Report your E-Cig experience DIRECTLY to the FDA!
- Thread starter grumpster
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Then the data can be put into question in a court of law if such happened, defeating the integrity of the FDA's prosecution/defense.
So, good speculation...but could be helpful in the long term.
I don't see going to court as realistic. Write the FDA all you want, I just don't think you should use the adverse event form to communicate with them.
The FDA is already against us. I think we all know that we're already screwed. The only hope we have of maintaining our rights is to raise our voices. Not saying anything in fear that it'll count against us is only giving into the fear that they are trying to impose on us. We may win this battle or lose it. But we have no hope if we don't raise our voices and say something. Silence only guarantees that we remain the lambs they want us to become.
As far as going to court is concerned, there are already a couple of cases against the FDA that I know of, and I see no reason that there won't be more. Even a couple of anti smoking groups are supportive of e-cigs for the significantly reduced health effects over analogues. Some members of the FDA's little alliance is even falling apart over their unsupported fear tactics. The FDA can bring whatever accusations they want to the issue. There are more than enough facts available to support the reduce health threat benefits of e-cigs. The FDA may think that they are gods unchallenged, and they are till some one actually challenges them. Then they actually have to follow the same laws the rest of us do, and bring facts to support their outright prejudice. Speculation isn't enough, and that's really they have. That and a bunch of unsupported claims on traces that are way below any harmful levels and present in a great many FDA approved items.
As far as going to court is concerned, there are already a couple of cases against the FDA that I know of, and I see no reason that there won't be more. Even a couple of anti smoking groups are supportive of e-cigs for the significantly reduced health effects over analogues. Some members of the FDA's little alliance is even falling apart over their unsupported fear tactics. The FDA can bring whatever accusations they want to the issue. There are more than enough facts available to support the reduce health threat benefits of e-cigs. The FDA may think that they are gods unchallenged, and they are till some one actually challenges them. Then they actually have to follow the same laws the rest of us do, and bring facts to support their outright prejudice. Speculation isn't enough, and that's really they have. That and a bunch of unsupported claims on traces that are way below any harmful levels and present in a great many FDA approved items.
Last edited:
Why would you say the FDA is against us? The FDA is against manufacturers like Smoking Everywhere who BLATANTLY advertise the PV as a drug device. They aren't against you, the user. They're against these stupid companies who continue to make unfounded health claims.
They aren't against *you* so stop taking it personally. They're against a bunch of *****head corporations who are constantly preying on the consumer. Yes, I know I'm being mean against the creators of the devices that I love...but seriously, the corporations broke the damned rules and now they are suffering for it.
Overall, in this whole thing, I think the FDA will try to work with the companies. HOWEVER, not ONE of the companies has invested ANY TIME OR RESOURCES towards scientific medical findings.
Where's SE's scientific findings?
How about njoy's?
What about Janty's?
Puresmoker's?
Well, where are they? Do you *really* think any of these companies are interested in your health? No. They're only interested in doing what they have to do in order to sell you something. Turn your anger towards the companies that didn't do their homework, not the enforcers who are required to keep you as safe as possible.
And don't go into how expensive it is...etc. That's what investors are for in this enterprising world.
Well I wrote a long ... comment and I feel positive we can at least make our voice's heard and comment's read. At least were trying and not sitting around .....@#$ about our right's to vape a safer way to get nic. Its the best thing that has happened to me cause I feel much more healthier and happier. I feel some of the 4000 chemicals in made me pretty .....y and grumpy and clouded my mind with alot of nasty poison. Nicotine is not tabacco and does not cause cancer. When will they get that. Or the fact that it is so much healthier for us and everyone else around us.
I think we need to start posting on how vaping makes us smoke 3 times the amount of analogs than we used to. That way the tobacco companies that see this as a threat and scratch the backs of those that can push for its criminalization, push the other direction and promote vaping! 
I bet if tobacco companies thought vaping increased their sales, we'd see a plethora of stories surfacing on the benefits of vaping.
I bet if tobacco companies thought vaping increased their sales, we'd see a plethora of stories surfacing on the benefits of vaping.
I just by chance found this link first... I left my comment there... I dont know if it will help any at all... but what the heck....
Well, what about all the claims they are making about trace elements found in juice samples then refusing to release the so called results of these samples. What about the fact the these same trace samples are in many already approved products. What about their fear tactics about what "might" happen with absoultely NO support for such claims. Preatically nothing approved by the FDA is actually "safe", however a great many things are approved for their benefical use. This same grounds has been totally ignored by the FDA.
Ruyan had made no claims that e-cigs are a medical device, however they have had studies done on the safety of their product. Attemps to seek FDA approval have been blocked at every turn. Bottom line is they are in bed with big tobacco who stands to loose a great deal of money to the e-cig industry.
Try reading a couple of articles I came across and you'll see that the FDA is being challanged not only by universities, but in fact also being challanged by some anti smoking groups that are actually concirned with the health effects of analogues.
The infamous New Zealand report.
A letter from the American Association of PublicHealth Physicians challenging Lawrence Deyton, MD Incoming Director FDA Center for Tobacco Products on the FDA stand on e-cigs.
There are many other examples where the FDA has taken a very biased view against e-cigs and have either twisted the facts to their prejudice view or totally ignored the facts entirely.
Enough attention has been brought to the issue, that others are starting to notice, and some of them are actually seeing the benefits of removing all of the carcinogens etc of analogues and beginning to challenge FDA's very biased and hostile views.
Yes, the FDA will twist everything we say to what they want to see. Others with a more level head will however see our testimonies for what they really indicate. The good thing is everything we say is actually public and can be used against the FDA as well. That's what I'm hoping to get out in the open. Anything that can be used against them and to our advantage.
They confiscate your shipments, run so called tests, make claims on "trace" amounts of bad stuff, then refuse to release the reports documenting the levels found, expecting us to simply take their word for it. All while ignoring the fact that what they "found" is negligible, and less than what's in many already approved products. That's what one of the articles I linked to is partially about. I would hardly call that fair and unbiased, or in the best interest of the smoking public.
The FDA has deep financial ties to big players in the pharmaceutical industry, this is no secret. The FDA is not a charity, it's a business. They want as many products as possible to fall under their control because the extremely expensive testing that the manufacturer is forced to pay for is how the FDA makes its money. Moreover, when existing FDA sponsors find whole lines of their nicotine products (and Chantix etc.) being made obsolete by e-cigs, conflicts of interest arise.
Of course, the massive overhead of FDA oversight already kills off competition from small businesses, making sure Big Pharma can continue to run the show without worrying about some brilliant little innovation threatening their profit margin. The only reason e-cigarettes have survived this long in the US market is because the benefits to smokers are as clear as they are; Americans just aren't stupid enough to believe that a PG aerosol with nicotine could possibly be as unhealthy as a cigarette.
And in opposing them they're threatening to restrict or even ban e-cigarettes altogether, which would condemn a lot of people to an early grave. Some countries already have, you know.
And there's nothing wrong with the claim that e-cigarettes are healthier than cigarettes. This is not an unfounded health claim by any means, it's the scientific consensus. You can even read the FDA study to find out how many fewer toxins and carcinogens they contain.
Nonsense. Lots of companies have had their e-cigs and liquids tested to make sure they don't contain anything bad. I mean, they shouldn't have to; there is nothing new and unknown in e-cigarettes. PG is well-known to be safe. Nicotine is well-studied and not a controlled substance. All the flavourings used are approved by the FDA. Since no combustion occurs in an e-cigarette, the chemical makeup of the liquid doesn't change from its original components. So really there's no need. Yet lots of companies have independent tests done regardless, because they do care - if nothing else then independent testing is a selling point.
Meanwhile, being "approved by the FDA" is by no means a safety standard. Prescription drugs all approved by the FDA cause thousands upon thousands of deaths and serious injuries in the US every year. Incidentally, of all the dangerous drugs that the FDA approves, the #1 monster is varenicline (Chantix/Champix).
Pyrodoxamine is a drug developed, at great cost, by the pharmaceutical company Biostratum. It later turned out that it was really a common substance found in many existing foods. After this apparent screw-up, the FDA "naturally" ruled that only Biostratum may sell pyrodoxamine as a drug or dietary supplement, and nobody may mention the fact that foods like chicken breast contain it. Why? In the FDA's own words, it "would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to the market" if farmers or brewers (ya it's in beer too) let their customers know of the newly discovered medicine in their products.
So what did the FDA accomplish? Well, had it not been for the FDA's intervention, if for whatever reason you needed pyrodoxamine, you could have simply eaten the right fruits and vegetables, or looked for a natural dietary supplement containing it. So the FDA is protecting Biostratum's investment. And after all, it's only fair, right? Biostratum gave a lot of money to the FDA to have their drug approved, why should other companies benefit from their clinical trials, just because pyrodoxamine happens to be a naturally occurring drug?
So, let me spell it out for you: the FDA made pyrodoxamine less accessible to consumers to protect the profit margins of a pharmaceutical company.
Are you aware that cherries have well-documented medicinal properties? They reduce the risk of colon cancer, various heart conditions and diabetes, and they help ease the pain of arthritis, among other things. This is documented in numerous clinical trials and there is broad scientific consensus. Yet you are not allowed to say this if you sell cherries. Why? Because it's false? No, it's not false. But the FDA would then classify the cherries you're selling as unapproved drugs and run you out of business.
You can always argue that it's fair. Sort of like patents. But don't confuse it for someone looking out for your health.
As for their stance on e-cigarettes, their study was scientifically unsound, and the reaction they gave in their press release was not supported by the findings. To warn against trace amounts of carcinogens as if "OMG this will give you cancer! Ban it, now, before someone gets hurt!" when anyone who has experience with nicotine products would have told them beforehand to expect those traces, since they exist in all nicotine products, is plainly scare tactics. And as the Health NZ study (which found those same substances) describes it, these trace amounts are as harmless in e-cigs as they are in nicotine chewing gum (a fact the FDA conviently neglected to mention.)
They're not arguing from a scientifically sound position. They're trying to spread fear and confusion around the topic of e-cigs and to discourage their use when all scientific inquiry (including their own amateurish study) thus far shows that all smokers would benefit greatly from switching.
Are those the actions of people who want you to be well? Or doesn't it make a little more sense given the pending lawsuit by Smoking Everywhere, and the billions of dollars worth of investments that need protection from this product which, if it were widely adopted, would eliminate the need for all other nicotine replacement products within weeks - not to mention reduce the tobacco industry to suppliers of raw nicotine.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
