MERRY CHRISTMAS- IT'S FOR ATHEISTS TOO

McCarthyism for the Klan of theists.

The post at right is from Face book with names and the faces removed.

I have seen similar threads from ANTZ posts, but this is Christmas, and this is a recent post.

A very good illustration of the diversity of belief systems.  The Muslim sects that take jihad to an extreme are unfortunately how many view Islam.  Would not this portrayal of Christianity or the Jewish faith, paganism, rastafarianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism (just threw that in because I love the sound), The Deity based South American Shamanistic beliefs send the same message to others that all members were radical zealots?

The concept of God is plentiful in H(h)is or H(h)er interpretation and expression.  The core to almost every religion humankind has adopted is an attempt to explain the unexplainable and give a meaning to death and life.

Merry Christmas- whether Christian or not- is a time of joy and family.

In the New York Times an article declared "God Is Dead" appeared and is dated March 24, 1968.  One could say that is true again, in metaphor.  God is increasingly moving from the spiritual concept of the Creator, Director, Embracer, Forgiver, and final place of rest after death (those who believe in reincarnation or other endpoints of course are included in the concept) to a textual man written directive.  The spiritual belief, written to convey a concept, is becoming a reason to be right and to make non-followers somehow evil and threatening.

I had a very learned friend with a non-religion based Doctorate, who was a devout Southern Baptist say to me, "It says in God We Trust- there is no godhead or Allah or Earth Mother crap- it says God."

Marshall McLuhan is known for coining the expression "the medium is the message". This is a concept that is often misinterpreted as saying the facts are seen as presented and may be biased by language and frame of reference.  Albeit this is correct, it is not the intent of the cultural viewpoint of McLuhan, who was a Canadian who wrote profusely in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.  He is saying that the actual factual material presented is a sign of the way society, which he foresaw as becoming a "global village", interprets the world.  Thus the cultural setting of what is portrayed is really a mixture of what is occurring and the time frame in which it occurs.  One can be concrete in thinking and define God as the biblical entity- hence my friend's interpretation, or one can take the stance that God is a metaphor for all forms of interpretation of a common good, a common spiritual ideal that is inherently just and comes from the accumulation of ideas of the global village.  In this stance an atheist would look at "In God We Trust" as acceptable in its meaning as the metaphor of God could include scientific studies, the Big Bang and Darwin.

The recent 99% vs 1% of the Occupy [insert locale] movement illustrates the unfortunate splitting of societal and individual views of the world.  If 1% of a religious sect is fanatical and poses perverse means of dealing with non-believers, the medium elects them as their model for the global village's  interpretation of that sect. 

Yet look at the parallels- Lent a traditional Christian time of fasting, Ramadan is a month of fasting, Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur is 10 days of fasting ending in a day of atonement, Imbolc in Wikkan is awaiting the coming of light (as you interpret this)... These are all times of spiritual reflection, fasting, reflection on belief and attempts to reconcile behaviours with beliefs.  All end in some celebration of "faith" or hope.  Even atheists have been defined scholarly as not without religion.  Their (and I have been a full fledged atheist in periods of my life), let me say my beliefs at that time were that religion was man made and exploitative (inquisition, jihad, holocaust) of differences to obtain power.  As I would ask my Muslim brother to understand my celebration now, so should I understand his and accept his.  And if agnostic- understand that they are just people. As said in Deteriorata- whether your God is a Cosmic Muffin or Hairy Thunderer- I am not to judge, I can evangelize- but as is in the core of most religious systems- take your beliefs and share them, conversion is the will of the one with whom you speak.
 
Not all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Atheists and so on are fanatics.  Unfortunately the ones that get the press usually are extremes.  There are have been true spiritual beings that cross all religions that teach through their actions- Gandhi, Pope John Paul II, Jesus, Abraham (Jewish, Islam and Christian traditions share his teachings in their basic texts), Mother Teresa, St. Augustine, St. Francis, the Shaman I spent a day with in Ecuador, Muhammad, Buddha, Lao Tse, Jimmy Carter (amazing man that I have gone to Plains, Ga several times to hear his Sunday School teachings- and that was in my Unitarian/atheistic/science is God time)... and many others. 

And of course there are social values that one religious viewpoint may accept and another frown upon.  Stem cell research, social dress, eating of certain foods and many others.  We do not condemn the stance, it is their stance and one they may follow.  The problem arises when interpretations are turned into sanctifications from a religious group and passed into the lives of others as law.  My God says this so you, who do not follow my belief system, must do this. 

Welcome war and political beverage parties.

Not all Muslims are bin Ladens, all Christians Cardinal Richelieus, all Jews Judas (albeit he may be the most misunderstood person in history and one rendition of his betrayal is that of martyrdom at the request of Jesus). 

Hilliary Clinton spoke of the global village- which she stole from McLuhan.  Al Gore of the Web,   which was developed at CERN but first postulated 30 years earlier by McLuhan. Andy Warhol's famous line that we all will have our 15 minutes of fame is a McLuhan paraphrase.

The place, the idea, the action, the groundwork of the belief and the historical precedents to that belief are all part of the message's reception. 

So Merry Christmas- if it upsets you, I apologize but I respect your opinion.  I will gladly dance with you at Summer Solstice, aid a pilgrim on his way to Mecca or follow the Jaguar with my Shaman spiritual advisor.  But with Christmas be merry with my joy and the meaning behind the celebration. I am not asking all to share a belief, only to share that it is important to me.

As for politically being correct- in a true global village that word would be historically incorrect, but then we have yet to evolve to that point as a world community. 

To put it in simple terms- we are at a beginning, always at a beginning.  We are also at an ending and at a middle point,  it depends on how we see each other and more importantly ourselves.

Rage, rage before the dying of the light

Why is this man happy?

