American Cancer Society exec recommends science-based approach to regulating e-cigs

[Vocalek]

This link was sent to me by Prof. Riccardo Polosa, who conducted testing in Italy. Electronic Cigarettes: Miracle or Public Health Danger? - Global Bridges

Prof. Polosa hopes this means that the ACS is beginning to change its views.

We can only hope that the government organizations don't decide to regulate first and conduct research later. By then it's too late. Regulations are a heck of a lot easier to pass than they are to reverse.

 

[wfx]

There is only one solution to resolving this controversy and ultimately improving public health. That solution, as we've learned from more than two centuries of public health advances, is to put science to work.

Exactly. If the ACS can change course that would be wonderful. But these guys have a lot of momentum, funding and "moral high ground" issues to resolve first. I'd expect them to be the last to turn.

 

[kristin]

From the original ACS blog post on which the above article was based:

The only solution to bridging this divide - and ultimately improving public health - is, as we have learned from more than two centuries of public health advances, to put science to work, obtain solid, independent data, and then make decisions and recommendations based on those data. To do otherwise, to develop public health policy on the basis of opinions and anecdotes, will not serve the public well and will, ultimately, undermine both points of view.

I found this other ACS article to be extremely interesting because of these quotes:

s I pointed out in my first blog on Chantix in 2006, there are always new or more frequent side effects found with almost every prescription medication once it is released for widespread use by physicians and their patients.

There are benefits and risks involved in any medication, and by any measure we have seen, Chantix is effective in helping people quit smoking (although we await data from “the real world” on how effective Chantix is in typical smokers leading their typical lives).

Proves the point I make elsewhere on this forum that clinical trials of e-cigarettes wouldn't tell us anymore than we already know and are an expensive waste of time. Even with FDA-approved and clinically tested Chantix, they await data from “the real world” to see how safe and effective it REALLY is.

They admit that they rely on real world reports on medications, yet deny that the reports from thousands of "real world users" reporting that they have quit smoking using e-cigarettes with no adverse health effects has any relevance? Those are just "anecdotes?" Considering what happened with Chantix, are clinical trials really a reliable "science" to show efficacy and safety??

There are certainly reasons to be a bit skeptical about reports of this type. After all, according to the Wall Street Journal, an estimated 5.5 million people have taken Chantix since it was released two years ago. There are inevitably going to be things happening to some of those people, including falls, heart attacks, seizures, etc. It would be impossible to link these few hundred problems to Chantix, considering the large number of people taking the drugs.

But when you read the full report from The Institute for Safe Medication Practices, you find they employed an analytical process designed to separate background noise from potentially serious problems.

And yet, with no serious adverse effects reported due to e-cigarette use from the estimated 2.5 million users, it's perfectly reasonable to still say "there is no evidence that they are safe?"

And from this ACS article on dissolvables

Star Scientific tobacco company first developed dissolvable tobacco pellets a decade ago

We don't yet know how safe dissolvables are.

So, where are the reports of serious adverse effects over the past 10 years?

Certainly, as with all smokeless tobacco products, they will be less lethal than smoked cigarettes, and smokers should certainly continue to be made aware of that. But we do know that other smokeless tobacco products are associated with increased risk of oral cancers, the potential for increased pancreatic cancer risk, and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Wow, someone actually admits that they are less lethal - but there is an "increased risk." But he does not tell you that "increased risk" is infinitesimal (especially compared to Chantix) and does he not imply that "some risk" is present with ANY products and it's worth it to quit smoking (in his comment below?)

From the beginning, there was awareness that additional side effect reports would be inevitable. They always are with prescription medicines. No medication is free of risk. That is specifically why I put the link to the FDA’s MedWatch in the original Chantix blog.

Smoking tobacco is bad for your health. Quitting smoking is good for your health. Chantix can help you quit smoking.

If "No medication is free of risk" then why must dissolvables and e-cigarettes be be proven free of risk before they can be recommended as an alternative to smoking??

Complete hypocrisy.

 

[wfx]

And yet, with no serious adverse effects reported due to e-cigarette use from the estimated 2.5 million users, it's perfectly reasonable to still say "there is no evidence that they are safe?"

yep. it's a defensive position to say "we don't know". they are stuck with the blinders on. exotic drugs have been the focus of smoking cessation research for years. now that effort looks really wasteful.

so ACS - you want to know the effects of inhaling vaporized nicotine liquids? do a large scale study. i bet you get a flood of responses. ex-smokers are notorious 'preachers'. half of them would pay you to get to work on this.

 

[jtpjc]

There seems to be some anecdotal evidence that some Chantix users kill themselves.

 

[bikertrash]

Hmmm.... Gasoline vapors while refueling, Aspirin, Over the counter 'everything', Lawn Darts, Alcohol, I guess all these things should be banned...

