “professionals” heard of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, they were outraged. In fact, there was a “Frank Statement” against it. There is an open letter from 123 health groups (count the number of groups addicted to sales of tobacco and taxes derived in any form on that list). Accepting grants directly from a tobacco company to fund research of course, is not acceptable to professionals. Taking money from smoking the “old fashioned way” to “fight” smoking? They’re addicted to that, that’s just fine.
When tobacco control “experts” and public health leaders around the world received an email from Derek Yach, President of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, the reaction was typical, the result was elementary school-yard bullying.
There were less than than professional responses. Dr. Michael Siegel, a former student of Professor Glantz, has refused a position at the newly formed Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. (Covered here and by me, here.)
How is tobacco control funded again?
One example: California’s Prop 56 is funded ” through tobacco excise taxes”.
Matt Myers created the Master Settlement Agreement. He worked WITH tobacco companies to create the largest ponzi scheme in the world. In one year, between 2016 and 2017, that scheme lost 1.8 Billion dollars.
ONLY 0.338% of the total paid out MSA has been used as intended. BIG shame on USA pilitics. https://t.co/4bzqqibynY
“I head a WHO collaborating centre and have no wish to be associated with tobacco companies and money in any way.”
Abject stupidity. Taxes from smoking are devoured.
According to the World Health Organization, there are rules. Among other ~controlly~ things within, it seems silly to mention, Article 5.3 directly states:
Require that information provided by the tobacco industry be transparent and accurate.
Parties should ensure that any interaction with
the tobacco industry on matters related to
tobacco control or public health is accountable and
Where interactions with the tobacco industry are necessary, Parties should ensure that such interactions are conducted transparently. Whenever possible, interactions should be conducted in public, for example through public hearings, public notice of interactions, disclosure of records of such interactions to the public.
I couldn’t find anything showing demands of public health requiring transparency, ethics or integrity of itself. That’s ok. I can see right through them.
The reaction by select global public health leaders is simply another unprofessional example of the public health scream test. Tobacco “Control” has always been at “war” with tobacco. They are shifting the blame, creating a smokescreen they have accused tobacco companies of doing for decades. Pressure is mounting, and the “endgame” they love to talk about has new rules. This isn’t about harm reduction, it isn’t about heat not burn, or snus, or ecigs.
It’s about money. Fiscal Health. Control. It seems Philip Morris, despite the appearance others are trying to portray, has found peace with its position and, despite even my own weak suspicions, is trying to change the world.
Experts want smoking just the way it is. What are they afraid of? Despite false flags, innuendo and well-thought-of tactics, they have become their own enemy and are afraid of smoking going away. They are not the ones in control. They’re threatened by what is obvious, their own demise. In reality, the younger generation is proving itself over the last decade, tobacco control will be another casualty of smoking – it already is without them.
The government does not like consumer movements interrupting their “war” on opioid addiction and “treatment”, so they are discouraging kratom use.
FDA believes strongly people addicted to opioids should have access to safe and effective, approved treatments for addiction. Unfortunately, unscrupulous vendors are trying to capitalize on opioid epidemic by illegally marketing products for these purposes https://t.co/WiX44J8wbe
I will believe one consumer as an “anecdote” before the pharmaceutical funded FDA says a word.
BUTT OUT of what you pretend you do not understand, you irritating twits. STOP twisting the drug company sponsored campaigns to discourage or erraticate what consumers know by disguising it with “regulations”.
I, for one, am tired of reading contrived “expert” opinions. I, for one, am tired of my government ignoring the consumer voice.
Here is one consumer I adore:
“If you see vaping consumer advocates constantly ranting on, it’s because we are trying to stop you lot fucking it up”.
That quote comes from this video below.
Please, get your favorite beverage and take the 20 minutes to listen to Sarah Jakes.
VapesGiving Event Aims to Raise Huge Funding Goals to help Advocacy~ Letters of Intent ~ Feds Owe the Public ‘Corrective Statements’ on Vaping ~ Long-term vaping causes no negative health results [new study] ~ Moving beyond vaping as a cessation-only practice ~ Simon Chapman gets it with both barrels in the Australian Senate. ~ The ‘Father of Stress’ Was a Tobacco Industry Shill ~ Smoking Cessation and Nicotine De-addiction Products Market~ Two from me
This is Vaping In The News for the week ending December 9th, 2017
VapesGiving Event Aims to Raise Huge Funding Goals to help Advocacy
Instead of focusing on what “can’t” be done, consider what CAN be done. Considering what is at stake, there is NO reason #VapesGiving can’t raise millions with this movement. This is beyondoverdue.
Companies, including manufacturers, are joining with multiple advocacy groups to raise what should be nothing short of millions to attain results at any and all levels.
If you are IN business and not doing “anything”, I implore you to assess this and make some noise by making a difference. If you are already, I thank you.
Feds Owe the Public ‘Corrective Statements’ on Vaping
The verdict is in if you’re in the United States, you’re seeing tobacco companies court-ordered advertising on television for the 1st time since the 70’s. Sally Satel & Guy Bentley explain why the Feds owe the public the same courtesy.
While they mention the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Surgeon General, I can come up with a list of defendants in other parts of this blog upon request.
During a meeting with Public Health officials, I was asked why UK supported vaping & USA did not. My response: UK = government sponsored healthcare & stands to save millions in costs. USA = private healthcare & that industry will lose millions to vaping. If u could see their look pic.twitter.com/vuB1TkDWn1