Vote for e-cigarettes over cigarettes in online doctors' poll

[Vocalek]

I can't believe this! They actually published it!

Replies to E-Cigarettes: A Rapidly Growing Internet Phenomenon — Ann Intern Med

 

[D103]

Nice Elaine.....very nice!!

 

[CooL_SpoT]

I'm just amazed! That is probably the most encouraging act that any organization that's posted this type of article has ever done! And while you may argue that this is a medical organization, and therefore one would expect that kind of openness... considering the mis-information that's been spread by some medical professionals recently, I would disagree completely.

I feel like that got very convoluted... sorry if I didn't get my point across very well. In any event, CONGRATS Vocalek, that is an extremely good step for us all!

 

[pianoguy]

Bravo, that is just outstanding!!

 

[rothenbj]

Ahh...the definition of insanity! (Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.)

Great post, Elaine!

That is not the definition of insanity, that is the definition of NRT use, recommended by the insane.

The original poll question should have read:

A patient tells you that after smoking for decades and trying dozens of times to quit without success, she finally managed to stop smoking a year ago by switching to e-cigarettes. What would you advise?

a. Switch to any of the products that didn't work before, maybe they will this time.
b. Stop using e-cigarettes, even if it means a relapse to smoking.
c. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Congratulate her on her accomplishment.

That is classic!

 

[kristin]

That's awesome!

I can't believe this! They actually published it!

Replies to E-Cigarettes: A Rapidly Growing Internet Phenomenon — Ann Intern Med

 

[Bill Godshall]

Pav wrote:

When I click that link I just get the main page. The results are here. Thanks for giving bringing this to our attention.

Annals Past Poll/Survey Results

It appears that AIM posts new online polls every two weeks.

 

[markarich159]

I voted, but I think they're going to figure out that it's not doctors taking this poll and a press release stating that "Poll finds more doctors support e-cigarettes than drug industry smoking cessation products" would be disingenuous.

Every once in a while, when I see something like this, I have to come out of retirement and say something.

You are correct Kristin, and as a healthcare professional, I find it absolutely disgusting that this is the level to which vapers have stooped. Pretending to be Doctors(specifically Internists) to skew a poll which was posted on their website on the honor system(i.e. if your not a Doctor/Internist, please do not participate;this poll is not for you). Enjoy your "victory". Again, instead of working with Healthcare professionals to possibly start designing, funding and undertaking REAL peer-reviewable animal to human model safety studies/toxicity analyses and real animal-human model efficacy studies(and don't direct me to the "studies" listed on your website as I've seen them - or the IVAQ study - they are not anywhere near what I'm referring to and you know it); you're content to play these games which are time wasting, meaningless & doing nothing to truly move the industry along to legitimacy.

 

[kristin]

They don't play fair and we were having a bit of fun with them. That poll was skewed anyhow - as Elaine pointed out.

Healthcare professionals don't seem remotely interested in learning the truth or doing studies. Any public health groups (with the exception of the AAPHP) who have been approached about e-cigarettes seem content to cite the FDA report and tell people to not use them until they are approved as "safe and effective smoking cessation devices."

Unless a health professional, group or government agency steps forward and volunteers to do a relevant, unbiased study, we are pretty much powerless as average vapers. We've seen what they have come up with so far - studies on how hard you have to draw (and coming to the conclusion that something which contains no toxic levels of any chemical could become MORE toxic), a poorly-designed study on nicotine delivery (using inexperienced vapers and instructing them to take 10 puffs on a new cartridge), a hospital survey which lists "dangers" of e-cigarettes and then asks the respondents if e-cigarettes should be regulated and an "opinion" article which urges doctors to tell patients to not use e-cigarettes, even if they are working for the patient.

If someone can show me a healthcare professional willing and able to do an unbiased study, I'd be happy to work with them.

 

[SimpleSins]

They don't play fair and we were having a bit of fun with them. That poll was skewed anyhow - as Elaine pointed out.

Healthcare professionals don't seem remotely interested in learning the truth or doing studies. Any public health groups (with the exception of the AAPHP) who have been approached about e-cigarettes seem content to cite the FDA report and tell people to not use them until they are approved as "safe and effective smoking cessation devices."

Unless a health professional, group or government agency steps forward and volunteers to do a relevant, unbiased study, we are pretty much powerless as average vapers. We've seen what they have come up with so far - studies on how hard you have to draw (and coming to the conclusion that something which contains no toxic levels of any chemical could become MORE toxic), a poorly-designed study on nicotine delivery (using inexperienced vapers and instructing them to take 10 puffs on a new cartridge), a hospital survey which lists "dangers" of e-cigarettes and then asks the respondents if e-cigarettes should be regulated and an "opinion" article which urges doctors to tell patients to not use e-cigarettes, even if they are working for the patient.

If someone can show me a healthcare professional willing and able to do an unbiased study, I'd be happy to work with them.

Why wouldn't the vaping industry be paying for their own studies in regard to safety? The people who take Symbicort did not front AstraZeneca the money to run the tests on it. The users may end up paying for it afterward, but not until it's been proven safe and effective by AstraZ. Why should this be any different? Why should the government or a physician organization be expected to fund the studies that the industry should (you know, those people that are making quite a bit of money off the product)?

