AVA Announces the Start of #VapesGiving!™ ~ The academic scandal: Stanton Glantz ~ Paint me green and hear me roar! ~ FDA Responds to Cigar Groups ~ Up In Smoke ~ VAEP ~ We Don’t need The Government To Solve Smoking Problems ~ Showing Adolescents Graphic Anti-Smoking Posters May Encourage Some to Try Smoking ~ In Other News
#VapesGiving™ offers the opportunity not only for you to donate to a spectrum of organizations, but to see your donation doubled thanks to the support of Naked 100 (up to $190,000!).
Keller and Heckman is pleased to announce its 2nd annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium. If you’re interested in attending, please click on the graphic below!
Attention, smokers. The FDA launched their latest campaign to help smokers with an “adult smoking cessation education” campaign aimed at encouraging cigarette smokers to quit through messages of support called “Every Try Counts”. While the challenge will remain the same, their “tough love” approach of demonizing and shaming and nicotine guilt trips has turned into – well, a softer, kinder “positive” type of manipulation to say the same thing. Keep trying.
There seemed to be buzzwords like “stakeholders“, “medicinal” products, and “health” coupled with “technology” and “smoke-free society”. In the latest battle cry of “Every Try Counts“, there certainly seemed to be more grab-assery in the almost 2 1/2 hour Glantzian propagandavideo than there was “effort” put forth by the FDA.
I did find e-cigarettes. The “e-cigarette” section of this campaign claiming “for now, we do not know” is difficult to find and treated like a red-headed stepchild on the naughty step (hat tip to Agent Ania who I adored and miss dearly), here.
“The FDA is committed to reducing tobacco-related disease and death by helping people quit combustible cigarettes and implementing comprehensive policies to reduce addiction to nicotine. Our aim is to render cigarettes minimally or non-addictive”
Stop. Do you know what a 100 Million+ Dollar commitment of comprehensive policies from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) return on investment might look like? I do.
*If any of you know of 100 million dollars being spent in a similar fashion for e-cigarettes, snus, etc., PLEASE link them in the comments.
I couldn’t tell if this was a slip, or a tactically designed ploy by using the words “spectrum of risk” at 1:03:40 and 1:04:07 in the video….
According to “22nd Century” – “Spectrum” is the name of their product at this time)
bold is my emphasis within below:
MRTP designation
Perhaps the most immediate upside comes from the possibility of its very low nicotine cigarettes Brand A (containing 95% less nicotine compared to conventional cigarettes) to get the Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) designation.
The company would then be able to market Brand A as such, a very low nicotine cigarette which has less health risk as it reduces addiction.
An official application was made to the FDA in December last year, and a rather substantial meeting (involving no less than 22 FDA staff members and another 20 by telephone) took place within two weeks, suggesting substantial FDA interest.
This interest was already evident from the ($10M) financing by the FDA and NIDA of a landmark study using 22nd Century’s Spectrum research cigarettes that appeared in October 2015 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
This double blind, parallel, randomized clinical trials involving 840 smokers, found that smokers of Spectrum very low nicotine cigarettes consumed far fewer cigarettes per day and doubled their quit attempts versus smokers of cigarettes with conventional nicotine content.
How will the FDA get a return on investment with this campaign? They’re in the tobacco business. They’ll sell more cigarettes and collect the tax. I predicted it in advance here, and where “expert” personalities and political front groups are on board, I covered it here.
“while encouraging the development of potentially less harmful tobacco products for adults who still want or need access to nicotine.”
Well, thanks very much.
Continued babbling
The announcement rambles on, stating:
“At the same time, we’re also taking new steps to improve access and use of FDA-approved medicinal nicotine products to help smokers quit.”
The government and experts claim “government approved methods work to help smokers” but no one brags of 93% failure rates. No one mentions false hopes choosing those options. No one mentions the methods approved by the government, fanatically promoted and shoved into smokers faces, are designed to fail.
Imagine my surprise to see political front groups such as the Heart, Lung, Truth Initiative along with CVS “pledging” resources manipulation with the FDA.
There’s a hashtag “#MedNicotine ” entangled in the manipulation.
Behavioral support is a fundamental part of making #MedNicotine products work better. This support may give people a better understanding of how these products help them stop smoking. – Fred Saunders of @GSK
What Duke-Margolis is quoting from Fred Saunders of Glaxo-Smith Kline (GSK) to smokers is:
Give us a call because you’re too stupid to understand we’re not going to make a product to help you, so call us: we’ll explain how you’ll fail. These products are useless without counseling. Give us money. Do as you’re told. Use them anyway.
Fundamentally.
Fund Us Mentality.
Added 12/14/17:
The day after this blog, this comes across my eyes:
“preclinical research conducted at Duke University”
Seems “#MedNicotine” was pretty serious….
Seems “Every Try Counts” includes “medical nicotine”.
One more thing. I primarily tweet and blog about e-cigs, but that does not mean I am against Heat not burn, snus, and so on. In my opinion, if you’re trying, it all counts.
I saw “dip” but Swedish Snus isn’t talked about enough, either.
Battery Safety. The FDA wants to call e-cigarettes “vape”. I took the liberty of fixing the FDA’s graphic (from here, where you can also report an explosion) above because it is idiotic.
First, no one purposely places a device in a puddle, in the rain, and allows it to get wet.
Second, batteries are considered tobacco products, and we’re probably never getting past that.
Third, their mediocre “tips” are barely enough for you to read or understand.
Moving on.
The press loves a fire.
Practice battery safety!
Each time one of you catches yourself on fire (stop doing that), the press grabs a gas can. “Experts” around the world tweet & snicker with glee.
Under normal manufacturer specifications, millions (if not billions) of batteries are in use every day around the world. From laptops to airplanes, hoverboards to cellphones, technology can be flammable. Batteries in any device can be dangerous. Dr. Russell explained that – a year or more ago here:
Repeat after me
DO NOT carry LOOSE batteries in your POCKETS with keys, coins, or any other metal. Stop doing that. Battery safety and e-cigarettes is important. You’re asking to catch yourself on fire.
From experience in work-related exposure, batteries (primarily CR123 and 12V batteries) shouldSHALLbe safely encased, taped, covered, transported and handled in a safe manner. If batteries are damaged, do not throw them in the trash. They shall be disposed of properly according to your local laws and ordinances.
With ANY device, battery charging is important, do not mix chargers or batteries and do not leave them unattended. Keep the correct charging device with the correct batteries. Follow the manufacturer instructions.
Education
From the FDA graphic above, I have a feeling the vaping community is far ahead of safety than (governments) will ever be. Technology and innovation are restricted by the FDA deeming rules. Honestly, there’s no excuse for accidents. With forums, facebook groups and word of mouth, the problem exists but is rare.
In 2015
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA):
“In 2014, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) published an alert that identified 25 separate e-cigarette fires and explosions dating to 2009 that were reported in the media.”
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.
Sixty-one incidents occurred when either the device or spare batteries for the device were in a pocket.
Sixty incidents occurred while the device was being used.
Forty-eight incidents occurred while the battery in the device was being charged.
Eighteen incidents occurred while the device or battery was stored.
In seven incidents, it is not reported whether the e-cigarette was in use, stored, or being charged.
One incident occurred during transportation on a cargo aircraft.
Below are just a few extremelyimportant links and graphics urging you to practice battery safety. Don’t assume you know it all. If you’re doubting your experience or knowledge, if you have a question, ASK in your respective forums. ASK a consumer group.
James Jarvis joins Shane Thompson of Battery Solutions in Miami, Florida at the Vapevent – to explain battery safety.
CASAA:
From the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA)
I want to keep you off the news and to keep yourself from catching on fire. I prefer you purchase your battery cases through CASAA here for a donation of only $2.50 each.
It is a great way to support CASAA, and you are helping yourself not catch on fire!
“I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for (me) to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.”
I am also a participant in other affiliate sites such as FastTech.
Tobacco control is fueding, fussing, fighting, and operating in fear over funding and where it comes from.
Control of tobacco, or tobacco control, loves control. Color me silly, but the stronger the opposition, the more I see the antagonistic approach against it, the more I like the PMI foundation. A little while back, Philip Morris announced they would pledge a billion dollars towards a “smoke-free world” for research.
Fueding
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)
Fussing
If you missed it, There was plenty of “outrage” including a “Frank Statement” accompanied by babbling a scream test from the “tobacco control sector” about the announcement here.
Fighting
On December 5th, Dr. Michael Siegel explained, “We already know what interventions are most effective in reducing smoking rates” and “Frankly, this is all essentially a waste of time.” here.
He has five “key points” as to what the foundation, funded by a tobacco company, should do.
These are his suggestions:
severely restrict or curtail cigarette advertising and marketing;
require plain packaging;
substantially increase cigarette taxes;
promote 100% smoke-free environments; and
heavily fund aggressive, state-of-the-art anti-smoking media campaigns.
