From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback

[ChipCurtis]

A quote from the POS1-15 description of particular interest to all of us: "User postings on forums enable us to get a snapshot of the type of consumer-driven abuse that is currently taking place with the e-cigarettes."

So then, it would seem that according to Dr. E's view, or that of the symposium sponsors, anything having to do with consumers sharing knowledge about e-cigarettes on the internet is automatically seen as some form of ABUSE.

Sheesh, I though that the upper echelons of our media and government institutions had gotten over fear of the internet by something like 1997. This resurgence of an intrinsic fear of citizens sharing information is very, very disturbing.

[Tom09]

From the abstract of POS1-15 poster presentation at 2010 SRNT Conference (abstract volume here, page 46):

INTERNET-BASED INVESTIGATION OF E-CIGARETTE ABUSE POTENTIAL

Anushree Sharma* and Richard J. O’Connor, Department of Health Behavior Roswell Park Cancer Institute

Electronic cigarettes are nicotine-delivering devices containing no tobacco. They are a new and emerging issue in tobacco control because e-cigarette companies are advertising them as safe alternatives to cigarettes [...]. However, little research has been done on product characteristics, human exposures, or abuse potential. The products have been banned in a number of countries as unapproved drug delivery devices. A key concern with drug delivery systems is their potential for abuse, and this extends to e-cigarettes. No formal study examining the consumer driven abuse currently exists.

However, as the e-cigarettes are a largely internet driven product, many users of the e-cigarette also participate in online forums such as the e-cigarette forum to talk about, and share their experiences. We have identified specific discussion threads where users may talk about modifications to the e-cigarette, including manipulating flavors and nicotine concentrations. [...] User postings on forums enable us to get a snapshot of the type of consumer-driven abuse that is currently taking place with the e-cigarettes. As the number of people using the e-cigarettes increases, there is a need for better comprehension of the abuse potential of this product.

The purpose of this study is to examine and document consumer abuse, which is currently taking place with e-cigarettes. This study documents cases of consumer tampering occurring with the e-cigarettes, with particular attention to cases, which could pose a significant health risk to the user. Presently, the e-cigarette’s design appears to be vulnerable to tampering by users that could create additional health risks not accounted for in laboratory testing. If this product is allowed to be sold, manufacturers must address these tampering issues.

Define e-cigs as „drug delivery devices“ and get „drug abuse„ & „tampering issues“ by definition.

[Bill Godshall]

Thanks to Tom09 for posting above.

I'm surprised to read as Richard O'Connor has previously published some excellent tobacco harm reduction research revealing that snus is a far less hazardous alternative to cigarettes, and that smokeless tobacco is not a gateway product to cigarettes for youth.

But Richard now works at Roswell Park with Mike Cummings, who has insisted (as O'Connor appears to do in his abstract) that e-cigarettes are unapproved "drug devices" and that the FDA should ban the products unless/until they are proven to be "safe and effective" as smoking cessation aids.

Mike Cummings is scheduled to give the last planery presentation (i.e. to the entire conference audience) entitled "Tobacco Control Policy: Past, Present and Future"

The key problem is that researchers have a drastically different (and often diametrically opposed) mindset for "drug devices" than they do for "tobacco products".

[Belletrist]

manipulating flavors!? noooo, not me. what a load of words i'm not allowed to use on this forum.

[DC2]

I wish I could go to this circus of death and destruction regarding my health, my lungs, and my life.
But alas, it is too far away, too expensive to attend, and too close for me to schedule vacation time.

And also, despite my incredible ability to remain calm, I think I would get escorted out by security within about 10 minutes of listening to one of these FDA/Big Tobacco/Big Pharmacy shills talk about how I am "abusing" a product by making it function better for me in my circumstances.

But then, they must protect us, all of us, from ourselves.
This freaking disturbs me so much I want to spit.

I wonder what Dr. Eissenberg will have to say at this circus.
I'm guessing he will have a lot to say at the POS1-15 and POS4-45 circus events.

[Mister]

The key problem is that researchers have a drastically different (and often diametrically opposed) mindset for "drug devices" than they do for "tobacco products".

It is strange to me that e-cigs are repeatedly characterized as nicotine delivery devices/systems in the scientific community. Snus may have somehow escaped this mind-set, they're called smokeless tobacco products (not disposable nicotine delivery devices.)

Here's a statement which one of the scientists at this conference could make because there's no evidence to the contrary and because there are so many people already switched from cigarettes to e-cigs without any evidence of harmful effects from e-cigs:

E-cigarettes could prove to be far less harmful than cigarettes and could end up saving hundreds of millions of lives. As such it should be a top priority to research these products to determine their safety or lack thereof, their efficacy, and the adaptability of inveterate smokers to these products.

Want to bet that anyone will make a statement remotely like that? Which is a thing to wonder at. A statement like that could be a great source of media attention, funding interest, and oh, by the way, might result in saving a lot of lives.

I think a lovely political cartoon would be a bunch of sheep labeled as scientists saying "B-a-a-a-d", circled by a couple of herding dogs labeled government and industry, and title the whole thing something like E-Cig Research.

[Brewster 59]

On post 683 of this thread, Tom Eissenberg wrote:
"I am not at all certain that I need to take a position on the drug device/tobacco product issue. There are many issues in today’s complex world about which I have no position. For example, I am uncertain whether the Federal Reserve Bank is a good or bad idea. The same for term limits for congress people."

Except that Tom didn't issue press releases (nor generate news headlines and stories) claiming:
"Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate Nation's Monetary Policies" or
"Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate Term Limits for Congress"

If Tom considers his views on e-cigarette regulation as unimportant as he considers his views on the Federal Reserve Band or term limits for Congress, then Tom wouldn't have entitled his press release "Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes'" at: Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes' – VCU News Center

Nor would Tom's press release have stated:
“Regulation can protect consumers from unsafe and ineffective products, but these products have somehow avoided regulation thus far."

Nor would Tom have advocated regulation of e-cigarettes to ensure that they are safe and effective (in part 2 and 3 of Tom's press video).

Nor would Tom have been quoted by the Richmond Times-Dispatch article at:
VCU researcher says electronic cigarettes don&#39t deliver the nicotine they promise | Richmond Times-Dispatch
as saying: "These data scream out for the need for regulation of these devices,"

On posting 683, Tom also wrote:
"That having been said, I will not apologize for wanting a product that people use to inhale a substance into their lungs to be “safe and effective” and I reject the notion that this desire puts me in the “drug delivery device” camp and that was not my intention when I used those words. Indeed, if those three words indicate that idea to some readers, then I am very happy to change the words: I would like electronic "cigarettes" to be not harmful and to perform as advertised."

Except that Tom surely knew/knows that "safe and effective" are code words for FDA regulation of "drugs and devices" (but not for FDA regulation of tobacco products, foods or cosmetics). Besides, nothing in the new FDA tobacco law requires that tobacco products be regulated by the FDA are "not harmful" nor "perform as advertised". If Tom truly believes that e-cigarette should be regulated so much that he issues a press release calling for such, the onus is on him to stipulate whether he wants them to be regulated as "drug devices", as "tobacco products", or by yet another law (that none of us are aware of).

But if Tom is now happy to change his previously and repeatedly stated "safe and effective" requirements for e-cigarette regulation, I'm looking forward to see Tom's "erratum" or "correction/clarification" to his press release and his subsequent comments to the news media (similar to his recent "erratum" in Tobacco Control changing 16mg to 18 mg at Erratum -- -- Tobacco Control ).

Interestingly, the last sentence of Tom's new erratum states: "The author apologizes for any confusion this error may have caused and notes that it does not alter the study results or his conclusions." So it sounds like Tom still stands by his claims in his press release and his statements to the news media that e-cigarettes emit "no nicotine" and that the products should be regulated by the FDA to ensure they are "safe and effective" (among other things).

Tom also wrote in post 683:
"At the suggestion of some of you, I purchased a KR808D-1 with various strength cartridges (Cowboy flavor). I used it last night (18 mg cartomizer) and tested my urine with Nicalert strips this morning. Result? 5/6. Clearly, this result is consistent with recent nicotine exposure."
and
"Obviously I am not going to write a paper about this single experience, and there is much to be learned, but I certainly agree with the many of you who suggested that these devices may very well behave differently than the ones that I tested."

Since the subtitle of Tom's press release at: Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes' – VCU News Center
"“Electronic cigarettes” fail to deliver nicotine" and since Tom's press release generated news headlines and stories stating the same, I think Tom has an ethical duty to issue an "erratum" or "correction" revealing that he's now aware that e-cigarette products can and do emit nicotine (not just because of his personal experience, but also because of his many correspondences on this forum that have informed him about the different e-cigarette products and different usage patterns by many/most users).

In sum, I consider it inconsistent (i.e. hypocritical) for Tom to post corrections/clarifications on this forum (to appease e-cigarette users), while failing to make similar corrections/clarifications to his press release or his claims to the news media.

Very well said and so true.

[DC2]

I think a lovely political cartoon would be a bunch of sheep labelled as scientists saying "B-a-a-a-d", circled by a couple of herding dogs labelled government and industry, and title the whole thing something like E-Cig Research.

Nice!!

Makes me think we need a good cartoonist in the CASAA fold.
We might be able to tweak public opinion with humor.

Hey, it's better than dying.

[(So) Jersey Girl]

How exactly does the FDA define "safe and effective?" Every day I see dozens of commercials for FDA approved "safe and effective" drugs with all the sorts disclaimers and warnings of side effects and almost as many commercials from law firms advertising for clients hurt, injured or killed by some of these same drugs.

Vioxx was approved as safe and effective, until they decided it wasn't. Chantix is certainly not safe and NRT's produced by pharmaceutical company's are certainly not effective, but the FDA and their minions continue to claim otherwise.

[Mister]

And also, despite my incredible ability to remain calm, I think I would get escorted out by security within about 10 minutes of listening to one of these FDA/Big Tobacco/Big Pharmacy shills talk about how I am "abusing" a product by making it function better for me in my circumstances.

But then, they must protect us, all of us, from ourselves.
This freaking disturbs me so much I want to spit.

Hypothesis: "E-cig researchers cause elevated pulse and increased potential for violent behaviour in vapers."