E-Cigarette Clinical Trials

[DC2]

This isn't paranoia. It's the Obama administration that proposed the e-cigarette ban on flights, and it was a Democratic bill that proposes taxing e-cigarettes exactly the same as cigarettes, I believe for a total of 4x as expensive. It is the present democratic position, strong tobacco control, no harm reduction.

And it is overwhelmingly Democrats all over the country on City Councils and local Boards of Health, all the way up to Senators and Congressmen that are introducing and pushing for any and all kinds of restrictions on electronic cigarettes and policies against the very concept of tobacco harm reduction in general. This is well documented and basically indisputable.

Politics aside, a spade is a spade.

 

[rolygate]

JF, as regards the eGo thing, what they are basically saying is that with a choice of various models that look the same and might be supposed to work the same - the large-format models - an eGo (or Tornado) is not the best choice, a Riva is.

In the case of a single-model trial, you'd give the subjects a small battery Riva to start with (650mAh), then as they became more familiar with the concept that an e-cig is not a tobacco cig, give them a larger 900mAh battery as it works better. It just screws on instead of the small cell. See this pic for a comparison (colors and brands are interchangeable):

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/images/tornado-650-vs-900.jpg

 

[jfjardine02]

Mattzuke..
I understand the concerns about FDA, but it is their job to be cautious, require data, identify problems etc. You think pharma companies find them a joy to work with? noooo. Things are shifting ...maybe glacially slowly, but they are never going to be an organization that will take risks. Best bet is to provide scientific data. Also a good idea to politely point out terminological inexactitudes on their part or on the part of anyone speaking on this topic. Many people on this forum know more about this than 99% of scientists etc, and they (the scientists) shouldnt have a problem with being politely corrected, on the facts. (Which is different from being accused of being stupid/in the pocket of X,y,z, or simply taking a valid but different interpretation of the data).

Im too tired to comment on every point, but lets pick e-cigs on planes. You and i both know that some e-cigs are capable of producing quite an impressive cloud of vapor. Now I dont care if inhaling someone elses vapor cures baldness, impotence and bad teeth, no-one wants to be inhaling a cloud of seomeone elses stuff in an enclosed space. Sure it may be 20 times less harmful than tobacco smoke...irrelevant. Thats also banned. So is toothpaste. So is playing your personal stereo at full blast on the plane...not because it damages ear drums...just because no-one wants to have to be drowned out by someone elses noise, vapor or anything else. So fighting against an airline ban is a complete waste of time, as is blaming a political party for it.

 

[Thulium]

Mattzuke..
I understand the concerns about FDA, but it is their job to be cautious, require data, identify problems etc. You think pharma companies find them a joy to work with? noooo. Things are shifting ...maybe glacially slowly, but they are never going to be an organization that will take risks. Best bet is to provide scientific data. Also a good idea to politely point out terminological inexactitudes on their part or on the part of anyone speaking on this topic. Many people on this forum know more about this than 99% of scientists etc, and they (the scientists) shouldnt have a problem with being politely corrected, on the facts. (Which is different from being accused of being stupid/in the pocket of X,y,z, or simply taking a valid but different interpretation of the data).

Your point about politeness is certainly valid, but to use an infantile phrase, "THEY started it." As consumer advocates, we have been accused of being shills for the tobacco companies, written off as "unscientific" even while we are citing actual scientific, published and peer-reviewed data while they have none to support their claims that daul use "may be more hazardous" or that non-tobacco flavors are marketed to children.

Im too tired to comment on every point, but lets pick e-cigs on planes. You and i both know that some e-cigs are capable of producing quite an impressive cloud of vapor. Now I dont care if inhaling someone elses vapor cures baldness, impotence and bad teeth, no-one wants to be inhaling a cloud of seomeone elses stuff in an enclosed space. Sure it may be 20 times less harmful than tobacco smoke...irrelevant. Thats also banned. So is toothpaste. So is playing your personal stereo at full blast on the plane...not because it damages ear drums...just because no-one wants to have to be drowned out by someone elses noise, vapor or anything else. So fighting against an airline ban is a complete waste of time, as is blaming a political party for it.

