E-CigaretteDirect.com Endorsed by Prominent (Harvard trained) Doctor

[dubnluvn]

Could someone contact unholysmoke.org (Physicians and Nurses Against Tobacco) and get a statement directly from them?

[Vocalek]

The press release quotes Dr. Claude Curran. His name is listed on the About Us page: Physicians & Nurses Against Tobacco

[TropicalBob]

Let us stomp out the "torches of freedom" and bring something else to light: The eradication of tobacco.

These are NOT our friends, not for a moment of what might appear to be support for e-smoking. These zealots will never be our friends.

[dubnluvn]

Bob, I'm curious as to what makes you say that. I'm sure you know something I don't, can you explain?

[dubnluvn]

Well I took it upon myself to contact them and received the following:

From: unholysmokeorg@aol.com
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:55:45 +0000
To: <webvisitor@hypmedia.com>
Subject: Re: Unholysmoke Web Site Inquiry

E-cigarettes are an effective harm-reduction therapy in the treament of nicitine dependence. We support their use. PANAT
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

I look at an endorsement of this kind to be a good thing at this point in time for e-cigs.

[catwoman19]

Sounds like they are talking out of both sides of thier mouths. I guess what the bottom line is if you read between the lines is that they want the e-cig to continue MINUS nicotene

[dubnluvn]

The way I read it, based on their response to me and their website, is that they want the nicotine out of tobacco products to take the addictive function from tobacco to help people stop smoking, but not necessarily opposed to nicotine on its own. While they didn't say 'nicotine for all' it could be possible that their efforts could be more focused on tobacco itself and put less priority on nicotine cessation as it pertains to nicotine use as a stand alone.

[Snarkyone]

Some other interesting claims that the FDA now endorses E-Cigs found on that same site:
Electronic Cigarette News I followed that link and could not see anything where the FDA rescinded their previous statements...I did see this bit of info:

Prominent Public Health Physicians and Tobacco Researchers Expose Double Standard in the FDA's Recent Study of Electronic Cigarettes and Challenge the FDA's Alarmist Attitude Toward the Devices

Contact: Thomas R. Kiklas, Director of Media, inLife LLC, 949-250-9600 ext 108, tkiklas@myinlife.com

BOSTON, July 27 /Standard Newswire/ -- The FDA recently went public with misleading information about the safety of electronic cigarettes and the marketing of the devices, not only using its clout but recruiting other prominent organizations to demonize a product that has great public health benefit potential.

A group of prominent doctors and tobacco researchers, including Dr. Michael Siegel at the Boston University School of Public Health, Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force, and Dr. Brad Rodu, Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research University of Louisville, challenge the FDA to provide the full quantitative data of the study upon which the FDA has based its warning against electronic cigarettes. They are concerned that the FDA's disingenuous targeting of electronic cigarettes through a biased presentation of the scientific data has had significant negative impact upon the public perception of electronic cigarettes, when the best available evidence suggests that these have shown that the devices offer great potential to reduce serious health issues among traditional tobacco smokers.

In a July 22 news release, the FDA cited the detectable presence of carcinogens and "toxic chemicals" in a "small sample" of electronic cigarette cartridges as reason for alarm, singling out nitrosamines as particularly toxic. What the FDA fails to inform the public is that detectable amounts of carcinogens are also present in nicotine replacement products such as NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette gum, both approved by the FDA, and nitrosamines that can be also found in food items such bacon and beer. This double standard and alarmist attitude has had the significant and unfortunate effect of inducing hysteria among the public, discouraging tobacco smokers from using a product which is thought to be a significantly safer alternative to traditional tobacco.

Regrettably, the FDA has used biased reporting of this small and inconclusive study, the complete results of which have not been made public, to secure the vocal support of groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, the Institute for Global Health, and the American Lung Association in their attack on electronic cigarettes. These researchers argue that it is absurd to consider taking electronic cigarettes off the market when it is the conventional ones which have been shown to be killing people. Further, the electronic cigarette community calls for accurate and fair reporting relative to the findings and statements of prominent medical professionals in favor of this new and important technology and challenges the media to tell the other side of the story.

"The FDA's laboratory findings actually indicate that electronic cigarettes are much, much safer than conventional cigarettes," says Dr. Michael Siegel. "The traces of carcinogens present are also present in nicotine replacement products. The FDA and the anti-smoking groups have fallen into a huge analytical trap as they have failed to ask the appropriate question. The question they are asking is: 'Are electronic cigarettes safe?' That is not the right question. The right question is: 'Are electronic cigarettes much safer than traditional ones?'"

Dr. Rodu states, "The FDA tested e-cigarettes for TSNAs using a questionable sampling regimen, and the methods that were so sensitive that the results may have no possible significance to users. The agency failed to report specific levels of these contaminants, and it has failed to conduct similar testing of nicotine medicines that have been sold in the U.S. for over 20 years. These are not the actions of an agency that is science-based and consumer-focused. These pseudo-scientific actions are clearly intended to form the justification for banning a category of products that are probably 99.9% safer than cigarettes."

Dr. Joel Nitzkin speaking as individual states, "The newly adopted FDA/Tobacco legislation will give full FDA approval to currently marketed conventional cigarettes. The new law encourages cigarette companies to produce new "reduced exposure" cigarettes to be marketed as reduced exposure products, with no scientific evidence that such reductions in exposure will reduce risk of future tobacco related illness and death. In the context of these provisions of the newly adopted FDA/Tobacco bill -- FDA should be encouraging, not maligning the manufacture and sale of electronic cigarettes, and working with manufacturers to assure the highest possible quality control."

For more information and interviews, contact:

Michael Siegel, MD, MPH
Professor
Department of Community Health Sciences
Boston University School of Public Health
617-638-5167
Email: mbsiegel@bu.edu

Joel L. Nitzkin, MD, MPH, DPA
Chair AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force
Phone: 504 899 7893 or 800 598 2561
Fax: 504 899 7557
jln-md@mindspring.com
www.aaphp.org

Brad Rodu
Professor of Medicine
Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research
University of Louisville
Phone: 502-561-7273
Email: brad.rodu@louisville.edu
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com

Thomas R. Kiklas
Director of Media
inLife LLC
Phone: 949-250-9600 x108
Email: tkiklas@myinlife.com

[ECS-Mike]

You guys do realize that is a free press release site right? The person that owns the site being mentioned is the same person that wrote that 'article'. They use press releases because PR sites are favored by search engines. If you go do a search for ecigarette in google, that site (and the same people who are writing those releases) comes up consistently at about #4 or so

[rothenbj]

The way I read it, based on their response to me and their website, is that they want the nicotine out of tobacco products to take the addictive function from tobacco to help people stop smoking, but not necessarily opposed to nicotine on its own. While they didn't say 'nicotine for all' it could be possible that their efforts could be more focused on tobacco itself and put less priority on nicotine cessation as it pertains to nicotine use as a stand alone.

This is the new role of BT. You extract the nicotine, sell it to the E liquid people, then sell the cigarettes to the people that just want the carcinogens and avoid the addiction. I think BT would go for that, don't you?