CDC Finally Saying Stop Vaping THC

[muth]

‘I’m not going to give up’: More Mass. vape shops expected to join lawsuit against statewide sales ban
"People have livelihoods. People have kids. We have families."

More Mass. vape shops expected to join lawsuit against statewide sales ban | Boston.com

 

[Tabac man]

It was "burnouts" around here.

It was 'druggies' around here.

 

[bombastinator]

Waxing pedantic again: Altria split from Phillip Morris, not British tobacco.

I thought British tobacco merely changed its name TO Altria after buying both of them and spit one out again after some chewing because anti-trust law.

A breakdown of corporate ownership history seems in order. Bah. I suck at research.

 

[classwife]

This is very powerful. A shop owner in Massachusetts.

**Edit by classwife : I am leaving this here.
Do not bother reporting it for the language - just be cautioned, it's definitely NOT SAFE FOR WORK

I added an edit in the post that I am leaving the video. It's too important.
Has me in tears...and he is just ONE business owner.

 

[AttyPops]

Mine and Dr. F's.

The emotional and irrational hysteria in the US about the “vaping-related” (or cannabis-related?) lung disease that goes far beyond confirmation bias

"Until this summer, there were no reports of any outbreaks of disease (in the respiratory system or elsewhere), in any age group, in any part of the world. Suddenly, within a short period of time (few weeks), in a specific geographic region (e-cigarettes are available worldwide, not only in the US) and in a specific age group (adolescents or young adults) there are cases of severe, acute respiratory dysfunction that has resulted in 2 deaths and several hospitalizations. What does this tell us from an epidemiological perspective (again, without considering any information about cannabis/THC use)?

1. That these cases are not related to long-term use of e-cigarettes. The authorities have clarified that these are acute cases. Despite various media presenting this as a mysterious lung disease, it is in fact poisoning of the lungs which is clinically manifested as serious respiratory failure (perhaps ARDS, perhaps some form of severe lung inflammation leading to respiratory failure).
2. That these cases are not related to vaping products that have been available for years in the US and global market. It makes absolutely no sense that the same products that have been used for several years by millions and never caused any disease outbreak are only today causing acute disease.
3. That these cases are not related to products that are generally used by the average vaper. The average age of adult vapers in the US is different from the average age of adults that have suffered from this acute condition. Also, the number of cases is very low considering the millions of vapers in the US and the many more millions globally.
4. That these cases are related to the recent release of new products (that were not previously available in the market), or to a recent modification in the composition of products previously available in the market, or to a recent problem in the manufacturing process or raw materials of products that were previously available in the market. This explains the timing of the outbreak. These products could be nicotine-containing or nicotine-free products (remember, we assume there is no information on THC/cannabis).

All these conclusions, derived from applying simple principles of epidemiology, have been largely ignored by most authorities, regulators and scientists. Instead, we are witnessing a persistent, frantic, unprecedented campaign against conventional vaping, which in fact delivers a clear message to consumers that it is preferable to relapse back to smoking (or keep on smoking) rather than use (or switch to) e-cigarettes. The media campaign is so intense and so epidemiologically unjustified that it exceeds the definition of confirmation bias."

You're conflating the point. I agree with you and him about "most authorities" and the "media campaign". I've not countered that at all, and posted my share of .

But that wasn't the discussion. You moved the goal posts.
The CDC didn't do that. You might think they did, but they didn't. They've said from the onset that it looks like a contaminant and that there's a strong link to THC vaping. But for them, trying to limit the impact to the public, they can't eliminate the possibility that some contaminant didn't enter the nic-vaping side of the equation too. I mean, users didn't cop to THC, and I suppose they do need permission for drug testing. Besides, like I said, they'll "go wide" and narrow down.

I EXPECT THAT from them.

But that's not politics. That's the difference. The rest of the 3-letter groups and "authorities" aren't approaching this scientifically, including the FDA, but in particular governors and congress.

 

[AttyPops]

It's too important.

I wish I could see it (I think I wish so).

Could someone post the link to it, the URL???

In order to do that, you have to put [PLAIN] tags around the actual URL, or ECF's parser will translate it to a [MEDIA] tag and screw it up for us non-fb users.

 

[classwife]

I wish I could see it (I think I wish so).

Could someone post the link to it, the URL???

In order to do that, you have to put [PLAIN] tags around the actual URL, or ECF's parser will translate it to a [MEDIA] tag and screw it up for us non-fb users.

see if this gets you there Atty
https://www.facebook.com/100006085938601/videos/2338259633053545/

 

[AttyPops]

Worked!!! Thanks.

 

[Baditude]

Not really, myself and tons of others quit smoking by vaping tobacco flavored liquids. I agree that flavors are necessary, just pointing out an inaccuracy.

You would be in the minority. When I smoked it was a menthol Marlboro. I wouldn't have considered a tobacco flavor to vape. When I did try a few when I worked at the vape shop they didn't taste anything close to a cigarette. They tasted terrible. Statistically, first time vapers who began with tobacco flavors have switched to a different flavor wihin 2 months.

 

[fiddleshe]

There are special circumstances which can apply. They’re generally pretty extreme.

Well I would say the CDC requesting one would be one such circumstance

 

[AttyPops]

Well I would say the CDC requesting one would be one such circumstance

I would too.

There seems to be a lot of "issues" around this, and SCOTUS cases, etc.
Generally, I think they'd have to show need, for treatment. I suppose law enforcement could get a warrant too. (And there have been big fights over that too...like in DWI cases). It's so all over the place, and may even vary by state jurisdiction. Google search:
when can a hospital perform a drug test without consent - Google Search

 

[gsmit1]

The CDC didn't do that. You might think they did, but they didn't. They've said from the onset that it looks like a contaminant and that there's a strong link to THC vaping. But for them, trying to limit the impact to the public, they can't eliminate the possibility that some contaminant didn't enter the nic-vaping side of the equation too.

What were they supposed to do? They couldn't outright deny a strong link to contaminants because...well... there it was.

What they DID do, and continue to do, is conflate every form of liquid vaporization into a single category so as to cast suspicion on the entire legitimate industry as well.

As my friend @bombastinator has said, even simple logic mitigates strongly against such a position because commercial nicotine vaping has been on the steep rise for well over a decade with unassailable evidence for it's relative safety and harm reduction benefits also getting stronger every day, and these cases have erupted in the last few months only.

There was no logical OR scientific reason to do this. My observations over the last 25 years tell me to ask who gains and who loses by this action?

What will probably happen is that the feigned alarm making way for these bans will stay in effect just long enough to kill off most of the honest smaller legitimate operators, and once that's accomplished, they'll issue an all clear leaving only the big players, whose pockets they're in, to commandeer virtually the entire market in a perfectly executed financial coup de tat.

I hope I'm wrong and I'll be the first one to say so if I am, but watch. Anybody who's been paying disinterested attention to these con artists for any length of time knows that some version these principles and tactics, is always how they operate.

 

[Georgia Boy]

What were they supposed to do? They couldn't outright deny a strong link to contaminants because...well... there it was.

What they DID do, and continue to do, is conflate every form of liquid vaporization into a single category so as to cast suspicion on the entire legitimate industry as well.

As my friend @bombastinator has said, even simple logic mitigates strongly against such a position because commercial nicotine vaping has been on the steep rise for well over a decade with unassailable evidence for it's relative safety and harm reduction benefits also getting stronger every day, and these cases have erupted in the last few months only.

There was no logical OR scientific reason to do this. My observations over the last 25 years tell me to ask who gains and who loses by this action?

What will probably happen is that the feigned alarm making way for these bans will stay in effect just long enough to kill off most of the honest smaller legitimate operators, and once that's accomplished, they'll issue an all clear leaving only the big players, whose pockets they're in, to commandeer virtually the entire market in a perfectly executed financial coup de tat.

I hope I'm wrong and I'll be the first one to say so if I am, but watch. Anybody who's been paying disinterested attention to these con artists for any length of time knows that some version these principles and tactics, is always how they operate.

You are not wrong what will it be next? Maybe Guns, wait they can't take those from us but they certainly can with ammunition. It starts here I feel as though we are moving ever closer to a 1984 society.

 

[AttyPops]

What they DID do, and continue to do, is conflate every form of liquid vaporization into a single category so as to cast suspicion on the entire legitimate industry as well.

I think you're confusing the "they's" here.

Got a quote to a CDC statement that is doing that?

I could be wrong. Show me.

 

[AttyPops]

You are not wrong what will it be next? Maybe Guns, wait they can't take those from us but they certainly can with ammunition. It starts here I feel as though we are moving ever closer to a 1984 society.

We are moving closer to an Orwellian future. Agreed.

But I was trying to talk to Tweety ( @Katya ) about a specific epidemiological approach, specific to the CDC's statements. My extremely negative feelings on the B.S. general issue of banning flavors and/or all vaping and turning it all over to BT is pretty well documented here.

 

[AttyPops]

What were they supposed to do? They couldn't outright deny a strong link to contaminants because...well... there it was.

What they DID do, and continue to do, is conflate every form of liquid vaporization into a single category so as to cast suspicion on the entire legitimate industry as well.

As my friend @bombastinator has said, even simple logic mitigates strongly against such a position because commercial nicotine vaping has been on the steep rise for well over a decade with unassailable evidence for it's relative safety and harm reduction benefits also getting stronger every day, and these cases have erupted in the last few months only.

There was no logical OR scientific reason to do this. My observations over the last 25 years tell me to ask who gains and who loses by this action?

What will probably happen is that the feigned alarm making way for these bans will stay in effect just long enough to kill off most of the honest smaller legitimate operators, and once that's accomplished, they'll issue an all clear leaving only the big players, whose pockets they're in, to commandeer virtually the entire market in a perfectly executed financial coup de tat.

I hope I'm wrong and I'll be the first one to say so if I am, but watch. Anybody who's been paying disinterested attention to these con artists for any length of time knows that some version these principles and tactics, is always how they operate.

I've already said most all this myself, across several threads.

And they'll go after cigs next. This is just step one. But they need BT's help, and BT needs control of the nic market in exchange.

 

[Georgia Boy]

I've already said most all this myself, across several threads.

And they'll go after cigs next. This is just step one. But they need BT's help, and BT needs control of the nic market in exchange.

I disagree they will never go after cigarettes until the Bonds are paid back from the MSA that ain't going to happen in my lifetime and I plan on living to at least 120yrs old now I've stopped smoking

 

[AttyPops]

The bonds are held by most of the states.

It's the FDA/Fed that will go after the cigs.

Besides, it will be gradual. First lower nic, then very low nic, then elimination of combustibles. IDK, guessing a decade or so.

Total SWAG here. But BT needs the nic market.
Or I suppose I could argue that it's simply just BT/Oligarchy takeover. Wall Street wins again.

But I think the fix has been in since the FSC fiasco.

 

[jandrew]

I think you're confusing the "they's" here.

Got a quote to a CDC statement that is doing that?

I could be wrong. Show me.

Here's the CDC's media statement at the time of the first death:

Pulmonary Disease Associated with E-cigarettes

Here's the entire statement:

We are saddened to hear of the first death related to the outbreak of severe lung disease in those who use e-cigarette or “vaping” devices. CDC’s investigation is ongoing. We are working with state and local health departments and FDA to learn the cause or causes of this ongoing outbreak.

This tragic death in Illinois reinforces the serious risks associated with e-cigarette products. Vaping exposes users to many different substances for which we have little information about related harms – including flavorings, nicotine, cannabinoids, and solvents. CDC has been warning about the identified and potential dangers of e-cigarettes and vaping since these devices first appeared. E-cigarettes are not safe for youth, young adults, pregnant women, or adults who do not currently use tobacco products.

–Robert R. Redfield, MD, Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 

[Eskie]

I would too.

There seems to be a lot of "issues" around this, and SCOTUS cases, etc.
Generally, I think they'd have to show need, for treatment. I suppose law enforcement could get a warrant too. (And there have been big fights over that too...like in DWI cases). It's so all over the place, and may even vary by state jurisdiction. Google search:
when can a hospital perform a drug test without consent - Google Search

As you point out, a drug screen in treating a person acutely ill is not uncommon. It requires no special consent, although if a person is able to communicate, they can refuse to provide a sample for one, much as they can decline any other medical procedure, test, or treatment. Results obtained may not be turned over to law enforcement in the absence consent by the individual or a court order, as is true with your privacy rights to begin with.

THC remains in the body for a significant period of time. The presence does not necessarily indicate very recent exposure. It's why if you need to take a drug screen, for say work, you need to stop a few weeks prior if you're a regular user. A problem for law enforcement is a positive test for THC does not establish say driving while under the influence or impaired, they need a field sobriety test. It's not like blowing an alcohol level of 0.08. So in this case, the presence of THC on a drug screen does not establish a clear relationship to the illness, although one's spidey sense might be thinking about toxic exposure to something. But given how common cannabis use is these days, it will not be at the top your list until you've excluded other causes.

Not all patients admitted to THC use. Saying you don't believe them isn't enough to say "yeah, it had to be related to that and they're lying", especially at the beginning of reports about this respiratory illness. Once that was sorta correlated, the cartridges involved may well have not been available to testing by a lab. That NY State Dept of Public Health identified the presence of Vitamin E acetate was fairly prompt under that circumstance.

The fact that early reports all had one thing in common, vaping SOMETHING, made it reasonable to start looking there. To jump to an early conclusion of "it's THC street stuff not Juul or e cigs" actually would have been bad science. From a public health standpoint do you really want to eliminate the possibility that an adulterant or contaminant didn't enter the nic e juice supply line? When a containment was identified, focus did turn to looking for that and other contaminants across all the cases to establish whether in fact it was that or a combo with something else.

It was the politicians who chose to jump on it like rabid dogs thrown a piece of meat to give them cover to make the soccer moms happy. Besides, when you see pictures of kids on ventilators holding up signs "Don't Vape" can you not have some political reaction?

The fact is, we still have no direct evidence the Vitamin E acetate is definitely the cause. The odds are super high, but it doesn't mean you one, stop testing for anything else, and two, you still need some sort of model to see if the respiratory damage is reproducible, most likely in animal testing as giving it to human volunteers at this point wouldn't be all too ethical.

If blame is to be placed, I'd look at the media feeding off the story and politicians capitalizing on it for their own gain. Could the CDC have released the information earlier? Maybe, although there were comments made earlier that the media didn't pass along as being as significant. After all, drug users getting sick isn't as sexy a headline as kids dying from vaping. Now that data has firmed up, they are being more proactive in narrowing down their recommendations and direction of the whole inquiry.