FDA Should I donate to help fund Dr. Michael Siegel's new study?

[2coils]

What exactly have we done to alienate him? Dr. Siegel announced a study and issued a public appeal for funding. When valid concerns were raised about his study design, and the funding did not materialize, he responded by hurling insults and accusations of malfeasance.

Let me clarify.... I was referring to this part of your quote..this is not a man we want to be popularly identified as a leading figure in the pro-vaping movement. He's obviously started to fancy himself as such, and it needs to be stopped.

I think this is a little over the top, thats all

 

[2coils]

Even if he did not react to the disapproval from CASAA appropriately, Lets not drive him away to the point he does not help us in the future.

 

[WillyZee]

4.5 million was never going to happen for what he wanted the money for ... it's sad, he couldn't see that and resorted to the excuses he did.

 

[DrMA]

I would say the exact opposite! We already have plenty that are not on our side. I think the fact that someone with his past, is a supporter goes along way. It says a lot about e-cigs. Just as Dr. Carmona has jumped sides. We can call into question the goals and motives of some, but to alienate people that have been supporters of ours is not a good idea IMO.

I agree. We should be focusing on those things that unite us. Throwing tantrums over minutiae creates divisiveness and isn't helping our cause or community.

 

[Nate760]

Let me clarify.... I was referring to this part of your quote..this is not a man we want to be popularly identified as a leading figure in the pro-vaping movement. He's obviously started to fancy himself as such, and it needs to be stopped.

I think this is a little over the top, thats all

Okay, fair enough. But to elaborate on the previous point, I think we need to resist attempts, by anyone, to appoint themselves as the public face/voice of our cause. and we should take special care when the people doing the attempted self-appointing are clinicians and tobacco researchers. Dr. Siegel's behavior in this instance leads me to believe he's suffering from a case of unwarranted self-importance, that he knows what's best for us better than we do, and that when he asks for money, we should dutifully hand it over without asking questions. Irrespective of anything I say or think, I suspect he's done irreparable damage to his reputation among the vaping public by conducting himself in such an arrogant, petulant manner.

 

[Nate760]

Even if he did not react to the disapproval from CASAA appropriately, Lets not drive him away to the point he does not help us in the future.

If he's a man of scientific integrity, there should be nothing we can say that changes what he thinks. If his opinions can be altered according to the current status of his public approval rating, then his scientific integrity would be very much in question.

 

[2coils]

If he's a man of scientific integrity, there should be nothing we can say that changes what he thinks. If his opinions can be altered according to the current status of his public approval rating, then his scientific integrity would be very much in question.

I think the thing here that squashed the study, was the lack of support from CASAA. We are entrenched in the community. Without us, very hard to raise funds.

 

[2coils]

I think if this study was thought of a year ago, it may have been a good idea to try to get CASAA on board back then, with the idea of crowd funding in mind

 

[SeniorBoy]

I cannot think of a more appropriate phrase and definition which defines these latest developments than "winning a battle but losing the war"

..."winning a battle but losing the war", describing a poor strategy that wins a lesser (or sub-) objective but overlooks and loses the truly intended objective. This contrasts with a Pyrrhic victory in which the objective is achieved but at a cost that makes the victory "turn to ashes".

Reference: Pyrrhic victory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dragonpuff]

I thought I would add this to the conversation. We all know Dr Siegel's history. Here he is advocating for us!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ARSDOs6Ngg

This is exactly why I am so disappointed with his conduct at the end of this. He has been a powerful voice in our community for a long time, and he has done a lot to advocate for us. But to publicly accuse CASAA of asking him to rig the study when they did not do so is unacceptable. That is a very serious accusation in the scientific community and it shouldn't be thrown at someone just because you disagree with their criticisms. That kind of behavior is childish and damaging to our cause.

He complained about divisiveness in the community, but he is the one creating the divisiveness. Now, I could have come up with a study like this overnight and made all the same mistakes he did (hence why I agreed with the study when I didn't think about it for more than a day or two). However, he says he has been planning this study for the last year, yet just announced it out of the blue and expected everyone to agree. If he had discussed this with us, even vaguely, over the course of the last year, he would have seen firsthand what kind of studies would get funding. If he had talked about this with CASAA ahead of time, he would have been able to work with them to get their endorsement when he made his announcement. He did none of these things; instead, he and his team came up with the entire study design without our involvement, and then just assumed everyone would be on board. He forgot that part of what makes us vapers is that we are an inquisitive bunch who tend to question things and think for ourselves. If he wants us to pay for a study, he needs to work with us!

I deeply appreciate the work Dr. Siegel has done for us in the past. I truly hope he can get past this and come back as a strong advocate for us again. Everyone makes mistakes and I am willing to be forgiving. But he needs to start talking to us and to CASAA ahead of time if he wants studies to be funded by the community.

 

[Nate760]

This is exactly why I am so disappointed with his conduct at the end of this. He has been a powerful voice in our community for a long time, and he has done a lot to advocate for us. But to publicly accuse CASAA of asking him to rig the study when they did not do so is unacceptable.

It borders on slander when you get right down to it. CASAA suggested, quite reasonably, that the study parameters be adjusted to better reflect what happens with real vapers in the real world. Had Dr. Siegel been amenable to a couple of small compromises, and willing to concede that his study design did have some shortcomings, it's entirely possible that CASAA would have fully supported the study and encouraged donations from its membership. Instead, Dr. Siegel balked at changing anything, so CASAA issued a very politely worded statement detailing its decision against endorsing the study.

If Dr. Siegel is so inflexible and dogmatic that he actually believes CASAA (or anyone else) pressured him to deliberately rig his study, that's very troubling. If he doesn't believe it, and publicly lashed out just for spite's sake, that's even more troubling.

 

[carlvphillips]

I think the thing here that squashed the study, was the lack of support from CASAA. We are entrenched in the community. Without us, very hard to raise funds.

This is very much not true, as I made clear in my post and CASAA made clear from the start. There is no possible way he could have raised more than a few percent of his budget from crowdfunding. The failure of funding was because he ruled out getting money from the only entities who could have possibly funded this. His discovery that he was not going to fund it came -- in spite of what he claimed in his outburst -- when he got the message that the non-major ecig companies were not going to come up with the money for him. As I pointed out, I and others could have pointed the inevitability of this out to him in advance, had he deigned to ask us for input.

[Note: I agree with a lot of what is being said in this thread about the politics and alliances, but I will probably stick to "just the facts" posts like this.]

 

[csardaz]

Bscts twitter has him on a stage discussing it at a las vegas industry event - some not-terribly-good answers to the same sort of questions asked here What sort of ecigs? what choices for ecig users? training? Otherwise I haven't seen public discussion or what a lower-funded study would look like.

I expect the reception there must have fueled and colored his attitudes.

He must have talked to SFATA? I'd expect they represent the non-tobacco ecig industry he'd expect to get funding from.

 

[2coils]

This is very much not true, as I made clear in my post and CASAA made clear from the start. There is no possible way he could have raised more than a few percent of his budget from crowdfunding. The failure of funding was because he ruled out getting money from the only entities who could have possibly funded this. His discovery that he was not going to fund it came -- in spite of what he claimed in his outburst -- when he got the message that the non-major ecig companies were not going to come up with the money for him. As I pointed out, I and others could have pointed the inevitability of this out to him in advance, had he deigned to ask us for input.

[Note: I agree with a lot of what is being said in this thread about the politics and alliances, but I will probably stick to "just the facts" posts like this.]

I understand your point. Thanks for the response. CASAA members surely would not have the ability to raise any significant money for this study. I do believe, CASAA influence should not be underestimated. CASAA members are entrenched in the vape shops, forums, reviewers/You Tube, Social Media, and even vape shop owners. I do believe, positive support is contagious. Before you know, this support catches on within other trade organizations etc....

 

[Jman8]

I know some of you are fans of his, and that's entirely your business, however: this is not a man we want to be popularly identified as a leading figure in the pro-vaping movement. He's obviously started to fancy himself as such, and it needs to be stopped.

I know of another leading figure in the pro-vaping movement that I wish the infallibility factor would stop. But alas, the followers need someone to follow, and look up to.

It is funny how these (allegedly) former TC/ANTZ people are are de facto leaders.

I still think they can be great advocates, but leaders? Where are they leading us?

 

[JustJulie]

As many of you know, CASAA recently advised consumers not to contribute to a study that was proposed by Dr. Michael Siegel. We noted that it was so expensive that consumer donations could not possibly affect whether it was successfully funded, and we also pointed out reasons why it appeared that it would not accomplish what he was promising, even if he could fund it.

Siegel ended his crowdfunding, which we believe was the right thing to do, and also cancelled the project, which we believe was inevitable given his funding goals. However, he chose to blame his failure on CASAA and make some defamatory statements about what we said to him. Carl V Phillips responded to him in a personal blog post, which is worth reading if you are interested in this drama.

CASAA was not privy to all that Carl reports about, and thus cannot endorse every word of it (though we certainly do not doubt Carl), so this is not a CASAA statement. Nevertheless we believe it is an appropriate response and we endorse it in general.

Mike Siegel inappropriately blames the failure of his ill-advised research plans on others | EP-ology

 

[Nate760]

"Did anything remotely bad happen to you after you started e-cigs? You may be entitled to financial compensation. Call the Law Offices of Center, Disease & Control at 1-800-VAPE-BAD."

 

[Bill Godshall]

As one who has considered Carl Phillips an ally since before I met him in 2006, as one who urged Ruyan America to hire Murray Laugesen to conduct the very first studies on e-cigs back in 2007, as one who helped convince Mike Siegel about the public health benefits of e-cigs (in 2007 and 2008), and as one who helped organize CASAA and its activism (from 2009 to 2012), I'm deeply disappointed with this fiasco.

Although I had many concerns about Mike Siegel's research proposal (and I shared some of them with Mike), I'm also concerned about CASAA's public opposition to Siegel's proposal, and Carl's recent comments.

The reality is that we need many different scientific studies on e-cigs (including clinical trials) conducted by many different entities (especially by those who are either supportive of, or open minded about vaping), as the FDA, NCI, CDC, CA Health Dept and Big Pharma haven't funded any objective research on e-cigs (and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future).

This situation reminds me of several years ago when Spike Babaian and the National Vapers Club were raising funds to conduct a study on the constituents in e-cig vapor, which prompted some vapers to publicly urge others to not contribute to the study, to make defamatory statements about Spike, and to organize a competing gathering of vapers in Chicago on the same weekend NVC was hosting a Vapefest (to raise funds for the vapor study) in Chicago.

 

[DC2]

Although I had many concerns about Mike Siegel's research proposal (and I shared some of them with Mike), I'm also concerned about CASAA's public opposition to Siegel's proposal, and Carl's recent comments.

The reality is that we need many different scientific studies on e-cigs (including clinical trials) conducted by many different entities (especially by those who are either supportive of, or open minded about vaping), as the FDA, NCI, CDC, CA Health Dept and Big Pharma haven't funded any objective research on e-cigs (and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future).

I "liked" your post because you are honest in your evaluations, and I appreciate that.

But CASAA was opposed because such an effort would have drained money from a vastly underfunded community.
I think that is the most important thing to understand.

This situation reminds me of several years ago when Spike Babaian and the National Vapers Club were raising funds to conduct a study on the constituents in e-cig vapor, which prompted some vapers to publicly urge others to not contribute to the study, made defamatory statements about Spike, and organized a competing gathering of vapers in Chicago on the same weekend NVC was hosting a Vapefest (to raise funds for the vapor study) in Chicago.

Well, I did help fund that study, and do not regret it.
Although I did think about regretting it at times.


And while I can see the parallels you draw, I do not agree that the circumstances are close enough to warrent such a comparison.

 

[SeniorBoy]

@Bill Godshall - Thank you and ditto +1

I cannot think of a more appropriate phrase and definition which defines these latest developments than "winning a battle but losing the war"

..."winning a battle but losing the war", describing a poor strategy that wins a lesser (or sub-) objective but overlooks and loses the truly intended objective. This contrasts with a Pyrrhic victory in which the objective is achieved but at a cost that makes the victory "turn to ashes".

Reference: Pyrrhic victory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moderators of ECF: Can you please lock this thread. Thank you.