Kim D. Petersen (@dabelstein) profile picture

President of @DADAFOdk, Director, Information Technology & Acting CFO for @INNCOorg. Programmer/consultant/syadmin, *ix/linux expert. Proud Vaper+Father.

Nørrebrogade, Vejle
Joined July 2010
Photo by Kim D. Petersen (@dabelstein)Photo by Kim D. Petersen (@dabelstein)Photo by Kim D. Petersen (@dabelstein)Photo by Kim D. Petersen (@dabelstein)Photo by Kim D. Petersen (@dabelstein)Photo by Kim D. Petersen (@dabelstein)Photo by Kim D. Petersen (@dabelstein)Photo by Kim D. Petersen (@dabelstein)Photo by Kim D. Petersen (@dabelstein)Photo by Kim D. Petersen (@dabelstein)
Kim D. Petersen retweeted
A Finnish TV ad for NRT (Nicotinell Fruitmint) keeps on airing. It shows a man picking a mango fruit from a tree. Voice-over says: "What if quitting smoking is just a flavor you haven't discovered yet?" They know that flavors matter and that adults like them.
3
14
1
30
608
"I have continued a dependence. I have stopped inhaling cigarette smoke. Both statements can be true, and the distinction between them is the point." The distinction is ENORMOUS. Millions of ex-smokers have been vaping for over 10 years. No study has EVER looked at them.
I smoked for 24 years. I have now been smoke-free for 14 years. I still use nicotine. Those three sentences should be straightforward. Yet put them together in a conversation about public health and someone will inevitably suggest that I have merely exchanged one problem for another, as though removing burning tobacco from the equation were a minor administrative adjustment. I have continued a dependence. I have stopped inhaling cigarette smoke. Both statements can be true, and the distinction between them is the point. The nicotine confusion machine works by making that distinction disappear.
3
9
1
27
516
Replying to @FDATobacco
So far, you have authorized only 11 nicotine vape devices ("e-cigarettes"). Less than 1% of the products that adults are currently using to avoid deadly cigarettes. Stop fretting about what you call an "illegal market" and start authorizing vapes to improve public health.
1
4
21
199
There is a quiet cruelty in speaking about a long-term smoker as though the years behind them have settled the years ahead. Their history matters. Previous attempts matter. So do their doubts about trying something different. But none of those things should become a reason to stop offering useful information or exploring realistic options. Tobacco harm reduction should preserve the possibility of change without promising a particular result. An alternative still needs evidence, scrutiny and an honest explanation of its remaining risks. The person deserves neither false reassurance nor the assumption that nothing will help. We should be especially careful with the phrase “someone like you”. It can describe circumstances, or it can quietly close a door. A person’s past deserves understanding. Their future deserves to remain open.
1
4
12
219
Kim D. Petersen retweeted
“Because the study was small and cross-sectional, it cannot show that vaping caused the differences observed.” Then why the f**k does the headline state categorically that vaping IS linked to lower vascular function??? This is shoddy, misleading disinformation which should be immediately retracted. The public deserves better. @Pharmacy_Times pharmacytimes.com/view/nicot…
4
8
32
635
Kim D. Petersen retweeted
One of my best campaigns, and the posters are still up at my local hospital over 10 years later
4
38
5
109
3,116
Kim D. Petersen retweeted
Two unparalleled storytellers with a shared conviction that each of us should have a say in how our own story end. GNU Sir Patrick Stewart
23
491
26
3,512
32,662
What they told us: "Teen vaping is epidemic!" Then teen vaping dropped 74% "It's a gateway to smoking!" Then teen smoking dropped 90% "They target teens!" Then teen use plummeted; adult use skyrocketed "Nicotine is highly addictive!" Then teen nicotine use dropped to a 50-yr low
4
20
1
47
940
Simon Chapman’s praise for airport smoking rooms comes with a troubling qualification. He values them as visible displays of how miserable smoking looks, reassuring passing adults and discouraging children. That deserves scrutiny. People managing nicotine dependence while travelling deserve consideration as people, rather than being valued for the cautionary spectacle they supposedly provide. Chapman is entitled to describe his impressions. But watching passengers through glass does not establish their emotional state, explain their circumstances or measure the effect on anyone walking past. His confidence that children would find the scene repellent remains an assumption. He presents no research demonstrating that viewing airport smoking rooms prevents smoking. The research he does cite answers a different question. The Australian study followed 1,348 adult smokers over approximately one week. It found associations between perceived social norms, embarrassment and quitting-related behaviours, including quit attempts. Those findings deserve acknowledgement. But an observational association cannot establish that deliberately