Speak up or shut up?

[TheEmperorOfIceCream]

A friend of mine is a press officer for the Royal College of General Practitioners and was very interested in all the e-smoking paraphernalia I carry about. We talked at length about it. My friend now seems professionally interested in the device and is considering drawing up a document for distribution to UK GPs and possible (probable) release to the press.

I'm posting this because I'd like everybody's opinion. Do you think it is a good idea at this stage for these devices to be brought to the attention of medical professionals (or any wider audience at all), or would it be better to continue flying under the radar, as some of our members feel?

If I were to speak at length, all I could really do is refer my friend to Dr Laugesen's report to the WHO, as my personal impressions of e-smoking are worthless for something like this.

I'm pretty much frozen in place at the moment (I'm not going to do anything until I've seen Doctor Laugesen's report, or the excerpts from it that Bob is permitted to update us with).

So, what do you think?

Emp

 

[Janet]

Emp, I think it's a great idea. I know I feel better since I have not smoked regular cigarettes. Don't know yet though if inhaling the vapor causes any damage. Also, these e-cig devices and their pieces and parts need to last longer or perhaps be disposable. But press releases at this time might just be the thing we need. I can understand the dilema though; will they take them off the market? I'm addicted to my e-cigs now and I don't want to go back!

 

[TropicalBob]

This will not remain secret for much longer, Emp. With you guiding him, he should go for it. Educate the educators -- the doctors -- so they have knowledge to help addicted smokers. As for the public, some press has already shown interest -- but e-smoking has little news value until a disaster happens. Then it will be on every front page.

Just let one child playing "afternoon tea" drink one thimble of e-liquid, and die, and e-smoking will get its publicity.

So better the public has a good story by a good scribe than ignorant ads from greedy resellers making unsubstantiated claims in back alleys of the Web. But stick with him, Emp; read his work; point him in the direction of what we know, what we fear, what we hope. Most articles so far have been dreadful. See that his isn't.

 

[paxes]

Harsh comments TB about resellers. Although these devices might not cost the chinese much by the time weve paid are imports duties, transfer fees, commisions etc we dont all make a killing. As for publicity dont they say all publicity is good publicity. I think the sooner a few professionals get to hear about this the sooner proper tests will be carried out. I for one would rather risk my money on a venture that is regualted. At least I was in near the beggining and I hope that will give me an advantage from when the countless others start reselling.

 

[TropicalBob]

Paxes, the good guys will know who they are. The bad ones don't care. We all visit various Web sites. We read crap claims. We see for ourselves. Be a truthful and supportive reseller, and good wishes to you.

 

[TheEmperorOfIceCream]

I hope nobody minds me updating this for a while because I want to keep it near the top for more replies. I'm quite hopeful about this - the RCGP is a pretty level-headed and useful organisation, not to mention authoritative because they represent the family docs at the sharp end here in the UK.

My PO friend is an ex-smoker (but not self-righteous about it) and what caught her attention is she has seen me trying and failing to give up smoking for years and never thought I would be able to do it. The killer point is I gave up hot cigarettes with no great effort or murderous withdrawal. I told her it's not uncommon in my experience of talking with other users of the devices.

I think GPs as a whole would be behind this, if they get the information from a source they're used to (and trust). It's gotta be an old story with them that longterm users just aren't going to stop smoking and I'm sure they have no more faith in the available cessation products than we have (although I suppose they go on reccomending them to try and cut the damage from burning tobacco). I can't think of a single other recommendation to their older (smoking) patients that would be of even equal benefit.

I know we have lots of serious concerns about PG inhalation, but the harm reduction argument must surely carry weight here, although we're obviously a long way from realising the necessary clinical data to allow docs to speak out in favour. It would mean a lot to me if this went towards promoting further study.

Emp

 

[katink]

Just as long as they don't stop letting the device save lives while they take their years-long time to study if it might not harm a big toe or little finger doing so... and as long as they keep their eyes wide open for WHY it is succesfull (as in: not regulated into infinity and uselessness... and cheap enough to not lock out those groups needing it most... and 'colourful' and 'tasteful' enough to attract the users even befóre they fall ill to smoking tobacco, so heck, in time even)...

