¹⁷ “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. ¹⁸ For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not ^[a]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! ¹⁹ Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches ^[b]others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever ^[c]keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

²⁰ “For I say to you that unless your righteousness far surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven..

Has all been fulfilled? Is there world peace? have the dead been Risen? These have been prophesied in the Old Testament and have not been fulfilled. So where did the controversy come from? Mainly from the letters of Paul to the churches (Epistles). Paul is trying to explain to the Jews that gentiles are not under the law. Until Acts 15 the Jews expected gentiles to convert. That can be seen in Acts 10

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the ^[ae]message. ⁴⁵ All the ^[af]Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had also been poured out on the Gentiles. ⁴⁶ For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter responded, ⁴⁷ “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

Now many Christians would say that Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he? is a Christian baptism. It is not. Baptism is not mentioned in the Old Testament for one reason and one reason alone. Baptism is a Greek word, the Testament was written entirely in Greek where the old was in Hebrew. Baptism is very much a Jewish practice. Peter was Chastising the Jews for rejecting the converts.

From Acts 19

Paul in Ephesus

19 Now it happened that while Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. ² He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “On the contrary, we have not even heard if there is a Holy Spirit.” ³ And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” ⁴ Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” ⁵ When they heard this, they were baptized ^[a]in the name of the Lord Jesus. ⁶ And when Paul had laid hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. ⁷ There were about twelve men in all.

Later in Ephesians 4 Paul said.

“Unity of the Spirit

4 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, ² with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, ³ being diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ⁴ There is one body and one Spirit, just as you also were called in one hope of your calling; ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ⁶ one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.“

That baptism is receiving the the Holy Spirit. Now to one of the passages where Paul speaks of the law. From Romans 2.

“¹² For all who have sinned ^[j]without the Law will also perish ^[k]without the Law, and all who have sinned ^[l]under the Law will be judged ^[m]by the Law; ¹³ for it is not the hearers ^[n]of the Law who are ^[o]righteous before God, but the doers ^[p]of the Law who will be justified. ¹⁴ For when Gentiles who do not have ^[q]the Law ^[r]instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having ^[s]the Law, are a law to themselves, ¹⁵ in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, ¹⁶ on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.

The Jews under the Law

¹⁷ But if you call yourself a ^[t]Jew and rely ^[u]upon the Law and boast in God, ¹⁸ and know His will and ^[v]distinguish the things that matter, being instructed from the Law, ¹⁹ and are confident that you yourself are a guide to people who are blind, a light to those in darkness, ²⁰ a ^[w]corrector of the foolish, a teacher of ^[x]the immature, possessing in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth— ²¹ you, therefore, who teach someone else, do you not teach yourself? You who ^[y]preach that one is not to steal, do you steal? ²² You who say that one is not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who loathe idols, do you rob temples? ²³ You who boast ^[z]in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? ²⁴ For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.

²⁵ For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice ^[aa]the Law; but if you are a violator ^[ab]of the Law, your circumcision has turned into uncircumcision. ²⁶ So if the ^[ac]uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? ²⁷ And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who ^[ad]though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator ^[ae]of the Law? ²⁸ For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. ²⁹ But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.“

Now the circumcised heart comes directly from Deuteronomy 30 and applies to Jew and Gentile alike. You must turn towards god with a circumcised heart.

“1“So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you, 2and you return to the LORD your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, 3then the LORD your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. 4“If your outcasts are at the ends of the earth, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you back. 5“The LORD your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.

      6“Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. 7“The LORD your God will inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. 8“And you shall again obey the LORD, and observe all His commandments which I command you today. 9“Then the LORD your God will prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your cattle and in the produce of your ground, for the LORD will again rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers; 10if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul.

      11“For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12“It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13“Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 14“But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

What Paul wrote is fully in line with Jesus teachings. How many times did he call out the pharisees for their hypocrisy? Paul is just reiterating What Jesus said about Judging others.

Matthew 7

“7 “Do not ^[a]judge, so that you will not be judged. ² For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and ^[b]by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. ³ Why do you look at the ^[c]speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ⁴ Or how ^[d]can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the ^[e]speck out of your eye,’ and look, the log is in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the ^[f]speck out of your brother’s eye!

⁶ “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

If you Judge by Mosaic law, you will be judged by Mosaic Law, you better be perfect under that law, for on it you will be judges. If you judge based on Church Doctrine you had better be able to live up to it.

The covenant god made with the Jews was eternal. the laws given under Moses was only for the Jews who were freed from exile. The rest of us remained under the Noahide laws which predate Mosaic laws.
From Chabad

What Are the Seven Noahide Laws?

The 7 Noahide Laws are rules that all of us must keep, regardless of who we are or from where we come. Without these seven things, it would be impossible for humanity to live together in harmony.

1. Do not profane G‑d’s Oneness in any way.
   Acknowledge that there is a single G‑d who cares about what we are doing and desires that we take care of His world.
2. Do not curse your Creator.
   No matter how angry you may be, do not take it out verbally against your Creator.
3. Do not murder.
   The value of human life cannot be measured. To destroy a single human life is to destroy the entire world—because, for that person, the world has ceased to exist. It follows that by sustaining a single human life, you are sustaining an entire universe.
4. Do not eat a limb of a still-living animal.
   Respect the life of all G‑d’s creatures. As intelligent beings, we have a duty not to cause undue pain to other creatures.
5. Do not steal.
   Whatever benefits you receive in this world, make sure that none of them are at the unfair expense of someone else.
6. Harness and channel the human libido.
   Incest, adultery, and homosexual relations are forbidden.
   The family unit is the foundation of human society. Sexuality is the fountain of life and so nothing is more holy than the sexual act. So, too, when abused, nothing can be more debasing and destructive to the human being.
7. Establish courts of law and ensure justice in our world.
   With every small act of justice, we are restoring harmony to our world, synchronizing it with a supernal order. That is why we must keep the laws established by our government for the country’s stability and harmony.

Since the advent of Christianity the Jews quit speaking of the Noahide laws until the 20th Century. Again from Chabad.

Why Are the Noahide Laws Especially Important Today?

These laws were communicated by G‑d to Adam and Noah, ancestors of all human beings. That is what makes these rules universal, for all times, places and people:

Laws made by humans may change according to circumstance. But laws made by the Creator of all souls over all of time remain the same for all people at all times..

If we would fulfill these laws just because they make sense to us, then we would change them, according to our convenience. We would be our own god. But when we understand that they are the laws of a supreme G‑d, we understand that they can not be changed, just as He does not change.

Today, we are on the verge of a new era for humankind, a time when we will finally live together in peace and the world will be filled with divine wisdom. Those who keep these basic rules will have a share in that world, since, after all, they took part in making it possible.

Although these teachings were recorded in the sacred Jewish texts, for many centuries Jews were not able to speak about them to the people they lived amongst. But in recent times, the foremost rabbi of the Jewish people in the 20th century, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, encouraged Jews to publicize these teachings, so that the world can prepare for the times of peace and wisdom that are swiftly approaching.

Why Are They Called the Noahide Laws?

These are called the Noahide Laws because they are the heritage of humanity from our oldest ancestors. Since all humanity are descendants of Noah, who survived the Great Flood, all people today are Noahides.

Jewish tradition tells that six of these laws were given to the first human being, Adam. A seventh law, the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, was given to Noah when humankind was permitted to consume meat.

More Noahide Laws

These seven principles are general ones. Many other teachings, all intuitive to the upright human mind, branch out from these.

These include the practice of charity and acts of kindness, honoring and respecting parents, prayer to G‑d and contemplation of His wisdom and greatness.

This also means not acting recklessly towards the magnificent creation that has been entrusted to our stewardship.

Who Keeps the Noahide Laws?

Nobody needs to convert or join a particular church or temple to keep these principles and laws. But it is important to keep them because this is what the supreme G‑d wants of every one of us, and not only because they are wise and good laws.

Anyone who keeps these basic rules for that reason—regardless of race, nationality or culture—is considered a righteous person and granted eternal life upon leaving this world.

Click here to learn more about the Noahide Covenant.

Now as Christians we are under the Noahide laws plus the teachings of Christ. which is most of the ten Commandments. Which is why at the Council of Jerusalem in acts 15 they brought that home. Jesus never preached against idolatry or food laws so they took from the Noahide laws.

“⁶ The apostles and the elders came together to ^[c]look into this ^[d]matter. ⁷ After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “^[e]Brothers, you know that ^[f]in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. ⁸ And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; ⁹ and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Since this is the case, why are you putting God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our forefathers nor we have been able to bear? ¹¹ But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

¹² All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles.

James’ Judgment

¹³ After they stopped speaking, ^[g]James responded, saying, “^[h]Brothers, listen to me. ¹⁴ Simeon has described how God first concerned Himself about taking a people for His name from among the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the Prophets agree with this, just as it is written:

¹⁶ ‘After these things I will return,
And I will rebuild the fallen ^[i]tabernacle of David,
And I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will restore it,
¹⁷ So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles ^[j]who are called by My name,’
¹⁸ Says the Lord, who ^[k]makes these things known from long ago.

¹⁹ Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, ²⁰ but that we write to them that they abstain from ^[l]things contaminated by idols, from acts of sexual immorality, from what has been ^[m]strangled, and from blood. ²¹ For from ancient generations Moses has those who preach him in every city, since ^[n]he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

The final reason I believe that the Jews are included is some of the last words of Christ on the cross.

The Crucifixion

³³ And when they came to the place called ^[n]The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left. ³⁴ [^[o]But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”] And they cast lots, dividing His garments among themselves. ³⁵ And the people stood by, watching. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the ^[p]Christ of God, His Chosen One.” ³⁶ The soldiers also ridiculed Him, coming up to Him, offering Him sour wine, ³⁷ and saying, “If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself!” ³⁸ Now there was also an inscription above Him, “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

³⁹ One of the criminals who were hanged there was ^[q]hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the ^[r]Christ? Save Yourself and us!” ⁴⁰ But the other responded, and rebuking him, said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? ⁴¹ And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving ^[s]what we deserve for our crimes; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” ⁴² And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!” ⁴³ And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

A Catholic Bishop on the food laws.

It quickly accelerated to this!

I then responded with this!

I got a light sentence this time, only 7 days. But if you are right wing or a person of faith, there is no way you feel safe. It’s high time to take them down!

They subsequently removed the question because it didn’t fit the narrative. So our government is complicit in the lie! WHY?

“Over 75 percent of youth vapers apparently don’t care much about flavors, according to the most recent survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

“Among middle and high school students who ever tried using e-cigarettes, the most common reasons for e-cigarette use were ‘I was curious about them.’ (55.3 percent),” the CDC reports in its report “Tobacco Product Use and Associated Factors Among Middle and High School Students — United States, 2019.”

Given the choice of selecting any and/or all of 12 different reasons for why they had tried vaping in the first place, only 22.3 percent of young people said because e-cigarettes “are available in flavors, such as mint, candy, fruit or chocolate.” That’s about the same number of them who said they use e-cigarettes because “I can use them to do tricks.””

A survey done by Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos backs up that fact and can be Found here.

“Adult vapers tend to prefer sweet e-liquid over tobacco flavors, a fact already shown in Dr. Russell’s recent study, produced from 2016 survey data. And the new survey shows vapers with an even more pronounced preference for fruit and dessert flavors over tobacco than the 2016 one.

While 14.8 percent of the ex-smokers in the 2016 Russell data were sometime-users of tobacco flavors, just 7.7 percent of the exclusive vapers in the new survey vape tobacco. And, as in the Russell survey, even the vapers who also smoke prefer non-tobacco flavors. Just 9.1 percent of dual users (vapers who also smoke) sometimes vape tobacco flavors.”

So flavors were not driven by “Big Tobacco” Adult users created and demanded the flavors. And it wasn’t the vapor companies that advertised the flavors to teens, it was the anti vaping groups, they even hired teens for their ads. I mean you too can be as cool as Ferris Bueller.

I wrote about them advertising to kids long before anyone else noticed, they have since deleted many of the videos, but you get the idea. https://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/the-big-lie-vaping-children-flavors/

In 2020 Michelle Minton from CEI released a study that confirmed everything I said.

“Furthermore, youth vaping—though perhaps worthy of attention—is not as common as people may think. Most adolescents have never vaped (81.4 percent), few reported vaping at least one in the last month (13.8 percent), and fewer reported vaping six or more times in a month (3.6 to 6.8 percent).

More importantly, of youth who vaped habitually, approximately 99.5 percent already used tobacco—primarily cigarettes—prior to vaping.

On top of that, it isn’t clear that youth who report “vaping” are vaping nicotine products at all. Research points to the possibility that many are actually using vaping devices and e-cigarettes to vape cannabis.

This is not an epidemic.  

Yet, it is concerning that after a 30 percent decline between 2016 and 2017, the number of students who reported experimenting with vaping suddenly spiked in 2018 and has continued to rise. What change might have compelled youth in larger numbers to give vaping a try?”

Like I said they take out ads telling kids all the cool kids are doing it! Everybody does it!

Like I said in the beginning, this isn’t the only time that the CDC changed the youth survey because it didn’t fit the narrative. Dr Michael Siegel exposed it when they removed the THC question. CDC is Concealing and Suppressing Information on Youth Marijuana Vaping to Over-hype Harms of E-Cigarettes

Here are the data which the CDC has concealed:

Percentage of CURRENT youth e-cigarette users reporting ever use of THC vapes:
2016: 39%
2017: 52%
2018: 54%

Percentage of HEAVY youth e-cigarette users reporting ever use of THC vapes:
2016: 62%
2017: 73%
2018: 71%

What percentage of youth e-cigarette users reported having also vaped THC in 2019?

The answer is …

… we have no idea.

Why? Because the CDC did not even ask the question about marijuana/THC vaping in the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey!

Why would the CDC intentionally take this question off the survey, when it had included the question in the 2016, 2017, and 2018 surveys?

If you put everything together:

• the fact that the CDC concealed the information on youth THC vaping for three straight years;
• the fact that the CDC blamed the EVALI outbreak on e-cigarettes rather than on THC vaping for months before finally having to admit that e-cigarettes were not to blame; and
• the fact that the CDC intentionally removed the THC vaping question from the 2019 NYTS,

one can only get the impression that the CDC is intentionally hiding from the public the extent of the youth marijuana vaping problem because it wants the public to incorrectly believe that e-cigarettes–not THC vapes–are the greatest and most serious vaping-related health risk faced by our nation’s youth.

The CDC cover-up of the role being played by THC vaping in the youth vaping epidemic has had serious consequences. Arguably, it contributed to the sudden and unexpected outbreak of respiratory disease that took the public health world by storm last year, something that could potentially have been avoided or reduced had health practitioners and agencies throughout the country been aware of the severe health risks being posed by youth THC vaping.

It’s a sad day when you can’t trust your own government.

Today I got hit with a double whammy. The Facebook police and Twitter police both nailed me. To the woke everything is a social construct. Science, gender,law morality. Virtually everything! First Facebook. A question was posted Why all the outrage over trans women in sports and not trans men. Of course pointing to biological reality is considered hate speech and demeaning to women.

Of course biological reality backs me up. Honestly how many trans men are dominating men’s sports? Can you name even one? That’s reality. Of course on the flip side the leftist attack the religious daily on Facebook calling it a fairy tale and the “skydaddy” and attack Trump followers as Thumpansees and other derogatory terms. Full disclosure I did not vote for Trump, I’ve voted third party in the last four presidential elections. Both parties have abandoned the Ideal of limited government and freedom. One is worse than the other but I am sick and tired of settling for the lesser of two evils.

But back to Facebook. If it were about eliminating hate speech no hate speech would be allowed. The way it stands they only cater to the woke. Otherwise those of us that stand for the biological reality would not be called “Transphobs on the platform. It’s all about pushing the post modernist agenda.

My second ding of the day was on Twitter. Here a little background is needed. There is a big push to ban menthol cigarettes because blacks and the LGBT community like them. The neoprohibitionist are pushing the narrative that “Big Tobacco” is trying to scare them with the death of George Floyd and Eric Garner to scare them. I was dinged for the following claiming it incited violence.

Of course the video is of the police killing Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes.

Now if anyone of you are familiar with CRT (Critical Race Theory) it is a theory created in a law school that filters the laws through a Marxist lens to show that all laws are intended to reinforce white supremacy and keep blacks down. Of course this is the dynamic of the entire leftist/post modernist agenda. Everything is about power dynamics and power struggle.

But in this case it is the so called progressive left banning yet another product that would make criminals. The war on drugs is another case where the so called progressives are passed laws whose intent on making blacks criminals. The majority of the drug laws were race based.

The majority of the black people in jail are for drug related crimes. As a matter of fact we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. That doesn’t bode well for a so called free country. So some laws are racist. But not all of them as the leftist claim. But they do want to pass more racist laws showing its more about who has the power then it is about equality or freedom.

