Try smokeless nicotine cigarettes, says government UK

[Oliver]

Hmmn, now I've had time to read the article, my initial enthusiasm is slightly dampened. As Roly points out, the products described are "products that deliver nicotine quickly" - in other words, potentially not meaning e-cigarettes, since the delivery time of nicotine from e-cigs approximately equals that of traditional NRT.

There are pharmaceutical products in development (and have been for many years - where are they?) which do operate by reducing the nicotine to its molecular form, and thus enhancing its uptake speed.

Nevertheless, this distinction will be lost on the general public, and those who are aware of e-cigarettes may well start to see them in a new favourable light on the back of the article. Which is a good thing.

 

[rolygate]

I'm afraid so. This is nothing to do with free availability of e-cigarettes as a consumer product, it is specifically about (a) having them regulated by the MHRA and (b) new pharma products in development.

The report describes how 'if more research could be done to develop effective nicotine inhalation products'. But e-cigarettes are well-developed and on the market and in use by millions and millions of people; it's not talking about e-cigs. The report describes how 'the MHRA can regulate them'. Any MHRA involvement means a ban of 99.9% of products and the shutting down of the UK industry.

This article could be seen as a positive step for e-cigarettes as it might be interpreted as approval for them. In reality it is about new pharma products about to be introduced (which may well include one or two brands of e-cigarette as they are in the later stages of license approval after nearly three years of trials).

It has nothing to do with the approval of consumer sales of e-cigarettes. It also shows that the authors are completely out of touch with the subject since they seem to think that MHRA 'approval' will some how mean e-cigarettes would then become widely and cheaply available in the shops - whereas any MHRA involvement means exactly the opposite. How will something be cheap if it costs £750,000 and three years to get a license for it? How will they be widely available if 4,999 producrts are banned and one is licensed? However, these deductions may be in the media reports not the BIT report. I really can't face reading that officialese, misinformed, friends-of-pharma twaddle again to check.

 

[Bill Godshall]

rolygate wrote

Read this:
ECCA News

I don't understand the negative doom-and-gloom comments about this remarkable recommendation by the UK Behavioural Insights Team.

Instead, I suggest that tobacco harm reduction advocates in the UK widely circulate copies of this recommendation to any and all e-cigarette opponents, and send letters to editors of newspapers congratulating the cabinent agency for its concern for public health.

 

[rolygate]

Yes, Bill - on one level this is certainly a major advance as it is a public announcement of support for THR.

But this is probably not going to do us a lot of good. It's a local knowledge issue - you have to know the situation and the players. Imagine if an outsider reads that Obama wants to introduce health reforms and provide free healthcare to all Americans. Outsiders would probably say, that's great - but why so many complaints? A long story - and you'd have to have local knowledge to understand the issues.

What we've got here is a concerted press campaign to publicise one aspect of the BIT report. That doesn't happen unless someone is pulling strings behind the scenes. Who cares about this particular issue? No one - which is why it's suspicious.

Next we look at exactly what they say in the report - and we find it has little or no relation to the media articles about backing for e-cigs, as there simply isn't any such thing in the report.

When we look at what they say, it can be interpreted as being support for a new pharma product, or a new licensed e-cig. Nothing else. Both of those will hurt us (the licensed e-cig because it will - at this moment in time - suggest that e-cigs are exclusively a licensed pharmaceutical and not a consumer product).

Then we look at the government situation: they are doing their utmost to ban e-cigs - that is to say, the government agency concerned, the DoH, is assembling both clinical research and big-name backing to push through a ban in the courts in 2013. That is the pharma industry agenda and it is therefore the DoH's agenda. The pharma industry is funding this assault, as is the case everywhere.

Then we see the language employed, and how it is all about 'new research' and 'more research to improve the products', and so forth; and about how the MHRA (an agency within the DoH) will support this. None of that bears any relation to e-cigs and in fact specifically excludes them - electronic cigarettes are well-developed, highly effective in their current form, and absolutely hated by the MHRA since their masters, the pharma industry, are probably hurting badly due to a fall in NRT sales.

Finally, we know how things are done. It is just not likely the government has suddenly done a U-turn and is magically going to hurt all their friends and say no to the brown envelopes in order to support a minority group of consumers - especially when it is open season on those people and they can be stamped out with impunity. Yes, an independent unit can publish useful stuff. Will it have any effect? None whatsoever - the agencies that actually control this area have already signalled their intentions by ignoring previous advice from government and set off down the road of banning e-cigs by a roundabout route that deliberately outmanouvers higher government.