1. He's come to believe that that mankind is his business.
2. He has survived a night of self reflection and been transformed
3. He has discovered the true meaning of Christmas
4. All of the above

All  of the above (4) is correct.

So, bring on the spirits, I am losing faith in humanity,

The most reported "factual data" seen today in e-cigarette ban material:

Authorities don't necessarily know what's inside of e-cigarettes, but the FDA tested a small sample just a few years ago and found a number of toxic chemicals including diethylene gylcol - the same ingredient used in antifreeze.

• at least we won't freeze.
• sub clinical and below FDA allowable limit
• did you know that dihydrogen oxide is also in those sample. If frozen it can cause severe injury if slipped on and if ingested in large amounts causes severe problems.

The American Lung Association issued its own warning about e-cigarettes. “This is a buyer stay away, a buyer health hazard, potentially."

• The great associations love to shroud their data with, Maybes, mights, could. untested
• Make statements like Dr. Mike Feinstein, a spokesman for the American Lung Association said, “People are inhaling some type of chemical vaporized compound into their lungs without really knowing what's in it.
• You could ask?
• Micheal Greens states, "He says with no real data on e-cigarettes, the three-year-old tobacco alternative may actually be more harmful that traditional cigarettes. "The doses of nicotine that you get could conceivably be higher than what you would get in a typical cigarette."
• Another "could" word-- and didn't early studies point to lower nicotine
• "May" also a used

The first clinical trial that looked at e-cigs, published in BMC Public Health, concluded that “the e-Cigarette can help smokers to remain abstinent or reduce their cigarette consumption. By replacing tobacco cigarettes, the e-cigarette can only save lives. Here we show for the first time that e-Cigarettes can substantially decrease cigarette consumption without causing significant side effects in smokers not intending to quit.”

• Noto bore- no coulds, shoulds or maybes.
• The word "can help" is used.
• This is a study, not a speculation based on personal opinion.

Yet personal experience is a valid and fairly reasonable method for the finding of fact in the e-cig landscape.  Listen to the stories of vapors who have gone through years of attempting to stop inhaling the carcinogenic products of the combustible cigarette.  The cold turkey failures, the Chantix horror stories and the plethora of patch and gum litanies are their history. The e-cigarette revolution is at hand and the use of these devices is skyrocketing.  It's like this is the App for smoking cessation.

Why is old Scrooge smiling- because he has been transformed overnight into a person who feels the glory of success and the freedom from bondage to the cylinder of tobacco doom.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the misers of the FDA could see the light- that the ingenuity of people have provided a solution that addresses am issue of such dramatic importance.

• Are there no NRT's, are there no support groups.
• Why must a government entity always seem to need to shut the door on the public good?

What ever happened to the notion of American ingenuity, freedom to engage in personal ventures for the public good and the ability to assume a moderate risk?

Congress and bureaucratic minions, the FDA.

This was spelled out beautifully by a friend in a letter to Congress:

Another area where congress can “flip the switch” to shut off micro-managing people’s lives is in the area of smoking. A relatively new product to hit the marketplace is the e-cig. This electronic device allows people the option of inhaling vapor rather than tobacco smoke. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has put up a roadblock under the guise that this product (known to be 1000 times safer than inhaling smoke!) is untested. The real reason for the ban is that this increasingly popular product threatens the loss of millions of dollars in cigarette taxes, taxes that have been ostensibly increased to discourage smoking.

And the band played on.  Ball of confusion.  That's where the world is today. 

The experts know nothing of the vapor and the relief, they see the world through punitive eyes that fill their coffers with money to appease their constituents.

Is their a way to change the minds of the Nanny State of America? 

Hopefully there is, and it lies in the vocal power of the masses.

1. Go to CASAA.org, join, read the Calls to Action and write your Congressman and Senators
2. Use CASAA's direction.
3. Sign the petition at:  http://actsmoking.epetitions.net/sign_petition.php
4. Keep informed and keep informing your leaders of the benefits of this product from personal experience.

The pundits with their maybes and coulds are forcing false information into the face of the public.

IOM- what the f---

How your Government Makes a Good Thing- Bad

There is a remarkable opportunity, a choice for tobacco users that cannot quit.  Smokeless tobacco products are available to consumers. What a great opportunity for death cessation from pulmonary disease.  What an opportunity for Anericans who cannot quit!   What an opportunity for the FDA.

This is not what is evolving.

 

The FDA is going to do nothing research wise, not their style. They will await the BT research and ENDS proposal. They will expect the usual trials, clinical research and proof it is better than NRT's on market- or different. BT and Pharma will market as prescription medications in non-refillable (Nicotrol inhaler) cartridges with an approved ENDS. As time evolves there will be the same loosening of Rx status, like Nicorette and it will be available at your local Wal-Mart pharmacy. BT will do same research with slightly different and more secure ENDS that will be marketed as a cigarette replacement at similar prices. There is no interest in freedom, personal choice- there is paperwork and bean counters.

And to the IOM, you are lily livered pompous higher than mighty murderous charlatans. You did not think of this, are embarrassed that it is so successful and won't admit it so in the name of science you will violate your Hippocratic Oath and murder a multitude of humans unnecessarily to save face. Are we grinning ear to ear at the grant money that will come from this that will be spent on brilliant ideas such as nicotine reduced tobacco or vaccinations that will produce another host of Guianne Barre reactions, anaphylaxis and increased carditoxicity as smokers quadruple their tobacco intake to overcome the vaccine's nicotine binding antibodies. It is obvious that there is a belief system inherent in this esteemed organization that tobacco dependence is a willful addiction.

The research community, the IOM and ALA/ACA seem to believe that lung cancer is fear enough to stop smokers.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bias is obvious, selectivity of investigation apparent and as such you have nothing to gain by exploring vaping or SNUS.

AN EYE FOR AN EYE LEAVES US BOTH BLIND. It is just that vapors did nothing except find an alternative that appears safer. Your vanity and arrogance is obvious.

May you sleep soundly in your beds at night, please do not trip over the poor souls you are dooming to an early demise and by all means put the effort in prevention and saving the children.

At first do no harm. Interpret these words as they are, not as you want them to be.

I suggest you stock up on hand sanitizers and soft soap- they're will be a lot of blood on your hands.

Thankyou Andy Rooney

Andy Rooney died at the ripe old age of 92.  Just found out.  Always wondered what he would say about vaping....something like.

You know when I was growing up I had a smoke here and one there.  They didn't really do much for me, especially after my Aunt Emily caught George Franklin and me behind the woodshed puffing on granddad’s corn cob pipe. Still can feel that hickory to this day.  We didn't think much of cigarettes then, they were just something people did.  Somewhere in World War II some scientist noticed that people who smoked died faster. I don't know his name, don't know if he smoked, but he sure put up a ruckus that's with us today.

Used to be real sophisticated to smoke, movie stars, smoke filled rooms that solved the world’s problems.

Maybe that's why the world has so many more problems, people don't have anything to do with their hands anymore, and the Chinese ambassador can't bum a fag from the American consulate.  Fag- that what the British call them.  Funny those Brits they can get away with words that will put you in jail in the US.  Maybe that's why they didn't fight too hard to get this colony back; they knew the kind of people that left Britain to settle here.

Nowadays it's quit smoking and live longer.  We have gums and patches, bans and second, third and probably before long fourth and fifth hand smoke.  And the world still smokes on.

Then there was this guy Eddie over at CBS that was carrying around a black metal stick and blowing out smoke.  He called it vaping, said it was not smoke and he had stopped cigarettes and only used these now. Had nicotine and something that sounded like what my mother used to rub on her elbows to get the callouses off them, Vegetable something.  He said it didn't burn anything just made a vapor and he avoided all the carcinogens.

I asked him which tobacco company had come up with this and he said none of them, it was a Chinese guy first (probably said fag to the wrong guy and didn't want to get embarrassed again) and now there were millions of people not smoking, just vaping.  The President even used one, didn't get him anything but tabloid pictures.

I thought to myself when medical science and the government fail, it's the little guy that always finds the solution.  Well since then everybody and his brother that were on the anti-tobacco bandwagon have been trying to regulate and eliminate these electronic cigarettes.  They are going to make a lot of scientists and bureacrats rich or famous making names for themselves taking Eddies way of quitting what he called analogues (sounds better than fags to me) away from him.

That is the American way now.  When I was a kid you found a way to get something to help yourself, like the day I realized Mr. Parson had apple trees that he didn't want the fruit from and I could gather as many as I wanted- that was hog heaven.  Now if you find something that makes it safer according to Boston Department of Public Health they start talking about experts needing to prove it safe and that it might be dangerous. 

Whatever happened to American ingenuity?  Whatever happened to being responsible for your own health?  It just all amazes me. 

Eddie sure looks and sounds better.

My take on it, the government didn't think of it first.  I hope that Eddie doesn't have to go back to those smoking again. 

If he did I'd have to go cut a hickory branch, but I doubt I'd be going after him... who is the head of the FDA now.  I want to know just in case.

Primum non nocere- Harm Reduction

Primum non nocere or first do no harm.

It is a double entendre that was derived from the collective wisdom of Hippocrates and was frequently spoken of such by Wm. Osler, MD in his foundation of modern medicine. It is actually meant, as I was taught, purposefully to be ambiguous. The doctor-patient-disease relationship was primitive before Osler. His great strive in medicine was to take his students, not to the dissection rooms, but to their bedside. He intentionally believed that the patient would reveal to you both his disease and his symptoms.

The modernization of medicine has brought a new and fierce interpreter of the maxim- the malpractice lawyer. Albeit at times a necessary evil, the art of medicine has been forever weakened by over scrupulous interpretations of physician patient rights and decisions made in the context of that relationship.

The true nature of medicine is based on prevention and harm reduction tactics. Hippocrates original words would fit the Oslerian Model.

To do no harm was in my early days of practice- to evaluate the nature of the complaint and in conjunction with the patient's presentation, to come to a consensus on the best, not always the safest route of care. Take chemotherapy- it may prolong life or be curative- but it causes a degree of harm (hair loss, infection that might shorten a patient's life) but also the art of medicine gives the suffering hope, a better lifestyle and a continued sense of being a part of life and not on a rapid path to death.

What has perverted the patient-doctor co-decision making process is the loss of a once understood notion that medical practice had its risks, the patient knew these risks and that the patient accepted the healer as a person working with all his might to decrease suffering, came from several sources.

 1. As Medicine entered the 20th Century, so did the industrial revolution and the notion of profit and regulation.

 2. Medical judgment become more scrutinized- not a bad thing in itself, but healing through bedside observation and discussion of a patient's desires, changed to a test result and medication therapies.

 3.The country doctor who made house calls and knew his patient, often from birth to late life, was supplanted by specialists and home care or care in the doctors own hospital was replaced by large hospitals, often with profit motives.

 4. The individual physician and his manner of care became regulated and standardized- most often by non-medical bureaucrats, the drug became the healer and the physician the dispenser.

 5. Former patent medicine companies became pharmaceutical companies, and officially the art of medicine shifted from the hands on approach to the tail wags the dog antics of the now expanding Big Pharma.

 6. The barter system of medicine with outcome and relationship more important than payment was lost to the cost of treatment and a new breed of physician that evolved as cities grew and people and authorities demanded perfection.

