FDA Is the FDA open minded about e-cigarettes?

[AndriaD]

The FDA/Big tobacco/Big Pharma triumvirate represents probably the most lucrative legalized racketeering operation in the history of the United States. The e-cig industry, if left to its own free-market devices, could potentially bring the whole arrangement crashing down. Cigarette smoking makes far too many people far too rich for them to allow that to happen.

Yes, and many of those hollering about it now are the same ones that were hollering about "laissez faire" 4 or 5 years ago. They definitely don't like the shoe being on the other foot.

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

I don't get why anyone would think they would be with existence of FSPTCA. Are ex-smokers open-minded about smoking? Are all non-vapers open minded about vaping?

I still think the currently proposed regulations are tame, and likely will be tame (under final rule) for 2 years, at least. After that, it'll be a little like smoking is treated in mass culture. Perpetuate false science/misleading data, hype that up, shame users, curtail usage wherever possible (which is already occurring regardless of FDA) and seek excise taxes galore (which is not up to FDA).

Most people I know (vapers or otherwise) are not open minded about scientific data regarding traditional cigarettes. Either you buy into meme that it kills 400K annually, or you are branded something along lines of heretic. No debate to be had. And this is what has driven core regulations of TCA. I know of a few vocal ECF'ers who do challenge this meme, and who, from my perspective, seem open minded on that issue. But overwhelming majority are not, and as that is looking like the path that eCigs are headed on, it seems like that unwillingness to see things from other side is going to bite us in vaping community.

I know from my experience of chatting with person from ALA (lung association) that there is no open mindedness on eCigs and that their mind, as a whole organization, very much appears to be made up, aka prejudice against eCigs. I feel the same can be said about ACS (cancer) and CDC (disease). All very visibly biased against eCigs, and perpetuating misleading scientific data to bolster their claims regarding harm/danger. And yet, if I question meme of 400K deaths from smokes, it is these organization's data that will be cited, as if it is gospel.

Seriously, if they could do it against smoking, why would anyone think they'd have a problem, regardless of scientific data, with regards to vaping?

Did I ever mention how utterly unhelpful it is for vapers to perpetuate idea that vaping ought to only be done where smoking is allowed? And yet, we have many vapers among us who have rolled over on this key issue. I'm thinking that doesn't bode well for the community going forward (in the 2 to 10 year plan).

/rant

Actually I agree with you, but I think a lot of the reluctance to challenge "no smoking" areas is the reluctance to pay a $500 fine and what's even worse, deal with the law/courts. There are those courageous souls who will stand up and say ARREST ME FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IN, like those in NYC recently, but most of us don't want to deal with that. We may practice civil disobedience discreetly, but very few want to either go to jail or be fined for it.

I don't know if I "challenge" the "politically correct" meme or not; I know that throughout the history of smoking, there have been a few who seem to resist most of the ill effects, and I know that these organizations have been on this smoker-hate campaign for many years, and I am seeing right now how they lie and misrepresent and skew even good data, however I have seen the damage from smoking up close and personal, with my father's death from lung cancer (Luckies since he was 12), my mom's COPD (menthols since she was 18), and my own adult-onset asthma (smoking cigarettes and various other things since the age of 13), so I cannot question the mortality and morbidity of smoking. But in fact you're probably right in how the various organizations have wildly spun the data to suit their own agenda -- making money, probably, that seems to be the worm in all these apples.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

Actually I agree with you, but I think a lot of the reluctance to challenge "no smoking" areas is the reluctance to pay a $500 fine and what's even worse, deal with the law/courts. There are those courageous souls who will stand up and say ARREST ME FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IN, like those in NYC recently, but most of us don't want to deal with that. We may practice civil disobedience discreetly, but very few want to either go to jail or be fined for it.

I think this is a very legitimate point, but I think the real issue is the reluctance to challenge the science of secondhand smoking. In some fairytale world about what science is, I don't think that reluctance exists. But in current world, I think 15 peer reviewed studies could establish data that counters what is current accepted meme, and all 15 would be torn to shreds by TPTB. Ad hom attacks galore, and thus undermining credibility of those scientists with sole intention of downplaying the data.

If I were to somehow manage a study on secondhand smoke, and openly admit to being a user myself, I'm thinking that alone would be reason to downplay all data, and render the results as unscientific. Well, unless I found that they are deadly, then I'd probably get a cabinet position in the WH.

