American Lung Association - Not On Board

[htchhikr]

Im not sure what research they did, but wow. People are using them as an alternative!!! Heavens no! They are breathing in water vapor instead of smoke! Goodness no!



Dear Ben
The ALA did do research on the e Cigarettes, that is way we do not recommend them. They still give a person nicotine and other chemicals that can be harmful to their system. I am glad that you have stopped smoking, but most people are using them as an alternative to smoking, thinking that they are healthy. People are still inhaling chemicals into their lungs are aren't suppose to be in their systems. I hope that you are enjoying your new life of being smoke free and keep up the good work. Thank You


==============================


1.) survey/captions/2340
Caption
2.) Please provide your contact info so that we can respond to your inquiry. Providing additional information may make it easier for us to get back to you.
Name: Ben
Email: bxxxxxxxxx@gmail.com
Email Opt-In: Yes
Email Format: Phone Number:
3.) Subject of Inquiry:
Reducing Harm
4.) Your Message:
Why do you guys not like the eCigarette? I was a 1.5 pack a day smoker and switched to eCigarettes in January. After about 2 weeks of using it I quit that too. (Which was much easier than quitting smoking) Now I have been smoker free Since January 20th! I wouldnt have been able to do it without the device. Believe me, I tried everything else. Instead of trying to sweep it under the rug, do some research! It's helping people quit tobacco, at much reduced harm. Please, please, please do not take a quit or die stance and research the safety and effectiveness of eCigarettes. Thank you.
Ben

 

[htchhikr]

My Reply:

Hello Carol,

Thank you for the reply. I'm having some trouble though understanding.

So, there are chemicals in the eCigarettes? More chemicals than in tobacco smoke? Tobacco smoke contains 4000 toxins. eCigarettes dont contain a fraction, including tar.

Why would you tell people to inhale smoke and not inhale water vapor instead?

I am very perplexed. Shouldn't the ALA do anything to help people move a way from smoke? Is not smoke and tar the problem and the major killer? Nicotine never killed anyone or they wouldn't put it in gum in delicious flavors.

Would you please cite your research? Part of your ethics policy is to "include(s) a commitment to provide accurate and complete information..". Please show me the report that the vapor of an eCigarette is more dangerous that tobacco smoke.

Thanks in advance,

Ben

 

[AJMoore]

And now the waiting begins.........................................are you still waitng?

Do you think they will actually answer you with facts?

Love your spirit!

 

[Vapor Vamp]

The ALA is infiltrated and controlled by
big pharma, which consequently own big tobacco.
(along with big junk food companies, among other things).

They're only going to say and do
what they are paid to say and do.

 

[Janetda]

Yeah, here's my letter back from someone quoted in an article about e-cigs from the American Cancer Society:

Janet - It's great that e-cigarettes have worked for you and, no, I have no more info about potential toxicity than what the FDA has found. The American Cancer Society's and other health groups' concerns about e-cigarettes are primarily focused on the potential for smokers to use e-cigarettes as a quitting device and then slipping back to smoking, and perhaps then becoming discouraged about quitting (since there are no data to suggest that e-cigarettes are useful as a quitting tool). But, as I said, if it has worked for you and you are comfortable using them, then you have made great progress in preventing health problems from your smoking (as well as saving a lot of money over a lifetime). Tom Glynn


When I asked him about the 5-10% success rate of conventional NRTs I never heard back from him.

 

[CES]

Htchhiker, i hope you get a better response on the second round. Which of the many gazillion contact links did you choose to use? I emailed them also, I'll post if i get a different response.

Janet, I got the canned response from my first email to the ACS, but got this in a follow up email

" Thank you for your patience while we researched your question. According to our National Home Office in Atlanta, Georgia, the American Cancer Society has not taken a position on whether electronic cigarettes should be banned from the U.S. market. Again, we appreciate your comments on the topic and have forwarded them to the appropriate staff person for consideration.

Thank you for contacting your American Cancer Society."

I couldn't find a good email address for the AHA, so have a long snail mail letter addressed to the board of directors, ready to go out the the National office of the AHA

American Heart Association
National Center
7272 Greenville Avenue
Dallas, TX 75231

 

[htchhikr]

They do reply quickly, I'll give them that.

Dear Ben,
I am sorry if I didn’t express myself correctly. Yes there are much less chemicals in the e-cigs than regular cigs but I was trying to say that the lungs are not made to take in any type of chemicals at all and damage will still be done to the lung tissue no matter how few chemicals are present in the e-cigs. So yes there are fewer chemicals but your body is still being exposed to chemicals that should not be in your system. Nicotine can also cause the body harm, so yes many of the products do contain nicotine, but used correctly a person uses the products to wean down their nicotine level so they can completely get rid of it. Many people are using the e-cigs as an alternative to smoking the regular cigs thinking that it will not harm them and have no intention of quitting, just switching . Hope this will clear things up.

FDA and health experts warn against use of e-cigarettes - CNN.com


E-cigarette healthier or not

How Does Nicotine Affect the Body?

 

[kristin]

They do reply quickly, I'll give them that.

Dear Ben,
I am sorry if I didn’t express myself correctly. Yes there are much less chemicals in the e-cigs than regular cigs but I was trying to say that the lungs are not made to take in any type of chemicals at all and damage will still be done to the lung tissue no matter how few chemicals are present in the e-cigs. So yes there are fewer chemicals but your body is still being exposed to chemicals that should not be in your system. Nicotine can also cause the body harm, so yes many of the products do contain nicotine, but used correctly a person uses the products to wean down their nicotine level so they can completely get rid of it. Many people are using the e-cigs as an alternative to smoking the regular cigs thinking that it will not harm them and have no intention of quitting, just switching . Hope this will clear things up.

FDA and health experts warn against use of e-cigarettes - CNN.com


E-cigarette healthier or not

How Does Nicotine Affect the Body?

I would write her back and say:

Dear Carol,

I understand that there are still some minor health risks that may be associated with using ecigarettes. But does the ALA understand that the majority of these smokers, who are switching to the less deadly ecigarettes, had no intention of actually quitting smoking? If you take away the less toxic ecigarettes, these people will not quit - they will go right back to smoking deadly tobacco.

You assume that the majority of smokers using ecigarettes wanted to quit smoking and that is a dangerous assumption. Electronic cigarettes are not meant as smoking cessation products for people who want to quit nicotine. They are meant for people who can't or won't quit nicotine and would otherwise be smoking. In a recent poll of 783 electronic cigarette users, only 7.79% said they used electronic cigarettes as an NRT. The rest had no intention of quitting smoking when they switched. (http://www.casaa.org/files/Ecig User Poll 2.jpg)

Why does the ALA ignore the health benefits for that much larger percentage of the ecigarette user population, in favor of the 7.79% who MAYBE would otherwise quit nicotine by using NRTs?

In another poll of 1,000 ecigarette users, only 18.54% said they would attempt to quit nicotine if ecigarettes were banned and NRT studies show only 7% of them will be succcessful. The rest would either use smokeless tobacco or go back to smoking cigarettes(http://www.casaa.org/files/Ecig User Poll.jpg)

By insisting on banning ecigarettes, the ALA is taking away the only safer alternative for those smokers who have no intention of quitting - which is clearly the majority of electronic cigarette users.

They ALA needs to get a clearer picture of who they think they are "saving" by opposing electronic cigarettes.

 

[kristin]

Ben, do you have Carol's last name to PM me? (Don't post it here.) I'd like to write an article about this!

 

[StormFinch]

And let us know whether or not you decide to use Kristin's reply. If you don't, I know somebody should. That's really good Kristin, but then I already knew you are a wiz with a keyboard and word processing program.

 

[htchhikr]

Thanks Kristin.

I used your response but modified it slightly. Also added some stuff to the final paragraph.


The ALA needs a clearer picture of who they are "saving" by opposing electronic cigarettes and who they are hurting. Emily, the ALA founder wanted to end TB, would she ignore something that has the possibility of hurting to stop the thing that is a known killer? Would Emily be against TB drugs that "The single biggest problem with TB treatment is drug-induced hepatitis, which has a mortality rate of around 5%.[32] Three drugs can induce hepatitis: PZA, INH and RMP (in decreasing order of frequency).[1][33]" Thats a 5% mortality rate if you get hepatitis, just trying to cure TB! eCigarettes have a 0% mortality rate...do you know the mortality rate of cigarettes?

Thanks again,

 

[kristin]

Thanks for your help, Ben!

I posted a link to my story based on your email communications here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ung-association-vs-electronic-cigarettes.html

 

[v1John]

..just an an idea, could you folks write a reply letter and let a bunch of us sign it elctronically with our email address ?

 

[CES]

..just an an idea, could you folks write a reply letter and let a bunch of us sign it elctronically with our email address ?

This isn't exactly what you meant, but Kristin did write a rebuttal, the link to the article is here
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ung-association-vs-electronic-cigarettes.html
It can reach a much wider audience if enough people comment on the story.

 

[Unperson]

...Is not smoke and tar the problem and the major killer?

Because when it comes to the ALA, it has nothing to do with "smoke and tar" and everything to do with "smoke and mirrors."

 

[Rosa]

I wrote to the ALA and here's their response:

Thanks you for your recent letter. Until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determines that e-cigarettes area safe for consumers, the American Lung Association urges consumers not to use these products.

The FDA conducted one limited study in July of 2009 and found that the products contained carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including the ingredients found in anti-freeze. A study conducted at Virginia Commonwealth University and published in February 2010 found that e-cigarettes deliver little or no nicotine to users.

For additional information on this topic, we recommend you consult the FDA's website at
FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes

 

[Rosa]

the guy who did the Virginia study also worked on a project for plowshare (provides products for the tobacco industry) :
quote from:

Declared and Non Declared Conflicts of Interest. The case of Thomas EISSENBERG, Wasim MAZIAK, Jack HENNINGFIELD

Dr Thomas EISSENBERG is author or co-author of a certain number of studies (5 at least published in Nicotine and Tobacco Research) [*] in which he has made use of a smoking topography system called CReSS [Clinical Research Support System]. He has personally contributed to its development, through direct funding (2000 to 2002) from PLOWSHARE Technologies, Inc. Plowshare Technologies :: The Smoking Topography Experts , an industrial firm strongly linked to the Tobacco Industry. PLOWSHARE has recently been acquired by BORGWALDT (13 Nov. 2007), a company which sells, on a large scale, flavours and other products to the Tobacco Industry. One of PLOWSHARE's more famous customers was, at least in 2002, Philip MORRIS.

who did the FDA study?

 

[Rosa]

here are some points made from the technical review of the fda study:

http://www.ecassoc.org/downloads/Response-to-the-FDA-Summary.pdf

 The report failed to present standard protocols for proper study design with regards to the testing of the referenced control device, documenting the number of samples tested either within or across tests, or presenting statistical analyses when quantifiable results were obtained.

 The chemical content of similar nicotine-containing FDA-approved products was not completely described with respect to the presence of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) and other tobacco-associated impurities that have also been found in nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) devices at similar, if not higher, levels.

 In the lots that were tested by the FDA, none of the key chemicals of concern in this study such as TSNAs and tobacco-associated impurities were able to be quantifiably measured in the liquid of NJOYs cartridges because they were all below the limits of quantification (LOQ).

 All of the tobacco-associated impurities found in the NJOY products were present but at less than the level of the Nicotrol inhaler [manufacturer] specification according to the FDA report.

 There is no indication in the published scientific literature that cotinine or nicotyrine are carcinogenic or have toxicity ratings of concern. These were the only tobacco-associated impurities found in trace levels in the vapor phase of (some of) NJOYs products.

 The report does not reflect the actual dose of nicotine delivered to the user from the control Nicotrol inhaler device when used as recommended by the manufacturer (6 -16 cartridges/day or 24 -64 mg of nicotine, 50 mcg/100 mL puff). By comparison, NJOY devices delivered 46 mcg/100 mL in the highest-strength cartridge tested, according to the FDA report.

 Data presented in the report does not adequately support the opinion that users of NJOY products would actually be exposed to TSNAs and tobacco-specific impurities in the vapor phase during normal device use; and if exposed, that those levels would be a health concern as compared to other FDA-approved products.

In summary, the report Evaluation of e-cigarettes suffers from several limitations, that taken together result in it failing to adequately support the FDA claims of potential adverse health consequences from the use of NJOY e-cigarette products tested as compared to other FDA-approved nicotine containing products.

 

[Vocalek]

I wrote to the ALA and here's their response:

Thanks you for your recent letter. Until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determines that e-cigarettes area safe for consumers, the American Lung Association urges consumers not to use these products.

The FDA conducted one limited study in July of 2009 and found that the products contained carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including the ingredients found in anti-freeze. A study conducted at Virginia Commonwealth University and published in February 2010 found that e-cigarettes deliver little or no nicotine to users.

For additional information on this topic, we recommend you consult the FDA's website at
FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes

Wow, Rosa! That's the same letter, word-for-word, that I just received in response to my letter. I think they must be copying from each other's papers.

In my letter, I described how I have been "smoke free for over a year." I interpret this response to be official advice from the ALA for me to go back to the "safer" practice of tobacco smoking.

 

[Rosa]

yes, I told them about my 25 year addiction to cigarettes and how I struggled to quit and finally gave up trying, only to find e-cigarettes a short while later. I told them that if e-cigarettes were banned I would go back to smoking tobacco cigarettes and then I cut and paste about thirty or so quotes from the ECF (names withheld) all telling of switching to e-cigs after 20, 30 and 40+ year smoking habits and how much better people feel since switching and many of them stating that if there weren't e-cigs on the market that they'd end up smoking again. ALA honestly, IMO, could care less and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find them in bed with either BT or pharmaceutical wallets somewhere.

Sorry, feeling hopeless after getting this letter. but not giving up... who do I write to next?