 7. Big Pharma grew and as their profits increased their influence on medical practice accelerated.

 8. Medical care became expensive.  Regulations increased.  And the FDA was born.

 9. Societal belief that medicine would stop death increased physician pressures to go to any lengths to prevent that death.

 10. The atheism of medicine arose and the notion that death and side effects was doctor based changed the Dr. Patient relationship forever.  Malpractice suits rose as the practice of you only pay the lawyer if you win evolves.

 11. With the advent of insurance and unregulated cost we see the onset of Big Pharma supported FDA oversight of what they wished to have investigated became hugely profitable.

 12. Medicine is no longer physician based; it is fear and protect yourself based. Medicine is technology based instead of patient based.

 13.The notion of errors of omission and commission blur and the average MD spends as much, if not more of his or her time creating protective paper trails and reading lab and scan reports.

 14. Hospitals begin to direct how care is provided, insurance companies say when where and how much and Pharma and the FDA what can be used.

 15. And as costs rise, so does the nature of care change.  The doctor is replaced by the group, paraprofessionals and care begins to be directed not at quality, but at quantity of life.

The ideal of at first do no harm now changes in definition.  Harm goes from do not prolong suffering and listen to your patient's needs to Morbidity and Mortality reports that base success and failures on statistical and cost outcomes.

The patient becomes a number in a statistical paper put out weekly.

Oh there were those that ranted against the dehumanization of Medicine- Kublai-Ross, the resurgence of the Family Practice movement and evidence based medicine.

So back to Hippocrates paraphrased- physician do no harm. It is dualistic. Do not stop a patient from using snake oil if it helps reduce symptoms and has no evidence of increasing harm over other treatments.  At times doing nothing is the best medicine, but most of all the dualistic thoughts of Osler. The patient will tell you what he has and needs. Listen to him, observe her and intervene if harm is evident.

This is where the ANTZ get us. A single finding that is perhaps indicative of a problem and publish it as factual and repeated ad nauseum... They take one vial with DEG and condemn the use of all e-cigarettes. Yet they eat their Big Macs and double the fries.

They strut some women with a lung cancer not associated with smoking out on stage as a victim of her parents smoke filled rooms.

Hippocrates would roll in his grave.

Why is this idea of at first do no harm an important idea- it speaks of duality. Smoking kills, vaping is in reality an unknown- but when one sees is that the vapor feels better. He may still say it is not fully researched, but it is doing something. That is harm reduction.

The "at first do no harm" edict driven into the heads of first year medical students is to say stop vaping, quit cigarettes and I'll see you in a year. That is harm that would be making decisions counter to the big picture. Don't smoke, quit or be gone from my practice. To those who cannot quit- the patch, gum, vaccines, or medications (like Chantix).  Most curious is Chantix a drug with a black box warning, reminiscent of a coffin that is FDA approved despite deaths, mental illness and at times irreversible depression and suicide.  Smokers are second hand citizens who kill babies in the womb.  They have less value.  The treatment fails.  Cigarettes are legal and another potential survivor bites the dust

Osler would tell us that to know yourself is to better know your patient. He would say that if your patient is doing better-emotionally and physically and for fear of censorship or suit you tell them to quit vaping, then you are not listening to the patient you are projecting bias and fear and doing harm. At first do no harm means, do not mandate first and offer solutions second. Do not imagine anything as fixed truth-treat each individual as a person of needs different from any other. Do not stop the vaper from her untested system and condemn her to return to smoking.

To give her to smoking when the art of medicine gives alternatives that may be less harmful is harm.  And then there is nicotine, a calming drug that increases attention span, may help in Alzheimer's disease and gives pleasure.  Over 70% of schizophrenics smoke and if you ban smoking in psychiatric wards medication use elevates as do the symptoms of the disease. There is hope as evidence gathers to show nicotine itself is much less dangerous than smoking.  The TSNA's in e-cigarettes are comparable to the patch.  Oh the ANTZ will tell you of the dangers of second hand smoke and third and eventually 22nd hand smoke, so why do they detest smokeless tobacco.  Let us hope, meditate, pray, or just think loudly that an amazing Grace settles in-----and those once were blind might see.

And to the doctor, nurse, counselor, priest, FDA, ANTZ, and WHO: look beyond the obvious, practice Oslerian and Hippocratic dualism- Primum non nocere- at first do no harm, at first understand, always seek healthier methods, accept risk and reduce it, be open, accepting and fear nothing but your inability to separate your own inbred idealizations from the truth of the universe. Smoking kills, Chantix kills, and driving kills bot to mention that the union of the sperm and egg that created you will eventually lead to your death.

As I said to my first interviewer when I applied to Medical School-when asked what I thought best defined life, I responded- it is a risk that we each manage every day of our life- but it is also a gift that we must share with others.  The ill we give hope, the infirm of mind kindness and safety and those who have chosen paths we see as self-destructive empathy and as we paraphrase Hippocrates- we shall do them no harm.  I would add now that we will endeavor not to judge them, not to stigmatize them, but to try to encourage a less harmful way even if it is not perfect.

10 years since 9-11

10 Years since 9-11-2001

Our battles are for lives saved in our crusade

to promote Harm Reduction.

Those who forget History are

bound to repeat it.

It is soon to be the 10th anniversary of 9-11. I propose that at 
12:11AM EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME. 11:11AM CDT,
10:11AM MDT: 9:11AM PDT, 11:41AM Newfy Daylight TIME 
And whatever it is in Hawaii- we hold a moment of vaping silence
 for the memory of the victims, the brave
 fireman and Policeman and the families affected. Then, 
as my ancensters in Kerry Ireland and Skye Scotland would say 
(except they would drink a pint of Guinness or
 a wee liter of Glenlivit) Vape one wherever you are as a toast 
to the freedom we have here- albeit the ANTZ are
 trying to screw it. I will be at my desk at work. And if you 
 know someone in harms way take a good hit for them too. And for
our British friends- how about 10:11 GMT.




MAKE LOVE NOT WAR


MAKE VAPE NOT SMOKE 

THR- WHAT IS THE FDA THINKING?

A Wolf found great difficulty in getting at the sheep owing

to the vigilance of the shepherd and his dogs.  But one day 

it found the skin of a sheep that had been flayed and thrown

aside, so it put it on over its own pelt and strolled down 

among the sheep. The Lamb that belonged to the sheep, whose 

skin the Wolf was wearing, began to follow the Wolf in the 

Sheep's clothing; so, leading the Lamb a little apart, he 

soon made a meal off her, and for some time he succeeded in 

deceiving the sheep, and enjoying hearty meals.

	Appearances are deceptive.

The FDA has approved a Phase II-B study on 97% nicotine-free 

cigarettes based on the following:

Dr. Hatsukami’s study compared the quitting efficacy of a VLN cigarette (containing 22nd Century’s proprietary VLN tobacco), an FDA-approved 4-mg nicotine lozenge, and a low nicotine cigarette (containing 30% of the nicotine of a typical cigarette) in a total of 167 patients treated for 6 weeks (Hatsukami et al. 2010). Point-prevalence abstinence at 6 weeks after the end of treatment was 47% for the group using the VLN cigarette, 37% for the nicotine lozenge group and 23% for the low nicotine cigarette group (p=.0357). Furthermore, the VLN cigarette was associated with greater relief of withdrawal from usual brand cigarettes than the nicotine lozenge. The protocol of 22nd Century’s upcoming Phase II-B clinical trial is similar to that of the University of Minnesota trial. Unlike the low nicotine cigarette, the VLN cigarette was not associated with compensatory smoking behaviors. By the end of the 6-week treatment period, patients in the VLN group (whether they quit or not) on average were smoking 12 VLN cigarettes per day, compared to a baseline of 19 cigarettes per day of their usual brand.

The pub-med abstract:

Abstract

AIMS:

To examine the effects of reduced nicotine cigarettes on smoking behavior, toxicant exposure, dependence and abstinence.

DESIGN:

Randomized, parallel arm, semi-blinded study. Setting University of Minnesota Tobacco Use Research Center.

INTERVENTIONS:

Six weeks of: (i) 0.05 mg nicotine yield cigarettes; (ii) 0.3 mg nicotine yield cigarettes; or (iii) 4 mg nicotine lozenge; 6 weeks of follow-up. Measurements Compensatory smoking behavior, biomarkers of exposure, tobacco dependence, tobacco withdrawal and abstinence rate.

FINDINGS:

Unlike the 0.3 mg cigarettes, 0.05 mg cigarettes were not associated with compensatory smoking behaviors. Furthermore, the 0.05 mg cigarettes and nicotine lozenge were associated with reduced carcinogen exposure, nicotine dependence and product withdrawal scores. The 0.05 mg cigarette was associated with greater relief of withdrawal from usual brand cigarettes than the nicotine lozenge. The 0.05 mg cigarette led to a significantly higher rate of cessation than the 0.3 mg cigarette and a similar rate as nicotine lozenge.

Conclusions:

Observed-

• There is a major behavioral part in the act of smoking cessation.
• 0.03 (97% free) nicotine X-22 products were superior in a SEMI- blinded study.
• Post endpoint there was a decrease in the number of X-22 cigarettes smoked in those who did not quit compared to pre-study smoking levels.

Questions-

• Why is there an FDA study that is making the assumption that nicotine cessation is the issue.
• Is it ethical to use a non-carcinogenic variable (nicotine) as a variable, when the true vectors of carcinogenicity are still part of the X-22.
• Is it ethical to report the decrease from 19-12 cigs per day in the 0.03 mg group, it suggests that  smoking less would be good and opens a potential message that these may be marketable as beneficial even if cessation does not occur.
• Relapse rates- wonder what 3, 6, 9 month follow-ups were (not reported in a study about 2 years old.
• Do the X-22 decreased nicotine cigs still have other alkaloids (MAOI active?).  These alkaloids have been looked at as why a 2 day withdrawal time frame for pure nicotine is extended to much longer time when cigarettes are involved.

Insanity-  We KNOW that tobacco combustion products are the source of carcinogenicity.  It is not unexpected that levels of exposure to carcinogens would decrease if less tobacco is consumed.

What is the FDA doing running trials on smoking cessation with the variable nicotine delivered by a tobacco leaf product? Why would it not be more logical to use a tobacco free vehicle as the delivery system?  Don't they look happy, reminds me of a 60's tobacco commercial... X-22, 22nd Century's PRESCRIPTION......................

AHHHH! Prescription based smoking cessation aid.  Welcome back Pharma and Big Tobacco.

The wolf in sheep's clothing.  Nicotine free tobacco (genetically engineered) and packaged to taste, smell and smoke like a cigarette.  Prescription requirement will obviously make them very expensive. This appears to be tobacco cessation genocide.

Like lamb's to the slaughter-

This company is currently headquartered in Williamsville, N.Y., whose soccer team we crushed 8-0 back when I was in 12th grade.  

Chantix: Could it be Satan, and the new xx22 nicotineless cigarette,

The photo at the right represents a smoker at 50. It is of a  person who had smoked one pack per day for 20 years.  There is a slight hyperinflation, maybe- 5 of 9 radiologists stated that in a report that was published years ago in a journal that I am afraid I cannot quote.  At least that is honesty, so if you like, go ahead and discount this part of the blog.  

It is merely here to point out that the old familiar chest X-ray is a very poor indicator of early lung disease. It is just too nonspecific.  If you see the tumor, you are fairly sure that the tumor is in its advanced stages.  CT is better, but a recent study suggested that CT may actually increase the number of cancer deaths.  15-20% of all lung tumors are in non-smokers.  

