FDA this and FDA that

[illillillillilli]

Saw this on the news tonight. My husband pointed out and said, "The FDA says e-cigs are bad for ya." I did a little Really, people need to read between the lines. I hope yall can sport a few comments to the "Doctor on call" bit towards the bottom of the page.

Baby gender test, Red meat and diabetes, Dr. on Call - FOX16.com Little Rock, AR

 

[illillillillilli]

If you dont want to click on the link, here's the whole story...

Dr. on Call

Jill from Little Rock wants to know: What are electronic cigarettes? Are they safer than regular cigarettes?

Dr. Oksana Melnyk says that electronic cigarettes, often called e-cigarettes, are battery operated devices designed to look like regular tobacco cigarettes. Manufacturers say they're a safer alternative to cigarettes. However, these products have not been approved by the FDA. Furthermore, when the FDA analyzed samples of two popular brands, they found traces of toxic chemicals, including known carcinogens. The FDA issued a warning about potential health risks associated with electronic cigarettes.

 

[Eddie.Willers]

Registered and left a lengthy rebuttal

 

[illillillillilli]

Great comment! I'm just tired of hearing people tell me I shouldn't vape because the FDA deems it unsafe.

 

[KTaylor]

Furthermore, when the FDA analyzed samples of two popular brands, they found traces of toxic chemicals, including known carcinogens.

Because analogs are so much safer, right FDA? Hmmm profit margins dippin a little BT? Donating to the FDA lately BT?

How about all the meds the FDA puts their brand approval on that kill thousands of people every month. Gotta love what money can buy when given to the right people.

 

[Vocalek]

Trying to leave this comment (I really wish they would not wait until you wrote and submitted the comment before they prompt you to log in).

The actual FDA test report reveals that the agency found a well-below-toxic level of diethylene glycol in the liquid of one of the 18 cartridges tested (0.01 grams), and none at all in the vapor. The "carcinogens" referred to in the FDA press release were Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs). TSNAs do not cause cancer at the exposure level of 8 nanograms found in an FDA-approved nicotine patch. So why would 8 nanograms of TSNAs in a gram of e-cigarette liquid cause cancer? A pack-a-day Marlboro smoker who switches to an e-cigarette reduces his/her daily exposure to TSNAs by 126,992 nanograms. He or she also eliminates exposure to tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of chemicals that are created by the process of burning the tobacco. Given the true facts, FDA's warnings about e-cigarette health risks in its press release appear to be overblown and disingenuous. It's time for doctors and other health professionals to go directly to the scientific source. Relying on press releases results in perpetuating the dissemination of dangerous disinformation to the public. Lives are at stake.

Say that 3 times fast.

 

[rothenbj]

LOL, I was just thinking the same thing. I may have stuttered my response since I ended up trying to post it twice.

We covered some of the same ground-

I appreciate that Dr. Oksana Melnyk probably has not investigated E Cigs or the FDA report, other than the dog and pony show the FDA put on referencing the report. The report is on line and showed that the TSNAs were very comparable to what is in FDA approved NRT products and the on cartridge out of 18 that contained DEG contained only 1%, far below danger level.

E Cigarettes aren't an NRT product nor is nicotine the reason that cigarettes are so deadly. The Dr should know this. We who used to smoke and tried many times to stop smoking using FDA approved products(many who resigned themselves to the fact that we'd be smoking the rest of our lives), are just thankful that E Cigs and other smokeless products are now available and good alternatives.

As a former 43 year, 2-3 pack a day smoker. Using E Cigs and later Swedish snus, I'm over two years since I started this journey and in five days will be 1 1/2 years without one puff on a real cig. Needless to say, my pulmonary function has vastly improved. That's all the science I need.

At least on my second attempt it actually said it was submitted.

 

[Pamdane]

My reply:
E-cigarettes: It doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure this one out. The FDA is in a snit over the US courts telling them they do not have jurisdiction over e-cigarettes. E-cigarettes hurt the American economy: They can help people quit smoking. Big tobacco companies will loose a lot of income, and this will out the tobacco companies out of business. When people cut down on smoking, or quit, they will get healthier. This means doctors will treat less smoking related illnesses, and their business will suffer economically. Healthier people may live longer. This will put stress on the government welfare programs for the elderly.
E-cigarettes may not be healthy, but they are certainly better than burning tar with more than just a TRACE of carcinogens! Taking into consideration who is hurt most by e-cigarettes, are you surprised at any Doctors OPINIONS? The products have been in existence for about 8 years now. Why are they not quoting studies? Its common sense people....

 

[rothenbj]

Don't expect the Tobacco companies to go out of business any time soon. They are well versed in how to provide a product that the consumer wants. Cigarettes may eventually go away, but BT will have a product, perhaps their own E Cig variation that will pick up market share.

They'll also have the lobbyists to keep the competition at bay which in itself is a bit scary.

 

[rolygate]

@PamD
The main opposition to electronic cigarettes is from the pharmaceutical industry, because as more e-cigs are sold, less NRTs (quit smoking drugs) are sold, and it is starting to hurt them already. In addition, most tobacco corporations have actually stopped opposing ecigarettes because they themselves are now interested in marketing alternative tobacco products (with the notable exception of Imperial Tobacco, who seem to be a bit behind the times).

Since the FDA appear to act, to all intents and purposes, as the agent of the pharmaceutical industry, actions by this agency can be interpreted as being helpful to pharma in removing their competitors. Public health is clearly not the #1 item on their agenda since promoting pharma solutions to smoking while blocking Harm Reduction alternatives cannot do anything other than cost hundreds of thousands of lives. That is a demonstrable, provable fact and there is a long list of public health experts who will attest to it.

 

[wv2win]

Here is another thread that reenforces the need for all of us to join and support CASAA!! Click on the banner at the bottom of my post to go to the CASAA web site.

 

[Vocalek]

Here is another thread that reenforces the need for all of us to join and support CASAA!! Click on the banner at the bottom of my post to go to the CASAA web site.

Thanks for the plug, neighbor (I live in East Virginia).

 

[wv2win]

Thanks for the plug, neighbor (I live in East Virginia).

I use to live in Virginia and like it almost as much as West Virginia. I'm a little more partial to the western part of the state due to the beautiful mountains.

 

[izabella]

Furthermore, when the FDA analyzed samples of two popular brands, they found traces of toxic chemicals, including known carcinogens.

I wish these kinds of replies also had one little sentence added at the end, "Of course, the FDA has also found truckloads of carcinogens in cigarettes, so use your own brain and make the call on whether "trace amounts" or "truckloads" is safer."