They are right. It is about a power struggle and they don’t care how they get it. Race baiting, control the schools, control the energy sector and healthcare by any means possible. They infected the college’s back in the 60s and 50s. When I was in college Social Sciences were a requirement even though I was an engineering student and even though the degree is worthless in the real world. To my fellow engineers it was nothing more than a degree in advanced Marxism. Sociology was the only course that once I turned the lingo I didn’t have to crack a book. I could just Bullshit my way through. A renowned physicists Alan Sokal went a step further an showed to the world what frauds these people are.

What they are lying about is the fact that they are indoctrinating our children through CRT and Common Core. When they aren’t using our children as political pawns they are trying to indoctrinate them. There is plenty of proof of this. The latest comes from my old stomping ground the Twin Cities where it is a requirement for graduation.

From the link. The schools are incapable of teaching subjects like math and English but they will get good little social justice warriors.

And it isn’t just St Paul that’s failing it’s students. This is a nation wide problem. Most college entrants do so poorly that they need remedial classes to learn what they were supposed to learn in High School.

44 high schools earned the highest marks on last year’s state report cards. 25 of those schools appear on the latest remedial education report, showing that students at well-ranked schools are not prepared for college.

Common Core is the problem. Common Core is more interested in creating Social Justice warriors than educating children.

The WOKE have their alternate reality. It’s time for America to wake up and take back reality!

Remember Biden says they’re not your children, they’re our children. What’s next? We start calling America “Mother America” ore the “Fatherland”?

Dr Siegel rightfully brought up the Random Controlled Study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that shows that it clearly does. Matt Myers Founder of Tobacco Free Kids countered with Population based studies say otherwise. Where does he get this? My guess is long time “discredited” anti smoking/vaping activist who has a long history of playing fast and loose with the numbers.

Stanton Glantz wrote in his blog.

“As we have pointed out in detail, it is the effectiveness standard that the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) should use when assessing whether authorizing the sale of e-cigarettes as consumer products in “appropriate for the protection of public health,” the standard in the law.

The fact that e-cigarettes are efficacious is the clinical trials suggests that they might be appropriate as cessation aids when used under medical supervision as a cessation treatment if the risks/benefit profile is favorable. “

The problem is, that if you look at his own study (that he cites) The numbers don’t back up his commentary. Here is a clip from his own study.

“

Results. We identified 64 papers (55 observational studies and 9 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). In observational studies of all adult smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.947; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.772, 1.160) and smokers motivated to quit smoking (OR = 0.851; 95% CI = 0.684, 1.057), e-cigarette consumer product use was not associated with quitting. Daily e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (OR = 1.529; 95% CI = 1.158, 2.019) and less-than-daily use was associated with less quitting (OR = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.402, 0.665). The RCTs that compared quitting among smokers who were provided e-cigarettes to smokers with conventional therapy found e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (relative risk = 1.555; 95% CI = 1.173, 2.061).

“Conclusions. As consumer products, in observational studies, e-cigarettes were not associated with increased smoking cessation in the adult population. In RCTs, provision of free e-cigarettes as a therapeutic intervention was associated with increased smoking cessation.”

Then you look at the numbers and they don’t back his commentary. If ecigarettes are used daily the quit rate was a 53% increase in the chance of quitting. ” Daily e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (OR = 1.529; 95% CI = 1.158, 2.019)” It also showed that people who don’t use it daily were less likely to quit. “and less-than-daily use was associated with less quitting (OR = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.402, 0.665)”

The rest of the numbers in his study included 1 (null) meaning no statistical significance one way or the other. So basically what his study showed was if you don’t use it, it doesn’t work. Question for Matt and Stan, do any of the big Pharma products work if you don’t use them?

Dual use is another red herring they throw out. Many of the 3 million ex smokers that Dr Siegel mentioned were dual users, myself included. It took years of experimentation with different devices and flavors before I could quit. My story here. And even dual use is harm reduction. Every cigarette not smoked is harm reduction. 15 past presidents of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) agree with Dr Siegel and debunk many of the myths here.

The lead author did an extensive interview with Brent Stafford debunking many of those lies.

Update, a recent study backs up everything I stated in this blogpost.

In this cohort study of adult daily cigarette smokers with no plans to ever quit smoking, those who took up daily e-cigarette use experienced 8-fold greater odds of discontinuation versus those who did not use e-cigarettes. https://t.co/Senn6IYNgv

Vaping was around for over 10 years before Tobacco control started taking out ads telling kids about all the wonderful flavors available. And the CEI showed that the so called uptick in youth vaping was due to anti tobacco groups, Not “Big Tobacco”!

But, as this paper seeks to demonstrate, it was not the vapor industry that reignited youth interest in vaping; it was anti-vaping advocacy. Evidence from developmental psychology, the determinants that push youth toward risky behaviors, and the reasons public messaging campaigns can backfire all indicate that the most viable explanation is not that more youths began vaping in spite of anti-vaping campaigns, but because of them. Therefore, devoting even more money and attention to anti-vaping campaigns is unlikely to solve the issue of youth vaping. More likely, it will make the problem, insomuch that there is a problem, worse.”

Vaping was around for over 10 years before Tobacco control started taking out ads telling kids about all the wonderful flavors available. And the CEI showed that the so called uptick in youth vaping was due to anti tobacco groups, Not “Big Tobacco”!

“Congress has held dozens of hearings and introduced multiple bills, while state authorities across the country have taken steps toward banning most e-cigarette products, with various degrees of success. Yet, none of this has stopped adolescents from using e-cigarettes.

“Congress has held dozens of hearings and introduced multiple bills, while state authorities across the country have taken steps toward banning most e-cigarette products, with various degrees of success. Yet, none of this has stopped adolescents from using e-cigarettes.

Since the initiation of this war on e-cigarettes, youth interest in vaping, including the vaping of nicotine, non-nicotine, and cannabis derivatives, has surged. Rather than ask why this might have happened—after years of waning youth interest in e-cigarettes and in spite of increasingly omnipresent warnings against using e-cigarettes—advocates blamed the vaping industry. They have asserted that the popularity of Juul, the availability of supposedly “kid-friendly” flavors, and unscrupulous advertising by the vapor industry has caused this uptick, and held this up as evidence for the need to increase funding to anti- vaping efforts, raise taxes on vapor products, and impose restrictions on the market even more onerous than those faced by traditional tobacco.

I freely admit that I first started vaping with less than honorable intentions. I started vaping because of the smoking bans and because of the abusive taxes put on smoking which in part funded the “anti smoking campaigns. The so called Tobacco flavors did not taste like Tobacco and to me tasted like shit! And most of the people who used these products felt the same way. It was the diversity of the flavors and the advancement of the technology that allowed me to quit. Since then the FDA has taken out ads to sway public opinion based on lies. Can you show anything remotely related to “Brain Worms” That was the theme of the national ad that you took out. Here’s an ad taken out by anti vaping groups 4 years before the so called “vaping epidemic” telling kids about all the wonderful flavors and how all the “Cool Kids” are doing it. can you show advertising that vape companies used to target kids in a similar fashion?

Is it the job of the FDA to put out “Propaganda” to distort public perception in order to achieve a political agenda? Can you show that vaping is a gateway to smoking? In spite of the fact that smoking rates are at a historic low amongst teens, not just teens but adults as a result of vaping? Can you justify giving activist like Stanton Glantz 20 million dollars Knowing that he has been involved in Junk Science for decades?

“Stan has always been an advocate and ideologue willing to twist the science,” says David Abrams, a New York University professor and veteran tobacco researcher. He says that some scientists ignored flaws in his work when Glantz focused on combustible tobacco because they, too, strongly opposed smoking. “Frankly, none of us cared if he was a little bit sloppy with his research because the ends justified the means,” Abrams says.

In light of the fact that the vaping industry is forbidden to bring up the harm reduction aspect but you and anti vaping groups can out and out lie to the public. This is the erroneous results of both your advertising campaigns and the anti vaping community. Are we to assume that your agency follows actual science or propaganda?

Our analysis revealed a consistent pattern and a change in perceived relative harm of e-cigarettes among US adults in both surveys, which showed that a large proportion of US adults perceived e-cigarettes as equally or more harmful than cigarettes, and this proportion has increased substantially from 2012 to 2017.

A paper on risk perceptions has disturbing results

The story starts with a report in JAMA Open that confirms what we already knew: (1) that a majority of the American public believes that e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than cigarettes and; (2) only a small proportion believe, correctly, that they are much less harmful than cigarettes.  Not only that, the accuracy of public perception is deteriorating and the misunderstandings are becoming more pronounced over time. This deterioration is happening despite hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants and despite FDA recognition of a ‘continuum of risk’ in nicotine delivery products.

For navigation, there is a table of contents.

• A paper on risk perceptions has disturbing results
• Professor Stanton Glantz provides a commentary
• A review of Professor Glantz’s commentary
  • Claim 1: the public perception is correct, and science is catching up
  • Claim 2: optimists ignore toxins and ultrafine particles
  • Claim 3: perceived risk drives tobacco use behaviour
  • Claim 4: National Academies report understates the risk of vaping
  • Claim 5: long-term health effects of vaping are unknown
  • Claim 6: vaping causes heart attacks and strokes
  • Claim 7: vaping is a cause of respiratory disease
  • Claim 8: some vaping risks approach those of cigarettes
  • Claim 9: vaping is implicated in cancer
  • Claim 10: dual-use undermines the value of vaping
  • Claim 11: e-cigarettes are ineffective for real-world smoking cessation
  • Claim 12: the explosion of youth use outweighs any benefits to adults
  • Claim 13: conclusion – the people are right and science is catching up

If you read the entire article above you would see how the so called youth epidemic is wrong headed. But I will let Clive Bates the author of the article explain it.

Claim 12: the explosion of youth use outweighs any benefits to adults

Increased perceived risks of e-cigarettes is also an important element for curbing their use by youth. Youth who believe that e-cigarettes are not harmful or are less harmful than cigarettes are more likely to use e-cigarettes than youth with more negative views of e-cigarettes.¹⁴ In terms of overall public health effects, this explosion of youth use swamps any potential harm reduction that may accompany adults switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.¹⁵ 

14. Gorukanti  A, Delucchi  K, Ling  P, Fisher-Travis  R, Halpern-Felsher  B.  Adolescents’ attitudes towards e-cigarette ingredients, safety, addictive properties, social norms, and regulation.  Prev Med. 2017;94:65-71. [link]

15. Soneji  SS, Sung  HY, Primack  BA, Pierce  JP, Sargent  JD.  Quantifying population-level health benefits and harms of e-cigarette use in the United States.  PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0193328. [link]

Response – this is a blunt disclosure of a propaganda motive. Reference 14, Gorukanti et al. neatly betrays an activist agenda by rather blatantly making a case for a propaganda approach to risk communications:

Increased perceived risks of e-cigarettes is also an important element for curbing their use by youth. Youth who believe that e-cigarettes are not harmful or are less harmful than cigarettes are more likely to use e-cigarettes than youth with more negative views of e-cigarettes.

This study indicates that adolescents are aware of some of the risks of e-cigarettes, although many harbor misperceptions and hold more favorable attitudes towards e-cigarettes than cigarettes. Of concern is the relationship between favorable e-cigarette attitudes and use. Findings suggest the need to provide adolescents with correct information about e-cigarette ingredients, risks, and the insufficient evidence of their role in cigarette cessation. 

This is an extraordinary attitude when you think about it. They are starting from the premise it is wrong for adolescents to have a more favourable view of e-cigarettes than cigarettes – even though on any rational basis a favourable view is exactly what you would expect. This is because the authors think teens should not use e-cigarettes and this matters more than addressing them truthfully.  In the face of the inconvenient truth about relative risk, the authors argue for convincing adolescents that e-cigarettes are no better than smoking. This is the mindset of the omniscient public health authority figure – but what if they are wrong? What is the effect of their approach is to deter a teenager who would otherwise be a smoker from being a vaper? What if they persuade adults that their switch from smoking to vaping is doing them no less harm? What if people use this false information in ways not intended by public health authorities?  Who would be accountable and how?

Response – models produce results that depend on their input assumptions. Reference 15 (Soneji et al., 2018) is a case study in modelling being subject to ‘garbage-in, garbage-out’ problems.  Yes, it is true if a modeller builds in highly negative assumptions into a model, then, hey presto! it can make a safer product look more dangerous.  For example, if you run a model that assumes e-cigarettes reduce smoking cessation among adults and act as a gateway to smoking for adolescents, then it doesn’t take much to show: “e-cigarette use currently represents more population-level harm than benefit.”    This is exactly what Soneji et al do. It doesn’t matter how safe e-cigarettes are – they could be 100% safe – if they trigger more smoking via these mechanisms then the model will show net harm.

So we have to look where the modellers have found their input assumptions.  Firstly, the assumption that vaping reduces smoking cessation.  Who would have guessed? It is Kalkhoran & Glantz .

Table 1 describes the data source of each model parameter. S1 Appendix describes how the difference in transition probabilities of ≥6-month cigarette smoking cessation between current e-cigarette users and non-current e-cigarette users was estimated based on various parameters such as the proportion of current cigarette smokers who used pharmaceutical aids during quit attempt and the pooled odds ratio of quitting smoking among smokers interested in quitting reported by the meta-analysis of Kalkhoran & Glantz (emphasis added).

Kalkhoran & Glantz is discussed (and dismissed) in the previous section.

Response: modelling should not build in a gateway effect. The next assumption that Soneji et al build in is a gateway effect – teen vaping causes smoking initiation.   The authors also assume that e-cigarette uptake by adolescents is a ‘gateway’ to smoking and therefore that e-cigarette use increases smoking initiation.

We assessed three outcomes of interest: […] (2) the additional number of adolescents and young adults who will initiate cigarette smoking through the ever use of e-cigarettes and eventually become daily cigarette smokers at age 35–39, compared to those who never used e-cigarettes […]

It turns out that the plug-in gateway effect number for the Soneji et al modelling comes from a ‘systematic review’ in which Soneji himself was the lead author (Soneji et al, 2017). What these studies tend to do is to find that being a young e-cigarette user is associated with being a subsequent smoker. After some statistical wizardry, they determine that the vaping caused the smoking.  This association is real – the studies do show this association.  But there are two rival explanations for the observed associations:

1. A gateway effect – that taking up the e-cigarette and starting to vape is the reason why they went onto smoke and they would not have smoked otherwise. The vaping caused the smoking.
2. Common liability – the common factors about the individual (the home environment and role models,  educational performance, delinquency, mental health, community norms etc) that incline a young person to be interested in both smoking and vaping. Both the vaping and the smoking were caused by these factors.  The vaping didn’t cause the smoking.

Statisticians try to isolate the effect of all the common liabilities to leave only the effect of using the e-cigarette. In the effort to isolate the effect of e-cigarettes, these other factors are referred to as ‘confounders’, and statisticians try to adjust for their effect by ‘deconfounding’ using the information they have collected about the people in the study. But full deconfounding is impossible in practice. This because no-one knows what all the confounders are and what questions would be necessary to characterise the common liabilities fully – probably hundreds. Possible confounding factors like ‘mental illness’ or ‘delinquent behaviour’ are very complicated in themselves and in their interaction with smoking and these can never be thoroughly adjusted for. So the statisticians are always left with ‘residual confounding’ – common factors that cause vaping and smoking that they have not been able to adjust for. So what may look like a gateway effect (the e-cigarette use in part caused the smoking) may just be residual confounding.  Adding them together in a ‘systematic review and meta-analysis’ does not solve this problem. In practice, it is likely combining studies that have very different approaches to measuring smoking and vaping, and very different approaches to addressing confounders. A recent analysis of the ‘gateway’ literature  (Lee PN et al., 2019) found that none of the studies purporting to demonstrate a gateway effect were adequately adjusted for confounding factors.  The authors concluded:

A true gateway effect in youths has not yet been demonstrated. Even if it were, e-cigarette introduction may well have had a beneficial population health impact.

For more background on the conflicting gateway and common liability theories and the difficulty of establishing gateway effects, please see:

• Vanyukov, et al. Common liability to addiction and “gateway hypothesis” theoretical, empirical and evolutionary perspective. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012. (here).
• Phillips C V. Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would). Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015;12:5439–64. [link]

Response: it is more likely that teenage vaping is forming an exit from smoking than increasing it. One study noted that the decline in youth smoking has accelerated as youth vaping increased:

There was a substantial increase in youth vaping prevalence beginning in about 2014. Time trend analyses showed that the decline in past 30-day smoking prevalence accelerated by two to four times after 2014. Indicators of more established smoking rates, including the proportion of daily smokers among past 30-day smokers, also decreased more rapidly as vaping became more prevalent. The inverse relationship between vaping and smoking was robust across different data sets for both youth and young adults and for current and more established smoking.

Levy DT, Warner KE, Cummings KM, Hammond D, Kuo C, Fong GT, et al. Examining the relationship of vaping to smoking initiation among US youth and young adults: a reality check. Tob Control. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2018 Nov 20. [link]

Whilst this analysis cannot prove that the vaping caused the accelerated decline in smoking, it does make it difficult to argue that vaping is increasing the number of adolescent smokers and it does make modelling that relies on an assumption of a gateway effect feel unreliable and disconnected from reality.

Response: misleading citations can be combined through modelling to create a misleading big picture. So here we can see how this works: a trail of citations can be carefully laid down to provide input to subsequent analysis that looks internally coherent. However, because of the accumulated misunderstandings or misleading findings, the analysis slips its moorings from reality and becomes externally incoherent – i.e. not reality-based.

Response: other, more reality-based modelling is highly positive. Other modelling are at stark variance with the Soneji model.

Take Warner & Mendez, 2018 in modelling of a variety of scenarios to assess the impact of vaping products, under a range of assumptions.

With base-case assumptions, the population gains almost 3.3 million life-years by 2070. If all people who quit smoking by vaping lose 10% of the benefit of quitting smoking, the net life-year gain falls to 2.4 million. Under worst-case assumptions, in which vaping increases smoking initiation by 6% and cessation by 5%, and vaping-induced quitters lose 10% of the health benefits, the population gains over 580000 life-years.

Also, consider Levy et al, 2017 David Levy and colleagues modelled realistic scenarios for the replacement of smoking by vaping.  The results suggest very substantial public health benefits are likely in the United States even under a pessimistic scenario.

Compared with the status quo, replacement of cigarette by e-cigarette use over a 10-year period yields 6.6 million fewer premature deaths with 86.7 million fewer life years lost in the Optimistic Scenario. Under the Pessimistic Scenario, 1.6 million premature deaths are averted with 20.8 million fewer life years lost.

To show negative public health effects from vaping requires pessimistic assumptions about vaping reducing smoking cessation, vaping causing a gateway effect and/or vaping being much more harmful than it is.  The problem is that such assumptions have no substantiation in fact, and any modelling based on them is an aretfact of the assumptions.

Claim 13: the people are right and science is catching up

From this perspective, the declining public perception that e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes is a good thing that may turn out to be where the scientific consensus lands as the new evidence on the harms of e-cigarettes continues to accumulate.

So is this about youth vaping or using youth as a political pawn to advance a political goal. If it is for a political goal why has “Big Tobacco’s” Juul been exempt from the chopping block. Could it be because of their political clout? Hasn’t all of your propaganda blamed Juul and “Big Tobacco” for the so called “Youth Epidemic” yet you put flavors and “Open Systems” The heart and soul of the vaping industry and the ones that got millions of us to quit smoking on the chopping block leaving the ones that you claim targeted youth in the market.

The recent actions by the FDA begs the question, is any of this based on legitimate science or political influence. If the later then it should be subject to judicial review.

Lawmakers’ Pressure On FDA Review Of New Tobacco Products Blurs Line Between Oversight And Undue Influence

FDA’s PMTA approval process is more adjudicative than it is rulemaking. The eventual outcome, a marketing or denial order, arises from a formal process based on a formal record, applying legal standards set in advance on a case-by-case basis. Thus, a plaintiff suing FDA would only need to show Members of Congress’s action cast doubt on the PMTA process’ impartiality.

The lawmakers’ pressure campaign on PMTA review featured multiple messages and messengers, as compared to the one Senate hearing in Pillsbury. And rather than Senators merely implying that FTC should have ruled differently in its Pillsbury case, Senators and Representatives over the past year have clearly demanded negative outcomes for specific PMTA applicants and dictated which factors should matter most during application reviews.

****

For many of the PMTA applicants, an FDA denial effectively puts them out of business. That reality certainly creates a strong incentive for legal challenges. How ironic if Members of Congress’s own words and deeds undo what they campaigned so aggressively for: FDA’s removal of ENDS products from the market.

The problem here is I don’t believe there are any 40 amp 3000 mah 18650 batteries, But the problem this person is having is voltage sag caused by the internal resistance of the battery. Of course a perfect battery will have no resistance but we don’t live in a perfect world. I’ve guesstimated that the cutoff voltage on the Z80 to be 3.2 volts so the voltage drop would have to be 1 volt for anything over 10 watts. Using the power formula P=EI (Power=Voltage * Current) or in this case P/E=I 10/4.2=2.381 amps so this is no where near a 40 amp battery. And Using E=IR or in this case R=E/I So for a 1 volt drop at 10 amps the internal resistance would be 1/4.2=0.438 ohms. That’s why anyone who’s been vaping for a while goes to the Battery Guy “Battery Mooch“.

When I’m in the market for new batteries I decide the max wattage I intend to vape the device at. Then I calculate the maximum current I would require at that wattage. You are going to draw the most current when the battery is drained. So I chose 3.2 volts. So if I want to vape the Z80 at 30 watts I use the power formula P/E=I or 30/3.2=9.375 amps, If I wanted to do the full 80 watts it would be 80/3.2=25 amps. Of course at higher powers you will never hit 3.2 so there’s a little cushion there. Then I look at Mooch’s site and pick the highest capacity with a reasonable internal resistance that suits the range that I want to vape.

Mooch did an excellent video on voltage sag.

My two favorite 18650s.

Below 30 watts the Sony VTC6 gets more puffs, at 30 about the same and above less than the Molicel p26a. I will not do a direct comparison as my VTC6’s are over two years old and my p26a’s are less then six months. So I will give the results for them.

Zenith II 0.8 ohm coil 17 watts 847 puffs 3.22 low voltage cut off.

Zenith II 0.3 ohm coil 30 watts 417 puffs 3.34 low voltage cut off.

RTA 0.19 ohms 60 watts 208 puffs 3.47 low voltage cut off.

As you can see the higher the power the earlier (higher voltage) the battery reaches the low voltage cut off. this is due to the internal resistance of the battery.

Looking at the internal resistance provided by mooch.

At 30 watts using ohms law and using my guestimate of 3.2 volts cut off

(P)ower=(E)voltage*(I)current therefore I=P/E 30 watts/3.2volts=9.375 amps

Using ohms law E=IR 9.375 * 0.0187 ohms=0.175 volts. the voltage drop across the battery. if you add that to the 3.2 estimated cut off of the Z80 you get 3.375 cut off voltage. very close to the actual 3.34 actual cut off. of course the difference is partially do to the fact that the current was based on 30 watts at 3.2 volts and we never got the battery down to 3.2s volts.

Also you can see that the Coolfire Z80 is perfectly paired with the Zenith II Using The MTL coils it’s easily an all day vape, with the 0.3 ohm coil you still will get through most if not all day on one battery. Higher then that you will definitely need two batteries. If you vape it the 40 to 60 watt range you may consider a mod using a single 21700 battery. Over 60 I would highly recommend a dual battery mod.

By Marshall Keith

I‘m writing this from Facebook jail. Don’t worry I will be back soon.

Why do I call this a pre review? Because I have been using a beta copy for the last couple of months. I will be getting the full kit soon. Phil and Dimitris know my vaping style. I call myself a tweener. I never could get the hang of taking primer puffs so I forced myself to learn to direct lung. But it still had to be tight enough to give me good throat hit and flavor. The Zenith II checks those boxes perfectly. Actually so did the Zenith pro.

I had long ago gave up on stock coils. Every time I found a tank I liked the industry shifted gears and abandoned the coils I liked so for years I exclusively bought RTA’s and RDA’s. Then the pod craze hit the market. I really wanted something in a smaller form factor that I could grab when I left the house that was strong enough to give me good flavor and yet had enough battery life to get me through the day and I could stealth vape. Sadly most that I tried were under powered with anemic flavor and poor battery life and again coils were abandoned. Having become friends with Phil and Dimitris I was well aware of their product line, so when they came out with the Z-biip I bought one knowing that the coils were used in two tanks and would likely be around for some time to come. I converted more people with that little bugger then any other device with the adept coming in second and because the people I converted were older and didn’t want the hassle of finding coils I became the supplier of the coils. So whenever the Z-coils were on sale I bought a bunch, I found myself with way too many coils on my hands. So when the Zenith Pro came out with the promise of doing both MTL and RDL I bought one.

The Zenith Pro on the right vaped beautiful, I had two minor issues with it. One the 1.0 ohm coil wasn’t quite warm enough for RDL vaping, it was plenty warm enough for warm MTL vaping but not RDL, they quickly rectified that with the release of the 0.3 ohm coil. Second was the beauty ring. Of course the beauty ring was added to remedy one of the two complaints with the original Zenith. One you couldn’t replace the glass(which is why the added the ring.) and they removed the riser from the top so any 510 drip tip will look good on it.. The issue with the beauty ring for me was two problems. As an RTA user I always grabbed the tank by the base to remove the tank from the mod or put it on, Why? Because with RTA’s if you grab it by the top or the glass you usually end up removing the glass from the base and leaking eliquid all over but with the Pro grabbing it by the base you ended up unscrewing the beauty ring. So you just learned not to grab it by the base. Second the beauty ring protruded farther than the AFC making it difficult to adjust the airflow on the mod.

The AFC ring no longer has the typical knurling, it has a different shape with almost a wingnut quality making it easier to grab and turn. Bottom line this is not a new product but a product that has reached maturity. It has been refined based on user feedback.

And to the reviewer taking cheap shots from the cheap seats. Both Phil and Craig proved you wrong, you do not have to remove the drip tip to fill. Do I? Yes, partially out of force of habit I’ve been using the Ares 2 for so long that I pull the drip tip off before I even start. Second because with my aging eyes I find comfort in getting the tip of the bottle in as far as possible. But hey when something works for me I keep using it, above is an older tank I regularly use where you actually have to remove the top cap to fill.

As I said the above pictures are from a beta copy but from the video’s and pictures I have seen the only difference I have seen is in the RDL portion of the airflow. like the Zenith pro the beta version the cyclops (RDL) airflow only opens 3/4 of the way. In the finished product it opens all the way. But the copy I have already goes from tighter then I vape to more open then I vape so I am happy. This tank will satisfy all but the cloud chasers. Will update more when I have the final product.

Unlike most people my introduction to vaping was not so noble. I was active in the fight against smoking bans and made many friends in the forums like Topix. I was a very active member of Ban the Ban Wisconsin. I’m now a retired Broadcast Engineer but was working in those days. I had many stations in Minnesota and Wisconsin so I was constantly traveling. In 2007 Minnesota enacted their smoking ban. In our private email group I mentioned this and I wont mention her name but she was a School Teacher out of Ohio who picked up an ecigarette by the name Of Janty and she sent me the site. i NEVER intended to quit and it was not my intention when I bought it. My intent was to cheat when I couldn’t smoke. well as it turned out I could have never quit using the devices that were out at that time. The Janty was way underpowered and the battery life was horrible, I couldn’t get 1/4 of a day out of the two batteries that came with it and the carts that were suppose to be the equivalent to a pack of cigarettes was barely a quarter of a pack. And none of the so called tobacco flavors tasted anything like tobacco. they had a nasty chemical aftertaste. (I later learned that the flavor extracts contained alcohol, I learned this through DIY). But being an engineer and fascinated by new technology and the fact that I forked out a hundred bucks for it I kept at it. At this point I reduced my smoking very little. From the Janty I moved on to the Janty stick V2. It took the same carts but had replicable batteries. The battery life was better but still not there. From their carto’s came out so I picked up a 510 adapter for my Janty Stick and at the same time I discovered Johnson Creek (an eliquid made right here in Wisconsin). Between the Carto’s and the flavored eliquid it showed promise. But the carto’s had one drawback. You were constantly dripping, not exactly conducive to someone on the go and driving a good deal of the time, from their I went to the Janty ego as they would take all of the 510 carto’s out there. Still really hadn’t cut down much but I was enjoying it more. Then the clearomizers came out and they used the ego connection. I don’t remember which was my first one, I had many Ce4 Ce5 evod ect. Armed with 2 ego batteries and a couple of Spinner batteries my smoking consumption started to decline, but as a 3+ pack a day camel straight smoker the battery life just wasn’t enough, but I did manage to go from 3+ packs a day to 1/4 to 1/2 a pack a day. And surprise surprise my health improved. I use to get winded walking 3 or 4 blocks and then I was walking the dog several miles a day. Then I was at my sisters in Minneapolis for my godsons wedding and entered my first vape shop. I walked away with a Kanger K Box a Kanger Subtank and some juices I liked even better then the ones I was use to. I’m not even aware of when I stopped smoking, I just realized one morning that I got up, went to make coffee and the first thing I reached for was my vape.

Why do I tell this story now? Because Neo Prohibitionist like Stanton Glantz have ramped up their Bovine Excrement about dual use. Of course he will dismiss my story as anecdotal evidence and that is true, but you would be hard pressed to find a single user that didn’t have a marked improvement in health. And most of what he puts out doesn’t even come close to passing a logic sniff test. More on that later. First before we start you have to know about the different kinds of studies. Here is an article on the different types of studies and the strength and weaknesses of each with randomized control studies being the gold standard and observational being the least reliable. Health News Review wrote about a letter in JAMA internal medicine called Weak reporting of limitations of observational research in it they said.

“A research letter in this week’s JAMA Internal Medicine addresses an issue that has become a pet peeve of ours: the failure of medical journal articles, journal news releases, and subsequent news releases, to address the limitations of observational studies. Observational studies, although important, cannot prove cause-and-effect; they can show statistical association but that does not necessarily equal causation. . . “

From the actual letter.

Here’s what they found:

“Any study limitation was mentioned in 70 of 81 (86%) source article Discussion sections, 26 of 48 (54%) accompanying editorials, 13 of 54 (24%) journal press releases, 16 of 81 (20%) source article abstracts (of which 9 were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine), and 61 of 319 (19%) associated news stories. An explicit statement that causality could not be inferred was infrequently present: 8 of 81 (10%) source article Discussion sections, 7 of 48 (15%) editorials, 2 of 54 (4%) press releases, 3 of 81 (4%) source article abstracts, and 31 of319 (10%) news stories contained such statements.”

They close with.

We’ve written about dozens and dozens of examples of news stories and other media messages that have failed to address the limitations of observational studies, thereby misleading the public.

We’ve criticized major medical journal news releases for doing so – The BMJ and The Lancet, for example.

For years, we’ve posted a primer on this site for journalists, news release writers and the general public, to help them understand the limitations.  The primer is entitled, “Does the Language Fit the Evidence? Association Versus Causation.”

The exaggeration should stop.  Observational studies play an important role.  But communicators should not try to make them more than what they are.

So what is an observational study? it’s basically a collection of anecdotal evidence usually gathered from surveys or questioners. These studies are presented as a range of numbers and supposedly there’s usually a 95% chance that the number falls within that range. 1 is considered null meaning no statistical significance. Less then one means the opposite or usually a protective effect. With that in mind we will go to one of Stanton’s recent blog posts entitled ” More evidence that dual use is worse than smoking”

In the blog he repeats his diatribe about the gateway effect which defies logic since even t t he height of the so called youth epidemic teen smoking is at historic lows. From his blog.

“This finding is consistent with the existing literature on respiratory effects of e-cigarettes. It is also particularly important because they found that dual use was twice as prevalent as people solely using e-cigarettes (2.7% vs 1.4%). In other words, most people who are using e-cigarettes are not “switching completely” from cigarettes, but simply adding e-cigarettes to their cigarette smoking.

While the study does not address why most people are dual users, it is likely that the youth in the sample started with e-cigarettes and then added cigarettes (the gateway effect) and the adults were smokers who tried e-cigarettes an unsuccessful smoking cessation device and ended up dual users.”

But he also linked to his own study which is not behind a paywall.

If you look at the conclusions of the abstract they are quite telling. No mention of confounders or limitation. It’s stated as if it were a fact.

“Conclusions: Use of e-cigarettes is an independent risk factor for respiratory disease in addition to combustible tobacco smoking. Dual use, the most common use pattern, is riskier than using either product alone.”

You actually have to read the whole study to get the limitations.

Limitations

Several respiratory conditions were combined to obtain enough events to achieve adequate power. For the same reason, this study did not distinguish between daily and non-daily product use and included both established (smoked >100 cigarettes) and experimenters in the “former smoker” group.

There is a possibility of recall bias because use of e-cigarettes, conventional cigarettes, and other combustible tobacco products were self-reported as were clinical conditions. Participants with respiratory diseases might over-report e-cigarette, conventional cigarette, and other combustible tobacco use. There is also possibility of recall bias because doctor diagnoses of lung or respiratory diseases is reported by respondents rather than being based on actual hospital records but the questions. . .

