Thank you @Bill Godshall for always bringing these to our attention. I think there were actually a lot of positives to come out of this workshop. Whether or not those positives are acknowledged by the FDA/media.
FDA Tomorrow's FDA workshop on Biomarkers of Tobacco Exposure to focus on e-cigs
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That last statement by Hatsukami was significant, imo. I failed to get a full copy on it:
"At the moment it looks -- it's looking really interesting for e-cigarettes as a population-based reduction of harm as well as an individualized risk.
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, to me it seems if you are going to make a modified risk claim you need to let the people know the risk for reduction and harm would only occur if you have complete substitution, you know, to the particular product if it's a case of e-cigarettes."
....but basically after the others said that ecigs were significantly less harmful, they turned to dual use and she (Hatsukami) said that dual users should be urged and informed of the significant reduction of harm of ecigarettes.
I cannot see (although I should know better :- ) how the FDA could possible go forward with the deeming as written, with these comments from basically - people on their side. (or who have in the past been on their side against ecigs).
Hopefully the full transcripts will be available for Bill, Siegel, Clive, Greg, CASAA et al, to put out press releases on this. Perhaps Jacob Sullum, Reason and Forbes will have some media on it.
"At the moment it looks -- it's looking really interesting for e-cigarettes as a population-based reduction of harm as well as an individualized risk.
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, to me it seems if you are going to make a modified risk claim you need to let the people know the risk for reduction and harm would only occur if you have complete substitution, you know, to the particular product if it's a case of e-cigarettes."
....but basically after the others said that ecigs were significantly less harmful, they turned to dual use and she (Hatsukami) said that dual users should be urged and informed of the significant reduction of harm of ecigarettes.
I cannot see (although I should know better :- ) how the FDA could possible go forward with the deeming as written, with these comments from basically - people on their side. (or who have in the past been on their side against ecigs).
Hopefully the full transcripts will be available for Bill, Siegel, Clive, Greg, CASAA et al, to put out press releases on this. Perhaps Jacob Sullum, Reason and Forbes will have some media on it.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/NewsEvents/UCM456529.pdf
Right now the 'morning session' is viewable - very little on ecigs there. The 'afternoon session' is not yet available but I'm guessing that like the morning session, it will be.
It's amazing that it took this long for researchers to start figuring out what is basic common sense.
But I understand how science works, so I guess I gotta cut them some slack.
Yes - science has backed up what common sense has told us. I can't wait until it does the same on global warming, but that may be a longer wait.
(and it isn't like this war is over - just one battle went our way, imo, and some of those guys may lose their funding
)Thanks Kent.
When I saw the Empty Room, I thought it was showing the End of the Workshop and not the Beginning.
I would just like to say that I was wrong. I am very impressed with the science that was provided today. We learned a lot of what we already know, but now there are scientists that the FDA acknowledges that back us up. Switching to vaping is magnitudes of order safer than smoking, second hand vapor is not an issue.
I would love to see more studies done on dual use. I believe Goniewiecz said the average dual user cut their cigarette intake by 6/day, I would love to see numbers for those users who are mostly vapers, but may still have 1-4 cigarettes/day.
ETA: I really wish someone would have responded to one of the questions about studying formaldehyde biomarkers with: we would have, but that "study" was thoroughly debunked so we didn't see the need.
(and it isn't like this war is over - just one battle went our way, imo, and some of those guys may lose their funding
Yup, just one battle, on one front of the war. I feel a sense of the tide slowly beginning to turn, although it may take a long time for it to completely reverse. On the other hand, with momentum, change can happen quickly.
I've always been amazed how 'good' is more contagious than 'evil' - although it almost never appears to be that way
(or is 'reported' that way).....
I've always been amazed how 'good' is more contagious than 'evil' - although it almost never appears to be that way
I am feeling very cynical as of late. In the next few days there will be headlines that e-juice contains carbon 13 isotopes AND OR that they found biomarkers in vapor AND OR that through testing they have confirmed that second hand vapor affects bystanders. Every time positive things come out some ANTZ twists it into being a negative and that is what the public perceives. Unfortunately for us perception is reality.
Even though that was corrected, you're absolutely right That's how those types do things. If they actually told the truth, they'd lose most of their viewership/readership, and be accused of 'selling out' 
Well, this may well be what they're thinking: A Glimpse into the Regulatory Future of Vaping | Vaping.com
FYI, I sat on a panel discussion with Dorothy Hatsukami and Eric Lindblom. It's quite clear to me that the overall desire on their part is for the FDA to be very light touch on e-cigs, while enacting the authority they have to reduce nicotine in smoked tobacco.
The idea being that cigarettes will become less addictive (leading to fewer new smokers), and those smokers who want or need nicotine will migrate to vaping.
Didn't they try that before? And wasn't the net result that people just smoked more cigarettes?
Unless they can find and remove whatever works with nicotine to cause the addiction to smoking cigarettes the only thing it will do is increase sales. I went from less than a pack a day when smoking luckies to a 3 pack a day habit with ultra lights. But that's just anecdotal evidence according to them.
Yep. There's no way to reduce the addictive potential of tobacco as long as people are setting it on fire and inhaling the smoke. Considering all I've seen around here about "there's other stuff in there besides nicotine!" it's very clear -- and not ONLY the minor alkaloids; I think even the toxic pyrolytic compounds must exert some addictive force, because WTA is certainly not effective for everyone.
They seem to have their heads positively STUCK on the idea that nicotine is why cigarettes are addictive... but it's only ONE reason; until or unless they get rid of all the other reasons, there's no way to make tobacco less addictive -- and contrary to what I thought when I first got here, MAOIs are not added; they occur naturally in tobacco, and those would be my bet for what makes smoking so addictive -- anything that exerts that strong an effect on brain chemistry nearly HAS TO BE addictive -- look at the withdrawal syndrome of SSRIs!
Andria
@Lessifer Well, they're conducting studies right now at tcors centres.
It's true that low-tar/low-nicotine cigarettes are just as addictive and dangerous as full-strength. But we're talking about nicotine levels massively lower than found in the current smoking market.
The two questions are: would lowering nicotine in cigarettes to the extent allowed by FSPTCA prevent new users becoming addicted, and would the level be low enough that existing smokers would not be able to compensate by smoking more/inhaling more deeply and would instead chose alternative sources of nicotine?
If, for example, it's decided that the first is true (although it can't be empirically derived for obvious ethical reasons), but the net effect is that smoking becomes more dangerous for existing smokers, would they still push for it?
Here's a great, open access, article by Lynn Kozlowski on the current situation: Elsevier: Article Locator
It's true that low-tar/low-nicotine cigarettes are just as addictive and dangerous as full-strength. But we're talking about nicotine levels massively lower than found in the current smoking market.
The two questions are: would lowering nicotine in cigarettes to the extent allowed by FSPTCA prevent new users becoming addicted, and would the level be low enough that existing smokers would not be able to compensate by smoking more/inhaling more deeply and would instead chose alternative sources of nicotine?
If, for example, it's decided that the first is true (although it can't be empirically derived for obvious ethical reasons), but the net effect is that smoking becomes more dangerous for existing smokers, would they still push for it?
Here's a great, open access, article by Lynn Kozlowski on the current situation: Elsevier: Article Locator
Last edited:
The problem is them continuing to obsess over nicotine -- even if cigarettes had ZERO nicotine, those MAOIs would still be there.
Andria
Sure, but MAOIs on their own are not addictive. It's the coupling of the MAOIs with nicotine that lead to the problems.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
