What? Is This Guy an Idiot??

[Newwell]

I read the article several days ago & still can't come up with any other word than STUPID.

I know exactly what is in my ejuice & how much nic is in it because I DIY my own. I know how much I consume because I'm in control of my vaping. I'm dripping in my atty & I'm filling my own carto & I can count.

I couldn't come close to saying what was in the tens of thousands of cigarettes that I consumed over the last 40+ years. Or how many pounds of carcinogens & chemicals that my body has endured.

STUPID, plain & simple!!!

[moonlessnight]

I'm so tired of the anti groups throwing around the FDA like they are the world's perfect saviour. How many people die each year from FDA approved drugs. How many FDA approved drugs have been pulled off the market due to horrible side effects. And speaking of side effects most of the time they are far worse then the original ailment. But when it comes to vaping since the term "cigarette" is in the name the FDA is all knowing and all powerful.

[TennDave]

I'm so tired of the anti groups throwing around the FDA like they are the world's perfect saviour. How many people die each year from FDA approved drugs.

I read just awhile ago (sorry, closed the website so I don't recall it exactly), that the number is roughly 100,000 FDA approved drug related deaths. Add that to the 400,000 tobacco related deaths and that's half a million FDA related deaths a year in the U.S.

Oh, and that doesn't include industries and products that aren't mentioned here- just pharmaceuticals and tobacco.

[Semiretired]

I kind of wished I had not watched it, but I just finished watching one of those doctor shows that was telling about food additives that the FDA has approved that other countries like Canada, Japan and stuff have banned...

[kristin]

The very first speaker in Utah yesterday, Dr. Kevin Nelson, is a physician with the Utah chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The man lied through his teeth and used arguments that were essentially pointless. For one thing, he said "Data shows that [hookah and] e-cigarettes are not safe and are not less harmful than cigarettes." Granted, e-cigarettes are not "100% safe" but most things aren't "100% safe." Just about everything has SOME small risks - no matter how unlikely, so to accuse e-cigarettes of not being "safe" is a red herring. But to claim that there is data that actually shows that e-cigarettes are not less harmful than cigarettes is an outright LIE. There is no such data to prove that claim and nearly all evidence to date shows that e-cigarettes are highly likely to be far less harmful than cigarettes. In fact, he proves it himself by saying later, "...cigarette smoke is dangerous. There are carcinogens, there's carbon monoxide and a number of other harmful substances in those...in cigarette smoke. We have no reason to believe ...e-cigarettes are safer" and " In [FDA] analysis [of e-cigarettes]...tobacco-specific nitrosamines and tobacco-specific impurities were detected at very low levels..."

Um...Dr. Nelson, if there isn't carbon monoxide nor most of the potentially harmful substances found in cigarettes and you admit the FDA detected only VERY LOW LEVELS of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in e-cigarettes, compared to cigarettes, how could e-cigarettes still possibly be "just as harmful" as cigarettes and how could you have "NO reason" to believe e-cigarettes are safer? What then, does significantly lower levels of nitrosamines (which the health groups have been demanding from tobacco companies to make cigarettes and tobacco "safer'), no carbon monoxide and little to no potential toxins mean to you if not safer??

He also said, "The Institute of Medicine has said that the burden of proof doesn't rest on us providing that they are unsafe. Because of the amount of data that we have it rest on the manufacturers to prove that they are safe. And there are no independent studies from people without a financial interest in selling those things that prove that they are not...that they are safe."

OK, let's think about what he is saying here - he says it's not the government's obligation to prove safety, it falls upon the manufacturer to prove safety. But then he says studies from the manufacturers are unacceptable because they basically have a vested interest. So, how does he expect the manufacturer to come up with unbiased research an not pay for it??

Secondly - it's another lie. Health New Zealand did a study. Yes, it was paid for by NJoy, but Health New Zealand does NOT have a financial stake in the success of the e-cigarette industry and it is basically anti-smoking. Additionally, it's misleading just to suggest that studies from manufacturers are somehow "not acceptable" considering that the vast majority of research and testing submitted to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies are done or financed BY the pharmaceutical companies for their own products. Why is it OK for Pfizer to provide it's own research proving the safety of Chantix but the e-cigarette research is unacceptable. Considering the numerous reports of adverse side effects and deaths from Chanitix, they may want to rethink that policy....

[TomCatt]

It's obviously a case of "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull****".

[sanjosse]

"Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't-
I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on."

[ctourtelot]

"Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't-
I've come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on."

LOL love that movie!

[Petrodus]

Why is it OK for Pfizer to provide it's own research proving the safety of Chantix but the e-cigarette research is unacceptable. Considering the numerous reports of adverse side effects and deaths from Chanitix, they may want to rethink that policy....

Mmmmm....
Would love to hear their answer to that question.
However...Isn't it against some kind of law to even ask that question?

[Semiretired]

Kristin, what does it take to retort these statements - when they are made? What type of research does it take to be considered valid? Does it have to be from a renown scientist or can it be a regular joe that took the time and money to do it?