Remember, don't let us live too long... That'll wreck the economy for sure... Perhaps we are working this backwards...

If we could convince them that vaping is 'really' harmful, they'll leave it alone!

 

[wfx]

There seems to be some anecdotal evidence that some Chantix users kill themselves.

wow. that kind of kills the marketing plan. literally.

 

[sawitall]

double blind studies rule the health roost. been that way since the 60's and it twas the death of the anecdotal evidence in physician practice.. maybe some company with enough in the ecig industry can use that to make a Bold proof of real world effectiveness and safety. its not like our product is riddled with hidden dangers.

 

[Retriever]

I am glad the ACS seems to be looking at this objectively. The more organizations and doctors we can get on our side the better. After all, that is what big pharma does - visit doctor's offices.

 

[Old Chemist]

There seems to be some anecdotal evidence that some Chantix users kill themselves.

Are you sure it's anecdotal? Let's face the solid scientific facts (coming from FDA data):
Suicidal Behavior and Depression in Smoking Cessation Treatments
As far as I know there are no such data on e-cig users showing suicidal behavior (unless someone runs out of liquid in the middle of the night *LOL*).

 

[5vz]

I'm all for even more testing to be done, but we are not into ten years of use here in the U.S. (Only I hope the new spin of e-cigs don't help people quit is not based on those tiny stick models found in gas stations. I couldn't quit on those either, lol!)

What I think I am seeing argued here is some confusion between Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. So, is the liquid nicotine going to be under Pharma or Tobacco? Big Pharma has been really screwing up with the release of many, many unsafe drugs, Big Tobacco screwed up many, many years ago by not informing the public that cigs cause cancer even though they already knew it. So, this is confusing.

I can by nicotine gum, lozenges, or patches (dissolve-able nicotine) over the counter, no prescription, no extra taxes. Can that happen for nicotine liquid?

 

[FAAmecanic]

I have tried Chantix twice to quit smoking. Both times my DR. pulled me off them due to it making me EASILY and HIGHLY agressive. Im the type of person that hates fighting. Im fairly calm and very easy going. While on Chantix the smallest things set me off into a RAGE! My poor poor wife....god bless her soul....had to deal with me like this.

It was like... "WHAT...MY TOAST IS MORE BROWN ON ONE SIDE THEN THE OTHER....ARRRRGHHHH!" toaster then goes flying across the room, cat and dog run for cover, my poor wife slinks down in her chair and hides.....

I really hope this attempt, my first with vaping, to quit works. I have tried gum (2X), Patches (2X), Welbutrin (1X..didnt do squat), Chanitx (2X).

I still say the bottom line is our Governments cant figure out how to tax the whiz out of this yet.... so they just want to ban it. If they could tax it ...they wouldnt care if it was harmful. Just look at tobacco and booze.

 

[FAAmecanic]

Big Tobacco screwed up many, many years ago by not informing the public that cigs cause cancer even though they already knew it.

Not only that..but my biggest pet peeve, and the sole reason I support the idea that big tobacco should have the snot sued out of them, is that Big Tobacco has been ADDING chemicals not naturally found in the tobacco for years that has the SOLE purpose of making the NICOTINE more readily absorbed into your body. Thereby making it MORE addictive than it really is.

How is that any better than a drug pusher on the street that gives you "free samples" just to get you hooked so you will buy more illegal drugs from him.

 

[wfx]

What I think I am seeing argued here is some confusion between Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. So, is the liquid nicotine going to be under Pharma or Tobacco?

exactly. that's the argument here. there's a ton of money moving out, and both want their share. i can only hope the lobbies kill eachother in the scramble.

 

[DC2]

What I think I am seeing argued here is some confusion between Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. So, is the liquid nicotine going to be under Pharma or Tobacco?

exactly. that's the argument here. there's a ton of money moving out, and both want their share. i can only hope the lobbies kill eachother in the scramble.

Big Pharma already tried to take control of these products and lost in court.

Well, really, the FDA tried to take control of these products by trying to classify them as a drug delivery device.
But in the case of Smoking Everywhere vs FDA it was ruled that electronic cigarettes are NOT drug delivery devices.

If the ruling had gone the other way, the FDA would have banned them, and basically handed them over to Big Pharma.

That doesn't mean that Big Pharma can't make their own product and market it as an NRT though.
But they almost certainly won't do so under the current conditions, as their products would be too expensive to compete.

