From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback

[DC2]

Is it so hard to believe that someone who has been testing, for more than 10 years, the nicotine delivery and other effects of potential reduced exposure products for tobacco users is motivated by a scientific interest in the nicotine delivery and other effects of electronic cigarettes?

It's only hard to believe based on your quotes in the media.

[Brewster 59]

Actually, I haven't been viewing this thread at all until tonight. I have been busy at work and I also had a tournament squash match to play.

As for where I stand on the question you ask, I don't think I know enough about the ramifications of either option (or if there is a third option) to have a firm position. If I understand current affairs correctly, the decision will be made by the courts. If the courts are to make the decision then I am not sure how my position matters -- I won't be in the courtroom and I won't be doing the regulating. Is it so hard to believe that someone who has been testing, for more than 10 years, the nicotine delivery and other effects of potential reduced exposure products for tobacco users is motivated by a scientific interest in the nicotine delivery and other effects of electronic cigarettes?

A moment ago I was reading Bill's post that seems to imply that others scientists are soon going to be reporting results similar to my own, and that some of them are also going to report that cartridges labeled as containing nicotine do not in fact contain nicotine (do I have that right or am I misreading it?). If that is correct, surely everyone here should favor regulation so that everyone can be sure that they are getting/inhaling what a package says they are getting/inhaling?

So are you saying that every cig delivers the exact amount of nic, tar and 4000 extra chems with the same amount and no variance whatso ever?

I will ask you this, name one FDA approved nrt that has better than a 10% success rate and no side effects?

You seem to assume that we would want regulation, while standards would be great and regulations to processing would be most welcome I dont think anyone would welcome a 4mg max or a flavor restriction.

The funnist argument I have ever seen is that ecigs are a gateway to real cigs the truth is almost all ecig users are former smokers. Ecigs are a pain with charging batts, failing componets, they just are better than the useless nrts.

As for getting what we are paying for, well we are paying for a subsitute to smoking, one that works not like those crappy nrts, and if the ecig does not work for a person they are free to keep buying cigs, or trying useless nrts, or whatever they decide is right for them.

[ChipCurtis]

I want to make 2 statements about e-cigs, and I don't think there is a person on this forum who would disagree that both statements are plausibly true.

1. E-cigarettes are a nicotine delivery device.
2. E-cigarettes are an electronic replacement for smoking real cigarettes.

You will notice that statement #2 has no intrinsic medical meaning to it. Both statements represent the cleavage point where e-cigs will have to follow one path or the other when it comes to eventual regulation. Statement #1 has medical meaning and would place e-cigs squarely in pharmaceutical turf. Statement #2 has no medical meaning and would place e-cigs squarely in tobacco product turf. Both statements are the crux of what is being argued in FDA vs. SmokingEverywhere.

Knowing this, Dr. E's tests, all other tests, and all conclusions being reached by those tests, represent only 50% of the entire weight of legal argument on this subject. The other 50% consists of marketing representation and marketing jargon, all of which play an equal functioning role in legal interpretation.

If Judge Leon's ruling is of any indication, the 50% power of the medical arguments may not even have to come into play when a court decision is made. This should give people here some indication as to how much power a single clinician can wield with regard to the e-cig's fate. Not a lot, if certain lawyers and/or judges see fit.

[anim8r]

I think that he satisfactorily explained why the study had to be designed the way that it was. Not having a baseline to go by, he simply had to proceed with caution while testing an unknown product on people. Otherwise, he would have had problems getting the study approved to begin with. The study "is what it is" - and unfortunately that's not what we wanted it to be. (BTW, I say this even though I think I was the first person in this thread to be critical of the study's design, rather than being critical of CNN for reporting on it.)

IMO, The only thing that I think can be reasonably criticized are some of the comments he chose to give to the media. I do find many of them hard to swallow, and some of them just seem downright misleading to me. But then again, scientists tend to speak from what they themselves can prove in the lab, which is not necessarily an accurate reflection of reality in the real-world. Knowing the limitations of his study, it would have been nice if he had spoke to the media in a way that could not be so easily misinterpreted. The way I see it though, he probably has to play the "catchy sound-bite" game to get the kind of press and reputation that will make it easier to get funding for subsequent studies. If that's true at all, it doesn't really make it right - but sadly, that's just the world we all live in these days.

But, if he was nothing but a minion of Big P. and/or Big T, as some seem to be implying, I'm sure that he (and they) could have come up with something MUCH worse than "ecigs don't deliver nicotine". Also, as others have pointed out, if that were the case, he would have nothing to gain from posting here and engaging us in discussion. He has admitted that the study had limitations and has seemed genuinely interested and willing to consider reasonable suggestions about how he might change the structure and details of future studies. The way I see it, complaining about the study or assailing his character or motivations can't possibly do anybody any good. The only productive discussion at this point, is that which addresses how to design future studies to more accurately reflect the real-world usage of ecigs. (though, that discussion may be over now)

The bolded statement is exactly why I'm irritated with Dr E. I don't fault someone for designing an ineffective test on a technology he is completely unfamiliar with. I fault the baseless huge bullets he gave to lawmakers to speed anti-ecig legislature through our states.

[Tampa2]

I posted twice on that article. The last count I seen was 286 comments. You may have to go to their actual site, register, then post. Refresh, then post again. It is BS, isn't it!

[DC2]

If I understand current affairs correctly, the decision will be made by the courts. If the courts are to make the decision then I am not sure how my position matters -- I won't be in the courtroom and I won't be doing the regulating.

In a country where the government is supposed to guided by the will of the people, the opinions of those who help shape the will of the people matters quite a bit. Of course, we could certainly argue whether or not that is the kind of country we live in.

[kristin]

Dr. Eissenberg,

If you are concerned that these device deliver to consumers as promised, then consider this. The vast majority of the consumers of this product are former smokers and it's NOT purchased as a smoking cessation - only a smoking replacement. (See these two surveys for reference:
Why did you start vaping?

Ecig User Survey: Please follow instructions before taking!!)

Safety is relative in light of that fact. If this product was intended for the majority of consumers, I can see having higher standards of safety, but to smokers, safer than smoking is a HUGE improvement.

Once people understand that this product is not intended for non-smokers, it changes the perspective. We may be choosing a lesser of two evils, but it's OUR choice.

[wader2k]

But don't you know that we live in a society where it is widely thought that the Government's job is to protect us from ourselves.

[Brewster 59]

But don't you know that we live in a society where it is widely thought that the Government's job is to protect us from ourselves.

Why cant these people worry about their own lives I sure they all have things they can improve on. Why do they have the need to push what they think is right on me? I really dont want their help in making my decisions these people cant even balance their budgets. Seems to me there must be something better to spend our tax dollars on then going after ecigs, gee maybe spending on education might be better.

[Aunt Cranky]

My immediate reaction to that CNN article was "BS!" and was wondering who was funding the study. There is a long history of Big Pharma (and I would imagine Big Tobacco as well) creating studies with specific outcomes in mind, and then creating experiments that cause those outcomes. I'm thinking specifically about the use of natural supplements (vitamins, herbs) to treat maladies that are also treated by expensive man-made drugs that make Big Pharma tons of money.

For example, there are plenty of folks out there who will swear that taking SAM-e supplements, or St. Johns Wort helps them "feel better", lessens their depression or pain symptoms. There will be a ton of studies that say these supplements have "no effect" and that the relief people experience is all placebo (but what does it matter if even 10% of the people taking the supplement are experiencing relief from symptoms without having to shell out $xx for a prescription that trashes your liver)?

If vaping can get heavy smokers to give up their analogs without the use of a (very potent nicotine receptor inhibitor drug), or other nicotine delivery methods (which for smokers like my bf, proved unpleasant), then you have a positve outcome.