 

[markarich159]

Healthcare professionals don't seem remotely interested in learning the truth or doing studies.

It's not Healthcare Pro's responsibilty to "do studies"; it's the entity/manufacturer/vendor/supplier's(who actually stands to profit from said product) responsibilty to ensure the appropriate studies are done(i.e fund them and seek out a non-biased, independent reasearch institution to run the type of studies I referenced in my previous thread). Physicians and other healthcare pro's would look much more kindly on the industry if they actually had something peer-reviewed and legitimate to look at with regard to ecig/eliquids. I really wish the industry did what it said it was going to do(at least back when I started vaping back in mid 2009) and truly put together something with substance to evaluate. How are doctor's "not playing fair"? They are bound by their oath to not accept anectdotal evidence or studies which do not conform to a certain accepted scientific/clinical standard. The studies you referenced are not the researchers fault(they can only work with the funding they are given). Also, the researchers are the one's who dictate the proper research protocol(as is required by the pre-existing clinical research process) not the vendor's willingness(or unwillingness) to put out an appropriate research expenditure - which is, apparently, what has hampered the process to this point(i.e. unwillingness to PAY for the type of research necessary). There's a set standard and that's how it has to be done, period. And seeing all these suppliers boasting(in the legitimate press) on the millions and millions of dollars being made in this industry; it's time one or several of them get together(i.e. a legitimate Trade Association), step up to the plate, use some of those profits and start engaging the process correctly.

 

[Bill Godshall]

markarich159's comments would be correct if a company is marketing its product as a drug to treat a disease (i.e. wotjh therapeutic claims).

But e-cigarette companies are marketing their products as alternatives to cigarettes, not as drugs to treat a disease.

In a deceitful attempt to ban e-cigarettes, FDA Deputy Commissioner Josh Sharfstein (and his employees) have falsely claimed that e-cigarette companies are marketing their products as drugs to treat a disease.

Does markarich159 similarly consider smokeless tobacco products to be drugs marketed to treat disease just because those products are marketed as alternatives to cigarettes?

 

[markarich159]

markarich159's comments would be correct if a company is marketing its product as a drug to treat a disease (i.e. wotjh therapeutic claims).

But e-cigarette companies are marketing their products as alternatives to cigarettes, not as drugs to treat a disease.

In a deceitful attempt to ban e-cigarettes, FDA Deputy Commissioner Josh Sharfstein (and his employees) have falsely claimed that e-cigarette companies are marketing their products as drugs to treat a disease.

Does markarich159 similarly consider smokeless tobacco products to be drugs marketed to treat disease just because those products are marketed as alternatives to cigarettes?

Unfortunately "smokeles tobacco products" didn't utilize outright safety and health claims in the first 2 years of their US marketing(and some e-cig vendors still ARE utilizing this marketing tact). You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim a product is safe(or a safer alternative) and advocate to doctors that they back the use of this product; you have to have the appropriate safety/toxicity analyses to show them(regardless of what you want to call it, NOW) as well as the to show the consumers utilizing the products. I would say it's time to shine the flashlight of responsibilty on the manufacturers/suppliers/vendors. This tactic of trying to impune the reputations of physicians and other healthcare professionals and healthcare organizations(implying they want people to switch back to analogs and die); who simply want to be shown clinical data that should have been forthcoming years ago; is#1 offensive to persons who have dedicated their lives to treating patients in a clinically correct manner#2. is getting old & #3 is counterproductive for the industry in general.
I guess I'm just one of those deceitful & nasty healthcare professionals who would rather see people die of COPD and/or Small or Oat cell carcinoma. How dare you. All I want is for vendors to start doing what they should have done years ago, so I can legally, ethically & in good conscience, advocate for a product that, I believe, may have merit. But I CAN'T do that until the manufacturers/vendors/suppliers fulfill their responsibility. Other than wait for this to occur, there is nothing more to say or do.

 

[kristin]

Despite a plethora of supporting scientific evidence, tobacco companies are banned by law from revealing to the public that smokeless tobacco is 98-99% safer than smoking. Public health groups support this law.

What makes people think scientific evidence supporting e-cigarette safety will be treated any differently?

 

[rothenbj]

"Other than wait for this to occur, there is nothing more to say or do."

I would recommend that this should be your proper course of action at this point. Why do you torcher yourself coming back to these same points in a forum that can not help you in turning this product into another failed NRT product. Perhaps the courts will agree and perhaps they won't. Nobody will wait and buy an overpriced PV just because it met with the rigors required for NDA approval. If that's where it's forced to go legally, it will end up as another black market item or people will finally learn products like Swedish snus are safe enough and a very good stop smoking alternative.

 

[CooL_SpoT]

Or, with the help of this forum, people will realize that with a modicum of creativity and a small amount of skill, one can not only build their own PV, but brew their own nicotine juice as well. The FDA has exactly ZERO power to stop this.

Atty building:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/modders-forum/132663-all-my-mods-part1.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/atomizer-mods/120072-atomizer-cartomizer-life.html

Nic brewing:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/liquid-extraction-tobacco/131423-making-your-own-nicotine-e-liquid-copenhagen-pouches.html