Become a Patron!

American Cancer Society & CDC Withheld Evidence on Safer Smokeless Products

KY_Rob

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
I don't personally disagree with the article. However, that entire piece looks like a fight between Lex Luther and Magneto...meaning, they're all asshats.

What's shown in the article is a corrupt and overzealous group of government funded cronies, not willing to share their info with equally overzealous big tobacco shills. Some BT funded academic is pissing and moaning because ACS and CDC refuses to share their data with him to spin at his leisure.

Smh.
 

5150sick

Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
I don't personally disagree with the article. However, that entire piece looks like a fight between Lex Luther and Magneto...meaning, they're all asshats.

What's shown in the article is a corrupt and overzealous group of government funded cronies, not willing to share their info with equally overzealous big tobacco shills. Some BT funded academic is pissing and moaning because ACS and CDC refuses to share their data with him to spin at his leisure.

Smh.

The only problem with that would be that the author Brad Rodu has NEVER worked for big tobacco.

http://www.rstreet.org/people/brad-rodu/

https://www.google.com/#q=Brad+Rodu

Or are you one of those "Smokeless tobacco bad" - "vaping good" types?
 

KY_Rob

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years

5150sick

Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
just think if big pharma grants led to researchers being called "shills" even two or three decades later.

no scientist on the planet would be taken seriously.

i would think that a big pharma conflict of interest would be as bad if not worse in the field of tobacco control than a big tobacco conflict of interest.
 

AndriaD

Yes, I DO wear a mask! I'm vaccinated, too!
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
just think if big pharma grants led to researchers being called "shills" even two or three decades later.

no scientist on the planet would be taken seriously.

i would think that a big pharma conflict of interest would be as bad if not worse in the field of tobacco control than a big tobacco conflict of interest.

I'd say it's far worse. Everyone likes to bash BT, but BP is 10 times the evil of BT, just because everyone has this belief that BP cares about health, when nothing could be further from the truth. BT at least cares enough that they don't want most of their customers to die from their products -- that's why they created the lights and ultra-lights. BP doesn't give a rat's ass if people die from their products (chantix, anyone?), as long as they get to make another trillion dollars and pose in front of cameras as being some wonderful life-saving philanthropy. They're the biggest evil in modern life, far worse than BT, or even Big Oil.

Andria
 

KY_Rob

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Government...the only thing any of them have ever cared about is their bottom line. They only care about protecting their profit streams and tax bases at all costs. None of them have a moral compass.

It's absurd to think that BT created "lights" and "ultralights" because they cared! They only created those products, so they could sell more of them!

The enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend. I'm choosing to try and understand the origins of the points and counterpoints made by the folks who're actively playing the game, and share those findings with everyone I can. It's my opinion, that anyone making public statements whose livelihood is provided by any of the "Bigs", should expect to have those associations known by the public at large.

Just remember...The deeming regs have nothing to do with the public health. It's all about the money. It's easy to get behind someone who has a great series of comments, especially when those comments align well with what we want and need. However, it's not always the best course of action especially without knowing the context of comments and the real ramifications of the individual or entities success.
 

AndriaD

Yes, I DO wear a mask! I'm vaccinated, too!
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
It's absurd to think that BT created "lights" and "ultralights" because they cared! They only created those products, so they could sell more of them!

And why was it they could sell more of them? BECAUSE FEWER OF THEIR CUSTOMERS DIED WHO SMOKED THEM! It doesn't serve their bottom line at all, if half their customers are constantly dying!

Andria
 

bondo

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
And why was it they could sell more of them? BECAUSE FEWER OF THEIR CUSTOMERS DIED WHO SMOKED THEM! It doesn't serve their bottom line at all, if half their customers are constantly dying!

Andria
You're as blind as a new born kitten if you think that BT introduced lights to conserve their market base.
Think of the scale that were dealing with.
How many people smoke?
How many people die per year due to it?
Do you really think that smoking lights is any better than full flavors?

Bottom line,it's nothing more than a marketing ploy to get and keep people using their product.
Their product kills their market base,they know this.... The public knows this....
It's nothing more than deep pockets playing a game.
 

