Bad news article on E-Cigs

[jtcaseyjr]

Well The reporter who wrote the article actually responded to me again. I have to give the man some respect for at least responding to my emails and just not hitting the delete key. Here is what he said and what I replied back with:

Mr. Casey,

Your point about the way this sentence was written (If the Canadians could do it, why not U.S. regulators?") is a valid comment and I agree I can be read the way you mentioned, and could have been written differently.
However, don't you wonder whether it was science or politics that prevented the FDA from moving along those lines?
Again James, thanks for writing.

And I Replied:

Mr. Schneider,

Thank you so much for your reply. I will first say, I respect the fact that you are willing to admit that it could be read that way and I appreciate your condor.

As far as your point I think it's a little of both actually. Meaning I think there is pressure in Washington to keep these E-cigarettes on the market, not as much as you might think though as the ECA that you mention in your article was a loosely based organization and fell apart. Matt Salmon whom you also mentioned was quoted as saying he left the organization months ago. He also thought they disbanded. The only really active organization around is the The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) They are a consumer group and not organized by E-Cigarette vendors.

I also sincerely believe that the FDA really doesn't have the science to say these are an unsafe alternative to smoking. Please review the actual testing they have done and then compare it to the other smoke alternatives on the market and you will see what I mean.

Do E-Cigarettes need more study, yes I agree that they do. However I also think jumping the gun and banning them is also a mistake. In the 7 years E-cigarette's have been around worldwide, there have not been any serious reported side effects. Outside of the ones you mentioned in the article. As I said in the previous email those side effects can also be attributed to Nicotine usage and/or withdrawal.

I do believe there will and should be some type of regulation and/or standardization for E-cigarettes. However banning them as a "Drug delivery device" is not the answer.

Again Mr. Schneider, thank you for your gracious reply, If there is any thing I can do to help in getting real facts out there, I will be more then happy to do so.

sincerely,

James T Casey Jr

 

[jeffree]

James, thanks for sharing all of these exchanges. I give you enormous credit for so clearly (and professionally) laying out your points. I also give the author a lot of credit, too, for his willingness to communicate with you. Dealing directly with public readers ain't always enjoyable or productive, but I have a feeling that you may have gotten through on some level. Well done!

 

[Adrenalynn]

He has a member of Cathartidae? Ugly critters. Andean or Californian?

[Sorry, I couldn't resist... ]

 

[leeshor]

He has a member of Cathartidae? Ugly critters. Andean or Californian?

[Sorry, I couldn't resist... ]

Beat me again, though I was going to ask James if he REALLY thanked him for his bird.

 

[jtcaseyjr]

Beat me again, though I was going to ask James if he REALLY thanked him for his bird.

Yeah yeah, spell check missed that, because it was spelled correctly..just not the word I meant to use....LOL. Now I COULD have corrected it before I posted, but I posted exactly what I sent him

 

[maxx]

I posted this already in the News forum...but since this thread is also going....

Reply I got from the FDA after getting the ol' email shuffle.....

Your message has been forwarded to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), one of the seven centers within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for a response.

The side effects listed in the news article were reported as adverse events to the FDA. These individual adverse event case reports are available under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. For more information on submitting an FIOA request, please see Freedom of Information

Sincerely,

Division of Drug Information
D202D

This communication is consistent with 21 CFR 10.85 (k) and constitutes an informal communication that represents our best judgment at this time but does not constitute an advisory opinion, does not necessarily represent the formal position of FDA, and does not bind or otherwise obligate or commit the agency to the views expressed.

For up-to-date drug information, follow the FDA's Division of Drug Information on Twitter at FDA_Drug_Info

So to summarize....to get the studies or reports, if they exist, they want me to pay for a FOIA request. They claim they exist...I think they are lying, so obviously I won't be shelling out any dough for non-existent reports. If they did exist, they would have splattered them all over the net by now. Bottom line...the FDA spokesperson made an unsubstantiated medical claim...the same type of thing they accuse E-cig makers and vendors of.

 

[jtcaseyjr]

Even if they had the documents, the side affects mentioned are generic and as was mentioned before can be caused by nicotine use and/or withdrawl. So even IF happened from using an E-cig, how can they pinpoint the E-cig and not the nicotine?

 

[maxx]

It's a classic double-standard. Vendors can't make medical claims because they didn't do a peer-reviewed study. But the FDA can make medical claims without one....

Ya know....I had a feeling I would end up with a form letter response once it made its way around the FDA. I initially aimed my email at the person who made the statement...and I still think that is the way to go. I also still think we need an enemies list with names, addresses, phone numbers, etc of those people who seem to be going out of their way to be anti-vaper.

I always felt that if we had been more militant 20 years ago when society decided smokers were something less than actual people...we might not have ended up where we did. Just a thought....

 

[WOW]

It's a classic double-standard. Vendors can't make medical claims because they didn't do a peer-reviewed study. But the FDA can make medical claims without one....

Ya know....I had a feeling I would end up with a form letter response once it made its way around the FDA. I initially aimed my email at the person who made the statement...and I still think that is the way to go. I also still think we need an enemies list with names, addresses, phone numbers, etc of those people who seem to be going out of their way to be anti-vaper.

I always felt that if we had been more militant 20 years ago when society decided smokers were something less than actual people...we might not have ended up where we did. Just a thought....

It's a thought that makes you a lone wolf of violence in vapor ville and that spreads, you bet the gov is going to step in a bigger way than taxation.

Shame on you, Maxx!

 

[jtcaseyjr]

I always felt that if we had been more militant 20 years ago when society decided smokers were something less than actual people...we might not have ended up where we did. Just a thought....

I agree smokers just rolled over and let it happen, Not defending smoking just saying the truth. I would hate the same to happen to vaping...it sure looks like it is heading in that direction though.

 

[WOW]

I agree smokers just rolled over and let it happen, Not defending smoking just saying the truth. I would hate the same to happen to vaping...it sure looks like it is heading in that direction though.

Are you condoning violence, JTC, Jr.? That would be very out of character for you considering how much effort you've put into this.

just sayin'

Add: Ya can't fix stupid, JTC, Jr. ....maxx? Enough, ok? Move it over to CASAA's forum and see what they think of your speaking for what all vapers need or just say what competitor you work for.

I also still think we need an enemies list with names, addresses, phone numbers, etc of those people who seem to be going out of their way to be anti-vaper.

 

[Adrenalynn]

Me-thinks someone doesn't know the definition of "militant"...

 

[jtcaseyjr]

Are you condoning violence, JTC, Jr.? That would be very out of character for you considering how much effort you've put into this.

just sayin'

Add: Ya can't fix stupid, JTC, Jr. ....maxx? Enough, ok? Move it over to CASAA's forum and see what they think of your speaking for what all vapers need or just say what competitor you work for.

I don't condone Violence, I didn't read it that way. I read it as more stern, and Standing up for yourself. I believe that's what he meant by that. If he did mean violence then I would certainly be against that for sure, but I really don't believe he meant it in that light. Here is the definition of what I thought he meant: "Militant can mean "vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause"

 

[WOW]

I don't condone Violence, I didn't read it that way. I read it as more stern, and Standing up for yourself. I believe that's what he meant by that. If he did mean violence then I would certainly be against that for sure, but I really don't believe he meant it in that light. Here is the definition of what I thought he meant: "Militant can mean "vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause"

I agree with you to the point of taking names, addresses and phone numbers - that part implies a threat against a group of, according to Mr. Schnieder's article, consists of roughly 2,000 uninformed (and likely unarmed) people who were given slanted facts. These are not enemies but, fellow Americans with no vendetta against the country.

In today's society, implied threats are as good as directly stated ones and is the opposite of standing up for e-cigs.

That's how I see it.

 

[maxx]

WOW....you're an idiot....get off the net....

 

[WOW]

That's what I'm referring to JTC, Jr.. There's a serious backlash to that kind of thing that got people killed during the 60's...we're only lucky there's obvious differences but not everyone thinks about them, especially if they're both uninformed AND paid participants in opinion surveys.

That is what I'm talking about.

 

[Jeff78]

WOW, you are the only one talking about violence. Militant does not mean violence. Taking names addresses and phone numbers doesn't mean violence, it means that you are going to write and call and pester these people kinda how politicians do to us during voting time.

You went off the deep end on this conversation.

That's what I'm referring to JTC, Jr.. There's a serious backlash to that kind of thing that got people killed during the 60's...we're only lucky there's obvious differences but not everyone thinks about them, especially if they're both uninformed AND paid participants in opinion surveys.

That is what I'm talking about.

 

[maxx]

Glad some people understood what I posted....

The anti-vaping crowd...just like the anti-smoking crowd, has a lynch mob mentality. People feel empowered (and anonymous) by being part of a large group or an organization. As such, they don't feel the need to be truthful or accurate...just loud. And the louder they get, the louder the person next to them gets and so on. To use an example...when there is a riot or similar civil disturbance, the police don't try to take down the entire crowd. They are trained to identify the ring-leaders and remove them. The result is the sheep start to fall away after the leader goes down and the crowd tends to disperse. All I am saying is that instead of sending letters or email to a group or organization, we start targetting individual ring leaders. When people have to answer for what they say and do, personally, as opposed to the group, they don't feel quite so protected. In short....take them down a peg and let them know that they personally will be held responsible. The next time, they might be a little more careful with the facts.

In this specific case, I contacted the FDA spokeperson directly...or tried to anyway. I got the shuffle, but this person now knows his words, not the FDA's words, will be acted on. It might make him think a little more next time. Jtcaseyjr did the same thing...he addressed a person, not a group....and got good results. That's the idea of the enemies list.

That's it in a nutshell. Confront individuals...and don't let the crowd form into a lynch mob like it did with smoking. You can't beat a mob....and the mob cares nothing for rules and what is right or wrong.

 

[Jeff78]

I agree with you 100%. That is all I really had to add to this. Very well said Maxx.

Glad some people understood what I posted....

The anti-vaping crowd...just like the anti-smoking crowd, has a lynch mob mentality. People feel empowered (and anonymous) by being part of a large group or an organization. As such, they don't feel the need to be truthful or accurate...just loud. And the louder they get, the louder the person next to them gets and so on. To use an example...when there is a riot or similar civil disturbance, the police don't try to take down the entire crowd. They are trained to identify the ring-leaders and remove them. The result is the sheep start to fall away after the leader goes down and the crowd tends to disperse. All I am saying is that instead of sending letters or email to a group or organization, we start targetting individual ring leaders. When people have to answer for what they say and do, personally, as opposed to the group, they don't feel quite so protected. In short....take them down a peg and let them know that they personally will be held responsible. The next time, they might be a little more careful with the facts.

In this specific case, I contacted the FDA spokeperson directly...or tried to anyway. I got the shuffle, but this person now knows his words, not the FDA's words, will be acted on. It might make him think a little more next time. Jtcaseyjr did the same thing...he addressed a person, not a group....and got good results. That's the idea of the enemies list.

That's it in a nutshell. Confront individuals...and don't let the crowd form into a lynch mob like it did with smoking. You can't beat a mob....and the mob cares nothing for rules and what is right or wrong.

 

[IndustrialAction]

What we really need is to get the RIGHT information out to the people that are getting articles published that the public at large reads. Here's Andrew's e-mail: andrew.schneider@aolnews.com. Be respectful, be honest, get the right message out!