Has this been responded to??

[PaulB]

The Truth About E-Cigarettes | TermLifeInsurance .org

Ran into the above in a search for e-cigarette friendly life insurers...

 

[dee5]

Just did:

Trust me, I tried not to "lose my sense of humor" while reading this collection of lies strung together to look like an authoritative, informative scientific article, but it was hard. Where should I start? Oh, how about at the very beginning!
1. "Electronic cigarettes are smoking devices"
No, they are personal vaporizers that produce vapor, not smoke.
2. "The air flow triggers a sensor that switches on the atomizer"
If you are using a manual battery then the personal vaporizer turns on at the
touch of a button. Some automatic batteries are engaged by air flow, some by
sound.
3. "The puff of hot gas reaches the lungs"
Vapor from an e-cig is not "hot", at most (if using a big battery mod) the vapor
will be slightly warm. And it is vapor, not gas. Most e-cig users do not inhale
all the way into their lungs as it is not necessary. Most of the nicotine (if
you are using a liquid that contains it) will be absorbed in your mouth and
throat.
4. "One cartridge equals 25 cigarettes"
One standard cartridge will actually equal only 3-4 regular cigarettes before
needing to be refilled.
The "claimed advantages" you listed are ACTUAL advantages and are far from ALL of the advantages that one enjoys when switching to this life saving alternative to smoking.
5. "The user inhales synthetic nicotine without inhaling any tar"
Or any of the other 4000 ingredients that can be found in regular cigarettes.
6. "They may be used in a smoke-free environment"
Well, that would be nice, but is not necessarily true! Some places of business
do not allow the use of electronic cigarettes.
7. "They reduce the amount of second hand smoke problems"
Since they don't produce smoke, it would be more accurate to say "They ELIMINATE
second hand smoke problems".
8. "No clinical studies" and "might be just as harmful as real cigarettes".
Wrong and wrong. There have been several clinical studies on the liquid and the
vapor produced and (are you kidding me!!??) NO alternative methods of enjoying
the benefits of nicotine (yes, benefits) could possibly be as harmful as smoking.
9. "The product still needs approval by the FDA as a smoking cessation device"
The FDA was recently smacked down by Judge Richard Leon in a ruling saying that
they CANNOT be regulated as a drug delivery device. This was a blatant bid by the
FDA to gain control over and ban electronic cigarettes to protect the interests
of Big Tobacco and Big Pharmaceutical companies that help fund the FDA.
10. "Intended use, ingredients and components have been refused by the FDA for lack
of evidence"
Besides the fact that this sentence barely makes sense, what are you really
trying to say? Lets break it down: It's intended use is as a recreational
nicotine vaporizer----that has been "refused" by the FDA? Odd choice of words
but it doesn't matter. Thousand of objects intended for one use are "repurposed"
all the time- chewing gum is meant to be chewed for enjoyment, if I use it to
stick a poster to the wall instead, is the FDA going to fine me? Ingredients
been refused? Hardly! Every ingredient in electronic cigarette liquid has
already been approved by the FDA! Components have been refused? What, batteries
and vaporizers? Somebody better tell Duracell and Sunbeam then!
11. "Nicotine after all is still a drug"
Saying something is a drug is supposed to be evil I suppose. Aspirin is, after
all, still a drug. So is caffeine. So scary!
12. "Doctors say that using e-cigarettes is just substituting one dangerous vice
for another"
What doctors say this? Could we have some quotes please? From REAL doctors? My
Dr is thrilled that I use an electronic cigarette, most Dr's are.
13. "Artery constriction" is the ONLY risk of nicotine on your list that is actually
attributable to nicotine alone. And you would have to take in alot of it to
create a substantial risk. All the other problems you listed are attributed to
SMOKING- burning tobacco and inhaling the smoke--not just using nicotine.
14. And finally, you list 54mg nic level juice as "extra high", I'd say so!! Nobody
vapes at that nic level. Extra High is considered 24mg. Anything higher than
that is used for mixing only.
Whoever wrote this article (Sasha Richardson maybe?) should have done a bit more research and talked to some actual electronic cigarette users before writing this half thought out piece of propaganda.