I cannot agree with you here. Should we ban the serving of any hot beverages aboard airplanes since they are "heated" and produce a "vapor" that contains addictive stimulants and "other chemicals"? While it would certainly be valid for an individual airline or any other privately owned enclosed space to make and enforce their own policy asking people to not use an electronic device, the Department of Transportation has absolutely NO authority or justification to arbitrarily redefine the word smoking to include something that produces no smoke.

 

[Ande]

1. I may be wrong, but I suspect that FDA staff may be more open to considering your comments if you didn't start off by accusing them of being liars. In fact probably anyone is more open to considering a comment if the person making it doesnt accuse them of some wrong-doing in the same breath. Just a thought.

True enough- BUT...I, like most people on this board, came to the table without an agenda. I smoked, which was my decision. (I'm young enough that there WERE warnings on the pack, so I can't really blame anybody else.) With our first child on the way, I wanted to quit, and found it impossibly hard.

Tried a number of pharmaceutical products, which were no help at best, and scary at worst.

Then I tried an ecig- end of story. No more cigarettes. I was thrilled with it.

And then I started doing research. I was amazed at what I saw- having had no opinion about the FDA previously, their 2009 press release floored me: The study they did said one thing (mostly harmless), and they spun it totally the other way. And the more I've read, the more I've seen the pattern- the FDA has an agenda, spins the press release of the science to fit it.

Few of us came to the world of tobacco harm reduction thinking the FDA was a bunch of liars. But in this area...the amount of lies told is staggering, and upsetting.

2. You say there are no incentives to do proper research like controlled clinical trials. I'm suggesting that it may be the difference between staying in business or not. At the very least it is the difference between marketing something on the level of snake-oil and marketing something that has been demonstrated to do something useful without harming people. If this market continues to exist it will become more competitive. The first company that can produce serious evidence that their product is safe and effective will have an advantage....particularly if the data show that it is safer and more effective than competitors. It is better that research be conducted independently, but ultimately any solid research is better than the current near vaccum.

A lot of us have some idea with what a clinical trial would involve. (I'm in no way involved in the health field, but work a lot with statistical studies.)

And one of the limits, in this case, of a clinical study, is that it would have to focus on a single product. This is "valid," because almost certainly ecigarettes are not all equal in effectiveness or (perhaps) even in risks. But it doesn't get us very far. If you study the Riva, and find that it cures cancer, peels potatoes, and goes with a movie better than hot buttered popcorn, what are the implications for my mod? Minimal.

Clinical studies are a good way to research the safety and effectiveness of a new product, which a given corporation is preparing to market.

They aren't a good way to evaluate a category of things (like ecigs) or a concept (like tobacco harm reduction).

Population based studies would be a much more logical choice here. (Easier to do, with potentially much more generalizable results.)

The reason that pharmaceutical products MUST rely on clinical studies is because they are (rightly, fortunately) being done before they are introduced to the market.

Harm reduction products are not pharmaceutical products, though. And they are already being used by millions.

So there are more ways to study them than by blind clinical studies.

I'm also nervous about the nature of most clinical studies related to smoking cessation. Most seem to require, as their goal, total nicotine abstinence. This is (host of studies available) notoriously hard to acheive, and success rates are extremely low. When we talk about harm reduction, we're talking about maintaining the nicotine delivery in a safer way, which is a very different thing.

I don't know if my ecigarettes would help me get off nicotine, and I'm not sure how much I care. I KNOW they helped me get of cigarettes, and my life, health, and 5k race times are all MUCH better as a result.

Best,
Ande

PS- This is NOT to say that I oppose any sort of clinical study, just that I know that it's unlikely to be especially informative, in terms of telling us anything we don't know. I'd add that it's also unlikely to be particularly helpful in terms of dealing with the FDA- their agenda is set: minimize tobacco harm reduction, in favour of total abstinence approaches only.

 

[Ande]

(sorry- double clicked)

 

[MattZuke]

Sure it may be 20 times less harmful than tobacco smoke...irrelevant.