For time and space
I didn’t see research in those five points. I don’t think it was implied. Instead, I see the same tobacco control playbook. Maybe it’s just me.
I’ll toss a “rebuttal” taking care of time & space.
plain packaging
“In truth, graphic warning labels have only a marginal effect on cigarette smoking.” Guess who said that? —> ~Michael Siegel
increase cigarette taxes (that in part, FUND tobacco control)
This tax ponzi scheme is really important and embarrassing to mention, but if you insist: “It is clear that the MSA has not resulted in a clear and straightforward intensification of state tobacco control efforts, because of the impact of interest group activity…” The Master Settlement Agreement and Its Impact on Tobacco Use 10 Years Later
aggressive, state-of-the-art anti-smoking media campaigns
Well, this is painful: $200 Million Federal Anti-Smoking Campaign Flops. Here I assume control was already doing all of the above. Since that’s the impression we’re under, FIFTY+ years of tobacco control efforts had deaths at 6 million – now it is 7 Million.
Question: How do claims “making progress” work?
“In contrast, the Foundation does want to support research on the role of genetics, physiology, individual choices and activities and environmental influences.”
According to my assessment of past “job performance”, tobacco control “experts” & all political front groups are trying to help by instilling fear.
Although I think he’s lost his marbles in his assesment of the goals of the Smoke-Free World, please, don’t be under the impression that I don’t like or respect Dr. Siegel. In fact, I’ve linked him on occasion, and I do respect him.
And especially here, where I wonder if it was the reason he declined the position:
“You aren’t allowed to do that in tobacco control. If you dissent, you are allowed to write polite, personal, and private emails expressing your opinion, but you are not allowed to go public with your dissenting comments. You have to shut up and keep your opinion to yourself.”
Don’t get your panties in a bunch; I am partial to vaping. It’s what worked for ME. I am also for any method a consumer can CHOOSE, including the patch, gum, hypnosis, meditation, whatever works for someone choosing to switch from smoking that works for them. I’m not for strong-arming or manipulation of “control”.
In my opinion, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World will do research with technology, hopefully e-cigarettes, heat not burn, other smokeless tobacco and other things. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll also figure out why those patches & gums have a measly 7 percent success rate and improve those as well. Boy, won’t pharma be pissed.
The “control” sector won’t have eyes on research first. They won’t have immediate opportunity to “enhance” or “downplay” the results. They will have to actually defend their positions. Maybe even work at their job. Imagine the horror.
Loss of control.
I covered some of these issues here at The Daily Vaper:
“Tobacco control organizations have never voiced any reservations about accepting funding from tobacco taxation to keep their fiscal health afloat with funds derived from the crop.”
To be credible, I suppose……if we could trust control experts to act like – well, I propose, experts, we’d be a lot further along, but we’re talking about a tobacco company trying to reduce smoking… twenty years ago, this very scenario would have been simple to manipulate. Today, not so much.
Simon Chapman thinks Dr. Siegel’s points are analysis….
No punches pulled in this analysis of Philip Morris-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World as a scam https://t.co/ZAhxnzIZpn
If we could just separate that pesky conflict of interest of “research” and “control” from the funding… ahh who am I kidding. Tobacco companies want money. Tobacco control and anti-tobacco wants money.
If “tobacco control” were credible, they would all be feverishly trying to put themselves out of a job, and you wouldn’t be reading this blog, now would you?
I must admit to having an “addiction to clickbaitable” articles on nicotine. In any given week, they seem to find me as if I had a dealer (Skip) who likes to bring them share them with me.
That said, another crossed my eye this morning and pissed me off.
So with that, here we are.
No bias here.
The “article” quoting an evidently “highly qualified” optometrist… an EYE doctor, titled “Butt in: Ask patients about nicotine use”.
It opens with
“A new study links the use of electronic cigarettes (vaping) among teenagers to more vaping and cigarette smoking”
In the first two paragraphs, the words “irritant” “risk” and “cause” accompany “teenagers” and “students”.
I left comments on the article (many won’t even allow comments any more) and at the moment, as usual, they are not showing up or deleted.
I didn’t see an author on that article. Enough of that idiotic twit or twits.
Kratom
I don’t normally sway from my chosen topic of e-cigs – but I will today.
While speaking recently about nicotine (use, “addiction”) to a relative (a licenced Arborist), I learned in about 20 minutes what I needed to “know” about kratom.
I’d never heard of kratom. I didn’t know it existed and know next to nothing about it.
Within that conversation, I looked kratom up. Imagine my surprise when I see testimonialseerily similar to what e-cigarette users are saying about nicotine.
Funding a nanny state
The government does not like consumer movements interrupting their war on nicotine. Examples of misconduct are here, another great explanation (thanks Ed!) is here.
#FDA's new Nicotine Steering Committee will re-evaluate and modernize our approach to development & regulation of nicotine replacement products to help smokers quit cigarettes. FR Notice: https://t.co/XRuCg7ImwB and Blog: https://t.co/3ZkHekexnv
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.
Keller and Heckman is pleased to announce its 2nd annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium. If you’re interested in attending, please click on the graphic below!
Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.
There is definitely more to come.
Keep ON #Vaping On.
Kevin
“I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for (me) to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.”
With credentials at stake, two of the top (“self-proclaimed”) experts in the tobacco control world have had their reputations questioned this week. Both are were highly regarded by each other along with a select group of individuals. Both are under fire.
Both of the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, of course, in a court of law.
Allegations
First and most serious are allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation by Professor Stanton Glantz in California’s University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).
Certainly Glantz is another in the scope of accusations against politicians, Hollywood, and other places in the world.
Within court documents, it shows “in my opinion”, accusations of manipulation of research.
The full court documents, in this case, are available here.
Stan, according to his user profile at UCSF is”the Truth Initiative Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control”. Well known in the anti-tobacco world, he has been no stranger to controversy over conduct with research in the past.
With the obvious larger issues at hand, and although not charged, Federal Research Misconduct *may, *might, or *could also stem from this case.
Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.3
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
Manipulation, deception, persuasion, abuse of power, control.
*The reason (not that I need one) I mention the research misconduct above is because of what Lorien says below.
Each time this happens, I hear the (paraphrase) words “a man in his position should know better”. I’d like to re-word that bullshit statement. NO man (or woman) should put themselves IN that position.
I do NOT understand why this is acceptable.
As we are learning, it's entirely too easy for men in his position of power, money & influence to do this.
Keller and Heckman is pleased to announce its 2nd annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium. If you’re interested in attending, please click on the graphic below!
Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.
There is definitely more to come.
Keep ON #Vaping On.
Kevin
Of interest:
“I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for (me) to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.”
There comes a time where things need to be said. People in charge need to be pointed out. There have been things that no one, specifically Simon Chapman, wanted to talk about, like suggestions of law, regulations, and opinion to manipulate nicotine in this instance, but “don’t talk about it”.
I would be irresponsible if I didn’t link Clive Bates covering the paper above here.
Less smoking in Australia comes with fines
The “discussion paper” (Note the other names in that) surely in part, brought this idiotic fine “penalty system” where posession of nicotine includes fines (and jail time) and cigarettes are legal:
Act Like An Expert
I’ve proudly called Simon Chapman a “chimpmanzee” among other obvious things here.
As an “expert” in tobacco control, it’s been pointed out by much smarter people than I am (in many instances) that Simon is wrong. You’d think, with his Ph.D. in social medicine that he would know better.
It isn’t the first time Mr. Chapman has been called out here, here & here.
This one is one of my favorite instances of assertion by Simon Chapman, and it still puzzles me as to why he would ever make such a rookie professional mistake.
Remember, this statement is from a tobacco control EXPERT influencing public HEALTH and tobacco control. I’d expect such a person to know everything there is to know about nicotine.
If you happen to be an “expert”, act like one. Make it a goal to know more than common people like me, or Judith below.
Even in his retirement, he wants to assert control.
Name calling and… well, who’s above that…
I’ve thought of calling Simon Chapman a “pretentious prick”. A “man-child”. I’ve thought “what an arrogant pompous ass”, yet I’ve only given time and effort where I thought it may be most appropriate. Like now.
It isn’t like Chapman would ever call anyone attempting to engage him properly, (yes I did) trolls.
Let us clear the decks, call out the lies of those who have more power and funding than brains who are influencingidiotic policy with less than desireable required credentials and force them to answer the questions publicly.
I don’t want to waste any more of our time.
You can see Senator Leyonhjelm who has balls, discussing Simon Chapman below.
“…Department of Health was so taken aback by Simon Chapman’s false statements that they felt the need to go on the record and clear things up”
“Ill-informed, willfully ignorant and downright malicious”
“Snake oil salesman come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes they take the guise of an emeritus professor of sociology” ~ Senator Leyonhjelm
Don’t spread this around, Simon is talking about litigation.
I recently got defamation $$$$$ from someone saying similar false bilge about my qualifications & expertise that warrior #Leyonhjelm said about me in Coward's Castle last night https://t.co/HTknGxz6TC President of Senate will be getting a response.
The world has been manipulated into believing that nicotine itself is addictive. It isn’t. Nicotine is not addictive.
Decades of the assertion of nicotine addiction is wrong. Millions of smokers have been lied to. Millions have believed the addictive property in cigarettes is nicotine alone by default or design.
MILLIONS have tried to “quit or die” with “approved” methods.
The assertion of nicotine “addiction” by “public health” is profitable and absurd.
Where IS the PROOF?
Is there proof of the global claim of addiction to nicotine without tobacco?
I decided to challenge that.
Nicotine Addiction: An Open 30-Day Public Health Challenge.
Here is the “Fagerström Nicotine SMOKING Dependence Scale”
Answer the questions honestly as a smoker if you smoke or answer the questions honestly now as a “vaper” (or both). It’ll take one minute to get your answer:
One, with half a brain might think all those additives in tobacco could be the reason for “addiction”. Well – evidently not. It must be the nicotine.
A Nicotine Lie Is Born
In 1988, the Surgeon General released this report setting the phrase “nicotine addiction” into anti-smoking and eventually what has become “tobacco control” folklore.
By design, the anti-smoking establishment took a deep manipulative smoke-free breath in unison – and went, yeah, nicotine addiction. We can use that.
Contrived? Absolutely.
Created false nicotine theory to manipulate smokers into thinking they are addicted
The two other anti-tobacco experts, Neal Benowitz and Jack Henningfield were the jointly responsible scientific editors of the 639-page official Surgeon General’s Report: “Nicotine Addiction” in 1988.
According to the court documents the two experts both had solid economic cooperation on smoking cessation products with many pharmaceutical companies since the 1980s – Neal Benowitz as a professional consultant for several pharmaceutical companies that produce smoking cessation products, while Jack Henningfield earned most of his income from his own business companies which have had long-standing partnerships with Glaxo and Pfizer.
“Lying about “nicotine” addiction becomes addictive like alcohol, cocaine, and heroin.”
Nicotine is NOT addictive.
They Couldn’t Wait To Help
Smoking bans, laws and (bookmark alert) —> anti-smoking groups went berzerk. Patches, gums, etc. were set and soon “in place” to “help” smokers.
Public health, anti-smoking groups now tobacco control “groups” have (used) gotten away with stating nicotine addiction for DECADES, never separating tobacco or all the additives in the manufacturing process (MAOI’s) with a simple proof by assertion, the whole world “believes” very quickly, that nicotine itself, is addictive. Government goes along for the ride.
Nicotine: From the farm to your food, cosmetics, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s applications, what are they not telling us? #YouDontKnowNicotine
Please, Keep Smoking
When you wanted to stop smoking, you had it set in your mind via the brainwashing you’ve had most or all your life. Patch. Gum. Approved methods. You take the word of experts who should know better, run to the local drug store or supermart and load up on essentially useless products.
The world of anti-tobacco, pharmaceuticals and government, by design deception, have manipulated public opinion.
Remember above?
“Tobacco and nicotine are addictive like alcohol, cocaine, and heroin.”
Proof by assertion:
Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).
There are stats to show how well poorly the patch and gum are helping folks stop smoking at a whopping 93% failure rate here.
Profits from nicotine replacement “therapies” are addictive like alcohol, cocaine, and heroin.
Nicotine is NOT addictive.
An Addiction To Revenue
Nicotine gum was around in 1967, but commercially available in 1978.
Shortly thereafter, in 1994, the tobacco companies were put on the spot, in my opinion, to look like villains – to make the public record look as if they were lying, and make the pharmaceutical companies much more profitable.
Wouldn’t most or all of us, if “addicted” to nicotine alone, have
Smoked more and more cigarettes every day to increase our “nicotine” levels?
Continually use higher MG patches going up instead of “stepping down”?
Chewed copious amounts of nicotine gum until our cheeks exploded?
Become “junkies”, gone on crime sprees and lived on the streets?
Seen a huge worldwide black market for nicotine gum & patches?
Nicotine is NOT addictive.
Willful Manipulation And Deception
“Experts” willfully, with malice, have the answer – and give you what you’re supposedly addicted to, to help you become free from your addiction.
That, my friend, is business 101 charlatanism defined.
I’ll let you ponder that as I keep typing.
The phrase “nicotine addiction” became profitable by the 1990’s.
