FDA - Warnings?

[raverreturns]

Just curious if anyone else had seen this and what the general thought is. It may have already been posted on here somewhere and I just haven't seen it yet. Among the things that stood out to me, the biggest concerned the particular 555 flavor brand that they tested. According to this, it contains a chemical commonly found in antifreeze. Guess we won't be trying that one. In the end, though, the FDA has expressed a need to be informed, but I don't see anything in it saying that vaping is nonetheless safer than actually smoking.

DENIED !!!
I added the links to this, but ECF would not let me post that just yet. So here's the skinny. Just go to the FDA's website and search for "electronic cigarettes." Let me know what you think, guys.

 

[Rosa]

The FDA tested TWO brands and found TRACE amounts (like a few parts per million or something) of this chemical in one of many samples. They erroneously posted the results and after more study could never find that same stuff in any samples again. (btw: the stuff they found is also present in tobacco products, but for some reason they don't have any issue with that.)

 

[Rosa]

Here's my favorite article about this so far (be sure to watch the video and see the data near the bottom of the page too - IOW read the whole thing)
THE TRUTH: Cigarettes versus Electronic Cigarettes

 

[raverreturns]

The FDA tested TWO brands and found TRACE amounts (like a few parts per million or something) of this chemical in one of many samples. They erroneously posted the results and after more study could never find that same stuff in any samples again. (btw: the stuff they found is also present in tobacco products, but for some reason they don't have any issue with that.)

Thanks for the reply, Rosa. I've been sitting here thinking the exact same things, though I did not know that they weren't able to replicate the results. So I'm thinking, why do they try so hard to destroy the rep of something like this, considering bans and such, but still allow the sale of tobacco. Could it be that there is still too much money to be made taxing tobacco? Will we eventually be looking at 5 to 6 dollars a cartridge in order to make up the revenue? Granted this is no "perfect" solution, but it seems to be the lesser of MANY different evils.

 

[Rosa]

tax is part of it, also a lot of insurance companies are fiscally invested in the big tobacco companies so they know that if we ever manage to quit smoking their profits will go down. Pretty stinky if you ask me. I say, screw 'em! I'll quit vaping when I'm dead and they can .... ouT!

 

[ThaVaporz]

Yes, seems like FDA seemed to skip their science on this one. I was explaining to my parents about the warning. And noting how they use the term "detectable levels." In chemistry, "detectable levels" means lower than the amount they can quantify, i.e. the super damn smallest amount. This is that .01% when all those anti-bacterial are saying they kill 99.99% of all bacteria.

So basically it means, too small for it to matter at all. I mean, this is the same kinda reason they had to put cancer warnings on Splenda years ago, So incredibly minute, and im positive splenda doesnt even have to carry that warning anymore.

 

[raverreturns]

Okay, so I went to the site you stated. Am I reading those stats right? Insurance providers are helping to back tobacco suppliers? Does this not seem like an unethical and immoral conflict of interests?

 

[sanfordf]

Okay, so I went to the site you stated. Am I reading those stats right? Insurance providers are helping to back tobacco suppliers? Does this not seem like an unethical and immoral conflict of interests?

Welcome to the world of politics and money.

 

[Rosa]

Welcome to the world of politics and money.

Ain't it the truth!

 

[Hoosier]

Okay, so I went to the site you stated. Am I reading those stats right? Insurance providers are helping to back tobacco suppliers? Does this not seem like an unethical and immoral conflict of interests?

Ah, you've spotted the tip of the iceburg.

Most folks never look hard enough to find the tip and many give up well before they see much more in disgust.

 

[Spence]

Okay, so I went to the site you stated. Am I reading those stats right? Insurance providers are helping to back tobacco suppliers? Does this not seem like an unethical and immoral conflict of interests?

An unethical or immoral insurance company ... oh, what! ... has the world gone mad???

 

[raverreturns]

An unethical or immoral insurance company ... oh, what! ... has the world gone mad???

LOL I know...right!!

 

[zboot]

the curtain has been thrown back!

 

[Moonflame]

Add to that the fact that a good chunk of the money that runs the FDA and most of the anti-smoking organizations is given to them by Big Pharma who will lose huge amounts of money once people stop buying NRTs that don't work. Most people that use the gum, patch, or inhalers spend thousands trying products that don't work. Then they go back to smoking only to retry quiting and again spend thousands on gum, patches, and inhalers to repeat the cycle.

Big Pharma are also the folks that make the most money off of folks getting cancer. The more cynical among us think that this is the reason there is, and never will be, a cure for cancer. And why there is no NRT that really works, and why they are fighting so hard to stop e-cigs (which do really work to stop smoking). There is no money in a cure. The money is in perpetual treatment.

If Big Tobacco or Big Pharma had come out with e-cigs in the US first, all of the groups that are fighting us having them would instead be jumping on the bandwagon and pushing every smoker to switch to them. Instead, they are afraid of losing their cash cow, so they are proving that they are not interested in our health, they are interested in our wallets.

 

[raverreturns]

Add to that the fact that a good chunk of the money that runs the FDA and most of the anti-smoking organizations is given to them by Big Pharma who will lose huge amounts of money once people stop buying NRTs that don't work. Most people that use the gum, patch, or inhalers spend thousands trying products that don't work. Then they go back to smoking only to retry quiting and again spend thousands on gum, patches, and inhalers to repeat the cycle.

Big Pharma are also the folks that make the most money off of folks getting cancer. The more cynical among us think that this is the reason there is, and never will be, a cure for cancer. And why there is no NRT that really works, and why they are fighting so hard to stop e-cigs (which do really work to stop smoking). There is no money in a cure. The money is in perpetual treatment.

If Big Tobacco or Big Pharma had come out with e-cigs in the US first, all of the groups that are fighting us having them would instead be jumping on the bandwagon and pushing every smoker to switch to them. Instead, they are afraid of losing their cash cow, so they are proving that they are not interested in our health, they are interested in our wallets.

Cynical - yes. Accurate - maybe. Makes sense - more than I care to admit.