FDA University of Rochester gets $2M grant to study e-cigarettes "to help the FDA determine how to regulate"

[firechick]

This was on WHAM13 out of Rochester tonight. They don't have the video up yet, so here is the URMC release. mods, feel free to move to Media if this isn't the right sub-forum.

I find it interesting that this is a 5 year thing that began on August 1.

URMC Researchers Awarded $2.1M to Study E-Cigarettes - News Room - University of Rochester Medical Center

 

[firechick]

Local news site just posted the video.

URMC researching e-cigarettes - 13WHAM ABC Rochester NY - Top Stories

 

[Grimwald]

At least the grant came from the NIH and not BP...at least there is some hope that it won't be biased.

I would have done it for $1 million...but I guess you get paid more if you have a white lab coat.

 

[Grimwald]

At least the grant came from the NIH and not BP...at least there is some hope that it won't be biased.

I would have done it for $1 million...but I guess you get paid more if you have a white lab coat.

Sorry double post...glitch in the matrix.

 

[firechick]

The follow up video was disconcerting, to say the least. They interviewed a vape shop owner who had to close up shop for several reasons.She described underage people trying to get products and people over 18 who would buy and then take them outside to their under 18 friends. Plenty of fodder for the "protect the children" crowd. I'm still looking for that video on the website.

 

[Racehorse]

I would have done it for $1 million...but I guess you get paid more if you have a white lab coat.

You have to have knowledge and expertise in the subject area for which you are asking for the funds.

Let's face it, it would be kinda useless for a person with a background and education in social services, or an auto mechanic, to complete a research study on biochemical effects of ecigs or eqliquids on the body.

That is sort of understandable.

 

[Kent C]

You have to have knowledge and expertise in the subject area for which you are asking for the funds.

Something that many of the ANTZ who get grants lack.

 

[stevegmu]

These 5 year or more studies are why nothing of significance will happen. The deciders will wait until the results are in...

 

[supertrunker]

Wouldn't a faster method to be to study the health of people that have already been exclusively vaping 5 years, and presumably moved up thru cigalikes, and so on?

The old canard that "we just don't know the long term effects of vaping" are becoming a rather flimsy excuse as time elapses.

T

 

[Racehorse]

Something that many of the ANTZ who get grants lack.

I agree with you on that.

Unfortunately, there really arent' many *unbiased* people on any subject, esp. if writing a grant for a cause they believe in. That is why we all look to see *who* did a study, and then we try to determine if it entirely valid and with as little bias as possible

I *do* think vaping is way safer than smoking. The question now, with the entry of vaping juices w/diketones, for ME, would be "exactly how much safer." Everyone is going to have a different threshold. I don't require 100%, or even 90%. But certainly something over 50% for instance.

for others, it may not matter, or it may just be they want to save $$ (hopefully) and/or just not "stink".

Everyone has different goals with vaping. I know that. When I speak, I am only speaking about *myself*. And admit that my expectations and % may be quite a lot higher than some, which is fine EITHER WAY.



Supertrunker, the timeline for cancer-inducing behaviors seems to be pegged at around 20 years? So we will all be waiting a long time. Some of us will die of natural causes by then.

I am just one who, when it appears there is an action required, or strongly suggested, see no reason not to "get on with it." I"m not a better-late-than-never person.



Kent, funny story: Even when doing "good", you take heat. Because my idea of doing good may be "bad" by other's standards.

Example: there were some wool blankets in Sal. Army. They were there for a while, probably cuz priced a bit too high. After seeing them sit there 2+ weeks, I decided to purchase for the dogs at a rescue.

Lady at counter knows I do that work, and exclaimed "I do hope these beautiful blankets aren't going to be used for dogs, when there are so many children who are needing them!"

I steadied myself and replied: "M'am. These blankets have been here. You have had every opportunity to purchase them for some disadvantaged children. But, in the event that you did not have an opportunity to do so, I will sell them back to you, right now, for the $24 I just gave for them........"

Needless to say, she did not purchase them from me.

Just sayin', I thought I was doing good, she thought I was doing unethical. In the end, I spend MY money the way I want. And everyone else can do the same.

 

[Kent C]

The studies are getting better - they are acquiring knowledge as they go and learning a lot from 'our' studies as to the hardware and the eliquids - how to differentiate from gen1, gen2, genX ... but that has only been within the last 6 months. Prior to that, some didn't have a clue and the inability to establish constants are their worse offenses and that shows me either a plain bias or an ignorance that unfortunately has permeated our society not just in gov't grants but in almost every facet of business - where 'secretaries' (male and/or female) answer the phone with 'hallah' or some such, and clerks are lost without a cash register to tell them how much change to return.

