skoony, hasn't the train left the station so to speak for ecigs to be deemed as medical devices?
no. the judge said they couldn't totally ban the entireskoony, hasn't the train left the station so to speak for ecigs to be deemed as medical devices?
As someone who has seen the arguments regarding the pros and cons of vaping develop over the years...So I think you're right, it's an arbitrary number. The most it could possibly mean is something along the lines of a lot less harmful than cigarettes. Maybe they just felt they had to provide a number to make that point. It seemed like one of their primary goals with that paper was to counter the current popular impression of the danger level of vaping.
Judge Leon said they can not treat electronic cigarettes as medical devices without medical claims.no. the judge said they couldn't totally ban the entire
market by deeming them medical devices.
there is nothing to stop them from doing a 180
and proclaiming them relatively safer than
smoking and bringing them under the umbrella
of THR
I was thinking along the lines of patches and gum.Judge Leon said they can not treat electronic cigarettes as medical devices without medical claims.
However, there is a modified risk tobacco category now available to the FDA under the FSPTCA.
It remains undetermined how the FDA will use that category.
And in fact, it appears that they are doing their best to make it non-existant...
FDA draft guidance on modified risk tobacco | E-Cigarette Forum
Swedish Match submitting 100,000 page MRTP application for General Snus to FDA | E-Cigarette Forum
Associated Press: Swedish Match seeks FDA approval as 'modified risk' tobacco product | E-Cigarette Forum
This is what a MRTP application looks like | E-Cigarette Forum
FDA Panel Nixes Swedish Match Modified-Risk Request | CSPnet
i agree its good news... like candy and party favors.
regards
mike
That could actually be the biggest boon to real public health in decades.Condoms and eCigs for Everyone!
Condoms and eCigs for Everyone!
Condoms and eCigs for Everyone!
Yeah, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly:
"given the potential benefits as quitting aids, PHE looks forward to the arrival on the market of a choice of medicinally regulated products that can be made available to smokers by the NHS on prescription. This will provide assurance on the safety, quality and effectiveness to consumers who want to use these products as quitting aids"
this is also considered dubious science by some.Just to remind us all, stopping smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer very gradually over time and not to zero since non-smokers also get it. In fact it takes around 20 years of non-smoking to get back to a lifetime non-smoker risk baseline
this is also considered dubious science by some.
most of these statistics come from a time when over 40% of the population
smoked and another 40% had smoked or tried smoking.
it was determined back then that only 30% of smokers developed a dependency
to smoking. when i say smokers i mean cigarette smokers.
this means 70% of smokers did not develop a dependency.
this explains why roughly 50% of smokers quit on their own in their 30's.
that's right on their own. no patches,no gum,no inhalers. they just quit.
its also true that smokers and ex-smokers get so called tobacco related
diseases at the same time you would expect those in the non-risk to start
having these same illnesses. right around the late forty's on through your fifties
and early sixties.so what about those that quit in there early thirties?
well the cancer risk lingers for 20 years or more. i say bull.
unless you already had permanent lung damage when you quit i can't
see smoking to have any long term effects past five years and, i am
being generous.
now as the non risk group is getting larger and the risk group is getting
smaller and the time lapse from those who smoked and quit is getting longer
(people are quitting at a younger age) something odd is happening.
lung cancer in smokers is creeping up slightly. lung cancer in supposed
non risk groups is on the rise. its also on the rise in other smoking related
illnesses in the non-risk groups. theoretically 20-30 years down the road
the percentages could intersect.
i am not saying smoking is not harmful. i believe though that smoking
is not the be all and end all of all the damage it is claimed by some
to cause.
regards
mike
it doesn't mean squat when they consider anyone who has smoked in the past asNope! Its actually mostly based on a longitudinal study of cancer risk following cessation in a large cohort of reliable individuals (doctors in fact). Its not hearsay or rumour. You may well be right about the
conflicting effect of other environmental causes of lung disease in smekers nd non-smokers but the statistics, in my somewhat informed opinion, are pretty clear! Anyway, still best to stop asap!!
there are more cases as the population increases of course, but what are the data the fraction increases disproprtiontely in non-smokers versus smokers??? Its pretty simple it seems to me. In the doctor study, those who had never smoked still had a significantly lower rate of lung cancer development than those that had given up even a decade or more later. Environmental and other effect are, presumably, the same for both groups as far as its possible to tell. Beyond this though, DNA sequencing studies have shown unequivocally that lung tiit doesn't mean squat when they consider anyone who has smoked in the past as
having a risk. if you quit in your thirties and get cancer in your fifties its
considered caused by smoking.
as the non-smoking population increases the rate of lung cancer
in the non-smoking population is increasing.
regards
mike