|motivation||? (FUD prerequsite?)|
E-cigs are now estimated possibly 70% more effective for smoking cessation than singular NRT. But who would've thought that user-friendly NRT invented for that very purpose might do that? (ToDo: note on efficacy drains: EVALI, harm exaggarations, f-bans, also: placebo effect, post-purchase commitment, etc.)
ANTZ groups remain adamant that this was part of a big conspiracy by the tobacco industry. Mostly because they assume this to undermine the TOTC and gateway fearmongering. (Not entirely clear why though. Those distractions would stand without science denial. For some reason TI/CTFK/Bloomberg made this foundational to their claims however.)
- Denounce science and reality
- Unapproved quitting option / no pharma revenue
- Visual misdiagnosis (looks like smoking still)
- Needle's eye: disregard harm reduction by focus on quit-only
- Disavow any redeeming values of e-cigs
- Cargo/formalistic retreat (delay via lower-quality FDA per-vendor reviews, rather than accepting class studies)
- Proclaim user-friendly NRT to be non-effective, while linear-dosing was evidence-based.
- Thought process?: NVP couldn't possibly work after TC-scaremongering should have deterred any switchers. (efficacy drains, but perhaps PPR motivation outweighs placebo effect still)
- 10% accidental quitters: TC sees those as transitions that come too easily, thus not proper quitting.
- denial-resentment: because the majority of smokers don't even want to quit, which is where e-cigs might particularly work - but TC sees it as further undermination of their efforts.
- E-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement treatment as harm reduction interventions for smokers who find quitting difficult: randomized controlled trial
- Lancet: Another public health catastrophe not overly interesting (just WHO parotting), but at least gives a hint as to the technical assumption: quitting not quick enough / betty ford fallacy?