FDA Game changer? - "Relax ... it's a ___ NJOY!" (NJOY to make a non-cigAlike/advanced system with a tank?)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nate760

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 11, 2014
1,301
4,541
San Marcos, CA, USA
Hey Nate well said..it's all about whatever works right?

Yes, and it frankly makes me cringe when I see longtime vapers (who in many cases have become snooty elitists without realizing it) talking down to newer vapers and treating them like idiots because of their choice of hardware. Becoming an ex-smoker is the only thing that matters. If you're able to do it with nicotine gum, awesome. If you're able to do it with patches or lozenges or inhalers or nasal sprays, awesome. If you're able to do it by going cold turkey, awesome. If you're able to do it with disposable cigalikes, awesome.

It bothers me, quite a lot, when I see vapers acting condescendingly toward other vapers based on their choice of product. This is reprehensible behavior. We're supposed to all be in this together.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
Last edited:

nomore stinkies

Gee, Who did that?
ECF Veteran
Feb 23, 2014
349
696
IL
I love it. " but boss people may not like something that looks like a cigarette" did you ever think we smoked cigarettes cause it was the nicotine not the "cool" factor?

Have you read Discover magazine from March 13 "Nicotine, the Wonder Drug" or the Tampa Bay Times from Wed. April16, 2014 "Study finds nicotine Safe, helps in Alzhemers, Parkinson's"? What we are really addicted to is nicotine-nornicotine-cotinine-myosmine-acetaldehyde and who knows what else. I read another study that gave rats the above chemicals and nicotine alone. Guess what pile they went to? Nope not the lonely nicotine. Turning out that nicotine isn't so dangerous after all.. Love the CASAA blog. I pray my typos are limited.
 

Sirius

Star Puppy
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 19, 2013
18,632
76,259
North Carolina
Yes, and it frankly makes me cringe when I see longtime vapers (who in many cases have become snooty elitists without realizing it) talking down to newer vapers and treating them like idiots because of their choice of hardware. Becoming an ex-smoker is the only thing that matters. If you're able to do it with nicotine gum, awesome. If you're able to do it with patches or lozenges or inhalers or nasal sprays, awesome. If you're able to do it by going cold turkey, awesome. If you're able to do it with disposable cigalikes, awesome.

It bothers me, quite a lot, when I see vapers acting condescendingly toward other vapers based on their choice of product. This is reprehensible behavior. We're supposed to all be in this together.
Exactly right! :thumb:
Cheers buddy! :toast:
 

Nate760

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 11, 2014
1,301
4,541
San Marcos, CA, USA
Have you read Discover magazine from March 13 "Nicotine, the Wonder Drug" or the Tampa Bay Times from Wed. April16, 2014 "Study finds nicotine Safe, helps in Alzhemers, Parkinson's"? What we are really addicted to is nicotine-nornicotine-cotinine-myosmine-acetaldehyde and who knows what else. I read another study that gave rats the above chemicals and nicotine alone. Guess what pile they went to? Nope not the lonely nicotine. Turning out that nicotine isn't so dangerous after all.. Love the CASAA blog. I pray my typos are limited.

It was scientific laziness among tobacco control researchers that resulted in the present climate where "smoking" and "nicotine" are used as though they're synonymous, interchangeable terms. Instead of actually doing their research and figuring out exactly how the cigarette companies have engineered and manipulated their tobacco in order to make it optimally dependence-inducing, they just threw up their hands and decided to blame it all on nicotine. This resulted in countless numbers of people dying needlessly, since smoking cessation technology focused exclusively on nicotine replacement and, as we well know, produced products that fail 95% of the time. Even today, in the middle of the second decade of the 21st century, with cigarettes having been under the purview of the FDA for the past five years, the mechanisms involved in cigarette addiction aren't any more well-understood than they were 40 years ago, and this is absolutely shameful.
 

tombaker

Moved On
Oct 21, 2013
323
228
Heck, I quit smoking with V4L's tres elegant King Diamond and Titan cigalikes, and didn't even venture out into ego-size and refillable tanks until I'd been vaping for nearly a year and a half!

NO ONE should look down on ANYONE for their vape gear of choice -- not even on those poor deluded Provari owners! :laugh: (j/k)

I should think that any vaper would agree.
Even if a clique tried products years back, has moved on away from traditional vaping into AdvancedPV land.....discounting the current state of Vaping with 808D thread with compact batteries, is being done without the benefit of understand the new offerings in this group. Lack of information, is the lack of experience.