Actually it is quite relevant. E-cigarettes fall well under the guidelines set by the US Public Health Service and OSH. HealthNZ's test, the FDA's test, and literally 15 others as sited in Michael Siegel's paper, including products by
NJOY, Smoking Everywhere, Ruyan, Liberty Stix, Gamucci, inLife, ECC(UK), Instead, Super Smoker. I can dig up more.

Second hand smoke "might" raise the risk of lung cancer from 1:100,000 to 1:80,000, technically not statistically relevant, but at least it's potentially measurable. Technically more lives have been lost due to the airplane smoking ban than have been saved based on these figures, but at least there is a legit study from the CDC. We're not talking 20x, including the nicotine, an HMIS rating of 1. Lower than a paraffin candle, lower than a Glade Glug in.

We're not talking a 40x reduction in risk. That would narrow this figure from 1:100000 to 1:99500, or .5% risk above baseline roughly equal the risk of just flying 10,000 miles. Based on current data, the risk to the user is 100x less (Siegel). 1:100000 vs 1:99800 Factor in ~900m^3 (747), lungs representing 1/150000, of this, presuming 400 drags/1ml, no circulation, 1/375 the plane volume. Presuming 18mg/ml, 900,000 liters of air, factoring in 98% absorption rate (HealthNZ), no circulation, 0.0000000004 grams/CC of air, or 25 million times less nicotine than 100g of eggplant per breath. Factoring in 1200 breaths/1hrs, 0.00000048g. Factoring in a half life of 1hr, 8hrs, only 1 passenger, 0.000000958125g/hrs, or 81x less than what's in your body 8 hours after eating 100g of egg plant. Oh, and air comes from outside the cabin, contaminated with propylene glycol.

The FAA has no valid justification to institute a ban.

{Smoking,}Thats also banned.

True, but this had the requisite research behind it.

So is toothpaste.

Nope, qualifies as a 3-1-1 item.

So is playing your personal stereo at full blast on the plane

Not by the FAA. The only real restriction is based on radio emissions, and even these are somewhat outdated standards based on old analog computers. If the FAA wanted to ban boom boxes at certain volume levels, the burden of proof would be on them. They would be required to conduct studies, demonstrate objective risks. Now there is a blanket rule regarding electronic equipment that isn't certified by the FAA or FCC. But at this too has nothing to do with annoying passengers. It has everything to do with aircraft safety (RTCA 1963, 1988, 1996).

just because no-one wants to have to be drowned out by someone elses noise, vapor or anything else.

This is not the role of the FAA. Sorry. The FAA doesn't legislate passenger behavior.

So fighting against an airline ban is a complete waste of time, as is blaming a political party for it.

You're entitled to your opinion, however, this was yet another case of getting a government agency to conduct objective tests, as they did with SMOKING. You basically conceded it was not an issue of passenger safety, just passengers might find it annoying. That's the airline's domain, not the FAA. The FAA doesn't regulate annoying aerosol perfume, loud Hawaiian shirts, crotch scratching, aerosols (save their 3-1-1 rule) like the nicotrol inhaler, pristine mist, or Bianca.

Nor does the FAA restrict the quantity of Propylene glycol used.

And yeah, this was proposed by the Obama administration, and the Democrats are strongly opposed to harm reduction. And it's not pointless to those of us who actually vote.

You and i both know that some e-cigs are capable of producing quite an impressive cloud of vapor

This is true. But not 5000+ grams worth (see above pic), and this is the industrial stuff that actually has DEG. And as impressive as a vapor cloud "can" be, both you and I know that stealth vaping is discrete enough for the movie theater, for supermarkets, after dinner, at the hardware store. Look, airlines do have the right to ban just about anything they want, that's not the issue. The issue was the government making law without evidence, evidence that could have been useful to spark research into the relative risks of e-cigarettes. And we don't make laws based on what is just annoying, well, not exactly true because as you stated, we just did.

 

[Ande]

I'm probably the only one on this forum who doesn't (exactly) oppose a ban of use on planes.

We're going through a real time of antismoking sentiment in society, and to keep vaping as far from that as possible, I don't think it's a good idea to go around ticking folks off. For that reason alone, I won't be vaping on planes, whether or not it's permitted.

Concerns for other people's comfort, real or imagined, is enough to keep me from vaping in a lot of places.

So I don't mind at all if airlines choose not to allow vaping. (Some have this policy, others don't- most will eventually, I imagine.)

I don't object to a ban of vaping on flights.

But I object to a FAA ban on vaping in flights.

Because they aren't the "passenger behaviour" people. That's up to the airlines.

The FAA are the air safety people. And without making a coherent convincing case for a safety related reason, they have no business making a no vaping policy.

And it DOES matter. Each ban we let come in with spurious reasons is one more brick in the wall of public "awareness" that vaping is bad.

If the FAA published their ban as being "to keep some passengers from making others uncomfortable" I'd be fine with that. But as long as they claim to do it for safety reasons, we have to oppose it.

Best,
Ande

PS- Sorry this is sort of off topic, not related to clinical trials. But it seems to follow the thread of the conversation...

 

[MattZuke]

I'm probably the only one on this forum who doesn't (exactly) oppose a ban of use on planes...
I don't object to a ban of vaping on flights...

But I object to a FAA ban on vaping in flights.

Well, it's "somewhat" off topic, but follows the course of reason. The administration is a barrier to clinical trials. This is an objective fact. The FAA ban is just another excuse to ignore testing e-cigarettes for the relative safety to users and bystanders. The logic is as follows... the FAA banned it, they must have some sort of objective evidence. They don't. A lack of consumer confidence and tobacco control not accepting their burden results in the hypothetical researcher not being able to get a grant. Result, no independently financed research.

Oh jfjardine02, and accepting of a seemingly minor 40x safer?
420,000 is the CDC estimate for yearly death from smoking, user and bystanders.
This is an old figure, when 25% of the population smoked.
A reduction of risk by 40x, shared by 100% of the population would reduce this figure to
42,000.

ETA: Damn, you said 20x.
420,000 dead bodies would become 84,000.

That is if everyone used e-cigarettes, 306 million people, and they were 40x (ETA or 20x as you actually stated) less harmful than cigarettes.

For e-cigarettes to be a net neural to public health, they only need to be 4x less harmful, as in 100% of the population sharing the same risk, taking up the habit themselves the worst case scenario. If 20% of the population smoked, 5x would be the point.

 

[jfjardine02]

Okay,...I accept your point that FAA were probably not the appropriate entity to ban e-cigs at least with limited data on health impact. My point is, as Ande stated, that other people around the vaper in the enclosed space of a plane will reasonably object, just as they might if I start playing my stereo at full blast on the plane. So given that airlines would likely ban e-cigs anyway, this doesnt seem like the battle to pick.

 

[MattZuke]

Mattzuke..
I understand the concerns about FDA, but it is their job to be cautious, require data, identify problems etc. ...
, and they (the scientists) shouldnt have a problem with being politely corrected, on the facts. (Which is different from being accused of being stupid/in the pocket of X,y,z, or simply taking a valid but different interpretation of the data).

The problem isn't the FDA being concerned. It was the FDA making the manufacturers jump though hoops, and then moving the goal posts. Smoking Everywhere and Njoy both spent millions in testing of the product only to have the FDA say testing had to be done in the US. You've seen the FDA press release, and here is the actual FDA report.

"Limit of detection Cotinine 20 ppb. Anabasine 10 ppb; myosmine 69 ppb; β-nicotyrine 170 ppb – present but at less than the level of the Nicotrol specification" --Page 4 (in the liquid)

" Presence of tobacco specific impurities cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, nornicotine, anabasine and myosmine was negative at 60 deg C. " ---page 5

Even the DEG that was detected in one cartridge
"Diethylene Glycol was detected in one sample (Smoking Everywhere 555 High cartridge) at approximately 1%" --Page 2

This is a scientific report? I shouldn't have to reverse engineer a quantity. The largest product smoking everywhere had at the time was a 1ml KR808D-2. So this figure would be .01ml of DEG, to be consumed over a period of 16 hours. This was NOT detected in the vapor, which is consistent with why DEG is allowed in Sterno fuel. It doesn't boil off.

