From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback

[legalhigh]

Yeah text does suck didnt mean to upset you. Just wanted to make sure. I talk to people everyday at work that really do think that the government is going to help us and media is correct. So when I read your post just thought you thought like they did.

 

[beingbekah]

Yeah text does suck didnt mean to upset you. Just wanted to make sure. I talk to people everyday at work that really do think that the government is going to help us and media is correct. So when I read your post just thought you thought like they did.

Not upset, just baffled. Did you read my sig? I know Big Brother's not all he portrays himself to be.

 

[kai kane]

Edit - further information:

Correction -

by Dr. E: he is not funded by Phillip Morris

Story: Dr. E sponsored by Pfizer
(not for this study?)

”Introduction
What was not said in the media about the Syrian President’s sudden decision to ban tobacco smoking in all public places, including cafes, is that such a move has been prepared, for years, by US and Syrian antismoking activists, particularly those based in Memphis and Virginia Commonwealth Universities (Wasim Maziak, Thomas Eissenberg, Kenneth Ward). The latter are the three main researchers of the US funded (up to about $ 7 million) so-called Syrian Centre for tobacco Studies (US-SCTS). ...also members of Globalink, the world antismoking network of about 6,000 activists around the world, sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry (Pfizer laboratories among others)[6].

Written by:

Kamal Chaouachi
Tobacco researcher and consultant. Lecturer at University Paris XI-XII (DIU Tabacologie) Paris, France[/URL]

Absolutely no competing interest. Unfortunately, never received any financial or non-financial, direct or indirect, funding either from pharmaceutical companies (nicotine ‘‘replacement’’ therapies and products) or from the tobacco industry. Ten years ago or so, he measured CO (carbon monoxide) levels in French hookah lounges and issued recommendations that, unfortunately for the world public health, were never taken into account. For this reason, he enthusiastically participated, from Spring to Autumn 2004, in the development of a No-CO harm reduction patented hookah which cut down CO by 95%. Unfortunately again, this product was not commercialised and he signed away all his rights on June 15, 2005 (legally certified). From that date onward, he began to publish studies in peer-reviewed biomedical journals.

[As wrote previously;
The lost CASH revenues - from the “26,000 users” on this forum), and multiply by the average (probably) money lost each day from those US forum users who've discovered ecigs (26k x $5.day x 30days = $3,900,000 a MONTH, just from US forum users), ]

 

[legalhigh]

If you check the CNN site they have tucked that article away so it is a bit harder to find.

 

[CES]

I posted. It went right up. I couldn't figure out how to make a new comment, so i ended up posting the following as a response to someone else's post. (thanks to the person who's post i stepped on and to the person who posted the links to other research). hope that people who read the now buried article read through the comments.

"There are essentially two ways to quit smoking. The first is to go cold turkey, 6, 8 or even 10 times until it works. The second is to replace the nicotine, giving the individual the opportunity to work through the behavioral aspects of quitting, and eliminating exposure to the other chemicals in cigarettes, including monamine oxidase inhibitors. All FDA approved smoking cessation products provide nicotine. The patch, gum, inhaler etc., all provide nicotine directly (and have trace amount of TSNAs). Chantix partially activates the receptors that nicotine binds to, fooling the body into thinking that there is nicotine on board. Quit rates are low, people still try numerous times and those who succeed continue to use them for long periods of time (months to years in some cases). Chantix has additional side effects, including reports of suicidality. E-cigs provide nicotine, but aren’t marketed as a smoking cessation device. Yet, anecdotal evidence suggests that a majority of people who use personal vaporizers/e-ciggs have moved to using them exclusively. In effect they quit smoking. Nicotine continues to be delivered, just as with approved NRTs. Since this study reported here hasn’t yet been published, I have no way of evaluating the methodology, but I suspect there are problems with it. I also question reporting the results from an unpublished study as if it has been peer reviewed. There are other preliminary studies available (posted in an earlier comment) suggesting that nicotine is indeed delivered by personal vaporizers , that the number of harmful chemicals is reduced as compared to smoking, and consistent with the levels found in traditional NRTs. What is the fear about? A choice between continuing to burn carcinogenic substances or really allowing people the opportunity to choose."

 

[imawitch]

I just posted my comment on cnn..

I told cnn that I think the article is a load of carp..

mo

 

[Vocalek]

This study demonstrates how clinical laboratory methods can provide misleading results, leading to erroneous conclusions. People who were familiar with proper operation of electronic cigarettes (current users) were excluded from the study. One of the brands tested is notorious for requiring one or more "primer" puffs before the liquid begins to vaporize properly. Thus, the "10 puffs" may have been delivering nicotine every 2nd, 3rd, or 4th puff -- if at all. A more realistic study design would have provided the subjects with training on proper use and care of the equipment, cautioned them to refrain from using any source of nicotine other than the electronic cigarette, and then measured nicotine levels after an entire day normal activities, There must be some reason why 80% of regular users are able to substitute the electronic cigarette for all of their tobacco cigarettes. The most likely explanation is that users are getting nicotine.

Just for giggles, I looked up Eissenberg's other publications on PubMed. This is the conclusion from the abstract. Notice anything?

CONCLUSIONS: While decreased toxicant exposure is a potential indicator of harm reduction potential, a failure to suppress abstinence symptoms suggests that currently marketed non-combustible PREPs may not be a viable harm reduction strategy for U.S. smokers. This study demonstrates how clinical laboratory methods can be used to evaluate the short-term effects of non-combustible PREPs for smokers.

 

[TropicalBob]

Can we all say "bought and paid for by Phillip Morris?" Pre-determined study conclusion, eh Vocalek.

Still, this is very troubling.

And stop blaming the messenger for the message -- and expect these to soon be distributed by all major mainstream media. Don't blame the media for reporting study results you personally find alarming. That's news. That's the way it works.

 

[legalhigh]

Hey thanks for pulling my post no reason to allow free speech on the forum. Good luck to you.

 

[mojofunk]

God sometimes I hate America. I really will be moving to Canada in 2 years when I get my Biology degree!!

Ha ha Awesome! I can see the Peace Bridge from my bedroom, you now need a passport to cross. You'd better get a PHD though - they aren't interested in a bunch of unwashed huddled refugees.

 

[Lab]

i wonder how many of those ppl that are posting that nicotine is the killer know that peppers, green tomatoes, potatoes and a few other common foods contain nicotine.. next they will want the FDA to ban salsa

 

[420GypsyGirl]

Hey thanks for pulling my post no reason to allow free speech on the forum. Good luck to you.

This is not a public forum. It is privately owned and they can moderate however they like. It is their forum...not yours. You are merely a guest and it is a privilege. You have no rights here.

 

[420GypsyGirl]

I would take this report with a grain of salt. Previous test have shown this guys test was bad science. So I wouldn't worry to much about it.

 

[HexKrak]

Factoring craving levels in to determine nicotine absorption is beyond me...

 

[beerstud]

Ahh...I see the Communist News Network is at it again.

 

[telsie]

What am I missing here that's got everyone so outraged. Aside from CNN throwing in the FDA's misleading tidbit about diethylene glycol (yes that's getting really annoying), it's just a report about a study that supposedly shows e-cigs deliver very little nicotine. Maybe his methods are flawed, I don't know, but it hardly strikes me as conspiracy!

 

[beingbekah]

Part of it's the more harm than good argument it portrays.

But the units may deliver hazardous chemicals, according to preliminary checks by federal regulators. In a notice to importers, the FDA blocked continued shipments after finding diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans.

The rest of it is a blatant attempt (to me) to keep current smokers from trying them by saying that they don't deliver nicotine. This will keep them smoking (and dying), and keep Dr. Eissenberg's clients (BT) well-fed and happy.

 

[DeeEss]

What am I missing here that's got everyone so outraged. Aside from CNN throwing in the FDA's misleading tidbit about diethylene glycol (yes that's getting really annoying), it's just a report about a study that supposedly shows e-cigs deliver very little nicotine. Maybe his methods are flawed, I don't know, but it hardly strikes me as conspiracy!

I can't speak for anyone else but, for me, it has to do with the dishonesty regarding e-cigs and the fact that this is a major media outlet that's being used to spread this propaganda. If you have doubts about it being a conspiracy, I can understand that. I always make it a habit to check both sides of the story though and have heard claims about the FDA holding onto or blocking various different things over the years due to political agendas. If you check the second post in this thread, there's information regarding Dr. Eissenberg and his connections with both the tobacco and pharmaceutical industry, the two groups that stand to lose the most money from a ban on e-cigs.

Also, since it is making the claim that they are ineffective for nicotine delivery, why not just change the article title to, "'Electronic cigarette manufacturers are out to bilk you for everything they can for a useless product"? And yes, that's probably a slippery slope there but, I'm sure it's how most of us feel.

 

[kalekona]

its kinda better for CNN to say it has little to no nicotine, then the FDA can't treat them as nicotine delivery devices.. jesus

LOL very good point.

 

[borjis]

"These e-cigs do not deliver nicotine," Eissenberg said


Oh really?

I triple-dog dare you to load a Janty E-GO with Grape HIGH
liquid, take 10 puffs and tell me your not feeling nicotine.