5 ms·

I can't read this article without shuddering. It sounds completely hysterical about kids using what is considered a smoking cessation tool, that is not proven t

by Udik 8y ago

I can't read this article without shuddering. It sounds completely hysterical about kids using what is considered a smoking cessation tool, that is not proven to cause any harm, and that delivers varying, but usually pretty low, if not zero, amounts of nicotine. The solution? Prescribing other drugs to these kids (as if there are any that actually work against smoking, except the very one they're trying to gegt them off).

mistermann 8y ago
> I can't read this article without shuddering. It's a wonderful example of fake news, using clever (but technically true, if someone ever called them on it) language to persuade people to be scared.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  No, this is not fake news, and is completely unrelated to fake news. It is editorialized, perhaps, but nowhere close to fake. The fact that the sweet potato in chief uses "fake news" to mean "news I don't like" doesn't mean that the rest of us should adopt that definition.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    > The fact that the sweet potato in chief uses "fake news" to mean "news I don't like" doesn't mean that the rest of us should adopt that definition. What is the proper definition of fake news? For me it means news that is presented as true fact but is not, or writing that forms an impression that is not conclusive based on known facts. If it's some propaganda website I don't give it much thought, but this CNN which many people claim is respectable, and the source organization is the FDA. Just a few examples: > A few years ago, it would've been incredible to me that we would be here today discussing the potential for drug therapy to help addicted young people quit Is the addictive nature of smoking the reason why we discourage it's use? > The agency announced in November that vaping had increased nearly 80% among high schoolers and 50% among middle schoolers since the year before. Percentages starting from a low base are misleading. Were the actual numbers omitted for persuasive reasons? > Experts worry that the devices could put kids' developing brains at risk... "Worry"? Is this based on scientific studies? > ...get them hooked on nicotine early in life and be a gateway to smoking and other drugs. Is this based on scientific studies? > But, the long-term effects aren't clear. Neither are the short term effects. A more correct way to say it is: we don't know, what we're saying is pure speculation. > "The FDA has concluded that the level of addiction it is seeing among youthful e-cigarette users is so disturbing and so unprecedented... Why is it disturbing? Why does it matter if it is "unprecedented"? > ...that it needs to at least ask whether we need a solution that goes beyond what we ever did with cigarettes," Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, previously told CNN. I'm not following the logic of why anything "needs" to be done. > Medical experts say there is an urgent need for research on using therapies to treat kids who are addicted to nicotine. Is this "urgent need" based on science? > According to experts, most of what we know about nicotine addiction in teens, we know from cigarettes. But the technology and chemistry of vaping might pose an entirely different threat. "Might". > "These products deliver very high levels of nicotine, meaning that even brief experimentation is likely to put adolescents at risk for long-term dependence," "likely...at risk" - this one is fantastic because it has two levels of uncertainty, yet still communicates fear to those who lack (or choose not to exercise) critical thinking skills. And again: is this vague claim based on science? > "Clinicians urgently require new solutions to safely and effectively help stop them using these and all tobacco products for good," said Tanski Why? > "Preventing youth use in the first place should be FDA's primary goal," she said. Why? Taxpayers pay for this, they have a right to ask such questions. > "We must all recognize that if an adolescent has developed a nicotine addiction as a result of vaping, we've already failed." Is preventing nicotine dependence even part of the mandate of the FDA? If so, why? I'm rather skeptical about any "news" written in this style, especially when it comes from an institution like the FDA who we are told(?) are fact-based and work at arms lengths from corporate influence (there are several billion dollar industries with conflicting interests in this topic).
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      Sounds like you disagree with the author about the implications of the news. So read from a paper with a different editorial angle. Having different political opinions than the author doesn't make it fake. As to your question, fake news is news that is fake. Made up, fabricated. Here are some examples of fake news. Nancy Pelosi was thrown out of the House for being drunk. http://archive.is/CNjNG http://archive.is/CNjNG President Trump donated a billion dollars to the border wall http://archive.fo/dnstc http://archive.fo/dnstc The Democratic Party of Arizona revealed to be a front for a child sex trafficking ring. https://archive.fo/D8w9E https://archive.fo/D8w9E The NFL has banned the national anthem. https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2016/06/13321907_10153473208681020_8258419925018776225_n.jpg https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2016/06/13321907_101534732086... Obama banned 4th of July fireworks. https://www.truthorfiction.com/4th-july-fireworks-canceled-due-terrorism-fears/ https://www.truthorfiction.com/4th-july-fireworks-canceled-d... Pokemon's creator admits the game was invented to promote satanism. http://www.p4rgaming.com/pokemon-creator-admits-games-aimed-towards-satanists/ http://www.p4rgaming.com/pokemon-creator-admits-games-aimed-... George HW Bush was indicted post mortem for human trafficking (this one is weird) https://www.docdroid.net/S6vrLhN/hv1-indictment-george-herbert-walker-bush-gold-laundering-human-trafficking.pdf https://www.docdroid.net/S6vrLhN/hv1-indictment-george-herbe... The UN is taking direct control of all American cities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxWj0LySPB4&app=desktop&fbclid=IwAR1chSS4vAHfYTjLBdbct7Jcw45uyX9TlDhITj7IAc9WSduW3qzkjOekgRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxWj0LySPB4&app=desktop&fbcl... Chinese artillery is shelling the US west coast: San Diego and Tacoma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-unBq8QCqCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-unBq8QCqCU It's not so much of an issue any more, but crap like this was ALL over the internet in 2015 and 2016, especially in conservative circles on Facebook. I lived in a heavily Republican area at the time, and had a lot of conservative friends who got taken in by it, and some of them never broke out of it, still believing that Snopes is a Jewish NWO front or whatever else the Macedonian huxters told them with an authoritative-looking website.
      - mistermann 8y ago
        > As to your question, fake news is news that is fake. I believe that is called a tautology? The examples you give are examples of "a" form of fake news, but as far as I know there is no formal definition of it. My understanding is that a democrat coined the phrase to describe the type of fake news spouted by Republicans (your examples), it was then co-opted by Trump to describe news that implies something that is not based on actual facts, but rather uses clever narrative and specific word choices not to inform, but to persuade without technically lying. That's what this article is and once you learn the techniques and start reading with an eye out for them, you'll see how common this tactic is in today's media. If not read with a skeptical eye, this kind of article leaves the reader with a false impression of risk, and the article is based on statements from FDA officials that also communicate a false impression of risk. Perhaps I'll forgive a CNN reporter for stretching the truth a little (their livelihood is based on attracting attention, desperate times call for desperate measures and all that), but I think it's fair to hold an FDA commissioner to a higher standard, don't you think?

by Udik 8y ago

mistermann 8y ago

> I can't read this article without shuddering. It's a wonderful example of fake news, using clever (but technically true, if someone ever called them on it) language to persuade people to be scared.

hannasanarion 8y ago
No, this is not fake news, and is completely unrelated to fake news. It is editorialized, perhaps, but nowhere close to fake. The fact that the sweet potato in chief uses "fake news" to mean "news I don't like" doesn't mean that the rest of us should adopt that definition.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > The fact that the sweet potato in chief uses "fake news" to mean "news I don't like" doesn't mean that the rest of us should adopt that definition. What is the proper definition of fake news? For me it means news that is presented as true fact but is not, or writing that forms an impression that is not conclusive based on known facts. If it's some propaganda website I don't give it much thought, but this CNN which many people claim is respectable, and the source organization is the FDA. Just a few examples: > A few years ago, it would've been incredible to me that we would be here today discussing the potential for drug therapy to help addicted young people quit Is the addictive nature of smoking the reason why we discourage it's use? > The agency announced in November that vaping had increased nearly 80% among high schoolers and 50% among middle schoolers since the year before. Percentages starting from a low base are misleading. Were the actual numbers omitted for persuasive reasons? > Experts worry that the devices could put kids' developing brains at risk... "Worry"? Is this based on scientific studies? > ...get them hooked on nicotine early in life and be a gateway to smoking and other drugs. Is this based on scientific studies? > But, the long-term effects aren't clear. Neither are the short term effects. A more correct way to say it is: we don't know, what we're saying is pure speculation. > "The FDA has concluded that the level of addiction it is seeing among youthful e-cigarette users is so disturbing and so unprecedented... Why is it disturbing? Why does it matter if it is "unprecedented"? > ...that it needs to at least ask whether we need a solution that goes beyond what we ever did with cigarettes," Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, previously told CNN. I'm not following the logic of why anything "needs" to be done. > Medical experts say there is an urgent need for research on using therapies to treat kids who are addicted to nicotine. Is this "urgent need" based on science? > According to experts, most of what we know about nicotine addiction in teens, we know from cigarettes. But the technology and chemistry of vaping might pose an entirely different threat. "Might". > "These products deliver very high levels of nicotine, meaning that even brief experimentation is likely to put adolescents at risk for long-term dependence," "likely...at risk" - this one is fantastic because it has two levels of uncertainty, yet still communicates fear to those who lack (or choose not to exercise) critical thinking skills. And again: is this vague claim based on science? > "Clinicians urgently require new solutions to safely and effectively help stop them using these and all tobacco products for good," said Tanski Why? > "Preventing youth use in the first place should be FDA's primary goal," she said. Why? Taxpayers pay for this, they have a right to ask such questions. > "We must all recognize that if an adolescent has developed a nicotine addiction as a result of vaping, we've already failed." Is preventing nicotine dependence even part of the mandate of the FDA? If so, why? I'm rather skeptical about any "news" written in this style, especially when it comes from an institution like the FDA who we are told(?) are fact-based and work at arms lengths from corporate influence (there are several billion dollar industries with conflicting interests in this topic).
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    Sounds like you disagree with the author about the implications of the news. So read from a paper with a different editorial angle. Having different political opinions than the author doesn't make it fake. As to your question, fake news is news that is fake. Made up, fabricated. Here are some examples of fake news. Nancy Pelosi was thrown out of the House for being drunk. http://archive.is/CNjNG http://archive.is/CNjNG President Trump donated a billion dollars to the border wall http://archive.fo/dnstc http://archive.fo/dnstc The Democratic Party of Arizona revealed to be a front for a child sex trafficking ring. https://archive.fo/D8w9E https://archive.fo/D8w9E The NFL has banned the national anthem. https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2016/06/13321907_10153473208681020_8258419925018776225_n.jpg https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2016/06/13321907_101534732086... Obama banned 4th of July fireworks. https://www.truthorfiction.com/4th-july-fireworks-canceled-due-terrorism-fears/ https://www.truthorfiction.com/4th-july-fireworks-canceled-d... Pokemon's creator admits the game was invented to promote satanism. http://www.p4rgaming.com/pokemon-creator-admits-games-aimed-towards-satanists/ http://www.p4rgaming.com/pokemon-creator-admits-games-aimed-... George HW Bush was indicted post mortem for human trafficking (this one is weird) https://www.docdroid.net/S6vrLhN/hv1-indictment-george-herbert-walker-bush-gold-laundering-human-trafficking.pdf https://www.docdroid.net/S6vrLhN/hv1-indictment-george-herbe... The UN is taking direct control of all American cities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxWj0LySPB4&app=desktop&fbclid=IwAR1chSS4vAHfYTjLBdbct7Jcw45uyX9TlDhITj7IAc9WSduW3qzkjOekgRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxWj0LySPB4&app=desktop&fbcl... Chinese artillery is shelling the US west coast: San Diego and Tacoma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-unBq8QCqCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-unBq8QCqCU It's not so much of an issue any more, but crap like this was ALL over the internet in 2015 and 2016, especially in conservative circles on Facebook. I lived in a heavily Republican area at the time, and had a lot of conservative friends who got taken in by it, and some of them never broke out of it, still believing that Snopes is a Jewish NWO front or whatever else the Macedonian huxters told them with an authoritative-looking website.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      > As to your question, fake news is news that is fake. I believe that is called a tautology? The examples you give are examples of "a" form of fake news, but as far as I know there is no formal definition of it. My understanding is that a democrat coined the phrase to describe the type of fake news spouted by Republicans (your examples), it was then co-opted by Trump to describe news that implies something that is not based on actual facts, but rather uses clever narrative and specific word choices not to inform, but to persuade without technically lying. That's what this article is and once you learn the techniques and start reading with an eye out for them, you'll see how common this tactic is in today's media. If not read with a skeptical eye, this kind of article leaves the reader with a false impression of risk, and the article is based on statements from FDA officials that also communicate a false impression of risk. Perhaps I'll forgive a CNN reporter for stretching the truth a little (their livelihood is based on attracting attention, desperate times call for desperate measures and all that), but I think it's fair to hold an FDA commissioner to a higher standard, don't you think?