Intellicig response to HM Government proposals

[smokindeuce]

Hi John,

I'm not sure if you're aware of what's been going on elsewhere in the forums, but most of the UK ecig suppliers myself inc., are trying to form a coalition or association of sorts in order to come up with a case for the MHRA in favour of option 3.

Furthermore, we believe there is a very good case for achieving option 3.

If the worst did come to the worst, we would still no doubt get option 2 which would, in the event, allow time to apply for licensing anyway.

Would Intellicig consider joining this campaign?

 

[Shining Wit]

Hi John,

I'm not sure if you're aware of what's been going on elsewhere in the forums, but most of the UK ecig suppliers myself inc., are trying to form a coalition or association of sorts in order to come up with a case for the MHRA in favour of option 3.

We have already declared our intent regarding the options and we feel that challenging the legitimacy of the MHRA document would not reap a long term benefit. We accept and welcome regulation of our industry and feel no need to debate that as a company and in public. If you wish to discuss the matter in private then we could arrange that but it would seem a strange coalition for us to make in light of our stances regarding option 3.

Furthermore, we believe there is a very good case for achieving option 3.

If the worst did come to the worst, we would still no doubt get option 2 which would, in the event, allow time to apply for licensing anyway.

If you have no doubt that option 2 is the worst that could happen then I can only wish you good luck.

Would Intellicig consider joining this campaign?

No, it would be pointless given our different objectives. We have demonstrated our commitment to the end user by trying to provide a safe product and will continue with that belief in the forefront of whatever we do. However, it's not enough for us just to say, "this is safer than smoking", we have to prove it is and that will be achieved by meeting measurable criteria. That is our belief and we are determined to succeed.

Cheers
John.

 

[monkeyuk]

I have to say i agree with John and Intellicig on this one. To allow the situation to continue unregulated would see the ecig community shooting itself in the foot. No government is going to allow nicotine, a poison, to be sold without some form of regulation. By at least entering into talks with them, Intellicig and others can put their cases forward and be treated as serious committed businesses who have consumers in their interests. It is interesting to note that those against option 2 are mainly suppliers who rely on china and other places for their supplies. Intellicig are one of the few companies to actually manufacture their own stuff, and as such i respect them for making that commitment to R and D and not just jumping on the e-cig bandwagon.
I hope that some sensible outcome is reached by the govenment in this, and that they see how many lives have been changed for the better. The snowball is gathering momentum, and it will be a brave government who ignores the benefits of ecigs and bans them completely. There is no point in constantly going against them and saying how unfair it is, someone has to stand up and say ok lets talk about this. Fair play to you Intellicig.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

This is how I see the options on the table ...

Option 1 - e-cigs are banned on 21 June 2010
Option 2 - e-cigs are banned on 21 June 2011
Option 3 - No ban and no regulation on e-cigs

This is why I cannot see 1 or 2 as being viable options at all. A vote for option 2 is to concede "Give us a year to prepare for a ban". Unless we want to dig our own grave, there is no choice other than option 3 in my mind.

Three options? There is only one option as far as I can see.

 

[smokindeuce]

Cheers
John.

No worries John - I was just making you aware of what was going on with other suppliers around here in case you hadn't picked up on it.

I have to say i agree with John and Intellicig on this one. To allow the situation to continue unregulated would see the ecig community shooting itself in the foot. No government is going to allow nicotine, a poison, to be sold without some form of regulation. By at least entering into talks with them, Intellicig and others can put their cases forward and be treated as serious committed businesses who have consumers in their interests. It is interesting to note that those against option 2 are mainly suppliers who rely on china and other places for their supplies. Intellicig are one of the few companies to actually manufacture their own stuff, and as such i respect them for making that commitment to R and D and not just jumping on the e-cig bandwagon.
I hope that some sensible outcome is reached by the govenment in this, and that they see how many lives have been changed for the better. The snowball is gathering momentum, and it will be a brave government who ignores the benefits of ecigs and bans them completely. There is no point in constantly going against them and saying how unfair it is, someone has to stand up and say ok lets talk about this. Fair play to you Intellicig.

Hi Monkey

- another Bristolian I see.... I've seen a few around recently - great that word is spreading round these parts!

Well as you may have guessed, we are a distributor for Intellicig and sell their Ecopure range. As far as I see it their/our liquids are already regulated by Trading Standards for the very fact that they are toxic and therefore they have to conform to CHIP regulations.

Adding in (yet) another bureaucratic element to the mix is just typical of this country and the way things are run.

Yes I agree that licensing would be good on one level if it were to prove once and for all some level of safety when using these products, but the implications are geared more towards the fat cat pharmaceutical companies who have the available resources to satisfy requirements (ie. clinical trials etc), and then to monopolise the industry. For us as users this means, we play by their rules and our once basic freedoms become limited.... if at all.

This is about holding on to these basic freedoms and standing up for our democratic rights.... we're talking about a drug that has a similar effect to caffeine for goodness sake. The MHRA have given us options so why bow down to them..... if they themselves have been good enough to set some alternatives?

Whatever happens happens, but I know there are a lot of big UK suppliers who together will fight this tooth and nail as a matter of principle..... if we collectively dig our heels in now, we will have more of a voice in the future. However, if we submit so early on in the game, we will forever be mute, but more importantly we will lose yet another right....

 

[Shining Wit]

I fully understand the principles that people are claiming to be fighting for.
The decision is not as much about vapers getting an unfair deal, it's about dealing with the reality of the situation and that means the reality of how big business and government departments operate. Right or wrong that's the script and if people believe they can change all that then I do wish them well, I simply don't believe, from a lifetime's experience, that it will happen.
I don't feel we are giving in or selling out and if we are the only current company in 15 month's time selling ecigs and we are competing alongside the likes of Pfizer, J&J and Smith/Glaxo/Kleine, who will people buy from? Will there be any 'loyalty' for our taking on the big guns, or will people go for the cheapest/prettiest packet/catchy name etc?
Voting for nothing is futile and the big P will carry on and launch their own products unopposed if we don't make the effort to compete and they WILL comply with regulations!
Does anyone really believe that the above companies will allow what they probably perceive as a bunch of barrow boys (all of us suppliers) to come along and spoil their party? It ain't gonna happen, that's the reality that we feel we have to deal with.

If the coalition goes ahead then the steering commitee needs to do some serious research on how legislation is formed, modified and passed, or quashed.
We are all on the same side, but should we put all of our eggs in one basket?


Just to add some perspective, this is just a snippet of what we are competing against.

"pharmaceutical nicotine product sales is a $500,000,000.00+ annual business almost exclusively owned by the Johnson & Johnson conglomerate, of which RWJF is an entity and single largest shareholder of J & J stock, with a $5.4 billion dollar holding."

Jan 2010
J&J's fourth-quarter sales also exceeded expectations, rising 9% to $16.55 billion. Currency contributed half the growth, reversing the currency headwinds that J&J had faced in previous quarters. There was also an extra week in the quarter.

J&J seem a little shy about declaring actual profit.


April 2009
GlaxoSmithKline PLC, the world's second largest drug maker by revenue, reported Thursday that its fourth-quarter profit soared by 66 percent, boosted by strong sales of swine flu vaccine and flu medicine.
In the three months ending Dec. 31, Glaxo turned a net profit of 1.63 billion pounds ($2.6 billion), compared to 982 million pounds a year earlier.



Feb 2010
Shares in Pfizer have fallen 2.3% after its latest quarterly profits and earnings target for 2010 both failed to meet market expectations.
The world's largest drugmaker made a net profit of $767m (£481m) in the last three months of 2009, almost triple the $266m it made a year before.
The profits were lifted by Pfizer's $67bn purchase of fellow US pharmaceutical group Wyeth in October.
Revenues at the group were up 34% to $16.5bn.





If option 3 still seems like a realistic and achievable choice then fight for it with the same passion, belief and determination that we are putting in at our end......and good luck.
John.

 

[hifistud]

or perhaps Intellicig is hoping to corner the market by being first with an MA on their juice - the hardware is not, it seems to me, under threat. Therefore they have a vested interest in Option 2 being the winner, and option 3 would continue to provide them with competition, which they would prefer not to have.

One can only suppose they have their juice manufactured in an establishment already manufacturing nicotine bearing products that already have an MA, and have made plans to put the requisite studies in place to achieve an MA inside the grace period which Option 2 would provide.

 

[westcoast2]

Shining Wit commented....

Voting for nothing is futile

Voting for nothing? Option 3 is not voting for nothing. It is voting for non regulation as a medicine.

