Please keep up the FDA comments everybody! - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
Like Tree52Likes

Thread: Please keep up the FDA comments everybody!

  1. #11
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    dragonpuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the river and through the woods, Western NY
    Posts
    1,081

    Default

    My latest comment to the FDA:

    It has come to my attention that Judge Leon ruled that you are to replace those members of the Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) who have conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. It is now painfully clear to me (and many others as well) why the FDA feels it is necessary to treat all tobacco products as equally dangerous when this is clearly not the case and could prevent further reduction of smoking rates.

    I would ask that the FDA thoroughly revise the deeming regulations with advisement of the new members of TPSAC, taking into account all balanced scientific studies regarding harm reduction strategies. Despite the obvious catering to pharmaceutical corporations, the primary responsibility of the FDA is still to protect and improve public health and they are expected to do so.


    I came thisclose to telling them they should be ashamed of themselves

    "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." – Doctor Who

  2. #12
    Full Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dublin, Oh
    Posts
    78

    Default

    I have been submitting comments regularly. It seems the antz are as well there are hundreds of identical "stop marketing to kids, ban flavors" in there. In the sample I looked at probably 5 of these form letter comments to every 1 from those of us who support vapeing. Very annoying, but not suprised.
    dragonpuff and aikanae1 like this.

    CASAA Member. Join today casaa.org - vaping since 2009 now smoke free

  3. #13
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    dragonpuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the river and through the woods, Western NY
    Posts
    1,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roach52 View Post
    I have been submitting comments regularly. It seems the antz are as well there are hundreds of identical "stop marketing to kids, ban flavors" in there. In the sample I looked at probably 5 of these form letter comments to every 1 from those of us who support vapeing. Very annoying, but not suprised.
    I noticed that too... that's exactly why we need to make sure our voices are at least as loud.

    My local B&M are doing giveaways every day on facebook this month. For today, in order to enter your name in the drawing you have to comment how long you have been vaping. In the two hours since they posted there have been 166 comments. It doesn't sound like much offhand but when you read over the individual comments... each and every one of these people have cut back or quit smoking using electronic cigarettes. Every single one of those comments represents a life saved.

    Seeing that motivates me so much more to fight these regulations!
    aikanae1 likes this.

    "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." – Doctor Who

  4. #14
    Super Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    bigdancehawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Maybe somebody who understands logistic regression can help me with this.

    I'm working on a rebuttal to a physician's comment on the deeming regulation. His comment relies on a cross-sectional study of about 15,000 adolescents which reported: "Descriptive analyses show 3.2% of respondents had used e-cigarettes. E-cigarette use is significantly lower for females (adjusted odds ratio [OR], .70, non-Hispanic black youth (adjusted OR, .47), and Mexican American youth (adjusted OR, .56), and higher for those who smoke conventional cigarettes (adjusted OR, 58.44) or have friends who smoke (adjusted OR 2.38)."

    According to the abstract, "Among conventional cigarette smokers, neither desire to quit nor recent attempts is significantly associated with e-cigarette use. [the abstract contains no data supporting this statement] Conclusions: E-cigarette use is more common among certain adolescent subgroups than others and does not appear to be part of a cessation regimen among conventional cigarette smokers wishing to quit. More regulatory and prevention efforts are needed, especially for certain adolescent subpopulations."

    Here's a broken link to the abstract: http:**//www**.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24968185

    The actual study hasn't been published, so we can't read it, know who funded it, evaluate the credentials of those who performed it, know what conflicting interests they may have, determine who (if anyone) reviewed it, or learn anything about the methodology.

    But my question is this: I had the vague impression that adjusted odds ratios were for comparing two or more groups as in, for example, a clinical trial where you have one group given a particular drug and a control group given a placebo or some other drug. So, how do you translate an OR of 58.44 into a percentage or a probability? All I can figure out is that most of the kids who have ever tried an e-cigarette, even if just once in their life, are analog cigarette smokers.

    Regarding the part in bold: It may be that the study supports that conclusion, but I doubt it. It certainly isn't supported by the little bits of data in the abstract. And I find it hard to believe that none of the cigarette smokers had ever tried e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid, given the fact that that's what almost everybody uses them for.

    So, can anybody help an English major make sense of this so maybe I can shoot some holes in it?
    aikanae1 likes this.
    Please become an active CASAA member. "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.

  5. #15
    Ultra Member ECF Veteran DrMA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Seattle area
    Posts
    1,999
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    When vapers say we inadvertently quit smoking with vaping, despite having no intention to do so, these ANTZ will interpret it as «does not appear to be part of a cessation regimen». Rule#1 of junk science: *everything* can be claimed to support your predetermined conclusion.
    bigdancehawk, Jman8 and aikanae1 like this.
    The war against vaping continues: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/fda-regulations/
    Get involved: casaa.org

  6. #16
    Super Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    bigdancehawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrMA View Post
    When vapers say we inadvertently quit smoking with vaping, despite having no intention to do so, these ANTZ will interpret it as «does not appear to be part of a cessation regimen». Rule#1 of junk science: *everything* can be claimed to support your predetermined conclusion.
    Oh, you're absolutely right and there are many personal stories posted here and elsewhere by vapers who did just that. What I'm trying to focus on now is this doctor's statement that the study in question shows, “Adolescents do not use e-cigarettes as cessation aids, but rather use them in conjunction with conventional cigarettes (58-fold greater risk of use among smokers).”

