Stan Glantz attacks e-cigarette industry because thousands of vapers sent comments to FDA

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Another fun google is e-cigarette deaths and then caffeine drink deaths and see which is the most dangerous. We must ban caffeine.


Not really, I'm a pot or two a day coffee drinker.

 

[DC2]

Stanton Glantz is Director of the UCSF Center for tobacco Control Research and Education...

PLOS Medicine: A Peer-Reviewed Open-Access Journal

University of California, San Francisco has received at least $36,233,049 in grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). UCSF School of Medicine has received $15,299,103 of the 36 million dollars. tobacco related grants total $12,019,701. Professor Glantz is listed as the contact person for grants totaling $1,577,819. Steven Schroeder, former President of RWJF (July 1990-December 2002) returned to UCSF, School of Medicine to head the new Leadership Center for Smoking Cessation funded with $10,000,000 in grants from RWJF(1). Grant #024783 in the amount of $280,517(2), was concluded by author Lisa A. Bero, Ph.D. that: "Source of Research Funding Influences Studies on Health Effects of Environmental tobacco Smoke". Professor Glantz was a 2000 recipient of a RWJF award "Innovators Combating Substance Abuse(3)" which is accompanied by a $300,000 grant(4). In addition, Glantz and UCSF have received $15,000,000 in combined gift, endowment and grant from the American Legacy Foundation (ALF) for the creation and continued funding of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education and the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library(5). In August 2007 the ALF also provided funding for Glantz's faculty position as the UCSF American Legacy Foundation Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control(6). It is my opinion that Glantz and UCSF stand to gain vast amounts of future tobacco control grants from RWJF and ALF because articles like those he published in the AJPH and PLoS Medicine.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

He's bought and paid for.

 

[DC2]

He's bought and paid for.

He would probably be doing what he is doing even if he wasn't bought and paid for.
He is one of the original ANTZ from way back.

I wonder if he drinks alcohol?
Hell, I wonder if he drinks coffee for that matter.

 

[Fury83]

He would probably be doing what he is doing even if he wasn't bought and paid for.
He is one of the original ANTZ from way back.

I wonder if he drinks alcohol?
Hell, I wonder if he drinks coffee for that matter.

Lol...like one of those "I'm scared of these things so you shouldn't be able to do them" people.

 

[VapApe]

Or don't confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up

 

[TennDave]

The way the ANTZ see it, we have never stopped "smoking," so, in that regards, there would really be no "therapeutic claim" a all. We have stopped using cigarettes or combusting tobacco would make more sense, but there is no therapeutic claim there either because most of us are still using nicotine. So, what's the problem?

 

[Jman8]

The way the ANTZ see it, we have never stopped "smoking," so, in that regards, there would really be no "therapeutic claim" a all. We have stopped using cigarettes or combusting tobacco would make more sense, but there is no therapeutic claim there either because most of us are still using nicotine. So, what's the problem?

No problem at all, except that it would make eCig products much easier for FDA to regulate if no eCig company denies that their product is no different than combustible tobacco. Every place where smoking and smokeable products are restricted would mean eCigs must follow suit. Of course no more online sales. As traditional tobacco doesn't sell flavors, no flavors for eCigs. Would make FDA agenda much easier if eCig industry went along with claim that it is essentially same as tobacco products. Next item on agenda, lower nicotine in strength in all tobacco products or those products that claim to be just like tobacco products.

So really, yeah, no problem at all.

 

[CharlieGirl]

This guys has my blood boiling! What an ignorant, arrogant, narrow minded, self righteous, piece of trash! (I have lots more adjectives, but I'll spare you!) His sole concern is his own self serving agenda, quit or die. He totally disregards the idea of reduced harm and has no concern whatsoever for the real issues that smokers must face when trying to escape their often life-long struggle in eliminating cigarettes. Instead he insults us with a useless tirade, splitting hairs about a technicality that acts as a smokescreen for the real issues. He is obviously an obsessed control freak, bought and paid for by his equally clueless cronies whose sole purpose seems to be confusing the issues to further their own stance, with total disregard to the humanity behind the struggle. Kudos to you, Bill, Elaine, and all the others who do care, stand up for us and expose this idiot for the charlatan he is! Thank you!

 

[kristin]

No problem at all, except that it would make eCig products much easier for FDA to regulate if no eCig company denies that their product is no different than combustible tobacco.

I think you missed Dave's point. He wasn't saying that e-cigarettes are no different from combustible tobacco. He was saying that the ANTZ claim we haven't really quit smoking because we still use nicotine. If, according to the ANTZ, we haven't really quit smoking, regardless of the difference in health risks, then what we are doing cannot be considered "therapeutic." Glantz claims the e-cig companies (and consumers) are making therapeutic claims by saying that e-cigarettes help with quitting smoking.

It's circular logic the ANTZ use:

ANTZ: No proof e-cigarettes help with smoking cessation.
E-CIG USERS: But we've quit smoking.
ANTZ: No you haven't really, you still use nicotine.
E-CIG USERS: So, there is no smoking cessation unless we quit nicotine?
ANTZ: Yep.
E-CIG USERS: That means the drug therapy for smoking cessation is actually treating nicotine addiction, not just quitting smoking alone?
ANTZ: Exactly.
E-CIG USERS: So, if they say "helps you quit smoking" but not "treats nicotine addiction" then they can't be making "therapeutic claims" because they aren't claiming to treat nicotine addiction.
ANTZ: (fingers in ears) Lalalalalalalala.....

Basically, the ANTZ claim that the treatment for smoking cessation must treat nicotine addiction to be a valid treatment and not just smoking cessation, yet they say that claiming smoking cessation without treating the nicotine addiction is still a therapeutic claim.

 

[Petrodus]

It's circular logic the ANTZ use:

ANTZ: No proof e-cigarettes help with smoking cessation.
E-CIG USERS: But we've quit smoking.
ANTZ: No you haven't really, you still use nicotine.
E-CIG USERS: So, there is no smoking cessation unless we quit nicotine?
ANTZ: Yep.
E-CIG USERS: That means the drug therapy for smoking cessation is actually treating nicotine addiction, not just quitting smoking alone?
ANTZ: Exactly.
E-CIG USERS: So, if they say "helps you quit smoking" but not "treats nicotine addiction" then they can't be making "therapeutic claims" because they aren't claiming to treat nicotine addiction.
ANTZ: (fingers in ears) Lalalalalalalala.....

 

[Jman8]

I'm guessing not all ANTZ are going to respond with lalalalalala to that claim. I'd be glad to play ANTZ advocate if you'd like to continue that dialogue for how it could go when up against (ANTZ) people who may wish to push the point.

With eCigs, ANTZ are playing a sense of catch up and it seems obvious that their goal is about dealing with the 'potential harm' that nicotine poses to society, but namely to kids. I think to ANTZ nicotine addicts appear to be doing own version of lalalalalala when it comes to ensuring that no one under legal age obtains nicotine products. I'm guessing many vapers would respond with, that's not my job. To which ANTZ might respond, that's okay, we have people who are glad to do that job. And oh, so sorry if our work gets in the way of your use / addiction.

 

[jkos]

Mr Glantz is part of the LOW INFORMATION VOTER:

 

[kristin]

So pass laws banning sales to minors, same as with other tobacco products. CASAA fully supports that. Actually, if e-cigarettes are deemed tobacco products, they would automatically be added to existing laws that prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors. With cigarettes already getting into the hands of minors, what sense does it make to ban a product that is lower risk just because minors may get them?

Nicotine addicts aren't saying "lalala" but they ARE and have been saying that there are alternative ways to keep them out of the hands of minors without also keeping them away from adult smokers who want and need them.

And we've already been up against ANTZ who tried to "push the point" and it amounted to "lalalala." Look at the fact that Glantz doesn't publish all of the comments he is getting countering his BS (with the exception of one post by Bill, but I know for a fact that Bill commented more than once and others tried to post comments, as well.) You don't seem to want to accept the fact that a lot of this is based on actual experience and not just conjecture.

 

[Jman8]

With cigarettes already getting into the hands of minors, what sense does it make to ban a product that is lower risk just because minors may get them?

It makes no sense to me. I'm not sure banning is on the table, but acknowledge it very well could be.

Regulation is on the table, and the sort of regulation that cigarettes receive would be de facto ban of eCigs and/or greatly impacting the industry, yes?

If we are in favor of regulations that at least appear to restrict cigs getting into hands of minors, I'm guessing we don't really mind if same regulations apply to eCigs, just as long as they are not banned from adults who choose to use them.

Admittedly the problems / solutions are complex given the various opinions on the issues from all sides. We are both vapers (I think) and we might not agree on everything regarding deeming regulations. Becomes more problematic when solutions are being discussed with those who are non-vapers and no desire to become a vaper. Worse yet if discussing solutions with those who are convinced vaping is part of the problem. And complex if we can't even agree what the problem is or may be.

 

[Beretta]

It makes no sense to me. I'm not sure banning is on the table, but acknowledge it very well could be.

Regulation is on the table, and the sort of regulation that cigarettes receive would be de facto ban of eCigs and/or greatly impacting the industry, yes?

If we are in favor of regulations that at least appear to restrict cigs getting into hands of minors, I'm guessing we don't really mind if same regulations apply to eCigs, just as long as they are not banned from adults who choose to use them.

Admittedly the problems / solutions are complex given the various opinions on the issues from all sides. We are both vapers (I think) and we might not agree on everything regarding deeming regulations. Becomes more problematic when solutions are being discussed with those who are non-vapers and no desire to become a vaper. Worse yet if discussing solutions with those who are convinced vaping is part of the problem. And complex if we can't even agree what the problem is or may be.

It's not about what makes sense for the FDA. The FDA is a money protection racket for Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and the government coffers. They are looking for any excuse to completely destroy the ecig/eliquid industry in the U.S. They don't care how many people die from smoking tobacco. But they have to make it look like they care by going through the motions, the dog and pony show public opinion input periods, the hearings, etc.

They only care about the money that comes from tobacco. You and I, and everyone else, can either quit tobacco, which they know won't happen, or buy the NRT from Big Pharma, or the public can die a horrible early death from tobacco. It's about the money, and the love of money is the root of all evil in this realm.

It really is just that simple.

 

[Jman8]

It's not about what makes sense for the FDA. The FDA is a money protection racket for Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and the government coffers. They are looking for any excuse to completely destroy the ecig/eliquid industry in the U.S. They don't care how many people die from smoking tobacco. But they have to make it look like they care by going through the motions, the dog and pony show public opinion input periods, the hearings, etc.

They only care about the money that comes from tobacco. You and I, and everyone else, can either quit tobacco, which they know won't happen, or buy the NRT from Big Pharma, or the public can die a horrible early death from tobacco. It's about the money, and the love of money is the root of all evil in this realm.

It really is just that simple.

As I said or implied, we vapers might not even agree on the problem(s).

If your position is accurate, why waste time writing comments to the FDA? Why encourage anyone to write comments to the FDA?

 

[Beretta]

As I said or implied, we vapers might not even agree on the problem(s).

If your position is accurate, why waste time writing comments to the FDA? Why encourage anyone to write comments to the FDA?

Regulatory power breeds arrogance and corruption. I doubt the FDA cares much about what the public thinks. It's like petitioning a king asking him to reduce taxes. He's just going to laugh at you, and probably worse.

Since the FDA is a regulatory agency, whose members are appointed by the administration (correct me if I am wrong), they are not held accountable by voters. We should ALL be contacting our federal senate and house representatives and bypass the FDA "administration" entirely. We should be doing this now, not later.

I suppose it is good that we are contacting the FDA for public input, because it shows the public has an interest, and is a stakeholder, but they have their agenda, and they're going to ram it down our collective throats regardless of what we say.

I hope I am wrong, but that's my two cents.

 

[Petrodus]

Many have (for decades) been yelling ... "Wake Up America" !!
Now I fear its too late.

If you're a Nanny State Lover ...
You're going to love the next four years

See my signature

 

[Petrodus]

The e-cigarette (health related) grass roots movement
is not the first nor will it be the last movement the FDA
will demonize and attempt to stamp out !!

Food for Thought ... so to speak

Wake Up America