Look, I understand where you're coming from, but this is a case where the FDA report does not backup with assertions the FDA made. Not that one can really get much objective data from it. The FDA has been corrected many times, even by one outside lab, but the fact of the matter is they lied to justify an import ban, Judge Leon ruled they overstepped their authority.

The actual data from the FDA report, even taking DEG into account, told the story very well, in terms of tobacco specific impurities, the worst that could be said with e-cigarettes is they contain 1/2 as the Nicotrol Inhaler, but unlike the inhaler, don't expose the user to any measurable quantity. HealthNZ is less conservative, putting e-cigarettes on par with the Nicotine Patch. Same with Michael Siegel's meta study of 18 lab reports. But somehow the Nicotrol Inhaler is designed as safe, but e-cigarettes that studies show have higher standards than pharma products somehow isn't.

Meanwhile in bizarro world, Cigarettes Are Enlisted to Test Ways of Quitting. Seriously, 2.5million to assess how ultra low nicotine CIGARETTES perform to promote cessation.

Same applies to many of the scientists in Tobacco Control. Once you get beyond the objective risk "smoking" has to the user, you start entering the realm of pseudo science. Second hand smoking in itself is a bit of a stretch. A 25% increase in lung cancer risk from base line "sounds" terrible until you look at the data and see the baseline is 1:100000, and 25% is 1:80000. And much of this is from when clean air laws were enacted, and former smokers were designed non-smokers. Third Hand smoke is where we totally jump the shark. To put that data into perspective, let's say 5 men people smoked 20 packs of cigarettes in a closet, and sprayed themselves with nitric acid 10x atmospheric concentration, then all cooked bacon and eggs on a gas stovetop, and I decided to tip my tongue into everclear, and lick them from head to toe. I hypothetically "could" be exposed to 15 nanograms of NNK, but even this is doubtful. But the FDA accepts that higher concentrations of NNK have no observable affect at daily doses at it applies to Sweedish Snus, which is actually higher. Somehow eggplants have not been observed to form NNK even cooked on the stove top. Nor has ketchup. And somehow this NNK risk applies to e-cigarettes, not the agricultural industry where the EPA still has registered pesticides up to 13% in concentration, and 40% nicotine sulfide is still in common use and has been for over 200 years, esp in Cali where much of this so called research comes from where nicotine sulfate at 40% is specifically exempt from Proposition 65.

Look, I actually like scientists, I love correcting scientists. Contributing in even a small way to the sum of human knowledge is a real kick in the pants. But the people that I've dealt with, and I'm sure others here, are not the altruistic scientists. Many of the outspoken people in tobacco control are activists, engaging in pseudo science.

 

[MattZuke]

Okay,...I accept your point that FAA were probably not the appropriate entity to ban e-cigs at least with limited data on health impact. My point is, as Ande stated, that other people around the vaper in the enclosed space of a plane will reasonably object, just as they might if I start playing my stereo at full blast on the plane. So given that airlines would likely ban e-cigs anyway, this doesnt seem like the battle to pick.

Except... they are used on aircraft, sold by airlines. Just not ones in the United States. Just as you accept someone "might" object, someone "might" object to someone experiencing nicotine withdrawal. That's the problem with "might".

The point is, this is where the FAA should have contacted the EPA, the CDC, OSHA, and the
US Public Health Service. If the answer is unknown, then it should be explored. Tap into the Master's Settlement, and actually research the issue. The ONLY thing in e-cigarettes contain that's not typically on airlines in any great quantity is nicotine, which is specifically allowed by the EPA. Concentrations up to 40% were deregistered in 2003 (CDC), but still allowed for private use. Concentrations up to 13% are still registered. I don't recall the exact concentration the EPA allows as residue on fruit, but it's in the parts per million. I'm a little lazy at the moment to calculate the molarity, but we're talking factors of 1000-1000000 below existing guidelines.

And this IS a battle to pick because as you pointed out there is a lack of research. If your opinion is valid, then the FAA had every moral, ethical, and legal responsibly to explore the issue regardless. The relative safety in an enclosed space is a valid question worthy of exploration, and it is still the job of the FAA to sponsor the research to explore this question. If you accept the reality of a lack of research, then the FAA did you a disservice.

just as they might if I start playing my stereo at full blast on the plane

Again, not the domain of the FAA. This would be social protocol, not safety. The FAA has guidelines for laptops operating on a plane, this covers radio emissions only (Bruce Donham, Boeing Aero - 2000), not volume. If laptop use bothers other passengers, they have headphones.

 

[Bill Godshall]

JF wrote:

I may be wrong, but I suspect that FDA staff may be more open to considering your comments if you didn't start off by accusing them of being liars.

I didn't start off by accusing FDA officials or staff of being liars, as my first several dozen correspondences with them were very polite (including convincing the agency to cancel its originally scheduled e-cigarette press conference on May 5, 2009, and sending them a petition signed by 10,000 people that urge the FDA to not ban e-cigarettes, which included thousands of testimonials from e-cig consumers stating that the products helped them quit smoking) and occurred before Josh Sharfstein and others at FDA began their ongoing campaign of lies and misinformation about e-cigarettes on July 22, 2009, which Sharfstein chose to do because he thought it would help the agency win the federal lawsuit filed by SE and NJOY.

But just as I publicly criticized cigarette companies of lying about the health risks of cigarettes and illegally marketing to youth many years before ACS, AHA, ALA grew enough balls to do so (and many years before CTFK was created with tens of millions of dollars from RWJF, the largest shareholder of Johnson and Johnson stocks), I had an moral and ethical duty (as all public health advocates have) to truthfully criticize the FDA and others of lying and grossly misrepresenting the health/safety risks/benefits of e-cigarettes.

Ever since writing his study in 2003 (that exposed snus as far less hazardous than cigarettes, and that many Swedish male smokers had quit smoking by switching to snus), JF has been fully aware of the 25 year old conspiracy of lies and misinformation (about the health risks of smokeless tobacco products) that have been repeated ad nauseum by CDC, US SG, WHO, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA and other tobacco harm reduction opponents.

Due to my ethical duty, I've similarly criticized those same agencies and organizations for lying about and grossly misrepresenting the health risks of smokeless tobacco (and more recently e-cigarettes).

Perhaps JF believes it is best to remain polite and nice to those whose intentional misrepresention of facts contribute to millions of preventable diseases and deaths, but I couldn't sleep at night (nor should any public health advocate) if I did so.

JF wrote

I understand the concerns about FDA, but it is their job to be cautious, require data, identify problems etc. You think pharma companies find them a joy to work with? noooo. Things are shifting ...maybe glacially slowly, but they are never going to be an organization that will take risks.

If the FDA officials appointed by Obama were cautious and risk averse, they wouldn't have chosen to adopt and implement policies that protect cigarette markets and intentionally jeopardize the lives of tens of millions of smokers. The only cautious and risk averse behavior exhibited by those at FDA (regarding e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products) was/is the selfish preservation of their own jobs, as anyone at FDA who had enough ethical principles (to properly criticize Sharfstein's public health malpractice) would have been fired immediately.

History will vindicate tobacco harm reduction, e-cigarettes and other smokefree tobacco products. My goal is to make that history occur in the next several months or years instead of waiting a generation while another ten million smokers die.

While it would be nice if a federal health agency, foundation or health organization conducted a large clinical trial with several different types of e-cigarette products, the reality is that they have even less incentive to do so than e-cigarette companies. I don't know anyone at FDA, CDC, US SG, WHO, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, Legacy who would be willing to ever claim that their previous claims and actions regarding e-cigarettes were wrong and jeopoardized the lives of tens of millions of smokers.

 

[Traver]

Perhaps JF believes it is best to remain polite and nice to those whose intentional misrepresention of facts contribute to millions of preventable diseases and deaths, but I couldn't sleep at night (nor should any public health advocate) if I did so

.

Wether it is true or not calling someone a liar or insulting them in any way isn't going to get their cooperation. You may not get it any way but insults almost guarantee noncooperation. It may help you feel better and sleep better but it does not help our cause.

 

[Ande]

Wether it is true or not calling someone a liar or insulting them in any way isn't going to get their cooperation. You may not get it any way but insults almost guarantee noncooperation. It may help you feel better and sleep better but it does not help our cause.

This is clearly true in your personal relationships. If I call a colleague or friend a liar, simply because he or she is lying all the time, it'll probably worsen the relationship, and the lying.

But I'm not sure it IS true in this case.

The FDA (or any other regulatory body) is not going to come around to our point of view just because we're nice, though many of us are. And they aren't going to come around because we're right, though again we are.

This is a fight. They will back down from unreasonable attempts to regulate harm reduction out of existence only when (if) we manage to educate a substantial portion of the population about the extreme benefits of harm reduction, and when (if) that portion of the population becomes so convinced of these benefits that they will accept nothing else.

So where the fight lives isn't really in convincing the FDA. At some level, they already know the truth.

It's convincing people. A lot of people.

And for that cause, it may be better not to be too nice about the FDA. I can't call their policies "cautious;" too charitable an interpretation. I prefer the term "murder." As in "leading people too believe that smokeless alternatives are as dangerous as cigarettes is murder."

Bill's calling them liars (and killers) may not endear him to the FDA. Doing so publicly, though, may help educate the public about what's actually going on.

Personally, I appreciate a guy who says "bull...." when he's hearing bull..... Thanks Bill. (And Thad. And Elaine. And...the list is long.)


Thanks guys,
Ande

 

[Ande]

Okay,...I accept your point that FAA were probably not the appropriate entity to ban e-cigs at least with limited data on health impact. My point is, as Ande stated, that other people around the vaper in the enclosed space of a plane will reasonably object, just as they might if I start playing my stereo at full blast on the plane. So given that airlines would likely ban e-cigs anyway, this doesnt seem like the battle to pick.

And this is where it gets to be a hard fight. I was used to nicotine deprivation on flights, cause I couldn't smoke on'em for years. I don't WANT to fight this one. I really don't care.

But I gotta.

Because any spurious regulation becomes scaffolding for the construction of further spurious regulation.

A woman was fined $250 for vaping in her room in a Marriot hotel a little while ago. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/238917-marriott-fines-guest-vaping.html

Part of the justification given for the fine was that e-cigarettes are not allowed on airplanes, so (as far as I can understand the "logic") they shouldn't be allowed in hotels either.

I honestly couldn't care less about vaping on flights.

But it's a domino in the chain.

We can't really choose, at this point, what piece of spurious, illogical, mean-spirited, unnecessary regulation to fight.

We've got to fight whichever pieces they put up.

Or they'll build a wall of near total prohibition out of little pieces which, taken individually, we did not care about.


Best,
Ande

 

[rolygate]

The core of the problem is that the FDA's agenda is determined by the pharmaceutical industry. If that wasn't the case, things would be very different.

It is worth pointing out that the problem is not 'the FDA', it's the FDA's senior management. We should not blame the scientists and technicians who work for the FDA, for the FDA's policies. The staff write joint signed letters to the press complaining that their advice, based on the evidence, is overruled by management - and the opposite decision to the original science-based, evidence-based one is the decision that is promulgated by the FDA.

 

[Ande]

+1 to that, Rolygate.

And I wonder if you happen to have links to some of those joint signed letters to the press?

As you might imagine, I have a lot of long conversations on this topic, and good source material is always useful in swaying people's ideas.

Best,
Ande

 

[DC2]

So where the fight lives isn't really in convincing the FDA. At some level, they already know the truth.

It's convincing people. A lot of people.

While I totally agree with everything you said, I didn't want to quote you're entire quote.
So this part sums things up nicely, and your whole post was spot on in my opinion.

 

[DC2]

We've got to fight whichever pieces they put up.

Or they'll build a wall of near total prohibition out of little pieces which, taken individually, we did not care about.

And again, another entire post that hits the nail on the head.

This is how these folks work...
Little by little, inch by inch, just enough to get away with for now...
And then a little more, and a little more, and a little more, until you find yourself in a corner.

This is what they did to us, and are still doing to us with cigarettes.
And now they are coming after tobacco, and even nicotine itself, in order to wipe us off the map.