Happy Easter holiday to everyone! Remember to bring enough e-juice on your trip (if you're going on one), and again ... do not try to vape the yellow snow :)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dee68/dee68bad52654f010caf7877d4b7b3d0b655668b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/05835/05835da37a4fbf8945905dbd0031088058f98172" alt=""
"Non-smoking is the norm and e-cigarettes will derail that normality thinking, because it will attract especially young people to take up smoking," said Chan. "So I do not support that."I have to admit it is kind of scary that the WHO actually just completely ignores evidence, and common sense, and seemingly have no problem telling straight out lies to the public as long as it keeps their friends in Big Pharma happy. Because that's what this actually is: A straight out deliberate lie. The truth, as Dr. Farsalinos stated is this:
"there is not a single case of a never-smoker who used e-cigarettes and then became a smoker of tobacco cigarettes"... and in addition to that, it would make absolutely no sense to do so. Banning e-cigarettes for this reason makes about as much sense as banning soda because it's a gateway to alcohol addiction. I mean, seeing that kids mix whisky and Coke, the obvious thing to do would be to ban Coke right?
"I think that the WHO people should know better than kill alternatives to smoking cigarettes" - Jean-Francois EtterYou're absolutely right professor Etter, they most certainly should. The problem is that the WHO is now just Big Pharmas propaganda machine. A German delegate, who wants to be anonymous, reveals their true agenda (after telling the same lies as Chan of course):
"e-cigarettes could easily be sold in pharmacies where you have a controlled product"... "that way my pharma-friends can easily have control of what products are sold and what information the customers get", she adds quietly to herself.
This study is extremely important, and I can reveal that the results were better than expected. It seems that the dry puff taste is a very sensitive natural defence mechanism, which is detected at very low levels of aldehydes. In that study, we have also measured the temperatures but we decided to report them in a separate paper.You might remember the horror-story about e-cigarette vapor containing lots of formaldehyde that was published in media all over the world in January. Dr. Farsalinos was quick to point out the obvious flaws and wrongly drawn conclusions back then, criticizing the misinformation published. Even the authors of the study kind of agreed to a lot of his criticism, giving us the real reason they published it: "We just wanted to get it out". Despite all this I still hear people claiming that e-cigarette vapor contains 10 times more carcinogens than cigarette smoke. This new paper by Farsalinos and his team looks like it is going to prove his theory that unrealistic dry-puff conditions is the reason behind such results... and then some.
The Norwegian Union of Vapers demands to be taken seriously!
The Norwegian Union of Vapers is an organization for users of electronic cigarettes, also known as vapers. Vaping has become our way to a tobacco-free life. We wish to urge the Minister of Health to look at vaping with an unprejudiced gaze. We have a common interest in a health policy based on knowledge, not on prejudice or moralism.
Much of the scepticism towards vaping is based on the visual similarities between vapor from e-cigarettes and tobacco smoke, and that vaping, like smoking, is a way to enjoy nicotine. However, this is the only similarity between vaping and smoking. Available research is unambiguous; the harm potential of vaping is far from that of tobacco smoking. The research is openly available and much of it is conveyed to the Norwegian public through SIRUS reports. We who have switched from tobacco smoking to vaping have felt on our own bodies that the health benefits are substantial. Some have gotten rid of their nicotine dependency, others have not. What we have in common is that we are no longer users of a dangerous product.
Opponents of vaping base their arguments on the "precautionary principle". It is difficult to understand how this can be applied here. Research, recently communicated through a SIRUS report 1/2015, shows that vaping appeals almost exclusively to smokers. Those who vape have either quit smoking completely, or partly replaced cigarettes with vaping. We know the consequences of cigarette smoking. Ten years of experience with vaping has not revealed any health hazards. We also know that it is not only illogical to go from vaping to smoking, but also that such behavior is not known from the real world. Is it plausible that the risk of unknown health consequences in the future is big enough to overshadow this?
We in The Norwegian Union of Vapers have found that vaping is not a drug, nor tobacco, but an alternative stimulant. This is what makes it so effective. A deadly habit replaced by an equally satisfactory, but far less harmful hobby. A future regulatory scheme must facilitate market access for products that appeal to current smokers and vapers. Products must not be regulated as drugs or as tobacco products. Under such circumstances they will meet requirements that can only be fulfilled by financially strong manufacturers like the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries. None of these industries have an interest that all smokers becomes vapers. However, this is the interest of the companies that exclusively manufacture vaping products, but the majority of these are small companies with limited funds. The Norwegian Union of Vapers wishes to be taken seriously by the authorities and be consulted on matters that are important to us. We have experience and expertise on the topic. Our goal is that the smokers who are not able or willing to quit otherwise, shall have a far less damaging alternative.