FDA FDA spends $270 million on studies to promote proposed deeming reg instead of researching e-cigs health impact on smokers who switched to vaping

[Bill Godshall]

FDA is spending $270 million on studies to promote the agency’s proposed deeming regulation (that would ban >99% of e-cigs and give e-cig industry to Big tobacco) instead of measuring the health benefits e-cigs have already provided to millions of smokers since FDA unlawfully banned and misrepresented health risks of e-cigs in 2009.
E-cigarette researchers count puffs, scour Facebook to assess risks | Fox News


FDA is far more interested in studying (and then touting) every negligible and nonexistant potential negative impact e-cigs may have on nonsmokers (including rodents) who don't vape than in studying the actual public health impact of e-cigs (because the latter research exposes how the FDA's proposed deeming regulations threaten public health).

I suspect FDA is funding intentionally biased studies that show pictures of e-cigs to toddlers just so the agency can put out a press release claiming "FDA study finds e-cigs appeal to infants".

 

[Kent C]

"According to research at Virginia Commonwealth University, that may be a dangerous oversight: a form of e-cigarettes called tank systems can get so hot the vapor can contain the carcinogen formaldehyde and other toxic compounds."

Of course it has nothing to do with 'tank systems' - but this is how sub-ohm could not help the cause.

 

[wv2win]

I had the opportunity late last year to visit the Public Health department of Georgia State right after the FDA awarded them that huge grant to study vaping. I met one of the professors on Dr. Eriksen's staff. I gave her my business card and one of the CASAA cards and offered that I would be willing to be part of the study or be interviewed. That was about 7 - 9 months ago.

I haven't heard a thing.

 

[DrMA]

IOW, the FDA is using public money to manufacture "science" that will help it expand its regulatory authority, such that it can get more money (public and private). Perhaps it's time FDA came clean about its true nature and purpose by incorporating like any other for-profit business. If they ever got listed on the stock market I'd likely put some of their shares in my 401(k): FDA Inc. (NYSE:LIES)

 

[aubergine]

So transparently biased (and typically stupid).
I immediately noticed the dearth of attention to actual health studies, too - it would be jaw-dropping were we not familiar with this sort of rubbish. That's a decent bit of money and a lot of energy to invest in what's rather obviously nothing but a PR campaign.
By the time these 'studies' are completed, though, we'll have a substantial number of persons who have been vaping since 2009-2010. Not enough time for longitudinal conclusions, but with nothing but animal studies (and if those are like studies on Other Substance back in the day they'll be about marinating a rat in e-liquid, tossing it in a blender and noting damage - I exaggerate slightly but I do think much of the public is sanely cynical about these things) and 'perception surveys', they might find it difficult to persuade the general public, and hence courts and legislators. They're aiming at influencing perception, not producing accurate and meaningful data (of course).

One effect of the public vaping bans is to create an aura of social disapproval and stigma - the very best PR for ecigs is simple, direct exposure to vapers, their products and their personal reports. Unless I'm mistaken, almost everyone knows one at this point within their family and social circles. Even House of Cards has an evil protagonist who vapes for his health, a gesture toward wholesomeness; he smokes cigarettes sneakily in defiance of prudence and common sense. Like salad to Big Mac. Everyone gets it.
We feel good, we're not gasping and wheezing and fatigued and we don't stink. Word gets around.
The sub-ohmers aren't helpful, adolescent grandstanding never is,
but it's always something, and:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Bobbilly]

"According to research at Virginia Commonwealth University, that may be a dangerous oversight: a form of e-cigarettes called tank systems can get so hot the vapor can contain the carcinogen formaldehyde and other toxic compounds."

Of course it has nothing to do with 'tank systems' - but this is how sub-ohm could not help the cause.

I don't know a lot about sub ohm but is it a modified e cig or is it something built from readily available materials?

 

[Bobbilly]

I guess they also should be studying the negative impacts on employment in the tobacco control field.

 

[aubergine]

I don't know a lot about sub ohm but is it a modified e cig or is it something built from readily available materials?

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/rebuildable-atomizer-systems/562106-ecf-sub-ohm-advisory.html

(This isn't the thread for debating that controversy; only relevant here insofar as it's one that the FDA intends to exploit, according to the Fox article.)
More to the point is their reckless confusion of terms; they seem to think that they need to know very little about a thing before speaking with authority.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

What else should we expect from the "Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science" it's not about how they affect our health it's about how to regulate them.

Go here to read about them. It's pretty much what I expected from them when they proposed it last October.

https://prevention.nih.gov/tobacco-regulatory-science-program/research-portfolio/centers-research-portfolio

 

[JimzDogz]

These studies aren't science. It is government agencies paying for findings that support their own predetermined opinion. It's the same tactics that have been used for 40 yrs. to demonize another banned substance. I don't believe that I need to say the one I mean.

 

[classwife]

$270 million

...building a virtual convenience store for 13-to-17-year-olds, measuring how e-cigarette displays and price promotions influence whether minors buy the increasingly popular devices.

Does this make anyone else's head spin ?


Skewed much ?

just...

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Anybody else wonder what we would know about e-cigarettes if Dr Farsalinos was research director of a group with a $270 million budget with his follow the science attitude.

Instead we get glANTZ type of "research", the what outcome do you need brand.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Links for FDA funded tobacco regulatory research are

https://prevention.nih.gov/tobacco-regulatory-science-program/research-portfolio/centers

https://prevention.nih.gov/tobacco-regulatory-science-program/research-portfolio

 

[Bill Godshall]

Not surprisingly, FDA hasn't funded any opponents or critics of the FSPTCA or the FDA's deeming regulation.

FDA demonstrated its true goals by funding Stan Glantz, Greg Connolly, American Heart Association and other vehement opponents of tobacco harm reduction.

 

[Elizabeth Baldwin]

And every one of these researchers are no doubt biased to start with!

Wasting taxpayers money on this sort of research just demonstrates what we are up against, yo-yos! They don't want to find the truth. It goes against their ideals.

 

[nclobo]

And every one of these researchers are no doubt biased to start with!

The Doctor in this article is one being funded by the FDA.

Doctor: E-cigarettes don't help smokers kick habit :: WRAL.com

Adam Goldstein, director of UNC's Nicotine Dependence Program, said the story is similar for thousands of others who turn to e-cigarettes to try and stop smoking.

"All of our patients ask about electronic cigarettes," he said. "All our patients who smoke. There's virtually no evidence that they are effective in helping people to quit smoking."

Goldstein said it's marketing that continues to push people to the devices.

In spite of that popularity, Goldstein said he's concerned about long-term effects of nicotine mixed with the hot vapor.

"It could be several thousand degrees when it hits your lungs," he said. "We know there are short-term adverse pulmonary respiratory effects."

This article discusses some of the funding at UNC-CH and others in my area. I work right next door to RTI and not far from UNC-CH.

DURHAM: Triangle research will help guide new e-cigarette regulations | Local/State | NewsObserver.com

If Goldstein is involved, I don't see an unbiased and truthful conclusion. I think the FDA will get exactly what they want and are paying for.

 

[Bobbilly]

Thousands of degrees hit your lungs. Lol

 

[Bobbilly]

I've looked a few over and I could save them a lot of money.

Cessation with high nicotine, low nicotine, no nicotine, non vapour substitute (a stick??) let me quess higher quit rate than NRT, lower quit rate or similar to NRT, similar to cold turkey, lowest rate if not zero.

They forgot to study the harm effect of ANTZ propaganda and misinformation about SLT and vapourizers.

 

[nomore stinkies]

Links for FDA funded tobacco regulatory research are

https://prevention.nih.gov/tobacco-regulatory-science-program/research-portfolio/centers

https://prevention.nih.gov/tobacco-regulatory-science-program/research-portfolio

I couldn't believe what I was reading. OMG. Where is the research money coming from?

 

[DrMA]

Links for FDA funded tobacco regulatory research are

https://prevention.nih.gov/tobacco-regulatory-science-program/research-portfolio/centers

https://prevention.nih.gov/tobacco-regulatory-science-program/research-portfolio

More ANTZ to add to my list of the most rabid, corrupt, sociopathic researchers on the planet. I guess some of those names were already there with the glANTZ 129... The Hague will be busy for decades prosecuting all these desk murderers when ecigs finally realize their potential and eliminate smoking completely.