Mr. Howard,
Nice speaking to you today, despite our disagreements.
I've attached a recently published article by Dr. Michael Siegel, a public health policy professor at Boston University with over 20 years of experience in tobacco control, in the Journal of Public Health Policy. It outlines the results of all known tests on the e-cigarette, and in doing so dispels some of the myths and misinformation that has been presented about the e-cigarette, including the carcinogen claim. It's an excellent and concise article.
Considering that the best the FDA can come up with is accusations that the product causes "racing pulse, dizziness, slurred speech, mouth ulcers, heartburn, coughing, ........, and sore throat," I fail to see why you will not be able to conclude that e-cigarettes are almost certainly safer than cigarettes, which of course cause cancer, emphysema, heart disease, COPD, and death. I remind you that despite e-cigarettes being on the market for seven years, and the FDA being involved in a suit with e-cigarette companies, the FDA has not managed to find a single person that claims to have suffered harm from an e-cigarette.
On the phone you expressed surprise at my "conspiratorial" beliefs about the FDA's attempted regulation of the e-cigarette. I again take issue with this characterization. As I stated on the phone, the FDA has steadfastly refused to regulate the e-cigarette as a tobacco product despite the DC District Court and DC Court of Appeals ruling that because the nicotine in an e-cigarette is "derived from tobacco" (the actual phrase used in the legislation giving FDA regulatory authority over tobacco products, but not the power to ban them) it cannot be classified as a "drug delivery device." If the FDA was to win their case, and thus have the authority to regulate the product as a drug delivery device, a de facto ban would be in place until approval was received. In the meantime, people like me who have found an alternative to tobacco smoking will either have to become criminals and buy the product illegally, switch to a traditional smoking cessation aid (with their pitifully low success rates after 20 months), or, most likely, go back to smoking cigarettes. There is no conspiracy. These are the facts.
I understand that your hands are tied regarding the ability to recommend the e-cigarette as a cessation tool. I understand that. However, in the future, please do not be so dismissive of the product as a reduced harm smoking aid. There are still millions of smokers left in the United States, and hundreds of thousands die needlessly each year. The e-cigarette, for the first time in the history of tobacco control, is a product that satisfies the hand-to-mouth-to-"smoke" habit without exposing users to thousands of carcinogens in a single cigarette.
I look forward to reading your evidence.
Thanks
