From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
I'd like to point out, as well, that for months we have been dealing with the fact that ecigs are unproven for safety, the FDA accuses them of being carcinogenic and full of poison and that is why they want them banned until tested. So the first U.S.-based study researches....nicotine delivery?? Who cares about the nictoine delivery and effectiveness when they still haven't been deemed "safe?"

Just makes no sense - unless you really think about who would gain from them being shown as "ineffective"....
 

Nikhil

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Jan 29, 2010
1,293
283
38
Louisville, KY
That's a good point kristin, but if I were to conduct a safety test it wouldn't be very effective. After the FDA found trace amounts of chemicals that aren't harmful at that level then blew it out of proportion, testing 1000 other cartridges and finding them safe won't stop the public scare. It would be conclusive scientifically but it would likely get no media attention. I would much rather test for safety than effectiveness, but I think it wouldn't serve any purpose.
 

miss MiA

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Nov 12, 2009
972
0
Chicago, IL
That's a good point kristin, but if I were to conduct a safety test it wouldn't be very effective. After the FDA found trace amounts of chemicals that aren't harmful at that level then blew it out of proportion, testing 1000 other cartridges and finding them safe won't stop the public scare. It would be conclusive scientifically but it would likely get no media attention. I would much rather test for safety than effectiveness, but I think it wouldn't serve any purpose.

I don't agree at all that the above is sound reason not to test safety.

The FDA currently has led the majority to think that ecigs are unsafe, so now it's best to leave that alone and demonstrate that at least they are effective while being unsafe?

Why would the (effectiveness) study you instead propose get media attention if even one showing safety despite FDA propaganda wouldn't?
 

anim8r

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 11, 2009
471
9
DC
That's a good point kristin, but if I were to conduct a safety test it wouldn't be very effective. After the FDA found trace amounts of chemicals that aren't harmful at that level then blew it out of proportion, testing 1000 other cartridges and finding them safe won't stop the public scare. It would be conclusive scientifically but it would likely get no media attention. I would much rather test for safety than effectiveness, but I think it wouldn't serve any purpose.

Yeah, almost makes me want everyone to just STOP testing, since healthier and cheaper alternatives (without lobbyist' support) seem to be attracting everyone but those with a sincere interest in people's health.

You would think researchers, the FDA, and public health organizations would start with the assumption that cigarette smoking is very deadly (duh) and have high hopes for any NRT that has gotten a million people off of them.

Sure, look for hazards, but they should keep it in perspective. You know, compare it to the thing it's replacing--a very deadly habit. It begs the question, would they rather people continue smoking cigarettes, a known killer?

My real beef is that most of the news stories, speculations, and outright fabrications (which are wrapped up for the public) seem to end up with real cigarettes being the product of choice :confused:

Even if they say there are other NRTs or smoking cessation products, they are promoting products that have horrible success rates... which in the end equates to people returning to their habit of smoking real cigarettes. Again, cigarettes win.

I think the biggest issues the gov't and other organizations have is that; the e-cig is the people's NRT, it gives you a HUGE variety of choice, Allows you to customize your own treatment (or self dose--oh the horror that people handle some things all by themselves) and (probably the thing that pisses off most of them), people seem to be having fun without rules and without paying taxes.
 
Last edited:

miss MiA

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Nov 12, 2009
972
0
Chicago, IL
...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.

Maybe this has already been said many times on this thread but, shouldn't the appropriate standard given the context of smoking alternative be whether this product is safER/less harmful than traditional cigarettes (which it may well be by orders of magnitude); not whether it is 100% safe in and of itself...
 

Nikhil

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Jan 29, 2010
1,293
283
38
Louisville, KY
The FDA currently has led the majority to think that ecigs are unsafe, so now it's best to leave that alone and demonstrate that at least they are effective while being unsafe?

Why would the (effectiveness) study you instead propose get media attention if even one showing safety despite FDA propaganda wouldn't?

The media likes both sensational news and revolutionary products, so the FDA finding a new product is potentially hazardous gets a lot of attention. When Nicorette gum was first introduced, it got attention because it was revolutionary.

A study that shows electronic cigarettes are safe will be overridden by the FDA's findings that it might be dangerous because it's more sensational. A study that finds it to be effective as a replacement for cigarettes will show that it's a revolutionary product, and it's fairly simple for a poll to show that people who switch are more likely to stop smoking analogs than those that use other quitting methods.

Of course, this is just theory. If I can test for safety as well, I'd definitely do it. In reality, it depends on what kind of test will get more funding, and I don't know the answer to that yet.
 

Belletrist

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 21, 2009
2,756
1
Virginia
A study that shows electronic cigarettes are safe will be overridden by the FDA's findings that it might be dangerous because it's more sensational. A study that finds it to be effective as a replacement for cigarettes will show that it's a revolutionary product, and it's fairly simple for a poll to show that people who switch are more likely to stop smoking analogs than those that use other quitting methods.

Of course, this is just theory. If I can test for safety as well, I'd definitely do it. In reality, it depends on what kind of test will get more funding, and I don't know the answer to that yet.

+1, X1000. :thumbs:
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
If I can test for safety as well, I'd definitely do it. In reality, it depends on what kind of test will get more funding, and I don't know the answer to that yet.

No reason why markers of safety can't be built right in. Measure exhaled CO (which Dr. Laugesen has already done, so replicate his findings -- that's what science is all about). Also you can measure the levels of nitrosamines. Of course, measure blood pressure and perhaps even fasting glucose and Cholesterol. Oh, and weight.

I would recommend first measuring these while the user is still smoking nothing but tobacco cigarettes so that you have a baseline, and then periodically throughout the study, noting at the time of measurement the daily # of cigarettes smoked. Look for a correlation between improvements in these markers with drops in # of cigarettes smoked.
 

Gilliz

Full Member
Jan 12, 2010
48
1
Midwest
"They are as effective at nicotine delivery as puffing on an unlit cigarette," said Dr. Thomas Eissenberg, at the school's Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies.

Alot of us have not smoked an analog since we started vaping. We have tried every kind of NIC replacement out there and none have sufficed like PV's do. Where exactly are we getting our Nic fix from then? Want to test my blood? Shame on all of us for letting these companies pull the wool over our eyes and sell us NO NIC juice:rolleyes:.

Ridiculous to ruin ones reputation over such a fallacious statement.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
The article posted above by mpetva is an example of a secondhand news story of Eissenberg's claims to the news media (and I expect similar statements to be repeated in many more news stories on e-cigarettes in the future) unless/until Eissenberg issues corrections/clarifications on his study, his press release and his other statements to the news media.

"But yesterday, CNN reported on a new academic study from Virginia Commonwealth University that found electronic cigarettes deliver little to no nicotine when users' inhale."

If I ever made a claim to the news media which I subsequently found out was grossly inaccurate and could have a huge negative impact on public health, I would have an ethical duty to go to great lengths to correct and clarify the matter.
 

laurieok

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 3, 2009
1,147
11
73
Ohio
If I ever made a claim to the news media which I subsequently found out was grossly inaccurate and could have a huge negative impact on public health, I would have an ethical duty to go to great lengths to correct and clarify the matter.

EXACTLY! Is he or isn't he???? Ethical that is. IMHO Dr. E speaks with forked tongue.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Belletrist wrote:

"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."

Since Eissenberg intentionally created the media circus (and a scientific circus), it is his ethical duty to at least try to clarify/correct the misinformation he spread and the confusion he has manufactured.

Eissenberg is presenting an abstract of his study at the SRNT conference (at a poster session) this week in Baltimore (sponsored by GSK, Pfizer, NIH, and ALF) that will be attended by 300-400 nicotine/tobacco researchers, most of whom are funded by drug companies, NIH and/or ALF.

Eissenberg's abstract is on page 115 of the SRNT program at:
http://www.srnt.org/meeting/2010/pdf/2010_Program.pdf

It repeats the same statements in his study and his statements to the news media (which contradict statements he's subsequently posted on this forum).
 

anim8r

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 11, 2009
471
9
DC
The article posted above by mpetva is an example of a secondhand news story of Eissenberg's claims to the news media (and I expect similar statements to be repeated in many more news stories on e-cigarettes in the future) unless/until Eissenberg issues corrections/clarifications on his study, his press release and his other statements to the news media.

"But yesterday, CNN reported on a new academic study from Virginia Commonwealth University that found electronic cigarettes deliver little to no nicotine when users' inhale."

If I ever made a claim to the news media which I subsequently found out was grossly inaccurate and could have a huge negative impact on public health, I would have an ethical duty to go to great lengths to correct and clarify the matter.

Absolutely agree!

One could only hope he is taking the time necessary to frame a response to his study (in light of his contradictory personal experience) that won't discredit him or VSU, and at the same time, dispell some of his questionable "findings" and fallacious remarks.
 

Mister

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 3, 2009
523
27
Nanaimo BC Canada
The SRNT program Bill referenced at http://www.srnt.org/meeting/2010/pdf/2010_Program.pdf shows one Symposium and four Poster Sessions involving e-cigs.

The descriptions would be rather long to copy here. To read them go to the above link and search for the label at the left of each of the following:

SYM3C "ELECTRONIC NICOTINE DELIVERY SYSTEMS ("ENDS") IN THE USA: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY"

POS1-15 "INTERNET-BASED INVESTIGATION OF E-CIGARETTE ABUSE POTENTIAL"

POS3-3 "“E-CIGS” ARE ELECTRONIC NICOTINE DELIVERY SYSTEMS (ENDS): CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND POLICY BY THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION TOBACCO REGULATION (WHO TOBREG) STUDY GROUP"

POS4-45 "ACUTE EFFECTS OF "ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES"" (you know what this one's about)

POS4-65 "EFFECT OF SINGLE USE OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE (E-CIGARETTE) ON SMOKING TOPOGRAPHY AMONG REGULAR SMOKERS"

All but POS4-65 seem slanted to me. Some extremely so, sigh.

A quote from the POS1-15 description of particular interest to all of us: "User postings on forums enable us to get a snapshot of the type of consumer-driven abuse that is currently taking place with the e-cigarettes."

The overall picture is rather disturbing.
 

curiousJan

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 20, 2009
887
696
Central IL
...snip...

POS1-15 "INTERNET-BASED INVESTIGATION OF E-CIGARETTE ABUSE POTENTIAL"

...snip...

A quote from the POS1-15 description of particular interest to all of us: "User postings on forums enable us to get a snapshot of the type of consumer-driven abuse that is currently taking place with the e-cigarettes."

The overall picture is rather disturbing.

Can I nominate this for understatement of the year?

Jan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread