CDC Finally Saying Stop Vaping THC

[zoiDman]

...

I'm sure the CDC is more than well aware of this, but aren't pointing that out anywhere. This would imply that at least some of the existing cases are "background cases" that, because they happened to people who vaped, get classified as "vaping related lung illness".

That, at best, must be a serious confounding factor, and at worst (for tinfoil hat wearers), could mean the whole outbreak is an invention constructed entirely from background cases that happened to vape.

I Don't see all this as a Manufactured Outbreak against a Normally Occurring Population.

What I see is that there have Always been a small amount of people getting Ill from using Tainted Quality Black Market Charts. And these people Didn't Die. So having 20 or 30 people in a state getting Ill per Year are just Not numbers that Blips the Radar much.

Collectively, the Total Number of Illnesses from "Street Carts" might be in the 1000 ~ 1500 Range. But No One was looking at them Collectively. And the Media Isn't very inclined to point out Negative Aspect of the THC Market. Be it "Legal" or Illegal.

But then some Bad entered the THC Pipeline. And there was a Cluster of some Very Serious Illnesses where people got Very Sick. This was News. And what the Media lives for, Pain and Suffering. So the Media fanned the Flames and Ran with it Creating a Firestorm.

Maybe it was Pesticide Contaminated THC? Or maybe it was FUBAR Cut? Or maybe it was a Bad Batch of Terpenes? Or maybe some Combination of things?

Who Knows? But you couldn't ask for a More Perfect Storm.

Because Not Only could the Media watch their Click Analytics go thru the Roof, but they Also had the Perfect Punching Bag to drag out so Everyone could take Cheap Shots at it. You guessed it... e-Cigarettes.

Now the FDA and CDC could have come out in the Beginning and said "Whoa... Pump the Brakes". This looks like a THC issue. But they Didn't.

And the FDA and the CDC could have made the Clarification that "vaping" was a Misleading term. Because that was a Term Exclusively used in the Media to refer to Nicotine e-Cigarettes. But they Didn't do that either.

In Fact, the FDA and CDC Validated the Media FUD by joining in and calling this a "Vaping Illness". Which must have been seen as Hysterical by people like Mitch Zeller and Bob Redfield/Katherine Lyon Daniel. Because you just Couldn't come up with a Better way to throw e-Cigarettes under the bus. Something they had been doing for Years.

So what do we have...

A Baseline amount of people who get Ill from using Poor Quality/Tainted THC Street Carts. Which has been going on for Years. But the Media didn't see it as that big of a deal. And it would Shine a Bad Light on the whole Legalize Pot thing.

A Very Small Subset of that Group who were Very Unfortunate to get a hold of some Really Bad .

A Golden Opportunity for people like the CDC and State Governors to drive the Last Nail in the Tobacco Harm Reduction coffin. Be it for Misguided "Health" Policy. Or to stem the Falling Tax Revenues that e-Cigarettes was causing. Or for Political Drum Beating to the tune of "Children Saving".

And Lastly, a willing and able Mainstream Media that has No Problem Distorting/Omitting the Truth. Even if it means that their Actions might make a Situation worse. As long as it Points the Public in the Direction they want the Public to be Pointed. And they get a Bunch of Clicks in the process.

 

[jandrew]

ARDS occurs almost exclusively in the setting of other acute life threatening illnesses such as sepsis and severe infection. It is usually accompanied by other organ failures which complicates treatment and increases mortality. Primary acute respiratory failure without preexisting illness, infection, or known exposure to toxic corrosive pulmonary chemicals is exceedingly rare. In fact, what brought this to the attention of both pulmonary specialists and then the CD is the occurrence of primary severe pulmonary failure in young, healthy adults without any explanation for their illness.

The criteria the CDC uses for cases is very specific that all other causes of ARDS have been ruled out such as infection, sepsis, other organ failure, and whatnot, with the only commonality of the use of a vape product prior to the occurrence.

As to the tinfoil hat theory, well, that's what it is. This sin't background noise suddenly labelled "vape related".

Of course it isn't all background cases --- that was a tongue in cheek comment that I thought was obvious.