CONCLUSIONS

Current use of e-cigarettes appears to be an independent risk factor for respiratory disease in addition to all combustible tobacco smoking. Although switching from combustible tobacco, including cigarettes, to e-cigarettes could theoretically reduce the risk of developing respiratory disease, current evidence indicates a high prevalence of dual use, which is associated with increased risk beyond combustible tobacco use. In addition, for most smokers, using an e-cigarette is associated with lower odds of successfully quitting smoking.^4,37 E-cigarettes should not be recommended.

Of course the highlighted blocks are mine with the so called lower odds of successfully quitting to be addressed later as it pertains to another of his recent blog posts. Remember I said the more I vaped the less I smoked and the better my lung function was. I now walk miles with no problem. Also remember that clinical studies are the gold standard and much more reliable. So who’s anecdotal evidence is more convincing mine or his? Here’s where you have to apply a little logic. If you reduce a very risky behavior with a significantly less risky behavior logic would dictate that the resulting risk would be somewhere in between the high risk activity and the lowered risk activity, but he would have you believe that those magic ecigs magnify the risk. But thankfully real science says otherwise. Actual studies on actual COPD patients. Health effects in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes: a retrospective-prospective 3-year follow-up

” Results: Complete data were available from 44 patients. Compared to baseline in the EC-user group, there was a marked decline in the use of conventional cigarettes. Although there was no change in lung function, significant improvements in COPD exacerbation rates, CAT scores, and 6MWD were observed consistently in the EC user group over the 3-year period (p<0.01). Similar findings were noted in COPD EC users who also smoked conventional cigarettes (“dual users”).
Conclusion: The present study suggests that EC use may ameliorate objective and subjective COPD outcomes and that the benefits gained may persist long-term. EC use may reverse some of the harm resulting from tobacco smoking in COPD patients.”

But then Stanton believes that the magic in these vaping devices are so powerful that they double your chances of having a heart attack before you ever use them.

So exactly why could the survey that Stanton use be so far off? Easy, now we get to the FUD. The weekend before last I was watching a movie and was bombarded with this ad 9 times during the movie.

Do some ecigarettes have heavy metals in them Yes! You know what else does? Air! and also inhalable Pharmaceuticals, Can you imagine if the ad said Big Pharma was trying to kill you by putting heavy metals in your asthma inhaler? What is never mentioned is dose. As Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos points out.

“Dr Farsalinos said: “The “significant amount” of metals the authors reported they found were measured in ug/kg. In fact they are so low that for some cases (chromium and lead) I calculated that you need to vape more than 100 ml per day in order to exceed the FDA limits for daily intake from inhalational medications.”

Don’t believe him? This is from the FDA’s own website.

And then of course one of my personal favorites.

Of course if Nicotine damaged the adolescent’s brain there would be millions of us brain damaged Baby Boomers running around. And what kind of studies to they show to prove it? Brain fog? Vaping Could Cloud Your Thoughts

We’ve seen it in numerus ads and articles but there’s a limitation here that is never mentioned. From the article.

“While the URMC studies clearly show an association between vaping and mental function, it’s not clear which causes which. It is possible that nicotine exposure through vaping causes difficulty with mental function. But it is equally possible that people who report mental fog are simply more likely to smoke or vape – possibly to self-medicate.”

It’s easy to predict the outcome of this study since it’s long been known that people with mental disorders use nicotine. And according to the CDC almost 10% of the youth suffer from ADHD And what do they prescribe for it? Stimulants like methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamine-based stimulants (Adderall). And of course there are advantages to self medicating since you can dose as needed. But studies have been done on non smoking young adults using nicotine patches. Acute nicotine improves cognitive deficits in young adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

“Methods: 15 non-smoking young adults (20+/-1.7 years) diagnosed with ADHD-C received acute nicotine (7 mg patch for 45 min) and placebo on separate days. Cognitive tasks included the Stop Signal Task, Choice Delay task, and the High-Low Imagery Task (a verbal recognition memory task). Three subjects experienced side effects and their data was excluded from analysis of cognitive measures.

Results: There was a significant (p<.05) positive effect of nicotine on the Stop Signal Reaction Time measure of the Stop Signal Task. The SSRT was improved without changes in GO reaction time or accuracy. There was a trend (p=.09) for nicotine to increase tolerance for delay and a strong trend (p=.06) for nicotine to improve recognition memory.

Conclusions: Non-smoking young adults with ADHD-C showed improvements in cognitive performance following nicotine administration in several domains that are central to ADHD. The results from this study support the hypothesis that cholinergic system activity may be important in the cognitive deficits of ADHD and may be a useful therapeutic target.”

And of course these ads are not aimed at children, they laugh at them. Remember they are at the age where they eat spoonful’s of cinnamon and tide pods. Am I saying our youth are dumber then previous generations, nope. My generation ate live goldfish and sparked up a doobie laughing at the “This is your Brain” ads. So why would they target these ads towards adults? To gin up support for legislation denying these products from adults in the same way they did for smoking.

Clive Bates former head of ASH – Action on Smoking and Health Brought this up in his response to Stanton’s FUD. when he wrote Vaping risk compared to smoking: challenging a false and dangerous claim by Professor Stanton Glantz almost two years ago. It is a must read if you want to dissect Stanton’s FUD.

A paper on risk perceptions has disturbing results

The story starts with a report in JAMA Open that confirms what we already knew: (1) that a majority of the American public believes that e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than cigarettes and; (2) only a small proportion believe, correctly, that they are much less harmful than cigarettes.  Not only that, the accuracy of public perception is deteriorating and the misunderstandings are becoming more pronounced over time. This deterioration is happening despite hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants and despite FDA recognition of a ‘continuum of risk’ in nicotine delivery products.

Our analysis revealed a consistent pattern and a change in perceived relative harm of e-cigarettes among US adults in both surveys, which showed that a large proportion of US adults perceived e-cigarettes as equally or more harmful than cigarettes, and this proportion has increased substantially from 2012 to 2017.

Huang J, Feng B, Weaver SR, Pechacek TF, Slovic P, Eriksen MP. Changing Perceptions of Harm of e-Cigarette vs Cigarette Use Among Adults in 2 US National Surveys From 2012 to 2017. JAMA Netw Open. American Medical Association; 2019 Mar 29;2(3):e191047. [link]

He goes on to say that if Stanton gets his way we will never know the truth about the risks of vaping.

Response: if Professor Glantz is successful, we would never have the data.  Those playing up fears of unknown risks are not tirelessly striving to resolve the uncertainties or conducting the necessary studies. Professor Glantz, for example, backs outright bans on e-cigarettes even in situations where cigarettes continue to be on widespread sale.  Take as the recent ban in his institutional home town of San Francisco. As reported by Politico, 9th July 2019:

Stanton Glantz, director of UC San Francisco’s Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education and a strong anti-tobacco advocate, called the city ban “a totally brilliant way of a local government basically saying to the FDA and to Juul and the other e-cigarette companies that hey, we’ve got a law here and it should be followed.”

Professor Glantz favours outright bans pending FDA approval of individual vaping products (a process that will become mandatory in 2020) This approval regime is a highly disproportionate, expensive and burdensome process that will remove nearly all vaping products and most companies from the market. I have yet to see a single instance of Professor Glantz supporting the approval of a product or a relative-risk claim through the FDA’s regulatory system.  For some, regulatory barriers to entry are best if they are insurmountable: de facto prohibition.

Again it is a must read if you want the lowdown on Glantz. But it’s not just Glantz. They actually monitor how their FUD campaign is working.

If you notice they are not measuring how well they are doing reducing teen vaping or smoking, they are measuring how well their prohibitionist movement is going. From the poll.

(WTNH) — State lawmakers are negotiating the next two year state budget. We are told the decision to ban all flavored tobacco products is wrapped up in those talks. A new poll from Mellman Group says there is widespread support to ban not only flavored e-cigarettes and vapes, but also menthol cigarettes.

The survey of 600-voters found that:

• 64% believe the state should ban flavored e-cigs and vapes
• 30% say they disagree
• 6% say they don’t know

Pollsters say support for the ban crosses all demographic lines.

In the above picture it says Progressivism, that does not mean the Democrat party, Progressivism infected both parties early in the last century and it infects both parties today. Mitt Romney is a classic example of a modern progressive Republican. If you think the cartoon is far fetched you may want to remember the same Michael Bloomberg that is funding the anti vaping campaign also banned Big Gulps in New York City. You should also remember that Obesity kills more people then smoking so if they get away with this how soon will it be that you can’t get your favorite carbonated beverage, or candy ect after all it’s for the children.