Regulation is needed and accepted. What is under discussion is the regulatory framework.

Why are so many vapers opposed to FDA regulation? The FDA seem to be trying to do the same as the MHRA, don't they?
----

 

[gazzatip]

ive been a non smoker (after 30 years puffing rollies)now for 5 weeks i have been using ecigs for this period,ive not really even wanted a rollie.
this is obviously great,so ecigs do wean you off the ciggies,my only worry is i now have an obsession for the ecigs and i dont really know what it is doing to me,so im in favour of option 2 with a proviso that it could be extended if results are not conclusive one way or the other.

just my thoughts as a new and very happy user.
gaz.........

 

[westcoast2]

gazzatip remarked...

im in favour of option 2 with a proviso that it could be extended

Extended? Are you aware of what regulation as a medicine means?
----

 

[gazzatip]

gazzatip remarked...


Extended? Are you aware of what regulation as a medicine means?
----

no idea at all.
as i said 'just my thoughts as a new and very happy user'.
please tell me what it means.
gaz...........

 

[gazzatip]

it looks as though i totally misunderstood option 2.
i thought it meant looking into eciging for a further year to see what results come up,and if the results didnt show a positive proven good or bad after a year then tests etc should continue till such time as there proved one way or the other.
gaz...................

 

[hifistud]

Nope - it means that, instead of clearing the shelves of all current nicotine-bearing e-juices by 21/06/10, they'll give us a year or so to get some approved before they clear the shelves. If none gets approved, they still clear the shelves..

That simple - and the onus of proof is on the manufacturer, requires multiple hoops to be jumped through, and MHRA does no testing itself.

 

[gazzatip]

Nope - it means that, instead of clearing the shelves of all current nicotine-bearing e-juices by 21/06/10, they'll give us a year or so to get some approved before they clear the shelves. If none gets approved, they still clear the shelves..

That simple - and the onus of proof is on the manufacturer, requires multiple hoops to be jumped through, and MHRA does no testing itself.

well then i reserve the right to change to option 3 then
gaz..........

 

[Toby]

...requires multiple hoops to be jumped through...

And a lot of cash...

------------------

Hey John (& David),

Why not join us on this? (assuming there is an us....)

Why not fight for principles?

I mean, I presume e-cigs improved the quality of your life...
(and also in respect to now, just having the odd puff occasionally of the old glycerin.. jk)

So why not try and preserve the freedom you had, for people in the future?
Or is it all about attempted monetary gain?

Don't you think the cause is worth fighting for?

I mean, you can always change your mind again in the future...

 

[Shining Wit]

And a lot of cash...

------------------

Hey John (& David),

Why not join us on this? (assuming there is an us....)
Because we do not feel option 3 is worth pursuing. If you had read my previous posts you would have understood why.

Why not fight for principles?
There are some worth fighting for and there is a time and place. We conduct ourselves in the best way we see fit.
Two directors had an idea and turned it into a multi-million pound company without resorting to greed tactics but with lots of honest graft, long hours, dedication & commitment and integrity. We have advanced the cause a long way by bringing credibility in the form of our liquid which, remember, was the first liquid to be manufactured in the UK and which has CREDIBLE laboratory tests to accompany it. We have led the way for a long time and will continue to strive to keep ecigs on the market. Please don't question us because we choose to go about it in a way we feel is in the best interests of the company and in the interests of Public Health.
We are fighting for the principles of our employees also; they all have the right to expect us to try and keep them in employment.
Please, allow us the freedom to choose what we feel is the best way forward for us and you too make up your own mind.

I mean, I presume e-cigs improved the quality of your life...
(and also in respect to now, just having the odd puff occasionally of the old glycerin.. jk)

So why not try and preserve the freedom you had, for people in the future?
Or is it all about attempted monetary gain?
Please don't resort to cheap rhetoric, you are better than that.
The 'freedom' you refer to was the freedom to use a largely untested product containing largely untested chemicals. Yes that represented personal choice but I would have much preferred to have had the freedom to use a product that had been thoroughly tested and deemed safe.
I took that risk, our future customers shouldn't have to.
There are some principles worth fighting for and I believe aiming to provide the best for our customers is one of them.

Don't you think the cause is worth fighting for?
Already asked and answered.

I mean, you can always change your mind again in the future...
In that case it's all about playing the odds and in my reckoning you are backing the wrong horse. They will only run the race once.

I hope the comments in blue answer your questions. If not, please email me at work or give me a call.
Cheers.
John.

 

[westcoast2]

Shining Wit commented

The 'freedom' you refer to was the freedom to use a largely untested product containing largely untested chemicals.

Shiining Wit, you make an excellent case for regulation. You are quite correct about the quality and safety of the product. These are important and you certainly have ensured ,through testing, that these are not an issue for your company. A testing baseline for both quality and safety would be a further step forward. These issues can be regulated either within the current framework or by some extension. The case you do not seem to be making is why the e-cig should be classed as a medicine.

So let me ask diectly.

Why do you think e-juice should be a medicine?
----

 

[Shining Wit]

UMIC’s gains Leading-Edge UKBI Inspire accreditation

UMIC’s Biotechnology Incubators achieve Leading-Edge standard in UKBI Inspire Assessment
UMIC has recently undergone an assessment against the UKBI Inspire monitoring, development and accreditation process, and is delighted to report it achieved a Leading Edge standard in recognition of its business incubation activities, reflecting ten years of hard work and significant sustained successes with our tenants.
Martino Picardo, UMIC’s Managing Director, said “We are absolutely delighted to have been accredited at this level. We have been able to maintain a steady balance of deal-flow (University and external spin outs and start-ups), across a broad and diverse selection of company types in the Bio-Health sector. We have had considerable success in graduating companies, identifying anchor tenants and preparing start-ups for tenancy. The nature and quality of our services is constantly seeking to improve, based on our customer feedback. The accreditation reflects the hard work of our staff to deliver world class futures, based on quality service delivery, on behalf of The University of Manchester.

Read the full article here.

*******************************************************



Intellicig have recently been accepted into the UMIC facility and the award only serves to reinforce that we are aiming very, very high and only the best will be good enough.
Our R&D department will be moving in very soon and the laboratory will provide the space and facilities to further develop both liquid and hardware. This is a must if we are to compete at the highest level with the big pharmaceutical companies.
We want to guarantee the availability of our electronic cigarettes and liquid for the future, if we don't then what hope is there for the small companies?
John.


Outside view of the Bioscience Facility

Pictures of our laboratory and office facilities at UMIC's Bioscience Facility

I have merged this thread in order to further demonstrate the level of commitment we have to the future of our industry. We have to take our products forward and compete in the mainstream market to have a chance of success. We cannot be perceived as some kind of backstreet operation looking to operate in the shady areas of the law. What's more, big P will make sure that we have to toe the line; put yourself in their shoes and it's a no brainer.
John.

 

[Toby]

No disrespect intended towards your company and employees, of course John...

I have respect for every single e-cig company on the planet, except for ones that have dubious ethics.

And that's the problem. People are starting to wonder whether Intellicig have dubious ethics.

Obviously you want to stay in business; obviously you want to have success. I don't think anybody would want to deny you that.
But that's why I'm talking about the principles...

How can e-liquid be referred to, and regulated as a medicine, when clearly it is not?

Why should e-liquid be included, and proposed to be regulated (and possibly banned) as an NCP (Nicotine Containing Product), when tobacco is not?

This is why I am on about principles. If the 2 questions are not dealt with, and answered satisfatorily by the MHRA, then we are being lied to; and anyone who assists them in that is complicit in their deceit.

And that goes against my moral sensibility.

 

[Shining Wit]

Shining Wit commented


Shiining Wit, you make an excellent case for regulation. You are quite correct about the quality and safety of the product. These are important and you certainly have ensured ,through testing, that these are not an issue for your company. A testing baseline for both quality and safety would be a further step forward. These issues can be regulated either within the current framework or by some extension. The case you do not seem to be making is why the e-cig should be classed as a medicine.

So let me ask diectly.

Why do you think e-juice should be a medicine?
----

Because it cured me of a 42 year addiction.
Because it does have an effect on metabolism.
Because it could be marketed as a quit smoking product.
Because the stringent regulations would lessen the chances of some amateur mixing liquid in their kitchen/garage making a mistake and causing illness or worse. Such an incident could have the whole 'unregulated' industry closed down completely.
Because we believe that it is the best way to secure our future.

Cheers.
John.