CDC's Tom Frieden manufactures more hysteria over e-liquid safety to lobby for FDA deeming reg/ban

[amoret]

Are refills sold in regular bottles that are not childproof? Not in Europe - not sure about the US.

Can you still get refills in standard non-childproof bottles?

You can get them but they are very hard to find. I have serious hand problems that make it impossible for me to use the childproof bottles. For now, if I want to try flavors from most suppliers I have to "let them steep" until my daughter visits and can decant them into containers that I can use. It is interesting since I can get many more dangerous products in what are labeled arthritis containers.

 

[amoret]

Some companies here still sell their liquids in dropper bottles and not childproof containers. Why they do is beyond me.

please see my response to Rolygate. Some of us cannot open childproof containers.

 

[ycatsce]

Because the ultimate responsibility for the kids is with the parents. For example I've never seen a kitchen knife come in a child-proof bottle.

I'm not sure if other countries have to deal with this same garbage but this lack of personal responsibility has gone too far. Any time anything bad happens, everyone immediately jumps to find who else to blame. Sometimes .... happens, and you have to just accept that. Sometimes dumbass parents do stupid things and kids get hurt or even die. It's been happening forever and will continue to happen forever. You can't legislate away negligence any more than you can legislate away the need for oxygen and food.


I think that this really has nothing to do with safety. My opinion is that this campaign is for nothing but financial gain and power through fear. I just wish there was a way to actually do something about this rather than trying and failing. No matter how many paper letters or emails I send out, petitions I sign, hearings and town halls I attend, the sad fact is that facts, the truth, and common sense never win out to the fear mongering and the facebook-shared "truths" with the moronic masses.

By the way, Cigarettes don't come in a child proof container either.

 

[Vocalek]

How many calls during the same time period for toothpaste?

The question can't be answered accurately for quite some time. The government has a big advantage over us peons trying to counter their drivel with facts--the American Association of Poison Control Centers is supplying them with 2013 data that won't be published until this fall, and with 2014 data that won't be published until 2015.

So I can only answer your question about toothpaste for 2012 and prior years. In 2012, there were 19,773 calls for toothpaste with fluoride (more than twice the number of calls for tobacco products and e-cigarettes combined). Of these, 17,456 (88%) involved children under age 6. But similar to tobacco and e-liquid, there were no major cases and no deaths.

Although children younger than 6 years were involved in the majority of exposures, they comprised 46 of 2,937 (1.6%) of fatalities. These numbers are similar to those reported since 1985 (Table 19A, all RCFs, and includes indirect deaths).

 

[Bill Godshall]

This article puts some perspective on the number and types of calls made to poison control centers.

Amy Fairchild and Ronald Bayer: Liquid Death from E-Cigarettes? You’ve got a long way to go, baby
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-amy-fairchild/liquid-death-from-ecigare_b_5044145.html?

An even better way to put the risks of e-cigarettes into perspective is to compare their risk of unintended harm to children with other public health measures that we accept in order to protect not just individual health but population health. Every year the CDC receives approximately 30,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines. Of these, 10 to 15 percent -- between 3,000 and 4,500 cases -- are considered serious, "resulting in permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illnesses or death."

But of course, we haven't heard any e-cig prohibitionists urging FDA to ban all childhood vaccines "to protect the children".

 

[Bill Godshall]

Another excellent repudiation of CDC's hysterical claims about e-liquid safety

ACSH: “The sky is falling”, warns CDC about largely-imaginary nicotine “poisonings”
“The sky is falling”, warns the CDC about largely-imaginary nicotine “poisonings” | American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)

Per someone's inquiry about toothpaste

E-liquid poisoning is much more rare than the media wants you to believe. If you take a look at the 2012 report from the National Poison Data System, there were 193,443 reported cases of poisoning from household cleaners. Alcoholic beverages led to 54,445 calls to Poison Control and believe it or not, toothpaste led to 20,206 reported cases of poisoning. When you think about over 20,000 people poisoned by toothpaste, those 365 hospital visits related to e-liquid seem almost insignificant. If the incidence of e-liquid poisoning increased to 15 times higher than 2013, it would still be less common than toothpaste poisoning.

 

[Kent C]

Another excellent repudiation of CDC's hysterical claims about e-liquid safety

ACSH: “The sky is falling”, warns CDC about largely-imaginary nicotine “poisonings”
“The sky is falling”, warns the CDC about largely-imaginary nicotine “poisonings” | American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)

"The CDC continues to fulminate about all the hypothetical and exaggerated risks of e-cigarettes to promote their agenda, which is fierce, take-no-prisoners, distort-any-data opposition to reduced harm products, especially e-cigarettes (and snus as well)."

Given the data, I don't see how anyone could conclude any differently.

 

[LDS714]

How exactly does the CDC have skin in the game?

 

[Kent C]

How exactly does the CDC have skin in the game?

Government workers have a variety of incentives - tax money will make their jobs more secure. Some want control - something they wouldn't have without a title and the force behind gov't regulations. Some do it from a 'moral' point of view - mainly 'they know what's best', and the problem with that is there is no morality when there is no choice. Gov't either restricts, forbids or mandates something - eliminating all choice and hence, all morality. That doesn't stop them from proclaiming a 'moral' purpose - some get to feel (or say) they 'cared'. That, somehow makes them feel good, while destroying the individuals they are 'helping'.

 

[Poeia]

How exactly does the CDC have skin in the game?

Poisoning would be under their jurisdiction just as tobacco is in the FDA's domain.

 

[hoogie76]

Guess DC parents are way more responsible with their trolls. Poisoning Stats

Still trying to figure out how you get poisoned by a battery

hoog

 

[DrMA]

Guess DC parents are way more responsible with their trolls. Poisoning Stats

Still trying to figure out how you get poisoned by a battery

hoog

For small kids, the the small button cells are shiny, attractive and easy to swallow. Charged batteries are extremely dangerous if ingested. The electrical current will go thru tissue and essentially electrolyze the cells in the lining of the GI tract; this leads to tissue necrosis and a perforated bowel, which is life-threatening.

 

[Uma]

Guess DC parents are way more responsible with their trolls. Poisoning Stats

Still trying to figure out how you get poisoned by a battery

hoog

Crazy! Far fetched crazy.

I have a question. Knowing that ER's usually induce vomiting in poison patients, why don't they require a vomit inducer ingredient inside each poisonous product? Nicotine has it's own inducer, for instance. Take a drag or swig too much and you're up chucking to beat the band. It's almost the perfect, ideal, "poison" on planet earth. Other products should copy the creative genius behind whoever it was who created nicotine. That would be ideal!

 

[sonicdsl]

Crazy! Far fetched crazy.

I have a question. Knowing that ER's usually induce vomiting in poison patients, why don't they require a vomit inducer ingredient inside each poisonous product? Nicotine has it's own inducer, for instance. Take a drag or swig too much and you're up chucking to beat the band. It's almost the perfect, ideal, "poison" on planet earth. Other products should copy the creative genius behind whoever it was who created nicotine. That would be ideal!

God? Mother Nature? Big Bang? etc?

 

[Poeia]

Crazy! Far fetched crazy.

I have a question. Knowing that ER's usually induce vomiting in poison patients, why don't they require a vomit inducer ingredient inside each poisonous product? Nicotine has it's own inducer, for instance. Take a drag or swig too much and you're up chucking to beat the band. It's almost the perfect, ideal, "poison" on planet earth. Other products should copy the creative genius behind whoever it was who created nicotine. That would be ideal!

Vomiting is only for some toxins. Caustic substances will do as much harm coming up as going down. Many toxic substances have "if accidentally ingested" instructions on them (although I don't recall ever seeing them on cosmetics packages.)

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

The link-breaking problem has no good solution ... inconsistent enforcement is probably a logical consequence of the fact that ECF may have chosen the least bad option from a set of suboptimal choices. I do think Elaine's idea of using a line break is a very good one, however, and would urge ECF to make it a policy. In other words - instead of:

http://blah . com/whatever

do this:

http://blah
.com/whatever

I generally love Siegel's posts, but I thought his response to the CDC's poison stuff wasn't particularly effective. The CDC's point is that e-liquid is so dangerous that consumers can't be trusted to handle it directly. (Which leads to TPD-style requirements of sealed cartridges and controlled dosages). It's no accident that R.J. Reynolds updated their site, touting the Vuse. He also goofed on the batteries?chargers thing: that's probably CPSC at this point, not FDA. I frankly doubt that tobacco products jurisdiction could ever be extended to amcilliary electronic components such as batteries and chargers.

In any event, this is not about the science, IMO. It's about the messaging. As I said, I feel as if they're misdirecting us - put this in the conext of the larger narrative that's been developed over the last six weeks, and it makes a great deal of sense: particularly if they expect to move at the US national level before Memorial Day. (But then I won't belabor the point that I made in my special media roundup.)

 

[pianoguy]

The question can't be answered accurately for quite some time. The government has a big advantage over us peons trying to counter their drivel with facts--the American Association of Poison Control Centers is supplying them with 2013 data that won't be published until this fall, and with 2014 data that won't be published until 2015.

So I can only answer your question about toothpaste for 2012 and prior years. In 2012, there were 19,773 calls for toothpaste with fluoride (more than twice the number of calls for tobacco products and e-cigarettes combined). Of these, 17,456 (88%) involved children under age 6. But similar to tobacco and e-liquid, there were no major cases and no deaths.

Obviously, toothpaste should only be sold with child-proof caps, and only in dog-dirt flavor, so as not to attract children.

 

[AgentAnia]

Obviously, toothpaste should only be sold with child-proof caps, and only in dog-dirt flavor, so as not to attract children.

Too late, I'm afraid. From my notes (have not verified actual market situation):

Proctor & Gamble has introduced Crest Mint Chocolate Trek toothpaste. So P&G is now marketing toothpaste to children (since flavors attract children, not adults).

 

[patkin]

"dramatic increase in e-cigarette-related calls to poison centers" Well, of course! Wasn't that the plan?

 

[Bill Godshall]

For some perspective, according to CDC's newly released data, e-cigs now account for .1% (or 1 in 1,000) of the exposures reported to Poison Control Centers (about 200 out of 194,500 monthly calls).
Notes from the Field: Calls to Poison Centers for Exposures to Electronic Cigarettes — United States, September 2010–February 2014
http://www.poison.org/stats/2011_NPDS_Annual_Report.pdf

In 2011, there were 2,334,004 exposures reported to Poison Control Centers (or 194,500/month).
CDC just reported that e-cig calls to Poison Control Centers have increased to about 200/month.


CDC reported one fatal exposure to e-cigs (via injection, which may have been a suicide).

But the CDC didn't mention that any of the other 9,838 reported exposures to e-cigs resulted in any admissions to noncritical care, critical care or psychiatric facility (which are required to be reported). The CDC also didn't report that any of the other reported exposures to e-cigs resulted in a moderate or major effect on the person (something else that is required to be reported), indicating no or very little harm was caused by the other reported exposures to e-cigs.

Buried in the CDC's propaganda to demonize e-cigs is some very helpful data, including:

- 12.8% of e-cigarette exposure calls came from health-care facilities (indicating doctors or nurses called about a patient, perhaps for inhaling e-cig vapor, which is classified as an "exposure").

- 51.5% of e-cigarette exposures were among persons aged 0–5 years.

Reported e-cigarette exposures: ingestions (68.9%), inhalations (16.8%, eye exposures (8.5%), and skin exposures (5.9%)



Since e-cig opponents have been falsely saying things like "nicotine is the most toxic poison known to man", "one drop of nicotine could kill a person", "ten milligrams of nicotine could kill a child", etc. nobody should be surprised that calls have increased to Poison Control Centers about e-liquid ingestions (although some of the reported ingestions were probably screw on e-cig components).

As long as many people inaccurately believe that simply touching or tasting e-liquid causes "toxic poisoning", more calls will be made to Poison Control Centers (which is exactly what CDC and FDA want so they can continue to claim "The sky is falling").