“Keeping people smoking by saying replacement “therapies” work is “as addictive as alcohol, cocaine, and heroin”.
Nicotine is NOT addictive.
An Addiction To Lying
ALWAYS referring to tobacco, never without. An alleged expert in her field.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive chemicals known to mankind #ECToH2017 It is just as addictive as cocaine and heroin, if not more so pic.twitter.com/y5kZaRw0WE
Here’s an example of an alleged “expert” using misdirection.
Then – there’s a contradiction. It either IS addictive or it is not.
There’s no “depends”. It makes “experts” look assertive, but uneducated.
To presume, assume, portray and assert the “fact” that nicotine itself is THE addictive ingredient in tobacco is unsubstantiated, contrived and incorrect.
I’ve asked for proof of addiction to nicotine without tobacco. Repeatedly. Replies were either completely ignored, or amusing to some extent.
Without proof that nicotine itself “IS” addictive, it’s not as easy an answer to – lie about.
I looked. Asked politely, and sometimes not so politely. Then I looked some more.
Facebook. Emails.
Becoming a pain in the ass, I’ve asked “important people”. I’ve asked wannabe’s with PhD’s, top experts on addiction.
“Tobacco control – experts – “, T.V. doctors, the Centers for Disease Control, The Food & Drug Administration, the Surgeon General and even asked Pfizer & Johnson & Johnson on Twitter. I wanted anyone to show proof that – without tobacco – nicotine “is” addictive.
I’ve asked the Lung, Heart, Cancer and other organizations like the American Medical Association. You name it, I’ve asked.
Not one could produce evidence to show addiction without using tobacco or MAOI’s.
They all say use those approved “cessation” methods.
Imagine my surprise.
Nicotine is NOT addictive.
Multi-Billion Dollar Lies
I asked Mr. Zercher of 22nd Century. According to his Twitter account, he is
“VP BD @_xxiicentury (cig w less nicotine than a tomato? yep), fmr head of #americanspiritcigarettes.”
He’s done research (funded by the FDA). Surely, with the progress and innovation of creating a cigarette with “less nicotine than a tomato”, he’s done some research. He of all people – he’s got answers.
See, he’s got a cigarette with less nicotine in it. That tells me he’s got evidence that nicotine is the addictive property in tobacco, not the tobacco.
I covered his portion of the multi-billion dollar, global industry (that I’m still waiting to prove me wrong) here:
I’m also still waiting for you to find it, Mr. Zercher.
Convincing smokers that nicotine is addictive is a multi-billion dollar global lie.
What I could find
Before the challenge was proposed publicly, I did some homework. Hell, I’ve been doing homework for 3+ years. To really scour the world for addiction to nicotine without tobacco was a task.
Once I published the challenge, I expected to be bombarded with studies, data, science and proof that nicotine, without tobacco – IS addictive. Instead, I was expectedly told to “change the criteria”. Huh.
Why? If it IS addictive – after all these years – where is the data?
With no real assistance or help from the “experts”, I found the following on my own:
This one, with my favorite word “can” and of 18 people, does not show addiction.
This cannot possibly apply to nicotine as a discrete substance even when delivered in a cigarette. The problem with a regular intake of nicotine in a cigarette is all the collateral damage caused by smoking.
Finally, 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.
To question this topic has brought understandably varied levels of criticism among peers, and dismissal due to the assertion of addiction by some professionals without separating tobacco from the equation. I was asked repeatedly to change the criteria.
In giving advice on smoking cessation, the perception of being addicted to “nicotine” itself, then suggesting a “step-down method” with nicotine products is a questionable at best.
Blaming smokers for “not trying hard enough” and telling them it takes many tries is no longer acceptable.
If it were the nicotine itself, not the tobacco, chemicals and maoi’s introduced to enhance tobacco, there would be merit for these products for cessation.
“NRT” and cessation devices do not work. Public health and the manufacturers have known this all along and gone along with the illusion. Nicotine Replacement “therapies” are like any other homeopathic or snake oil remedy.
If you are an expert, please – feel free to comment on this blog and prove addiction to nicotine without tobacco.
This is now a perpetual challenge. I’ll wait.
Here’s a list of other valuable resources added as they are found.
“although any nicotine-containing product is potentially addictive, decades of research and use have shown that NRT products sold OTC do not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence.
“The research, published today (Tuesday 16 May) in the journal Scientific Reports, adds to the Chittka lab’s understanding of how bees – insects with a brain no bigger than a pinhead – can perform complex tasks.”
Saw this in a Facebook group I belong to – from 2012. An excellent perspective from Gabriela Segura, M.D:
“My aim here is to defend the rights of people who choose to smoke. It may surprise you to know that, while the percentage of the population that smokes has declined in recent years (due to government propaganda), the incidence of heart disease has not declined. The reason, shock! horror! is that smoking is not the real problem to begin with!”
“This site was written by a healthcare writer and edited by the former editor of MayoClinic.com as a public service to help smokers make informed decisions”
This is more like “de-addiction” to their revenue……….and they don’t LIKE it.
I LOVE it when the disruption is SO blatant and clear… and it’s in print.
Pfft… “de-addiction”…
“This has resulted into implementation of regulations and legislations for drugs and electronic cigarettes, which will further curb growth of the market in North America.”
Imagine my surprise, when I’m told nicotine content ranges MUCH higher than in cigarettes….that after a “four-year study” that had
“taken a multidisciplinary approach that includes experimental animal models and a range of human studies that examine tobacco product appeal, addictiveness, and toxicity.”
I’ve got some AMAZING people and organizations I am connected with around the world. This link was shared with me by the New Nicotine Alliance AU. I don’t understand it all, but I get that “nicotine alone” (does) not enhance addiction…. Without tobacco…… or MAOI’s…..
Bold is my emphasis:
Discussion:
The main finding of our study is that nicotine needs the association with an irreversible and non-selective MAOI to induce the same neurochemical modifications as those observed with compounds belonging to the main groups of drugs of abuse (i.e., amphetamine, cocaine, morphine, or alcohol) (Salomon et al., 2006; Lanteri et al., 2008). Moreover, although repeated injections of nicotine alone do not enhance the hyperlocomotor effects of amphetamine or PCA, tranylcypromine pretreatment allows nicotine to induce a robust and persistent cross-sensitization to these two drugs.
Added 01/30/18
“The commercial importance of the ‘’dependence to nicotine’’ dogma”
“This change of heart should normally create the effect of a bomb”
“… authors of the study…….envision their work could lead to new non-addictive, nicotine-based treatments for some of the 51 million people worldwide who suffer from the disease.”
“Some e-cigarette users were dependent on nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, but these products were less addictive than tobacco cigarettes. E-cigarettes may be as or less addictive than nicotine gums, which themselves are not very addictive.”
“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.”
“Nicotine is known as the drug that is responsible for the addicted behaviour of tobacco users, but it has poor reinforcing effects when administered alone.”
Below includes only sugar. Not the other chemicals that can enhance nicotine – to be blamed- for “addiction”. It’s almost as if the information is classified. Or buried. As if someone doesn’t want you to know this information.
Also: “The main additions to tobacco are sugars, which are also present naturally in tobacco leaves, and moisture retaining compounds (humectants), such as glycerol and propylene glycol.“
“One of the mistakes smokers make when trying to quit is confusing sugar withdrawal with nicotine withdrawal. Most people actually experience sugar withdrawal, which can be very uncomfortable. Symptoms include irritability, headaches, shaking.”
(I blame Fig Ramsey for me finding this one as well.)
“Sugars are added to cigarettes as they are known to turn into aldehydes during combustion. Acetaldehyde is believed to increase the addictive properties of nicotine.”
Further, by weight, added sugars were the number one or number two ingredient in most cigarette brands. Given that added sugars increase the appeal, toxicity, and addictive potential of smoking, regulatory actions should be considered… for the protection of public health.
When the sugar level in natural tobacco is determined the concentration of sugars added on top of that can be defined and the relationship with increased dependence potential of tobacco products can be determined.
5.5 percent knew that sugar was added to cigarettes and only 3.8 percent of those surveyed knew that added sugar increases toxins in smoke. White processed sugar is contained in each cigarette also has been found to be addictive.
At the beginning of the 20th century, someone devised a two-step process of air-curing leaves to keep the nicotine content high, then soaking them in sugar to get the sweet flavor back.
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
health.
“financial
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.”
Nicotine Addiction ~ Canada ~ Austrailia ~ Professor Glantz ~ E-cigarette myths should go up in smoke ~ Dr. Farsalinos ~ Common Sense ~ Conspiracy ~ Battery Safety ~ A New Leaf: Vaping, E-Cigs & The Future of Tobacco at SXSW 2017
This is a fundraiser for ecigarette-research.org for further research by Dr. Farsalinos and his colleagues and a challenge for public health to prove nicotine addiction without tobacco or MAOI’s.
So far the challenge has raised $215.00, and one challenge has been submitted.
While many have been shown the challenge, there have been no submissions from “public health experts“:
David Sweanor…has been refused the opportunity to testify on Bill S-5 before the Senate Standing Committee of Social Affairs, Science and Technology (SOCI).
You can show your support here with this ThunderClap:
Glantz, who isn’t one of the elite royalty mentioned in this report, decided “As one of the 120 “leaders” who responded to the poll used to construct this document”, he strongly objects to the use of the subtitle, and spelled “necessarily” incorrectly as “necessarity” wrong – which leads one to believe he may, might, could – or it is possible, he’s an idiot.
If you’re unfamiliar with Professor Glantz, he’s covered here from Paul: Rotund Reaver.
I’ve blogged about the mechanical genius here and here.
Control has wasted over 50 years sitting on the floor with crayons – pretending to “fight”.
More of this, please
In their zeal to punish the evil tobacco industry, many have thrown the baby out with the bathwater by ignoring scientific evidence, mislabeling e-cigarettes as dangerous tobacco products and stifling, and restricting access to, a technology that helps tens of thousands of people — perhaps more — safely and effectively quit smoking every year.
“He pointed to the example of a conference organised by the tobacco industry in Brussels last year, where scientists were sent letters criticising their participation by a US anti-smoking group – even though they had no links to the tobacco industry.”
My job is to defend science and evidence, not any industries. In that respect, and after waiting for 24h for the journalist to revise, I am obliged to denounce an article published in the Sunday Herald Scotland in which I am MISINTERPRETED as defending links between the tobacco and vaping industries and characterizing attacks on research into vaping funded by Big Tobacco were a form of “academic McCarthyism”.
UL, a leading global safety science organization, is announcing acceptance of product submittals of electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, for construction evaluation, testing and North American certification.
Imagine a business you can operate at full capacity by providing a valuable product and “service” to millions of customers with no restraint on inventory, no liability and carry a “non” or “not for profit” status.
Imagine a business with no worries about profit or loss – and the money keeps coming in. As a bonus, you can carry this on for more than 50 years and brag about it.
Imagine a business that is funded by those you are trying supposed to help. Imagine if your business could get away with shaming your customers for failing with your product or service.
You could offer ineffective tips keeping your status as a caring and upstanding business in the community. Wouldn’t that be fun?
Imagine how failure on the customers part creates opportunity for more business. Promoting almost useless products you don’t pay for is not only fun, but keeps you, and the supplier in business. They’ll keep coming back. You know the failure rate is 93%, and knowing why is not your concern.
Use the term “cessation” a lot because it sounds soothing. In contrast, I suggest focusing on something with at least three syllables so it is ominous and scary sounding – like nicotine – because it sounds evil.
Remember, you have no accountability or responsibility for success in the eye of the public. You just have to look like you’re trying.
Be realistic. Don’t talk about of tobacco control out of church.
In fact, success would be detrimental to your survival, always elude to an exit strategy.
Keep Success To A Minimum
Imagine your success. Stay focused. Your success is paramount, not your customers. Customer success is of no concern. In fact, it’s widely acceptable to shame customers and convince them that their failure is not your responsiblity. Play on their desperation, not satisfaction. Ultimately, hold your customers accountable. Confuse and bewilder them. That’s the plan.
Feign support, but encourage. Make it perfectly clear that the customer is the problem, not your business. Convince them to keep trying.
Passive-Aggressive Is Best
Imagine your staying power. Make it clear that they are the problem, not your business. Place the failure on the consumer, and promote your business as if it has helped millions, helping you. Failure is not only acceptable, it is expected. Join other businesses like you to keep momentum.
Imagine if smokers could succeed. Ignore and damn any methods that work, despite the evidence, as it would be detrimental to your survival. In fact, only support any other method if they are taxed, regulated and funded in such a way that will only contribute to your success.
Leave your ineffective products and services alone. At any cost including lies, use children (because who doesn’t like to Think About The Children™).
Convince the public via mass marketing that it is ultimately safer to keep smoking than to risk using any product not approved by you, or your affiliates.
Always seem concerned or challenged by any less harmful alternative.
Reminder
Remember, you must restrain yourself. Never, under any circumstances, talk about any effective alternatives that may risk your reputation or your business. Ever.
Imagine a business that would go bankrupt if it did what it was designed to do.
Help people stop smoking.
I didn’t know there was “preloading” of…. never mind:
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 health.
“financial 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.”
2018 E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium
