Michael Moore

[tinstar15]

Just my two cents worth here. The issue with e-cigs has several facets from what I've seen. There's the FDA, Big tobacco, pharma companies, politicians, issue groups, citizen opinions, etc to deal with.

I'd say it's similar to the gun issue. If you look at that one you may have an idea what your up against. You could have studies done ad nauseum but at the end of the day you'll still have to deal with people who won't believe the studies. You got people out there that hate guns but never touched one or had any problems with them at all. People that like guns will fight tooth and nail in every arena of politics they can. People that hate them do the same. You end up with a sort of stalemate.

Even if we get a slew of labs to say that e-cigs are ok, Big tobacco/Pharma will unleash with a slew of studies saying they aren't. Even if we get publicity out there saying e-cigs are the best thing since the wheel, you'll still have those rabid anti-smokers that won't believe it and will continue to associate them with tobacco cigarettes.

Focusing on the politicians seems to be the best way to keep them legal. Since the ECA with e-cigs is nowhere near as powerful as the NRA is to guns, we should be focusing our efforts in a more grass-roots approach.

Writing letters/email to our reps and senators and spreading the word on a person to person basis seems too slow or too much like a waste but it can have dramatic results over time. Politicians like to have issues to fight over, give em one. They hear from the anti's all the time, give em your story and they might see the potential for some sort of publicity for themselves.

Or you could always stand in front of the White House with an e-cig in your raised arm shouting "...from my cold, dead hands!!!"

 

[IFiddle]

Actually, one of the biggest things that would help the E-cig cause would be to have an independent study (by that I mean not funded by any groups who have a stake in the matter) that has been reviewed by an independent panel of peers and, even better, published in a major scientific journal.

Ideally, knowing the effects on health, which we here all know anecdotally are much less severe than cigarettes, would be the holy grail. But as of right now, the fact that there hasn't been an independent study done even measuring the levels of known carcinogens (and no, the New Zealand study, although most likely true, can't be held up as definitive proof because that Chinese E-cig company backed it) is a travesty.

That's why I think going to a high-up scientist with a sense of morality is better than trying to get a politician, lobbyist, or the FDA to do anything at all. They're just motivated by greed, whereas someone like Francis Collins is most likely above all that, and his sense of morality might be a way to get him on the vaping side if lives might be at stake while the lobbyists diddle and waste time running smokescreens. Plus having someone like him even saying that the claims of the FDA may be true but may be overblown would go a long way toward silencing the anti-vaping lobby.

Anyway, it's late and I'm tired. I hope that makes sense.

 

[tinstar15]

Interesting idea but here's where that falls apart. If you don't have an interest or a stake in something, why fund a study of it. And if you don't have a stake in it and fund a study and it comes out in our favor, the anti's will only make a baseless accusation that the group is a pro-e-cig group and will attack the study, bury it, or dismiss it as incompetant. If it turns out against us, we'll do the same.

As with anything nowadays, you can study and prove things all day long and still not get anywhere. There's lies, damn lies, and statistics as the saying goes. A court judgement in our favor or a bunch of politicians with a need for a cause to champion is still more valuable than a million studies.

The only viable use for studies is to calm OUR concerns. Many e-cig users want to know what side effects they face. They want to know if their favorite PV will make purple mushrooms grow on their innards.

Any study done by anyone short of every lab on Earth will be shot down by an anti. And even then they'll still hate us. It's like trying to convert a racist, or a religious fanatic, or a anti-abortionist, or any of a billion different issue related fanatics. No matter what you do there will be someone out there that hates what you do and will fight to take that away from you.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from trying to help. I'm just trying to point out that you will never convince everyone or every group that e-cigs are good. And if they are bad, they'll never convince all of us either. Best thing is still to get politicians on our side. Studies don't convince them, votes do. A thousand bucks won't sway them, but a thousand voters will.

 

[starstuff]

CASAA has a few irons in the fire to get a spokesman but we're keen on hearing suggestions about any other big name actors (in addition to TokenV, of course ) who are proud vapers. DiCaprio and Tom Selleck are on the reach out list (Magnum P.V. has a very recognizable voice for radio spots) and there have to be others we haven't thought of.

Suggestions?

Bob Dylan. Since he was as successful as the tobacco companies in introducing a lot of us to the joy of smoking he owes some dues and I believe he's aware of this. Every picture and poster of him smoking tobacco should be replaced with Bob smoking an e-cig, e-cigar or e-pipe and released to the world, this would be a nice gesture on his part and he may be up for that. What do you think? To your left is a picture of Bob Dylan's hands.

 

[IFiddle]

Interesting idea but here's where that falls apart.

This isn't an "interesting idea." It's how things work in the scientific world, and has been since the early 1900s. This is basic research theory. In health care we call it "evidence based practice." In short, to definitively prove something is actually worthwhile you need an independently funded, randomized controlled trial that has some commonly accepted statistical safeguards (i.e. blinding, randomization, large control groups, etc) that has been reviewed by an independent board for flaws in logic and conflicts of interest.

This is usually done by the panel of a scientific journal; the more well known the journal is, the more prestigious and respected their opinion is. Again, using health care as an example, this kind of study is what insurance and medicare uses as a determinant for what procedures and equipment they will pay because it proves what will work and what won't. These studies are also, and this is important, what the FDA uses to determine their decisions on things, at least before the lobbies get to them. These studies are what all public health decisions, by any department, including the safety of tobacco products, are based on.

As for the question of "Who funds it?" you're absolutely correct in your assumption, for the most part. The way things work right now is that to do such a study an interested party needs to get a grant. This, unfortunately, often comes from interested parties, in which case even a very well done study is colored by the fact that there is a conflict of interest (even if the scientists performing it really don't have a bias). The best example of this is the New Zealand Health study on vapes. Obviously very well done, and I'd be surprised if those performing it would lie and tell us the products were safe even though they weren't. However, the funding issue makes all the difference in the scientific community.

Another more commonly used option for funding is to get a grant through a university/college (hence why most of these studies are done on campuses) because the schools love to sponsor great studies because it makes them look more prestigious.

A third option is to get funding through independent government institutions. In the health care world, this institution is the National Institute of Health (or the NIH), and is a major, major source of health care study funding. Francis Collins is the one the president put in charge of this institution, and Dr. Collins is a well known scientist, theologian, and commentator on scientific theory. To procure funds, a scientist interested in doing a study submits a grant proposal, and a panel judges if it is well done enough to warrant the money spent on it. If it isn't well designed, then the study will have no power (a statistical term to describe how much the conclusions can apply to the larger population) and it's a waste of time and money.

In any case, this whole process takes a long time, which is why I'm guessing that any independent, well done studies confirming or denying the health implications of e-cigs are taking so long to be released. The problem is that in the meantime no one can say definitively say for sure until one is done. The upshot for us vaping enthusiasts is that there's no proof that they're bad. The bad news is that because there's no proof that they're better than cigarettes, the anti-vaping lobbies are using the lack of evidence to make obviously (to us) overblown and probably false claims. And the problem is that they're the ones who have the ear of the public and of the lawmakers, either through money (tobacco, pharma) or general public support (the anti-tobacco lobbies), and no one but us is questioning their claims.

Because of all this, the pro-vaping movement is starting way behind our competitors. Not only do we have to fend off the popularly accepted but baseless claims by the FDA, we also have to scientifically prove that we have evidence to back up our arguments before people and lawmakers will start listening to us. This is why keep saying try to bring Francis Collins to at least say that the claims are overblown; he's well respected, independent, and has a soft spot for people's overall health, as well as being one who could actually step in and fund the real study we need as proof. That would take care of the first concern. The second concern has to be addressed by finding someone (probably a university professor or well respected health care professional) and convincing them to do an independent study researching the health risks of vaping and an independent study analyzing the carcinogenic content of the vaping fluid. Now, the former is going to take awhile even if the process is started tomorrow; the latter should be able to be done relatively quickly, and if it proves that there is much less than in analogue cigarettes, then that would be a huge boon for us by making the FDA eat their words.

Sorry this is so long; I don't mean to preach. I just want to be very clear why operating with these concerns in mind is so important. If the pro-vaping movement doesn't take them into consideration (not necessarily the exact plan I'm laying out, but something considering these points), we will probably continue to get our butts kicked in congress and in the court of public opinion.

 

[420GypsyGirl]

How hard would it be to get a university or a college to perform a few gas chromatography-mass spectrometry test on the vapors produced by various e-liquids. I mean, really, how hard could it be to get this done? Surely there is someone, somewhere that has friends or access to such equipment that can do some testing to prove once and for all what is produced when we vaporize e-liquid via an e-cig.

 

[Explicit]

Ok... Michael Moore is out anyway. My friend just spoke to him on the 16th and... well let's just say it may be awhile before we see another film from him.

On the bright side... My friend knows another award-winning filmmaker with some pretty impressive credentials. I sent her the pdf file "The Facts About Electronic Cigarettes" from the ECA. She forwarded it on to the filmmaker.
I should know something by the end of this week.

Michael Moore`s career is finished until the republicans get back into office. Thank the heavens!