Official complaint to the BBC

[Demon]

hi guys,

I have an idea about what happened.
Isn't it possible that the deceased guy mixed his own e-liquid?
Because there are flavors available on the market which are natural oils.
They have wonderful smell and they look like exactly as a PG based concentrated flavor, but they are actually natural oil extracts from real fruits.
For example this one:
Perfumers Apprentice - Orange (Sweet) Flavor
This can be used as a food additive but it's not the best idea to inhale it, is it?
As far as I know a good quality e-liquid could not contain oil.
But if he purchased it from an unreliable source, or if he was mixing the stuff for himself, maybe he bumped into some kind of fruity smelling e-liquid with natural oil in it.
What do you think?
It's not impossible. But the question is: How dangerous is to put 2-3 drops of these natural oils into the E-liquid? Those ones usually smell very strong, so a 10ml bottle wouldn't need more than 2-3 drops of that. Could that amount be dangerous too?

 

[Vocalek]

Unforttunately, the other thing that could be generated by death that they suspect might have been caused by an e-cigareette is an all out ban on the products. Those who say that they like to err on the sdie of caution would see that as a good thing.

We all know that those kinds of studies take years and years to complete. Those of us who smoked for decades and were already seeing the signs of permanent lung damage from smoke do not have that kind of time to waste. So to me, it isn't being cautious to ban something that can save the health of millions because we aren't sure it is 100% safe.

Remember what happened when they finally came up with drugs to combat HIV/AIDS? At first, the FDA wanted to do things "business as usual." In 10 or 20 years we may be something that can save your life. Unfortunately you will be dead in one year.

 

[rolygate]

@Demon
It seems that what actually happened is that the man died from smoking-related disease, possibly with emphysema and heart disease as contributing factors. Patients with emphysema are at higher risk of developing pneumonia, so the death of someone from pneumonia who had emphysema is unremarkable.

In order to determine the precise cause of death further, it would be necessary to carry out some simple tests and lab analyses of various samples from the lung, intestine, etc. Without such samples and tests the discussion of any cause of death other than smoking-related disease is both pointless and irrelevant. In addition we would want to see exactly what questions were asked, what test results were discussed, and what other conclusions were reached at the inquest. An inquest is an unusual event and only takes place when there are questions about the cause of death, and it has to be asked for by someone who can show that there is a requirement for one to be held.

Interestingly, the test results appear to have been lost (or were never carried out in the first place), and the transcript of the inquest has been lost (or there was no recording of the proceedings in the first place).

It would be something of an understatement to describe this as suspicious. If related to the use of an e-cigarette, a death would be a unique event with global implications, so that no tests being performed, or no transcript of the inquest being available, are items that deserve further investigation.

I am putting together a complaint to the GMC about the conduct of the doctor in this matter.

Please be assured that it is extremely unlikely that e-cigarette use is implicated in this person's death. Not only would such a case be unique, but in this particular case it would appear that an attempt has been made to obfuscate the evidence. If it appears that someone may be trying to unlawfully influence the findings of an inquest, this might be construed as trying to pervert the course of justice, and therefore the Police should be asked to look at the matter.

 

[Sdh]

I just read the BBC post. It is very vague and without a knowledge of prior diseases/conditions this accusation has no substanial evidence.

I have surfed the net and have not seen any actual facts other than objective facts from media.

It seems so far that a doctor refered this diagnois (E-cig to blame) to the widow as a possibility? Interesting or maybe he did not have adequate medical care for his intersitial lung disease. Which does occur in smokers.

Most of us hope we are out of the woods with possible health issues. However, as noted some folks already have damage occuring/occured in their lungs. Even though we use the electronic vaporizer it does not magicly cure our diseases. It may prevent further damage.

The man's age was 57. I would assume that he did not pick up vaping for the heck of it. It is obvious that he was a smoker like most of us.

 

[Zenfrogs]

Complaint filed... what a shameful piece of journalism.

 

[GMoney]

...but it may not be a bad thing if premature death is the spark that ignites actual double-blind, peer-reviewed studies on the prolonged inhalation of concentrated, propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin vapor along with other additives.

Most studies on inhalation were either not concentrated or not prolonged. Additionally, I've found no studies involving the direct inhalation of the flavor additives in anything remotely close to what we do with our e-cigs.

I'm not one for biased reporting, but if such sensationalism generates enough interest from both sides, there are bound to be 3rd-party analyses done.

Bring e-cigs into public light and out will come those with opinions, which in turn will spawn those with conclusions drawn from research. Just look how much rudimentary research was generated in this thread, alone, all because of some unfounded statements made in a news report.

Just a thought.

Mike

Agreed that real SCIENTIFIC research is a good thing. I do believe some suppliers are paying to have research done,

The problem is that any studies paid for by the government WILL have a conclusion that they need to be banned regardless of the facts. If you doubt me, do some research into what the FDA has already concluded, e.g. The inference that there is anti-freeze in e-cigs.

 

[stubear62]

Once I heard about this (TY roly) and I went and wrote a 4 page letter to the BBC.
Not that it will help, but to let them know about my condition with COPD and Pnumonia / Brocitis (all due to smoking).
Since the ecig, my Cardiologist had seen an improvement with my heart and also my BP.
With the help of meds and quiting analogs, he does have a good outlook 4 me. (except another heart attack a little while ago) due to stress.
I do hope what I wrote does help, but I don't believe it is enough.
Shame for this to happen.

 

[rothenbj]

Stu, thanks for writing. I'm fortunate so far in not having any major adverse reactions to a 43 year, 2-3 pack habit. My first indications of issues came when FSC/RIP CIGS became the norm and E cigs arrived about the same time. Perhaps I got lucky, maybe not.

What I do know is that these idiots could have sold seriously reduced harm decades ago and didn't. I shall die never forgiving the anti smoking/tobacco movement for marketing an ideology for profit. If you can sue tobacco companies for damaging your health, you should be able to sue the government and the ?Non-profit?"health" associations for decades of lying to the public.

 

[JayTheVapingGuy]

complaint filed... and requested a responce...

will post if they actually acknowledge my complaint.

 

[throatkick]

It is astounding that people can hold positions that carry such "responsibility" and act so irresponsibly.

 

[son et lumiere]

Even if it was true which its not. 1 person is not bad compared to the alternative.

 

[vapz]

Loran Oils is the name of a company that manufactures food flavorings, as well as essential oils to be used for aroma therapy. Most of the Loran food flavorings are PG based. Users have been warned from Day 1 when practicing DIY to not use flavors that are oil-based, because a) they will fry your atomizer and b) it probably is not a good idea to inhale vaporized oil.

Thanks Vocalek for the information. I was just curious after hearing the word "Oil" in the product name.

 

[GirlyPantz]

The report on the death of a man in Gateshead appears to hold a lot of bias considering it is nothing more than conjecture and innuendo. In my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, the liquids used in electronic cigarettes do not contain paraffin or other volatile oils which are normally associated with lipoid pneumonia, and as such, the implied link appears to be little more than a desperate bid for a scape-goat. To tout that "This may be the first medical evidence in the world highlighting the potential dangers of e-cigarettes" without offering any medical proof seems to boarder on hysteria. Surely the substance in the deceased's lungs was identified and could have therefore been named as the cause. This glaring lack of supporting evidence coupled with a few implications from a quit smoking lobbyist who happens to be a doctor is far from proof. For the record, I did five months research on all things related to the e-cig industry before deciding to purchase one e-cig to try and to my surprise I quit my 40+ cigarettes per day habit the instant it arrived. I had no intention to quit smoking at that time but had tried every other method of quitting on the market to no avail and was therefore curious. My doctors are very impressed with the marked improvement in my lungs and my general health and are carefully monitoring the situation, and I am very thankful that they gave me the green light to try e-cigs. Unfortunately when it comes to quitting smoking its not a case of one-method-fits-all but as a die hard smoker this has worked for me and thousands like me. It would be a huge disservice to the community at large to allow hysteria to deny others like myself the opportunity to change their lives all because the tobbacco/pharma industries are trying to protect their bottom line. We as a society trust our news services to give a fair and unbiased account of all events and news worthy stories and sadly I feel that that your editorial in this case has betrayed that trust.

 

[GirlyPantz]

will glady post their reply here too

 

[Clinton]

Complaint sent.

"That report was totally outrageous. Facts should be obtained before reporting on such a controversial matter before the actual report. That was VERY irresponsible reporting and will possibly cost lives! This only fuels e-cig bans which are also very irresponsible. E-cigs SAVE lives! There are no 'oils' in e-cig juice. Perhaps this person was making their own juice and adding bad ingredients. I am disgusted with this report. How can I trust any information coming from you now!? It seemed to me that this was not an attempt to deliver truth which is what reporters are SUPPOSED to do. "

Hope it helps in some way. Wasn't quite sure what to say!?

 

[robot_roo]

anyone had a reply yet???

 

[GAC]

Complaint sent, as long as big tobacco is around we will see crap like this. Makes me sick.

 

[Vocalek]

Welcome to the forum GAC. You're looking in the wrong direction. Big Tobacco had zero, zilch, nada to do with this situation. In fact, Big Tobacco is looking to get into the e-cigarette game themselves. Think about it. Who went to the papers and started running his mouth about how dangerous the product is? What is his profession?

The folks who will lose big time if too many people switch over to e-cigarettes are the wonderful companies like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline who brought you the "smoking cessation" treatments that fail to work for up to 98% of those who try. They have a hell of a racket going. Sell you products for 12 weeks, then tell you to stop. After you have gone back to smoking for a while, you feel guilty about your "failure" and then go back and spend several hundred more bucks on their smoking cessation treatments. Repeat pattern for years and years.

If you will pay attention to the media, you see the names of the groups that are speaking out against e-cigarettes. These are all those groups that have been nagging you to stop smoking for decades. It's the groups that claim they are all about good health, and curing lung disease, cancer, and heart disease. They have initials like ALA, ACS, AHA, CTFK, ASH, AMA, ANR, and WHO.

Yes, I understand that this is hard to believe. Frankly, I was dumbfounded when I learned their stance. I figured that if anyone would be jumping for joy that something came along that finally works to get smokers quit and allow them to STAY that way, it would be these organizations. Little did I know that they receive the bulk of their funding from the corporations that make their money from "smoking cessation" treatments that don't work for most customers.

 

[GMoney]

Nice write up Vocalek. It really is "a hell of a racket"! A product that really dpesn't work and their "cohorts" forcing people with a gun at their head(places not hiring or firing people who smoke, places evicting or not renting to people who smoke, etc.) forcing them to buy it as their only option - what a great business model, I picked the wrong line of work!

All hyperbole aside, IMHO, the message you imparted above is a big part of what needs to get pushed through the media to the general public. Life v. Greed as opposed to anti-freeze? yes or no?

 

[softpiano]

Can somebody please explain me what oil based juice is? Is it PG? Is it dangerous??