I use to read a blog written by Michael Siegel (for those who do not know, is one of the signatories of the letter to WHO on behalf of electronic cigarette, and not exactly a newcomer: Professor in the Department of Sciences the Community Health, School of Public Health at Boston University. he has 25 years of experience in the field of combating snuff. Previously, he spent two years working in the Office on Smoking and Health at CDC, where he conducted research on secondhand smoke and cigarette advertising. he has published about 70 articles related to snuff). In this blog I can see what is behind against vaping alarming news in an interesting exercise to "unravel lies" that invite readers to visit. Well, I said that I use to read this blog, called The rest of the story (leave here link) and now I have considered how often history is being written in our eyes not seeing, under the apparent, everything behind.
9 million people smoke in Spain
A million they try the electronic cigarette
A large portion of them are technical difficulties with the first (liquids spilling, batteries run out, atomizers not loose much steam as before ...)
Then they wonder: is it worth the effort ?, and suddenly someone tells them they have read in the press that the electronic cigarette is just as bad as the snuff, another tells that the news has come not know what pneumonia, mocks another pointing to a report on TV in which warns of the dangers of electronic cigarettes ...
... and then our discouraged smoker thinks "umm, for how much effort" and resume smoking
Few medical communicators sow alarm with headlines such gimmicky "are antifreeze in electronic cigarettes" or "first case of lipoid pneumonia electronic cigarettes"
another series of health portals or doctors who had never heard of electronic cigarettes intended updated report on said product, and make an Internet search finding previous warnings
and then, they decide to reproduce and eventually concluding with an apparent spirit of average, "Well, it seems that the electronic cigarette is not as bad as smoking, but there are no adequate studies and seems to cause some damage, so do not we can recommend it "and stay quiet, like someone just deciding that the earth is not flat or spherical: we say that is shaped like a rugby ball, and everyone is happy.
Covered in the detection of trace substances in a very inferior to the air we normally breathe or products concentration with which we are normally in contact, a number of lobbyists convince politicians too busy to compare sources that "by the for the health of the population "is to limit the use of electronic cigarettes in a series of public spaces
As a result, millions of smokers who could see (and want) the example that vapping is preferable to smoking, stop seeing it around them ...
... and vappers become outlaws, by a well-known psychological effect that equates legal restriction with dangerous
Directly covered in fake arbitrary criteria (such as level of toxicity of nicotine, which today is known to be 20 times higher than what can be found on many sites) another set of lobbyists convince politicians that "for the population health " they must applie to electronic cigarettes a series of measures as comprehensive security deter any entrepreneur launching trade in these products. It also deters designers of electronic cigarette devices launched to innovate and to improve the quality aspects of vaping experience (such as the variable voltage or liquid flavorings, or concentrations of really satisfying nicotine) are prohibited in the fine print of policy rules.
In fact the play is a remarkable cunning, because without facing ban electronic cigarettes (by scandal in public opinion that would be such a disproportion) small restrictions on sizes and characteristics mean in practice ban 95 percent of products, leaving only free market for those products ineffective and easy to mass produce by tobacco or pharmaceutical companies, wich do not have the necessary tools for designing complex technology products.
Anyway. These and other "stories" that have been written, is like putting a small stone on a railroad: apparently, the stone is much smaller than the train, and yet manages derailing.
Well, the vicious circle outlined above has made have actually already closed 95 percent of electronic cigarette stores in Spain and that the electronic cigarette stained a shadow of suspicion, or controversial, or uncertainty, that "nudge" determination it takes to get out from the easiest (just light another cigarette), is not being given by millions of smokers.
If we throw a match on the floor of a forest may we fail to produce a durable flame.
If we throw two, maybe we fail, too. Or three, or four, or five ...
and yet there are a number "n" from which the size of the initial flame is enough to start a real fire.
They may seem "innocent" and even "conservative" those warnings about (insignificant) hazards that have been repeated ad nauseum by medical organizations and health portals funded by pharmaceutical companies.
However I note that the repetition of such notice has had the expected effect on public opinion generation of these dynamic self-powered, towards the rapid reduction of use, popularity and confidence about electronic cigarettes, which, make no mistake, has again left the field clear to snuff pure and simple, and very low effective drug treatments.
Psychopaths are described as cold people but extremely calculators, and able to design effective strategies without stopping on ethical considerations about damage to achieve personal gain. May I sometimes think that behind the sinking of electronic cigarettes there have been a few psychopathic mentality, and many economic interests over the common interest.
And very much ingenuity on journalists and doctors, blowing on skillfully thrown matches without realizing that in that fire will burn not only the efforts of entrepreneurs who took to the adventure of vaping, but the lungs and arteries of millions of smokers ...
A good example of this "naive" are the words of the author of the fashion against vaping (the formaldehyde, well commented by Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, as you can see here). Well.
I paste here a report in the New York Times (link to the original, here) signed by columnist Joe Nocera opinion about this study, after telling how it has spread throughout the world the "news" that vapping is ten times more carcinogenic than smoking.
"In fact, the study actually conveys good news. When used with normal tension, vapear not produce formaldehyde! (...) But given the way the authors of Portland State characterize your research, it is no surprise that headline writers take a different message.
When I spoke to David Peyton, one of the study authors, insisted that the study had been mischaracterized. All that was meant to do, he said, was to compare the levels of formaldehyde in electronic cigarettes compared to cigarettes. "It's extremely frustrating to me that we are associated with saying that electronic cigarettes are more dangerous than cigarettes," he added. (...)
When I read the tweet of The New England Journal of Medicine ("The authors projected higher risk of cancer than smoking") - sounded horrified. "I saw the tweet," he said. "I'm sorry. That's not my opinion."
Now, we can reverse the vicious circle and create a virtuous circle in which recovers among public opinion cognitive and emotional evidence that vapping is infinitely better than smoking and has presumably specific risk beyond the inherent risk of living, walking, breathing and so on. We can recover the collective notion of common sense and proportionality to risks without confusing "cats" with "tigers", and the image of people inhaling vapor to become increasingly popular, displacing the common image we see around us: people who smoke.
To do this, I invite healthcare professionals to join the MOVE manifesto
And communication professionals, to investigate who was behind these matches thrown to the public to scare against electronic cigarette.