FDA Miscalculates Real Danger to Smokers

[kristin]

Good article..but

"Propylene glycol is actually used as a food base for products such as imitation vanilla and toothpaste and is the same substance used to create stage smoke."

Its not smoke. It's fog but could be classified as artificial smoke.

"Stage smoke" is actually a term for fake smoke ie. the fake smoke seen on stage at concerts, magic shows, etc.

 

[MrKai]

I...I don't believe what I am about to type but...

I agree with Kinabaloo, at least in spirit, on some of his points. Maybe not the specific re-writes because quite frankly I believe they are propaganda

The point I will make is this; the FDA has proven that eCigs are at least 99% safer than cigarettes. The problem is, their research is being attacked from MANY sides via peer review and is NOT holding up so quite frankly, I do not believe anything they state in regard to this subject "health effect"-wise should be written in ANY WAY as authoritative...and this actual FACT (as opposed to the FDA's opinion...which seems to run counter to the data...which makes it even worse...) should be heavily referenced and footnoted.

It is fair and truthful to state their position and belief that they have jurisdiction over eCigs as drug delivery devices however it should be *crystal clear* that this too, is in contention.

And a personal note: I do not like the "politically correct-i-fied" term "Personal Vaporizer". It sounds like some sort of ray gun, or a drug delivery device and is probably more harmful than helpful as the term really draws Away from the true intended use of the product: tobacco cigarette replacement.

I like the style though. Where are you published.

 

[~Gazoo~]

"Stage smoke" is actually a term for fake smoke ie. the fake smoke seen on stage at concerts, magic shows, etc.

Right..you and I know that but many don't. I don't think you want to give the reader the impression that the PV produces smoke. That was my point but carry on. It's still a good article..

 

[kristin]

I...I don't believe what I am about to type but...

I agree with Kinabaloo, at least in spirit, on some of his points. Maybe not the specific re-writes because quite frankly I believe they are propaganda

The point I will make is this; the FDA has proven that eCigs are at least 99% safer than cigarettes. The problem is, their research is being attacked from MANY sides via peer review and is NOT holding up so quite frankly, I do not believe anything they state in regard to this subject "health effect"-wise should be written in ANY WAY as authoritative...and this actual FACT (as opposed to the FDA's opinion...which seems to run counter to the data...which makes it even worse...) should be heavily referenced and footnoted.

It is fair and truthful to state their position and belief that they have jurisdiction over eCigs as drug delivery devices however it should be *crystal clear* that this too, is in contention.

And a personal note: I do not like the "politically correct-i-fied" term "Personal Vaporizer". It sounds like some sort of ray gun, or a drug delivery device and is probably more harmful than helpful as the term really draws Away from the true intended use of the product: tobacco cigarette replacement.

I like the style though. Where are you published.

Thanks for your feedback.

Can you clarify this for me? Which fact?

 

[kristin]

Right..you and I know that but many don't. I don't think you want to give the reader the impression that the PV produces smoke. That was my point but carry on. It's still a good article..

Is the term really so obscure? I guess I thought it was pretty well known?

I guess I could say, "stage fog."

 

[JustJulie]

Awesome article, Kristin. I agree with those who say I wouldn't change it at all.

Well, there is one small thing, but it's just a grammar issue. I noticed in a few spots you used plural pronouns when referring to the FDA. For example: "However, their analysis was also quite positive in the fact that they did not find the dangerous levels of toxins and carcinogens, such as the tar, carbon monoxide, ammonia, etc ., that is found in tobacco smoke."

Such a minor issue that I'm kind of embarrassed to even mention it.

Beautifully written and so very, very easy to understand. Bravo!

 

[kristin]

Loved it except for the reference to second hand smoke, "...exposure to first and second hand smoke is proven to cause numerous health problems..."

To my knowledge there has never been any acceptable science proving second hand smoke a danger. It has been stated as such and become accepted to be true, but it is not. In another post in this forum is was stated, "Michael Crichton wrote a interesting essay entitled "Aliens Caused Global Warming' About 4/5th's of the way thru, he discusses how the FDA used politically-twisted science {my bold} to turn second-hand smoke into a hysterical 'for the children' issue..."

I don't like to see this false but accepted idea that second hand smoke is dangerous repeated once again.

Other than that I thought it, again, well written, well thought out and kudos to you Kristin

Thanks for your input!

I guess the harmful effects of second hand smoke is first-hand experience for me - I've seen the effects on my niece and my step daughter (both have parents that smoke indoors around them and have repiratory issues simlar to smokers.) We always smoked outside. So, I tend to err on the side of caution regarding second-hand smoke.

 

[kristin]

Awesome article, Kristin. I agree with those who say I wouldn't change it at all.

Well, there is one small thing, but it's just a grammar issue. I noticed in a few spots you used plural pronouns when referring to the FDA. For example: "However, their analysis was also quite positive in the fact that they did not find the dangerous levels of toxins and carcinogens, such as the tar, carbon monoxide, ammonia, etc ., that is found in tobacco smoke."

Such a minor issue that I'm kind of embarrassed to even mention it.

Beautifully written and so very, very easy to understand. Bravo!

Ooops! What would be the singular possessive for the FDA? "Its?"

 

[MrKai]

Thanks for your feedback.

Can you clarify this for me? Which fact?

interpretation of the scientific data as well as the methodology of testing isn't holding up to peer review and other published data.

Because the FDA *is* the FDA they are getting a pass; they are seen as the last in the chain as it were.

People need to understand that other scientists don't agree with them and to what DEGREE this derision is; it isn't "fringe" at all and readers should be aware that the FDA doesn't have a "slam dunk" here as far as the science is concerned.

-K

 

[kristin]

Aren't the "peer reviews" actually financed by the e-cig companies, though? That could seem suspect.


On another note in general :
Regarding some of the other feedback posted by other members - please remember that my articles are purely meant to be on the front line in the court of "public opinion." The FDA situation is what it is now and there really isn't anything that some article can change. So, my articles are not aimed at the FDA or ASH or the judge in the lawsuit - it's purpose is to fight back in the public relations war that the FDA and ASH started. Getting too into the minute details and semantics would only start to bore and confuse the average Joe on the street. Most people trust the FDA is doing it's job - without prejudice - therefore, harsh criticism, conspiracy theories and mud slinging only makes us look like kooks at this point. You catch more flies with honey....

"KISS" is my mantra for mass appeal - "Keep It Simple Stupid."

Thanks for all of your input!!

 

[kristin]

Haven't read it all yet; but I will. Some cuts to the quotes i'll mention later.

But first, and no criticism btw because it's hard to write such as article - but i would use the term tobacco addiction r.t. nicotine addiction. The addiction to tobacco is much stronger than that to nicotine.

Hence: with effective levels of nic (e-cig r.t. NRTs) peole can give up tobacco much easier - and then also / from there cut / give up the nicotine (some people).

But the chemical addiction is more than just nicotine.

I get what you're saying, but NRTs target nicotine addiction only - that's the problem and the point? Getting into the fact that there are other addictive chemicals in the smoke is probably best saved for another article - it would only confuse people here. LOL! Good point though!

 

[kristin]

"Nicotine is already acknowledged by the FDA and medical professionals to be one of the safer ingredients in tobacco cigarettes, as it’s commonly used medically to assist smokers in the attempt to quit. Therefore, the FDA and medical professionals must agree that the greater danger in cigarettes is contained in the actual smoke, the known source of the tar, ammonia, acetone, carbon monoxide and other toxins and carcinogens.(3) So, shouldn’t the urgency to improve the smoker’s health focus on removing the exposure to smoke, rather than the addiction to nicotine? Up until now, there hasn’t been any alternative.

Enter the Personal Vaporizer or "electronic cigarette," a device whose growing popularity has left the FDA at a loss of how to properly catagorize it."

First para is very good.

I'd change the second. The FDA know well how they wish to classify it (as a drug) although the appropriate category is 'reduced harm tobacco alternative/replacement'.

Yep, agreed. But again - too difficult for those people who have not been immersed in the intricacies of this case to grasp and they will hopefully be more open to the presentation giving the FDA the benefit of the doubt rather than seemingly attcking them - public relations strategy.

 

[kristin]

Suggested additions in CAPS.

"It consists of water, propylene glycol, nicotine and flavoring. Propylene glycol, a substance which is generally REGARDED known as safe (GRAS STATUS) and approved for human inhalation by the EPA, is often confused with diethylene glycol, a toxic ingredient found in tobacco cigarettes (and STANDARD antifreeze.) Propylene glycol is actually COMMONLY used as a food base for products such as imitation vanilla and toothpaste and is the same substance used to create stage AND DISCO smoke. IT IS ALSO USED IN COSMETICS AND MEDICINES, AND IS THE KEY INGREDIENT IN RESTAURANT HAND SANITIZERS."

All very true, but I'm kind of in the mindset that things in cosmetics and hand sanitizers don't sound like something you'd want to be inhaling, lol!

I played around with using GRAS, but it seemed unnecessary. I meant to say "generally regarded as safe" to cover that and using the acronym seemed redundant so I need to change that - thanks!

 

[JustJulie]

Ooops! What would be the singular possessive for the FDA? "Its?"

Yes, FDA is a singular noun, so one would use "it" and "its." I think I noticed another time that happened, right in the beginning, "They know . . . " I'd change that to "The FDA knows . . . "

I think the same issue is cropping up a few times when you use a singular noun, such as "the smoker," "the consumer," and the like, and then follow up by using plural pronouns.

Such minor, hyper-technical issues that only an English major would notice. I'll PM you so as not to gunk up the thread.

 

[kristin]

"Because the FDA is at a loss as to how to categorize electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation device without being an NRT and furthermore, BY insisting that a smoking cessation device must address nicotine addiction, it miscalculates the greater danger facing current tobacco smokers – the actual smoke."

Fixed it - thanks!

And sorry for all of the post replies - please don't think I was trying to shoot down your input - I just wanted to be sure to acknowledge them all and give you my reasoning.

Thanks so much!

 

[a2dcovert]

Kristin,

You have hit another home run. You are one of our best weapons in the war against the negative public opinion. If we can get the public on our side it should carry some weight with the FDA. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.

Kevin

 

[kristin]

Yes, FDA is a singular noun, so one would use "it" and "its." I think I noticed another time that happened, right in the beginning, "They know . . . " I'd change that to "The FDA knows . . . "

I think the same issue is cropping up a few times when you use a singular noun, such as "the smoker," "the consumer," and the like, and then follow up by using plural pronouns.

Such minor, hyper-technical issues that only an English major would notice. I'll PM you so as not to gunk up the thread.

Julie, I just PMd you back. HELP!!! LOL

 

[kristin]

Kristin,

You have hit another home run. You are one of our best weapons in the war against the negative public opinion. If we can get the public on our side it should carry some weight with the FDA. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.

Kevin

Thanks Kevin! Once I get it published, I'll post a link for everyone to Digg and post on their facebook/myspace/blog or send to their legislators & local news media. Have to get the word out beyond these forums!

 

[katink]

By Kinabaloo:

AS FOR THE E_CIG CLASSIFICATION< IT IS NOT DESIGNED TO HELP PEOPLE STOP NICOTINE BUT STOP SMOKING. SO IT IS NOT A DRUG THERAPY, IT IS A REDUCED HARM PRODUCT, A LONG TERM REPLACEMENT THAT ELIMNATES THE DANGERS OF SMOKE.

I think this is real important to put in somewhere!

 

[RoyBoy]

Kristen, the second hand smoke from the old analogs wasn't that bad. But with
the extra toxic chemicals that they put in the FSC ones, IMO the second hand
smoke is really dangerous in these. It's ironic that the FDA is so concerned about
the few chemicals that are in e-cigs and they don't seem to give a damn about the
toxic stuff that the government is having the cigarette companies put in the FSC cigs.

My son smokes the FSC ones and when he's in my house, I can't hardy stand the
smell of them, it's very nauseating. I've smoke for over 40 years and if I can't stand
smelling them, I know that they have to bad for people.

I don't know if you would want to mention them specifically in this article, maybe in
another one. I think it would show some of the hypocrisy and lack of caring about
the health of the american people in the FDA organization.

I can't post a link yet, but you can google search hubpages then type in their search
Fire-Safe-Cigarettes and you'll find it. They also mention e-cgs in the article.