increasing embarrassment causes successful quitting. Nor did this study demonstrate that airport smoking rooms produce sustained abstinence. Making an attempt and remaining smoke-free are different outcomes. Likewise, the finding that around 90% of smokers regretted starting came from a four-country survey using data collected in 2002. It establishes widespread regret; it does not establish that displaying people’s dependence to passing strangers helps them overcome it. Indeed, that finding raises a question Chapman leaves unanswered: if regret is already so widespread, what exactly is missing—more embarrassment, or more effective help? His article devotes considerable attention to how smokers appear to observers and remarkably little to what would help those smokers stop inhaling smoke. That omission matters when cessation research offers something more concrete than impressions through airport glass. Cochrane finds high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes improve smoking quit rates compared with nicotine replacement therapy. Vaping carries risks, and longer-term safety requires further research, but its effectiveness in helping adults stop smoking deserves serious attention. An airport could offer clear information about managing nicotine withdrawal during travel, access to appropriate cessation support and practical help for passengers who want it. Those are constructive responses to dependence. Protecting other passengers and workers from smoke is a legitimate objective. Whether an indoor smoking room adequately achieves that requires evidence about exposure and ventilation. Whether it helps people quit requires evidence about quitting. Neither question is answered by deciding that its occupants look sufficiently miserable. Chapman deserves credit for rejecting colleagues’ blanket opposition to smoking rooms. But his rationale turns an accommodation for people into an opportunity to make an example of them. Public health should measure its success by how many people escape smoking, rather than how effectively the people still smoking remind everyone else to feel grateful. simonchapman6.com/2026/10/26…
9
7
23
456
Kim D. Petersen retweeted
Hiding replies? If you need to resort to censorship, your position isn't strong. Folks should check the hidden replies and decide for themselves. You can do that from the three-dot menu and the 'show hidden replies' menu item.
3
3
15
811
Kim D. Petersen retweeted
Highly misleading. FDA has authorised two flavoured vapes, which are not available yet. Young people buy Chinese (not tobacco industry) flavoured vapes on the black market - created by FDA - and most would otherwise be smoking. Aren’t you meant to be about stopping cancer?
9
2
46
1,020
Kim D. Petersen retweeted
This is you on the right, right?
3
12
96
Cpl Visit is a fantastic example of Pratchetts writing: Starting with Omnians in Small Gods. A bloody and dark religion gets turned into a running joke about a man who just wants to give Sam Vimes a religious pamphlet! Nothing more than sublime!
1
59
Kim D. Petersen retweeted
💡 FUN FACT 2017–2025 Kun 0,3 % af nye statsborgere har fået en dom (95 ud af over 29.000) mod 1,7 % blandt folketingsmedlemmer. Det er næsten 6 gange så høj en andel blandt politikerne. 🤔 Måske skulle man feje for egen dør, før man peger fingre ad andre? #dkpol #dkmedier
2
17
4
67
2,341
Kim D. Petersen retweeted
They're shocked because the misinformation about vaping is widespread. You're doing the right thing, @aribindi. 👍 ourworldindata.org/vaping-vs…
Everytime I do a CABG on a smoker and tell them to vape instead of smoke if they can't quit, they're shocked- no one ever told them this. I don't get it, I thought using vaping to quit smoking is still good advice?
2
14
39
801
Congratulations Aylèn :)
Today is a day I will cherish. It's my first international presentation, and I'm presenting my research, "Environmental Impact of Vaping Devices: A Global Approach to Sustainability." (Investigación de 2025 que se logró gracias — project/research is financially supported by the Tobacco Harm Reduction Fellowship Program, delivered by Knowledge-Action-Change @GlobalStateTHR) I'm overjoyed and excited in a way that's hard to put into words: seeing a work born of rigor, ethics, and conviction cross borders and reach a global stage. At 2:20 PM, I'll be on the panel "Innovative Responses to Climate Change & Global Climate Policy" at the GTNF 2026 in Lisbon. There, I'll be speaking about sustainability, responsibility, and how harm reduction is also built on caring for the planet. I hope you'll join me live and online. I want you to be with me in this moment. Thank you for being part of this journey.
1
3
781
Kim D. Petersen retweeted
As the new Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction report shows, THR inexorably marches on, but the spectre of denial is ever present… clearingtheair.eu/en/post/as…
1
7
4
227
Kim D. Petersen retweeted
The latest Cochrane systematic review (version 11) looking at vaping for smoking cessation just dropped: cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi…
1
18
1
36
983