Once in a while, a good product comes along and you think it’s something for keeps. But then, business is a risky game; a lot of deals transpire behind the curtains and under the table. If you are a smoker wanting to quit for good, you must be eyeing a smoke cessation device touted to have succeeded where other devices failed. Your doctor recommended it and many American and European health experts find it a less risky alternative. Current studies revealed that it contains less nicotine, and the fact that it is not burning tobacco, it eliminates the carcinogens in the smoke being pumped into the lungs and ambient air.
You’re all ready to try it; until new opposition starts arising again, this time, in an intricate alliance between the World Health Organization (WHO), the American Health Association (AHA) and the American Lung Association (ALA). They are calling for tighter restrictions. It is hard not to take their word for it. After all, they have the public health and interest close to their hearts.
When respectable oncologists, cardiologists and tobacco experts, however, come out publicly to voice a different opinion, you know something’s not right. While the battle rages between the health organizations and the experts, the consumers watched helplessly. Meanwhile, smoking and deaths by the millions around the world continue. Something indeed is not right!
What are these three powerful health watchdogs saying?
The WHO Stand
The World Health Organization released a report last August 20114 encouraging regulation of e-cigarettes and other products collectively called ENDS. While this body acknowledges that e-cigarettes represent an “evolving frontier filled with promise and threat for tobacco control,” there is a need for its regulation.
Regulation is called for in order to deter young- and non-smokers from being lured by its ads, minimize its potential risks on public health, prohibit untested claims and benefits, and protect current tobacco control efforts from being manipulated by parties with vested interests. Along these lines, WHO calls for more research on various areas, and stricter restrictions on E-Cigarettes’ manufacture, sale and advertising, and use.
Many American and European health experts don’t agree to WHO’s report. About 50 experts voiced their opinion through a letter. Cardiologist Dr. Carlo Cipolla of the European Institute of Oncology, said, “Saying no to electronic cigarettes is a criminal act, a form of medieval scientific obscurantism that we do not expect from either the World Health Organisation (WHO) or the ISS (Italy’s national health institute).” When asked about Italy’s ISS support to WHO, he gave this remark, “… even the ISS employs unqualified bureaucrats…”
The AHA Stand
Coronary heart disease is one of those diseases that are smoke-related. It is reasonable to assume that AHA will support E-Cigarettes since it can significantly reduce the number of these cases and deaths. In a policy statement, it admits that electronic cigarettes are safer than smoking and that second-hand smoke has less toxic components, yet AHA took the opposite stand by advocating for E-Cigs’ increased taxes and for its inclusion in smoke-free laws.
AHA bumbled concerns similar to WHO. In retrospect, what you can see is an organization struggling with conflicting ideas. They can’t afford to sound like halfwits so they have to admit that E-Cigarettes are safer. They maintain that there can be unknown damaging effects in the long run, yet without a good device to help quitters, there will be more deaths.
The ALA Stand
Like the AHA, the American Lung Association is another organization that is expected to show strong advocacy for E-Cigarettes. There are evidences that ALA may have a hidden agenda. For instance, ALA refuses to admit the results of newer scientific studies that prove electronic cigarettes are healthy alternatives to tobacco smoking. It prefers to cite obsolete studies to justify their position. What makes you suspicious is the way ALA formed a stand against electronic cigarettes without even waiting for more information to support their position.
The question is: Why would a health organization, such as ALA, blatantly disregard results of scientific studies and established e-cigarette benefits that can reduce lung cancer? If, indeed ALA is trying to advance lung health, then what’s stopping them from supporting a product that can help quitters? If you are looking for an answer, try paying a visit to ALA’s website list of donors page.