AndriaD

Yes, I DO wear a mask! I'm vaccinated, too!
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
You're as blind as a new born kitten if you think that BT introduced lights to conserve their market base.
Think of the scale that were dealing with.
How many people smoke?
How many people die per year due to it?
Do you really think that smoking lights is any better than full flavors?

Bottom line,it's nothing more than a marketing ploy to get and keep people using their product.
Their product kills their market base,they know this.... The public knows this....
It's nothing more than deep pockets playing a game.

Better? Maybe not, though the ACS has acknowledged that it's somewhat safer. But, if I couldn't have gone to lighter strengths of my favorite cigarettes, I'd have had to quit a long time ago; it's hard to smoke when you cough up a lung and a half with every drag. So it might not have been better for ME, but it damn sure was better for THEM, that I a) stayed alive, and b) kept smoking... because I could go to a lighter version that didn't make me cough as much.

So of course it's a marketing ploy, because they want to keep people smoking -- people can't smoke if they're a) dead, or b) can't inhale even once from a cigarette without having a 15 minute coughing jag.

I don't see BP coming out with a new "lighter, less suicide" version of Chantix, do you?

Andria
 

Rossum

Gold Contributor
Member For 3 Years
Do you really think that smoking lights is any better than full flavors?
If you smoked the same amount of them as full-flavors, they're definitely less harmful. Less tar = less harm. The problem was they also reduced the nic, which resulted in many people smoking more lights a day than they would have smoked full-flavors.
 

Rossum

Gold Contributor
Member For 3 Years
just think if big pharma grants led to researchers being called "shills" even two or three decades later.

no scientist on the planet would be taken seriously.
This might be just a bit of an over-generalization. There are plenty of scientists working in fields that BP does not fund at all -- astronomers, physicists, geologists, oceanographers, etc, etc. :)
 

AndriaD

Yes, I DO wear a mask! I'm vaccinated, too!
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
If you smoked the same amount of them as full-flavors, they're definitely less harmful. Less tar = less harm. The problem was they also reduced the nic, which resulted in many people smoking more lights a day than they would have smoked full-flavors.

I didn't smoke more, when I went to lights from full-flavor. I didn't smoke more when I went to ultra-lights from lights. My sole aims when I went to lighter versions was to a) cough less, and b) procrastinate quitting yet again; smoking more would not have served the purpose of less coughing, so if I had smoked more, I would simply have returned to the less-light version. But because of (b), procrastinating quitting, BT's aims were WELL served -- I kept smoking, in the same quantity as before the switch.

The only time the quantity changed was when I went from the regular-length Virginia Slims to the 120s: I smoked less, because I could smoke each one twice. So the 120s allowed a 2pk-a-day habit to become a pack-a-day habit. Which served my aims very well -- I was actually smoking fewer cigarettes, so my habit was less costly; BT's aims were still partially served, because I was still buying SOME cigarettes, rather than a) dying or b) quitting.

Andria
 

5150sick

Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader

5150sick

Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
You're as blind as a new born kitten if you think that BT introduced lights to conserve their market base.
Think of the scale that were dealing with.
How many people smoke?
How many people die per year due to it?
Do you really think that smoking lights is any better than full flavors?

Bottom line,it's nothing more than a marketing ploy to get and keep people using their product.
Their product kills their market base,they know this.... The public knows this....
It's nothing more than deep pockets playing a game.

A marketing ploy set into effect by the American Cancer Society:
https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2010/07/who-said-light-cigarettes-are-safer.html

So what do people think now that politicians are saying stuff like:

"tobacco companies have basically killed off their clientèle.
They know that if they can't addict a new generation to tobacco, they will go out of business in the next 20 years. E-cigarettes are how they are going to addict that next generation."

and then public heath spews out garbage like this:

https://news.vice.com/article/publi...stry-up-to-old-tricks-in-pushing-e-cigarettes

and that allows the American Lung Association (a group that for some reason? Americans trust) to say this about vaping:

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/e-cigarettes-and-lung-health.html

It's no wonder that MOST Americans feel that vaping is "just as bad or unhealthy as cigarettes"
 

VU Sponsors

Top