Pharmacy Today Article - Pharmacists Urged to Not Recommend Ecig

[RobearII]

Alright internets, take a look at this short article that my pharmacist directed me to when discussing e-cigs.

The very short of it is that pharmacists are advised to not recommend e-cigs at this time.

I tend to disagree with the conclusion of the article, especially the line, ". . . they may contain toxic additives . . .". That one in particular screams soft backing and hidden agenda. Not that I'm a conspiracist, I just firmly believe that the stake of the pharmaceutical community could cause them to use mildly biased language to encourage regulation, thus buttressing their position as regulators of chemicals. A position with which I do not take issue. However, our regulations should be based upon the most accurate information.

Further, it appears that the most recent scholarly backing of the article is at least 2 years old. Surely there is better information by now.

http://www.pharmacist.com/cigarettes-digital-age.

A comment in the Respiratory Update also had the same regulatory push regarding e-cigs. The specialist said smoking is to vaping like jumping off a 50 story building is to jumping off a 5 story building: "you get the same results". I'm no doctor, but that seems a little incorrect given the data posted on the ECF and elsewhere regarding the chemicals in e-cigs. Is there something I'm missing?

http://www.pharmacist.com/breathing-easy-progress-pulmonology.

Finally, a more recent article from the same publication moves the needle slightly back from these previous two examples. It basically says what most articles I've read say: E-cigs are better than analogs, quality control wouldn't hurt.

http://www.pharmacist.com/e-cigarettes-friend-or-foe.

If you feel the need to reply directly to the articles, I strongly suggest that you take a vape, count to 10, use supported points, and be a gentleman/lady.

 

[Julie W]

This!!!!!!!! "In addition, because e-cigarettes are unregulated, they may contain toxic additives in addition to nicotine. "

So normal cigarettes because they are regulated 'dont'???? arghhhhhhhhhhh heaven save me from their total hypocrisy

 

[rolygate]

The pharmaceutical industry are the principle commercial funders of anti-ecig efforts, now that the tobacco industry have ceased opposition and started to buy in. It is not difficult to see how a pharma trade mag might be influenced.

Pharma has three main income channels from smoking and all are under threat from ecigs:

1. The huge drugs trade in therapies for sick smokers. These drugs are immensely profitable and the market is worth tens of billions a year: chemotherapy drugs, COPD drugs, cardiac drugs, vascular drugs, and others.

2. The significant boost to other drug sales caused by smoking, for example diabetes and cholesterol therapies. Smokers drive sales in many areas: a smoker is >40% more likely to be diabetic, and a 1PAD smoker is >60% more likely to have diabetes. Again, this market boost is worth tens of billions a year.

3. Smoking cessation therapies such as NRTs and psychoactive drugs. This is actually the smallest by far of pharma's smoking-related markets, although it may be the only one people think of.

Then we must take into account other smaller channels such as OTC meds for smoker's cough and so on; private hospital incomes from smoker treatment; and more. The smoking economy is immense and its influence is everywhere.


The tobacco industry can mitigate the falling sales of cigarettes in the West due to ecigs (figures from a 5% to 8% drop in stick sales are reported) by buying up ecig firms; pharma has nowhere to go except down. NRT sales are already falling.

It is impossible that any less than 10% of pharma's gross global income is generated by smoking; it is likely the figure is around 15%; it could conceivably be as much as 20%. All that income is now under threat. With $100 billion of income about to vaporize, pharma is spending tens of millions trying to slow that process down. It's a losing battle in the final analysis, because you can't put the genie back in the bottle - but if they can just slow the technology changeover down a few years then they can save tens of billions. This, by the way, is the perennial story in any major technology change: those invested in the old economy fight desperately against the new technology.

And they are doing just that, any way they can. Huge sums are available to senior medics who will work against THR, and we can see the results. Six-figure sums are available to researchers who will concoct studies that are critical of ecigs; and one researcher was paid $850,000 for research that mainly consisted of watching YouTube videos of vapers and producing a report that stated vaping must be bad for health because of the extended inhalation times (this is not a joke). The money available is frankly incredible.

Ecigs are a serious threat to pharma income and they will do whatever is necessary to prevent smokers switching.

 

[Julie W]

It's completely despicable! & they couch it in BS that it's for our health,yada yada
"Know thine enemy"
Having finally thrown one monkey off our backs we are left with this one.
Insidious & everywhere.Personally for years I have refused to contribute to their profits,& use alternative medicine where ever possible.
But they really have us from cradle to grave don't they.....completely amoral.
At least we have Dr Farsalinos working for us & I believe & hope more will follow.

Total non sequiter (but not really)it made me laugh
"You can tell how cold it is in DC at the moment;as all the BP lobbyists have their hands in their own pockets"

 

[hippiebrian]

I see some misinformation here. They were cautious, for sure, by using words like "may", but I have yet to find a vape company or distributor that is marketing to children in any shape or form. There is no Joe Camel in the vaping industry, and most I've seen and visited are marketing to people who already smoke.

The last article at least was a bit encouraging, reccomending that pv's stay on the market. I'm all for more research, don't get me wrong, but to remove the only thing that has ever kept me and many others off the evil weed would be stupid at best. Like the doctor said, it is highly unlikely that these even close to being as harmful as cigarettes with their chemicals and additives.

 

[RobearII]

rolygate: As an accountant who works with economists, I can only surmise that you must be one of the two. Great post. It sounds like my office banter, instead of my industry, it is about this. I couldn't find a "love" button.

 

[Nermal]

You got it, Brian. Kind of like asking "Do carrots contain carcinogens?" Nowhere does the question state or imply that carrots contain carcinogens, but it kind of makes you think of parsnips instead.