Five Pawns now on ECF
- Thread starter Rob Fitz
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I would have sent samples to where the other companies are having testing and have them tested with the same methodology. That would have taken the lab and methodology off the table...
So, if the answer to that question you asked was "yes," would that be the end of your inquiry (or inquiries)? And/or do you (truly) believe it would be the end to other inquiries asking similar thing from another angle?
If we are on the witch hunt path, I'd be interested in how other vendors answer the same question. I'm thinking very few would go with a simple yes, and yet according to Dr. F. we have reason to think that 74% of all vendors have diketones present. Given volatility of this issue, uncertainties of science, I doubt any would leave it with a simple yes, and feel they are being accurate. I also think if some did leave it with a "yes," that it would lead to more questions, most of which would be along lines of, "when are you going to appease me and all vapers by getting rid of this dangerous compound in your liquids?"
Yep, that's the direction I'm taking (see my sig). I can easily afford to have testing done, but unfortunately, Five Pawns has created an atmosphere in which I'll be reluctant to name names in my test results, something that will reduce their value to the community substantially. I can also afford to lawyer up, but frankly, I don't want the aggravation of having to do so.
I can't quote a podcast where he was interviewed, but I can tell you where to go to hear that podcast - Vaper's Place. It was either Dimitri's, Russ', or Kevin's show (I believe it was the latter). Browse the show notes for Dr. F. interviews, and have a listen for yourself. You might learn a thing or two, since it's evident you're not keeping up with this subject.
I'm glad you won't actually be publishing given aggravation you perceive you'd have from lawyering up.
I don't see how publishing specific results from select vendors will clean up the industry. Instead, it'll lead to early exits by popular vendors. Hmmm, what other entity in this game has stated this to be their purpose going forward?
If you really felt publishing the specific results was way to go, you'd do it. In case of 5P-C9, I don't see how it has moved vapers one inch closer to resolving the issue across the industry. Dr. F. did a study and learned of diketones in certain vendors, and chose not to publish the specific results for vendors that violated the claim of "none." He easily could have. Given that some vapers contributed to this funding, it would make some sense for them (or us) to know which vendors. Instead, he provided rationale for why this would be a bad idea.
Me, I don't think this issue will ever be sufficiently resolved, regardless of who is involved. I see FDA as plausibly making it worse (willing to wager on that). Only way it would be resolved, as I see it, is if all concerned vapers did own testing, found out answers they want, and then made purchasing decisions accordingly. Even then, there would still be consumers who either don't care, or do care and accept the risk, and keep those vendors in business. Thus, I really don't see how industry will be cleaned up entirely. But by golly, some of us are going to keep on pushing, and if popular vendors drop from the market, leaving us with 15 who we think we can trust, then we will be satisfied. Well, until one (or more) of those 15 are caught in a lie. Maybe then we can get it down to 5 vendors, who are making billions of dollars off of us, and who will be able to dictate every single direction that everything goes in, with BV on one side and ANTZ on the other side, looking out for public health. Cough, cough.
Last edited:
I have heard that. I dispute that he says what you are attributing to him as saying. So, I ask you to do the work of backing up your claim.
That "Atmosphere" you mentioned is Confusing to me.
It would seem that Five Pawns would welcome 3rd Party, Independent Verification, of the Levels of Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl that they say are in their e-liquids?
TOTALLY this. Suggestions that individuals get their own testing done are not practical. Individuals by and large do not have the means to do this. And as you succinctly point out, since the information cannot be shared without threat of litigation as SHOWN by Five Pawns, where does that leave us.
Well it leaves me angry with Five Pawns. I may not be a customer, but here is the rub. They are forcing the hand of Government, under the ONLY TRUE reasons why government should be involved in our lives, to step in and take a role. And all the while, claiming to be advocates FOR vapers. Ha. They are HURTING this industry, and honest suppliers whom I care a great deal for and about. You don't think that a company that is willfully adding ingredients believed to be possibly harmful, and denying it, is a problem? You think if we believe so, we should all have to spend large sums of money individually to have them tested? What about those that aren't even AWARE of the issue?
Consider these words from Abraham Lincoln:
The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people cannot do, or cannot well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branches off into an infinite variety of subdivisions.
The first—that in relation to wrongs—embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and non-performance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself.
From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government.
Last edited:
Oh, I will be publishing. I just won't name names. Instead, I'll provide a description of the flavor. At least one of them is a well-know juice with an iconic flavor.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "clean up". As I've said on many occasions, it's not my wish to see diketones disappear from juices. All I want is transparency, i.e. for those who wish to avoid diketones to be able to do so.
I disagree. We now have test results from 5P themselves. Would we have them if C9 hadn't published? Personally, I rather doubt it. In fact, I'd speculate that 5P would still be telling people something to the effect of, "We don't add diketones".
How long ago was that? It's been the better part of a year now, hasn't it? How many e-liquid manufacturers have stepped up, had testing done, and published the results? I think I can count them on my fingers.
Oh, I agree. I don't want the FDA (or any other government agency) involved.
Sorry, Jman, but most vapers aren't in a financial position to have every liquid they're interested in vaping analyzed themselves. A far better way to resolve it would be for vendors (either manufacturers or retailers) to do the testing and publish the results.
And that's entirely fine, but it would allow those who want to avoid this stuff the ability to make an informed choice.
It may be impractical (or may not), but is in reality the only way the consumer would actually know. If the consumer won't do this, then their version of "knowledge of whether it is, or isn't, in the liquid" would be based on trust and not science. In essence, consumers are really saying, who can we trust on this issue, and if we find fault, who can we pass the buck to?
Not remembering the numbers bothered me, so I looked up both NIOSH and Dr. F's recommended daily AP exposure limits - 137ug/ml. Now, if you vape a Five Pawns liquid with 900ug/ml, and only vape 1ml/day, you've consumed 6-1/2 days exposure limit. If you vape 5ml/day, you've now consumed 1 month's exposure in a single day.
Let's look at this another way. 900ug/ml x 30ml = 27,000ug which is 197 days of exposure per bottle. 2 bottles of Five Pawns liquid with 900ug/ml is equal to over 1 year of exposure! 2 bottles, per year, is your limit.
Now, if Cloud9's 2500ug/ml turns out to be the more accurate test, you're looking at 1.5 years exposure in every 30ml bottle, or 2/3 of a bottle per year limit.
Pretty much puts this all in perspective.
PS - For those needing a reference, 43:55 onward, Dr. F's own voice.
Last edited:
Good luck with that. I think you'll want to lawyer up along the way.
It's the various versions of "all I want" that is the problem for industry, and not really the DA/AP issue. Is this the first issue to come to the attention of industry that what they offer to consumers may be potentially harmful? Does anyone reading this think it'll be the last one?
With idea of transparency comes other versions of "all I want." With regulations looming, the "all I want" thing really ought to have been noted in FDA comments, IMO, otherwise it would seem disingenuous to bring it up now, for who do you think is going to get all of industry on the same page? With FDA, the transparency would be requirement that these companies that wish to stay on open market must be exceedingly transparent with all facets of their product in relation to FDA, and then FDA gives their stamp of approval. But FDA, nor industry would have obligation to be (completely) transparent with consumer.
You can go back on this thread and read the many versions of "all we are asking for" or "all I want" to realize that the consumers, all 30 of us on this thread, do not want the exact same thing, nor are presenting the issue in the exact same light. Now, multiply that by a million, and explain how industry is to appease everyone. Then add in ANTZ factor, and well, I don't see how abundant amount of transparency would be a good thing, whereas I can see how it would forever allow ANTZ a way to attack industry and scare consumers about what may potentially harm them.
And so, how does all of this move the consumers closer to resolution of the issue? Your resolution equals transparency. We now have indication that 5P has the compounds when there was reason to believe they did not (based on erroneous claims). That seems like a very teeny tiny step, but I'll grant that it is a teeny tiny step closer, even while I'd have to stipulate that with idea that the levels are in dispute and that 5P raises legitimate point around safety of levels.
I would think if people are really happy with outing 5P, they'd really push Dr. F. to release his results of those who came up above zero in his tests. I mean really push on that hard. That they don't, strikes me as witch hunting is now the popular sport for vapers in how to go about "transparency."
And I'll keep making the point that if vendors are solely doing testing, then consumers will never (actually) know. Thus is arguably a far worse way, but I don't mind agreeing to disagree on this one as I have principles of science to back up my position, and the other side has principles of trust/faith to back up theirs. How's trust and faith working out so far for the consumer with this issue?
It is without question impractical. Disposed. Best would be that the manufacturers themselves test. They should be testing anyway, to make sure that ingredient levels are correct, and that no other unwanted or harmful chemicals or additives are somehow making their way into the production stream. That's called QC, and if a company selling products for consumption aren't engaging in any QC, NONE of us should want anything to do with them. So if they are testing, as they should, there is no cause to not release the results. Simple as that.
If a manufacturer wants to refuse to test, or provide the results, then those next in the chain of liability for the product is the resellers. I sure don't blame them for testing in the absence of results from the manufacturers. Costco does this regularly with all consumables, whether tests are supplied are not. It is being responsible and caring for their customers. It's built into the price of the goods, and if you don't like it, YOU can shop somewhere else.
If a manufacturer DOES refuse to supply the results, let alone DENY their existence, thus placing the onus on the retailer, and a retailer then has it tested? It is rather disingenuous and fraudulent of the manufacturer to THEN cry foul, and provide their own, lower, results.
If a manufacturer wants to refuse to test, or provide the results, then those next in the chain of liability for the product is the resellers. I sure don't blame them for testing in the absence of results from the manufacturers. Costco does this regularly with all consumables, whether tests are supplied are not. It is being responsible and caring for their customers. It's built into the price of the goods, and if you don't like it, YOU can shop somewhere else.
If a manufacturer DOES refuse to supply the results, let alone DENY their existence, thus placing the onus on the retailer, and a retailer then has it tested? It is rather disingenuous and fraudulent of the manufacturer to THEN cry foul, and provide their own, lower, results.
VaporShark doesn't seem to be having any issue publishing test results for every flavor they sell.
PS - When I heard what VaporShark did, the very first thing that came to mind was I wonder if they sell Five Pawns - I'd love to see those test results. Really bummed they didn't. Then Cloud9 did. The rest is history.
What does that tell you about the industry or about the consumers? As you stated only a handful have published results. You now have your work cut out for you to hunt them down and find out what date and time and by whom does their testing if any has been conducted.
Love your idea to attempt to take another juice vendor down. You'll be doing it until BT is the only vendor left you won't be able to take down. We will all be back at the gas station buying our ejuice.
Something that I believe was missed and reeks of PR play was mention by 5P of (I'm paraphrasing here) "we reached out to c9 at an expo to try and talk and they refused". I'm trying to be calm and analytical but give me a break. When someone threatens you with a lawsuit you cease any sort of interaction with that individual/group. Period.
The correct response is ignore any sort of attempt at communication and if you are forced to communicate it's through your lawyer.
It's a sort of "We're not so bad; C9 is evasive" swipe. C9 is doing what any first year law student would tell you to do when faced with a potential lawsuit and contacted by the people initiating the lawsuit: Keep their mouths shut and let their lawyer do the talking, if it comes to that.
The correct response is ignore any sort of attempt at communication and if you are forced to communicate it's through your lawyer.
It's a sort of "We're not so bad; C9 is evasive" swipe. C9 is doing what any first year law student would tell you to do when faced with a potential lawsuit and contacted by the people initiating the lawsuit: Keep their mouths shut and let their lawyer do the talking, if it comes to that.
Won't that be fun? BT could sell us juice in tiny little boxes, containing about enough juice to last a full day, for about what a pack of smokes cost today. Will it have Diketones? Probably. Cigarettes have them and the FDA hasn't stopped them from adding them to smokes. But hey, we won't care. We'll still have access to juice, albeit very expensive juice, approved by the FDA and sold by BT who will only be looking out for our well being, like they've always done. Yes, can't wait for that day to come around..........
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