Look, there are millions and millions of $$ in play here - who the hell cares about public health? The government (actually the DoH of course) actually kills 40,000 UK citizens a year by denying them access to Snus, by request of the pharma industry, by refusing to fight for those lives with government and the EU. There is a very good reason for that - it's not in their interests to do so. Why on earth is anyone going to do a U-turn by allowing in something even more popular and effective than Snus?

Sorry and all that

 

[Old Chemist]

Hmmn, now I've had time to read the article, my initial enthusiasm is slightly dampened. As Roly points out, the products described are "products that deliver nicotine quickly" - in other words, potentially not meaning e-cigarettes, since the delivery time of nicotine from e-cigs approximately equals that of traditional NRT.

Could you provide some source for that? IMHO e-cigs deliver nicotine instantly - in a few seconds. NRT releases nicotine much slower, but over a prolonged time. Therefore we can get a shot of this alkaloid fast and then wait some time for another drag, while NRT delivers it in a constant way.

 

[Vocalek]

Paul Bergen of TobaccoHarmReduction.org weighs in, via The Ashtray Blog: UK Gov's Approval of E-Cigarettes: The Implications

 

[Bill Godshall]

rolygate wrote:

What we've got here is a concerted press campaign to publicise one aspect of the BIT report. That doesn't happen unless someone is pulling strings behind the scenes. Who cares about this particular issue? No one - which is why it's suspicious.

I agree. But someone within the UK government tipped off and/or otherwise convinced Allegra Stratton to write the article in the Guardian.

Stratton's article referenced only two folks in the UK government, and one's name wasn't mentioned.

But experts have advised the UK government that the nicotine contained in some new, smoke-free cigarettes is no more harmful than caffeine in coffee. A Cabinet Office source said: "A lot of countries are moving to ban this stuff; we think that's a mistake."

The article's only cited government official was David Halpern, head of the Behavioural Insights Team, which is as official as it gets. But his comments appear to address all of the recommendations in BIT's annual report and BIT's yearlong existance.

David Halpern, the unit's head, told the Guardian: "As with seatbelts and the smoking ban, these ideas were unpopular at first but after a while when you explain them to people, they understand and say, 'Yeah, alright then.'

"A year in," Halpern added, "we're much more confident about how well this can work, and the early trials have also made us much more confident about public acceptability. There's no doubt it can save many lives and hundreds of millions of pounds. In fact, our problem has become that we have so many inquiries from across Whitehall, we have to turn down many of the requests for help."

So I suspect that the unnamed Cabinet Office source was the one who gave the story to the Guardian's Stratton.

At least tobacco harm reduction advocates have one ally (albeit an anonymous one) in the UK government.

I don't understand how the UK government operates, but in the US this type of situation would indicate that there is disagreement within/among government, which presents an opportunity for further advances.

 

[Spazmelda]

Ah, this was posted at the bottom of the link that Vocalek posted. Just thought I'd put a direct link here in case anyone missed it: Italian Research Electronic Cigarettes

 

[rolygate]

I don't understand how the UK government operates, but in the US this type of situation would indicate that there is disagreement within/among government, which presents an opportunity for further advances.

That is true, to a certain extent. One could surmise that there will always be factions within government, and consequently disagreement. However there is always a group with ultimate power in any given area, and in Health, that is the DoH. They are not just highly sympathetic to pharma, they implicitly believe that any threat to pharma is a threat to their control of health issues and thus their fiefdom. As a result they will protect and advance the pharma industry's agenda, even where that directly conflicts with public health.

If you threaten any civil servant's power base you will make an enemy since that is their most valued possession. Without it they have nothing. Elements within the DoH are hardcore supporters of this policy as essentially pharma pay their wages, and also because there is a revolving door staff policy between the industry and the 'regulators'. I put the word regulators in quotes because their role is not really what the public would assume it to be.

We know very well that staff interchange in these situations is a direct cause of corruption, which is why it is prohibited in government arms procurement departments. It should be prohibited everywhere.

A recent major scandal in the UK featured the press hacking into murder victims' and deceased service personnel's phones and even deleting materials, directly affecting police investigations and families' lives. The police then covered up the crimes and tried to bury the investigation. The most senior politicians also tried to bury the issue. The reasons are complex but at the core is a revolving door staff policy between the three groups involved: the politicians, the police and the offenders. The same press staffers who had committed the crimes, or their close colleagues, ended up working for the police and the politicians, and wielded so much power they were able to have the issues concealed. One of the original perpetrators was a close neighbour of a top politician with ultimate power and used to 'pop round for tea', another worked for the chief of police, another resigned and was paid a fortune to keep quiet. Interchange of staff allowed the top politician's office, the chief of police's office, and the criminals who had the millions available to grease the wheels, to conspire to bury the issue. Only due to the dogged determination of an investigative reporter was the issue repeatedly dragged back into view and finally exposed. Even now, no one will admit to the extent of the corruption - which was facilitated mainly by the staff interchange policy. A revolving door staff policy between regulators and industry directly leads to corruption.