    He got the "58-fold greater risk" from the adjusted OR of 58.44 that's in the study's abstract. Does an OR of 58.44 translate into 58 fold? I recall reading somewhere that odds ratios don't translate very well into probabilities, especially if the OR is a large number. In other words, if you're not careful, you can end up with a 500% probability that it will rain tomorrow.
    aikanae1 likes this.
    Please become an active CASAA member. "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.

  7. #17
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    dragonpuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the river and through the woods, Western NY
    Posts
    1,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdancehawk View Post
    Maybe somebody who understands logistic regression can help me with this.

    I'm working on a rebuttal to a physician's comment on the deeming regulation. His comment relies on a cross-sectional study of about 15,000 adolescents which reported: "Descriptive analyses show 3.2% of respondents had used e-cigarettes. E-cigarette use is significantly lower for females (adjusted odds ratio [OR], .70, non-Hispanic black youth (adjusted OR, .47), and Mexican American youth (adjusted OR, .56), and higher for those who smoke conventional cigarettes (adjusted OR, 58.44) or have friends who smoke (adjusted OR 2.38)."

    According to the abstract, "Among conventional cigarette smokers, neither desire to quit nor recent attempts is significantly associated with e-cigarette use. [the abstract contains no data supporting this statement] Conclusions: E-cigarette use is more common among certain adolescent subgroups than others and does not appear to be part of a cessation regimen among conventional cigarette smokers wishing to quit. More regulatory and prevention efforts are needed, especially for certain adolescent subpopulations."

    Here's a broken link to the abstract: http:**//www**.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24968185

    The actual study hasn't been published, so we can't read it, know who funded it, evaluate the credentials of those who performed it, know what conflicting interests they may have, determine who (if anyone) reviewed it, or learn anything about the methodology.

    But my question is this: I had the vague impression that adjusted odds ratios were for comparing two or more groups as in, for example, a clinical trial where you have one group given a particular drug and a control group given a placebo or some other drug. So, how do you translate an OR of 58.44 into a percentage or a probability? All I can figure out is that most of the kids who have ever tried an e-cigarette, even if just once in their life, are analog cigarette smokers.

    Regarding the part in bold: It may be that the study supports that conclusion, but I doubt it. It certainly isn't supported by the little bits of data in the abstract. And I find it hard to believe that none of the cigarette smokers had ever tried e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid, given the fact that that's what almost everybody uses them for.

    So, can anybody help an English major make sense of this so maybe I can shoot some holes in it?
    My dissection of this abstract:

    They found that 3.2% of the adolescents had tried e-cigarettes (read: 3 out of 100 people). This is stunningly low. If e-cigarettes were trendy among youth, or if flavors or advertising were actually attracting youth, you would expect this number to be quite a bit higher.

    Interpreting odds ratios according to the NIH:
    OR=1 Exposure does not affect odds of outcome
    OR>1 Exposure associated with higher odds of outcome
    OR<1 Exposure associated with lower odds of outcome

    In other words, compare the figure they gave you to 1. Higher than 1 = higher odds, lower than 1 = lower odds. These are ratios comparing two contrasting variables. You just have to know what the opposite variable is. So for example, in this study:
    Female OR is 0.70 => For every 1 male that tries e-cigarettes, 0.7 females do. Or, for every 10 males who try it, 7 females do.
    Smoker OR is 58.44 => For every 1 nonsmoker that tries e-cigarettes, 58.44 smokers try it! Wow!
    Likewise, those who have friends that smoke are more than twice as likely to try e-cigarettes as those who don't.

    This study proves what we vapers know to be true, and has been shown in other studies: when kids try e-cigarettes, chances are they already smoke.

    When they say, "Among conventional cigarette smokers, neither desire to quit nor recent quit attempts is significantly associated with e-cigarette use," they are giving NO data to support this in the abstract, and thus there is no data present to support their conclusion. We need to wait for the rest of the study to come out before we can make that conclusion (or refute it) ourselves.

    Does that help?

    Edit: If there are any errors in my analysis, please feel free to correct me! I did this while half asleep...
    Last edited by dragonpuff; 07-27-2014 at 11:19 PM.
    bigdancehawk, DrMA and aikanae1 like this.

    "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." – Doctor Who

  8. #18
    Super Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    bigdancehawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Oh yeah! Can I just copy and paste some of that in my rebuttal?
    Please become an active CASAA member. "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.

  9. #19
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    dragonpuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the river and through the woods, Western NY
    Posts
    1,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdancehawk View Post
    Oh yeah! Can I just copy and paste some of that in my rebuttal?
    Ha ha if you must. You really didn't need my permission though, if I were going to write the rebuttal myself I would have said so just make sure you understand exactly what you're writing (or what I wrote) before you post it!
    bigdancehawk likes this.

    "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." – Doctor Who

  10. #20
    Super Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    bigdancehawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonpuff View Post
    Ha ha if you must. You really didn't need my permission though, if I were going to write the rebuttal myself I would have said so just make sure you understand exactly what you're writing (or what I wrote) before you post it!
    I think I get it. Why, is there going to be a pop quiz?
    Please become an active CASAA member. "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks