Tell Mel: Forget the 'E,' focus on the 'F' Electronic cigarette seller gets bad rating

[cookiebun]

Tell Mel: Forget the ‘E,’ focus on the ‘F’ | The News-Press | news-press.com

We need to get over there and make comments folks.

 

[LadyWeeps]

Done! Where did all the real reporters go?

 

[Joey S]

i'm waiting for them to send me the email to confirm my registration. I think I see how they eliminate comments, just don't let people register.

edit: tamned dypos

 

[Vocalek]

I told Mel:

The absolute worst advice you can give folks who have been banging their head against the wall, and finally found a way to stop, is "Oh no. Don't use that method. Go back and use the recommended products and methods. Maybe things will be different this time." Isn't that the definition of insanity--trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Mel, here are some facts. When used as directed, the FDA-approved nicotine products have a 7% success rate at 6 months, dropping to 5% at one year, and then to 2% at 20 months. Moore D, Aveyard P, Connock, M, Wang D, Fry-Smith A, Barton P: Effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy assisted reduction to stop smoking: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 338:b1024 2009.

What other treatment would be considered effective with dismal success rates like these? In contrast, the range of smoking abstinence success rates for e-cigarettes is 31% to > 80%. The low range comes from studies that used a single brand of e-cigarette. The high rates come from surveys of forum participants who help each other with advice on pros and cons of various brands and styles of equipment, nicotine strength, and other alternatives. Here's a link to the results of one survey: http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf

Our goal is not to be cured of nicotine "addiction." Our goal is to find a way to stop inhaling the tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of potentially toxic and carcinogenic chemicals that are delivered by smoke. Those constituents, not nicotine, are what cause up to 99% of the smoking-related disease. When you take away the smoke, nicotine is about as harmful as another "addictive" drug, caffeine. See: Casaa.org - Harm Reduction

The smoking prevalence rates have stalled. Why force smokers to keep using products that don't work? Worse yet, why do you want to outlaw products that actually work?

 

[porkchopsisgood]

Just posted by me...keep nailing her until she retracts:

Ms. Payne has drawn a heinous conclusion from an uninformed perspective.

Should a investigative report be written to out a disreputable company for its unethical business practices? Most certainly; as a matter of fact, if this report was written in a more timely manner, Mr. Penny possibly wouldn't have suffered, and Direct E-cig might not have done 36 months worth of bad business. But to draw the conclusion that e-cigarette sales should be restricted based on the reporter's shoddy reporting is irresponsible.

I implore Ms. Payne to visit ECF as other posters have suggested. Additionally, I urge her to visit The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) at CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association . There she will find a plethora of information and facts regarding the e-cigarette, along with other smoke-free alternatives, that can and will help folks find a solution to their carcinogenic smoking habit (I'd also suggest visiting the CASAA Facebook page to read testimonials given by ex-smokers who have ceased the habit using smoke-free alternatives after a 30, 40 and 50-year bout with cigarettes; some on the first day of exposure and use).

For example, a fact: propylene glycol is used in antifreeze to provide a non-toxic base for animals who inadvertently ingest the antifreeze from leaking automobiles. You can also find propylene glycol (an FDA-approved food additive), in cake mixes, hospital air ventilation systems, smoke machines, asthma inhalers, and hundreds of foods that are consumed every day.

NO carcinogens. NO 2nd or 3rd-hand smoke. NO possibility of ingesting 4000 or so chemicals that are present in tobacco smoke.

NO brainer.

 

[Scorched]

It seems like this article was focusing on the company and their service at first, but somewhere in the middle and right near the end they have to throw in some bogus facts and veer off topic to state that maybe e-cigs should be banned because 'there is no evidence that they can help you quit, or evidence that they are safer than regular cigarettes'

Even if that may be true, on what grounds would that be a good reason to ban them?

Companies like these trying to make a quick buck give electronic cigarettes a bad name. It is not good for the cause. Although I'm sure that barraging the comments list with factual data is helping to combat the propaganda

 

[Vocalek]

PorkChop:

I shudder when I read "propylene glycol" and "antifreeze" used in the same sentence in comments on e-cigarette articles. When the FDA used the pejorative term "antifreeze" in their 2009 press conference on e-cigarette testing, they were referring to finding 0.01 g of diethylene glycol (DEG) in one cartridge. DEG is quite toxic, especially when compared to propylene glycol (PG.) It is not unknow for trace quanties of DEG to show up in PG, and we would prefer that DEG not be present in our liquid. However, the quantity that FDA measured in the liquid was thousands of times below the toxic level. Furthermore, no DEG was detected in the vapor.

Unless the article or one of the other responses brings up the issue, I do not mention the word "antifreeze" in my comments. Unless the article or one of the responses asserts that PG is dangerous, I don't defend it.

I must say, though, that other than the paragraph about PG, I found your comment excellent.

 

[porkchopsisgood]

PorkChop:

I shudder when I read "propylene glycol" and "antifreeze" used in the same sentence in comments on e-cigarette articles. When the FDA used the pejorative term "antifreeze" in their 2009 press conference on e-cigarette testing, they were referring to finding 0.01 g of diethylene glycol (DEG) in one cartridge. DEG is quite toxic, especially when compared to propylene glycol (PG.) It is not unknow for trace quanties of DEG to show up in PG, and we would prefer that DEG not be present in our liquid. However, the quantity that FDA measured in the liquid was thousands of times below the toxic level. Furthermore, no DEG was detected in the vapor.

Unless the article or one of the other responses brings up the issue, I do not mention the word "antifreeze" in my comments. Unless the article or one of the responses asserts that PG is dangerous, I don't defend it.

I must say, though, that other than the paragraph about PG, I found your comment excellent.

Hi, Vocalek,

Thanks for the compliments. As to the PG issue, I was directly addressing her use of the term in the body of her "report" (that HAS to be in quotes...not a report in the least). She makes direct mention of PG, so I felt it necessary to point out how innocuous the substance actually is to humans and/or animals, and cited many examples of its use in everyday products.

I will definitely use the DEG statement in the future...I always forget to address this, being so focused on blasting the ignorance of folks when it comes to PG.

Thanks for the critique, and I'll certainly keep that in mind if it is not brought up....but let's face it--reporters usually do.

 

[Vocalek]

PorkChop:

I apologize. I went back to check the article and found this: "...with nicotine and propylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze and some cosmetics." I totally missed that.

You were absolutely right to correct her.

Was this a case of sloppy reporting? She remembered somebody mentioning something about antifreeze in connection with e-cigarettes and did not bother to track down the source to get the facts correct? The FDA was talking about DEG, not PG when their antifreeze comment was made.

Or is this a case of a reporter having a preconceived negative attitude toward the product and digging up all the mud she could find to throw at it?

Or a combination of the two?


I stand corrected: 100% of your comment was excellent.