Hello! Cal Journalist looking for Thoughts and Advice.

[castorsimon]

Hello! My name is Simon, I'm a journalist in California researching vaping info for an assignment I'm on. I figured that, to get a good feel for my writing, I would peruse forums and (hopefully) befriend a few voices here who can help me with my work.

Don't get me wrong yet: I try my best not to be that typical annoying, unfriendly, and assholish reporter who demands info and nothing else. But I believe it's most important to establish a bond and to truly connect with individuals who have voices and opinions, just like everyone else. So please don't take it that I'm being rude--I do swear that I'm trying not to. But, to end it, I recognize that it might be intrusive for me to join your community when (and I do admit) I'm not a vapor enthusiast.

I hope I can still be accepted by y'all at VaporTalk. From lurking I can tell that users here are warm and thoughtful. Hopefully we can be friends and I can get a feel for what I'm writing about in the first place

A little more about me:

-Piano-lover. Classical all the way.

-Hemingway obsessed.

-Survival horror enthusiast. Probably the #1 Silent Hill fan you'll meet.

Anyways, thank you for reading and I look forward to spending time here!

[Jeffb]

Welcome to Vapor Talk If you promise to write an unbiased article you are welcome here.

Edited November 25, 2013 by jeffb

[Compenstine]

Make yeah a deal, I'll not judge you if you don't judge me. Welcome to our little slice of Vapor Heaven.

[Havamal]

Welcome... at least you appear to be trying to get informed about the topic. Too many in the media are jumping on the Anti bandwagon with even knowing what they are talking about.

[mcquinn]

Oh no a mole! Who is watching the door? You should check out Cris's piano video's.

Edited November 25, 2013 by mcquinn

[Uma]

Welcome, and thank you for being up front about your stance.

Are you aware of:

The Drexel Study

CASAA.org

Kennedy Onassis research teams, and the studies being performed, notably Dr. Farsalinos

Clive Bates

Dr. Michael Siegel

Dr. Polosos (sp)

Dr. Gilbert Ross

Forbes financial article

CDC's Partial release of a study vs CDC's FULL release of same study

National youth statistics concerning smoking (all time low)

100 French doctors petitioning FOR eCigs

FDA, CDC, a French study, all being debunked and how, why, by whom.

Big Pharma's grants to bribe towns, universities, states, etc into banning their strongest competition, the eCigs

156% ecig users were smokers, http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0079332

TSET's rules for receiving bonus grants...

ALA, ACA, TFK, etc, and all alphabet soup orgs involvement in trying to ban eCigs by suggesting we keep buying smokes until eCigs are taxed the same way

If you are aware of even a few of the above, then why are you in opposition?

We want truths, no propaganda, no agendas, just plain dumb truths.

I'm nicer than I sound. Honest. Welcome!

If you're interested in learning more, I'll round up even more food for thought any time, just ask.

[mcquinn]

No, experts are pretty much without any validity, They are the same idiots who get quoted while trying to ban pop ,smoking,eggs,etc. etc.

[Uma]

Huh? The opposing "experts" certainly!! Which consists of expert Spin Doctors, amateur lab scientists, bought & paid for media, alphabet soup organizations from WHO to TFK to ALA to ACA and more who exist because of smoke tax money, senators/town councils/universities who gather grants from TSET and Big Pharma...

Oh yes, BP, such as pfizer (Robert wood foundation aka Johnson & Johnson aka Pfizer) who promotes smoking bans and now vaping bans via grants and propaganda, while pushing Chantix, etc...

The FDA says chantix ok, but eCigs bad. Say what???

CDC lies about study results, to help ban attempts. Say what?

Please note: the fight used to be against a SMOKING. mysteriously it turned to tobacco. Next it turned to NICOTINE. Next it turned to Safer Alternatives. CHANTIX ADVERTISES "fighting NICOTINE without NICOTINE". They provide propaganda for insurance companies, towns, states, universities to ban NICOTINE, not smoking. Chantix has a reported over 500 deaths, over 2000 attempted (reported), etc, and the FDA/CDC/ blab labels backs them.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Edited November 26, 2013 by Uma

[castorsimon]

Welcome... at least you appear to be trying to get informed about the topic. Too many in the media are jumping on the Anti bandwagon with even knowing what they are talking about.

Thank you! Everyone seems friendly so far. And yes, I agree, which is why it's my job to collect data and investigate. And it's natural for me to take a neutral viewpoint, no worries

Welcome, and thank you for being up front about your stance.

Are you aware of:

The Drexel Study

CASAA.org

Kennedy Onassis research teams, and the studies being performed, notably Dr. Farsalinos

Clive Bates

Dr. Michael Siegel

Dr. Polosos (sp)

Dr. Gilbert Ross

Forbes financial article

CDC's Partial release of a study vs CDC's FULL release of same study

National youth statistics concerning smoking (all time low)

100 French doctors petitioning FOR eCigs

FDA, CDC, a French study, all being debunked and how, why, by whom.

Big Pharma's grants to bribe towns, universities, states, etc into banning their strongest competition, the eCigs

156% ecig users were smokers, http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0079332

TSET's rules for receiving bonus grants...

ALA, ACA, TFK, etc, and all alphabet soup orgs involvement in trying to ban eCigs by suggesting we keep buying smokes until eCigs are taxed the same way

If you are aware of even a few of the above, then why are you in opposition?

We want truths, no propaganda, no agendas, just plain dumb truths.

I'm nicer than I sound. Honest. Welcome!

