FDA funded Tom Eissenberg urges policy makers to consider imposing nicotine limits on vapor products

[Bill Godshall]

After urging FDA to ban e-cigs in 2010 because (he claimed) e-cigs don't emit nicotine, FDA funded Tom Eissenberg's new study urges policy makers to consider imposing nicotine limits on vapor products (after his study found that vapers using 36mg/ml nicotine e-liquid could consume even more nicotine than smoking a cigarette.
Electronic cigarette nicotine delivery can exceed that of combustible cigarettes: a preliminary report -- Ramôa et al. -- Tobacco Control

The only thing consistent about Eissenberg is that he is quick to recommend nationwide e-cig policy changes based upon findings of just one small study, and in this case, his findings and policy recommendations totally contradict his claims from just five years ago.

Below is his policy recommendation (from the full text version of the study)
"Thus, some ECIGs appear capable of exceeding the nicotine delivery profile of a combustible tobacco cigarette. We speculate that this excessive nicotine delivery may be harmful if it leads to a greater level of nicotine dependence, which could make ECIG cessation difficult if users eventually choose to try to quit their ECIG use. Alternatively, users of higher nicotine liquid concentration may control nicotine intake by altering their puffing behaviour. Nonetheless, there is no clear rationale for a product that potentially delivers more nicotine than a tobacco cigarette, thus policymakers worldwide may want to consider limiting access to ECIG device/liquid combinations that demonstrate this nicotine delivery profile."

 

[Lessifer]

"Nonetheless, there is no clear rationale for a product that potentially delivers more nicotine than a tobacco cigarette, thus policymakers worldwide may want to consider limiting access to ECIG device/liquid combinations that demonstrate this nicotine delivery profile."

Doesn't this apply to EVERY nicotine replacement product? The patch regularly has as much nicotine as 21 cigarettes, a piece of the gum can have as much as 4x the amount in a single cigarette, same with lozenges.

 

[Digital Doctor]

I dont think 36mg/ml is a popular nicotine concentration. A local shop was thinking of getting rid of it because of it's unpopularity.

The main reason why this study is useless is ... say an upper level was mandated ... say 30mg/ml ... then someone who wanted a higher nicotine in their blood would vape more frequently.

An upper limit is a waste of time.

 

[Lessifer]

I dont think 36mg/ml is a popular nicotine concentration. A local shop was thinking of getting rid of it because of it's unpopularity.

The main reason why this study is useless is ... say an upper level was mandated ... say 30mg/ml ... then someone who wanted a higher nicotine in their blood would vape more frequently.

An upper limit is a waste of time.

Arguably some of the "most popular" products regularly contain 48mg/ml or higher. Vuse and njoy are at that level I believe, I think mark ten is as well.

 

[Digital Doctor]

Arguably some of the "most popular" products regularly contain 48mg/ml or higher. Vuse and njoy are at that level I believe, I think mark ten is as well.

Interesting !

Must depend alot on the device.

Regardless ... demonizing the nicotine is missing the main issue here.
Smoke Kills, Vapour doesnt.

 

[somdcomputerguy]

Arguably some of the "most popular" products regularly contain 48mg/ml or higher. Vuse and njoy are at that level I believe, I think mark ten is as well.

In my mind there is a clear distinction between 'content' and 'delivery'. Cig-alikes such as the products mentioned don't process the liquid (deliver the full nicotine content) as well as an APV, hence their higher nicotine content. I agree with what Digital Doctor said, "Smoke kills, Vapor doesn't".

 

[sofarsogood]

But then nic isn't the harmful part of smoking. It's not the thing that needs to be reduced. Right now I'm vaping 12mg nic. I'd like to reduce the amount of vaping I do. The first thing I'm going to try when I've got DIY is to INCREASE the nic percentage and see if that gets me vaping few ml per day. My hunch is that will work. My perception is I don't crave nic so much as it tells me when to stop.

We have to suffer these self interested pseudo scientists who are freaking out because the money that funds their labs will go away if tobacco sales collapse. They are having a group psychotic episode as their lazy and corrupt little world collapses.

 

[nicnik]

I'd like to reduce the amount of vaping I do. The first thing I'm going to try when I've got DIY is to INCREASE the nic percentage and see if that gets me vaping few ml per day. My hunch is that will work.

It works for me.

 

[Lessifer]

But then nic isn't the harmful part of smoking. It's not the thing that needs to be reduced. Right now I'm vaping 12mg nic. I'd like to reduce the amount of vaping I do. The first thing I'm going to try when I've got DIY is to INCREASE the nic percentage and see if that gets me vaping few ml per day. My hunch is that will work. My perception is I don't crave nic so much as it tells me when to stop.

We have to suffer these self interested pseudo scientists who are freaking out because the money that funds their labs will go away if tobacco sales collapse. They are having a group psychotic episode as their lazy and corrupt little world collapses.

Yup, vaping 12mg at 0.7 Ω keeps me under 4ml a day. Sometimes closer to 2ml.

 

[somdcomputerguy]

... INCREASE the nic percentage and see if that gets me vaping few ml per day. My hunch is that will work. My perception is I don't crave nic so much as it tells me when to stop.

It worked that way for me. A few months ago I went from 21mg to 24mg. I've found my 'vape sessions' to be of a shorter time length, with more time span between those sessions.

 

[pianoguy]

Your body will tell you if you've had too much nicotine, and it is not pleasant. Nobody in their right mind would do it repeatedly.

 

[bobwho77]

"Scientist" accepts FDA funding...

"Scientist "urges FDA to enact policy that they're already planning to enact anyway...

Coincidence???

 

[edyle]

shouldn't he urge fda to impose smoke particle limits?

 

[sofarsogood]

The finest thing I ever heard a scientist say was when a local reporter asked a Wayne State University physicist, "what do you believe..." and he answers, "I don't BELIEVE anything." That is exactly how a scientist, when he is being a scientist, is supposed to answer. Their job is to do experiments and report results. It's bad form for a scientist to step out of that role and start spouting policy and politics. It undermines their credibility as scientists in the eyes of their collegues, as it should.

 

[nicnik]

It undermines their credibility as scientists in the eyes of their collegues, as it should.

Looks to me like more and more of their colleagues just get jealous and want theirs, too.

 

[CarolT]

The finest thing I ever heard a scientist say was when a local reporter asked a Wayne State University physicist, "what do you believe..." and he answers, "I don't BELIEVE anything." That is exactly how a scientist, when he is being a scientist, is supposed to answer. Their job is to do experiments and report results. It's bad form for a scientist to step out of that role and start spouting policy and politics. It undermines their credibility as scientists in the eyes of their collegues, as it should.

Their colleagues are not physicists. Their cronies are as corrupt and rotten to the core as they are, so they actually admire outright psychopathic lying. And these people are in the drivers' seat, they're the one with all the political connections, not those who fit some idealized notion of what scientists are supposed to be like.

 

[sofarsogood]

Their colleagues are not physicists. Their cronies are as corrupt and rotten to the core as they are, so they actually admire outright psychopathic lying. And these people are in the drivers' seat, they're the one with all the political connections, not those who fit some idealized notion of what scientists are supposed to be like.

I've felt for a while that governments fund so much science that it's corrupting the process. Bad science is worse than no science. Some of my best days have been as a garage inventor. Having to spend your own money helps the creative process a lot. This is the perfect moment to observe that EC (ecigs) did not come from an NIH research grant or a gigantic pharma lab but from a Chinese garage inventor in China. What he came up with is one of the great medical achievements of the last 100 years and it will save more lives for less money that all those NIH labs and big pharma patented poisons put together.

 

[DC2]

The author of the study that is the subject of this thread is a member on this forum.
Feel free to search the forum (teissenb) for his posts.

I agree completely with what Bill Godshall stated in his opening post of this thread.
The author of this study hasn't learned a damn thing from his time here.

In fact, it now seems he was just using us.

Perhaps @teissenb will stop by and explain himself.
Or not.

I'd probably prefer he just go .... himself.

 

[nicnik]

Perhaps @teissenb will stop by and explain himself.
Or not.

From the profile page:

"teissenb was last seen:
Today at 12:32 PM"

You just missed him.

 

[sofarsogood]

What has confounded me since I got involved with this EC subject 11 months ago is the behavior of the medical research community. There must be lots of people in medicine who hope ECs are as good as they appear to be. May be we don't hear so much from them because, being the good scientists that they are, they do their work, mind their knitting like they are supposed to. The bad scientists doing the bad science are the ones who step out of character and try to manipulate and scare us. It's the job of politicians, not scientists, to lie and manipulate.