Just a few examples of how, imo, we are fully reaping the results of our dumbed down public education system (a possible cause of your blanket story) where any type of logic (other than perhaps the false 'cultural logic') has been intentionally 'deleted' since that is the one tool that could be used against the propaganda that is taught from pre-school to doctorate. Over the years I have noticed this and while some existed back in the 80's and before, this seems to have reached it's end result in the last decade, where there are few young people who aren't totally brainwashed - but very few. And for the NEA and the public school system: "Mission Accomplished"!

 

[DrMA]

I think this battle in public health was lost when BT and the few ethical researchers in the field decided to let ANTZ peddle their junk science unchallenged. ANTZ have established themselves as unchallenged "experts" in the field, they capture all the research funds and media attention, and all others are dismissed as BT shills.

 

[Nate760]

I think this battle in public health was lost when BT and the few ethical researchers in the field decided to let ANTZ peddle their junk science unchallenged. ANTZ have established themselves as unchallenged "experts" in the field, they capture all the research funds and media attention, and all others are dismissed as BT shills.

Which is rather screamingly ironic, since the ANTZ are doing more to protect the combustible cigarette market than anyone else, and by a wide margin.

 

[DrMA]

Which is rather screamingly ironic, since the ANTZ are doing more to protect the combustible cigarette market than anyone else, and by a wide margin.

I think that's the brilliance in BT's business decision to drop the fight. They realized ANTZ would become irreparably conflicted in their stated purpose. Thus BT signed the TMSA and acquiesced to increasing tobacco taxes in the understanding that the money is tantamount to bribing the ANTZ and BG into protecting BT interests against the interests of public health. And BT would have no need to do more research, advertising, or PR.

BT also knew that ANTZ left to their own devices would eventually go so far off into the weeds of calumny and junk science that they'd become easy targets should the need arise to strike them down.

 

[Nate760]

I think that's the brilliance in BT's business decision to drop the fight. They realized ANTZ would become irreparably conflicted in their stated purpose. Thus BT signed the TMSA and acquiesced to increasing tobacco taxes in the understanding that the money is tantamount to bribing the ANTZ and BG into protecting BT interests against the interests of public health. And BT would have no need to do more research, advertising, or PR.

BT also knew that ANTZ left to their own devices would eventually go so far off into the weeds of calumny and junk science that they'd become easy targets should the need arise to strike them down.

The TMSA was a win-win for all parties involved (state governments got free money, BT got insulated from free market competition), except the untold number of smokers who have died in the intervening 16 years who might otherwise not have.

 

[DrMA]

Since smoking-related illness takes 20+ years to manifest, I'm afraid we're only just beginning to see the death and suffering directly caused by TMSA.

 

[Katya]

At least the grant came from the NIH and not BP...at least there is some hope that it won't be biased.

Exactly. I'm glad that the NIH has decided to fund a real study, as opposed to the CDC "surveys" run by a Hollywood agency.

I would have done it for $1 million...but I guess you get paid more if you have a white lab coat.

I don't think so. 2 million for a 5-year study is actually cheap. Dr. Siegel recently estimated that the cost of his study would be 4.5 mil.

 

[GrapeVap]

I feel that a truly scientific study, completed at a medical university, and funded by the National Institutes of Health is a positive move in the development of fair regulations of ecigarettes. It is important to fully assess the components of ecigarettes, and it is equally important to do so in a fair, unbiased, scientific way.

Although the study spans five years, and began in August. Aren't we facing FDA regulation much sooner?

Hopefully, fair regulations backed by science will assure consumers that they can find a safe, consistent product while allowing them to make the choice for themselves whether they choose to vape or not without being unfairly targeted by corporate interests. These comments remind me of an excellent article I read earlier today written by the CEO of ECF. If you haven't checked it out yet, find it here: E-cigarettes vs. Big Tobacco: Who will win? (Opinion) - CNN.com

Anyway, thanks for sharing the news! Have a great day, everyone!

 

[Kent C]

Exactly. I'm glad that the NIH has decided to fund a real study, as opposed to the CDC "surveys" run by a Hollywood agency.

 

[DreamWithin]

Wouldn't a faster method to be to study the health of people that have already been exclusively vaping 5 years, and presumably moved up thru cigalikes, and so on?

The old canard that "we just don't know the long term effects of vaping" are becoming a rather flimsy excuse as time elapses.

T

On the surface that sounds like a great idea. Such an evaluation could prove useful, but how much of what that evaluation would find could be definitely attributed to long-term e-cig usage (or pre-existing conditions)? It's kind of like coming into a movie halfway through and making assumptions about the first half of the storyline, missing a lot of details Starting from scratch actually provides better data since all of those prior conditions can be recorded at the outset and compared against as the study progresses.