It's time for the ecig industry and consumers to get involved

[DrMA]

snip...
Stanton Glantz (and Neal Benowitz, sadly) are writing the e-cig book for the WHO (http://dropproxy.com/f/661 - PDF), and if the FCTC COP sides with their assessment they will have a huge lever.

I think it's high time the e-cig industry and/or consumers themselves hire their own experts to refute the Slantz "Background paper" ASAP. This has been done before in response to the FDA summary of electronic cigarettes during the 2009 trials.
http://casaa.org/uploads/Exponent_Response-to-the-FDA-Summary.pdf


I'm thinking we should be setting up a crowd-funded initiative similar to the latest Farsalinos study... Thoughts?

 

[RosaJ]

I think it's an excellent idea!

 

[dr g]

I think you just need to set up a vehicle and start collecting pledges.

 

[DrMA]

I pledge my part in doing the research and review of this report, however, I cannot do this alone. It will be quite a challenge to come up with a top-quality, well-researched, well-written, compelling scientific rebuttal of the Glantz WHO Background paper, in a form that's acceptable to regulatory bodies. We wouldn't want it to be summarily dismissed.

Thus, I would like to get the buy-in from an industry (TVECA?) or consumer group (CASAA?) who would demonstrate their commitment by spearheading the fundraising effort.

 

[Robdob]

What kind of help do you need?

 

[Oliver]

DrMA - this is a great idea. I will DM you now.....

 

[low_tar_neil]

This is a great idea, how much are we looking at roughly?

 

[Ken_A]

Start the croudfunding, and I will send ya the money.
I am awful at organization, administration and follow through. So I do what I CAN. But you have to set it up. Like my sig says...

 

[DavidOck]

Keep us all posted! Great idea!

 

[Robino1]

A great idea. We need more help fighting.

 

[Mitey F]

Start a pledge, get it posted to the front page with (lots of) details, and I bet we can make something happen.

 

[DrMA]

Europe has fallen: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...urope-has-fallen-big-money-has-triumphed.html

Are we gonna let the US suffer the same fate?

 

[Ken_A]

Europe has fallen: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...urope-has-fallen-big-money-has-triumphed.html

Are we gonna let the US suffer the same fate?

Judging from the responses to the daily action plans...
Yes, yes we are.

 

[CES]

I pledge my part in doing the research and review of this report, however, I cannot do this alone. It will be quite a challenge to come up with a top-quality, well-researched, well-written, compelling scientific rebuttal of the Glantz WHO Background paper, in a form that's acceptable to regulatory bodies. We wouldn't want it to be summarily dismissed.

Thus, I would like to get the buy-in from an industry (TVECA?) or consumer group (CASAA?) who would demonstrate their commitment by spearheading the fundraising effort.

I think this is necessary. I'd likely buy in, but i'd also want to see a research plan. Are you thinking of doing a series of lab studies, or a literature review?

 

[Fast and Furious]

I think it's high time the e-cig industry and/or consumers themselves hire their own experts to refute the Slantz "Background paper" ASAP. This has been done before in response to the FDA summary of electronic cigarettes during the 2009 trials.
http://casaa.org/uploads/Exponent_Response-to-the-FDA-Summary.pdf

I just so happen to be currently employed by Exponent as a Managing Scientist and our Health Practice is prepared to take on this task and present the real science. Unfortunately, I cannot convince the upper management to take on such a task pro bono...

I'm thinking we should be setting up a crowd-funded initiative similar to the latest Farsalinos study... Thoughts?

I believe you need a detailed plan; an explanation of what you hope to accomplish and qualified representatives to present the 'study' in detail. Funding by anyone even remotely associated with the industry will always be reason to question results. The "real science"? Wide open to interpretation.

If "upper management" did not come up with the "idea" and are reluctant to move forward without first having a 'check in hand' - they don't really care about facts.

Tom

 

[zoiDman]

I think it's high time the e-cig industry and/or consumers themselves hire their own experts to refute the Slantz "Background paper" ASAP. This has been done before in response to the FDA summary of electronic cigarettes during the 2009 trials.
http://casaa.org/uploads/Exponent_Response-to-the-FDA-Summary.pdf

I just so happen to be currently employed by Exponent as a Managing Scientist and our Health Practice is prepared to take on this task and present the real science. Unfortunately, I cannot convince the upper management to take on such a task pro bono...

I'm thinking we should be setting up a crowd-funded initiative similar to the latest Farsalinos study... Thoughts?

Not saying that I'm Apposed to what you are Saying. And I'm sure as Heck not saying that OEM's/Retailers/Consumers shouldn't be Involved.

But it would have been Nice if this had been Done in late 2009 or Early 2010.

Instead of Now when we are kinda in the 11th Hour waiting for the FDA to Drop the Other Shoe.

 

[DrMA]

I think this is necessary. I'd likely buy in, but i'd also want to see a research plan. Are you thinking of doing a series of lab studies, or a literature review?

No lab studies. What we need here is a report of the look and feel similar to the 2009 Exponent rebuttal of the FDA claims.

I believe you need a detailed plan; an explanation of what you hope to accomplish and qualified representatives to present the 'study' in detail. Funding by anyone even remotely associated with the industry will always be reason to question results. The "real science"? Wide open to interpretation.

If "upper management" did not come up with the "idea" and are reluctant to move forward without first having a 'check in hand' - they don't really care about facts.

Tom

Consultants (good ones that is) do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the process they are guiding. We are not advocates for our clients, rather try to maintain scientific objectivity with respect to the facts. That's why good consultants will remain impartial and provide objective scientific opinion, based on good science, legal precedent, legislation, and established policy guidance. And yes, we do prefer to be paid for our work. Don't you?

The biggest advantage of hiring a professional consultant here is that they know how to interact (both in person and in writing) with regulators, attorneys, and courts of law. This is also something Glantz is very good at, so I think it’s time we present a dissenting opinion in the same language.

 

[zoiDman]

No lab studies. What we need here is a report of the look and feel similar to the 2009 Exponent rebuttal of the FDA claims.

...

Have you read this Analysis by any chance?

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

And BTW: I think what we Have/Had was Enough Data. What we Needed a Year or so ago was a Good PR Firm.

 

[DrMA]

Have you read this Analysis by any chance?

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

And BTW: I think what we Have/Had was Enough Data. What we Needed a Year or so ago was a Good PR Firm.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Burstyn (2013) study. I also agree that we need PR.

But you've missed the point that somebody who knows know how to interact with regulators is needed here. The regulators' eyes just glaze over the Burstyn study, whereas the Glantz report is basically in their language.

 

[zoiDman]

...

But you've missed the point that somebody who knows know how to interact with regulators is needed here. The regulators' eyes just glaze over the Burstyn study, whereas the Glantz report is basically in their language.

I agree.

And I think it would be the Most Effective when Dealing with State and Local Policy Makers.