American Lung Association lies about risks/benefits of different tobacco products (including e-cigs)

[LostVapeMonster]

Thank you for posting this link. Very interesting to read.

The antifreeze scare is based on the finding of a bit of diethylene glycol in one of the cartridges tested by the FDA.

While important to take note of since is should NOT be in there, it was found in only one cartridge out of the 18 tested.
It was NOT found in the any of the njoy cartridges tested, only in one of the Smoking Everywhere cartridges.

And even knowing that, you should also know that the amount of diethylene glycol that was found in that one Smoking Everywhere cartridge (approximately 1% according to the test results) is not particularly harmful and would require sucking down around 600 hundred cartridges in one day to get near a toxic level.

Also of note is that diethylene glycol is also in cigarettes.
And the FDA allows amounts of less that 0.1% to be present in any products that contain propylene glycol.

Yeah, that is not the best news, but not the worst news either.
And yes, again, that diethylene glycol should not be in there no matter how little there was.

But the most important thing to know?
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf

No other tests have ever found diethylene glycol in any electronic cigarette liquid.
And no test, including the FDA test in question, has EVER found DEG in the vapor produced.

 

[APD99]

I'm just wondering here because the number 18 is far from my favorite number, so testing 18 cartridges just seems a bit suspect to me. There are more than 18 brands of analog out there, and most if not all of them come in varying strengths and flavors, and I'm damn sure that the FDA did tests on multiple samples (read: MANY more than 18) of each to determine the ingredients/additives/relative harm levels of each. Now there are more than 18 distributors of PVs and most, if not all, offer their own brand of niquid (some of these may be repacks/rebrands of others), but for the FDA to be so irresponsible that they would only test 18 samples from 2 manufacturers, leads me to believe that sample 18 had the diethylene glycol in it and there was confetti raining from the ceiling once it was found.

 

[rothenbj]

I'm just wondering here because the number 18 is far from my favorite number, so testing 18 cartridges just seems a bit suspect to me. There are more than 18 brands of analog out there, and most if not all of them come in varying strengths and flavors, and I'm damn sure that the FDA did tests on multiple samples (read: MANY more than 18) of each to determine the ingredients/additives/relative harm levels of each. Now there are more than 18 distributors of PVs and most, if not all, offer their own brand of niquid (some of these may be repacks/rebrands of others), but for the FDA to be so irresponsible that they would only test 18 samples from 2 manufacturers, leads me to believe that sample 18 had the diethylene glycol in it and there was confetti raining from the ceiling once it was found.

They were only attempting to prove danger in the products of the two companies that sued them. When the results came back pretty innocuous they went with the "dog and pony show heard 'round the world".

 

[JustaGuy]

What BS! I'm sure their BP friends appreciate the promotion. Why don't they study the side effects of those "FDA approved drugs"?

You can’t wave a magic wand and suddenly be done with the process of quitting.

I smoked 32 years until switching to vaping this year, think I'll go take a few puffs on my magic wand.

 

[Vocalek]

Xcuse me... just wondering exactly what chemicals they are talking about that are supposedly in ecigs. Also, just asking, do we know they are not?

In this article, Dr. Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health and Dr, Zachary Kahn of Berkely reviewed 16 lab reports on e-cigarette liquid and vapor. The concluded, "a preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products."

Khan Z, Siegel M. Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes? Journal of Public Health Policy advance online publication 9 December 2010; doi: 10.1057/jphp.2010.41. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf

The short answer to your question is, "Yes."

 

[ByStander1]

What BS! I'm sure their BP friends appreciate the promotion. Why don't they study the side effects of those "FDA approved drugs"?
:

Kinda the point I was making...

Currently I use a half-fold flyer with the ingredients of eliquid on the front -- just 5 -- in a very large font. When opened, it lists some of the +4000 chemicals in a burning cigarette (also continues on back of flyer -- total of 9 columns in tiny font. I only give these to smokers. I'll not provide fuel for the ANTZ (anti nicotine tobacco zealots) dangerous propaganda machine.

Nonetheless, I still get questions about pg... "What is this?"

Seems it may be fun to have a sheet that lists some of BP's "safe & effective" product's ingredients; things people recognize, like "sulfuric acid."

Easy answer to "what is this?" [propylene glycol] is

"It's not This!" [sulfuric acid]

 

[APD99]

They were only attempting to prove danger in the products of the two companies that sued them. When the results came back pretty innocuous they went with the "dog and pony show heard 'round the world".

If that is indeed the case then the whole thing should have been dismissed with the "evidence" thrown into the nearest shredder. If anybody can explain to me how a test preformed by an entity under assault that just happens to agree with that entity's position is in any way valid I would like to hear it?

 

[ByStander1]

Quote Originally Posted by rothenbj
They were only attempting to prove danger in the products of the two companies that sued them. When the results came back pretty innocuous they went with the "dog and pony show heard 'round the world".

Quote Originally Posted by APD99
If that is indeed the case then the whole thing should have been dismissed with the "evidence" thrown into the nearest shredder. If anybody can explain to me how a test preformed by an entity under assault that just happens to agree with that entity's position is in any way valid I would like to hear it?

"Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! And We Have A Winner!!! lol!

 

[the_vape_nerd]

Thanks to everyone who posted on this one. Very good to see people kicking this stuff around. The more I read the more I'm convinced I need to get off my lazy ... and begin taking some kind of action and make a donation of some time and money to CASAA.

How many lives could you save by keeping vaping legal?

 

[JustaGuy]

Kinda the point I was making...

Currently I use a half-fold flyer with the ingredients of eliquid on the front -- just 5 -- in a very large font. When opened, it lists some of the +4000 chemicals in a burning cigarette (also continues on back of flyer -- total of 9 columns in tiny font. I only give these to smokers. I'll not provide fuel for the ANTZ (anti nicotine tobacco zealots) dangerous propaganda machine.

Nonetheless, I still get questions about pg... "What is this?"

Seems it may be fun to have a sheet that lists some of BP's "safe & effective" product's ingredients; things people recognize, like "sulfuric acid."

Easy answer to "what is this?" [propylene glycol] is

"It's not This!" [sulfuric acid]

Let's put it another way. How many people have died, committed suicide, or suffered other damaging side effects (such as stomach ulcers) everyday from taking "FDA approved drugs" since 2006 when e-cig was invented? How many e-cig users have suffered these results in that same time? Yes, it's only been 5 years, but the side effects of some "approved" drugs have a much longer history. The FDA approves them with the logic of "the benefits to many justify the harm to few". Why is e-cig not judged the same way for saving people from analogs? Something stinks in Denmark.

Edit: correction, e-cig invented in 1963 or 2003 depending on source.

 

[kristin]

Let's put it another way. How many people have died, committed suicide, or suffered other damaging side effects (such as stomach ulcers) everyday from taking "FDA approved drugs" since 2006 when e-cig was invented? How many e-cig users have suffered these results in that same time? Yes, it's only been 5 years, but the side effects of some "approved" drugs have a much longer history. The FDA approves them with the logic of "the benefits to many justify the harm to few". Why is e-cig not judged the same way for saving people from analogs? Something stinks in Denmark.

I pretty much made that point in the blog post: Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association: American Lung Association continues to misrepresent smokeless risks

 

[APD99]

All medicines may cause side effects, but many people have no, or minor, side effects. Check with your doctor if any of these most COMMON side effects persist or become bothersome when using Aspirin:

Heartburn; nausea; upset stomach.

Seek medical attention right away if any of these SEVERE side effects occur when using Aspirin:
Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); black or bloody stools; confusion; ........; dizziness; drowsiness; hearing loss; ringing in the ears; severe or persistent stomach pain; unusual bruising; vomiting.

And what is this horrid drug that has all these side effects? Good old fashioned FDA approved Asprin. And somehow e-cigs are dangerous?

 

[JustaGuy]

I pretty much made that point in the blog post: Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association: American Lung Association continues to misrepresent smokeless risks

Well, I could not put it as eloquently as you have. Nice blog.

Edit: corrected the year e-cig was invented in original post to 1963 or 2003.

 

[jlarsen]

Will this ever go away?

It'll go away when an organization with a ton of money hires exceptional lawyers and sues the FDA, presenting evidence in court. Until then, no, it won't.

 

[Vocalek]

Well, I could not put it as eloquently as you have. Nice blog.

Edit: corrected the year e-cig was invented in original post to 1963 or 2003.

In 1963 there was a hand-held, battery-operated device that vaporized a liquid containing nicotine?

 

[JustaGuy]

In 1963 there was a hand-held, battery-operated device that vaporized a liquid containing nicotine?

Yes, apparently. Two months ago, Wikipedia had no reference to 1963, but has since added. I first thought it was invented in 2003. Here's what Wiki said (no specific reference to nic though):

The electronic cigarette concept first appeared in a patent acquired by Herbert A. Gilbert in 1963.[1] The device was described as, "...a smokeless non-tobacco cigarette ... to provide a safe and harmless means for and method of smoking by replacing burning tobacco and paper with heated, moist, flavored air..." Due to the limitations of technology available at the time, and because tobacco was not yet generally accepted as harmful, this device never reached manufacturing.

The modern electronic cigarette was invented by Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik in 2003 and introduced to the market the following year. The company he worked for, Golden Dragon Holdings, changed its name to Ruyan (meaning "to resemble smoking"), and started exporting its products in 2005–2006,[2] before receiving the first international patent in 2007.[3]

 

[ByStander1]

Yes, I saw a schematic someone had posted in a thread a few days ago of some old patent. Don't remember where it was though...

I would expect for as long as there has been liquid nicotine, there has been more than one creative mind to invent such a simple device. Communist guy couldn't be bought, maybe? lol!

was bugging me, so found the info...

can search patent #3200819... here's just one link with the patent diagrams and such Smokeless non-tobacco cigarette - US 3200819 A - IP.com

 

[Demarko]

Didn't the FDA find all kinds of poisons in various batches of Baby Formula? Wasn't there just recently ecoli in strawberries? I wish I could get an anti to just... Listen.... For a little while. They've GOT to be ignorant on purpose, or pretending to be. No one can be THAT stupid.

 

[rothenbj]

If that is indeed the case then the whole thing should have been dismissed with the "evidence" thrown into the nearest shredder. If anybody can explain to me how a test preformed by an entity under assault that just happens to agree with that entity's position is in any way valid I would like to hear it?

That is exactly what happened in court and in the appeals process, that is why we are here today. Actually the tests performed for the FDA didn't provide what they hoped it would, thus their spin doctoring.

 

[APD99]

That is exactly what happened in court and in the appeals process, that is why we are here today. Actually the tests performed for the FDA didn't provide what they hoped it would, thus their spin doctoring.

Maybe the answer then would be a class action against the FDA by all the manufacturers for libel.