 

[QBass]

And the average price for 1 electronic cig is $100??? I must have got a DEAL!

 

[QBass]

I commented on the article at it's place of publishing... but I really doubt it will get past moderation. Somebody is just trying to keep their profit margins from dropping.

 

[JustJulie]

In addition to all the great observations noted above, I'll add that as far as I'm aware, the nicotine we use with our e-liquids is not "synthetic." The cost of manufacturing synthetic nicotine is much higher than the cost of extracting it from the tobacco plant.

 

[dee5]

I knew I would miss some points, dang it! As it was, it took me about 1/2 hour to compose that response. Well, I had to leave room for the rest of you to comment on something, right? lol

 

[PaulB]

Just did:

...

14. And finally, you list 54mg nic level juice as "extra high", I'd say so!! Nobody
vapes at that nic level. Extra High is considered 24mg. Anything higher than
that is used for mixing only.
...

Wow--nice job, Dee. I too was struck by the 54mg figure--evidence that the writer was not well informed. That said, I think we have a fair number here who use 36mg (I do) and I've read postings here from one or two who actually do 48mg. But never 54! I'll probably add (haven't responded yet) that some set and achieve 0mg as a goal or use it at least some of the time.

 

[bklyncat58]

how about it said it can cause brain damage. LOL then wee are a bunch of idiots .

 

[PaulB]

Mine, with thanks for the ideas:

The piece on E-cigarettes reflects, in so many ways, some rather poor research and, I suspect, a strong preconceived bias against E-cigarette use. This is regrettable because e-cigarettes are proving to be a very effective way for many people to give up the far more unhealthful habit of smoking, people for whom other quit-smoking solutions have failed. On balance, the article does a disservice to health if it dissuades smokers from investigating the E-cigarette alternative.

To highlight some inaccuracies:

"The puff of hot gas reaches the lungs"
The more accurate word is "vapor" and its not "hot." At most, for people with customized battery setups, "warm" better describes it. And the normal e-cigarette delivers vapor at something more like room temperature.

You quote a price of $100 for a single E-cigarette.
While $100--and worse--is the sort of price offered by heavily advertised, and mostly rather unscrupulous, vendors, virtually of the better products can be purchased as complete kits for considerably less that--some as low as $30. The vendors who sell $100 E-cigarettes are also the ones who claim the "25-cigarette" cartridge capacity you quote. Two-to-three cigarettes is a more accurate equivalent. Refill liquids (which, by the way, come not in just tobacco flavors but a wide variety of food and drink flavors) vary greatly in price, but assuming realistically $.50 per milliliter and 2-3 ml average daily consumption, the E-cigarette user will likely spend less than $2 a day, and considerably less if they mix their own liquid.

You quote 54 mg/ml as an extra-high concentration. In fact, that is a concentration used by nobody. The high end offered by vendors and used undiluted is 36mg, with most people choosing, I would estimate, liquids in the 16-24 range. More importantly, you do not mention that many vendors sell liquid with zero nicotine, and many users gradually accomplish a goal of getting off nicotine entirely and continue with 0 mg to satisfy the non-nicotine aspects of their habits (or they quit entirely).

What you have to say about Doctors "say[ing] that using e-cigarettes is just substituting one dangerous vice for another" does not square with my experience with my own doctor or most of what I've heard from other users and their experiences doctors. "Vice?" Is that a medical term? It would be more accurate to say that one is substituting a demonstrably dangerous product for one that, by all indications, is a mere fraction as harmful. Yes--one retains a nicotine habit, just as one does when they switch from a cigarette habit to a nicotine gum habit. (And, in my experience, many or most nic gum users continue usage far beyond the doctor or product-indicated usage period).

Your assessment of the relative dangers between smoking and "vaping" (as some E-cigarette users call it) underestimates the differences between the two or three components of vaporized e-liquid and the 4000 chemicals and myriad chemical reactions
involved in inhaling combusted tobacco (and additives). I believe if you were to do a bit more--and a bit more unbiased--research, you would learn that, although nicotine is the addictive component of tobacco products, it is not the killer component.