Top Coil clearomizers
Refillable by design cartomizers from the vendors, not a site that is found elsewhere.
E-Liquid optimized for specific devices and wattage.
Hybrid Clearo-Cartomizers with active sensors for coil performance, all liquid, no polyfill, and tank window.

I completely disagree with the premise that E-Cig Vaping is so vastly different than APV vaping, that there is a demonstrable lack of success with E-Cigs. And that has been what has been specifically said. That most people quit smoking with APV, and E-Cigs are just a product for dual usage. That is just wrong to assert, because its wrong on the facts.

Do many many people quit smoking with E-Cigs as their only Vape----People do.

Proving that E-Cigs are some sort of always perfect cessation device, is not the task of the FDA under the 2009 Act. The measure is is public health benefited by their usage. Anyone not confident that the science, the data, the actual product itself, won't prove that the public is not benefited by having E-Cigs on the market.....I just don't see how that should be looked at with any credibility. Some things we know, and should agree on.....E-Cigs are good for public health. Some here are making arguments that E-Cig safety is unknown, and unknowable without vast vast amounts new research....its just not the case. MSDS's have been generated for every item within E-Cigs. Those include safety standards and toxicology or each. Nicotine as a pure inhalant is understood, and has prior approve as a unique product. People can not just simply misquote various unknown speculators, and then take those speculation to the next level, but making assumptions of personality based science. Contaminants and specific hazardous flavorings... if there are companies Still doing that, its as easy as fixing as a batch of E-Coil lettace that needs to be tossed away, easy to control those things, should those things be feared as if E-Cig can not pass those tests of Safety? AEMSA members would not.

The E-Cig regulations are NOT like a new drug approval, data from multiple countries peer reviewed studies can be utilized by the FDA without regenerating them. Applications are going to be public record, the means of mixing, and methods brewing will be proprietary, but the end constituants will be listed. The naivety of those that think that each and every application will need to be reconstructed uniquely and with new study data.....is astounding. It an evaluation as if E-Liquid is a piece part industry in general manufacturing, which is not comparable to the process industry it is.

To hear poster with a avatar of Mel Brooks TV comedic buffoon, who falls and stumbles somehow into a lucky result, indicating that the FDA has on the merits a strong argument against E-Cigs as safe device, and/or an E-Cig increases cigarette consumption, is an true oddity. That these erroneous conclusions are being tossed around as some sort of "we think" "all of us" "every credible opinion is" is sad. Sad because error is error, and its error to conclude actions no allowable by law, will just be subverted without easy court intervention.

So much of the claims are the FDA will just do this, because they want to. As if the courts would not stop them. Sure you can pretend that the product being ruled against harmed, but in actuality they will be left on the market, until the disposition is completed. And the FDA made that clear in the deeming.

The Deeming has criteria to assess harm for E-Cigs.
1. Safety compared to Analogs. Better or Worse
2. Does the E-Cig replace Analogs (this would include decreasing analogs) This is a category they want, its a positive.
3. Does E-Cigs increase usage of Analogs. Do they complement each other, do more E-Cig sales mean more Cig sales, or on a per user basis. We already have good data on this.
Last is if E-Cigs are wholy not related to Analogs. This item should not trigger, fine if it does.


You can not just make up and pretend the criteria of the "regulatory science" does not have a definition described in the deeming to generate approval. You can just say oooooohhhh XYZ, just are gonna do it to us again. Okay you can, but its not reality. Look at the hearing with Harkin, his aid had to explain it to him.....he was wrong, he shut up after a long silence.

The barn door is open, the horses long gone, toothpaste out of the tube, E-Cigs are not on a pathway to Prohibition, and in that fantasy world, they would have the same success as they have had with Analogs.

I don't know why some many vapers question the safety of vaping to the degree they are not convinced themselves, and think that bogus studies can stand up to peer review.
 

tombaker

Moved On
Oct 21, 2013
323
228
I have no love whatsoever for NJoy.

However . . . . I kind of do like the acronym "VTM" for my vapory toys. :D (Much better than "PVs.")
What is wrong with Sottera (NJOY)?

Just another manufacturer today

But historically they are most important one ever in the vaping industry in the USA. I am going to say undisputedly the most important also, because I would like to see someone dispute it. The actual device was around in 1965 patents, then came Ruyan, important yes, but I did say to the USA....please, how is that wrong to recognize????

Without NJOY spending the money and resources in their fledgling corporate history to fight off and Win against the classification of E-Cigs as medical devices, where would all of Vaping be today???????? Don't take that as rhetorical, please actually answer it.

trip up at the start.....the Deeming states the flavors are not a criteria for regulation, its outside of deeming and would need a new law by Congress....and that has been known in the Vaping community for years and talked about....flavors are for E-Cig not part of deeming

What is this hate of NJOY?
 
Last edited:

tombaker

Moved On
Oct 21, 2013
323
228
Tom, I'm going to try to explain this one more time. Just once, because I think it's an important issue.

Now if we have a group of 1,000 smokers in a study who do not use vaping at any point, then on average about 50 of them will quit every year.
I don't think you do. Support your first premise.
1. How long has the group of smokers....smoked
2. Have they tried to quit before
3. What level of consumption do they smoke. social, pack a day....chain smokers
4. Do they have medical histories requiring them to quit.
5. Do they have cancer now, or did they have cancer before, fought it, won, and are smoking again
6. Without assessing the homogeneity of the 1000, just how do you figure 50 quit.
7. Have they ever used vaping before.
8. If they start vaping on their own, and of course the study would not and will not stop them, how do you keep statistical significance when the number of study participants drop below the levels.
Sounds kinda really fake, but somehow you think you got it.

Compare those to a group of 1,000 users of a particular brand of cigAlike. Now some of these people will switch brands, or go back to 100% smoking by the end of the longitudinal study. (There are obviously going to be problems with these kinds of longitudinal studies, but there are ways to resolve them. I'm not going to get into the picky details here.)
1. Why would you assert a brand?
2. If Changing a brand makes the participant "out" of the study population, how would you think the study would fair?
3. Its not nitpicking, you are describing a study that can not complete itself, so just how is that resolved. Otherwise you are taking about theory not expected to actually work.

But let's just assume that fewer than 50 of this group of cigAlike users end up either completely quitting smoking, or had already quit smoking at the beginning of the study, and continued to not smoke. (In other words, fewer than 50 end up as nonsmokers, regardless of how they started out, one year earlier.)

1. I think that assuming that out of 1000 people who start using E-Cigs, that only 50 stay with the product, does not jive with what the exponentail growth of the industry is implying.....but hey, if you think E-Cigs are so darn unattractive to people that think they need to give them a try.....I guess I will have to continue to listen.
2. Umm if they quit smoking before the study, they would not be smokers, and not within the 1000. So I think you need to remove that error.
3. You are already outside of the definition of a Longitudinal Study, which means only observing of multiple years. One year is way too short.
4. Completely quitting does not account for that the deeming recognizes reduced consumption of analog cigarettes as a goal of the benefit to public health criteria which is what your "study" is assessing.

At that point, the FDA can step in and say that the health effects are - on balance - negative. I.e. that the cigAlike use was associated with less quitting.
LOL, oh wait, you were serious.
1. How do they exactly step in?
2. How do you figure that the normal rate of quitting.
3. If a person is attempting to quit, and they try to use E-Cigs, and then don't use E-Cigs, but then quit anyway say with the patch, are they in or out, how do you count that?
4. Got an example of a study done like this before, is is this your new novel design. Perhaps a peered reviewed corollary you can site?
5. Is the study blinded?
6. If not blinded how do the results come in?
7. Is it entirely self reporting
8. How do you discount self reporting errors.
9. How are you paying these study specimens.
10. How do you deal with the normal, quit, try, fail, quit again, mode that most smokers understand.
11. Why is one year significant, is there a basis of using 1 year, that relates to any know norm of attempting to quit, studies?

This is what many folks believe about cigAlike users. Fewer of them are likely to quit - for whatever reason. I believe it, too (at least right now I do). We do not yet have any solid evidence for it, as SJ correctly observed.

I don't think anyone thinks that, especially because you have described a unicorn and pointing thin air as to its proof. Even under you theory of 2 tiers of Vaping, one effective for quiting smoking the other not, you have no way to solve the continum between the start of the E-Cig going to APV. I think only a few, very few, think that E-Cigs are not Vaping. So if you have a person who begins "your study" and with E-Cig Vaping, and moves on to APV, but still uses there E-Cig on occasion.....how do they fit into this all? Toss them out of the 1000 or keep them in?

But if something like the above scenario can be demonstrated for a particular type of cigAlike (or any vaping product), then the FDA can "legitimately" decline the application for this product.

1.Yes and if I can tame a tame a unicorn, and perhaps befriend it so I can put him into shows, I will make billions of dollars. Nothing like you above "study" has been done, and it does not fit the criteria of a study design that would be approved, because it would never finish to completion. You see when they design a study, they do it to withstand peer review. Yours is just gobbly gunk.
2. If E-Cigs are not more harmful than Cigarettes (they are not), and E-Cigs do not increase the consumption of Cigarettes, again do not increase the consumption of cigarettes...the deeming documents say that specifically E-Cigs pass the criteria of being in the public health to approve.
3. Beyond being in the deeming, it actually makes simple sense. duh. And yes reducing Analog usage, counts for the GOOD. Its not a wash.

What if the cigAlike users have reduced their tobacco cigarette smoking? Currently, the consensus in the US public health community is that permanently reducing the rate of smoking provides negligible benefits to the smoker - c.f. this blog by Siegel: Anti-Smoking Advocate Incorrectly and Irresponsibly Tells Public that Smoking Half Pack Per Day is No Better than Smoking Two Packs Per Day
1. I know you just said that the consensus of the US doctors and such don't think that cutting down Analogs is a benefit, but I am going to say that is wrong, foolish, still wrong, not supported by science.
2. Oh wait, the next article you link up to says the same. Self contradicting, oh your are a sly one Lafayette
3. So we agree you already discredited yourself the rational for this point.....onward then?

(Some of you may recall that they used to have TV ads which said "If you can't quit, at least try to cut down." No more.)
Well yes perhaps, I also remember The Lucy Show used to be on much more than now, but I am pretty sure everyone still like that show just the same......perhaps the funding of that campaign ran out.....unrelated to your theory.....mayyybe it might be that?

Now the relative health effects of reduced smoking versus cessation are presumably going to be hotly disputed in any litigation that arises as a result of this scenario playing out.
1. How did we get into the courts, what happened to the FDA, its like everybody just beamed out of the planet and are back on the ship. How does that work in this world?
2. Nobody is going to be disputing that less smoking is better. Nobody is going to dispute that Zero Analogs is better than reduced?
3. No disputes, how does this get into court again???


But even Siegel concedes that the mortality rates from reduced tobacco cigarette smoking and unchanged tobacco cigarette smoking are similar. In other words, there appears to be no longevity benefit from merely cutting down. Smokers must quit completely to live longer, on average.
1. Mortality rates? Everybody is dying, what criteria for the rate? If a person never smokes and dies at 30, another smokes and dies at 70, and an E-Cig user has not yet died.....what's the math on that? Pseudo science survey BS pretty much.
2. Mortality is a crazy thing, very hard to prove, especially if a one time smoker never reports, or a past smoker lies.
3. Nothing in the FDA is talking about longevity, its not even a strawman, it can not even hold itself up.
4. The clinical and provable data will show, that reduced smoke, means less smoke, and less smoke in the tissues. Less smoke causes less smoke related problems.....or do you not agree with that?

What's critical for us to understand is how the health effects equation works in the statute.
Oh thank you....let me sort all this out. I agree


This is what Zeller was saying in his now-famous remark in the hearings (well, it's become "famous" around here at ECF, in this forum, anyway :)
Ohhh foreshadowing, I am in suspense......what is coming next......

If everyone quit smoking and switched to vaping, that would obviously be a "win" for vaping-as-a-whole in terms of the standards that congress set up in the tobacco act (FSPTCA).
Famous? hmpt, was expecting more drama.......
1. I agree with Zeller. I think that is right If everyone did, it is unquestionable, and nobody can say otherwise, it GOOD.
2. I think we got some agreement here.....whats next in the infamous quote?

This would also be a "win" for any particular product that a manufacturer submitted an application for. The FDA would have to approve the application - or at least not turn it down, based on the weighing of the health effects that it's required to perform under the law.

1. Okay I am honestly confused.....you got a problem with what he just said? Are you joking? Seriously I just got down part, I though you might have something...a winy tiny something? Dude
2. So the FDA guy, just said in the perfect world where no variance there, that HE the FDA guy, would have ZERO authority to prevent the product from coming to the market. That he would be essentially, under the statute in that perfect world, have no choice at all but to approve the product, because that was the will of Congress.
3. Ummm that is what he said.
4. The world is not perfect. But essentially you have to assess that everything we understand about the safety of E-Cigs today, and everything we understand about the ablity of E-Cigs to help people to stop smoke is untrue.
5. Back to 4....you have to think Vaping is not safe, and does not help stop smoking.
6. Goto 5.....let it loop
7. Since we know that E-Cigs are safe, and do help, there also is no science based reason to not let them on, if we need science, we get Blu to put up the cash....there science is in.
8. Lafayette your entire theory is premised that the FDA will contradict the law, and ignore what Zeller just said, and that safety of E-Cigs is not able to be established, and all the many people who have used E-Cigs to quit, are liars or something.
9. FDA Zeller says if they are safe, and they are Helping, he will have to approve. It would be unethical science to not approve a product that is safe and helping.....the perfect world analogy was supposed to give a direction.
10. Lafayette, you have taken a gesture of good faith, and said because the perfect world in his "metaphor" example, does not exist. It is just said for a basis of understanding
11. Compared to the perfect world, the safety of the E-Cigs is pretty darn close.
12. I think we can clearly show that people are quiting.....100% No.....but a very nice large chunk who have quit.
13. So E-Cigs under Zeller's view and the Deeming are solidly in the Good category. No way to see other wise.....expecially not when you read the Deeming.

The criteria of health safety benefit is defined....you seem to not understand this.

On a level field E-Cigs per Zeller come in....you got to have Stanton Glantz theories of fine particulate water in the air, for bad effects.....they are working on it....they got currently zippo

And yes, it's "legitimate" for the FDA to follow the law and follow the science. We might not like the law. But that's neither here nor there, until we mount an effort to get it changed.
blabidy what?


Do you understand the character of your Avatar in the Mel Brooks series? Any sense at all....of irony?
 
Last edited:

Sirius

Star Puppy
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 19, 2013
18,632
76,259
North Carolina
The rest of you message got truncated or something, please repost

Roger the vaper? lol

12. I think we can clearly show that people are quiting.....100% No.....but a very nice large chunk who have quit.

Yesterday on The Five..Gutfield said 80% that have used e-cigs to quit smoking were sucessful in doing so. Idk where he got that information, but being a journalist I'm sure he researched that.
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2014
1,039
2,370
Moved On
This blog may provide some hints about where the FDA may go, in reviewing the scientific evidence supporting applications for a particular vaping device. It's Glantz's response to the West data:

http://www.
tobacco.ucsf.edu/e-cigs-can-increase-odds-smokers-using-them-quit-while-still-having-overall-negative-effect-populati

(You can paste the entire two-line link into your browser.)

Looks to me as if the key argument Glantz is making is that the cessation rates of ever-users are what's relevant:

This is different than looking at the effects of ecig use on quitting among all ecig users, as the studies that we reviewed in our recent paper in Circulation did. This is an important distinction because all the studies so far of all smokers and ecigs show about 1/3 lower quitting among ecig users.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/
129/19/1972.full

(Is the review of 84 papgers in Circulation that Glantz was citing. It presents no new data.)

So this is how the battle may be joined over the numbers - cessation rates among smokers who want to quit, versus among all (or probably ever-) users.

Some of us might argue that NRT should be subject to the same standard - namely, we should be asking what the quit rates are among those people who decided to casually pick up some nicorette? Presumably the ANTZ will argue that a therapy declared to be "safe and effective" can't be compared to a recreational product.

***

Insofar as this relates to specific vaping devices, cigAlikes are at an unfair disadvantage so far - in the sense that they are much less expensive and much more widely available, so the chances that someone who isn't necessarily all that serious about quitting will be trying a cigAlike are much greater than the chances that they'll try a more expensive "VTM" (advanced system). Not to mention the fact that advanced systems aren't advertised, so many smokers don't even know that they exist.

Note the word unfair in that paragraph. What I mean is that our anectdotal perceptions about cigAlikes may be affected by the context in which cigAlikes are most often tried. And the studies cited by Glantz in that review are mostly of "ever-users," most of whom I suspect are people who might have done no more than casually vaped on a friend's PV, or decided to drop $10 at a convenience store, just to find out what all the fuss was about.

***

I wonder about a couple of things:

1) If a more expensive advanced device (tank system) was offered, would properly done longitudinal population studies be consistent with the hypothesis that the cessation rates among users are higher than less expensive and more widely-advertised and widely-available cigAlikes? Even if we followed Glantz's advice to include ever- users? My conjecture is that the advanced systems woudl probably do better, and not necessarily because (as many of us believe) they're inherently more effective at cessation. Advanced systems might beat cigalikes in cessation rates in part becase the sorts of smokers who end up purchasing them are more committed to quitting, on average.

2) If we were to compare NRT methods to each other, might the same dynamic play out between nicotine inhalers (which are only available by prescription) versus any other OTC method, especially the much less expensive and both widely-available as well as widely-advertised gum?

***

What Glantz says here is very revealing IMO:

In addition, it would be worth publishing the results of the comparison of ecigs with NRT plus counseling as well as with the other forms of FDA approved cessation therapies. While the comparison in the paper is informative, one normally compares treatments with best practices. This is also something he could easily run with the data at hand.

So if I'm reading this correctly - what Glantz wants to do is to compare quit rates among all ever-vapers with the quit rates of smokers who are participating in what I might refer to as the "full Monty" of "best practices" (including counseling).

There's the same problem in Glantz's recommendation as in using population studies that compare advanced systems to cigalikes, right? Or even poulation studies that might compare gum and nic inhalers. We may be biasing the results by selecting people who may be much more committed to quiting in one group, versus another - based on the level of commitment associated with the method.

I italicized the phrase population studies, because a controlled study would not have that selection bias. On the other hand, population studies have many advantages that controlled studies do not.

Although as far as I can tell, the language and legislative background of the FSPTCA appears to reflect a preference for population over controlled studies, and the "tea leaves" that are currenty available would seem to suggest that this is also where the CTP likely to go.
 
Last edited:

Sirius

Star Puppy
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 19, 2013
18,632
76,259
North Carolina
Here is one I had read and found to post. It's the Italian study:E-cigarettes may help people quit smoking regular cigarettes: study - NY Daily News

In a trial of e-cigarettes among Italian smokers with no desire to quit using tobacco at the outset, up to 13 percent of participants were not smoking regular cigarettes at all a year later.
Though the study was not billed as a smoking-cessation test, more than half of participants cut down on tobacco soon after they started using the e-cigarettes. And the percentage who quit smoking entirely by the end rivals results achieved with medications, the authors note in the journal PLOS ONE.
"I think the main message of the study is that we can use these products as an extraordinary tobacco control tool," Dr. Riccardo Polosa, the new study's senior author from the University of Catania, told Reuters Health.
"This really is the first clinical trial that's ever been reported on electronic cigarettes. There has been survey evidence and anecdotal reports, but this is the first serious study," said Dr. Michael Siegel, who studies e-cigarettes but wasn't involved in the new research.
 

Sirius

Star Puppy
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 19, 2013
18,632
76,259
North Carolina
Although as far as I can tell, the language and legislative background of the FSPTCA appears to reflect a preference for population over controlled studies, and the "tea leaves" that are currenty available would seem to suggest that this is also where the CTP likely to go.


I say let them do it..They can start right here at ECF! :D
 

Nate760

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 11, 2014
1,301
4,541
San Marcos, CA, USA
I wonder about a couple of things:

1) If a more expensive advanced device (tank system) was offered, would properly done longitudinal population studies be consistent with the hypothesis that the cessation rates among users are higher than less expensive and more widely-advertised and widely-available cigAlikes? Even if we followed Glantz's advice to include ever- users? My conjecture is that the advanced systems woudl probably do better, and not necessarily because (as many of us believe) they're inherently more effective at cessation. Advanced systems might beat cigalikes in cessation rates in part becase the sorts of smokers who end up purchasing them are more committed to quitting, on average.

Not for the first time, you're basing your entire premise on an unfounded (and thus intrinsically flawed) assumption, e.g. that every vaper either 1) uses cigalikes only, or 2) uses APVs only, and that there's no overlap between the two groups. As one who uses both on a daily basis, I and everyone like me (and I can't imagine I'm an isolated case) would be useless for the purposes of such a study.

You're desperately trying to create a false distinction where no distinction needs to be made, and it's beyond me what you think the point is of doing so.
 

Sirius

Star Puppy
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 19, 2013
18,632
76,259
North Carolina
Not for the first time, you're basing your entire premise on an unfounded (and thus intrinsically flawed) assumption, e.g. that every vaper either 1) uses cigalikes only, or 2) uses APVs only, and that there's no overlap between the two groups. As one who uses both on a daily basis, I and everyone like me (and I can't imagine I'm an isolated case) would be useless for the purposes of such a study.

You're desperately trying to create a false distinction where no distinction needs to be made, and it's beyond me what you think the point is of doing so.

Nate -- You're not..I have 3 personal friends that use both Blu and eGos. Have been for several months. They're happy with those ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread