March 2, 2011
Dear Mr. Docliv:
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding the Food and Drug Administration's stance on electronic cigarettes. I appreciate knowing your views.
I have contacted the Food and Drug Administration on your behalf and have brought this action to the attention of the appropriate officials. They have been asked to review your letter and provide a written response. In the meantime, if you feel that I can be of assistance in any other way, please let me know.
My best wishes to you.
Sincerely,
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada
HR:gd
I can't remember who actually wrote the following letter, but thanks to whoever did! This is the letter Sen. Reid is responding to:
Dear Sen. Reid, 1/19/11
Thank you for your kind offer to be of assistance. Would you please launch a Senate Investigation into acts of misfreasance on the part of FDA officials. Ask Margaret Hamberg and Joshua Sharfstein why the FDA misrepresented the science regarding the FDA's limited testing of electronic cigarettes in 2009.
The FDA succeeded in convincing the public that e-cigarettes are likely to cause cancer and/or poison users by employing pejorative words such as "carcinogens" and "antifreeze" in their press conference. They also failed to tell the whole truth. In a court of law, that is considered perjury. Hamberg and Sharfstein may not have been under oath when they lied, but causing harm to public health is not a lawful act on the part of an employee of a Federal health agency.
Ask Hamberg and Sharfstein how the quantity of "carcinogens" in a days supply of e-cigarette liquid (about 1 ml) compares to the same carcinogens in an FDA-approved nicotine patch. The correct answer is that both contain about 8 nanograms of tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs).
Ask them how the 8 nanograms of TSNAs in a day's supply of e-cigarette liquid compares to the quantity of TSNAs in a pack of cigarettes. The correct answer is that a pack of Marlboros contains 126,000 nanograms. By my calculations that makes one day's worth of smoke over 15,000 times more carcinogenic than e-cigarette vapor.
Ask them whether 1% of the tobacco humectant diethylene glycol, incorrectly referenced as "antifreeze" in the FDA's press release, presents any danger whatsoever at that quantity. The correct answer is "no."
Ask how many e-cigarette cartridges that contain 0.01 ml of diethylene glycol would be required to fatally poison a 150 pound adult. The fatal dosage of diethylene glycol is 1 ml. per kg. of body weight. Thus, the correct answer is 6,600 cartridges, consumed in a single day.
Thousands of smokers who had been considering switching to an electronic cigarette continued to smoke, because the FDA's disinformation led them to falsely believe that smoking is less harmful than using an e-cigarette. Several foreign countries banned e-cigarettes, citing the FDA's "health concerns" as the reason. One has to wonder how many smokers who did not switch have developed irreversable lung damage or cancer during the 18 months that the FDA's disinformation has remained unchallenged.
Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University has reviewed the available scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes. You can access a copy of his article that was published in the December 2010 issue of the Journal of Public Health Polilcy at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-...ticle.jphp.pdf
Dr. Siegel's finding was that "a preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products."
Several surveys of e-cigarette consumers reveal that between 63% and over 80% are using e-cigarettes as a complete replacement for smoking. Furthermore, more than 90% of users report that their health has improved. This is understandable when you stop to consider that e-cigarette users no longer inhale tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of chemicals created by the process of combustion. Nothing is burned in an e-cigarette.
I look forward to your spearheading the investigation into the behavior of FDA officials in this matter. If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Docliv
Dear Mr. Docliv:
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding the Food and Drug Administration's stance on electronic cigarettes. I appreciate knowing your views.
I have contacted the Food and Drug Administration on your behalf and have brought this action to the attention of the appropriate officials. They have been asked to review your letter and provide a written response. In the meantime, if you feel that I can be of assistance in any other way, please let me know.
My best wishes to you.
Sincerely,
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada
HR:gd
I can't remember who actually wrote the following letter, but thanks to whoever did! This is the letter Sen. Reid is responding to:
Dear Sen. Reid, 1/19/11
Thank you for your kind offer to be of assistance. Would you please launch a Senate Investigation into acts of misfreasance on the part of FDA officials. Ask Margaret Hamberg and Joshua Sharfstein why the FDA misrepresented the science regarding the FDA's limited testing of electronic cigarettes in 2009.
The FDA succeeded in convincing the public that e-cigarettes are likely to cause cancer and/or poison users by employing pejorative words such as "carcinogens" and "antifreeze" in their press conference. They also failed to tell the whole truth. In a court of law, that is considered perjury. Hamberg and Sharfstein may not have been under oath when they lied, but causing harm to public health is not a lawful act on the part of an employee of a Federal health agency.
Ask Hamberg and Sharfstein how the quantity of "carcinogens" in a days supply of e-cigarette liquid (about 1 ml) compares to the same carcinogens in an FDA-approved nicotine patch. The correct answer is that both contain about 8 nanograms of tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs).
Ask them how the 8 nanograms of TSNAs in a day's supply of e-cigarette liquid compares to the quantity of TSNAs in a pack of cigarettes. The correct answer is that a pack of Marlboros contains 126,000 nanograms. By my calculations that makes one day's worth of smoke over 15,000 times more carcinogenic than e-cigarette vapor.
Ask them whether 1% of the tobacco humectant diethylene glycol, incorrectly referenced as "antifreeze" in the FDA's press release, presents any danger whatsoever at that quantity. The correct answer is "no."
Ask how many e-cigarette cartridges that contain 0.01 ml of diethylene glycol would be required to fatally poison a 150 pound adult. The fatal dosage of diethylene glycol is 1 ml. per kg. of body weight. Thus, the correct answer is 6,600 cartridges, consumed in a single day.
Thousands of smokers who had been considering switching to an electronic cigarette continued to smoke, because the FDA's disinformation led them to falsely believe that smoking is less harmful than using an e-cigarette. Several foreign countries banned e-cigarettes, citing the FDA's "health concerns" as the reason. One has to wonder how many smokers who did not switch have developed irreversable lung damage or cancer during the 18 months that the FDA's disinformation has remained unchallenged.
Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University has reviewed the available scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes. You can access a copy of his article that was published in the December 2010 issue of the Journal of Public Health Polilcy at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-...ticle.jphp.pdf
Dr. Siegel's finding was that "a preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products."
Several surveys of e-cigarette consumers reveal that between 63% and over 80% are using e-cigarettes as a complete replacement for smoking. Furthermore, more than 90% of users report that their health has improved. This is understandable when you stop to consider that e-cigarette users no longer inhale tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of chemicals created by the process of combustion. Nothing is burned in an e-cigarette.
I look forward to your spearheading the investigation into the behavior of FDA officials in this matter. If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Docliv