The DoH and MHRA have a revolving door staff policy with the pharma industry. Essentially, the same people work for both, at some time. Pharma's agenda is to kill off e-cigs and it really doesn't matter what others in government might say, in the Health area the DoH rules. They have already shown their willingness to ignore government direction and to find alternative ways to do the job that cannot be suppressed by other government departments. There is just too much money at stake - pharma has millions to apply to this threat to its income.

What pharma wants it gets. Its partner, the DoH, will provide the regulatory assistance.

 

[DC2]

We know very well that staff interchange in these situations is a direct cause of corruption, which is why it is prohibited in government arms procurement departments. It should be prohibited everywhere.

I'd vote for that bill.

 

[rolygate]

Also I'd like to make clear that there is no slur on the ethics of the majority of the staff, here - the problem is specifically management and senior management positions.

The scientists and techicians who work for the FDA, for example, regularly write group signed letters to the press complaining about the way their science-based decisions have been overruled higher up in favour of a decision that is more profitable for the industry. The problem is that senior management can leave the regulatory agency and then take up a well-paid non-executive directorship in the industry. In other words they are paid to do nothing, having served their masters well while in the regulator's office.

It's the same problem the world over, and obviously rife within UK government departments. It's especially disturbing when the police are also involved, as is the case in London, as it means that investigations are killed off quietly, as seen in the phone hacking cases.

There's a funny story related to that: the second time a mountain of evidence was produced to back up claims that the phones of murder victims and deceased service personnel had been hacked (11,000 pages of notes by one of the criminals involved), a new senior police officer was bought in to clear up the cases. He boldy stated, "Be assured that I will leave no stone unturned..." [...in bringing any wrongdoers to justice - or whatever].

Later, the investigation was quietly buried as it involved senior politicians and senior police officers (although there is a slight possibility the millions of ££s available to fix any issues may have played a part).

He was later described as, "A police officer who couldn't find a quarry".

 

[kinabaloo]

I expect they are talking inhalers. In 'the West', government is by and of corporations,as even Eisenhower warned back in the 1950s. BP has eyes only for profit, no matter how much harm results. In many ways it strives to promote ill-health; sickening, but true. 1984 has been here for some time, but most just can't see what is right in front of their eyes, in every direction.

 

[kinabaloo]

ps : on the time for nicotine effect :

Without looking back at actual resarch, flaws in the research and other pertinent discussions, what I remember / summarise is that e-cigs deliver pretty quickly, much closer to analogs than NRTs (which are designed for slow-release, after all).

With analogs the nic is carried by solid particles (soot) but in vaping, via liquid droplets that 'hold onto' the nic a little while. Further, analogs contain other alkaloids that boost/amplify the effect of nicotine giving a considerably greater 'rush'. Nevertheless, in short, e-cigs are more a quick fix than a slow release. But there is a bit of delay.

 

[DC2]

You probably don't know me from Adam, but I've followed your posts for years.
Good to see you around these parts kinabaloo.

 

[kinabaloo]

You probably don't know me from Adam, but I've followed your posts for years.
Good to see you around these parts kinabaloo.

An old friend

I try to stay clear of 'political' stuff as my blood might boil over

Try to keep up with the science though. And, a bit ashamed to admit, just moved from a 901 (carts) to an 808 (cartomisers / longer battery life, better auto switch; simple flavor change, fast charge, etc...) - wow, what an improvement. I'm sure we were losing a fair proportion of potential converts while the tech was in its infancy, but i think the new kit will be doing much better in this regard. In the end, numbers will count in keeping this legal (sanity) ...

Yeah, good to see some familar faces around, VolcalEK and yvilla I noticed today also. And quite a few more. I cme and go, but never gone

 

[Placebo Effect]

Rolygate, you or another ECF UK'er should consider filing FOI requests with various public agencies within the UK for, at bare minimum, e-mails relating to, concerning, or touching upon e-cigarettes.

The Freedom of Information Act: a few tips for the voluntary sector user | Voluntary Sector Network | Guardian Professional

 

[rolygate]

That's a very good resource.

Maybe West, Tom or Kate at VN might be interested in pursuing this. They are good at this aspect. I don't trust myself not to send death threats along with my request

 

[humpty]

Wow, I think this merits an entry into the wikipedia eh ?

 

[humpty]

Wow, I think this merits an entry into the wikipedia eh ?

well, it's there now. (Feel free to edit)