So why start a blog on Chantix with the Church Lady and a chest Xray?  Because I like the chest X-ray and the Church Lady reflects the title.  

Somewhere in the deep core of the mind- there is evolving an understanding of how we unconsciously relate images to:

• self reflection 
• assessment of worth
• and envisionment of future self.

There are researchers at the University of Michigan

(go Appalachian State!) who through imaging 

techniques are looking at the role of this area in the

effectiveness of cigarette cessation ads.  Iterestingly

this is also an area that is ablated when frontal

lobotomy is performed and may have a role in

Schizophrenia.

I would suggest that it also has a role in the effectiveness of pro-smoking material.

This area lights up on scan when a person is affected by a anti-tobacco ad.  The follow-up to this is still in the works, but inferences that calming, cigarette ads may alter the envisionment of harm and lessen the cognitive perception of what tobacco does over time are an reasonable hypothesis.  The shocking images on tobacco products may serve to affect some smokers through self reflection and envisionment of future harm.

CHANTIX (CHANTOX in my book)

So Chan(p)tix- where does this fit in.  Chantix is varenicline, a weaker binding agent at the nicotine receptor and thus is intrinsically an ideal agent to alleviate cravings and displace nicotine, in a competative manner, and therefore decreasing smoking behaviors.  It is called a partial agonist as it binds but does produce the brains expected response.  

It also has a black box warning on the packaging matreial- risk of depression and suicidal thinking that are not always reversible and now increases cardiac risk 72% in users.  It is a dangerous and pathological entity that has no data on population risk (except to put the burden on the doctor to screen for the their patient's mood and cardiac status.

THE POINT

Chantix is the Corvair of Ralph Nader fame.

MMMMMMM- could it be SATAN?

Or are smokers seen in the average ANTZ mentality as disposable.  If any other drug had come out with the suicidal ideation and complication findings that Chantix has it would be hauled off the market immediately.  Makes sense in the ANTZ mentality- save a few with it (because it does statistically work- barely) and if a few die to get a few off, it is the smoker's fault for picking up the nasty habit.  If this were a diabetic or cardiac drug (see initial studies with citalopram and Hismanil), they would be removed for study.  Chantix- it's for people who will die anyway.  And of course the recent CNN report says; well it helps some, "I had a friend who tried everything else......" and that it seems to help some.  So does nicotine.. it helps some people.

I took Chantix, and have been on antidepressants since.  I hadn't been chronically before.

The superior race of ANTZ makes no suggestion that this is a problem.  The main message is smokers are expendable.   

NOW VERY LOW NICOTINE CIGARETTES

In its schizophrenic manner the XX22, a <5% vs marlboro nicotine content agent is being funded by the FDA for Phase IIb studies.  Who just punched me in the head, support nicotine free cigarettes in a combustion based delivery system and you get tar and ash.  The FDA is looking for a quick fix with solo control on outcome.The FDA has already stated that the tobacco smoke is dangerous. (More to come).

You just cannot argue with a mind fixated on safer cigarettes through the removal of nicotine.  Those 4000 chemicals and carcinogens are still there.

What frightens me is not tobacco ads- it is having a significantly discriminatory bias against e-cigs and SNUS that is found in the agency leading the fight against tobacco using the term harm reduction and talking of risk related tobacco taxation (more later).

I'll leave it to the media to express my last point-

Network-the movie Peter Finch

John Cleese on extremism

And I am mad as hell, and extremists beware, your the partial agonists of truth.  Multiple studies show e-cigs and SNUS are agents beneficial to the Harm Reduction effort.  Drs. who remove their patients from nicotine only or reduced harm agents- you are practicing genocide in some of those you recommend they cease alternative nicotine sources or quit cold turkey.

Remember those who analyze everything they read, whether pro their cause or against their cause will learn from both.  The ANTZ and the Harm Reduction Faction have their diehards.  Every time you look in a mirror you see yourself as you believe other's see you, we must always remember that the image in the mirror is reversed- it is just a reflection and reflections reverse our features.

Gotta go, need to open a window and say a few words.

AS THEY SEE US

Echolalia

One of the greatest victories in science is when your competition can't do anything but recant ancient studies as their only means of validating their point.  If I here the words:

1. Diethyl Glycol
2. Trace cancer causing agents.
3. We don't know how safe they are.
4. There are already nicotine replacement therapies for those who want to quit.
5. Chantix.
6. They need to be pulled of the market until we know they are safe.
7. Mights, possiblies, maybes and coulds.

in any article, paper, newsprint or health reporter's babblings- to word it lightly- I

will be using a large portion of their Cloud to respond.

First- I DO NOT PLAN IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO QUIT NICOTINE.

There I said it, may the tobacco temperance league choke on that line.  I enjoy vaping.  I enjoyed smoking. I  am not planning on quitting.  E-cigs were destigned to replace tobacco, not help me quit.

So give it up.  If I have to I'll grow it myself (lived in N.C. it isn't that hard) and extract the nicotine myself (I wonder if they will spray my land with Paraquat or will I come up on the Power Company, "he's using too much power, must be growing something" list).

Right now there is a wonderful thing happening in vaping, there are organizations like the newly formed ATACA in Australia, CASAA in the USA and EUUC EK in Great Britain.  These groups are the grassroots defenders of our freedom to use less toxic nicotine products. I was humbled and speechless sitting on a Skype call listening to their words, knowledge and bravery.

