Maybe dumb question re: CDC

[crazyhorse]

Admittedly, I don't even try to read everything in all these forums but I don't recall reading much about CDC attitude relative to personal vaporizers... and the term is too short for a search.

My maybe dumb question is this. Where does CDC come in on e-cigs? It seems like they would falling all over it in support merely because of the harm reduction aspect. For them, it shouldn't matter if the end game is quitting tobacco smoke or choosing an obviously safer alternative.

 

[Janetda]

From what I’m able to glean though all my reading is that there has been a debate raging for years between policy makers and researchers regarding tobacco harm reduction. For that matter, harm reduction for any number of risky behaviors; heroine/methadone, needle exchange programs, etc. It’s the same debate that goes on regarding sexual abstinence. Some people feel very strongly that abstinence is the only way to go. Others feel that education, condoms and birth control are way to go.

The same debate is going on regarding tobacco harm reduction. While there have been several studies involving smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction method, e-cigs haven’t been around long enough to have been studied. In the research world, if it hasn’t been published, it doesn’t exist. No amount of “logic” matters. So until there are a few good published studies involving e-cigs, I don’t think you’re going to see agencies like the CDC, WHO or NIH make any kind of statement other than to say they are unproven and everyone should use approved methods and stop smoking completely.

Interestingly though, I did find a funding opportunity announcement (FOA), issued by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) using funds from the NIH for a study that states, “The overarching goal of this FOA is to determine whether potential reduced-exposure tobacco products provide a truly, less-harmful alternative to conventional tobacco products, both on the individual and population level.” And, “Applications to study potential reduced-exposure tobacco products and their potential public health impact are encouraged in, though not limited to, the following areas: (1) Studying behavioral changes that accompany use of new smoked and smokeless tobacco products that are being marketed with health claims and how these behaviors, including possible dual use with other products, impact delivered dosages of addictive agents and toxins, including carcinogens;…”

The full FOA can be viewed at: Testing Tobacco Products Promoted to Reduce Harm (R01)

 

[TropicalBob]

In the research world, if it hasn’t been published, it doesn’t exist. No amount of “logic” matters. So until there are a few good published studies involving e-cigs, I don’t think you’re going to see agencies like the CDC, WHO or NIH make any kind of statement other than to say they are unproven and everyone should use approved methods and stop smoking completely.

Correct, Janet. That's why we won't see doctors stampeding to the healthy e-smoking practice. Says who? Published where? Approved by who? We don't have answers to legitimize our practice.

The CDC advises the FDA on smoking and health matters. That's all. It doesn't set policy. There's an e-cig user who works at the CDC who has been posting some lately. It's great to have a knowledgeable insider here. I don't remember the location of his posts, but they were on-point and worth knowing.

P.S. That funding opportunity was explored by an interested user here. It's not for e-cigs. It's for smokeless tobacco products like snus and dissolvables; e-cigs don't even register in their thinking. E-cigs are drug devices, not tobacco products, in their minds. An application for a grant was made .. and returned, according to the interested poster.

 

[Janetda]

hmm...that's upsetting, since it does state "new smoked and smokeless tobacco products"