Oncology Nursing News article - some sort of horrible joke?

[DC2]

This was posted in the Smoking Everywhere vs FDA thread, but it is so incredibly sad, horrific, disturbing, ridiculous, and morally wrong that I had to bring it out here...

Don't Be Fooled by E-Cigarettes - Oncology Nursing News

Some of your patients or their at-risk family members who are having a hard time quitting smoking may ask you whether electronic cigarettes are a safer alternative. According to a recent laboratory analysis conducted by the FDA, the answer is, “Probably not.”

I mean, seriously, is this really what the world has come to?

 

[NickJuice]

We really need FDA Approval

 

[Vaporista]

Someone should e-mail the author and enlighten her. Anyway from what I can see she just regurgitates FDA newswires, toes the official party line so to speak ...And on the offchance that I should ever have the misfortune to end up on an Oncology ward, well they will have to pry my steaming PV from my cold dead lips

 

[DC2]

Contact Us


Haymarket Media Inc.

Business offices
114 West 26th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10001
646-638-6000

Editorial offices
25 Philips Parkway, Suite 105
Montvale, NJ 07645
201-799-4800

Sales

Director of Sales
Chad Holloway
201-799-4878
chad.holloway@haymarketmedia.com

National Sales Manager
Scott Bugni
646-638-6095
scott.bugni@haymarketmedia.com

Editorial

Editor
Colin Gittens
201-799-4865
colin.gittens@haymarketmedia.com

Senior Editor
Delicia Yard
delicia.yard@haymarketmedia.com

 

[NickJuice]

She's only working with the information given...i think we should all send here the multitude of Studies done by larger and more Respected Orginization then the FDA....wait?

 

[Scottbee]

I took the time to send then an eloquently worded and highly professional nastigram.

 

[chrisl317]

This was posted in the Smoking Everywhere vs FDA thread, but it is so incredibly sad, horrific, disturbing, ridiculous, and morally wrong that I had to bring it out here...

Don't Be Fooled by E-Cigarettes - Oncology Nursing News




I mean, seriously, is this really what the world has come to?

What really makes me laugh, is the part of the quote, "Probably Not".
One would then have to logically surmise that THEY REALLY DON'T KNOW!
Those two words negate anything else that article has to say.
Burnt them toasty!

 

[chrisl317]

We really need FDA Approval

I say we go bigger and petition the World Health Organization!

 

[Scottbee]

Not to tell anybody what to do with their time.. but when you see something like this, why not take a minute to blast off a quick EMAIL expressing your outrage, or concern, or whatever.

If authors get enough response.... even if it is an angry tirade... one of them just might take the time to do a little REAL research and we might get some positive press out of it.

Just a thought.

 

[NickJuice]

Not to tell anybody what to do with their time.. but when you see something like this, why not take a minute to blast off a quick EMAIL expressing your outrage, or concern, or whatever.

If authors get enough response.... even if it is an angry tirade... one of them just might take the time to do a little REAL research and we might get some positive press out of it.

Just a thought.

you don't think attacking the News orginization is sort of fighting from the wrong end? I mean all they can do is print the information presented to them...and currently PV's aren't approved by the FDA and the FDA study was the one with an official New release...

Everytime we see an article like this we should be Emailing these to the Manufactures and Dealers that sells the PV's they should be made aware that unless they step up and start making moves to legitamitize this product they will be losing not only our business but any legal or ethical grounds that they may currently stand upon..

I've always recommended a Boycott company by company for each article released until we see them start moving to do the right thing

 

[Scottbee]

you don't think attacking the News orginization is sort of fighting from the wrong end? I mean all they can do is print the information presented to them...and currently PV's aren't approved by the FDA and the FDA study was the one with an official New release...

Everytime we see an article like this we should be Emailing these to the Manufactures and Dealers that sells the PV's they should be made aware that unless they step up and start making moves to legitamitize this product they will be losing not only our business but any legal or ethical grounds that they may currently stand upon..

I've always recommended a Boycott company by company for each article released until we see them start moving to do the right thing

Well certainly NOT attacking them would be best. When I sent them the EMAIL I pointed out the inconsistencies and issues with their article. And I'm hoping that might "prod" them into taking a deeper and harder look. Example: there are probably "detectable" levels of toxins and carcinogens in Twinkies.... "detectable" is almost an ambiguous term.

But even an attack in this case might have a positive effect. Because if they want to rebuttal or post more negative articles, they might do some more research. And in this case, I honestly think that the research will do nothing but help us.. not hurt us.

 

[kcr]

Attacks"--if by that one means "nastigrams"--just make us look like a bunch of cranks.

Well-thought-out, considered responses which inform rather than attack will always get a better response.

I'm just saying...

 

[Vocalek]

you don't think attacking the News orginization is sort of fighting from the wrong end? I mean all they can do is print the information presented to them...and currently PV's aren't approved by the FDA and the FDA study was the one with an official New release...

Excuse me? Quoting from a press release is not reporting. Journalism 101 teaches that a good reporter asks questions. A great reporter thinks up hard questions and presses for the answers. This was my email to the author, who is also on the editorial staff:

Dear Ms. Yard:

I find it sad that you, like so many journalists, were taken in by the FDA's report on electronic cigarettes. Not one journalist bothered to ask the FDA questions. You would have been surprised by the answers.

The nicotine in the cartridges is extracted from tobacco, so it should not be surprising to find substances in the liquid that are normally found in tobacco, such as diethylene glycol (DEG), used as a tobacco humectant. FDA found less than 1% DEG in one of the 18 cartridges tested. According to the World Health Organization, a lethal dose is about 1 ml per kilogram of body weight. To reach that level, an e-cigarette user would need to vaporize thousands of milliliters of liquid in a single day. Most users consume between 1/2 ml and 3 mls of liquid per day.

FDA failed to mention that the quantity of nitrosamines detected is about equal to the amount of nitrosamines in the nicotine patch. Surprised? Then consider this. Users did not substitute e-cigarettes for the patch. They substituted e-cigarettes for the real thing – tobacco cigarettes. One Marlboro cigarette delivers 6600 nanograms of nitrosamines per gram. The e-cigarette liquid delivers 0.8 ng/g. To see a comparison chart of the nitrosamine levels of various products, visit http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/07/comparison.html

Cigarette smoke delivers tar, carbon monoxide, heavy metals, and thousands of additional chemicals that FDA did not find in the vapor. Now that you have the rest of the facts, do you still believe it is safer for oncology patients to continue smoking their tobacco cigarettes rather than switching to e-cigarettes?

I smoked for 45 years. I did consult my doctor, and I did use the FDA-approved smoking cessation products, to no avail. I stopped inhaling tobacco smoke and began using an e-cigarette on March 27, 2009. I have stopped wheezing. I can laugh now without breaking into a coughing jag. My BP is 117/79. I am not the exception. There are thousands, perhaps as many as 100,000 of us, who have experienced measurable health improvements and no ill effects since we switched.

I feel very unsafe that the FDA is so focused on its own agenda that it is willing to to sacrifice the lives of 46 million smokers who can't quit! Please feel free to contact me with any questions you might have.

 

[Vocalek]

Everytime we see an article like this we should be Emailing these to the Manufactures and Dealers that sells the PV's they should be made aware that unless they step up and start making moves to legitamitize this product they will be losing not only our business but any legal or ethical grounds that they may currently stand upon..

I've always recommended a Boycott company by company for each article released until we see them start moving to do the right thing

Dear Nick: I have a homework assignment for you. I'll give you a head start by telling you that the FDA has stated that they want these companies to go through the New Drug Application process.

Go find out what is involved in the NDA process. How many steps are involved? How long does it take? How much does it cost? What expertise is required to conduct the clinical trials? You can learn all this information at the FDA Web site.

When you have that information, come back and report it here.

 

[need_2quit]

remember these articles are just someones opinion. i don't get all worked up about them, because ppl that are thinking give them little notice, because they are biased and based on little fact.

a nurse at our local hospital SELLS e-cigarettes in town. When my husband was in ICU recently all the nurses wanted to see the ecig work. Real life has far more impact in reaching those that want to quit analogs, than any internet article will deter.

until the FDA bans and the manufacturers conduct tests, these articles are meaningless other than digging them up for discussion fodder.

 

[DC2]

until the FDA bans and the manufacturers conduct tests, these articles are meaningless other than digging them up for discussion fodder.

I didn't post it for discussion fodder, I posted it to get people ...... off.
Because I think we need to become, and then remain, ...... off in a focused way.

And never forget what we are fighting for.
Or what we are fighting against.

 

[LuckyCharm]

...
Dear Ms. Yard:

I find it sad that you, like so many journalists, were taken in by the FDA's report on electronic cigarettes. Not one journalist bothered to ask the FDA questions. You would have been surprised by the answers....

Bravo to you, what a well-written letter! Now let's hope they listen...

~~Cheryl

 

[Vocalek]

remember these articles are just someones opinion. i don't get all worked up about them, because ppl that are thinking give them little notice, because they are biased and based on little fact.

That may be true, but people who don't know any better have their opinions on the topic shaped by articles such as these. This article, in effect, advises oncology nurses to tell their patients, "If you can't quit, just keep smoking tobacco. It's safer."

"Those things have antifreeze in them!" sounds much more frightening than, "If you continue to smoke, chances are good that 40 years down the road, you'll die of a smoking-related disease."

If we allow untruth to go unchallenged, it turns into "Truth" with a capital "T".

 

[need_2quit]

That may be true, but people who don't know any better have their opinions on the topic shaped by articles such as these.

true, but i agree with kcr - always on the defensive does make us sound like a bunch of cranks. until the FDA has authority to ban, we can educate people, but coming off as a ...... off crusader only hurts the cause.

most of the flack over e-cigs comes from non-smokers... or smokers that don't want to quit. at least i've found that to be true in my personal interactions IRL.

I just don't feel the need to defend myself over them. I just educate them and tell them it WORKS, with no ill effects on my health. I get checkups regularly, bloodwork, etc. E-cigs have had no detrimental effect on my health, or i'd give them up.

I think what i'm trying to say is we don't need to defend our actions and crusade every article that comes out against e-cigs.

 

[ECGuy]

true, but i agree with kcr - always on the defensive does make us sound like a bunch of cranks. until the FDA has authority to ban, we can educate people, but coming off as a ...... off crusader only hurts the cause.

I think what i'm trying to say is we don't need to defend our actions and crusade every article that comes out against e-cigs.

Exactly right, it's education that's needed not a crusade. If you sound pissy, and do the "you're no journalist" you don't win people to your side. WE do need to be vigilante however. ASH is. They wrote a letter to a publication in Dubai for crying out loud. While we don't need to grab the pitchforks and torches over every article, we do need to help journalists be more informed of the facts and not just spout off the half truths we've seen so much of these last six months.

As someone said, this is her opinion, but it's not. She's reporting the findings of the FDA and to thousands of nurses who also share their opinion based on this information, with their patients. It's a well known fact: If you just repeat it often enough it will become the truth. ASH and their ilk know this, they teach their activists to do just that. "just keep saying it over and over, get it out into as many articles as possible and soon it's the truth". There are so many stories of people wrongly accused of crimes who were exonerated and years later still suffer the stigma. Why? Cause the original story was on the front page, the truth on page 30.

Be nice. Be informative. Be helpful and point them in the right direction. But do work hard to contact these people when you see these articles. Most won't care, they got their story, but some might and just might do another story.

If there is one thing we need it's better press and more of it. If there's one thing we don't need, it's this constant mentioning of DEG.If it were not for that one faulty cartridge, we'd all be better off right now.