I listened to an ABC local broadcast on Vaping may be more dangerous than smoking.  The only factual statement in the entire story was the Diethyl Glycol in one of 18 bottles of e-juice tested.  All the experts said maybe's, could's, presumably and might be less safe. In that story they covered a woman whose Dr. had convinced a 1 year cigarette free vaper to toss out here equipment.  If and when she smokes again the coffin nails were fashioned by ABC, her M.D. and the star health reporter.

With e-cigarettes, they don't kill- not one single death related to them.  Minds that work this way kill.  They look to ban them: completely, through bias and coverage obscura.

Ban e cigarettes as the chart at right predicts- 500 people who have to go back to the "safe alternative", smoking, will die daily.  Journalistic murdering spinners of their anti-nicotine bias must get free lunches from the mortuary lobby.

And most experts will tell you nicotine is NOT the problem.  It may not be the true alkaloid in tobacco that causes the prolonged withdrawal.  That constant line about what is in e-cigs (PG, VG, Nicotine, flavouurng and water).  Can you tell me what is in tobacco smoke- 60 known carcinogens and 4000 other chemicals.  At least the one's in e-juice are FDA approved individually.

William Osler, MD who founded modern medicine emphatically stated, "of all else, at first do no harm."

That was 150 years ago.  How much we have progressed.

And a special thanks for the magnificent recent Ashtray Blog of James Dunworth and his pictorial of the proposed global cigarette labeling changes.    Look it up- it is real journalism.

So keep on being informed about the 1 of 18 samples with DEG below the federal toxicity level.  That's the Echolalia of the anti's.  Echolalia, a disorder where you here the same sound repeatedly. 

HAMLET TO NICORETTE

Hamlet's line, "there's special providence in the fall of a sparrow," relates well to courage and originates from a Biblical passage in the Book of Mark (read on, this is certainly not a sermon). relating an external force to the fate of any venture, decision, or action- be it successful or failure. 

The course of vaping is in providential hands, and the proponents courageous people who walk forward into a battle that has already been declared by many as a resurgence of the Big Tobacco (BT) experiences of years back.   BT was "busted" for suppressing data showing the harms of smoking and all of tobacco was guilty by association and became the scapegoat for all society's ills.   The fall of BT's image after non-disclosure and frank suppression of data is possibly the greatest act of providence, we as vapors, have in our corner.

The ultimate result of the repugnant acts of BT was a mantra that has been repeated for our entire lives, tobacco is bad in any form. A fictional expo As a result we came to believe that the tobacco plant was inherently "unhealthy" and anyone who would use it (Einstein, Lincoln, Twain, the Kennedy's and J. R. R. Tolkien spring to mind) must be stupid, rebellious, evil, dirty, subhumans deserving a slow painful death after years of cancer and heart and lung disease. The smoker was a bane to society, exponentially increasing health care costs, spewing secondary smoke on our beloved children and polluting the earth with the byproducts of tobacco use, specifically filters that won't degrade and the clinging residue of the smoke that layers itself over surfaces.  


But amazingly, the TRUTH has been sitting in plain sight for decades: At least 99% of the harms and risks and nuisances and deaths and diseases that are in any way related to tobacco use can be directly attributed to the direct or indirect hazards and byproducts of combustion.

 In our community there is an open dialogue of this sort that leaves our comments and data open to public scrutiny. Even before the BT fall from grace, tobacco was seen in a negative light. Mark Twain wrote multiple lines about his experience with tobacco- far before the PM and other companies were even in the sights of the public. What we must realize was said well months ago by Sam Munro when he stated that he still considered himself a smoker. There is no shame in any label one places on oneself or is placed on one by others. Nor is there ant problem with taking the stand strongly that, "I am not a smoker, I vape." It is your internal frame of refeence, and your internal perception of vaping and smoking that is important individually. To consider yourself an ex-smoker when you are vaping is totally correct, to consider yourself a smoker when you only vape is also totally correct. There is a dualistic truth in this concept that is that special providence, that courage. The external world has already moved, if only slightly to see the difference. This is complicated by the visual similarities of smoking and vaping. The important idea here for my own perception is that time will be the test of the outcome of vaping and that we are the pioneers of this practice. It is not my business or care of your perception of whether vaping is a replacement, a change from or a separate form of smoking. What is important is transparency. What is important is that the true difference between the two be validated and spread widely. What is important is that there be unity among vapors in the eyes of the public.


This is not snake oil, it is a real and viable means of harm reduction when using nicotine. It is personal choice on how one obtains nicotine (smoking, gum, vaping), but it is not necessary to potentially argue over the terms we as vapors use to describe ourselves. the providential direction will be that of our work and our belief in the cause- evangelism through personal stories and the conveyance to others of our experience in the manner that Jesus (not preaching) sent forth his believers in small groups to share the message. So when someone says- I didn't know you smoked I reply, I don't- I vape. And from there the discussion and the teaching and the message evolves and is spread. Peace-vape on.

Hamlet's line, "there's special providence in the fall of a sparrow," relates well to courage and originates from a Biblical passage in the Book of Mark (read on, this is certainly not a sermon). relating an external force to the fate of any venture, decision, or action- be it successful or failure. 

The course of vaping is in providential hands, and the proponents courageous people who walk forward into a battle that has already been declared by many as a resurgence of the Big Tobacco (BT) experiences of years back.   BT was "busted" for suppressing data showing the harms of smoking and all of tobacco was guilty by association and became the scapegoat for all society's ills.   The fall of BT's image after non-disclosure and frank suppression of data is possibly the greatest act of providence, we as vapors, have in our corner.

The ultimate result of the repugnant acts of BT was a mantra that has been repeated for our entire lives, tobacco is bad in any form. A myth sprung from this that has taken a natural plant from the magical and wonderful substance Columbus and other early traveler's to the New World discovered, and one indigenous populations peereived as sacred or at least medicinal to an enslaving and evil entity.  As a result we came to believe that the tobacco plant was inherently "unhealthy" and anyone who would use it (Einstein, Lincoln, Twain, the Kennedy's and J. R. R. Tolkien spring to mind) must be stupid, rebellious, evil, dirty, subhumans deserving a slow painful death after years of cancer and heart and lung disease. The smoker was a bane to society, exponentially increasing health care costs, spewing secondary smoke on our beloved children and polluting the earth with the byproducts of tobacco use, specifically filters that won't degrade and the clinging residue of the smoke that layers itself over surfaces.  


Amazingly, the simple truth has been sitting in plain sight for decades: At least 99% of the harms and risks, nuisances, deaths and diseases that are in any way related to tobacco use can be directly attributed to the direct or indirect hazards and byproducts of combustion.  The carcinogenic and destructive materials came from here

 In our community there is an open dialogue of this sort that leaves our comments and data open to public scrutiny. Even before the BT fall from grace, tobacco was seen in a negative light. Mark Twain wrote multiple lines about his experience with tobacco- far before the PM and other companies

were even in the sights of the public. What we must realize was said well months ago by Sam Munro when he stated that he still considered himself a smoker. There is no shame in any label one places on oneself or is placed on one by others. Nor is there ant problem with taking the stand strongly that, "I am not a smoker, I vape." It is your internal frame of refeence, and your internal perception of vaping and smoking that is important individually. To consider yourself an ex-smoker when you are vaping is totally correct, to consider yourself a smoker when you only vape is also totally correct. There is a dualistic truth in this concept that is that special providence, that courage. The external world has already moved, if only slightly to see the difference. This is complicated by the visual similarities of smoking and vaping. The important idea here for my own perception is that time will be the test of the outcome of vaping and that we are the pioneers of this practice. It is not my business or care of your perception of whether vaping is a replacement, a change from or a seperate form of smoking. What is important is transparency. What is important is that the true difference between the two be validated and spread widely. What is important is that there be unity amongst vapors in the eyes of the public. This is not snake oil, it is a real and viable means of harm reduction when using nicotine. It is personal choice on how one obtains nicotine (smoking, gum, vaping), but it is not necessary to potentially argue over the terms we as vapors use to describe ourselves. the providential direction will be that of our work and our belief in the cause- evangelism through personal stories and the conveyance to others of our experience in the manner that Jesus (not preaching) sent forth his believers in small groups to share the message. So when someone says- I didn't know you smoked I replly, I don't- I vape. And from there the discussion and the teaching and the message evolves and is spread. Peace-vape on.

‎10 Reasons not to Vape

Humbug!

We all go to the same end

In the most forceful manner I repeat Humbug!

Yes, Humbug I say, Humbug!

I was reading in a post written by a fervent 

anti-tobacco megalomaniac who simply stated

that his greatest wish was that every smoker 

be given full access to as much tobacco as he or she could tolerate and that they smoke themselves to death as quickly as possible. This would rid the earth of the scourge of the foul smelling creatures that spread their filthy habit throughout humanity.

Humbug!

I will not waste words commenting on a mind that is fixated on selective genocide
except to say that later in his passage he pronounced the inclusion of vapors and
SNUS spitters in his category of less than human tobacco consumers.  His picture
put him in his late 50's or possibly early 60's.  He also commented that he had
smoked for 20 years and one day just put them down.  I congratulate him for
that capability. He is one of a very few that can shed nicotine addiction so easily.
I also congratulate him for being one of the many smokers who I modeled after
to start smoking. In the late 60's tobacco was beginning to be seen as a public
health issue. Availability and acceptance were universal. I smoked in my college
classes, in cinemas, in grocery stores, in hospital waiting rooms,and airplanes.
Slowly there was a limited effort to curtail use that spiraled when Big Tobacco
and other consortiums started to react and produced low tar and nicotine products.

Still the people who were using tobacco quit every New Year's day for several
hours or quit for weeks or months to only find they had added 20 pounds and
were still craving tobacco.  Big Pharma to the rescue with gums, lozenges and
inhalers. Success rates minimal.

Then the medications Champix and Wellbutrin. They will get their page later.

In the middle of the last decade a device called the e-cigarette emerged.
Nicotine in a solution heated by a coil and gradually millions of people
throughout the earth found this a way to decrease or stop tobacco burning
as a means of smoking cessation.  Now my expert friend and his factions
want to equate e-cigarettes with smoking.

Humbug!

There only common ground is nicotine and a white exhale after inhalation.  But
more about that later.

So factions are trying to ban e-cigarettes from the semi-moronic stance that they
both emit white stuff.

I am a list maker by habit and it seems that I must try to find a reason to stop
the dreaded vaping;  Here is my top ten list, maybe it'll help me stop a
non-burning act of getting nicotine and I can start cigarettes and the 60
carcinogens (nicotine not one) of them, and 4000 other chemicals.  Vaping
is nicotine and a vegetable glycerin or PG vehicle which is touted by Boston
University to be 99% safer than cigarettes.:

Top 10 Reasons Not to Vape


1.  They don't fit behind your ear for that cool 50's
             look.


2.  You can't use. "can I bum a light", as a pick-up
             line at a bar.


3.  You can't flick them out the car window at night
             and see those cool trails.


4.  They may cause you to get up late because you
             don't wake up hacking up a lung.


5.  They don't give you that manly smell to your
             clothes.


6.  You don't get to carry those really cool Jeff Gordon
             lighters.


7.  You can't use the excuse that you are too short
             winded to help your neighbour move.


8.  You don't get Marlboro coupons to trade for that
             really neat Marlboro Jacket.


9.  They don't burn holes in your clothes so you can't
             use that as as excuse for a shopping spree.


10. They are not FDA approved.




Humbug- it didn't work.  Guess I'll have to try something
else..... more to come.