E-Cigarettes According to Brad Rodu

[Vocalek]

Dr. Brad Rodu, long-time advocate of tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) is interviewed about e-cigarettes

AllTreatment.com Blog » Blog Archive » E Cigarettes According to Professor Brad Rodu

BR: I believe that e-cigarettes are a viable alternative for smokers who wish to reduce the health risks from smoking but who are unable or unwilling to abstain from all nicotine and tobacco. There is absolutely no doubt that inhaling a vapor containing water, nicotine, propylene glycol and flavorings is vastly safer than inhaling the smoke from a burning tobacco product, which contains thousands of toxic agents. The fact that we do not have proof that these products are absolutely safe is not a sufficient reason to ban them.

 

[banjo]

Thanks for the post & the link............

 

[Slickstick]

Well done! This has got to one of the best ones I have seen yet!

 

[pianoguy]

Bravo, excellent!

 

[Sassyonemeis]

He, for all intensive purposes disqualifies himself in his introduction...

"Brad Rodu: I am a professor of medicine and hold an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research at the University of Louisville. For the past fifteen years, I have conducted research on tobacco harm reduction, involving permanent nicotine maintenance with safer tobacco products by smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit smoking with conventional cessation methods that require abstinence. My research is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund. I have not conducted research on e-cigarettes, but I draw my conclusions from published literature and my knowledge research related to nicotine addiction, tobacco use and associated health risks." emphasis added

 

[MoonRose]

Actually most of science is conducted in this fashion. The ingredients which are used in e-liquid have all been tested in and of themselves and been found to be safe for human use up to the specific amounts at which they do become toxic or harmful to humans. That being said, the amounts of the ingredients that are used in the making of e-liquid is well below those toxic or harmful amounts and would require one to be using close to 30ml or more of e-liquid per day (depending on nic strength) to be toxic. I don't know of anyone who even comes close to that amount, the norm is 1-3ml per day with the occassional few using as much as 5ml per day.

By knowing what the amounts are of the ingredients being used in e-liquid, any researcher worth his/her degree, would be able to establish with a reasonable amount of knowledge whether something would be considered safe or not. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Vocalek]

Why do you see that as a disqualificatrion? Only those who have conducted direct research are qualified to have an opinion? By that measurement, Prue Talbot is more qualified to talk about e-cigarettes than any of us. Before conducting direct research, scientsts are expected to conduct extensive indirect research so that they know what work has already been done and what conclusions were reached. Many scientific journal articles consist of opinion pieces based on direct research conducted by others.

 

[Sassyonemeis]

I just think by him saying first that he has conducted no research on e-cigarettes greatly dimishes any opinions he may have, especially after admitting that his research is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund. My gut instinct is.. lovely.. big tobacco money... what's the catch?

Just myopinion...

 

[Stubby]

Opinion is right..... and not a very well thought out one.

Brad Rodu is one of the founders of the concept of tobacco harm reduction. He started research in the early 90's on comparing smokeless tobacco to smoking and found smokeless tobacco users to have dramatically lower tobacco related diseases then smokers. He has been a leading voice for tobacco harm reduction for a long time. In case you haven't noticed little is free in this world. Someone has to pay for research. It's very common, in fact the norm, for manufactures to pay for research on there own products. How else is it going to get done. Do you expect tobacco free kids to fund any meaningful research!

Look at how hard it is to get any research done on e-cigs. I think we would all be grateful if manufactures and distributors started giving some money for unrestricted research.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Brad Rodu's answers were correct and excellent as usual. His acknowledgement of not conducting research on e-cigarettes didn't hurt his credibility, but rather enhanced it.

In 2006, I coauthored an article with Rodu
Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers
Harm Reduction Journal | Full text | Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers

Unfortunately, the other interview on that same blog with Mathew Mintz at
AllTreatment.com Blog » Blog Archive » Dr. Mintz on E Cigarettes
is totally inconsistent as he urges the FDA to ban e-cigarettes but not cigarettes while acknowledging that e-cigs are less hazardous, and he claims people have a right to be informed about product risks but then recommends Chantix over NRT products without acknowledging any risks for Chantix.

 

[BCB]

I think that a person who has not followed Brad Rodu's career or the history of tobacco harm reduction (but has heard all about the lies told by the tobacco industry) might very well agree with Sassyonemeis. Especially if they are not familiar with the research process or its funding methods. In other words, a person whose primary knowledge about e-cigs is what they have heard from the media (hype about carcinogens, antifreeze, the children, etc.) might easily dismiss Mr. Rodu's opinion as that of another tobacco industry shill. This is even more true if they still believe the FDA is there to protect public health.

 

[Vocalek]

I just think by him saying first that he has conducted no research on e-cigarettes greatly dimishes any opinions he may have, especially after admitting that his research is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund. My gut instinct is.. lovely.. big tobacco money... what's the catch?

Just myopinion...

The key word is "unrestricted." This disclaimer is found at the bottom of a article published in a peer-reviewed medical journal:

This study was supported by unrestricted grants from smokeless tobacco manufacturers (US Smokeless Tobacco Company and Swedish Match AB) to the University of Louisville. The terms of the grants assure that the sponsors are unaware of this study, and thus had no scientific input or other influence with respect to its design, analysis, interpretation or preparation of the manuscript. Neither author has any financial or other personal relationship with regard to the sponsors.

Translation: The tobacco companies give the university a big chunk of money, and it is up to the university what to study with that money. The companies that donated the money have no control over what is studied, how to interpret the results, and what information gets published.

I realize that there are folks who still have a problem with this. But who do you think paid for the clinical trials on Chantix? Nicorette? Nicoderm? And those companies did not give unrestricteed grants. They were keeping a very tight control over what got published. Just recently we learned that some cases of suicide were not included in the reports on pre-approval testing of Chantix.

 

[rothenbj]

Bill, that was an amazing article but 5 years later it appears there is no major change in the "quit or die" movement.

The one section that bothered me-

3. Manufacturers of tobacco products should follow the lead of British American Tobacco (BAT) and acknowledge that ST use is vastly safer than smoking. BAT has openly admitted that oral ST products are safer than cigarettes, and this company is actively engaged in test-marketing Swedish snus in Sweden, Norway and South Africa [174]. At the press date of this report, cigarette manufacturers in the U.S. have introduced ST products in limited test markets, but they have made no statements regarding differential health risks. This is unacceptable, given the state of the science documented in this report.

Aren't tobacco companies restricted from telling the public that ST is less dangerous than smoking by the agreements they were forced into? Perhaps this is just a smokescreen perpetrated by the tobacco industry itself and they prefer to just use the "use this when you can't smoke" approach. I'm a firm believer that the message of relative risk should be shouted from the rooftops. When you have products that are orders of magnitude safer and that information is not only not understood, but also propagandized to the point that the general population looks at ST as more dangerous than smoking, there has been a concerted effort by a lot of organizations to get to where we are today.

 

[Vocalek]

RJ Reynolds launched a campaign when the New York outdoor smoking ban went into effect, urging smokers to switch to snus. They didn't claim it was healthier, just brought out the fact that there's no law against using it in public.

During the FDA TPSAC hearing on Thursday and Friday, representatives of tobacco companies mentioned several times that the gag orders placed on them get in the way of Tobacco Harm Reduction. So for the time being, if anyone is going to get out the word about reduced harm from smoke-free alternatives, it is up to us consumers!

The tobacco company scientists appreciated my presentation, because I said the things they are not allowed to say. I get the impression that all of them are much more concerned about our health and well being than the truth-benders lurking in the tobacco control community.

 

[rothenbj]

That has been my impression also. 25+ years of misrepresentation (lies?) have made me very cynical on the subject. It's almost as though TC is afraid factual information will lead to successful reductions in the number of smokers. No or few smokers, no or little tax money, no or little MSA money, no or little money available for TC financing, no or little profit from BP cessation products and no or little money generated from smoking related diseases. They can't have a TC movement without their 43m smokers to intervene on, can they?