From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback

[BigJimW]

That was Above and Beyond the Call of Duty Big Jim. I would be very afraid of lighting up a Cancer Stick again. Very well done Sir.

Thanks deewal. I will never ever do that again though. I saved one for the occasion of having to do another video like that if needed. When I lit that damned thing, it reminded me of what I did not miss.

Plus it was about 7 months old, sitting on my desk. I guess the staleness of it didn't help much.

 

[DC2]

In sum, I consider it inconsistent (i.e. hypocritical) for Tom to post corrections/clarifications on this forum (to appease e-cigarette users), while failing to make similar corrections/clarifications to his press release or his claims to the news media.

He has already issued one media/public clarification regarding the technical aspects of his study, and it seems reasonable to expect one based on his mea culpa here on this forum.

The good doctor is soon to stand before his peers and present his findings. It would be amazing to see him stand up and tell them he screwed it up royally, and give his annectodal testimony of what has happened after he went public with his results.

But really, would you do that if you were him?

I don't know what to think anymore, but I know one thing for damn sure. Whether the desired corrections are issues by Dr. Eissenberg or not, the future better not hold any more of those inflamatory sound bites, because no more slack is available to be cut.

And we can get ugly around here when our lives are being threatened.

 

[Pinko Panther]

You just joined this month and only offered ONE post!

I like you already.

Thanks Jim. I've been lurking the boards and researching e-cigs on these boards a lot recently and after absorbing this mess of a thread, I decided that was ready and informed enough to contribute to this discussion (or, at times, lack therof). Sifting through 74 pages of this is pretty exhausting though.

So, yeah, I'm a new vaper who stands by his electronic puff piece. Speaking of puff pieces, how does a so-called scientific study that everyone and their mother can see as brutally flawed, lead a scientist to make sweepingly general claims about electronic cigarettes??? Yeah, I am in full support of good research and even some sort of fair standardization and regulation of products that are associated with drugs but this whole ordeal just doesn't sit well with me.

All of this made me think of a joke you might appreciate:

Q: What do nicotine related scientific studies have in common with analog cigarettes?

A: They both produce a lot of hacks.

 

[fast12345]

New Electronic Cigarette Study Shows More Great Findings
Electronic Cigarette

Another victory for electronic cigarettes as Dr. Thomas Eissenberg finds even more differential advantages that the electronic cigarette exhibits over real cigarettes when researched.

Online PR News – 12-February-2010 – If you have not heard of the all new alternative smoking product that has been making its way across the globe and recently into the United States, it's called the electronic cigarette. It is a rechargeable electronic device that looks and feels like an ordinary cigarette, but instead of being filled with tobacco, it utilizes a liquid nicotine extract. The liquid gets vaporized by a technology called an atomizer which delivers a tar free and carbon monoxide free vapor to the user instead of smoke. It is said that the vapor is identical to real smoke, and that many people cannot tell the difference.

A Virginia Commonwealth University researcher named Dr. Thomas Eissenberg did a study on 16 people using electronic cigarettes vs. traditional cigarettes. Each person used each type of cigarette in separate sessions. Dr.Eissenberg's findings insisted that the electronic cigarette did not cause the "substantial and significant" increase in heart rate that real cigarettes do. He also indicated that with the electronic cigarette, the user contained lower levels of "plasma nicotine" in the blood stream.
“plasma nicotine”

Sarah, an e-cigarette user, responded to the new information by stating, "It just keeps getting better and better, this new study by Dr.Eissenberg tells me that I am not affecting my heart rate with the electronic cigarette and that less chemicals are entering my blood stream. It's another win for electronic cigarettes and smokers everywhere."

According to this new information by Dr.Eissenberg, not only is there no tar or carbon monoxide, but his evidence suggests that there is also less of an effect on your heart rate and less chemicals entering your body when using electronic cigarettes, which seems to be an excellent addition to the many great benefits received by a user who makes the switch.

We asked a smoker on a forum who recently switched to the electronic cigarette if they thought the product satisfied their crave for a cigarette, they stated, "I smoked for 10 years, I bought an ecigarette, and never looked back. I hope that answers your question."

If you are interested in more information on the electronic cigarette you can visit Electronic Cigarettes Inc. at Electronic Cigarettes Inc.

who is this company. talk about a spin on dr. E's report.

 

[mithorn]

Lol, nice.

 

[DVap]

And we can get ugly around here when our lives are being threatened.

Straight to the point. Nicely stated.

 

[ChipCurtis]

Looks like an e-cig "press release", however it proves a point. That you can take Dr. E's study and spin it any way you want. There's no false info in there at all, it's just the way that the study is described by avoiding the conclusion "as effective as an unlit cigarette". By doing that, you get a 100% turnaround on the angle of the story, as it can be stated to confirm that you're getting less 'plasma' and to most people that will sound good even though they have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Momof3]

I don't know that anyone not familiar with PVs would think the study model was flawed.

I've introduced many new users to PVs and to a person their first attempt is always to draw on it like an analog. Very few of them use the internet and I'm the one explaining draw technique, breaking in atomizers, primer puffs, etc. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be without added instruction.

A better instruction manual would be nice and of course some labeling and packaging standards. Classified as a tobacco product takes care of the access by minors issue. All of the existing truth in advertising type laws takes care of the rest.

All I can see that needs done is to address the usage instructions, labeling and packaging. The other regulations are already in place.

 

[anim8r]

I don't know that anyone not familiar with PVs would think the study model was flawed.

They shouldn't think it's flawed and the HUGE problem is that they don't think it's flawed. To them, ALL E-CIGS fail to deliver. That's the takeaway message from Joe Public.

And that's because people assume those who possess a PHD are a cut above the norm. They assume that a PHD would actually do research on the products he's testing. It didn't happen this time.

Hell, I had never even seen a PV used by anyone before I got my first kit. It took about an hour of scanning youtubes and this forum to figure out how to use it, and then just a little practice to use it Correctly.

Hardly the mind stumper in my opinion.

All I can see that needs done is to address the usage instructions, labeling and packaging. The other regulations are already in place.

I agree on the labeling. I like how EcoPure labels their products.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Another issue I haven't yet addressed on this forum are the title, first sentence and last sentence of Tom Eissenberg's article/letter published in Tobacco Conrol:

The title: "Electronic nicotine delivery devices: ineffective nicotine delivery and craving suppression after acute administration"
- refers to vaporizers as "nicotine delivery devices", which FDA regulates as drug devices,
- calls vaporizers "ineffective" for "nicotine delivery", while FDA policy requires drug devices to be found effective before allowing them on the market,
- claims vaporizers were "ineffective" for craving suppression, while FDA policy requires smoking cessation drug devices to be effective (and despite NJOY's product being found to reduce craving), and
- claims that the modest vapor inhalation in the study was "acute administration".

The first sentence of Tom's study:
"Electronic nicotine delivery devices (E-cigarettes) are marketed to deliver nicotine without tobacco toxicants and are sold in shopping malls and over the internet despite no published safety or efficacy data."
- claims vaporizers are "nicotine delivery devices" marketed to "deliver nicotine", which FDA regulates as drug devices,
- claims "no published safety or efficacy data", which refers to FDA drug device policy requiring products to be found "safe and effective" by the FDA before allowing on the market, and which demonstrates that Tom Eissenberg clearly knew that "safe and effective" referred to drug devices regulated by FDA.

The last sentence of the Eissenberg's study:
"At the least, consumers should be aware that, unlike several regulated nicotine products (e.g. gums, patch), these putative drug delivery systems do not delivery nicotine effectively after acute administration."
- endorses NRT products as effective while denouncing all vaporizers,
- restates that vaporizers are not "effective" at delivering nicotine, which is currently required for FDA approval before they can be marketed as a drug device, and

- states Eissenberg's concern for e-cigarette consumers, while neither the study (nor Eissenberg) has suggested that consumers should be aware that:
-- vaporizers pose far fewer health risks than cigarettes,
-- hundreds of thousands of vaporers have reduced their health risks by switching from cigarettes,
-- tens of thousands of e-cigarette users would switch back to far more hazardous cigarettes if FDA implemented Eissenberg's "drug device" regulatory proposals.

So it was disappointing to read that Eissenberg issued an "erratum" to Tobacco Control (for referring to 18mg cartridges as 16mg), while claiming that he stood by all the rest of his study's findings and conclusions.

In addition to issuing a correction/clarification for his press release and his comments to the media, I suggest that Tom also issue another "erratum" to Tobacco Control if he now believes (as he has recently stated on this forum) that at least some vaporizers emit nicotine, that usage patterns can impact nicotine delivery and/or craving reductions, and/or that he didn't mean that vaporizers should be regulated as "drug delivery devices" and that they should be "safe and effective".

 

[anim8r]

Another issue I haven't yet addressed on this forum are the title, first sentence and last sentence of Tom Eissenberg's article/letter published in Tobacco Conrol:

The title: "Electronic nicotine delivery devices: ineffective nicotine delivery and craving suppression after acute administration"
- refers to vaporizers as "nicotine delivery devices", which FDA regulates as drug devices,
- calls vaporizers "ineffective" for "nicotine delivery", while FDA policy requires drug devices to be found effective before allowing them on the market,
- claims vaporizers were "ineffective" for craving suppression, while FDA policy requires smoking cessation drug devices to be effective (and despite NJOY's product being found to reduce craving), and
- claims that the modest vapor inhalation in the study was "acute administration".

The first sentence of Tom's study:
"Electronic nicotine delivery devices (E-cigarettes) are marketed to deliver nicotine without tobacco toxicants and are sold in shopping malls and over the internet despite no published safety or efficacy data."
- claims vaporizers are "nicotine delivery devices" marketed to "deliver nicotine", which FDA regulates as drug devices,
- claims "no published safety or efficacy data", which refers to FDA drug device policy requiring products to be found "safe and effective" by the FDA before allowing on the market, and which demonstrates that Tom Eissenberg clearly knew that "safe and effective" referred to drug devices regulated by FDA.

The last sentence of the Eissenberg's study:
"At the least, consumers should be aware that, unlike several regulated nicotine products (e.g. gums, patch), these putative drug delivery systems do not delivery nicotine effectively after acute administration."
- endorses NRT products as effective while denouncing all vaporizers,
- restates that vaporizers are not "effective" at delivering nicotine, which is currently required for FDA approval before they can be marketed as a drug device, and

- states Eissenberg's concern for e-cigarette consumers, while neither the study (nor Eissenberg) has suggested that consumers should be aware that:
-- vaporizers pose far fewer health risks than cigarettes,
-- hundreds of thousands of vaporers have reduced their health risks by switching from cigarettes,
-- tens of thousands of e-cigarette users would switch back to far more hazardous cigarettes if FDA implemented Eissenberg's "drug device" regulatory proposals.

So it was disappointing to read that Eissenberg issued an "erratum" to Tobacco Control (for referring to 18mg cartridges as 16mg), while claiming that he stood by all the rest of his study's findings and conclusions.

In addition to issuing a correction/clarification for his press release and his comments to the media, I suggest that Tom also issue another "erratum" to Tobacco Control if he now believes (as he has recently stated on this forum) that at least some vaporizers emit nicotine, that usage patterns can impact nicotine delivery and/or craving reductions, and/or that he didn't mean that vaporizers should be regulated as "drug delivery devices" and that they should be "safe and effective".

Yeah I wouldn't hold my breath on that one bro. Unlike some who seem to fawn all over this guy, I'll hold final judgement on his character once I see some of his latest revelations make it to print or video.

While I commend him for his honesty in sharing his latest personal evaluation of an e-cig, I would much rather he share this with reporters and other Doctors. I mean seriously, what's the true value in coming here of all places and telling us e-cigs ARE effective at delivering nicotine? We already knew that. Now go tell some other people.

 

[Belletrist]

On post 683 of this thread, Tom Eissenberg wrote:
"I am not at all certain that I need to take a position on the drug device/tobacco product issue. There are many issues in today’s complex world about which I have no position. For example, I am uncertain whether the Federal Reserve Bank is a good or bad idea. The same for term limits for congress people."

[...]

If Tom considers his views on e-cigarette regulation as unimportant as he considers his views on the Federal Reserve Band or term limits for Congress, then Tom wouldn't have entitled his press release "Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes'" at: Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes' – VCU News Center

Nor would Tom's press release have stated:
“Regulation can protect consumers from unsafe and ineffective products, but these products have somehow avoided regulation thus far."

Nor would Tom have advocated regulation of e-cigarettes to ensure that they are safe and effective (in part 2 and 3 of Tom's press video).

Nor would Tom have been quoted by the Richmond Times-Dispatch article at:
VCU researcher says electronic cigarettes don't deliver the nicotine they promise | Richmond Times-Dispatch
as saying: "These data scream out for the need for regulation of these devices,"

On posting 683, Tom also wrote:
"That having been said, I will not apologize for wanting a product that people use to inhale a substance into their lungs to be “safe and effective” and I reject the notion that this desire puts me in the “drug delivery device” camp and that was not my intention when I used those words. Indeed, if those three words indicate that idea to some readers, then I am very happy to change the words: I would like electronic "cigarettes" to be not harmful and to perform as advertised."

i... am a little confused here. first, i was confused by dr. e's statement about regulation, but i found his post #683 (quoted above) to be an effective clarification (for me at least). now i'm confused because you're saying it's not? i'm not being snarky, i just actually do not understand what you're getting at, precisely?

Except that Tom surely knew/knows that "safe and effective" are code words for FDA regulation of "drugs and devices" (but not for FDA regulation of tobacco products, foods or cosmetics). Besides, nothing in the new FDA tobacco law requires that tobacco products be regulated by the FDA are "not harmful" nor "perform as advertised". If Tom truly believes that e-cigarette should be regulated so much that he issues a press release calling for such, the onus is on him to stipulate whether he wants them to be regulated as "drug devices", as "tobacco products", or by yet another law (that none of us are aware of).

really? i mean, is it that cut and dry? again, i know it's hard to read tone in text--i'm not being combative. i'm just not seeing the nuance here that you're suggesting. the FDA has a pretty unfortunate history with regulations regarding food as well (never mind tobacco). i thought dr. eissenberg's suggestions regarding regulation were pretty clear as far as what he thought was appropriate--regulated labeling consistent with product contents and capabilities, which is pretty much what is expected of food, also. for example, if something claims to have 6 g of protein, it should indeed have 6 g of protein. even homeopathic "medicines" in the forms of food/teas/etc. must at least say "these claims not evaluated by the FDA" if claims are made.

But if Tom is now happy to change his previously and repeatedly stated "safe and effective" requirements for e-cigarette regulation, I'm looking forward to see Tom's "erratum" or "correction/clarification" to his press release and his subsequent comments to the news media (similar to his recent "erratum" in Tobacco Control changing 16mg to 18 mg at Erratum -- -- Tobacco Control ).

additional erratum? on what? on trying a completely different device, one time, in a non-controlled environment? i'm excited by the fact that he tried the KR8 and got intriguing results and i don't think he had enormous motivation to do that just to 'look good' to current e-cig users. i still (i've said this before, the 'still' isn't directed at you personally, mr. godshall) fail to see what motivation he has to butter "us" up. since i don't see any personal gain for him in that, i'm prepared to allow that he was motivated by sincere curiosity and that may allow, in fact, for the pursuit of more research on subject.

i'm not a scientist. i don't have a PhD. i'm speaking with all humility here, but having dealt with academia in other fields, i cannot see how he can issue any other sort of correction or erratum that could be taken... seriously, in any way, in terms of the previous study/in relation to the KR8 and resultant NicAlert test. i fully admit i may be wrong, but it has always been my impression from colleagues in the hard sciences that, well, the hard sciences are much, much, much more stringent when it comes to making these types of publications. there's no direct correlation between his experience and the previous study.

there is between his media comments and his personal experience. that i understand, but i think the toothpaste is out of the tube there. now, if someone wants to push the media to pick up his post on the forum, please do. my small media influence is exhausted, personally, but anyone with connections, go for it. i don't see how dr. e can do it, and remain credible; this is an appropriate platform for discussing anecdotal evidence. but going to CNN and saying 'hey, you ran that one story, well, here's a related one' himself is not going to do him (or us, or the industry) favors.

the Letter already clearly stated that the results of that study were dependent upon the conditions imposed, and allowed that other equipment and other conditions could produce other results. shockingly (<that one's for dr. e ) other conditions and different equipment DID IN FACT produce different results. so... bravo for getting that part right the first time around?

Interestingly, the last sentence of Tom's new erratum states: "The author apologizes for any confusion this error may have caused and notes that it does not alter the study results or his conclusions." ...

i don't see how it could have... i mean... had he discovered that they were no-nic carts, obviously that would have had an effect, lol. but they were actually higher mg than stated. so i have to agree, it would have made no difference.

So it sounds like Tom still stands by his claims in his press release and his statements to the news media that e-cigarettes emit "no nicotine" and that the products should be regulated by the FDA to ensure they are "safe and effective" (among other things).

...? i... i don't know exactly where to begin, but i thought his comment in the erratum was referencing the results and conclusions in the study (including the different equipment/different conditions caveat...) so... i just feel like you're reaching here?

Tom also wrote in post 683:
"At the suggestion of some of you, I purchased a KR808D-1 with various strength cartridges (Cowboy flavor). I used it last night (18 mg cartomizer) and tested my urine with Nicalert strips this morning. Result? 5/6. Clearly, this result is consistent with recent nicotine exposure."
and
"Obviously I am not going to write a paper about this single experience, and there is much to be learned, but I certainly agree with the many of you who suggested that these devices may very well behave differently than the ones that I tested."

Since the subtitle of Tom's press release at: Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes' – VCU News Center
"“Electronic cigarettes” fail to deliver nicotine" and since Tom's press release generated news headlines and stories stating the same, I think Tom has an ethical duty to issue an "erratum" or "correction" revealing that he's now aware that e-cigarette products can and do emit nicotine (not just because of his personal experience, but also because of his many correspondences on this forum that have informed him about the different e-cigarette products and different usage patterns by many/most users).

i've already stated why i'm confused regarding the erratum--i don't see that he can issue an erratum correcting the media circus. i've already said i don't like that aspect at all. i wish researchers had agents and PR reps to handle them, lol. independent ones, not FDA/BT/BP pocketed ones obv. but he doesn't and he's... not a media personality, and he didn't handle the media well (as far as our goals, which are not his goals: that DOESN'T mean, imo, that his goals are the FDA's or BT's or BP's) but he can't go back and change that, because it's out of his hands. the media has just as much access to THIS FORUM as anyone else. he posted the results of his personal experience publicly, on the internet, and made them accessible to those who would have the most interest in reading them. i'm not sure what more we could ask. if the media's not running with it, well. surprise, surprise, surprise.

In sum, I consider it inconsistent (i.e. hypocritical) for Tom to post corrections/clarifications on this forum (to appease e-cigarette users), while failing to make similar corrections/clarifications to his press release or his claims to the news media.

finally, i don't see why he would try to appease e-cig users. i really, truly wish someone would answer this, because i'm at a loss as to what any researcher in his position has to gain from appeasing a bunch of forum rats. i'm including myself in that. if he was here to gain info to 'use against us' he needn't have posted as himself, he coulda gotten the exact same info any number of ways.

and i hope he does share his experience with other researchers, and expands upon it with future study, but one NicAlert test does not a press release make.

look the guy may well turn out to simply be a sadist toying with our emotions and having a good, evil-villain-style chuckle, but occam's razor here people. unless eissenberg is actually an old-school-movie-madman, this is a pretty freakin' devious plan: "Why, I'll... I'll do what they suggest! And then! I'll tell them they were right! Oh baby! They'll never know what hit 'em."

okay, that was totally meant to be snarky, but i hadda give in to my baser urges at some point.

i guess my main confusion is, other than the fact that the first study was so un-real-world that the conclusions were smeared all over the media and Joe Public is too lazy to read a real scholarly work, why exactly is he an evil scientist who can't just... test out something for the heck of it? i mean, isn't that the kind of curiosity that has motivated all sorts of groundbreaking research? had he done it, and then thought, "well, i better not let this get out, and i'd better avoid using the KR8 in future studies at all costs!" okay, evil. but...? if his next study is designed to "prove" ineffectiveness, doesn't he realize that the entire IntarWebs know that he knows that some e-cigs do deliver? if he's an evil scientist, he's a really stupid one.

 

[Nikhil]

I agree with Belletrist's sensible take on this discussion. Judging a researcher's character is the kind of sidetracking I leave to the conservative/liberal news.

I'm more interested in what exactly people would have done with a study like this, so the next study can be better. I'd love any suggestions.

My initial idea was to have something like 200 smokers, all of them given PVs and instructional videos, as well as hands on instructions by me and any assistants I can find. 100 would receive 0mg/ml nicotine liquid while the other 100 would receive 18 - 24mg/ml nicotine liquid and enough liquid to last them the duration of the study. They would be told to use it when they felt a craving for cigarettes and to use cigarettes only when they did not feel satisfied by the PV. The reason they would ALL receive PVs is to eliminate all variables except the nicotine strength. This would decide not only if a PV is effective in nicotine delivery but also if it can reduce the harm of cigarettes by replacing them.

 

[Territoo]

The jury's still out concerning my opinion on him. I can understand why he set his testing standards so wimpy. He had to get it approved by the IRB which is very difficult to do. The results of this test will give him more latitude w/ future testing. He has been posting on ECF when he didn't have to, since he could have gathered all the info he needed just by trolling.

His statements to CNN and posted on the VCU website are the big black marks in my book. It was nothing short of sensationalism and he should have known better. A retraction will not undo the damage and I'm sure he feels that it would hurt any future funding.

I reserve judgment until his next study is released. If he takes what he learned on ECF, confirmed by the little test he did on himself, and uses that knowledge to design a valid study AND can keep his mouth shut in regards to the press, I might believe he is sincere.

 

[DC2]

i... am a little confused here. first, i was confused by dr. e's statement about regulation, but i found his post #683 (quoted above) to be an effective clarification (for me at least). now i'm confused because you're saying it's not? i'm not being snarky, i just actually do not understand what you're getting at, precisely?

What he's getting at is that what Dr. Eissenberg says here on this forum is one thing, but what he presents to his collegues, and to the media for mass public consumption, is entirely another and far more important matter.

really? i mean, is it that cut and dry? again, i know it's hard to read tone in text--i'm not being combative. i'm just not seeing the nuance here that you're suggesting. the FDA has a pretty unfortunate history with regulations regarding food as well (never mind tobacco). i thought dr. eissenberg's suggestions regarding regulation were pretty clear as far as what he thought was appropriate--regulated labeling consistent with product contents and capabilities, which is pretty much what is expected of food, also. for example, if something claims to have 6 g of protein, it should indeed have 6 g of protein. even homeopathic "medicines" in the forms of food/teas/etc. must at least say "these claims not evaluated by the FDA" if claims are made.

The issue is with the use of the words "safe and effective" in that it absolutely implies a drug delivery device, subject to stringent regulation by the FDA, and an essential ban on the device until extensive testing has been done to prove exactly how safe and effective they are.

i still (i've said this before, the 'still' isn't directed at you personally, mr. godshall) fail to see what motivation he has to butter "us" up. since i don't see any personal gain for him in that, i'm prepared to allow that he was motivated by sincere curiosity and that may allow, in fact, for the pursuit of more research on subject.

Maybe so we get distracted from bombarding any and all appearences of his study results in the media with all of our comments regarding that study and what we think of it.

there is between his media comments and his personal experience. that i understand, but i think the toothpaste is out of the tube there. now, if someone wants to push the media to pick up his post on the forum, please do. my small media influence is exhausted, personally, but anyone with connections, go for it. i don't see how dr. e can do it, and remain credible; this is an appropriate platform for discussing anecdotal evidence.

I believe Mr. Godshall was refering to issuing an erratum regarding Dr. Eissenberg's stated conclusions in the study regarding regulating these devices as drug delivery devices, which is the clear intent of many of the comments made by Dr. Eissenberg in both the study and to the media.

However, I am not certain whether or not that is the appropriate use of an erratum, nor whether or not it would be unprecedented. And I tend to agree, as noted earlier, that I would not really expect it.

So while such a clarification of his conclusions would be nice, my focus will be on watching future comments from Dr. Eissenberg to see if he remains clearly in favor of regulating electronic cigarettes as drug delivery devices.

 

[curiousJan]

The jury's still out concerning my opinion on him. I can understand why he set his testing standards so wimpy. He had to get it approved by the IRB which is very difficult to do. The results of this test will give him more latitude w/ future testing. He has been posting on ECF when he didn't have to, since he could have gathered all the info he needed just by trolling.

His statements to CNN and posted on the VCU website are the big black marks in my book. It was nothing short of sensationalism and he should have known better. A retraction will not undo the damage and I'm sure he feels that it would hurt any future funding.

I reserve judgment until his next study is released. If he takes what he learned on ECF, confirmed by the little test he did on himself, and uses that knowledge to design a valid study AND can keep his mouth shut in regards to the press, I might believe he is sincere.

+1


.......... 10 characters

 

[Belletrist]

DC2: thank you, seriously, for the clarification on my questions. i still have to just agree to disagree on some of that stuff (or maybe... disagree that it's so cut and dry, but i do see your point). your post helped me understand Bill's post much better.

actually... i don't want to go off on a tangent too much, but... nicotine is a drug and the study was testing its delivery. i mean, i realize legally/FDA-wise those are tricksy semantics and dangerous words, but it's going to be hard to tapdance around it. mind you i don't think e-cigs should be classified by the FDA as a such, because cigarettes aren't, if you see what i mean. i think the problem there is an FDA/societal tapdance around certain issues, and it creates a minefield for researchers.

territoo--agreed on all counts, really. the media thing is... a mess. and i think the proof will be in future actions, at this point.

purevapor--i like the sounds of that study. also, sidenote, i love that you included both conservative and liberal there, lol.

 

[kristin]

Belletrist, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the anti-smoking cult movement in the U.S. but it is a lot more warped and twisted than you'd imagine. They have moved beyond fighting smoke. It is now anything tobacco related or even looks like smoke, regardless if the product could save millions of lives. Because they basically can't touch the government-protected cigarettes, they go after everything else that contains nicotine without any justification. The quit or die mentality runs rampant. There is absolutely no concern for the actual health of the smoker. Everything they do is covered in sugary rationals such as protecting children or keeping the public safe - all the while forcing the smoking public - the people in the most danger - back to using cigarettes.

Mr. Godshall was a member of the anti-smoking movement for decades, however, more from a "keep it out of my face" standpoint. If smokers want to smoke, they should have that right and people truly concerned about public health should look for ways to assist smokers beyond telling them to quit - finding alternatives. He is familiar with the ins and outs of how these people work. He can see how Dr. Eissenberg is talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one side, he says he's just concerned that we, as paying consumers, get what is advertised. On the other side, he is using very purposeful language in his public comments that undoubtably further the interests of the anti-ecig organizations like the FDA. Mr. Godshall was pointing out how Dr. Eissenberg specifically chose to use terms/keywords that elicit certain emotions and support the anti agenda, when he just as easily could have put a completely different spin on the study results. That tells us that, although Dr. Eissenberg tells us on this private forum that he has no bias, his public comments show a very clear bias and agenda.

You ask why would a researcher come to a site like this and waste his time talking to us?

Ego.

Dr. Eissenberg isn't new to all of this. He's published other studies. He is very well aware of the impact his statements will make on the general public - even if he was "surprised" that people just read the headlines and not the actual study. (Ummm, yeah.)

Don't kid yourself - EVERYONE has an agenda. I, too, will be watching his future studies, but I predict they will contain the same bias.

 

[Belletrist]

oh, i expect everyone to have an agenda. i'm prior military, and a former intel troop. everyone has an agenda and everyone has a bias. and everyone-but-everyone talks out both sides of their mouth to protect their own bias, consciously or otherwise.

and i understand the history you're talking about, and the context, and i agree with it's presence and influence.

 

[anim8r]

Big +1's to Territoo, DC2, and Kristin!