I kinda don't know why more scientists aren't completely distraught over this issue of credibility and conflict with politics, but it continues to show up to me as an establishment/dogma type thing at work. Question it, and you'll be labeled pseudo scientist/heretic and have little to no chance of working on another majorly funded research project.

I have seen the damage from smoking up close and personal, with my father's death from lung cancer (Luckies since he was 12), my mom's COPD (menthols since she was 18), and my own adult-onset asthma (smoking cigarettes and various other things since the age of 13), so I cannot question the mortality and morbidity of smoking. But in fact you're probably right in how the various organizations have wildly spun the data to suit their own agenda -- making money, probably, that seems to be the worm in all these apples.

The actual damage that has occurred with actual smokers is not something to shy away from. I wouldn't care to do that with what I'm saying in this post. Yet, at same time, it does often seem (like all the time to me) that if something is going wrong with smoker/ex-smoker, then smoking is to blame. I would also note that myself as dual user has much different perspective on this than I did just a couple years ago. When I was abusing smokes (a la PAD usage), I felt those ill effects daily/frequently. Now, that I moderately use, it is virtually non-existent. Prior to eCigs, there were products around that would've been conducive to moderate smoking, but in my 25 years of awareness of being an adult smoker, eCigs are best product around for dual usage. And yet, I am compelled to stipulate that assertion with my great awareness that for overwhelming amount of vapers, dual use is not part of their experience whereas cessation from smoking is.

Abusive smoking though appears to me to provide substantial risk for ill health, but I'm thinking if you add "abusive" before any product/substance, it is not likely to turn out well for that user. I could go on smoking the pack a month I currently do, pass away at age 97, and statistics will show that yet another smoker died due to smoking.

 

[AndriaD]

it does often seem (like all the time to me) that if something is going wrong with smoker/ex-smoker, then smoking is to blame.

*snicker* You could reword that sentence above, and substitute "vaper" and "vaping", for a large number of posts of people convinced, or merely asking, if whatever is wrong with them is because of vaping. It's valid to wonder if this large change in one's regular habits could cause x or y symptom; I've had occasion to wonder myself, about my swollen feet/ankles, which I believe may be from the extremely high levels of PG I vape, on a constant basis, which I certainly did not do as a smoker. I'm not terribly worried, but concerned enough that I'm going to try a slightly lower level of PG, but I believe that any symptoms I might suffer due to vaping are quite minor compared to whatever my eventual smoking-related illness, had I continued to smoke. However I must admit that I find the posts quite amusing, wondering if the recent outbreak of zits is due to vaping. No, it's probably due to the stress of quitting cigarettes, we just don't feel a lot of that, thanks to vaping, so when the physical signs of stress erupt, we can't figure out where they're coming from, so it must be the vaping, of course!

I would also note that myself as dual user has much different perspective on this than I did just a couple years ago. When I was abusing smokes (a la PAD usage), I felt those ill effects daily/frequently. Now, that I moderately use, it is virtually non-existent. Prior to eCigs, there were products around that would've been conducive to moderate smoking, but in my 25 years of awareness of being an adult smoker, eCigs are best product around for dual usage. And yet, I am compelled to stipulate that assertion with my great awareness that for overwhelming amount of vapers, dual use is not part of their experience whereas cessation from smoking is.

Abusive smoking though appears to me to provide substantial risk for ill health, but I'm thinking if you add "abusive" before any product/substance, it is not likely to turn out well for that user. I could go on smoking the pack a month I currently do, pass away at age 97, and statistics will show that yet another smoker died due to smoking.

I suppose it's possible to be that light a smoker, especially if one also vapes, but my own personal reaction is that cigarettes for me are much like drinking -- one is all it would take to set me off, and god knows where it would end. I think a lot of smokers feel that way, and are so relieved to finally get that monkey off their back, they want nothing further to do with that critter. I don't ever want to smoke again; I smoked for 39 of my nearly-53 yrs, and at least 29 of those, I was trying to quit or wanting to, desperately, and I never could succeed for any length of time, before e-cigarettes. Now that I've found the cure, I want no more of the disease.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

I think this is a very legitimate point, but I think the real issue is the reluctance to challenge the science of secondhand smoking. In some fairytale world about what science is, I don't think that reluctance exists. But in current world, I think 15 peer reviewed studies could establish data that counters what is current accepted meme, and all 15 would be torn to shreds by TPTB. Ad hom attacks galore, and thus undermining credibility of those scientists with sole intention of downplaying the data.

If I were to somehow manage a study on secondhand smoke, and openly admit to being a user myself, I'm thinking that alone would be reason to downplay all data, and render the results as unscientific. Well, unless I found that they are deadly, then I'd probably get a cabinet position in the WH.

I kinda don't know why more scientists aren't completely distraught over this issue of credibility and conflict with politics, but it continues to show up to me as an establishment/dogma type thing at work. Question it, and you'll be labeled pseudo scientist/heretic and have little to no chance of working on another majorly funded research project.



The actual damage that has occurred with actual smokers is not something to shy away from. I wouldn't care to do that with what I'm saying in this post. Yet, at same time, it does often seem (like all the time to me) that if something is going wrong with smoker/ex-smoker, then smoking is to blame. I would also note that myself as dual user has much different perspective on this than I did just a couple years ago. When I was abusing smokes (a la PAD usage), I felt those ill effects daily/frequently. Now, that I moderately use, it is virtually non-existent. Prior to eCigs, there were products around that would've been conducive to moderate smoking, but in my 25 years of awareness of being an adult smoker, eCigs are best product around for dual usage. And yet, I am compelled to stipulate that assertion with my great awareness that for overwhelming amount of vapers, dual use is not part of their experience whereas cessation from smoking is.

Abusive smoking though appears to me to provide substantial risk for ill health, but I'm thinking if you add "abusive" before any product/substance, it is not likely to turn out well for that user. I could go on smoking the pack a month I currently do, pass away at age 97, and statistics will show that yet another smoker died due to smoking.

You said a lot there. I've said it as well in many places. Most true scientists have 'left the building' or been escorted out. There's nothing in it for them. Even knowing the truth doesn't offset everything else unfortunately.

 

[Nate760]

I suppose it's possible to be that light a smoker, especially if one also vapes, but my own personal reaction is that cigarettes for me are much like drinking -- one is all it would take to set me off, and god knows where it would end. I think a lot of smokers feel that way, and are so relieved to finally get that monkey off their back, they want nothing further to do with that critter. I don't ever want to smoke again; I smoked for 39 of my nearly-53 yrs, and at least 29 of those, I was trying to quit or wanting to, desperately, and I never could succeed for any length of time, before e-cigarettes. Now that I've found the cure, I want no more of the disease.

Andria

My wife is the prototypical "light smoker." She's been smoking upwards of 20 years and has never, to my knowledge, smoked more than five cigarettes in one day. I myself was a light smoker (10-12 a day on average) and she made me look like Edward R. Murrow.

 

[Stosh]

The F.D.A. is committed to the science-based regulation of these products to better protect public health. Where the science does not exist, we are able to finance the research to answer key questions related to e-cigarette safety and consumer behavior, including four studies that will focus on the contents of e-cigarette vapor.

If the science didn't exist these lists would be empty, they are not....
E-cigarette research, studies and papers

The Ultimate List of E-Cig Studies: Are E-Cigs Actually Safe? *Updated 2/16/14 » onVaping

 

[Nate760]

If the science didn't exist these lists would be empty, they are not....
E-cigarette research, studies and papers

The Ultimate List of E-Cig Studies: Are E-Cigs Actually Safe? *Updated 2/16/14 » onVaping

I'm afraid you're forgetting the First Commandment of ANTZ moral hysteria: "If the science doesn't say what I want it to, it does not exist."

 

[AndriaD]

I'm afraid you're forgetting the First Commandment of ANTZ moral hysteria: "If the science doesn't say what I want it to, it does not exist."

Yeah they're the ones I was referring to in a post a few weeks ago, who not only don't want the truth, will run away from it as fast as possible with their fingers in their ears chanting "lalala I can't hear you" at the top of their voices.

Andria

 

[Dave_in_OK]

If the science didn't exist these lists would be empty, they are not....
E-cigarette research, studies and papers

The Ultimate List of E-Cig Studies: Are E-Cigs Actually Safe? *Updated 2/16/14 » onVaping

Thanks for the links just tweeted them to the FDA seeing as they say they need to learn.

 

[Nate760]

Yeah they're the ones I was referring to in a post a few weeks ago, who not only don't want the truth, will run away from it as fast as possible with their fingers in their ears chanting "lalala I can't hear you" at the top of their voices.

Andria

But they're the first ones to trumpet the incontrovertible validity of any "study" that claims to associate e-cig usage with any health hazard, no matter how comically biased and methodologically flawed the "study" happens to be. If, for example, a "study" claims to associate e-cig use with cancer (by putting pre-cancerous bronchial cells from 30-year smokers into a petri dish, soaking them in a 100% nicotine solution, and observing the fact that they're still pre-cancerous), these findings are gospel truth and must form the basis of public policy. Actual studies, which replicate actual real-world conditions of e-cig use and clearly demonstrate that such use poses no possible risk to the user or anyone else, must be dismissed out of hand, because it's obviously part of an insidious Big Tobacco conspiracy to lure your children into a lifetime of slavery to nicotine addiction.

 

[Uma]

Here's an educational video that might be of interest in this thread. Unlucky Strike: Private Health and the Science, Law and Politics of Smoking | Cato Institute

Especially when he discusses MSA ...

 

[Fitzie]

An interesting tidbit from another federal agency - the CDC. Among others, they're soliciting people who used e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco (to cut back on cigarette smoking) who later developed a serious health problem for television ads (as part of a national education campaign). They're paying $2,500 plus travel expenses.

CDC Solicits E-Cig Users With Health Problems For TV Ads. | Ecig Advanced News

 

[zoiDman]

An interesting tidbit from another federal agency - the CDC. Among others, they're soliciting people who used e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco (to cut back on cigarette smoking) who later developed a serious health problem for television ads (as part of a national education campaign). They're paying $2,500 plus travel expenses.

CDC Solicits E-Cig Users With Health Problems For TV Ads. | Ecig Advanced News

Wow... That is a Pretty Underhanded Tactic to make a TV Ad with.

I know I am going to use the e-Mail address they provided to Tell them Exactly How I Feel.

ETA:

I also made this Thread for those who may not see the Link that Fitzie provided.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/563140-cdc-tv-ad-2-500-dirty-trick.html

 

[2coils]

An interesting tidbit from another federal agency - the CDC. Among others, they're soliciting people who used e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco (to cut back on cigarette smoking) who later developed a serious health problem for television ads (as part of a national education campaign). They're paying $2,500 plus travel expenses.

CDC Solicits E-Cig Users With Health Problems For TV Ads. | Ecig Advanced News

If this isn't fishing, baiting, entrapping I don't know what is.
How come the CDC isn't looking for people who feel significantly better after switching to e-cigs?? Oh yea... I remember, that does not fit their agenda. With all of the problems going on in the world

 

[zoiDman]

If this isn't fishing, baiting, entrapping I don't know what is. ...

You bet it is.

And I bet the CDC/Health and Human Services is Laughing in their Sleeves knowing that Almost No One is going to Call Them Out over this type of Tactic.

 

[DC2]

There are those courageous souls who will stand up and say ARREST ME FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IN, like those in NYC recently, but most of us don't want to deal with that.

Have you seen anything about how that turned out?

 

[2coils]

Have you seen anything about how that turned out?

I believe 5 people showed up in support of this. Henley Vaporiom and Alt Smoke are busy as heck (packed as a matter of fact), yet nobody showed up in support of this. Terrible
BTW: Law enforcement would not write tickets!!

 

[EleanorR]

Right.

Substantially - means not substantially.

Equivalent means very different.

Remember: we have always been at war with Oceania.

My wife is the prototypical "light smoker." She's been smoking upwards of 20 years and has never, to my knowledge, smoked more than five cigarettes in one day. I myself was a light smoker (10-12 a day on average) and she made me look like Edward R. Murrow.

You and your wife are not alone. In tobacco research terms, people who smoke 5-10 cigs per day or less are called "chippers." Their very existence tends to drive the ANTZ crazy, since of course they have established the meme that "nicotine is more addictive than [horse]."

 

[Nate760]

You and your wife are not alone. In tobacco research terms, people who smoke 5-10 cigs per day or less are called "chippers." Their very existence tends to drive the ANTZ crazy, since of course they have established the meme that "nicotine is more addictive than [horse]."

I learned only recently that when public health/ANTZ organizations tabulate their statistics for smoking-related disease, the normal practice is to include only people who smoke 100 cigarettes or more per week. It seems the numbers just aren't alarming enough if you include all the light/casual smokers. I know I shouldn't be surprised by the depths of deception and dishonesty to which the ANTZ will stoop, but I admit this shocked me a little bit.