Huff Post runs another rant by e-cig prohibitionist Daniel Seidman, who misrepresents ECLAT findings

[Bill Godshall]

Huffington Post publishes another rant by e-cig prohibitionist Daniel Seidman, who criticizes 22.3% of participants (in ECLAT study) who reduced cigarette consumption by more than 50% after 12 weeks (and 10.3% who continued doing so after 52 weeks) as “dual users” who “were more likely to relapse”, fails to compare ECLAT’s remarkable findings (among smokers who didn't want to quit) to NRT’s dismal 5% success rate (among smokers who want to quit) while endorsing the latter products, fails to disclose his huge conflicts of interest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-seidman/what-are-ecigarettes_b_3652925.html


After some vapers posted comments challenging Seidman's intolerance and claims, Seidman posted one of Stan Glantz' fear mongering rants (that condemned all e-cigarettes because a study found barely detectable and totally harmless levels of several constituents).


Seidman has been on my e-mail list ever since he wrote his first Huff Post rant against e-cigs (so he knows his campaign to ban e-cigs and reduce their consumption has failed big time), and now he seems to be getting desperate (just like Glantz).

 

[AgentAnia]

Indeed, their blogs and opinion pieces and quotes in news articles are sounding more and more strident and hysterical; they seem to be pulling more and more propaganda out of thin air, all the while rehashing the same old tired "statistics" and rationales in an attempt to support their "quit (using NRTs) or die" rhetoric. It's becoming so (excuse me) effing tiresome, but in good conscience I feel obliged to post rebuttal comments every time I can. My mission, which I choose to accept, is to keep them desperate!

 

[DC2]

Seidman has been on my e-mail list ever since he wrote his first Huff Post rant against e-cigs (so he knows his campaign to ban e-cigs and reduce their consumption has failed big time), and now he seems to be getting desperate (just like Glantz).

Exactly.

These people are starting to get desperate.
For many ANTZ electronic cigarettes threaten their entire careers.

They should know that fighting any further will only weaken their credibility further.
But some of them may not have any other alternatives.

I would consider it a wonderful achievement if vapers can eventually destroy Stanton Glantz, Ellen Hahn, and quite a few others.
And if you guys are reading this all I can say is "see ya, wouldn't want to be ya" because your days are numbered.

My advice would be stop fighting us, so as not to ruin what credibility you have left.
You do want to retain the ability to do speaking gigs when you retire, right?

 

[Bill Godshall]

Here's my comment (which is awaiting moderation) in response to Seidman's disingenuous rant.

Nothing like stigmatizing 22.3% of participants (in the ECLAT study) who reduced cigarette consumption by more than 50% after 12 weeks (including 10.3% who continued doing so for 52 weeks) as “dual users” who “were more likely to relapse”.

If Seidman was honest, he'd have compared ECLAT’s findings (among smokers who didn't want to quit) of a 12% quit rate and 10% with >50% cigarette consumption decline after one year to NRT's dismal 5% success rate (among smokers who want to quit).

Another study (of smokers who didn't want to quit) found that after being provided free e-cigarettes for 6 months, 12.5% of participants abstained from smoking, and 27.5% of participants reduced cigarette consumption by >50% (from a median of 24/cigs per day to just 4 cigs per day) after 24 months.

The growing mountain of scientific evidence consistently indicates that e-cigarettes:
- are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarette smoking,
- are virtually all consumed by smokers (or by smokers who quit by switching to vaping),
- have helped several million smokers quit smoking or sharply reduce their cigarette consumption,
- pose no risks to nonusers, and
- have never been known to addict any nonsmoker to nicotine.

Stan Glantz has also misrepresented the evidence, as the barely detectable trace levels of several constituents found in e-cig vapor are similar to levels emitted by FDA approved nicotine inhalers.

Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com

 

[AgentAnia]

I would consider it a wonderful achievement if vapers can eventually destroy Stanton Glantz, Ellen Hahn, and quite a few others. And if you guys are reading this all I can say is "see ya, wouldn't want to be ya" because your days are numbered.

My advice would be stop fighting us, so as not to ruin what credibility you have left. You do want to retain the ability to do speaking gigs when you retire, right?

I submit that, like true fanatics, they will NOT stop fighting us. Their tunnel vision precludes it. I do predict that the only speaking gigs they'll be able to arrange will be to groups populated solely by like-minded ANTZ. No one else will have the patience or the credulity to listen to them.

 

[AgentAnia]

Excellent comment, Mr. G. It's been posted.

 

[Berylanna]

Nobody will stop lying before Obamacare's tobacco provision kicks in, which is now delayed a year.

If anybody manages to get ANY ecigs qualified as smoking-cessation aids (yes, I know we're not asking that, but maybe that's because we're on the defensive and they like it that way?) then millions of $$$$ that companies and individuals would have to spend on insurance, counseling, NRT's, etc in would shrink very fast.

It's going to shrink anyway, but the difference between fast and slowly is a big deal for BT, BP, and B-ANTZ (some may get counseling money)

BECAUSE the law says you have to pay a 50% surcharge on insurance if you are a tobacco user UNLESS you enroll in an approved smoking cessation program.

So the fight is over the size of that pie, and the disribution of that pie. And I bet that's why the FDA was going to Doom in October, though the computer glitch may change that timing.

It's a much bigger pie by FAR than mere voluntary purchases of NRT products -- it becomes MANDATED, but only if you are FDA-Approved for smoking cessation, which would include efficacy testing.

This also means that Farasalino is much scarier to ANTZ than those of us who'd accept mere non-criminalization.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Had not even thought of this, maybe 4-5 times the sales of next to useless garbage, or something that works. No wonder they're fighting so hard.

