CASAA.org has some of that I believe
Sent while Moderating ECF via Tapatalk 4
In the same way that not everyone reads HuffPo, not everyone listens to Rush Limbaugh, but in the first hour today (those who have 24/7 membership - check out the audio), he made some good points just as the HuffPo piece had some good points. I know not everyone will agree with the whole piece....
Our Future Hinges on Our View of Freedom - The Rush Limbaugh Show
... but his comments on regulation are very close to what I was referring to earlier.
"In the United States, we as citizens presume that everything is legal until a law is written making it illegal. It's something that we're taught, but it's also something that we just assume. So important is freedom to us, and so adequately, precisely defined and spelled out in our founding documents, all men are created equal, endowed by their creator. So we're born free, we are born yearning to be free. That's the natural spirit, the natural human spirit, and we just assume everything's legal until there's a law saying it isn't.
But you go to Europe and many other parts around the world, and the presumption is just the opposite. It is that everything is illegal until there's a law making it legal. And that, to me, is fascinating. I think there's no question about it. It actually illustrates why and how so many people are totally subservient to the state. When you assume as an individual that everything is illegal until somebody makes it legal, you are essentially denying -- whether you know it or not -- the basic tenets of freedom as you are born. It also leads to statism. It leads to all-powerful governments. It leads to people giving up freedom and assuming, in fact, that they never had it, that freedom is what is given to them by the state. That's never been us. "
"I think our future hinges on how the people of our country view freedom, and if more and more of them adopt the European attitude, which is... See, they get the order wrong here. If they assume that everything is illegal until a government or a Congress or a law comes along and makes it legal, then what is their starting point? Their starting point is, they have no freedom. The only freedom they have is that bestowed upon them by the state, by the central authority, by the munificence and the magnificence and the goodwill of the state."
A bit later in the audio, but not in this transcript, he mentions ecigarettes "The same anti-smoking Nazis that are now invading e-cigarettes.... " and refers to a recent article and some of his personal experience in using ecigarettes....
The FDA's "testing" in 2009 was geared toward trying to find something hazardous. When they couldn't, they decided to spin the results to make things sound hazardous. One of the 18 cartridges tested was found to contain 1% DEG. You can verify this yourself by reading the report: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/s.../ucm173250.pdf
Note that the paragraphs that are labeled "Simulated Use" refer to what was found in the vapor, while "Whole Cartridge" refers to what was detected in the liquid. Note that the one sample that contained DEG was tested as a liquid. (Each sample could only be tested as either a liquid or a vapor, because the testing destroys the sample).
The FDA failed to find anything at all hazardous in the vapor. DEG can be hazardous if you drink it. But you have to drink a lot of it within a 24 hour period because it clears from the body quite rapidly. Rats need to receive 50 mg per kg of body weight to exceed the "no observed adverse event level" (NOAEL). When dealing with a 1% solution, a one-ml cartridge would contain 10 mg of DEG. You'd have to drink 5 one-ml cartridges full of liquid for each kg you weigh. How likely are you to quaff over 400 cartridges worth of e-liquid in a single day?
However, for obvious reasons, people don't make a habit of drinking e-liquid. To my knowledge, DEG has not been found to be poisonous via inhalation.
The FDA's press release is a masterpiece of propaganda. DEG is mainly used as a solvent, but the FDA spin-doctors called it "an ingredient used in anti-freeze" because they knew there had been many poisonings of pets and children before the makers of standard automobile antifreeze switched from using ethylene glycol to propylene glycol, which is non-toxic. The FDA spinners also used loaded words like "carcinogens" and "toxins" and ignored the rule that "the dose makes the poison." What that means is that in small enough amounts, a potentially toxic substance is harmless. In large enough amounts, a normally perfectly safe substance can be deadly--even water.
You may be unaware of this, but the "carcinogens" they found were Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs). Because the pharmaceutical-grade nicotine used in e-liquid is extracted from tobacco, there may be tiny traces of TSNAs in it. In fact, you might be very surprised to learn that TSNAs are found in several of the FDA-approved nicotine products such as the patch and nicotine gum. What's even more surprising is that the amount in a nicotine patch is about equal to the amount in 18 mg/ml e-liquid. See this report:
See "Comment 1)" under Table 2.2 on page 7.
So if the patch isn't known to cause cancer, it seems unlikely that e-cigarettes would so so. In point of fact, modern Western smokeless tobacco products, which have not been found to increase the risks of any type of cancer, contains much higher amounts of TSNAs.
To get back to DEG, the fact that it was found in an entirely non-harmful amount in one sample, one time, has been inflated by anti-nicotine/anti-tobacco writers who turn "one" into "several" without a trace of shame.
But even if there were some DEG in every batch of e-liquid, that would still be a non-issue, since it doesn't occur in the vapor.
---- Support CASAA -http://www.casaa.org/Donate_LKWE.html ---
Planted evidence ?
Vaping, is "even better than the real thing".
“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any.” ― Alice Walker
Vocalek and Kent, thanks for your replies. No, I wasn't aware of this DEG stuff that you just posted. But from a PR standpoint, I think we could probably use some sort of "debunking" FAQ (so-to-speak) that contains links and analysis which allow the casual reader to "drill down" to whatever extent they'd like.
For example I just posted: Standard response to anti-vaping articles? Draft, need feedback in the CASAA area, because I couldn't find anything like it on the web site. At 250 words, it's terse enough for a standard letter to the editor (if hobbled a bit in terms of elegance by the length. Perhaps CASAA could have a version that was maybe twice the length (with links to longer articles) for debunking. And so forth.
The issue in my mind isn't that we don't have the kind of good information in your posts or on blogs like Dr. Seigal's or Bill Godshall's ... it's there, and it's of wonderful quality. But if I don't miss my guess, our adversaries seem to be considerably more effective at messaging than we are.
In other words, this kind of factual "ammunition" is of much less value without an effective "delivery system," IMO. We can't ask the general public (or an editor or a cub reporter) to spend hours and hours clicking on links and pouring through studies ... they just won't do it, and they'll stick to the anti-vaping sound bites. (Especially when they don't smoke or vape, and probably feel as if they'd be sticking their necks out by doing anything that bucks the trend.)
By the same token, we also need a series of "delivery systems" which can be effectively used by CAASA and/or vaping activists when posting online and/or writing editors to the editor, and/or when speaking to elected officials.
Perhaps I don't know where to look, but I'm just not finding that kind of thing out there on CAASA's site or anywhere else?
Based on the rubbish that I'm finding every day just by Googling "e-cigarettes" with a temporal limit (e.g. last 24 hr.s), what we are seeing here is a rapidly-hardening concrete web of mistatements, exaggerations, and outright lies. And the more the meme grows, the worse things are going to get.
We need all the tools to fight back that we can fashion - the truth by itself may not be enough, unless it's in a form that can be more easily deployed. Sometimes the "messaging" matters as much or even more than the "message" when it comes to results. And I think this may be such a case.
The links in the 'update' and other areas of CASAA are for us to inform the 'general public, editors, cub reporters' knowing they aren't going to do their own groundwork. "Reporters" these days are merely the 'steno pool' for the administration and it's agencies. Perhaps CASAA and Bill G. need more organization for you. Here's a few links you may like:
Lies | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
About the blog | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
the first link is blocked/censored here for some reason. It's ecigarette reviewed.com without the space of course....
Last edited by Kent C; 01-22-2014 at 06:21 PM.
CASAA has some pages and handout material that can help:
Electronic Cigarette FAQS
And as far as contacting legislators, we give "talking points" in our Calls to Action. We also help people in writing their testimony at hearings and letters to the media.
We have avoided doing "template" emails for a reason. When a legislator sees the same email 500 times, it proves ineffective. They write it off as not coming from constituents. Personal stories and emotional pleas have shown to be far more effective. We've also seen vapers "written off" in comments on articles because they are all "parroting" the same thing. Non-vaping readers see it as a spam effort and interpret it as coming from "the industry." It's just too odd to people that the vaping community could be so informed and organized. (They never came up against the same passion and fervor with smokers. There was no percieved "smoking community" to compare to. They think its just "astro turfing.")
But CASAA is currently working on some comprehensive, informational "booklets" that will include all of the counter-points in a clean, easy-to-read format. It's going to be a bit of time before those are completed, though.
Thanks, Kirsten. Please let me know how I can serve most effectively.