MBV pulls cinnamon juices
- Thread starter theinlawjosie
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
All thit is gittin' me scairet, I thought we wus all gonna live ferever, now it looks like we is all gonna die & the world is gonna be uninhibbited
.............
Excuse me while I throw out my free sample of cinnabun. Didn't like it anyway.
In fact, some of these ECF discussions are actually cited in the study!
Just for reference, the lead author received a $90,00 grant from the NIH to fund this study. She is also a graduate student under Prue Talbot (also a co-author), who has gained recent notoriety as an anti-vaping activist.
In fact, the last slide on the slideshow from the paper says this:
Now, does that sound like an impartial, scientific statement to you? The whole scenario reeks of bias and Mt. Baker should have known better than to pull their product based on this report. The "better safe than sorry" argument is exactly the logic that anti-vaping zealots use to justify a ban on e-cigarettes in general. Does Mt. Baker really want to perpetuate that fallacy?
In fact, the last slide on the slideshow from the paper says this:
Now, does that sound like an impartial, scientific statement to you? The whole scenario reeks of bias and Mt. Baker should have known better than to pull their product based on this report. The "better safe than sorry" argument is exactly the logic that anti-vaping zealots use to justify a ban on e-cigarettes in general. Does Mt. Baker really want to perpetuate that fallacy?
Last edited:
I'm sure they are. This is a public forum and I've long thought we're a bunch of guinea pigs to some.
While I agree that it's pretty clear where her sentiments lie, it's also the case that science is science - either it's accurate, or it isn't, no matter who funds it.
It might be a prudent move for e-cigarettes as a whole to pull flavours with some evidence of harm. Shows we're regulating ourselves, does it not?
If everyone pulls flavours they believe are possibly harmful, then there will be no flavors left in the end.
therein lies the real danger. once they get merchants running scared enough to pull one ingredient off their shelves, what's next? this whole thing is much ado about nothing, IMO. but whatever gets the job done. meanwhile, stinkies remain for sale everywhere with no sign of anyone doing a thing about it!
let's see.....cinnamon proven in how many deaths per year? oh yeah, zero. smoking proven in how many deaths per year? 400,000+? hmmm, which one should be banned?
there just ain't no justice.
Last edited:
Studies can be manipulated to read well for the sponsor. For example, the eliquid was applied to the cultures directly instead of vaporized. There is no corresponding study on the effect vaporization has on cinnamaldehyde, nor any study showing the degree of absorption of said compound by the respiratory system. It is still science, but is it good science?
If you think that the NIH/FDA will look at this action and say to themselves, "Gee, electronic cigarette e-liquid manufacturers are self-regulating. I guess we can all go home and sleep well knowing that.", then I've got a bridge to sell you. If anything, this study will be used to enact such strict regulation that small vendors will be forced out of the market. We are on the cusp of seeing the demise of the small merchant in favor of corporations that have the assets and legal teams to comply with said regulations (I'll just let you infer which types of corporations already have such commodities). Any study which is funded by known anti-vaping entities and whose conclusions are strictly in-line with their policy should be very closely scrutinized.
This is a matter of degrees of risk. Nicotine is also known to be cytotoxic, yet Mt. Baker continues to sell liquids containing it. If they felt it to be prudent to act, I certainly would have preferred a disclaimer for their cinnamon-containing products, not an outright discontinuation. This type of knee-jerk reaction is wholly uncalled for. There have already been previous studies on cinnamon containing e-liquids, including one by Dr. Farsalinos, a known pro-vaping advocate. His (unfortunately only) sample of a cinnamon flavored eliquid did, in fact, show cytotoxic potential. But, it was at least an order of magnitude less risk than cigarette smoke (which isn't saying much) and barely met the scientific criteria for cytotoxicity. So why was this study weighted such that immediate action needed to be taken? The research is not even published yet.
Ummmmm...I've seen some "scientific" papers done on e-cigarettes, and e-liquids, in the past. I'm not exactly sold on this.
With that in mind, I'll continue to vape away, and wait for a bit more conclusive results (make that a LOT more conclusive).
Fortinbraz: I'm kinda leaning towards 'prominent warning' in this case, rather than withdrawal.
But you can't be arguing that we should just sell whatever we can get away with, cos then the feds will leave us alone, can you? I don't think that's realistic.
Whether this case is over the line or not you'd probably need other lung specialists to tell you - I'm sure it's a debate that'll be hammered out for many such chemicals over the next few years.
But the fact that there is a line has to be a good thing. Never mind bridges, you wanna buy my anthrax e-liquid?
But you can't be arguing that we should just sell whatever we can get away with, cos then the feds will leave us alone, can you? I don't think that's realistic.
Whether this case is over the line or not you'd probably need other lung specialists to tell you - I'm sure it's a debate that'll be hammered out for many such chemicals over the next few years.
But the fact that there is a line has to be a good thing. Never mind bridges, you wanna buy my anthrax e-liquid?
Nicoticket already had another "Limited Time Only" juice listed, so I'm pretty sure it's not due to this post that it's gone.
BRING BACK OREO!!! I GOT PLENTY OF GCD!
Not necessarily. The EPA admitted to cherry picking their information to make second hand smoke appear more dangerous than it really is, a judge even overturned it, yet it's still in use today and a "holy" document in the arsenal of every Antz out there. There are many ways that a scientist with a bias can skew the information to fit their own agenda, otherwise the FDA wouldn't have whistleblowers coming out of their own woodwork.
MBV is to be commended for erring on the side of caution .. logic would indicate that if a substance like cinnamon can crack a plastic tank as well as being one of the liquids that causes the most lung / throat irritation when used by some, maybe it's best to not offer it in an effort to not only avoid the possibility of harm but to also attempt to avoid what may at some point develop into a Class Action Suit if cinnamon proves to be less than benign ..
We need to keep in mind that the PV liquid industry is still in it's infancy and we continue to be the test cases .. I would much rather a vendor pull a product if there is even a hint of a problem rather than continue to pump it out regardless ..
We need to keep in mind that the PV liquid industry is still in it's infancy and we continue to be the test cases .. I would much rather a vendor pull a product if there is even a hint of a problem rather than continue to pump it out regardless ..
Science is dispassionate and repeatable by definition. If it isn't science, it isn't science: makes no difference whether you publish it in a journal or not.
- Status
