Proof lacking on e-cigarettes' safety, experts warn

[mpetva]

BBC News - Proof lacking on e-cigarettes' safety, experts warn

Partial Quotes:

The report authors said consumers should stop using the devices until ongoing safety studies reported back within the next year.

Andreas Flouris and Dimitris Oikonomou, from the Institute of Human Performance and Rehabilitation in Greece, say there have been three main reports on e-cigarette safety - one by US regulators, one by a publicly-funded Greek research institute, and another by a private company in New Zealand.

 

[Vocalek]

I went to the British Medical Journal to find the original article. Unfortunately, I was only able to view the excerpt because I do not have a subscription. So I had to rely on the BBC article as having accurately quoted the authors as advising consumers to stop using e-cigarettes until safety testing is completed in the next year. I left this Rapid Response:

No compelling evidence of harm or danger

The FDA failed to report the results of a quantitative analysis and to use the appropriate control--tobacco cigarettes. Had this information been provided, it would have been obvious that the liquid in e-cigarette cartridges poses approximately the same level of danger as FDA-approved nicotine products and is thousands of times safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes.

Last June, FDA called on consumers to report adverse events involving e-cigarettes to its MedWatch surveillance program. Apparently, no problems were reported. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, in ruling against the agency stated, “FDA cites no evidence that those electronic cigarettes have endangered anyone.

In the absence of compelling evidence of actual or anticipated harm, it is irresponsible for anyone concerned with public health to advise, “Just keep smoking until we are sure this alternative is 100% safe.” It is even more irresponsible to tell former smokers to stop using the product that keeps them from going back to deadly tobacco smoke.
CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association

 

[tarkus]

Without extensive testing it cannot be proved that these are safe unfortunately if it is proven then I'm sure we will see extensive regulation since nicotine is highly addictive (and the governments will all want their cut).

 

[3n-out]

I'm living proof this is safe then smoke tobacco. I'm just 5 days after 30 years of smoking I have noticed my body is bouncing back from the hammering it has taken over those years. Anyone with 1/2 a brain should see the benifits of this, but really all you have to do is ask a long time smoker he'll tell ya!

 

[Vocalek]

Without extensive testing it cannot be proved that these are safe unfortunately if it is proven then I'm sure we will see extensive regulation since nicotine is highly addictive (and the governments will all want their cut).

They are coming at this entire thing bass-ackwards. Ask not, "Do we have proof that this product will do no harm?" That's impossible to prove. It is why our judicial system requires the prosecution to prove guilt instead of making the the accused prove his or her innocence. You can't prove a negative.

The point is that the alternative -- continued smoking -- is so darn unsafe that a product would need to be pretty whack to outdo smoking in the harm department.

So regulate it the same way you do mouth wash or toothpaste. Inspect things to make sure there are no contaminants. Insist on proper labeling.

 

[beingbekah]

They are coming at this entire thing bass-ackwards. Ask not, "Do we have proof that this product will do no harm?" That's impoossible to prove. It is why our judicial system requires the prosecution to prove guilt instead of making the the accused prove his or her innocence. You can't prove a negative.

Thank you for pointing this out. It's like trying to prove equivacally that there's no such thing as a lime green cow. We may know this anecdotally, but to prove it you'd have to survey every cow alive (and, if you wanted to be really thorough, all those that have ever lived and will ever live), which is just not possible in a single lifetime, or even in many.

 

[rothenbj]

Without extensive testing it cannot be proved that these are safe unfortunately if it is proven then I'm sure we will see extensive regulation since nicotine is highly addictive (and the governments will all want their cut).

I am so, so tired of hearing how "highly addictive" nicotine is. Anything that is out of your system in seventy two hours, as I've been told in every smoking cessation program I've ever been to (and I've been to quite a number of them). There's so much more to cigarette addiction than nicotine. What it is, I don't know, but it's not JUST nic.

Now if the point was made that it's addictive as caffeine I'd have to agree. I know people that can't function if they aren't having coffee in the morning and soda the rest of the day.

You want highly addictive, go find someone hooked on coke or heroine. That's addiction.

 

[deewal]

There are already two threads on this.
Here..http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...9-now-they-want-stub-out-fake-cigarettes.html

and here..http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/64186-bmj-e-cig-reports-confllict.html

Just sayin' read other threads before you post.

 

[Vocalek]

It seems to me that when reporters are reviewing articles from medical journals, they need to accurately state the content. If they wonder, "Does that really mean this?" they need to ask the article's author.

The BBC coverage includes some far-fetched statements:

The report authors said consumers should stop using the devices until ongoing safety studies reported back within the next year.

I thought that was a pretty irresponsible piece of advice, but when I checked the orginial article, I could not find that statement. The only advice the authors gave was this:

"Until these crucial implementation stages are completed, physicians and other healthcare professionals must inform consumers of the probable fallaciousness of the claims of manufacturers of e-cigarettes."

The BBC article also sated:

In the British Medical Journal, they say that without more evidence it is impossible to know if such products actually do more harm than good.

What the authors actually said was

Thus the reports from the FDA, HNZ, and Demokritos cannot be used to draw any conclusions or inferences about potential effects on health.

That's a far cry from stating that the products might do more harm than good. Unfortunately, other outlets picked up on the BBC reporter's erroneous statement and began using it as their headline:
E-cigarettes do more harm than good
E-cigarettes 'do more harm than good' .:. newkerala.com Online News -35449
E-cigarettes 'do more harm than good'

I actually found an unbiased accurate depiction of the content of the original article here! Electronic Cigarettes: Are They Safe?

 

[Vocalek]

...where you can leave a comment regarding a BBC story. NewsWatch | Contact us | BBC News website feedback

This is what I left:

The story "Proof lacking on e-cigarettes' safety, experts warn" contains two inaccurate statements. The phrase "more harm than good" appears nowhere in the original BMJ article being reviewed: "Electronic cigarettes: miracle or menace?" (January 2010, Vol 340). Also the authors did not state "consumers should stop using the devices until ongoing safety studies reported back within the next year." It would be quite irresponsible to advise former smokers to set aside the one thing standing between them and a tobacco cigarette.

In a nutshell, the the authors Flouris and Oikonomou reviewed three laboratory analysis reports on e-cigarettes and stated that the reports "cannot be used to draw any conclusions or inferences about potential effects on health." Unfortunately, by inserting her own intepretation into the story, reporter Michelle Roberts has done public health more harm than good. She owes the authors a correction and an apology.

For more information on harm reduction, visit http://www.casaa.org

 

[deewal]

Good Statement you left Vocalec. Have you found the place where the BBC lets readers read the replies ? I can't find it anywhere.

 

[Vocalek]

Good Statement you left Vocalec. Have you found the place where the BBC lets readers read the replies ? I can't find it anywhere.

I don't think they display comments with the story. My guess is if they think it sounds coherent and they have a few minutes of potential dead air, they read the comments during a broadcast.

Many shows have a minute or two set aside to air viewer/listener comments.

My guess would be that it won't be aired. It's too long.

 

[jj2]

Given the results of switching, there is a LACK of evidence, on the governments side, that vaping IS harmful.
As far as I'm concerned, how I feel is proof enough that's it's better than smoking.

 

[Vocalek]

Given the results of switching, there is a LACK of evidence, on the governments side, that vaping IS harmful.
As far as I'm concerned, how I feel is proof enough that's it's better than smoking.

My husband made an interesting observation. Back when AIDS was 100% fatal, the FDA wanted all proposed treatments to go through the same time-consuming approval process as any other drug. They were concerned for the safety of the AIDS patients.

Their concern for our safety in this situation is touching. But we are the ones who have to live with the consequences of being prevented access to the one thing that stands between us and a cancer-stick. Nobody is asking them to start using an e-cigarette.