If you're interested in learning more, I'll round up even more food for thought any time, just ask.

Thank you for the list of information! I'm not in opposition. I'm not in support. I'm merely a witness gathering data for a paper.

Thank you for the welcome.

[Tam]

Welcome. I hope you are a true journalist who triangulates all sources and information before putting it in an article. E-cigarettes have helped a lot of people get off the traditional "analogs" and on to a more healthy lifestyle. I'd love to read your piece once you have it done.

[Uma]

That's nice to hear you're neutral. That's a refreshing stance.

Today's headlines from the DR.'s who did the study that the CDC and stanglan twisted up to fear monger to justify treating (taxing) them like smokes.

Polosa/Caponetta expose and refute lies about e-cigs by CDC and others in Lancet Oncology

Polosa and Caponnetto have exposed CDC's manipulation and misrepresentation of 2011/2012 NYTS data on e-cig use by youth in a peer reviewed medical journal.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470204513704959

".....careful reading of the CDC report shows that there are no real data to support the notion that young people are using e-cigarettes and then transitioning to smoking conventional cigarettes. The report did not suggest that regular daily use had spiked in teens, but rather that the number who had ever tried one puff in the past month—which is essentially a measure of experimentation—had increased. Experimentation with a novel product like e-cigarettes is not unusual, particularly in children. The CDC report provided no evidence that young people are actually taking up this behaviour and becoming regular users of e-cigarettes. Of note, of those who experimented with e-cigarettes in 2012, 90.6% were already tobacco smokers.3 The fact that experimentation was mainly occurring in young people who already smoke cigarettes is not necessarily a bad thing, if it can reduce the chance of young people becoming lifelong cigarette smokers.

The proportion of non-smoking young people who experimented with e-cigarettes in the past month was small, at 0.5%, and thus does not prove transition to cigarette smoking. No cases of non-smoking young people beginning to use e-cigarettes, becoming addicted to nicotine, and then becoming a regular cigarette smoker, were documented. Furthermore, data from a new study confirms the conclusion of the CDC report that experimentation of e-cigarettes in non-smoking high schoool students is very low, at about 0.4%, and that none of the students adopted e-cigarettes as a regular behavior, and then went on to become a regular cigarette smoker.3 Overall, the data show that use of e-cigarettes is not popular among non-smoking young people.

Another unsupported statement is that “e-cigarettes also pose a serious danger of renormalizing smoking”. No study has supported concerns that the use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free areas might undermine smoke-free laws. Most people have no difficulty differentiating vapour from smoke. All testing of vapour so far has shown no evidence that use of e-cigarettes results in exposure to inhalable chemicals that would warrant health concerns by common safety standards.4 Therefore, there is no justification for extending existing “clean air” regulations to include e-cigarettes. Furthermore, use of e-cigarettes where smoking is prohibited might encourage smokers to make the switch to a product that could save their lives, thereby helping to denormalise (rather than renormalise) smoking by reducing the overall number of smokers. Use of e-cigarettes is a gateway out of smoking."

There's morre to read, more fact twisting they refuted.

To read it all, talk to Bill Godshall

[castorsimon]

Thank you, Uma, for the article. I'll be sure to read over it tomorrow morning (right now it's bed time, haha.)

The amount of individuals who investigate with preconceived notions (a better name: conscious biases, reluctant to change) is staggering. Of course, being hired to write something unabashedly negative/positive on the whim of the paper or editor is something sad, and different, itself. But still, neutrality in fact-based work (you would think, especially from CDC spokespeople!) should be a norm.

[Uma]

Thank you, Uma, for the article. I'll be sure to read over it tomorrow morning (right now it's bed time, haha.)

The amount of individuals who investigate with preconceived notions (a better name: conscious biases, reluctant to change) is staggering. Of course, being hired to write something unabashedly negative/positive on the whim of the paper or editor is something sad, and different, itself. But still, neutrality in fact-based work (you would think, especially from CDC spokespeople!) should be a norm.

Wake up! Wake up! How's your research going?

[spydre]

Huh? The opposing "experts" certainly!! Which consists of expert Spin Doctors, amateur lab scientists, bought & paid for media, alphabet soup organizations from WHO to TFK to ALA to ACA and more who exist because of smoke tax money, senators/town councils/universities who gather grants from TSET and Big Pharma...

Oh yes, BP, such as pfizer (Robert wood foundation aka Johnson & Johnson aka Pfizer) who promotes smoking bans and now vaping bans via grants and propaganda, while pushing Chantix, etc...

The FDA says chantix ok, but eCigs bad. Say what???

CDC lies about study results, to help ban attempts. Say what?

Please note: the fight used to be against a SMOKING. mysteriously it turned to tobacco. Next it turned to NICOTINE. Next it turned to Safer Alternatives. CHANTIX ADVERTISES "fighting NICOTINE without NICOTINE". They provide propaganda for insurance companies, towns, states, universities to ban NICOTINE, not smoking. Chantix has a reported over 500 deaths, over 2000 attempted (reported), etc, and the FDA/CDC/ blab labels backs them.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

And Chantix is the most dangerous of them all. Even if it WASN'T contraindicated by my bipolar and my epilepsy, I wouldn't risk taking it.

[spydre]

I don't know if you've been keeping up with this thread, I hope so, but I posted some articles in, I think the news section, or maybe health and safety, or both, since you put this up. One is a Forbes article on why the FDA is hiding the benefits of vaping. You'll find it interesting.

And yes, how is your research going? Keep us posted!

Edited December 15, 2013 by spydre