Tag Archives: Less Harm

The health impact of e-cigarettes they don’t want you to know

health

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.


Ethical Standards

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?

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.

Deception’ Over The Risks Of Smoking Alternatives Violates ‘Public Health Ethics


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.

Key issues surrounding the health impacts of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and other sources of nicotine


Harm Minimization

Although this chart below doesn’t show approved medications, this is progress. Harm

 



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.

Potential deaths averted in USA by replacing cigarettes with e-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 mainstreamorganization” 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

Comparing the cancer potencies of emissions from vapourised nicotine products including e-cigarettes with those of tobacco smoke


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 FDA is regulating both nicotine in e-cigarettes and devices as tobacco.

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.

Ethically Interpreting Eight Words in the Tobacco Control Act to Help FDA and the Courts


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 emphasis disbelief.

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…

22nd Century Group Inc (NYSEAMERICAN:XXII) Ships 2.4 Million SPECTRUM® Cigarettes for the National Institute on Drug Abuse


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


Added 01/23/2018:

Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes


Like most things, distractions and propaganda designed to look like truthful information, aren’t.

I’m more concerned about the things experts are concerned with when they withhold the information they don’t want you to know.


*Unicornian:


Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk? 

vapersukgraphic.JPG


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


Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life

GONZO GIVES




Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:


Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives


think

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog. There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin

My Data Driven Meta-Analysis: E-cigarettes cause less smoking.

kid smoking



Data Driven Meta-Analysis: E-cigarettes cause less smoking. Imagine you’re a tobacco control “expert”, a professor, in fact. There is notoriety, fame even. You’re not a scientist, but while bumbling through your meta-analysis, you elude to being one for decades. Ahhh the life.

While walking upright, there’s a noticeable amount of doughnut powder in your beard (to show your expertise) in almost any sterile artificial setting — where everyone will nod their heads in agreement…

glantz tweet


Since I have the formalities out of the way, I will meta-analyse the chart below for before Professor Puff-N-Stuff gets his grubby paws on it.

I’ll submit my findings for all you math / data / science /statistitians for peer review below!

Aren’t you excited?


Submitted by Kevin Crowley, AKA @VapingIT, SPE, EEI.

(You have to have the fancy-shmancy initials!)

Title

(or whatever they put at the top of important studies)

E-cigarettes cause less smoking.

“Important stuff”:

E-cigarette use was tracked by the FDA & CDC – from 2011 – 2016.

It went up, peaked in 2015 and went back down.


 

Purpose:

I suppose I should explain myself like they all do, but I won’t, I’ll do it my way.

To have determination a deliberate (Thanks Fig!) and honest assessment of whether e-cigarettes cause more smoking (or not) in youth without using words like “may, might, could” or any phrases like “more studies will be needed to determine” (with or without nicotine).

This could be difficult, and I’m not an “expert” so I certainly hope you’re rooting for me.


Data: More Stuff

Cigarette use in the same time frame – went down. (Check my math, this is important).

kids youth gateway

Findings:

Most children around adults not smoking has caused the children to not smoke. The adults choosing to use (e-cigarettes) vaping equipment instead of purchasing cigarettes, so the children can’t steal cigarettes from parents who are not smoking.

E-cigarettes cause less smoking in children, and adults.

(Being informative is exhausting!)

Result:

Since 2011, adults smoked less, making cigarettes less available to kids. 8% of children will still try cigarettes.

Links:

Chart above is here.

Study below the chart is here.

You can purchase my metanalysis for a billion dollars once I put it behind a paywall.


Conflicts Of Interest:

Like this matters, but I’ll play along. None, consumer.


Opinion

Big Ole’ long sentence assesment warning!

It is in my opinion that around 8 percent of the children in the United States are the core group of rebels who, despite any half-hearted efforts by tobacco control organizations or esteemed professors like Puff-N-Stuff, will try smoking, skip school and daredevil and adventure off into other activities deemed dangerous or delinquent-like.

Less than that will continue try cigars, hookah, pipes and smokeless tobacco.

It happens. That will give more time for experts (uninterested in blaming themselves or rebellion) to have something to do, like blame Hollywood for the remaining 8%.

I want to beat Professor Glantz to the metanalysis submission frenzy:

How’d I do?

Peer review my findings! Someone check my math!


Related:

“most e-cigarette experimentation does not turn into regular use, and levels of regular use in young people who have never smoked remain very low.”

Cumulatively these surveys collected data from over 60,000 young people.

Young People’s Use of E-Cigarettes across the United Kingdom: Findings from Five Surveys 2015–2017

“Nicotine dependence is not a significant mechanism for e-cigarettes’ purported effect on heavier future conventional smoking among young adults.”

Evaluating the Mutual Pathways among Electronic Cigarette Use, Conventional Smoking, and Nicotine Dependence.


Related:

Via Michael Siegel:

Center for Tobacco Products is Lying to the Public About Youth Tobacco Use

Mine:
Smoking and E-cig use among teens is down, again – (Don’t tell Stan)

Added 9/6/17

I must have done well:
  • Riccardo Polosa
  • Christopher Russell,
  • Joel Nitzkin and
  • Konstantinos E. Farsalinos

A critique of the US Surgeon General’s conclusions regarding e-cigarette use among youth and young adults in the United States of America


Advertise with YOUR text link or banner!


Do you know about THR4LIFE?

bod1



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


Have you met our friends at vapers.org.uk?

vapersukgraphic.JPG


Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:


Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives


think

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.


 

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin

 

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

A Threat to Public Health: Opinions.

lungfactsreportcard

The latest “display of incompetence” award from a major health organization goes to Harold Wimmer, National President & CEO of the American Lung Association (ALA). Wimmer takes diligent care with his opinion to a recent New York Times article, “The Assault on Health and Safety Begins”.

In response to the article, Wimmer stated (underlining is my emphasis)

“Under the guise of reform, the House passed the Regulatory Accountability Act, giving polluters and the tobacco industry free rein to avoid meaningful oversight, regardless of the effect on the health of Americans.”


The Public Health Circuscircus-gif

Wimmer, in his opinion, believes

“common-sense steps under the Tobacco Control Act to protect children from flavored e-cigarettes and cigars would be halted in their tracks.”

The Tobacco Control Act already prohibits sales to minors (now that vaping products are deemed “nicotine” and therefore “deemed” tobacco).

He’s also concerned that

“Trying to mislead the public to believe that this so-called reform legislation will improve accountability is not only disingenuous, but also a direct threat to the health of our most vulnerable Americans.”


I’d like to focus on you, Mr. Wimmer, and your so-called accountability and disingenuous motive as a direct threat to the health of adult American smokers who trust your organization.

Thanks to you, valiant efforts to encourage Americans to keep smoking based on your opinion, is working. Be proud, Mr. Wimmer.



Invalid Concerns, Ulterior Motive

lungfacts

According to the ALA website:

“The American Lung Association remains concerned about their impact on the public health, given the dramatic increase in use among youth.”

New Study Casts Serious Doubt on Claim that E-Cigarettes Lead to Youth Smoking

Instead, you should be focusing on

Smokers Who Switch to E-Cigarettes Exposed to Same Levels of Nicotine, Lower Carcinogen Levels

and this, among other things –

Lung function and respiratory symptoms in a randomized smoking cessation trial of electronic cigarettes.

Don’t get me started on nicotine.


The Litmus Test

bullethole-1

Under my scrutiny, MY opinion – the least of your concerns, Mr. Wimmer, are the millions of adult smokers reading your “insight” and continuing to use tobacco because you omit and fabricate information – in your opinion.

Imagine, if the focus of less tobacco use was obtained using a litmus test. Imagine if less tobacco use was the goal and the criteria was less harm.

You have a captive audience, and you are deceiving them with your bias opinion. You are violating the public’s trust. You do that well with Pfizer as a partner.

Instead of trying to “save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease, through research, education and advocacy”  – and “to eliminate tobacco use and tobacco-related diseases” you are lacking integrity by

Withholding differential risk information on legal consumer nicotine/tobacco products: The public health ethics of health information quarantines


Focusing on harm

bullethole-2

Imagine the steadfast opinions used for persuasion OF the public.

Merchants Of Doubt: How Public Health Uses Tobacco Tactics Against E-Cigarettes

Imagine placing the importance of fiscal health of an organization before public health so the public at large and unbeknownst to them faces settling for less.


Less Harm

Now, imagine the focus was just less smoking. Whether it would be snus, smokeless tobacco or e-cigarettes – and I’ll GIVE you the “government approved” traditional but much less effective options like the patch, gum, sprays or inhalers you promote.

Imagine if it included harm reduction.

Imagine 79% successful outcomes.

Imagine if you weren’t perpetuating the tragedy.


On the surface, with your title and contrived innuendo, are leading the public to believe you are “for the consumer”.

Mr. Wimmer, with your willful negligence by “trying to mislead the public to believe” your stance on “less tobacco use” – You and your organization are “a direct threat” to public health and smokers in the United States.



Comments are not filtered and are always welcome on this blog.



If you’re interested in learning about vaping products:


Please visit


If you are a Professional,  go HERE.


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


More to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin