Harm reduction interview

[TropicalBob]

Makes the points many here would like the public to become aware of:

Electronic Smokers Magazine | Interview with Paul Bergen: Are Electronic Cigarettes Safe? Setting the Record Straight…

 

[Walrus]

Nice article, but as it appears in Electronic Smokers Magazine, it's kinda preaching to the choir, don't you think?

 

[yvilla]

Yes.

I was really optimistic and hoping that the Harm Reduction project would eventually take this position, particularly after I saw mention on their site a while back that they were looking into electronic cigarettes.

It does need to get out into more mainstream media however.

 

[TropicalBob]

True, Walrus, but these are points WE need to make in answering questions during demonstrations or in any public place. Some here are as guilty as the worst seller when they rave on about how wonderful the e-cig is -- to quit cigarettes, with such a safer device, etc. None of that is proven. The points in this interview are the only points any user should ever make, in writing or in person.

Sadly, though, you're right that the public doesn't read Electronic Smokers Magazine, available only online. Talk about publishing in a closet ...

 

[strayling]

Thanks for posting that, it presented the information in a nicely calm and rational way. I do find myself wondering a little about the tobacco Harm Reduction Project, because they seem to be almost too keen on e-cigs. I'm inclined to agree with them but I hope they aren't setting themselves up for accusations of bias due to their accepting funds from the US smokeless tobacco industry. I know they say it's "hands off", but since when did that ever convince anyone?

 

[Walrus]

As a recent convert myself (thanks again, Rita!) I've already got three friends ordering their first e-cigs. I work in a very public position (I'm a DJ at a night club) and I must have explained it over a dozen times this past weekend. One thing that I am very firm on... it is *not* healthy, it's just healthier than the alternative. I am also quite adamant that nicotine liquid is a poison, and point out that pure nicotine is used (or was used, not sure) as a pesticide. I point out that the little 3cc bottles I carry are more than enough to kill.

I had a morbid thought, also. A little 3cc bottle of TW's unflavored 36mg, put into an unsuspecting person's drink, would be quite an assasination tool. Good thing I like most people!

 

[James]

Hi Walrus - I carried out the original interview with Paul and am currently going through a bunch of material he sent me on nicotine. Although in its pure form it's lethal, according to a number of researchers when taken in an inhaler or similar form it is about as bad as a cup of coffee. (Not everyone agrees with this, though, as there has been some suggestion it could speed up the development of lung cancer!) It also has a number of beneficial properties too, and possibly huge medical potential for a number of diseases.

Of course, it is also very addictive!

 

[Zebra]

i point out that the little 3cc bottles i carry are more than enough to kill.

I had a morbid thought, also. A little 3cc bottle of tw's unflavored 36mg, put into an unsuspecting person's drink, would be quite an assasination tool. Good thing i like most people!

lol!!!!!! :d

 

[staresm]

Thanks for the link to the article. By taking a bit of a journey from the article, I found and spent a bit of time on this site: tobaccoharmreduction.org/index.htm (sorry, can't put in a complete link yet.) There is tons of information here and a lot of the concerns faced by those who smoke, use smokeless tobacco or ecigarettes are addressed on this site. I do know that the University of Alberta is supposed to have a very good school of public health and a friend of my daughter works there in cancer research. I especially like how they explain the WHO stand on not supporting electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation device. Here's another link to a news story in which Dr. Phillips figured: cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/06/f-rfa-durham.html Either way, it gives us more solid information to pass on to others who might be considering switching to electronic cigs or who challenge our use of them.

Margaret

 

[pbergen]

Thanks for the good reception on my interview however I would like to respond to a point raised by Strayling regarding our "bias". Though our project did not exist before our funding, our research into this area and support for alternative nicotine products did. If our funding was dropped it would not change our message. But let's imagine that we were just a tool of our funders -if that were the case we would be under serious attack from our funders since our support of e-cigarettes is support of a serious competitor to both smokeless tobacco sales and to cigarettes. (Though our funding was put into place when the company only produced smokeless tobacco, the company has since been bought by a traditional cigarette company). It is perhaps a measure of the hands off funding that 1. we feel free to say and write whatever we want and 2. that nobody from these companies have tried to interfere at all.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that, given the politics in this area, these are the only people who would fund this kind of project. Even more importantly, the research or message should be judged independently of its source.

And, a few of you have mentioned that this is preaching to the choir, publishing in a pro-ecig forum but you do have to start somewhere. What is so great about this is among the few negative news articles is the much more positive coverage of this healthier alternative.

 

[Walrus]

Pbergen,

Thank you for your work. My 'preaching to the choir' comment was meant in no way to minimize your effort. It is sincerely my hope that your message finds it's way into more mainstream media. When I read articles such as the one referencing the CBS Morning Show piece, I can only think about how they should have balanced it by including one such as you.

Thanks again,

David

 

[staresm]

I believe on the Tobacco Harm Reduction Website they also say the university receives grants from private and public anti-tobacco advocacy groups, and organizations that pay the costs associated with smoking caused diseases as well as the USSTC which partially supports the THR group. Although it would be really nice if research was paid for by some completely uninvolved entity with absolutely nothing to gain or lose from any findings derived, unfortunately the world doesn't work that way and hasn't for a great many years. This is true in the food, pharmaceutical, agricultural and all other industries. Right now, the work done by the THR and NZ Health are the only shows in town. Eventually there will be more, but I don't see any other scientific work being touted to contradict what they say. Unless of course you count the guy from CBS who said he didn't really know for sure if nicotine was harmful, but he believed it was. Surely if there were a scientifically sound argument available he would have made it. Anyway, vaping makes me feel a lot better than traditional smoking, my house doesn't stink, and it's no secret that inhaling smoke, be it from your barbecue, a bonfire or anything else is a bad thing and at least I'm not doing that anymore.

Margaret

 

[SpaceCadet]

A great piece, and nice to see both interviewer and interviewee having their say here - welcome, guys!

If e-cigs are so great, as many of us here believe, I don't see whay there should be any suspicion of bias. It's something relatively new that can help get smokers off the evil tobacco. To me it's common sense that those involved in public health should take an interest. Heck, even ASH is on our side!

 

[wv2win]

Paul,

Thank you for the interview. I'm not sure what media reports on electronic vaporizers you have been seeing but all the ones I have seen have been quite biased against them as well as lacking in knowledge on the subject.

I'm not sure if you can answer this question, but I wonder why the large tobacco companies are not investing in this new device, manufacturing it here in the states and trying to provide a safer alternative to tobacco? For that matter, I don't know why some Bill Gates type electrical engineer/entrepreneur hasn't come up with a much improved e-vaporizer, yet. I would think the market would be huge.

 

[TropicalBob]

Margaret is correct about how testing is done today. Do keep in mind that if a respected research group deliberately distorted findings of fact, their tree would be chopped down in a hurry by peers. Their work is read; their research is scrutinized.

I tend of dismiss claims of bias if I respect the researcher, as I do Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand and those in the Harm Reduction Movement. They have an objective, of course, hopefully proving their research topic is safer than inhaling tobacco. But I doubt very much that they would purposefully lie with published research or statements. Their professional reputation is at stake with each utterance.

Big welcome to both of you.

 

[staresm]

When a research team is associated with or under the umbrella of an accredited university you can be relatively confident that their work is subject to peer review. You can also be assured that if they were to "fudge" their findings to skew it to suit their funding source, there would be a backlash from the university itself as well as other bodies that funded even unrelated research at that university. The University of Alberta could not afford to be associated with such skullduggery. The recent cases in the media of study results manipulation have for the large part been some of the pharmaceutical studies conducted by scientists who were for all intents and purposes employees of the pharma company in labs owned by the companies. The scandal there was that results were the property of the company and they didn't publicly release unfavourable results. Gotta love the desk drawer studies.

For a good read that illustrates how studies can be and are manipulated and how some findings can be witheld or skewed I recommend Gary Taubes "Good Calories Bad Calories". It has nothing to do with nicotine, but is an amusing book. It's very interesting how public belief and opinion can and has been manipulated and how determined people are to stick to their guns even when proven wrong.

Margaret

 

[strayling]

Thanks for the good reception on my interview however I would like to respond to a point raised by Strayling regarding our "bias". Though our project did not exist before our funding, our research into this area and support for alternative nicotine products did. If our funding was dropped it would not change our message.

...

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that, given the politics in this area, these are the only people who would fund this kind of project. Even more importantly, the research or message should be judged independently of its source.

To clarify, I'm in no way accusing you of bias, only pointing out that people who want to disagree with your findings will take one look at the source of funding and switch their brains off. I see you have your arguments all lined up though, so I wish you good luck.

 

[jamie]

One thing that I am very firm on... it is *not* healthy, it's just healthier than the alternative. I am also quite adamant that nicotine liquid is a poison, and point out that pure nicotine is used (or was used, not sure) as a pesticide. I point out that the little 3cc bottles I carry are more than enough to kill.

Yeeeesss <sigh> there is some truth there... we all want to be cautious when talking to non-vapers... but of course this Pepsi I'm drinking is *not* healthy. Right now we don't know much at all, not enough to insist upon anything, including "healthier than the alternative" - come back in 30 years. And those little 3cc bottles, they're almost entirely PG or VG, not nicotine... reading forums they seem to be 90-96% NOT nicotine. The thought of earnestly cautioning a cigarette smoker that my e-cigarette contains "poison" makes my head spin over the infinite loop at hand.

I'm just feeling weary today, reading the "4000 chemicals" propoganda in two dozen board posts. The hyping of every single possible too-miniscule-to-measure contaminant of every single possible too-miniscule-to-measure ingredient, many of which are also in the air we breath indoors and outdoors, in the water we drink, in our clothes and furniture and soil... Commercial tobacco cigs are bad enough when the truth is told, yet exaggeration still permeates every mention of them. Stunningly effective P.R. work that was.

Thanks for listening.

/rant

 

[riddle80]

Hi Paul! It's great to see you here! I contacted you via email a while back and pointed you this way (Sherica).

I think you've done a great job with this interview and I agree that you have to start somewhere! I commend everything that you're doing as well. No matter how large or small, we need all the honest media attention we can get at this point!

 

[pbergen]

Paul,

I'm not sure if you can answer this question, but I wonder why the large tobacco companies are not investing in this new device, manufacturing it here in the states and trying to provide a safer alternative to tobacco? For that matter, I don't know why some Bill Gates type electrical engineer/entrepreneur hasn't come up with a much improved e-vaporizer, yet. I would think the market would be huge.

I don't have any insider knowledge on this but I would not be at all surprised if many of them are either working on their own versions, or considering stepping in at some point and investing in companies that make the products. They might be holding off on the last since there might be a patent shakeout coming soon as well as a firming up of who the dominant leaders are going to be (and of course also final government decisions on how these can be marketed).