 

[Oliver]

I think you know my thoughts on this already......Go for it! Educate the educators as TB says.

 

[jimldk]

Go for it emp..you get the right attention and then some....in my earlier post, I do urge people to show and demo it to their doctors..it is the only choice and if possible to an existing smoking medical practioner...that will help a lot..so please help him out as much as possible...I don't mind sharing my data if any medical doctors ask for it...

 

[BananaDoc]

My advice mate, is to go for it as well.... I have been talking up the virtues of our little devices to anyone who will listen around my little patch of the medical researchers... and framing it as an alternative to the nasty old stuff rings true to their ears as well. I am this close to having a renowned pulmonologist ready to take a critical look at the phenomenon.

At this point we can still (somewhat) control the message... if a scenario like Bob suggests occurs.... forget about it. We go from proactive to reactive in .05 senconds...

 

[Nazareth]

I am this close to having a renowned pulmonologist ready to take a critical look at the phenomenon.
...

That would be fantastic- I wonder if perhaps some medical funding could be had ot research this? Yuo might want to also inform hte pulmonary specialist that tests were conducted awhile ago about hte germicidal effects of PG & sterilizing effects- TB posted the link in one htread somewhere here on the forum- this might sway researchers to take a closer look at htis to see if it could be a viable smoking alternative- I'd tyhink researchers would be jumping all over htis- there's been pelnty of research into the effects of nicotine through inhalers, patches, gum etc- why not through inhalation in PG?

 

[TropicalBob]

The answer is funding.

Big Pharma has funded the studies on nicotine alternatives. They do this so they can market products. Obviously, Big Pharma has zero interest in studying our e-smoking devices. We are competition. Big Tobacco is not interested. We don't use tobacco. Government won't fund it either. We promise loss of revenue and regulatory headaches.

Where's the money going to come from to research e-smoking?

 

[Oliver]

The answer is funding.

Where's the money going to come from to research e-smoking?

Well it's certainly the elephant in the room. Do we have a rough idea of how much it would cost to run this through clinical trials?

 

[katink]

TB, you are always saying that big tobacco won't be interested because there isn't any tobacco in it.
Well, I know there isn't... but there is tobacco essence in it, and nicotine... both coming from tobacco (for nicotine: one of the sources, if not main source; for essence I think the ónly source).

So I've been puzzled often, why you think they would not éver be interested... they can use their tobacco to make these ingredients we need, after all... - and yes, not now, while they can still sell it easier as tobacco... but if tobacco gets pushed into the corners further, they will look for alternatives... then why nót look these ways? How do you see that being impossible? (Not looking for an argument; just puzzled why you keep saying that so interested in your thoughts leading to that conclusion)


And though I am very far from liking it to happen, I would hate it: but if big pharma sees chance to take over the e-cig business, so to push out the makers and sellers currently handling this market... then why would they also not be interested in putting yet another moneymaker next to their existing gums and patches? I am afraid (hope not...) that they do have the clout, the funds and the right friends to actualy have a chance of succeeding in taking over the market. Again: why not? Why do you see this as an impossible scenario?

 

[TropicalBob]

I wrote you a really complete answer, probably 12 paragraphs, and the page here went poof! All gone. Maybe later I'll feel like taking this up again. Oooooo. Curses.

 

[katink]

ouch... what a waste! Boy, I bet a few of those curses went my way for asking you about your thoughts on these things... Thanks for trying, anyhow...

I tend to make long answers on my own computer first, after having lost a lot of them (not neccessarily here, happens at lots of places)... but I forget often enough too... leading to quite a bit of frustration. Sorry I was the source leading you to experience it this time bob; and hope at some point you will have found the patience to give it another go... because I am interested in your answer. (But understand perfectly well you don't feel like it anymore for now!)

 

[phylo]

I wrote you a really complete answer, probably 12 paragraphs, and the page here went poof! All gone. Maybe later I'll feel like taking this up again. Oooooo. Curses.

I hate it when that happens... Its happened to me a couple of times to... Most of the time I get the CPU error page when it happens..

Phil