I could go on, but in sum, I find your article an unfair and inaccurate appraisal of the E-cigarette. While it is obvious that everybody would be better off inhaling nothing but clean air, the harm-reduction that E-cigarettes represent in comparison to a tobacco cigarette is something that should be celebrated.

Thanks for listening.

Paul

 

[Gristle]

Your responses are for naught. I looked at several other articles on this site, and none have any responses posted.

 

[dee5]

Yes, I'm noticing that my comment hasn't passed inspection by their admin yet. Perhaps because it's the weekend?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Can anyone explain the part of it titled "compare the nicotine levels?". It states:

"Considering an average smoker inhaling per day:
Traditional cigarettes - 14~21mg
Nicotine replacement products - 6~48mg
E-cigarettes - 3.36mg"

How does this tie in with their claim that "people may actually be encouraged to increase nicotine exposure"? Surely their own figures (which I'm not entirely sure are right, but let's run with it) suggest that nicotine exposure is much lower with e-cigs compared to smoking. And therefore the "risks of nicotine" that they highlight will be much less with an e-cig than an NRT product.

While it is a subtle attack piece masquerading as "the truth", all it really succeeds in is baffling me as a reader. It really doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Responded, for what it's worth.

There are several major inaccuracies in this piece. Far from exposing “The Truth” this article is highly confusing and contains very little truth. The worst however is the section entitled “What’s really known about them”. None of this stands up to scrutiny. Looking at each point:

1) Yes there is no major long term clinical study of the effects of e-cigarettes. There have been a series of shorter term studies which have had encouraging results. However your assertion that “there is evidence that they may be just as harmful” is incorrect. There is NO evidence that they may be as harmful as cigarette smoking. The main ingredients in the liquid that is vaporized by an e-cigarette to produce vapor (propylene glycol, glycerol, water, nicotine) are well known. Studies of inhalation effects of propylene glycol date back to the 1940′s and it is currently used as a carrier for medicines delivered by inhalation. The flavoring elements have the most unknowns for inhalation safety, yet they are generally FDA approved food ingredients (and may well be present in cigarettes anyway).

The FDA made a great fuss that *carcinogens* (tobacco specific nitrosamines or TSNA’s) were found in e-cigarettes that they tested. What they did not mention is that these TSNA’s were found in levels that are comparable to those present in pharmaceutical nicotine replacement products (a few parts per billion) and THOUSANDS OF TIMES LOWER THAN TOBACCO CIGARETTES. It is essentially impossible to extract nicotine from tobacco plants without also obtaining traces of TSNA’s.

They also stated that e-cigarettes contain “anti freeze” as *one* sample contained *traces* of DEG (diethylene glycol) at barely detectable levels. This is undesirable but it must be stressed the levels detected were unlikely to be harmful. DEG may be present in propylene glycol. Using high quality (USP/food grade) ingredients from reputable manufacturers will alleviate this risk.

None of this points to e-cigarettes being as dangerous as smoking. Tobacco smoke is known to release CO, TAR, and traces of things like cyanide and thousands of other chemicals which are not present in e-cigarettes.

2) The FDA was taken to court on this point and despite several appeals, lost unanimously. The result is they are not able to regulate e-cigarettes as smoking cessation devices (drugs) and have been forced to regulate them as tobacco products, which is a different standard of regulations entirely. The statement you make that “Intended use, ingredients and components, in fact, have been refused many times by FDA for lack of scientific evidence”. That is not the issue – this was never about scientific evidence. Nor was it about concern for public health. As stated in 1) the ingredients are already approved by them. In my view, it was about the FDA protecting the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry (it’s a very cosy relationship indeed). That is the main driver behind their “war on e-cigarettes”.

3) There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of this. Indeed the section titled “compare the nicotine levels” suggests that e-cigarettes deliver lower nicotine levels than NRT products or cigarettes. If this is the case, how could they increase the nicotine addiction? By the way, in using e-cigs since 2008 myself, I have NEVER seen a cartridge loaded with 54mg/ml liquid for sale. The liquid is available (in bottles) but it is intended for mixing with flavourings and dilutants, and not for use at full strength. The majority of users use between 6mg/ml and 24 mg/ml.

4) Gastrointestinal irritation, well yes propylene glycol if swallowed in larger amounts can cause this. Brain damage is from any of the ingredients is a new one on me and I would be interested to hear of any cases that have been reported. Some doctors may say that swapping from cigarettes is to e-cigarettes is swapping one dangerous habit for another. But those same Doctors will probably suggest you go onto Nicorette or Chantix, which carry similar risks and I’m not sure that they truly understand the issues involved. Many users have reported significant improvements in chronic conditions like COPD, and generally their doctors are *delighted* by this, and I’ve never heard of ANY doctor advising one of these patients to go back to cigarettes.

Apologies for the long winded response, but I feel it needed to be said.

 

[stretchpants]

Here's my problem with it. What busy body know it all wants to try and curb vaping? What is the motive behind it? It hurts no one else if indeed it hurts us Why would anyone care?
Who has time for that? Do you just one day sit down and decide the vaping is a wrong thing in a right world?What makes someone a vaping ban crusader? Even if everything they said were true so what? My body,my life,.... out.It hasn't anything to do with them.
Oh I know I know they will come back with the "We pay higher medical premiums because of smoking related diseases in other people.It makes our rates rise.No it does not.
Smokers (They're stats not mine) die younger than most. So... it would follow if we wouldn't live to be 70 we would by pass some of the more costly prolonged money pit diseases.Researchers say that common elderly diseases may include one or more of the following: Arthritis, Cancer, Cardiovascular (Blood Pressure and Heart Disease), Cerebrovascular (Strokes), Dementia, Depression, Diabetes, Falls and Injuries, Gastrointestinal Disorders, Hearing impairment, Memory, Nutrition, Osteoporosis, Parkinson's Disease, Respiratory Disease, Pressure ulcers, Sleep problems, Thyroid Disease, Urinary Disorders and Visual impairment.
Get a life .Stay out of mine.

 

[Vocalek]

The abbreviation for Propylene Glycol is PG, not PEG. PEG is the abbreviation for Polyethylene Glycol.

 

[demon72]

Here's my problem with it. What busy body know it all wants to try and curb vaping? What is the motive behind it? It hurts no one else if indeed it hurts us Why would anyone care?
Who has time for that? Do you just one day sit down and decide the vaping is a wrong thing in a right world?What makes someone a vaping ban crusader? Even if everything they said were true so what? My body,my life,.... out.It hasn't anything to do with them.
Oh I know I know they will come back with the "We pay higher medical premiums because of smoking related diseases in other people.It makes our rates rise.No it does not.
Smokers (They're stats not mine) die younger than most. So... it would follow if we wouldn't live to be 70 we would by pass some of the more costly prolonged money pit diseases.Researchers say that common elderly diseases may include one or more of the following: Arthritis, Cancer, Cardiovascular (Blood Pressure and Heart Disease), Cerebrovascular (Strokes), Dementia, Depression, Diabetes, Falls and Injuries, Gastrointestinal Disorders, Hearing impairment, Memory, Nutrition, Osteoporosis, Parkinson's Disease, Respiratory Disease, Pressure ulcers, Sleep problems, Thyroid Disease, Urinary Disorders and Visual impairment.
Get a life .Stay out of mine.

And how! .... get out my buissness huh! The whole gig looks like a propaganda poster printed out the 50's anyway....are people really that gullible?

 

[dee5]

And how! .... get out my buissness huh! The whole gig looks like a propaganda poster printed out the 50's anyway....are people really that gullible?

Why yes! Yes they are!

 

[stretchpants]

It's subtle brainwashing. You take a lie and repeat it over and over again till people start to believe it.That's why it's scary.

 

[demon72]

Why yes! Yes they are!

I know.... it was a rhetorical question }>

 

[Vocalek]

The problem is that telling those lies sometimes backfires on you, big time. Remember "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? I suspect that the movie, ...... Madness, was one impetus for all of the experimentation with drugs that took place during the 60s and 70s. This is also when the saying, "Never trust anyone over 30" originated.

...... Madness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia