Articles and our responses

[CabinetGuyScott]

Roger provides an outstanding service to our community by keeping us informed on what's being said & reported about e-cigs/vaping.

Just today because of Roger's update, I responded to a terrible article at womenshealthmag.com, commented on a very balanced, reasoned editorial from U of Michigan's Michigan Daily, and wrote a scathing facebook message to our governor (Michigan). (I told him he is no longer a nerd in-good-standing, and now nothing more than a typical politician. Hurtful to a guy who calls himself "OneToughNerd" Also attached the NCBI paper on Appropriate regulation, and Burstyn's BMC published study link)

I think it would be valuable to capture some of these responses into a thread here. Sharing our responses would give us a chance to exchange key points, links to critical resources, and sometimes even just a really good way to some something that helps us make our point

For example...

The Michigan Daily editorial basically endorses a simple minors ban, but says NO to extending the smoking bans (potential harm has not been established), and NO to classifying as a tobacco product.

Response:

Excellent position, based on FACTs & common sense!

There actually are a number of studies & analysis' of what is in the vapor. (see links below).

The growing body of scientific information has established that e-cigarettes / vaping presents a significant "tobacco harm reduction" (THR), recognized as being <1% risk compared to SMOKING.

And even less risk to anyone else.

And your position on the potential bans is RIGHT! Bans are ONLY supposed to be implemented when there is *justification* & scientific facts demonstrating potential HARM to others. E-cigs / vaping pose NO such risk (see Drexel study linked below)

Millions of people have already made the switch, and enjoying the vastly improved health benefits today, and greatly improved odds of avoiding smoke related diseases in the future.

Btw, e-cigarettes / vaping is why I was able to quit a 43 year smoking habit!

From Drexel University - What is in the vapor (peer reviewed & published):
BMC Public Health | Abstract | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks
From the NCBI / NIH:
Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes

E-cigarettes / vaping is the tool that will *decimate the tobacco industry*, relieve the country of billions in *smoking* related healthcare costs, save millions of lives, and not cost taxpayers 1 penny.

Keep up the good reporting, and GO BLUE!!

And this is a portion of what is hopefully making it through moderation, to the womenshealthmag junk

From Drexel University - an analysis of what is in the vapor, and HOW MUCH:
BMC Public Health | Abstract | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks

From the NCBI / National Institute of Health - "Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes":
Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes

E-cigarettes presents an opportunity to:
1) save smoker's lives, (World Health Organization projects 6 million deaths EACH YEAR due to smoking related causes!)
2) save billions of healthcare $$$,
3) reduce risk to a virtual ZERO for both users & people nearby, and
4) decimate the tobacco cigarette smoking industry in less than 15 years. (see Wells Fargo, Bloomberg & Forbes financial analyst projections)

No need for coercive legislation, no tax payer money, no bureaucracy.

Use the **existing* FDA regulatory structure for cosmetics & food, and standard consumer electronics product standards.

That's all.

Learn the TRUTH folks... The horse & buggy industry didn't like the automobile either, but this time were talking about people's LIVES.

 

[Vocalek]

Here's what I added as a comment to "The Truth About...." article.

If you are going to title your article "The Truth About..." something, then it is important to make sure your facts are 100% correct and that you tell not just the truth, but the whole truth. For example, take the FDA's 2009 lab test of two brands of e-cigarettes (not a coincidence that the only products tested were made by the two companies that filed a law suit against the FDA). You state that the FDA found formaldehyde, but that just isn't true at all. The so-called "carcinogens" found in that test were Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs). But in that case, the FDA didn't tell the whole truth. The quantity of TSNAs in an e-cigarette cartridge containing 16 mg/ml of nicotine averages about 8 nanograms -- which is the approximate amount in an FDA-approved nicotine patch, which carries no cancer warnings. Google "fda evaluation of e-cigarette" and the top article is a direct link to the FDA's lab report.

You say that many of the e-cigarette manufacturers are big tobacco companies. Again, that isn't true at all. Until recently, all U.S. e-cigarette companies were independent businesses, mostly importing products from China. Then late in 2012, Lorillard purchased Blu eCigs. In 2013, RJ Reynolds and Altria announced that they were bringing their own e-cigarette products to market. These are still only being test-marketed in selected states. So the vast majority of e-cigarette companies are not tobacco companies at all. There goes your "hook the kiddies on nicotine" theory.

Here's an explanation for tobacco companies getting into the e-cigarette business that makes more sense: Tobacco companies have been watching their regular cigarette sales fall year after year and they now realize that if they are going to survive, they need an alternative product. If it happens to be a product that doesn't kill the customers, that's even better for their profits. Do you see how much sense that makes?

And by the way, the "gateway" theory isn't holding any water either. There is a pronounced decline in youth smoking rates between 2011 and 2012, Google "clive bates cease desist false" to see a figure demonstrating that combined past 30-day smoking and past 30-day e-cigarette use is also lower in 2012. The figure is called "Cigarette and e-cigarette prevalence in US Youth".

PS: I suspected that they were not permitting links in comments, so I used the Google search criteria as an alternative way to point people to the correct document.

 

[CabinetGuyScott]

Well said!

Links eh... I wonder what would happen if I broke them... Luckily I kept copies of my responses that appeared to have been moderated away...