ECA Misinformation
- Thread starter Kate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
No offense Kate but you seem to waste alot of time nit picking stuff that isn't even an issue until you make it into one. I think what Lacey is saying is use your energy elsewhere as we are all on the same side. ECA is going to be more transparent for you and everyone in the near future but remember while alot of us are helping get this thing going we still all have businesses to run so we dont have a ton of time to cross the T's and dot the I's but I am sure they are working on it and will make it available to you to spellcheck.
Best Wishes,
JD
That kind of rhetoric does not wash, especially with us Englanders. It's like telling us to check that the opposition's weapons are battle ready instead of us checking that our own are. Professionals get it right first time, certainly before going public with claims that they are not certain about. It makes the association look like a medicine show rather than the public face of e-cigarettes.
Alan.
I hope you don't think you're on my side if you're going to present rubbish about vaping. With friends who so easily discount honesty we won't need enemies.
I completely understand this Alan, and I am doing what I can to get a copy of the study as I did not post that claim. I am doing what I can to get the study up in as timely as a fashion as I possibly can.
As I noted to Kate in an earlier post, I too am concerned about claims we cannot back up as I don't want to ever be compared to the slinky propaganda behavior of those we are up against.
My point to Kate in using ASH was just summed up by Krakken.
I has not been proven anyone is being dishonest this info was gathered from a source whether or not you agree with it. What I am saying is do something positive. You seem to have a lot of time to discuss things on forums use that energy to write letters or motivate others etc is all I am saying.
Kate, all Lacey is saying is if you want to be helpful in this fight with the FDA then don't attack the people who are trying to keep e-cigarettes around. Use your negative attacks to fight the groups that are against the e-cigs. Why waste your time and energy fighting with a group that is trying to help? Sure things will be said that are not correct but these things will be corrected as needed or pointed out as incorrect. I don't believe the ECA is trying to make things up just to prove a point. Maybe just maybe with them being human made a mistake with their facts. But without this group who else is fighting to keep vaping alive? If we don't win this battle then there will be no vaping or supplies in the USA then what will you say? Oh I forgot you are not in the USA and your government has not or is not trying to ban these....
Sorry if I seem to step into the conversation but I watch so many of us go back and forth here arguing this and that and it seems such a waste of time when we could be out there fighting for what we want.
Get others to understand what you feel go to other forums if need and get the issues out there and in the public eye.
Get others to understand what you feel go to other forums if need and get the issues out there and in the public eye.
I asked a simple question fifteen days ago and I know I'm not the only one concerned about not having any answer about what you are saying on our behalf.
See this as troublemaking if you like but I see the ECA as totally unreasonable for letting this go on for so long. I may inconvenience you but if it encourages honesty and transparency then you can call me whatever you like.
Don't tell me what to spend my time and energy on either, I bet I could put you to shame if we added up karma.
EDIT
Apologies, it wasn't fifteen days ago that I asked about this, it was on the fifth - twelve days ago.
See this as troublemaking if you like but I see the ECA as totally unreasonable for letting this go on for so long. I may inconvenience you but if it encourages honesty and transparency then you can call me whatever you like.
Don't tell me what to spend my time and energy on either, I bet I could put you to shame if we added up karma.
EDIT
Apologies, it wasn't fifteen days ago that I asked about this, it was on the fifth - twelve days ago.
Last edited:
I have to agree with Kate here, the onus must be on those making the claims to justify them. One hopes that the success of the campaign will be based on the facts, not the spin. The aim should be that scientific studies not only are, but are rigorous. Of course one should chose to highlight the studies that support their position but they shouldn't accept questionable evidence if none of an acceptable standard exists.
I think the ECA should hire Kate to compile and organise their information...She seems to be one of the most skilled investigators on this site..I have seen her gather links and other informative info in what seems like seconds, and manage to post a picture of a cat to embelish it...This kind of scrutiny is better questioned here, by Kate, then in court or Washington, where they are not going to accept," Uhh let me check "...
I have to honestly say that when I went to the ECA site to make a donation, I decided not to, because it looked like a bunch of suppliers trying to bail out a sinking row boat...I dont want to insult anyone here or pass judgement as Lacy seems very trustworthy as well as other people posting...But I have witnessed Kates integrity and straightforward nature and I think that demands our respect and trust that her motives are PURE
I have to honestly say that when I went to the ECA site to make a donation, I decided not to, because it looked like a bunch of suppliers trying to bail out a sinking row boat...I dont want to insult anyone here or pass judgement as Lacy seems very trustworthy as well as other people posting...But I have witnessed Kates integrity and straightforward nature and I think that demands our respect and trust that her motives are PURE
"I have seen her [Kate] gather links and other informative info in what seems like seconds, and manage to post a picture of a cat to embelish it... [lol] This kind of scrutiny is better questioned here, by Kate, then in court or Washington, where they are not going to accept," Uhh let me check "... "
That last point is surely on the money. Hopefully the ECF will improve; they have an important task and critical input is one way to support those efforts, efforts which are much appreciated.
That last point is surely on the money. Hopefully the ECF will improve; they have an important task and critical input is one way to support those efforts, efforts which are much appreciated.
Thanks Drew, I'm pure as the driven slush, ha 
Seriously, I'd like to support the ECA, I think it's important for us to have strong community structures because we have years of fighting ahead of us.
It's not my intention to cause grief for anyone here but as you say, when confronted with the need to justify ourselves (and we will be) it's not going to be any good saying 'well I read it somewhere once so it must be true' or 'somebody said so'.
Let's do it with honesty and heads held high because we know what we're talking about or let's not do it at all.
EDIT
Yes Kin, constructive criticism is very important to build a solid organisation.
Seriously, I'd like to support the ECA, I think it's important for us to have strong community structures because we have years of fighting ahead of us.
It's not my intention to cause grief for anyone here but as you say, when confronted with the need to justify ourselves (and we will be) it's not going to be any good saying 'well I read it somewhere once so it must be true' or 'somebody said so'.
Let's do it with honesty and heads held high because we know what we're talking about or let's not do it at all.
EDIT
Yes Kin, constructive criticism is very important to build a solid organisation.
I just went through the thread, and I don't see Kate attacking anyone here. I am one of the "accidental quitters" who is extremely worried about having access to vaping in the future. I don't understand how someone might ignore the fact that using information that is even potentially wrong can be very dangerous for our case. While I can only speak for my peer group and the subjective feeling I got from the forum, 60 odd puffs per day seems like very, very, very far from truth. Now it could as well be that all of us are "extreme vapers" and there is a study that puts us right there, but then we definitely need that study ASAP, and I would strongly suggest removing that information until such study is widely available.
We don't need to add reduced nicotine consumption to our arguments, we have a product that removes tens of carcinogens compared to the alternative. And if that argument doesn't stand, our opponents just got the the issue to drill on in any public debate. It would be much harder for them to prove that vaping doesn't considerably reduce harm than to simply show that many vapers consume more nicotine than they did with cigarettes.
Myth: People consume too much nicotine with electronic cigarettes because there is no governor.
Fact: The amount of nicotine in electronic cigarettes is much less than other OTC products.
Actually, some are sort of governed. If I vape my DSE801/Vapor 1000 too fast, the "nanny chip" shuts it off and blinks the light for about 15 seconds before it will "reward" me with vapor for another puff.
I'm fully with Kate on this one. I think the association representing the interests of those who vape and those who supply stuff for those who vape should be scrupulously accurate in their facts.
Lamar
Fact: The amount of nicotine in electronic cigarettes is much less than other OTC products.
Actually, some are sort of governed. If I vape my DSE801/Vapor 1000 too fast, the "nanny chip" shuts it off and blinks the light for about 15 seconds before it will "reward" me with vapor for another puff.
I'm fully with Kate on this one. I think the association representing the interests of those who vape and those who supply stuff for those who vape should be scrupulously accurate in their facts.
Lamar
This was forwarded to me as the source of the Fact in question:
******
This is one question we asked in a survey sent to 3000 of our users in March
of 2009.
On average, how many times each day do you take a puff of your NJOY
electronic cigarette?
25.3% Less than 20 puffs
33.3% 20 to 50 puffs
22.1% 50 to 100 puffs
11.3% 100 to 150 puffs
3.6% 150 to 200 puffs
4.4% More than 200 puffs
62.8 Average puffs per day
******
Edit: Antebellum - You actually do bring up a good point here in that many of the models do have a "governor". I will make sure that is forwarded on because that could be added to this Fact v. Myth for further clarity in the myth.
******
This is one question we asked in a survey sent to 3000 of our users in March
of 2009.
On average, how many times each day do you take a puff of your NJOY
electronic cigarette?
25.3% Less than 20 puffs
33.3% 20 to 50 puffs
22.1% 50 to 100 puffs
11.3% 100 to 150 puffs
3.6% 150 to 200 puffs
4.4% More than 200 puffs
62.8 Average puffs per day
******
Edit: Antebellum - You actually do bring up a good point here in that many of the models do have a "governor". I will make sure that is forwarded on because that could be added to this Fact v. Myth for further clarity in the myth.
It is possible people undereport their use - not deliberately but by not realising just how much they do in fact puff. I doubt the fact that reponding to the survey would skew the results. Then again, perhaps some people imagine they puff more than they really do.
Forum members perhaps puff more than the average, being either new users or devotees.
The average may not be so far out but is based on self report and not observaton; so some care is required in using the figures.
Forum members perhaps puff more than the average, being either new users or devotees.
The average may not be so far out but is based on self report and not observaton; so some care is required in using the figures.
Last edited:
From all of this discussion, I am thinking of starting a poll here on the forum. All those who have participated in this thread, would hopefully be interested in participating? I would use the same thresholds as listed in the original survey.
The other thing that is hard to gauge is this: Since I have switched to no-nicotine for most of the day, I eSmoke way more than when I did with nicotine. Any suggestions? Should I offer another answer for 0 nic vapers so their statistic would be off to the side of the final puffs (since 0 nic vapers aren't getting any nicotine anyways)?
The other thing that is hard to gauge is this: Since I have switched to no-nicotine for most of the day, I eSmoke way more than when I did with nicotine. Any suggestions? Should I offer another answer for 0 nic vapers so their statistic would be off to the side of the final puffs (since 0 nic vapers aren't getting any nicotine anyways)?
Sounds good - separate for 0 nic users. Would be nice to know what % use 0 nic too (majority of or all the time?). Would be interesting to compare figures. An independent survey conducted on random people would be best but vaping is too new to be able to do that; and habits change from when something is new to being settled sometime later. Some information is better than none. But if you ask me - i really would be making a bit of a guess, and that's not ideal.
Looking again at the figures: "25.3% Less than 20 puffs" Did people interpret 'puff' as a session of puffing perhaps? 1/4 people taking less than 20 drags might well be true, but it is really surprising to me if it is. I can imagine a few in that category, but 25% seems really high.
ps: suggestion: if you can ask two questions, note for each response how long the responder has been vaping.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