However, it is a confounding factor --- while the vast majority of lung illness will have a directly attributable cause (mostly infectious), some small percentage of lung illnesses will be "idiopathic" (no known cause). I do not know what the prevalence of such idiopathic lung illnesses might be, but, in the current situation, any such 'idiopathic' case is guaranteed to be a "confirmed" case if the patient has vaped or dabbed within the past 90 days (according to the CDC's posted case definition criteria) ... and could be a "probable" case even in the presence of infection, if the clinical team believes the infection is not the sole cause.

 

[Eskie]

No, it can’t be a “probable “ case if there is any identifying infection. By definition it can’t be. There must be no other possible source of the event than use of some sorta vaping thing. ANY coexisting illness pulls it from the category.

Acute respiratory failure of this severity in an otherwise healthy population is not something that’s been “overlooked” or “not recognized “ even in association in the past with any THC use. It’s simply too dramatic an event to be missed. Occurrence with drug use, and not just THC unless adulterated with paraquat it something, has long been reported and cataloged. This is not the same, and it hasn’t been overlooked in the past and now just a media creation.

I’m not claiming the media has acted responsibly, far from it. I think official communication from the CDC and other health departments should have been better. The illness is being used for political benefit in trying to link it to the “teen vaping epidemic”. But it’s real, it hasn’t been seen before, and attention does need to be focused on identifying the cause and eliminating the risk. A thousand cases of respiratory failure in healthy young adults with no explanation demands attention. Otherwise it ends up being like AIDS in the beginning.

A bunch of previously healthy people showing up with inexplicable infections. Infections that in the beginning did lead to ARDS among the sickest (as well as other organ failure). If it weren’t for the population which at that time was regarded as related developing their illness to lifestyle, and therefore not a general threat to the public, it might have received more attention at the beginning, rather than waiting years before mainstream attention and funds provided to deal with the illness. It would be kinda nice to not repeat that error and focus efforts now rather than later. But it shouldn’t be misused for political gain.

 

[jandrew]

No, it can’t be a “probable “ case if there is any identifying infection. By definition it can’t be. There must be no other possible source of the event than use of some sorta vaping thing. ANY coexisting illness pulls it from the category.
...

I'm sorry, but I am not making up definitions for "confirmed" and "probable" here ... the CDC's case definition criteria are given here (scroll down):

For State and Local Health Departments

 

[Eskie]

I'm sorry, but I am not making up definitions for "confirmed" and "probable" here ... the CDC's case definition criteria are given here (scroll down):

For State and Local Health Departments

From your CDC link.

That's what I just wrote. No evidence that infection is the sole cause of the illness.

This is getting to be like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If you're confident in your ability to accurately diagnose ARDS and all known causes, then by all means go ahead and view it however you want.

 

[jandrew]

From your CDC link.
View attachment 843841

That's what I just wrote. No evidence that infection is the sole cause of the illness.

This is getting to be like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If you're confident in your ability to accurately diagnose ARDS and all known causes, then by all means go ahead and view it however you want.

You said, and I'll quote it again:

No, it can’t be a “probable “ case if there is any identifying infection. By definition it can’t be. There must be no other possible source of the event than use of some sorta vaping thing. ANY coexisting illness pulls it from the category. ...

The CDC says it CAN be a probable case in the presence of infection IF the patient's clinical team BELIEVES the infection is not the sole cause.

They also say it CAN be a probable case if infection hasn't been ruled out IF the patient's clinical team BELIEVES an infection isn't the sole cause.

Not sure why you arguing with me ... I said it could be listed as a "probable" case even in the presence of infection if the clinical team believes that isn't the sole cause. You said it could not be a "probable" case with any identifying infection, or basically ANY coexisting illness. But now you agree with the CDC. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Done here.

 

[Jazzman]

Nothing.

There won't be a Need to ban anything. Because the media will just Kick the Story under the Rug.

Kinda like the Media did with this Story...

California vape maker Kushy Punch caught making illegal products

To my way of thinking this story needs to be kicked under the rug. Like most sensationalist reporting this article is rife with speculation mixed in with the actual facts and it makes the entire article at least a little suspect. For example:

"In photos obtained by Leafly, the facility appeared to be performing petro-solvent extractions, where a technician concentrates the active ingredient in cannabis, THC. Petro-solvent extraction is legal with a permit in California. The extraction method can sometimes have the effect of concentrating pesticides along with the THC."

So in that paragraph we have "the facility appeared to be performing petro-solvent extractions". OK, how about not attempting to lead to a conclusion and wait a day or 3 to verify this is correct? Much more compelling. Or this statement "The extraction method can sometimes have the effect of concentrating pesticides along with the THC". Well how about not using the "can sometimes" and waiting to get the facts to see if this actually occurred? While it is a factual statement, this is not useful information about a very serious situation that something can happen, but there is no proof of this.

Or maybe this quote from the article "There they found an illegal cannabis product manufacturing operation apparently operated by Kushy Punch, a legal state-licensed company." Is it difficult to verify if Kushy Punch employees were onsite or had been observed onsite and was the facility licensed? These are not hard things to verify and would add a fact basis for the articles "appeared to be's" and "can sometimes" that kind of devalue the articles unwritten but heavily alluded to conclusions.

I don't totally disregard the article, but I think the rush to publish overwhelmed the need to fact check and verify which leads me to think the article "appears to be" correct and "sometimes can" happen. I would much rather have verified facts and data than cleverly worded prose, even if that meant delaying the article for a couple of days. Little things like conclusively stating, with verification, that Kushy Punch did in fact own this facility and performed unlicensed extractions. That alone would lend much greater credence to the article for me and shouldn't be that hard to prove/disprove.

 

[zoiDman]

To my way of thinking this story needs to be kicked under the rug. Like most sensationalist reporting this article is rife with speculation mixed in with the actual facts and it makes the entire article at least a little suspect. For example:

"In photos obtained by Leafly, the facility appeared to be performing petro-solvent extractions, where a technician concentrates the active ingredient in cannabis, THC. Petro-solvent extraction is legal with a permit in California. The extraction method can sometimes have the effect of concentrating pesticides along with the THC."

So in that paragraph we have "the facility appeared to be performing petro-solvent extractions". OK, how about not attempting to lead to a conclusion and wait a day or 3 to verify this is correct? Much more compelling. Or this statement "The extraction method can sometimes have the effect of concentrating pesticides along with the THC". Well how about not using the "can sometimes" and waiting to get the facts to see if this actually occurred? While it is a factual statement, this is not useful information about a very serious situation that something can happen, but there is no proof of this.

Or maybe this quote from the article "There they found an illegal cannabis product manufacturing operation apparently operated by Kushy Punch, a legal state-licensed company." Is it difficult to verify if Kushy Punch employees were onsite or had been observed onsite and was the facility licensed? These are not hard things to verify and would add a fact basis for the articles "appeared to be's" and "can sometimes" that kind of devalue the articles unwritten but heavily alluded to conclusions.

I don't totally disregard the article, but I think the rush to publish overwhelmed the need to fact check and verify which leads me to think the article "appears to be" correct and "sometimes can" happen. I would much rather have verified facts and data than cleverly worded prose, even if that meant delaying the article for a couple of days. Little things like conclusively stating, with verification, that Kushy Punch did in fact own this facility and performed unlicensed extractions. That alone would lend much greater credence to the article for me and shouldn't be that hard to prove/disprove.

Here's the thing.

If there was Anything Remotely Legal about what was going on at that Facility, they Wouldn't need a Warrant to Enter it. Because the CA Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) can enter Any CA Incensed Retailer/Facility at any time.

But if it is Not a CA Licensed Facility, then Entry and or Seizure of Evidence could Jeopardize the chances of obtaining a Criminal Conviction.

Also, using Terms like "May" or "Could Have" or "Might Be" is Journalistically responsible. Because a Criminal Complaint is going to be Filed by a DA. And that Criminal Complaint is almost 100% guaranteed to be adjudicated before a Jury.

So if this Article was to make Definitive Statements, that could Very Effectively be used by a Defense Team say'n that it was Impossible to obtain a Impartial Jury.

 

[Jazzman]

Here the thing.

If there was Anything Remotely Legal about what was going on at that Facility, they Wouldn't need a Warrant to Enter it. Because the CA Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) can enter Any CA Incensed Retailer/Facility at any time.

But if it is Not a CA Licensed Facility, then Entry and or Seizure of Evidence could Jeopardize the chances of obtaining a Criminal Conviction.

Also, using Terms like "May" or "Could Have" or "Might Be" is Journalistically responsible. Because a Criminal Complaint is going to be Filed by a DA. And that Criminal Complaint is almost 100% guaranteed to be adjudicated before a Jury.

So if this Article was to make Definitive Statements, that could Very Effectively be used by a Defense Team say'n that it was Impossible to obtain a Impartial Jury.

I'm not disagreeing with you and you are entitled to your opinion, so no worries. That was my take on the article, appreciate it or not. That's a decision you are free to make.

 

[zoiDman]

I'm not disagreeing with you and you are entitled to your opinion, so no worries. That was my take on the article, appreciate it or not. That's a decision you are free to make.

I hear what you are say'n. And your Original Post did make some Good Points.

But what I find Very Unusual, and what seems to be Almost Unbelievable, is that this California bust has received about Zero Media Coverage.

Whereas something like this...

Minnesota police seize over 75,000 THC vaping cartridges in record bust

... was carried for a Full 7 Day National News Cycle.

 

[stratus.vaping]

I hear what you are say'n. And your Original Post did make some Good Points.

But what I find Very Unusual, and what seems to be Almost Unbelievable, is that this California bust has received about Zero Media Coverage.

Whereas something like this...

Minnesota police seize over 75,000 THC vaping cartridges in record bust

... was carried for a Full 7 Day National News Cycle.

Probably because it was a straight lift from a Police press release, with the image. It means the media have a ready to go story, no major work to do just layout and there it is. Makes the Police dept happy too as it shows they are effective.

imho ofc.

 

[somdcomputerguy]

Live Today - CDC Deception: Not Just Wrong, But Horrific | 2pm ET/11am PT

 

[United States]

Thought of this thread when I saw this.

 

[ScottP]

Besides, this would be international if it were all about solder in cheap stuff. Unless you could show that they only shipped cheap soldered stuff to the USA and nowhere else.

[tinfoilhat]

Maybe they have. But the Cause Doesn't Fit what they would Like to Demonize?

Or the Cause casts a Bad Light on Something they Many are trying to Promote?

[/tinfoilhat]

Fair warning: I am going to go REAL tinfoil hat time here. So read at your own risk.

What if China has been conducting a "silent war" on the US for decades and recently stepped it up due to the so called "trade war"? For decades they have been shipping dangerous products to the US. Everything from toys with lead paint, to make-up that causes cancer, to pet food laced with euthanasia drugs, and much much more. To what end? Maybe just to make profit while killing us or maybe something more nefarious is afoot.

To be clear this is not what I think, but it does make you wonder. In truth it is more likely that they just don't care what corners they cut to make the most profit. Either way, I NEVER buy products from China that go in or on my body or in or on my pets. They just don't have a good track record for safety. Now when it comes to electronics you really don't have much of a choice these days. Even iPhones are made in China....partly why I buy Samsung phones from South Korea.

 

[ScottP]

Thought of this thread when I saw this.

What? You have never heard of Febtember? It's the month right after Nevuary.

 

[plumeguy]

I hear what you are say'n. And your Original Post did make some Good Points.

But what I find Very Unusual, and what seems to be Almost Unbelievable, is that this California bust has received about Zero Media Coverage.

Whereas something like this...

Minnesota police seize over 75,000 THC vaping cartridges in record bust

... was carried for a Full 7 Day National News Cycle.

Those who profit from THC vape products may have more powerful friends than first realized:

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article236237128.html#storylink=hpdigest_opinion

 

[DaveP]

Kinda makes you proud to be vaping a stainless steel body atomizer with an all threaded body and screw connections for the coil.

I remember taking apart an eGo back in 2011 and finding press fit connections on the coil wire leads. Those were close to the atomizer so it made sense that silver solder would degrade from temps in that area.

 

[zoiDman]

Those who profit from THC vape products may have more powerful friends than first realized:

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article236237128.html#storylink=hpdigest_opinion

Any Time there is a Huge Pile of Money laying on the Floor, there will be those who will Pick Up Up.

Be it Legally. Or Illegally. Or thru their Political Influence. Or sometimes, via some Combination of the Three.

These California politicians once helped regulate legal marijuana. Now they're working for the industry