MA Weinberg & SL Segelnick: A Profile of Electronic Cigarettes. US Pharm. 2011;36, 37-41.
concluding paragraph:
concluding paragraph:
Last edited:
E-Cig Feature in US Parmacist (7/2011)
- Thread starter Tom09
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Pah! More scaremongering!
That conclusion is the very worst kind of speciousness - saying nothing but implying everything.
"not knowing exactly how they function" - it's not rocket science, people! It's a piece of heated wire!
"Many believe that these devices..." - who, exactly are these 'many'?
Clearly, the pharmacists want regulation in the certain hope that they will be called upon to dispense aforementioned, controlled items. As always, follow the $$!
That conclusion is the very worst kind of speciousness - saying nothing but implying everything.
"not knowing exactly how they function" - it's not rocket science, people! It's a piece of heated wire!
"Many believe that these devices..." - who, exactly are these 'many'?
Clearly, the pharmacists want regulation in the certain hope that they will be called upon to dispense aforementioned, controlled items. As always, follow the $$!
Funny...It never even occurred to me to ask my pharmacist's opinion on whether or not I should use an e-cigarette. But if it had occurred to me and I asked the pharmacist "what should I do? continue to smoke or try one of these e-cigarettes?" and the response was continue to smoke, I would find another pharmacy. Because it would be painfully obvious I was talking to an idiot who should not be responsible for filling any of my prescriptions.
I was feeling too lazy to write an e-mail, so I called up the office of Dr. Segelnick and left a message with the receptionist that was to the tune of, "Your article on e-cigarettes was extremely disappointing and it's obvious you went into it with the intention of writing a negative article." I left my name and number.
I liked this bit:
"Additionally, e-cigarettes may help to suppress the craving to smoke. A clinical study found that after abstaining from smoking overnight, individuals had a decreased desire to smoke with the use of e-cigarettes (16 mg) when compared to conventional cigarettes, but there was no difference when compared to a nicotine inhaler.19 "
Well, okay, if you want to call dropping a 30+ year habit a decreased desire to smoke then I guess I can call him a world class underestimator!
And BTW, I call my vaporizers PV's, not e-cigs, cause a wooden juice box mod has little in common with a paper tube of tobacco!
"Additionally, e-cigarettes may help to suppress the craving to smoke. A clinical study found that after abstaining from smoking overnight, individuals had a decreased desire to smoke with the use of e-cigarettes (16 mg) when compared to conventional cigarettes, but there was no difference when compared to a nicotine inhaler.19 "
Well, okay, if you want to call dropping a 30+ year habit a decreased desire to smoke then I guess I can call him a world class underestimator!
And BTW, I call my vaporizers PV's, not e-cigs, cause a wooden juice box mod has little in common with a paper tube of tobacco!
Last edited:
Wait did I read this right?
Oral cancer? How?! Neck cancer? How? I thought it was already said that there were no carcinogens? Are additional studies really necessary? E-cigs still have less ingredients than analogs, correct? A few vs. many(analogs). For the addicted smoker which would seem like the better option: keep smoking analogs, nic replacement gum or patches, cold turkey, or an e-cig? hmmm. Tough one. Isn't there a drug out there supposed to help with nic cravings? The same drug that can cause cardiovascular problems and stroke? Puh-leaze.
Exactly- the #1 reason we are supposed to stop smoking-solved. Pick on some other addicts for a while, let me vape in peace.
I went to Walgreens a couple months ago in search of a few BD 3ml syringes. I love the pharmacist there. She's a blast. Spike haircut, has a really cool tattoo on her back of her daughter (not big), and loves telling jokes. I casually asked her for a couple without needles. She looked at me funny and out of curiosity asked why I would want them without a needle. I told her I needed them to mod a couple of cartomizers for my ecig or another term, PV. She got a big smile and asked what type of carto I was using. My eyes widened a tad...I said a clear dual coil. She asked what type of PV I used with them. Not really dumbfounded but taken off guard, I said a Prodigy V3.1....she pulled her black Buzz out. We talked for 2 hours.
This report shows total ignorance as usual.
This report shows total ignorance as usual.
If nicotine was a cause for cancer shouldn't we ban tomatoes or eggplant or or or?
+1 here. There should be a regulation for those that propose regulation. Like Environmental Impact Studies - Regulation Impact Studies and always pass the do nothing option before proposing.
"more needs to be known about the possible health benefits and risks before pharmacists can recommend the use of e-cigarettes" - Your recommendation is not wanted unless you wish to get off your .... and do some research.
I did a test run to the Pharmacists down at walmart! I walked up and asked, "You know what this is," holding my pv in one hand, other one point towards it.
The fine lady behind the counter responsed, "That's a e-cigarette. Why?"
"Is there any policy to recommend these to anyone." I questioned.
"No, you should try the patches or gum. Personally..." in a more quieter voice, "I got one myself, best thing that worked."
I just busted up laughing. I told her about the US Pharmacists article and he first words out of her mouth after that was, "Who the hell is US Pharmacists?" I guess they don't get that many readers who are actually Pharmacists.
The fine lady behind the counter responsed, "That's a e-cigarette. Why?"
"Is there any policy to recommend these to anyone." I questioned.
"No, you should try the patches or gum. Personally..." in a more quieter voice, "I got one myself, best thing that worked."
I just busted up laughing. I told her about the US Pharmacists article and he first words out of her mouth after that was, "Who the hell is US Pharmacists?" I guess they don't get that many readers who are actually Pharmacists.
Your post prompted me to write a follow-up email comment:
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the data that looked very spiffy inside of an MS Outlook Table keeps its spacing when I store this message.
So, anybody want to check grammer and spelling before I send this?
Dear Sirs/Madams,
I have recently had exposure to the recently released material noted on subject line.
I am extremely disappointed in the lack of professional presentation and information written in the publication.
I specifically refer to this excerpt:
"Based on a literature review and limited clinical studies of ENDS, there seems to be a need for better regulation of these devices. It is far too easy to obtain ENDS on the Internet, not knowing exactly how they function and their harmful effects on humans. Many believe that these devices have significant concerns to the public health community. There is no regulation regarding a standardization of manufacturing of ENDS, including the design of the device and type and dosage of ingredients. Overall, more needs to be known about the possible health benefits and risks before pharmacists can recommend the use of e-cigarettes."
The personal vaporizers referenced above have been on the market for 8 years. This is more than adequate time to determine efficacy. It is also time enough to determine that the devices have had no reported negative effects on health. There is a standardization. Research would have determined this. The devices are manufactured by companies which in some cases manufacture parts for pharmaceutical devices. Devices have pre measured capacities. The content of the capacities is determined by the end user. I can only compare these to Asthma inhalers. They use the same Propolene glycol base, and what is inhaled is at the control of the person inhaling. The end user provides the liquid to fill these devices. As with any vaporizer, what is put into them is out of manufacturer control. The "personal" vaporizer is no different than the "household" vaporizer sold at pharmacies world wide. The only difference is size and method of powering the devices. Due to its smaller sizer, the personal vaporizer is run on batteries. The personal vaporizer is an electronic device, pure and simple. Just as a nebulizer is. It is the liquid that is in question, not the device.
I look forward to seeing a more informative article in your publication, noting the ambiguous references in this article have been revised and more investigation into the matter was done by "more knowledgable" sources. You have the opportunity to be on the cutting edge of medical technology. The personal vaporizer has so many potential medical uses, I would expect the medical industy and pharmicies to embrace it. Imagine not having to fight a toddler to use a mask to inhale vapors? ALL of the fluid is utilized, there is no loss such as seen through mask vents. A smoking cessation tool it may be, true research shows that it is, but these are un-funded research works, composed by individuals with nothing to gain. The type of publication seen here could be used very effectively, if anyone where interested in doing so. Please, get the truth out, not unfounded suspicions from people afraid to speak out.
I suspect the article is a futile attempt to get the FDA involved in the regulation of electronic devices. Fortunately for us, US citizens have federal courts seeing to our rights. Perhaps pointing the finger at the true culprit- Nicotine, would be more appropriate. Fortunately for all involved, the cigarette industry will not allow this. But that wil not stop them from trying to blow smoke(pun intended).
Thank you,
Pam Briggs
Dear Sirs/Madams,
I have recently had exposure to the recently released material noted on subject line.
I am extremely disappointed in the lack of professional presentation and information written in the publication.
I specifically refer to this excerpt:
"Based on a literature review and limited clinical studies of ENDS, there seems to be a need for better regulation of these devices. It is far too easy to obtain ENDS on the Internet, not knowing exactly how they function and their harmful effects on humans. Many believe that these devices have significant concerns to the public health community. There is no regulation regarding a standardization of manufacturing of ENDS, including the design of the device and type and dosage of ingredients. Overall, more needs to be known about the possible health benefits and risks before pharmacists can recommend the use of e-cigarettes."
The personal vaporizers referenced above have been on the market for 8 years. This is more than adequate time to determine efficacy. It is also time enough to determine that the devices have had no reported negative effects on health. There is a standardization. Research would have determined this. The devices are manufactured by companies which in some cases manufacture parts for pharmaceutical devices. Devices have pre measured capacities. The content of the capacities is determined by the end user. I can only compare these to Asthma inhalers. They use the same Propolene glycol base, and what is inhaled is at the control of the person inhaling. The end user provides the liquid to fill these devices. As with any vaporizer, what is put into them is out of manufacturer control. The "personal" vaporizer is no different than the "household" vaporizer sold at pharmacies world wide. The only difference is size and method of powering the devices. Due to its smaller sizer, the personal vaporizer is run on batteries. The personal vaporizer is an electronic device, pure and simple. Just as a nebulizer is. It is the liquid that is in question, not the device.
I look forward to seeing a more informative article in your publication, noting the ambiguous references in this article have been revised and more investigation into the matter was done by "more knowledgable" sources. You have the opportunity to be on the cutting edge of medical technology. The personal vaporizer has so many potential medical uses, I would expect the medical industy and pharmicies to embrace it. Imagine not having to fight a toddler to use a mask to inhale vapors? ALL of the fluid is utilized, there is no loss such as seen through mask vents. A smoking cessation tool it may be, true research shows that it is, but these are un-funded research works, composed by individuals with nothing to gain. The type of publication seen here could be used very effectively, if anyone where interested in doing so. Please, get the truth out, not unfounded suspicions from people afraid to speak out.
I suspect the article is a futile attempt to get the FDA involved in the regulation of electronic devices. Fortunately for us, US citizens have federal courts seeing to our rights. Perhaps pointing the finger at the true culprit- Nicotine, would be more appropriate. Fortunately for all involved, the cigarette industry will not allow this. But that wil not stop them from trying to blow smoke(pun intended).
Thank you,
Pam Briggs
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
vocalek wrote:
Where did you hear/read that, and what study are you referring to?
For nearly a decade, I've been searching for studies that found an association between smokeless tobacco usage and tooth loss or gum disease, and I haven't been able to find any studies.
But I do know that back in 1985/1986, Greg Connolly (who demonized dissolvables at last week's TPSAC meeting) was working behind the scenes on the US Surgeon General Report that grossly exaggerated the health risks of smokeless tobacco, and the resulting 1986 Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Education Act (which mandated the three inaccurate/misleading warnings on smokeless tobacco products).
Connolly also was instrumental in scaring and lobbing the EU, Australia, NZ and Hong Kong to ban the sale of snus during the past two decades.
Where did you hear/read that, and what study are you referring to?
For nearly a decade, I've been searching for studies that found an association between smokeless tobacco usage and tooth loss or gum disease, and I haven't been able to find any studies.
But I do know that back in 1985/1986, Greg Connolly (who demonized dissolvables at last week's TPSAC meeting) was working behind the scenes on the US Surgeon General Report that grossly exaggerated the health risks of smokeless tobacco, and the resulting 1986 Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Education Act (which mandated the three inaccurate/misleading warnings on smokeless tobacco products).
Connolly also was instrumental in scaring and lobbing the EU, Australia, NZ and Hong Kong to ban the sale of snus during the past two decades.
no but its a deadly insecticide narcotic poison and comparable to rattle snake venom and crack and one drop is deadly!!!!11!1!11
SMOKELESS TOBACCO AND PERIODONTAL DISEASE
I was thinking that it was an old study. But I knew I had read somewhere that there was a study that showed an association, but was criticized for not controlling for SES. So I went looking and tracked it down. Turns out that it was only 6 years ago and it was our good friend, Dr. Brad Rodu who pointed out the shortcomings of the study.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
