Questions about the Electronic Cigarette Association

[LaceyUnderall]

You know I see responses to almost everything from the ECA when someone comes to call them out on a subject and yet on this subject there is no trying to refute my argument. Could this be because they have read what I said and are now thinking to themselves "Hey we did screw the pooch on this one." Or is it that they are afraid to respond to my accusations of the ECA actually being a fraud. Like I said ban me if you want because of my discrediting the ECA I really don't care. But I will continue to point out their failures and will continue my crusade to ensure that they do not steal any more money from ANYONE. The ECA is a joke. If someone who isn't an actual integral part of the ECA can get it right why can't an organization who's main focus is protect our right to vape getting it so wrong? Come on ECA. Where are you? I seen Lacey all over the board and she is a major advocate for the ECA. Where's the response? Why are you failing even more as I type this? ECA will continue to rip you off and do nothing. That statement they issued concerning the FDA is even more proof that they are just there to rip you off.

There's lots to do. It's not that your thoughts and comments are being ignored, actually, I have read every word. I just happen to disagree with everything you have written. I am sorry you feel the way you do.

The ECA is working diligently to do what needs to be done.

EDIT: I also wanted to ad that tanner made a good point to me yesterday regarding the association fighting back against the scientific data. As we are a trade association, it would be far better to have a medical professional, who supports the ECA, fight back against the scientific validity of the FDA study. I happen to agree. So, the focus right now, is making such an event happen, as quickly and as fashionably as possible so that it has the greatest impact it possibly can.

[lvlninety9]

There's lots to do. It's not that your thoughts and comments are being ignored, actually, I have read every word. I just happen to disagree with everything you have written. I am sorry you feel the way you do.

The ECA is working diligently to do what needs to be done.

EDIT: I also wanted to ad that tanner made a good point to me yesterday regarding the association fighting back against the scientific data. As we are a trade association, it would be far better to have a medical professional, who supports the ECA, fight back against the scientific validity of the FDA study. I happen to agree. So, the focus right now, is making such an event happen, as quickly and as fashionably as possible so that it has the greatest impact it possibly can.

You have every right to disagree with me and I have no qualms about it. But answer me this. Just what in the statement that the ECA gave in response to the bogus FDA study actually addresses it? How did that statement discredit anything they mentioned in their study? I have read through it and the only thing mentioned about their study was that is was to narrow and then left it at that. That's the equivalent of me saying you're wrong but just because I said so I don't have to prove it. I'm sorry but that just doesn't work. People see you say they are wrong they want to know why. You give no relevant facts to this point. And then go on to spout off about regulation and quality control.

As I've stated before yes those are definite concerns, but they do nothing to address the fact that the FDA is saying that electronic cigarettes are just as dangerous if not more then regular cigarettes. Just because you say so doesn't make it so unless you back it up. This day and age people want proof not words. That's why I'm saying that the ECA failed on every level to address this situation.

BTW if you don't agree with me, which is your right, then show me where I am wrong. I would LOVE to see this. You wanna argue facts with me that is more then welcome. But show me where the ECA properly addressed the study the FDA was at. Advertising that was discussed? Yeah ok you say that suppliers don't sell to minors yeah again no proof. And it was vaguely touched upon in the FDA report. They focused on dangers and you guys focused on regulation and QC. Laughable at best.

[LaceyUnderall]

address the fact that the FDA is saying that electronic cigarettes are just as dangerous if not more then regular cigarettes. Just because you say so doesn't make it so unless you back it up. This day and age people want proof not words.

And this is where it is tricky because the FDA did in fact say something, without proof, and the public did not ask for proof.

So now, the most important thing, is to be delicate when ripping the FDA study to shreds. Why? As we have found, many people still believe that the FDA has no outside interests but for public health and safety. Most of the general public is completely unaware the the FDA is not actually funded by the government, but by those who seek approval for their very own products!

In order to attack the FDA, one must be very calculated, not rushed AND have scientific data to back up what is being said. If we are to imbed a shred of doubt in the minds of everyday public regarding the FDA, then we have to make sure that it is scientifically valid so they do not see us as aggressors, but as having an actual valid point.

There was a study done by nJoy on their products by an independent, very respectable US lab and that study is going to be compared to the FDA study and then those findings will be released to the public in response to the FDA's comments. As it is nJoy's responsibility to defend their product, this is based on their timeline, not the ECA's.

I have been assured that this will happen immediately.

What we can't forget is that with every "doomsday" we have had, within one full week of that day, good things happened for our side. I am confident that if nJoy can present a scientific rebuttal and the ECA can back them up, then the scientific/health community will push forward even more persons who will back the ecig. We saw this happen when Lautenberg came out demanding the ecig be pulled from the market. From that event, we had Congressmen, Siegel, Nitzkin, Sweanor, and Godshall all stand up for us. (All strong anti-smoking advocates I might add.)

[lvlninety9]

Are you kidding me? No one asked for it? The e-cigarette community asked for it, we consumers are asking for it, suppliers are asking for it, the government is asking for it, the FDA and anti-smoking agencies are asking for it. How can you sit there and say no one asked for it?

And they did all this without proof? They did a study on almost 20 cartridges and are making claims about their contents that they found. Whether or not the allegations they are making are completely true they have their study to back it up. Flawed as it is because no one knows exactly how that study was done. They posted their information in a report and based their conclusions from this report. There have long since been studies done on NRT's and regular tobacco cigarettes everywhere. Someone at the ECA could have easily compiled this information and done a simple comparison to the NRT's and tobacco cigarettes. I agree this is a difficult time but come on. Nobody asked for it?
Everyone is asking for it so that we can prove our point.

I understand that Njoy is doing their own study, but come on. This isn't Njoy this is the ECA. The ECA dropped the ball on the whole FDA results which they easily could have used information already available about current NRT's and tobacco cigarettes. The fact that they chose to avoid this subject is again failure.

I understand that the ECA is only 3 months old but give me a break. Spikey is doing a better job at promoting our cause then the ECA is. And she is doing all this on her own time of her own will. This is someone that doesn't have the same financial support as the ECA and she has written statements and articles that are a thousand times better then what the ECA has produced. If you ask me I'd rather give my money to someone who is actually addressing the issues that come up and are not making lame excuses as to why they are talking about something else in a response. It doesn't cost money to obtain the reports on NRT's and tobacco cigarettes that are already out there. It just takes time to gather that information and produce a statement. If you weren't ready to produce such a statement then none should have been given at all because now it looks like you are grasping at straws and avoiding the subject at hand.

I might not be on the ECA favorites list, but I really don't care. You guys are making the ECA out to be con's who just want to rip you off with high application and membership fees and then in return give out a very poorly done seal. I understand that things cost money but to issue a statement with the facts that are already out there would have accomplished a lot more. It doesn't take thousands of dollars to look at those studies already done compare them to the FDA and point out their flaws. The ECA is a joke and honestly all the articles and tv appearances are a joke also. You guys accomplish nothing save taking peoples money. Stop ripping off suppliers and do something of value. Because so far all I see is garbage. And yes I do follow the ECA.

I get your little newsletter e mailed to me all the time and I see nothing but the same thing being done over and over again. Well guess what ECA it isn't working. I'm sure I'm not the only who feels this way. You need to change your tactics because right now the ECA is full of failure after failure. We are getting destroyed and the ECA who are supposed to advocate for us dance around the subject.

[LaceyUnderall]

Concerns noted and read.

There is really nothing I can say to encourage you to see things other than the way you do.

Again, I am sorry you feel this way.

[lvlninety9]

To be honest I like the idea of the ECA I just don't think they are doing as good a job as they could be. I mean you guys have high application fees and membership fees. While I disagree with the high fees I do also understand that the financial need is there. Again while I don't agree with this I see where the ECA is coming from on this. Maybe in the near future they will see the need to reduce some of these fees. Who knows.

Now as to my other concern, I feel that the ECA could be doing a better job. There's a thread on here that I'm sure has links to medical research and scientific studies as well. There's half of the statement to argue the FDA's findings right there. It just seems that given all the resources out there, that it isn't being put to good use.

As I've stated before I'm not against what the ECA stands for or what they are trying to accomplish, just from everything that I've read on here, the ECA website, and all the news articles I just really don't see it being accomplished. I'm sure I"m not the only one who sees this but I am definitely one to voice my opinion on the matter. Let me say that again. This is MY opinion on the matter and no one else. Agree with me if you wish disagree with me if you wish. That is your right.

I would just like to see something a little bit more definitive that moves us forward and not backward. The statement in rebuttal of the FDA study definitely did not move us forward or any closer the main goal of keeping e-cigarettes available for all.

[LaceyUnderall]

Lvl -

I assure you that every argument, study, fact etc that I have come across on this forum, other forums, and through my own research are all in the hands of the ECA and are being put to good use.

Thank you for your input.

[nveid]

With proper funding for the ECA could it not pay for its own third party testing of e cigarette cartridges, & juices out there for its own comparision in the campaign to save the ecigarettes? What is the ECA doing with its funding as is?

[LaceyUnderall]

Funding is currently going to:

1. Lobbying and contact building in Congress
2. Pursuing Media Leads
3. Implementing Manufacturing Processes

Testing could be upwards of the 6 figure range and based on the current funding, this could be a long way off.

[nveid]

Ok.. Has anyone even contacted labs to see how much thish would cost? I can see where long term studies would cost money but basic analysis, would they really cost that much? I'm gonna contact a view labs to get quotes on pricing so we can get a realisitic ideal at how much we're looking at.

Gonna start with validationinc, they say they are cost effective..

They advertise as lab testing for the following types of things:

Analytical Laboratory and Bioanalytical Laboratory

• Method Development and Assay Validation
• Product Development
• Cosmetics Testing
• USP Testing
• Raw Material Testing
• Analytical Testing
• Impurity Identification
• Liquid Chromatography Analysis
• Finished pharmaceutical products
• Gas Chromatography Analysis
• Method development activities to support de-formulation studies and determination of active/excipient ratios
• Method Development Phase I, II, III
• Release Testing
• Raw material and Excipients testing
• Proof of structure
• Identification and quantitation
• Establishment of purity as well as release
• Specification development for excipient-masking transformations
• Container-closure integrity evaluations
• Extractable/leachables determinations
• Establishment of purity as well as release
• Impurity Identification
• Reverse Engineering