Vermont: "Ifs, Ands and Butts"

[Vocalek]

Ifs, Ands and Butts | Seven Days

Thanks to Thulium for leading me to this story, via Dr. Siegel's blog.

I submitted a Letter to the Editor (they have to be less than 250 words). Any Vermont vapers in the house?

Sheri Lynn has been bamboozled by the FDA. Propaganda techniques used by FDA include lying by omission and using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The FDA’s press release made it seem as if their findings proved that electronic cigarette vapor is more toxic and carcinogenic than tobacco smoking. Wrong!

They left out the fact that a one-day supply of FDA-approved patches and gum contain the same tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs) in approximately the same quantity (8 ng.) as in electronic cigarette liquid. FDA also failed to provide a comparison to tobacco cigarettes. A single Marlboro cigarette contains 11,190 ng. of TSNAs. Furthermore, FDA’s characterization of a miniscule quantity of diethylene glycol (DEG) as “an ingredient found in anti-freeze” is inflammatory. DEG is added to tobacco to keep it moist, and the nicotine in electronic cigarette liquid is extracted from tobacco. Finally, keep in mind that consumers don't drink the liquid. They inhale the vapor. FDA did not make clear that it failed to find any potentially harmful substances in the vapor in quantities large enough to be toxic or to cause cancer.

If electronic cigarettes are so dangerous, why is it that people who have been inhaling vapor instead of smoke are experiencing improvements in their health?

 

[Tampa2]

Great letter Vocalek!

 

[Thulium]

I sent the following letter in feedback to that article:

According to Lynn, the FDA has done some preliminary testing of imported e-cigarette products and found they held carcinogens, including one typically found in antifreeze.

That is a bold claim, I was not aware that carcinogens are typically found in antifreeze. Could you please verify this information and publish this shocking news or retract this libelous scare tactic?​

 

[bassnut]

The article was written by Ken Picard.
It's a well researched article covering many angles even if you don't agree with Sheri Lynn.
He should be congratulated and thanked. Who is he?
I'm getting really sick of the articles popping up in local media sources that all seem to be written by the same person but have different names attached.

 

[ezmoose]

Thanks for posting!

My feedback.

It’s amazing how the FDA, Public Health Agencies, and Anti-Tobacco Harm Reduction Groups rally to prevent E Cigarettes from getting a fair shake. The misleading claims made by the FDA, based on their debunked study, is parroted by these organizations and spewed by the news media. Millions of people (worldwide) have made the switch from smoking to E Cigarettes since their introduction six years ago. There has not been one report of serious illness or injury connected with E Cigarette usage; where’s the poster child? Yet, the FDA et al. knowingly lead the public into believing that they might as well smoke cigarettes (FDA approved cessation products are practically worthless). One has to wonder what the motives are behind the actions of the FDA and other agencies that presumably have the public’s health at heart. Who stands to lose the most if E Cigarettes get approval by the FDA as a safer alternative for recreational tobacco use: Big Tobacco, Pharmaceuticals, and Federal/State Tax coffers! There is no lack of research supporting claims that E Cigarettes are a much safer alternative to smoking. Why does the news media ignore this? I’m not affiliated with any E Cigarette suppliers; I am an E Cigarette consumer. I tried an E Cigarette on December 6, 2009 and I haven’t smoked since; I smoked two packs a day for over 40 years. People can argue about the health risks/benefits of E Cigarettes; the vast improvement in my health is proof enough for me!

The hardest part for me was the 250 word limit! lol

 

[ezmoose]

Aha! There’s the grammar mistake that renders my entire argument invalid; at least according to the grammar Nazis! lol

is parroted by these organizations should have been are parroted by these organizations

 

[bassnut]

Aha! There’s the grammar mistake that renders my entire argument invalid; at least according to the grammar Nazis! lol

is parroted by these organizations should have been are parroted by these organizations

Wow, ezmoose. I was just beginning to admire you too. Not now.
"is" was fine. Your mistake was making the word "claim" plural.
Go back to school or something. .

 

[ezmoose]

Wow, ezmoose. I was just beginning to admire you too. Not now.
"is" was fine. Your mistake was making the word "claim" plural.
Go back to school or something. .

I probably should have paid more attention when I was in school! lol

 

[Vocalek]

Now, now, boys. Play nice.

(Don't make me stop this car!)

 

[5cardstud]

Aha! There’s the grammar mistake that renders my entire argument invalid; at least according to the grammar Nazis! lol

is parroted by these organizations should have been are parroted by these organizations

You almost had me sold on E-Cigarettes but after that mistake you made I'm crushing all my gear and returning to cigarette smoking.

Nice response to the article both you and Vocalek.

 

[kristin]

It was a very well-written article. So, I said so and then made a point:

Dear Mr. Picard,

Thank you for one of the most fair and unbiased articles I've read on electronic cigarettes to date. Too many journalists are content to simply parrot "the word" of the FDA statement.

Rebecca Ryan of the American Lung Association’s Vermont chapter said, “We want smokers to be successful and use what works,” she says. “I really urge caution for people using them.”

Ms. Ryan, if you really want smokers "to be successful and use what works," then you should be urging people to switch to e-cigarettes, not cautioning against them.

I can give you thousands of testimonials from e-cigarette users on their success at completely switching from smoking to e-cigarettes, shown in both the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association's (CASAA) Electronic Cigarette User Survey (with over 2,200 respondents) and the EcigsSaveLives.info petition (with over 2,100 respondents to date.) Both HUGE numbers compared to a typical pharmaceutical study. Read the testimonials and then tell me that these former smokers aren’t experiencing success and using something that finally works.

You must know that pharmaceutical nicotine products have nearly a 94% FAIL rate. The CASAA survey respondents report that over 80% of them are no longer smoking.

If an 80% quit rate (no cigarette, cigar or pipe use) doesn't show success, I'm not sure what could possibly convince you.

Survey Link: Survey Results

 

[bassnut]

Thanks for following up on that, Kristin.
He deserved recognition and appreciation. It's good to reward those who treat us fairly... and to those who oppose? The House of Pain!

I finally got a look at the survey graphics. Thanks for the link. Much of it was predictable but there were also some surprises from my point of view.
Even though I've contributed a few $ to CASAA and ECF, I still feel like a free-loader when I see the amount of work that's being done behind the scenes. Thank you!