 

[alexrho]

Yeah hehehe

 

[Rickajho]

I'm sorry, but the dinosaur lost all credibility with me by first eight opening words: "Designed to look and feel like a cigarette..." I stopped reading - I knew what was coming.

 

[Rickajho]

And the comments are a-flying in and Dr. Seidman is getting flamed, albeit very intellectually flamed. Nary a word of support there for his position, except the response from Dr. Seidman himself, citing Stanton Glantz in his reply.

Perhaps things would change if Huff was forced to call that column "Huffpost Totally Objective Healthy Living"

 

[2coils]

Excellent comment, Mr. G. It's been posted.

UH! What about some props to you!!! Excellent comment Double A! I give you three thumbs up my friend!

 

[Berylanna]

This is wonderful news! Per the autor's post in comments, Glanz has publicly stated that the nickel, cadmium, etc that he was touting as horribly dangerous in Second-Hand Vape (which he calls SS but it should be SV) is NOT PRESENT in Second-hand Vape!

Since we KNOW the amounts of all the other scary thing he lists are down near 0 like FDA-approved nicotine inhalers, we can now truthfully say that Glanz has published statistics that show his concerns about second-hand vape are unfounded.

* Acetaldehyde (MS)
* Benzene (SS)
* Cadmium (MS)
* Formaldehyde (MS, SS)
* Isoprene (SS)
* Lead (MS)
* Nickel (MS)
* Nicotine (MS, SS)
* N-Nitrosonicotine (MS, SS)
* Toluene (MS, SS)
*MS – mainstream smoke
** SS – secondhand smoke

 

[DC2]

We do that with the FDA all the time, saying that their study shows that vaping is relatively safe.
The tactic hasn't really caught on with the media or the public yet though.


But yeah, I like it.

 

[Vocalek]

This is wonderful news! Per the autor's post in comments, Glanz has publicly stated that the nickel, cadmium, etc that he was touting as horribly dangerous in Second-Hand Vape (which he calls SS but it should be SV) is NOT PRESENT in Second-hand Vape!

Since we KNOW the amounts of all the other scary thing he lists are down near 0 like FDA-approved nicotine inhalers, we can now truthfully say that Glanz has published statistics that show his concerns about second-hand vape are unfounded.

* Acetaldehyde (MS)
* Benzene (SS)
* Cadmium (MS)
* Formaldehyde (MS, SS)
* Isoprene (SS)
* Lead (MS)
* Nickel (MS)
* Nicotine (MS, SS)
* N-Nitrosonicotine (MS, SS)
* Toluene (MS, SS)
*MS – mainstream smoke
** SS – secondhand smoke

I responded to the Glantz excuse entered by Seidman, but since mine is the 3rd response, it is hidden until you click the link to see more, located under response #2 by John Rain McManus.

There is no such thing as "sidestream smoke" from an e-cigarette. Sidestream smoke from a traditional tobacco cigarette is emitted continuously from the tip while the cigarette is lit. Since nothing is burned in an e-cigarette, there is no smoke of any kind and nothing whatsoever is emitted from the tip. To activate an e-cigarette, the consumer inhales from the mouthpiece and all the emitted vapor goes into the consumer's body. The vast majority of the nicotine (if it was present in the first place) is absorbed by the consumer's body. The only vapor to which a bystander can be exposed is that which has been filtered through the consumer's lungs and then exhaled. The bottom line is that Prof. Glantz is misrepresenting the science. Or perhaps he doesn't understand it? Did he read Table 2 of the Schripp, et al. paper? Did he not notice that the quantities of most of the chemicals he listed were no higher than the quantity in the reference product, a blank cartridge? Did he even bother to read the abstract of the Goniewicz paper? "The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product."

 

[Berylanna]

So SS means Side Stream, not Second hand Smoke?

How do you get Side Stream from a PV?

 

[LaraC]

So SS means Side Stream, not Second hand Smoke?

How do you get Side Stream from a PV?

You don't.

You can't.

As Vocalek explained it so well:

I responded to the Glantz excuse entered by Seidman, but since mine is the 3rd response, it is hidden until you click the link to see more, located under response #2 by John Rain McManus.
______________________________________

"There is no such thing as "sidestream smoke" from an e-cigarette. Sidestream smoke from a traditional tobacco cigarette is emitted continuously from the tip while the cigarette is lit. Since nothing is burned in an e-cigarette, there is no smoke of any kind and nothing whatsoever is emitted from the tip. To activate an e-cigarette, the consumer inhales from the mouthpiece and all the emitted vapor goes into the consumer's body."

______________________________________

 

[Berylanna]

You don't.

You can't.

As Vocalek explained it so well:


______________________________________

I understood that. But if a study of ecigs published something that had SS, how did they obtain the published numbers?

 

[AgentAnia]

I think what we're seeing in these articles and comments is what we know all too well: the ANTZ like GlANTZ will deliberately misinterpret and misclassify statistics, research results, and every little detail in an attempt to villify ecigs. When someone like SG applies the term "sidestream smoke" to ecigs, he is either ignorant or lying. While I doubt he's ever actually had a conversation with a vaper, I don't believe he's ignorant. So eventually statements like the one quoted in Seidman's blog are going to trip him up.

 

[rothenbj]

You don't.

You can't.

Well it is possible to get SS from an e cig, but it requires a bit of maneuvering. If you took an e cig and tied a thick rubber band around the manual battery's button and set it down, you may generate SS and potentially SF (sidestream fire).