what does this mean? is this 1 case per 100,000 or 1 + all the others in that 100,000 that got
cancer from that chemical. can rates be detected in the 1 in 100,000 range with reliability?
regards
mike
CEH files shakedown lawsuits in CA against 24 large e-cig companies alleging high carcinogen levels
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
cancer from that chemical. can rates be detected in the 1 in 100,000 range with reliability?
regards
mike
Legal battles are costly. I do hope that one, or more of the vendors on the list step up and fight this. What would be best is if they pool their resources and fight this as a "class," with a counter suit.
However, being from California, I can tell you what seems to usually happen in cases like this, or prop 65, or ADA compliance cases. Either the company settles/makes the "required" adjustments, or closes shop. Whichever is financially better for them.
Maybe they had no intention of sending the notices, and were only looking to get the resulting scare headlines going.
Today with low information types - no counter will matter. The meme persists. Trump meant "Coyotes" and Hillary may very well have not had any emails 'marked' classified. So... what difference, at this point, does it make.
At least those two have people with money and media access working for them. Bogus e-cig science is different, and I can't recall any media scare study as bad as this one.
True, but how effective their counter may be, the meme still exists. That's all I'm saying. Either may win and ecigs might not get banned/regulated out of existence. But there will always be someone attempting to use that data against all.
Every bogus ANTZ study result never stops getting recirculated, even after getting walked back, thoroughly debunked, or admonished by the courts. This has been the case from 2009, on.
Well, so far, they haven't seemed to want to spend the money ...... or something.
As local bans and laws continue to roll across the US, I guess I don't understand why the ecig industry hasn't put its shoulder, full force, with all it's resources----- to bear?
(I see some are spending $$ to put their names on racecars instead? Won't be much sense in advertising if it's banned everywhere.
)If the industry really believes in itself ------ then it has never made sense to me how they usually just end up on the defensive?
I know the game and how it's played. .....if you think your opponent isn't going to come right back with evidence to prove to contrary, they have you running on defensive. When you are not AGGRESSIVELY pursuing evidence to prove otherwise, then you have made yourself into fair game, and it becomes easier for your opponent to keep picking on you.
Defensive strategy = penny wise and pound foolish.
Jessica99 posted her 'Friday News at a Glance' post, linking to a Dr.Farsalinos commentary on the CEH study.:
Center for Environmental Health pretends to have made a breakthrough discovery about e-cigarettes
Center for Environmental Health pretends to have made a breakthrough discovery about e-cigarettes
That's not fixing the problem.
That's exacerbating it, allowing it to grow and fester.
Well, so far, they haven't seemed to want to spend the money ...... or something.
As local bans and laws continue to roll across the US, I guess I don't understand why the ecig industry hasn't put its shoulder, full force, with all it's resources----- to bear?
(I see some are spending $$ to put their names on racecars instead? Won't be much sense in advertising if it's banned everywhere.
If the industry really believes in itself ------ then it has never made sense to me how they usually just end up on the defensive?
I know the game and how it's played. .....if you think your opponent isn't going to come right back with evidence to prove to contrary, they have you running on defensive. When you are not AGGRESSIVELY pursuing evidence to prove otherwise, then you have made yourself into fair game, and it becomes easier for your opponent to keep picking on you.
Defensive strategy = penny wise and pound foolish.
Sharks are cowards who would rather go after the dead or injured; not much different than lawyers in California going after an industry they know won't use the courts, except NJOY the one time...
They should publish complete testing protocols and the name of the lab used.Either they are being dishonest or worried over backlash from irate ecig users.
He is certainly not the brightest bulb in the field.You can use his comments for counter claims and nothing more.
Do you mean to say that they might be being honest, but worried over backlash?
Who's not bright, the CEH guy, or Dr. F? Not sure who you're referring to, but that best describes me in this.
Carl Phillips linked to a copy someone, maybe he, saved:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B26hMMO97qS6YXJDQTFvampJYmM/view?pli=1
I really like Carl Phillips coining of "the CEH test" as a BS barometer for the future. The "Glantz test" was getting kinda old.
I replied to to Charles Margulis asked for the complete testing protocols, and asked if he could supply this information, or point me to where I can find it. I aslo asked if the study was published, if it was peer reviewed, and what lab did the testing.
He replied, saying that the details are part of a confidential legal case. I replied asking if could at least tell me if the study has been peer reviewed.
He didn't merely say that the details are confidential. He said the legal case is confidential. Well CEH sure blabbed all over the press about their "confidential" case. This is big time corruption, and the sneakiest, most damaging dishonesty regarding vaping to date, IMO.
- Status
Similar threads