The following video was done by a good friend and founder of NYC CLASH Audrey Silk about 8 years ago.

Now we get to the blog post where Stanton tells you to ignore the science, and if you must believe the science it should be taken over by “Big Pharma” because you can’t be trusted to quit on your own. CDC’s new mask guidance and why FDA CTP should not assume e-cigs help smokers quit in the real world

The clinical trials show that, under clinical supervision, e-cigs have efficacy as smoking cessation aids. At the same time, the population studies show that e-cigs are not effective for smoking cessation.

As we have pointed out in detail, it is the effectiveness standard that the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) should use when assessing whether authorizing the sale of e-cigarettes as consumer products in “appropriate for the protection of public health,” the standard in the law. . . . The lack of effectiveness in the population means that if the FDA CEDR were to approve e-cigarettes as a clinical cessation aid, it should require that they be used under prescription. Why? To increase the chances that they were used under the same conditions as the clinical trials (as with COVID vaccines). In particular, the lack of effectiveness of e-cigarettes as unsupervised consumer products means that they should not be approved for over-the-counter (unsupervised) use.

So basically what he’s saying is ignore real science (clinical trials) and believe his statistically manipulated (meta analysis) on a combination of clinical trials and observational studies. Shall we look at his study he cites? E-Cigarette Use and Adult Cigarette Smoking Cessation: A Meta-Analysis

Methods. We searched PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and EMBASE and computed the association of e-cigarette use with quitting cigarettes using random effects meta-analyses.

Results. We identified 64 papers (55 observational studies and 9 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). In observational studies of all adult smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.947; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.772, 1.160) and smokers motivated to quit smoking (OR = 0.851; 95% CI = 0.684, 1.057), e-cigarette consumer product use was not associated with quitting. Daily e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (OR = 1.529; 95% CI = 1.158, 2.019) and less-than-daily use was associated with less quitting (OR = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.402, 0.665). The RCTs that compared quitting among smokers who were provided e-cigarettes to smokers with conventional therapy found e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (relative risk = 1.555; 95% CI = 1.173, 2.061).

Conclusions. As consumer products, in observational studies, e-cigarettes were not associated with increased smoking cessation in the adult population. In RCTs, provision of free e-cigarettes as a therapeutic intervention was associated with increased smoking cessation.

Remember when I said when looking at these studies you have to look at The CI? I highlighted them in red. the only things that were statistically significant was:

Daily e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (OR = 1.529; 95% CI = 1.158, 2.019)

and less-than-daily use was associated with less quitting (OR = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.402, 0.665)

The RCTs that compared quitting among smokers who were provided e-cigarettes to smokers with conventional therapy found e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (relative risk = 1.555; 95% CI = 1.173, 2.061).

The rest had 1 in the CI and was statistically insignificant. But lets take this a step further, Meta analysis is totally unreliable on observational studies And Stanton Glantz knows it. Hell anecdotal evidence is more reliable. The only negative n the study is that if you don’t use it daily it won’t work? Use a little logic Stan. Again you flunked logic, Will the big pharma products you peddle work if you don’t use them daily? Didn’t the courts slam your use of Meta analysis in your first attempt at activism while you worked for the EPA. Even your Side kick there had the decency to admit it when he was the lead author of the SG report.

From Beware of Meta-analyses Bearing False Gifts.

Meta-analyses performed by strong advocates of a particular position in an ongoing controversy are at higher risk for bias. . . .

The interpretation of a meta-analysis is potentially subject to an author’s bias by what inclusion and exclusion criteria is selected, the type of statistical evaluation performed, decisions made on how to deal with disparities between the trials, and how the subsequent results are presented. 

Whether the conclusions of a meta-analysis are broad reaching or limited can be affected by the inherent bias that the author of the meta-analysis brings to the study.

Human nature dictates that each of us tends to find it more satisfying to confirm a previously held opinion, particularly a published opinion, rather than create an analysis that refutes our own prior conclusions. Hence, interpretive bias is even more likely to occur when a meta-analysis is conducted by an author with a strong particular viewpoint in an area of controversy. When the meta-analysis is conducted by a strong advocate of a particular position, it is more likely to be biased in concordance with the author’s previously advocated opinion.

From the SG report that your buddy Jonathan M. Samet, M.D page 21

Judge William
L. Osteen, Sr., in the North Carolina Federal District
Court criticized the approach EPA had used to select
studies for its meta-analysis and criticized the use of 90
percent rather than 95 percent confidence intervals for
the summary estimates (Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative
Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 857 F. Supp. 1137 [M.D.N.C. 1993]). In
December 2002, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
threw out the lawsuit on the basis that tobacco companies
cannot sue the EPA over its secondhand smoke
report because the report was not a final agency action
and therefore not subject to court review (Flue-Cured
Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 98-2407
[4th Cir., December 11, 2002], cited in 17.7 TPLR 2.472
[2003]).
Recognizing that there is still an active discussion
around the use of meta-analysis to pool data
from observational studies (versus clinical trials),
the authors of this Surgeon General’s report used
this methodology to summarize the available data
when deemed appropriate and useful, even while
recognizing that the uncertainty around the metaanalytic
estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated
by conventional statistical indices, because of
biases either within the observational studies or produced
by the manner of their selection.

To any would be vapor or dual user, remember every cigarette not smoked is harm reduction, and as Stanton says if you don’t use it it won’t work.

A frequent question in the group is which is the best coil, and some get frustrated when they don’t get an exact answer “this one”. In this post I will try to explain why there isn’t an exact answer.  Before I give my opinion on each coil I have to qualify with my vaping journey and how I got to my style of vaping, then I will give my opinion on each coil and who they may appeal to. This is just my opinion, someone like Phil who has a different vape style will have a different opinion.

Long before I started vaping I tried smoking a pipe to skirt the ever increasing abusive taxes including the hidden abusive MSA tax. Two things in smoking a pipe was a major annoyance to me. One was the constant primer puffs to keep it lit. The second was the fact that you had to carry multiple pipes as condensation would build up and you would get a mouthful of built up condensate,  not a pleasant experience.

There is no direct one to one experience between vaping and smoking. There are trade offs. When you smoke cigarettes other then when you light them there are no primer puffs. It’s puff inhale, puff inhale.  In the early days of vaping most box mods had between a 0.3 to 0.5 second delay. So your choices were puff, puff, puff inhale or learn how to direct lung. I found the first annoying and unacceptable. Even though the delay is all but gone you still have to take a primer puff or two to get a warm and saturated vape with a good throat hit. In the group I’ve frequently called myself a tweener. I still like it tight. I like it between a loose MTL and a medium RDL depending on the flavor. Yes flavor also makes a difference on coil choice. It’s a balancing act between power and airflow to get the best flavor. Power because different flavors come through at different temperatures.  That is why you may get one flavor on the inhale and another on the exhale. If your vaping style is similar to mine you should find this helpful.  On to the coils that I have used or tested.

1.6 ohm round wire. Best suited for a proper (tight) Mouth to Lung. When the airflow is tight after one or two primer puffs you get a great warm puff with great throat hit and flavor. With a loose MTL (mouth to lung) or RDL (restricted direct lung) I find it lacking in temperature and throat hit. If you were a light cigarette smoker it may appeal to you in this mode.

1.2 ohm. Never tested but expect it would be similar to the 1.6.

0.48 and 0.5 ohm plex. These are kind of a cross between a notch coil and a mesh coil, they have a faster ramp up then round wire and more vapor production. This coil gives you a very warm “proper” MTL and a fairly warm loose MTL- tight RDL and would suit people who like loose MTL users. I like this one with lighter flavors like fruit flavors. Because of the fast ramp up I don’t like them where the predominant flavors are dark, like coffees.

0.8 ohm my personal favorite with dark flavors in loose MTL/ tight RDL at lower wattage it has a long enough ramp up for the dark notes to come through. At the higher watt range it’s good for the other flavors.

1.0 ohm this coil produces a warm loose MTL through medium RDL and works well with darker flavors.

0.3 ohm plex. Like the earlier plex it has a super fast ramp up, didn’t like it when all of the flavor notes were dark like coffee with caramel, but one of my none all day vapes is a caramel apple by five pawns. The caramel was slightly muted for a break in of about a quarter of a tank, but the juice never tasted better. The apple was crisp and sharp with enough caramel to complement it. Also it lasted about three days longer then the 1.0 ohm. This coil is strictly a RDL coil in my opinion. It is way too warm for even a loose MTL.

This is my opinion on all the z-coils and why no one can tell you (x) is the best coil.