CDC Finally Saying Stop Vaping THC

[bombastinator]

I understand where you are coming from but ... I'm still going with willfull and deliberately misleading, without caveat.

The CDC has some of the top epidemiologists in the world (not to mention top class labs for toxicology/biohazard analysis). That their initial statements were as vague and misleading as they were is certainly an embarrassment

communication by whom though exactly? Lot of moving parts here.

but, by itself, perhaps not evidence of anything more sinister than poor communication ... that it wasn't very quickly expanded upon with a more accurate statement, more details, and a more serious attempt at mitigating actual deaths was a willful/deliberate act.

so you’re saying they went too fast and also didn’t go fast enough. It was a bad press conference. That we agree on. That it hurt people because of its badness that we agree on. It makes me want to look at the timeline and what people were saying when. Science is not fast. It is slow and expensive and very often the better it needs to be the slower and more expensive it is. There were people banging down the gates looking for answers the group didn’t have yet. Someone moved too fast. As to the not moving fast enough you want to hurry them now that you know how bad it can be when you do?

If outside influence (governmental or other) was involved that should be tracked down and dealt with harshly ...

agreed

but the CDC's failure to provide appropriate and timely information to the public has to rest ultimately on the director(s) at the CDC.

timely. I’m not sure timely is possible. Things sometimes have to take as long as they take. What’s that phrase? “You can have it on spec, on time, or under budget. Pick any two.” Budget is set so you have a choice between on spec or on time pick any one. You want on time and are complaining it’s under spec. Under spec for the CDC seems to be really bad. You’re not alone. I wanted on time too.

I mean, come on ... this is still the top of the CDC homepage as of 5 minutes ago:
View attachment 841443

So, still associated with "E-Cigarette Use, or vaping" ... THC still doesn't make the graphic ... but, yes, if you click the graphic you'll get further info that does mention THC (and that 77% of victims self-report using THC, while 16% self-report as nicotine only), along with the recommendation that: "While this investigation is ongoing, CDC recommends that you consider refraining from using e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly those containing THC."

that’s the first number I’ve seen on nicotine only. It’s higher than I was expecting. Even if half of them are just flat out lying it’s still 8%. It’s not unreasonable to continue to think there might be something to the nicotine stuff then. I still think it’s wrong. If those 16% are under age and they didn’t get good product the same problem crops up. We may have dealers used to mixing dirty THC stuff mixing nic stuff the same way. I don’t know what the spread range for random illnesses of this type are in a given population. That’s another factor. How many of these people got sick for another reason or none at all? E-cigarettes don’t STOP people from getting sick after all.

But hey, right at the top of the page it says: "CDC 24/7 Saving Lives, Protecting People (TM)", so there's that.

A slogan logo? You’re blaming a slogan logo?
I mean I hate slogan logos as much as the next graphic designer but that’s a bit much. It’s not even the worst one I’ve seen.

it’s clearly not up to date with what we are hearing. That’s clear. It’s a government science agency. It’s ponderous, and I’m not wholly convinced that is entirely bad. What is bad is that a bunch of politicians are trying to move much faster than their source of good info. They’re going to get their Fanny’s in a crack if they don’t watch out. It’s going to be potentially ugly for some blue state governors who jumped too fast. The thing is they’re all executive orders. They can be repealed as quickly as they went up. We shall see what we shall see.

 

[Beamslider]

Why take their word of Nicotine only usage? A simple drug test can detect THC for a long time after usage.

 

[jandrew]

communication by whom though exactly? Lot of moving parts here. so you’re saying they went too fast and also didn’t go fast enough. It was a bad press conference. That we agree on. That it hurt people because of its badness that we agree on. It makes me want to look at the timeline and what people were saying when. Science is not fast. It is slow and expensive and very often the better it needs to be the slower and more expensive it is.

I know what science is, and how it is done ... I've even been published in a couple peer reviewed journals myself.

In an outbreak situation, you release relevant and potentially life-saving information to the public as soon as you have reasonable grounds to do so --- it is science in the service of life-saving measures, not a research project. They should have immediately said something to the effect of: "We don't have any evidence or reason to suspect e-cigarettes or vaping in general --- this outbreak has all of the hallmarks of an adulterated product or a contaminant introduced introduced into a supply chain." ... and perhaps fairly shortly thereafter followed up with information that street purchased, illicit THC cartridges are at least a prime suspect in most of the cases to date. That could have been said loudly and clearly many weeks ago and may well have prevented some of the illnesses that have happened since.

Instead they continued to refer to it as an E-Cigarette related problem (and still do even now, THC is only mentioned in follow-up pages), potentially leading some THC users to dismiss it as unrelated to their usage.

 

[bombastinator]

Why take their word of Nicotine only usage? A simple drug test can detect THC for a long time after usage.

Health privacy laws. Someone mentioned it earlier somewhere iirc. I don’t know how they work.

 

[bombastinator]

I know what science is, and how it is done ... I've even been published in a couple peer reviewed journals myself.

In an outbreak situation, you release relevant and potentially life-saving information to the public as soon as you have reasonable grounds to do so --- it is science in the service of life-saving measures, not a research project. They should have immediately said something to the effect of: "We don't have any evidence or reason to suspect e-cigarettes or vaping in general --- this outbreak has all of the hallmarks of an adulterated product or a contaminant introduced introduced into a supply chain." ... and perhaps fairly shortly thereafter followed up with information that street purchased, illicit THC cartridges are at least a prime suspect in most of the cases to date. That could have been said loudly and clearly many weeks ago and may well have prevented some of the illnesses that have happened since.

Instead they continued to refer to it as an E-Cigarette related problem (and still do even now, THC is only mentioned in follow-up pages), potentially leading some THC users to dismiss it as unrelated to their usage.

You make a point. It’s suspicious. Makes me wonder about the particulars of the administrative infrastructure.

 

[muth]

"They don't know what's causing it" my behind. Also from CBS News:

Tests show bootleg marijuana vapes tainted with hydrogen cyanide

CDC knows very well by now what's causing it. All they had to do was to read two fantastic articles by Leafly, quoted extensively here for days...

Journey of a Tainted Vape Cartridge: From China’s Labs to Your Lungs

How to Spot a Fake Vape Cartridge

But they were busy investigating mango flavors.

Right on, Katya! I'm in MA where a 4 month ban on all vape products is in effect. I just got an email from Vista Vapes apologizing that they can no longer send orders to MA residents.

 

[Katya]

Right on, Katya! I'm in MA where a 4 month ban on all vape products is in effect. I just got an email from Vista Vapes apologizing that they can no longer send orders to MA residents.

I know, I'm so sorry, Muth. And also surprised. I thought CA would be first.

 

[muth]

You make a point. It’s suspicious. Makes me wonder about the particulars of the administrative infrastructure.

It's called Big Tobacco and Big Pharma not liking that we're stepping on their profits. Just a theory

 

[muth]

I know, I'm so sorry, Muth. And also surprised. I thought CA would be first.

You're next......good luck, Katya

 

[Katya]

I think this is the slippery slope. A lot of people like regulation until it prohibits something they like.

My opinion is that the only thing that should be regulated is the age of retail buyers. End of discussion. It's a difference between promoting public health and solving a crime. Killing or making people ill is already against the law. What we need is crime fighters to get past their lack of care and go solve this. Public health nannies are just using this as a stepping stone to justify their existence.

Umm... Either you misread my post or I didn't make myself clear--sorry. I wasn't talking about regulations.

CDC Organization | About | CDC

CDC's Mission:
"CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise."

No more no less. They dragged their feet and muddied the waters instead of letting us know what they knew, like they would do with any other disease outbreak--fully understood or not. You never wait until you know "everything" to issue public warnings.

Law enforcement should enforce the laws made by Congress. Period.

I think we agree.

 

[Katya]

You're next......good luck, Katya

Don't even....

 

[muth]

They are driven by power and money first. Two sides of the same coin. The more somebody gets of one, the more they get of the other and vice versa. Both ideology and public health serve that motivation.

The FDA and the CDC DO actually do a lot of things that promote public health. WHEN promoting public health ALSO serves their primary motivation of power and money for those above them who in turn keep them in their own position of power and money.

If championing vaping served their primary motivations of position, power and money (actually three sides of the same coin), then they would become relentless champions of all things vaping and, oh yeah, save millions of lives too.

In the present environment, destroying vaping serves their primary motivations of position, power and money. Saving lives is not part of the actual decision making equation. It's simply the propaganda strategy for promoting their primary motivations of position, power and money.

Does anybody REALLY believe that these highly educated medical bureaucrats actually do not know exactly what's going on here? Seriously? They're not stupid. They're evil. That's even worse.

Yup, that's what scares the s#*t outta me!

 

[bombastinator]

It's called Big Tobacco and Big Pharma not liking that we're stepping on their profits. Just a theory

It’s the relation that’s the big problem. Corporations aren’t supposed to be able to get their fingers inside the CDC. Basic fear is the normal motivator. The CDC prevents vast numbers of people from dying. Apparently it isn’t enough of one anymore. Somebody may have been willing to attempt to trash a strategic defense level organization to make a quick buck.

 

[AttyPops]

They dragged their feet and muddied the waters instead of letting us know what they knew, like they would do with any other disease outbreak--fully understood or not. You never wait until you know "everything" to issue public warnings.

I remember them mentioning THC vaping as being a highly suspected target pretty much from square one.

Maybe we're disagreeing because we remember it differently?

I just don't think they were comfortable excluding nic-vaping. They still aren't.

Now, is that convenient? Sure. Suspicious? Maybe. But I'm not really sure it was negligent. I think it falls under the heading of "caution". At least that's how I read it.

 

[Katya]

I just don't think they were comfortable excluding nic-vaping. They still aren't.

Read Dr. Farsalinos's take on it. That's not how epidemics work. Millions of people all over the world have been vaping nicotine eliquids for 12 years--nobody died, nobody even got seriously ill. And suddenly people are dropping dead and in just one country? Makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not suggesting that they should exclude anything--they have to be prudent and cautious. And I don't know what their motives are. But they should have been much clearer from the beginning. Just my

 

[muth]

It’s the relation that’s the big problem. Corporations aren’t supposed to be able to get their fingers inside the CDC. Basic fear is the normal motivator. The CDC prevents vast numbers of people from dying. Apparently it isn’t enough of one anymore. Somebody may have been willing to attempt to trash a strategic defense level organization to make a quick buck.

Nothing is sacred anymore. What a horrid thought but you could be right.

 

[AttyPops]

Read Dr. Farsalinos's take on it. That's not how epidemics work. Millions of people all over the world have been vaping nicotine eliquids for 12 years--nobody died, nobody even got seriously ill. And suddenly people are dropping dead and in just one country? Makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not suggesting that they should exclude anything--they have to be prudent and cautious. And I don't know what their motives are. But they should have been much clearer from the beginning. Just my

You're entitled to your opinions, of course, Tweety.

I just don't see your first paragraph here as what happened.

The "epidemic" was a contaminant pattern. They said that too. I don't see where they were even blaming mainstream vaping in their information. They stated a correlation, but I didn't see them say vaping in general was causation.

Now the other 3-letter groups, governors, etc...that's a completely different kettle of fish.

 

[bombastinator]

Nothing is sacred anymore. What a horrid thought but you could be right.

I honestly hope I’m not.

I don’t even know which organization would do the investigating. It’s on a legal par with attacking a nuclear missile site.

BT is known for hubris though.

 

[muth]

Read Dr. Farsalinos's take on it. That's not how epidemics work. Millions of people all over the world have been vaping nicotine eliquids for 12 years--nobody died, nobody even got seriously ill. And suddenly people are dropping dead and in just one country? Makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not suggesting that they should exclude anything--they have to be prudent and cautious. And I don't know what their motives are. But they should have been much clearer from the beginning. Just my

Here's an excerpt from our mass.gov page on the subject:

Learn about the ban
On September 24, 2019, the Governor declared a public health emergency in response to the outbreak of severe lung disease associated with e-cigarettes and vaping products and the epidemic of e-cigarette use among youth. While the national investigation has not yet identified a specific e-cigarette or vaping product or substance that is linked to all cases, a common factor is a history of e-cigarette use and vaping. This led the Governor to declare this public health emergency.

If your interested in the entire page the governor had posted..

Vaping Public Health Emergency

Just the title..."vaping-public-health-emergency" Give me a break.

 

[muth]

I honestly hope I’m not.

I don’t even know which organization would do the investigating. It’s on a legal par with attacking a nuclear missile site.

Well, MA has asked the CDC to investigate while they have their ban in effect. They are hoping to have their answers well within the 4 month limit. The answer is already apparent for crying out loud.