 

[wfx]

Big Pharma already tried to take control of these products and lost in court.

yes that was the first salvo, and they lost badly. i'd expect some improved/sanctioned nicorette inhaler to try to compete. i guess my point is that pharma is not going to give this up easily.

bear in mind this is coming from one of those socialist, big government types, yours truly. regulatory capture is a problem at the FDA as much as any agency, but it's still possible for them to change course. they just need some prodding from the right interests groups, and ACS would be ideal here. first we need the ACS to wake up though.

 

[kristin]

Not only that..but my biggest pet peeve, and the sole reason I support the idea that big tobacco should have the snot sued out of them, is that Big Tobacco has been ADDING chemicals not naturally found in the tobacco for years that has the SOLE purpose of making the NICOTINE more readily absorbed into your body. Thereby making it MORE addictive than it really is.

How is that any better than a drug pusher on the street that gives you "free samples" just to get you hooked so you will buy more illegal drugs from him.

Well...theoretically, having the nicotine more readily absorbed may or may not make them "more addictive" but it also means less cigarettes need to be smoked to get the nicotine needed/wanted - which means less exposure to the toxins and carcinogens....

 

[Stubby]

Not only that..but my biggest pet peeve, and the sole reason I support the idea that big tobacco should have the snot sued out of them, is that Big Tobacco has been ADDING chemicals not naturally found in the tobacco for years that has the SOLE purpose of making the NICOTINE more readily absorbed into your body. Thereby making it MORE addictive than it really is.

How is that any better than a drug pusher on the street that gives you "free samples" just to get you hooked so you will buy more illegal drugs from him.

There is no evidence of this. Almost all of the chemicals added to cigarettes are for flavor. It was the ANTZ who started this rumor years ago to try and demonize BT, and it worked. The fact that your still pushing this shows how well it worked. The only people who suffer when tobacco companies get sued are tobacco users. The cost of that is just passed along.

Cigarettes really don't need any help in being addictive. Tobacco does that all on its own and needs little help. I smoked high quality RYO for over 10 years that has minimal processing. Its just as addictive, and just as harmful as Marlboros or Camels. These days it's the tobacco companies that are pushing harm reduction. Take a look at the ads for Camel snus that are urging people to switch to smokeless. It is the government that is not allowing them to tell the truth that smokeless is dramatically less harmful then smoking.

Things have changed in the last 30 years. BT is not the enemy. The biggest stumbling block to public health as far as tobacco goes is BP. They are the ones pouring millions into TC groups to maintain the current situation. It's smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes that are the game changers. If the truth about tobacco harm reduction gets out to the public and becomes common knowledge that would essentially be the end of BP's rain of terror on tobacco users.

I'm not saying BT are saints, but times have changed.

 

[FAAmecanic]

There is no evidence of this. Almost all of the chemicals added to cigarettes are for flavor. It was the ANTZ who started this rumor years ago to try and demonize BT, and it worked. The fact that your still pushing this shows how well it worked. The only people who suffer when tobacco companies get sued are tobacco users. The cost of that is just passed along.

Did not know that this was unfounded. I guess just chalk that up to why we should never believe the media. So is the statements I have seen of "4,000 chemical compounds in cigarette smoke" also false? Or are these compounds just the by-product of burning tobacco?

Dont get me wrong...if tobacco is distrubuted in its purest form, and a grown adult chooses to smoke it...then Im all for it. Im probably one of the biggest Libertarians you could ever meet. Lets just say I had a blast in Amsterdam in my youth.

 

[rolygate]

I agree with Stubby. It most likely doesn't matter what is in cigarettes anyway, you smoke 'em, you risk the consequences. The most heavily engineered cigarette probably isn't that much more dangerous than raw tobacco when smoked, it just tastes better. It may 'work' better but that doesn't make it more dangerous. The main thing it probably does is create brand loyalty - you get fixated on one brand.

Almost all the tobacco corporations have stopped bashing e-cigarettes, with the exception of Imperial Tobacco, because they are not stupid - they can see which way the wind is blowing. On the other hand, pharma will fight to the death to try and kill e-cigs, there will be at least a 50% drop in their smoking-related income when e-cigs become popular. Look at all the things that will get cut:

- NRT sales
- Quit-smoking drug sales
- Chemotherapy drug sales
- Heart disease drug treatment sales
- Lung disease treatment drugs
- Blood pressure drugs
- Dozens of other drugs for conditions worsened by smoking
- Assorted treatments like oxygen
- Hospital budgets will get cut, and that will hit pharma
- Income filtering down to their front groups from the Master Settlement
- and more...

It would be interesting to work out how much of pharma's income actually derives from smoking. Whatever it is, it's not peanuts. It is probably the equivalent of removing their entire income from cancer drugs or something like that. They'll spend hundreds of millions to defend such a large chunk of income. The fact that their actions will directly contribute to tens of thousands of deaths is not relevant as it can't be proved in court, therefore they are innocent.