FDA New CDC survey confirms that e-cig use by nonsmokers has been virtually nonexistant, but misrepresents survey findings to news media

[Jman8]

On this thread, the substance is the survey itself and how the regulatory agency spun it to the media - so not really a 'media piece' but a 'regulatory survey piece', which should have been obvious to anyone older than 12, not riding a hobby horse. ;- )

"how the regulatory agency spun it to the media" is not a media piece?

Both threads in question clearly have to do with ecig regulations. But you want to spin this one as ultra concerned with FDA regulations when it is very indirectly related to that, just as all pieces in the media subforum are. Find me a thread in the media sub-forum that isn't indirectly related to FDA regulations.

 

[Kent C]

"how the regulatory agency spun it to the media" is not a media piece?

Both threads in question clearly have to do with eCig regulations. But you want to spin this one as ultra concerned with FDA regulations when it is very indirectly related to that, just as all pieces in the media subforum are. Find me a thread in the media sub-forum that isn't indirectly related to FDA regulations.

The link is to a survey for CDC - a regulatory agency. How they explained it to the media is still not at 'media piece'. If it were a news story reporting it - then it's appropriate for the Media General News forum. If you can't see that differentiation, we have no more to talk about here. You're just making a big deal about one comment by Bill to another poster - not you - that the piece wasn't appropriate to this particular forum.

So you, take what you thought was an 'opportunity' to criticize Bill - once again - and your intent was so obvious that no one (except you perhaps) didn't understand what you were doing. It is on the level of attacking someone (to whom you are losing a debate), on a grammar error.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Before ECF added a FDA thread, virtually all FDA and CDC news on e-cigs was posted in the Legislative News thread (as FDA regulation is a legislative issue).

Since ECF has added an FDA thread, and since the CDC has been aggressively lobbying for the FDA Deeming Regulation, I've been posting CDC actions on e-cigs in the FDA thread because it is by far the most pertinent thread (as CDC keeps putting out this garbage to lobby for FDA regulations).

While I've spent most of my time during the past six years working to keep e-cigs legal to manufacturer, market and use, it appears that Jman is obsessed with criticizing me.

 

[Kent C]

While I've spent most of my time during the past six years working to keep e-cigs legal to manufacturer, market and use, it appears that Jman is obsessed with criticizing me.

It is, mainly, the years before the past six, with which he has the problem - he's a dual user. I actually agree with him on that account, (and have mentioned this in the past), but think the work you have done since, overwhelms that.

You and I will never agree (unless you've changed your own views) on 'public health'. I have a rights based view that allows actions - even smoking - as long as it harms no one else - even though it might harm me. I was a responsible smoker - choosing areas to smoke, staying away from kids, cleaning up cigarette butts and even sometimes public ashtrays that were burning, etc. I have studied the second hand smoke hoax (with which you likely disagree) and know how the EPA fudged the statistics is much the same way you have described what the CDC and others have done with ecigs. I rail against anyone who 'knows what's best for me' in the name of the collective 'public health'. But I'll praise anyone who has either 'seen the light' or truly have 'harm reduction' with regards to cigs where people will have now and in the future, the freedom to choose ecigs over cigarettes.

 

[Jman8]

The link is to a survey for CDC - a regulatory agency. How they explained it to the media is still not at 'media piece'. If it were a news story reporting it - then it's appropriate for the Media General News forum. If you can't see that differentiation, we have no more to talk about here. You're just making a big deal about one comment by Bill to another poster - not you - that the piece wasn't appropriate to this particular forum.

I believe I asked a fair question about placement of this post/thread in FDA. I see that question has been addressed, but the answer still strikes me as indirect reference to FDA regulations. And I still see that as applicable to much of what is in General News section of this site.

IMO, lots of items in all the sub-forums in this area of the site could go in any of the sub-forums they are posted in. I don't see it as needing to be called out by a member regardless of their perceived status in the vaping community. But I did intentionally question Bill because he did this and I thought it just as reasonable to question his judgment of placing this in FDA Regulations. I still don't think it is best place for it, but is also not up to me to decide where these things go, or get moved.

So you, take what you thought was an 'opportunity' to criticize Bill - once again - and your intent was so obvious that no one (except you perhaps) didn't understand what you were doing. It is on the level of attacking someone (to whom you are losing a debate), on a grammar error.

Asking a question, and follow up question, is attacking someone?

My criticisms of Bill are that he appears to me to be partially (and famously) ANTZ. I don't see how that is relevant to question I am asking in this thread. Your post #24 attacks him addresses that criticism as much as I might, though didn't see it as relevant to this thread until you brought it up.

 

[Kent C]

I believe I asked a fair question about placement of this post/thread in FDA. I see that question has been addressed, but the answer still strikes me as indirect reference to FDA regulations. And I still see that as applicable to much of what is in General News section of this site.

IMO, lots of items in all the sub-forums in this area of the site could go in any of the sub-forums they are posted in. I don't see it as needing to be called out by a member regardless of their perceived status in the vaping community. But I did intentionally question Bill because he did this and I thought it just as reasonable to question his judgment of placing this in FDA Regulations. I still don't think it is best place for it, but is also not up to me to decide where these things go, or get moved.



Asking a question, and follow up question, is attacking someone?

My criticisms of Bill are that he appears to me to be partially (and famously) ANTZ. I don't see how that is relevant to question I am asking in this thread. Your post #24 attacks him addresses that criticism as much as I might, though didn't see it as relevant to this thread until you brought it up.

He mentioned your obsession. That was my take. I have no more to say. Make of my comments what you will. Reasonable people will understand what I said - which is to say - not everyone. I understand and can handle that. ...

 

[bigdancehawk]

To repeat what I posted in a related thread, Rodu has pointed out how the CDC cherry picked the data for its misleading press release. His criticisms are similar to Bill's and he's posted a data chart of some survey results.

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/cdc-sees-e-cigarette-use-at-marked.html

 

[Bill Godshall]

Kent wrote:

You and I will never agree (unless you've changed your own views) on 'public health'. I have a rights based view that allows actions - even smoking - as long as it harms no one else - even though it might harm me. I was a responsible smoker - choosing areas to smoke, staying away from kids, cleaning up cigarette butts and even sometimes public ashtrays that were burning, etc. I have studied the second hand smoke hoax (with which you likely disagree) and know how the EPA fudged the statistics is much the same way you have described what the CDC and others have done with ecigs.

Please note that I've criticized lots of research conducted by Stan Glantz (including his EPA lung cancer report, and his Helena and other "smoking ban" heart attack studies). But just because some junk science has been published and touted about secondhand smoke doesn't mean that all of the hundreds of other studies on secondhand smoke are junk science (which is a false accusation made by various right-to-smoke activists).

I've also publicly opposed many/most outdoor smoking bans (but I still strongly support smoking bans at outdoor stadiums and within 10 feet of building entrances).

I've considered myself a pragmatic libertarian since I joined the American Council on Science and Health and NORML in the late 1970's, and since I subscribed to Reason Magazine and joined the Cato Institute and Ethan Nadelmann's Drug Policy Forum in the early 1980's.

In fact, the only reason I campaigned to ban smoking in workplaces was/is because of the libertarian principle that people have a right to not be harmed by the actions of others.

 

[Bill Godshall]

To repeat what I posted in a related thread, Rodu has pointed out how the CDC cherry picked the data for its misleading press release. His criticisms are similar to Bill's and he's posted a data chart of some survey results.

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com...at-marked.html

I'm very pleased that Rodu wrote about this (as I sent him my analysis and criticisms of CDC's claims last week).

It would be helpful if Mike Siegel, CASAA and Carl Phillips also exposed CDC survey's finding and criticized CDC's false claim to the AP, but it appears they've been preoccupied with criticizing each other.

 

[Nate760]

But just because some junk science has been published and touted about secondhand smoke doesn't mean that all of the hundreds of other studies on secondhand smoke are junk science.

No, of course it doesn't. I don't think any reasonable person would dispute that it's not healthy to breathe sidestream cigarette smoke on a daily basis in a poorly ventilated area. But as far as the studies that formed the basis of every current prohibition against indoor (and often outdoor) smoking in the US, those absolutely were junk science of the highest order.

 

[Kent C]

Kent wrote:



Please note that I've criticized lots of research conducted by Stan Glantz (including his EPA lung cancer report, and his Helena and other "smoking ban" heart attack studies). But just because some junk science has been published and touted about secondhand smoke doesn't mean that all of the hundreds of other studies on secondhand smoke are junk science (which is a false accusation made by various right-to-smoke activists).

I've also publicly opposed many/most outdoor smoking bans (but I still strongly support smoking bans at outdoor stadiums and within 10 feet of building entrances).

I've considered myself a pragmatic libertarian since I joined the American Council on Science and Health and NORML in the late 1970's, and since I subscribed to Reason Magazine and joined the Cato Institute and Ethan Nadelmann's Drug Policy Forum in the early 1980's.

In fact, the only reason I campaigned to ban smoking in workplaces was/is because of the libertarian principle that people have a right to not be harmed by the actions of others.

I have been paying attention. I pretty much know what your views are on these issues and much of your work and some, I commend (as above) and some, again, as above, "You and I will never agree" (unless ...).

It was the Cato Institute that pointed out the EPA junk science on second-hand smoke. And Reason mag reported on it. The carcinogenic aspect of second-hand smoke has been thoroughly debunked here and elsewhere - I don't discount some of the other findings - which is why I noted above that I was a 'responsible smoker', although I would put most of the reactions of people, in the area of 'annoying' and also hypochondria (the 'fake coughs', etc.) created from the fear-mongering of the anti-smoking institutions.

As to the 'workplace ban' I prefer principled libertarian approach, to let the owner of the business decide, and then let the workers and customers (pragmatically, for their own concerns) to decide whether or not they think working or shopping there is of value to them. There is no 'right to work' somewhere or a 'right to shop' somewhere. Last paragraph here:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-yourselves-public-health-2.html#post14207252

While we have some principle differences, I see no reason why we can't be (and have been) and continue to be, allies in the current struggle.

 

[Kent C]

No, of course it doesn't. I don't think any reasonable person would dispute that it's not healthy to breathe sidestream cigarette smoke on a daily basis in a poorly ventilated area. But as far as the studies that formed the basis of every current prohibition against indoor (and often outdoor) smoking in the US, those absolutely were junk science of the highest order.

I would gladly offer my property as a burial site for any individual where 'the authorities' (EPA, etc.) could prove without a doubt that their death was caused by second-hand smoke without any other causative or correlative factors.

And if they considered the offer, which they wouldn't of course, but if they did, my property would remain cadaver-free forever.

 

[Nate760]

I would gladly offer my property as a burial site for any individual where 'the authorities' (EPA, etc.) could prove without a doubt that their death was caused by second-hand smoke without any other causative or correlative factors.

And if they considered the offer, which they wouldn't of course, but if they did, my property would remain cadaver-free forever.

To clarify, I said "not healthy." I didn't say "deadly."

 

[Kent C]

To clarify, I said "not healthy." I didn't say "deadly."

So noted... and it was a bit of a continuation from above

 

[Katya]

So you, take what you thought was an 'opportunity' to criticize Bill - once again - and your intent was so obvious that no one (except you perhaps) didn't understand what you were doing. It is on the level of attacking someone (to whom you are losing a debate), on a grammar error.

Over and over again, if I may add. All over the forum.

Javert comes to mind.

ETA: And tom baker...

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...michael-siegels-new-study-5.html#post14257395

 

[csardaz]

To repeat what I posted in a related thread, Rodu has pointed out how the CDC cherry picked the data for its misleading press release. His criticisms are similar to Bill's and he's posted a data chart of some survey results.

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/cdc-sees-e-cigarette-use-at-marked.html

Thanks I had looked for this paper and only got the abstract - Abstract says its public domain since its authored by government employees - but try to get the full text...

Its based on a HealthStyles survey - this is a consumer sentiments marketing survey - It used to be done by mail and was aimed at 'viewers of daytime drama shows/soap operas'. Roughly 4000 people surveyed so if 8% had tried an ecig thats about 320 people the ecig stats are based on.

If you look a Rodu's table2 screenshot you see overall "ever" use was 8.5% [7.3-9.8] - so like 8.5 +/- 1.2 It was up 0.4% from the prior year - but with the +/- 1.2 that 0.4 doesn't really mean anything.

Look at lines 9, 12, 17 - females overall and people aged 25-44 and you see decreases of 0.3%. #17 is Black, nonhispanic and its down from 13.3% to 8.6%. Remember this is "Ever" use so it is hard to make it go down. Maybe some ladies who had ever tried it have died? Maybe a lot of 44 year olds tried it but graduated to age 45, and usage amoung the new 25 year olds was lower?

Or the data is just so fuzzy it can't be trusted. If there are about 320 total 'ever' vapers represented then there are only around 160 females and even less for each age group. Note line 41 - current smokers is 36.5%. CDC says "An estimated 42.1 million people, or 18.1% of all adults (aged 18 years or older), in the United States smoke cigarettes" So the respondents to this survey smoke twice as much as the CDC figure. So does it represent the right population?

I think with or without cherry picking; a study of this particular data is wasted money.

Well except for propaganda value.

 

[filbert]

That's 36.5% of smokers in the survey that have ever used e-cigs, not 36.5% of those surveyed being smokers.

The results don't look too terribly fuzzy to me, but it would be interesting to see the actual data.

 

[Bill Godshall]

If anyone wants the entire study, send me an e-mail to billgodshall@verizon.net

The data on Table 2 isn't very helpful (for understanding e-cig usage trends) because its all on "ever use" of an e-cig. Table 1 data is totally useless, as its on "awareness" of e-cigs.

"Past 30 day" e-cig use is the by far the most important information for understanding e-cig usage trends, and is cited on Table 3. But as I mentioned earlier, the CDC suppressed all of the most important e-cig survey data that should have been on Table 3 (i.e. annual differences in “past 30 day” e-cig use among current, former and never smokers and by sex, age, race, education, income, and region of US) by combining/averaging the four years of annual data into two two-year averages (for 2010/11 and 2012/13) in order to deceive, obscure and falsely spin the usage trend data.

The only annual "past 30 day" e-cig usage data CDC revealed (in the body of the study, but not on Table 3) was for the overall adult US population, stating that “past 30 day” use of an e-cig was reported by 1% in 2010, 1.5% in 2011, 1.3% in 2012, and 2.6% in 2013.

But as I also previously mentioned, CDC's Brian King (the study's lead author) falsely told AP reporters that the survey found e-cig use had leveled off from 2012 to 2103 (even though "past 30 day" e-cig use doubled from 1.3% in 2012 to 2.6% in 2013) because he cited irrelevant "ever use" data (that contradicted the survey's "past 30 day" use data). And of course, the AP reporters and editors chose to highlight King's false spin as fact.
Trend for trying e-cigarettes may be leveling off

 

[csardaz]

That's 36.5% of smokers in the survey that have ever used e-cigs, not 36.5% of those surveyed being smokers.

The results don't look too terribly fuzzy to me, but it would be interesting to see the actual data.

Yes thank you.

 

[Kent C]

....And of course, the AP reporters and editors chose to highlight King's false spin as fact.
Trend for trying e-cigarettes may be leveling off

I also wonder about this:

The study's conclusions seem to parallel a modest decline in e-cigarette sales during the same period that have been noted in analyst reports.

Where's the source on this?? Seems like Forbes, Motley Fool, et al., have been reporting rising sales - although they may be speaking of just cigalikes, which Herzog reports, iirc.

And....

The findings come from an annual survey of thousands of adults. It has been the CDC's only source on e-cigarette trends since the devices started selling in the U.S. in late 2006.

It 'reads' like that's the only survey but it's the only survey that CDC uses. Why? With all the money that's being thrown around, they might use a few different sources just for bias norming.