Dr. Mintz' Blog

[TropicalBob]

The e-cig must not be compared to anything .. not Chantix, not NRT, not tobacco cigarettes. Comparisons will be quickly dismissed as irrelevent to the point at issue. The only relevant issue is whether the e-cig by itself is a safe product. If no claims are made for smoking cessation, nothing else needs proof. But safety does. We do not have that proof and it's not a matter of playing nice-nice as you say, but of acknowledging what needs to be done so all knowledge is on the table.

We need the study. We need a halt to claims that make an e-cig appear to be a device using a drug to treat addiction. We need proof that the e-cig, by itself, is safe. Not anecdotes. Not stories on a forum. We need a study of smokers who have never used an e-cig before attempting to use our device for 12 weeks. That shouldn't be some impossible obstacle -- and then we will have something many medical professionals would be willing to consider.

 

[sherid]

I am responding personally to the doctor. I am free to do that.

 

[ShadowDemon420]

Man what a battle I have to say I read most of it but I do not have the time right at this moment what a battle good job sticking it up to the man!

 

[Smokin'Sandy]

Wow, not a negative response on there towards the e-cig.

Here is what I posted although the good Doctor will have to approve the comment first.

Dr. Mintz,

"I am new to the e-cigarette and so far, I have replaced half of the cigarettes I smoke with the e-cigarette (or personal vaporizer or PV). I have smoked for over 33 years now and I do not want to quit smoking, I just want to continue "smoking" with something that is safer (surely this can't be denied that it is safer than a cigarette).

Nicotine is a legal drug and as long as it is, why would anyone object to a method of delivery that is safer than the inhalation of multiple carcinogens?

I have a 10 year old daughter and I hope that she never chooses to try nicotine, but I can't be with her everywhere as she ages. My mother tried when she found out I smoked (at 14) to stop me. She couldn't and there is nothing she could have done other than strapping me to my bed and we all know that is illegal. If my daughter chooses to have nicotine, I would rather there be a safer choice for her to pick from other than a pack of cigarettes.

I understand the need for testing, but what if it is found to cause an increased heart rate and blood pressure? Nicotine is still a legal drug and these things are much less harmful than the cancers and COPD caused by cigarettes.

Why would anyone limit someone's choice to choose something that is less harmful while the killer cigarettes are all over the place? The FDA will probably soon be overseeing tobacco and the bill states they cannot ban tobacco products. Yet, they can ban the e-cig. There is something not right here. Can you see that?

There is hope though if the electronic cigarette is found to be a reduced risk tobacco product and my daughter will have the choice of something that won't take her breath away if she chooses this legal drug."


He does seem to understand that it is probably safer, but like many non-smokers, he has the attitude of either quit or continue smoking the harmful cigarettes. He doesn't sound much like he is for reduced harm, but for total "no" harm.

 

[harmony gardens]

The e-cig must not be compared to anything .. not Chantix, not NRT, not tobacco cigarettes. Comparisons will be quickly dismissed as irrelevent to the point at issue. The only relevant issue is whether the e-cig by itself is a safe product. If no claims are made for smoking cessation, nothing else needs proof. But safety does. We do not have that proof and it's not a matter of playing nice-nice as you say, but of acknowledging what needs to be done so all knowledge is on the table.

We need the study. We need a halt to claims that make an e-cig appear to be a device using a drug to treat addiction. We need proof that the e-cig, by itself, is safe. Not anecdotes. Not stories on a forum. We need a study of smokers who have never used an e-cig before attempting to use our device for 12 weeks. That shouldn't be some impossible obstacle -- and then we will have something many medical professionals would be willing to consider.

I agree that we need more than our annectdotal experiences to win the day, but all most of us have is this forum to share and learn from. It's one of the few places we can test our wings as we learn to protect our rights.

There is no doubt that research needs to be done, and we need to press for that. I applaud Lacey for her efforts here. I think it's important to put a human face on the smoker in the equation. What about studies on the psychological effects on smokers as they are attacked from a constant barrage from the anti-smoking forces?? When a safer alternative seems to be at hand, we can't stand idly by as health care professionals make unproven claims about dangers.

Let's not forget that coal under pressure becomes a diamond.

What impulse causes a caterpillar to wind itself into a cacoon, and once bound, what struggle finally frees it to become a butterfly??


We need to show some love to each other, and try to unite for our common purpose. We all believe that vaping is better for us, or we wouldn't be here. It all happens one baby step at a time.

 

[Txrider]

The e-cig must not be compared to anything .. not Chantix, not NRT, not tobacco cigarettes. Comparisons will be quickly dismissed as irrelevent to the point at issue. The only relevant issue is whether the e-cig by itself is a safe product. If no claims are made for smoking cessation, nothing else needs proof. But safety does. We do not have that proof and it's not a matter of playing nice-nice as you say, but of acknowledging what needs to be done so all knowledge is on the table.

We need the study. We need a halt to claims that make an e-cig appear to be a device using a drug to treat addiction. We need proof that the e-cig, by itself, is safe. Not anecdotes. Not stories on a forum. We need a study of smokers who have never used an e-cig before attempting to use our device for 12 weeks. That shouldn't be some impossible obstacle -- and then we will have something many medical professionals would be willing to consider.

I'd settle for a study of long term smokers (20+years) and any health benefits seen from using an e-cig for 3 months, 6 months, 12 months in terms of lung capacity, lung functions and cardiovascular testing.

Seems getting people who never smoked hooked on nicotine isn't study that's very likely to happen.

 

[James]

I'm still waiting for a reply to my comment.

This is how I ended it:

Finally, I'd like to leave you with a quote from another expert we interviewed, David Sweanor, who has worked with numerous companies and organisations, including the International Union Against Cancer, World Health Organization, World Bank and the Pan American Health Organization, on the issue of tobacco harm reduction and has received many prizes for his work.

He told us: "If there is anyone who believes cigarettes are no more hazardous than e-cigarettes I’d recommend a remedial course in basic sciences." (Link removed)

The comment is showing, so at least he has approved it!

 

[Txrider]

I posted and was approved, he rewrote the blog in response to all the comments yesterday...

DRMINTZ.COM

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Oh the children! Blah.

 

[Smokin'Sandy]

Again, he is from the mindset that one either quit or die. There is no "reduced harm" that is getting through that mindset.

Here is what I posted and since my other comment was posted, I'm hoping this one will too.

I think that from his perspective of no harm at all, he is just not able to look at the consequences of not allowing them to be sold. He seems like he has people's best interest at heart, he's just not seeing that people are going to smoke whether he wants them to or not.

Dr. Mintz,

I understand your concern about offering them to patients. You seem to be a physican that does not promote harm reduction, but abstinence.

You state, "First, e-cigs are drugs by definition. Therefore, the fall within the jurisdiction of the FDA, who has turned a deaf ear to this issue...I strongly believe that the FDA should regulate these products as the drugs they are, which would include ensuring that they are safe."

Can you see how horribly wrong this is when the exact same thing could be said in your comments above by dropping the "e" from in front of cigarettes?

Cigarettes are drug delivery devices are they not? Should the FDA ensure they are safe before putting them on the market? I think you know the answer to that when the largest tobacco industry (Altria) is a co-writer of the tobacco bill before the senate. Naturally this "drug delivery device" won't be banned.

How can you, in good conscience, mean what you said above when Americans are confronted with cigarettes almost everywhere they go and the only alternative to the ones that want to smoke is quit or die? Why can't there be a tobacco product that delivers this "legal" drug without the extreme dangers of cigarettes?

I know you want the optimal outcome, but in reality, cigarettes are legal drug delivery devices and as long as they are don't you think a reduced harm delivery device would be greatly benefical?

There have been tests to show they are much less harmful than cigarettes. The Ruyan® (nicotine) E-Cigarette Yes, this is funded by a manufacturer, but most drug approval tests are funded by the manufacturer.

Please look into the studies that have been done.

Thank you for your time.