Washinton Times: Electronic cigarette peddlers are just blowing smoke, health officials say

[Vocalek]

Electronic cigarette peddlers are just blowing smoke, health officials say

That cloud hanging over electronic cigarettes these days isn’t just from the nicotine-laced vapor that the newfangled butts emit.

As big tobacco companies rush to cash in on e-cigarettes and governments scramble to regulate their use, the nation’s top researchers say basic questions about the safety and long-term effects of e-cigarettes have yet to be answered. They also caution that regulators may be about to go too far without knowing what they are dealing with.


At a gathering of the nation’s leading cancer specialists outside Washington this week, a panel on e-cigarette smoking, or “vaping” as it is often called, cast a skeptical eye on the intense regulatory interest in the e-cigarette phenomenon.

​

Read more: Electronic cigarette peddlers are just blowing smoke, health officials say - Washington Times
​

An odd headline, given the story content. Unless I'm mistaken, "blowing smoke" is a colloquial term for lying. Nothing in the story points to e-cigarette companies lying to the public.

I sent off a letter to the editor after reviewing the print version.

I received notice today that my letter is being considered for publication.

In my letter, I did not attempt to address the sidebar that quoted everyone's favorite mechanical engineer, Stanton Glantz. Regulators unsure how to treat electronic cigarettes - Washington Times

 

[Vocalek]

Oh, and a big thanks to the person at VapercCon who brought a clipping of the story over to the CASAA table. Otherwise, we might have missed this story. I get the print version, but we were out of town at VaperCon the day it ran.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

I posted my writeup too..I know it's probably not as eloquent as most others...but I hope people will start to see the truth by actually LOOKING for the truth instead of listening to the disinformation the media is pumping out!

You are the media disinformation bloodhound I tell you...sniffing out the lies of the media one report at a time...YOU GO GIRL!

 

[AgentAnia]

"Nicotine-laced vapor"? "Newfangled butts"? Lead-ins as cheap journalism. Department of Sly Innuendo at work...

From an excellent comment by our own Bob Chill:

In fact, numerous studies have been done by all types of sources including medical professionals, governments, universities, public health organizations, etc that we hear very little about. Why is that? Because all the findings do not fit the agenda of proving clear and present danger to justify regulation and taxation. The "smoking gun" has been sought for years now and nobody can find it. So all the fact and science that is already known is conveniently swept under the rug and omitted from virtually all mainstream media. The only study we ever hear anything about is the flawed FDA 2009 study saying the electronic cigarettes are similar to embalming yourself and drinking from your cars radiator. It's embarrassing and an insult to my intelligence.

 

[Anjaffm]

Lovely quote, AgentAnia!
Yeah.. they are grasping at straws... spreading FUD and any kind of manure as if it was going out of style.... because they KNOW that vaping is much safer than smoking... and they just don't like that .. hehe

 

[AgentAnia]

Lovely quote, AgentAnia!
Yeah.. they are grasping at straws... spreading FUD and any kind of manure as if it was going out of style.... because they KNOW that vaping is much safer than smoking... and they just don't like that .. hehe

Hey, thank you, but I just selected it. Let's give a big to Bob Chill! His entire comment is well worth reading!

I hope Vocalek will post her letter to the editor here, as soon as she's able...

 

[Petrodus]

Comment below the article

I knew it was only a matter of time before the anti-capitalism crowd chimed in
to demand "reasonable regulations" which of course means "unreasonable restrictions
and unnatural fees laid by an ever increasingly oppressive government."

 

[Kent C]

"Federal Farmer's" comments should be instructive to CASAA's wording. 'Aerosol' is a poor choice even though it may be accurate. It brings up all the anti-aerosol junk science. To use "However, like caffeine and other common indulgences, it may cause some tiny risk of heart attack and stroke...." is also unwise. The use of "may", "could", etc. is what the mainstream media do to create doubt, without any real sources. Trying to be 'truthful' in an attempt to appear "objective" or "balanced" does nothing but give those who oppose us an opening. Federal Farmer took it, using the anecdotal 'asthma attack' of his wife, despite his claiming to be 'one of us'.

Because they are going to use the fact that CASAA is a 'pro-vaping' group against us anyway, (that's unavoidable), to 'give them' other points of attack like this doesn't help the cause. Give them nothing! Look how the opponents use the data. They give nothing to us. They're not 'balanced and objective'. Don't lie like they do, but don't appear to be compromising esp. with points that need no compromising 'mays' and 'coulds'.

 

[Anjaffm]

Yeah, Kent C, I sure agree about that "Federal Farmer" and his using any word in his way.
It should probably read "Federal Tobacco Farmer

Hey, and scroll down, please!
Bill Godshall rocks!

 

[Kent C]

Yeah, Kent C, I sure agree about that "Federal Farmer" and his using any word in his way.
It should probably read "Federal Tobacco Farmer

Hey, and scroll down, please!
Bill Godshall rocks!

Good info but again.. to my former point of 'wording'.... ecigs "pose fewer risks than FDA approved Chantix or Wellbutrin." Is there anyone else who thinks this is similar to saying "Hitler posed fewer risks than Stalin"? I don't see where that furthers our cause. Pointing out the known downsides of Chantix and Willbutrin would be better ploy, imo.

 

[Anjaffm]

Pointing out the known downsides of Chantix and Willbutrin would be better ploy, imo.

Could be dangerous, I'm not sure. Not that well versed in American law .. naming products, you know....

 

[Kent C]

Could be dangerous, I'm not sure. Not that well versed in American law .. naming products, you know....

Actually, all one would have to do is list the side effects that are associated with those drugs - there are actual, real cases of people experiencing them or they wouldn't put it in the listing that comes with the products.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

It would not hurt to mention the Fact that Pfizer has taken a $273 Million charge to settle 80% (~2000) of the chantix lawsuits. I dont know of any e-cigarette lawsuits that have paid out anything yet. The few that have been mentioned involved batteries exploding which is an ongoing problem with any product that uses lithium cells. It helps to remind people that of two products that were introduced at about the same time one of them has caused many deaths and at this point there are none attributed to the other.

ETA:Pfizer settles 2,000-plus Chantix suits, takes $273M charge - FiercePharma

 

[Bob Chill]

Thanks for the compliments folks. I read the Times and Post often and feel a local responsibility to say my piece when I see articles like this.

The media has really been playing the "unknown" card and it bugs the crap out of me. Humans don't like "unknowns". It takes us out of our comfort zone and affects our rational thinking. I already know several friends who continue to smoke because all they read about ecigs is the health effects are completely unknown. So they rationally (in their minds) stick with tobacco because they "know what will happen" if they continue using it. Really shows the power of using "unknowns" as a deterrent. Educated and responsible adults are willing to continue a habit that they know is robbing them of their health, shortening their lives, and will likely be a cause of early death because they can't deal with "unknowns". WOW.

I don't know if it's irresponsibility or agenda (probably both) of the media completely ignoring the knowns. Because there are plenty. From many sources. And there is little if any mention in the mainstream? Really? It burns me up and I'll continue to post similar comments in every article I see. If I change a single persons mind it will be worth the time and effort.

 

[Kent C]

Thanks for the compliments folks. I read the Times and Post often and feel a local responsibility to say my piece when I see articles like this.

The media has really been playing the "unknown" card and it bugs the crap out of me. Humans don't like "unknowns". It takes us out of our comfort zone and affects our rational thinking. I already know several friends who continue to smoke because all they read about ecigs is the health effects are completely unknown. So they rationally (in their minds) stick with tobacco because they "know what will happen" if they continue using it. Really shows the power of using "unknowns" as a deterrent. Educated and responsible adults are willing to continue a habit that they know is robbing them of their health, shortening their lives, and will likely be a cause of early death because they can't deal with "unknowns". WOW.

I don't know if it's irresponsibility or agenda (probably both) of the media completely ignoring the knowns. Because there are plenty. From many sources. And there is little if any mention in the mainstream? Really? It burns me up and I'll continue to post similar comments in every article I see. If I change a single persons mind it will be worth the time and effort.

Unfortunately this 'unknown card' or 'the creation of doubt' is Standard Operating Procedure for journalism and taught in every journalistic school. It is considered 'essential'. It reduces to "conflict equals interest" and it is 'interest' that sells copy. This is why WE shouldn't use this devise against ourselves by saying ecigs 'may' or 'could' do this or that, especially when there is no data from studies to even suspect it.

This attempt by some, to be 'honest' or 'open minded' will only be used against us by those who lie and are closed minded for their own purposes.

 

[Bob Chill]

Well said, Kent.

We all share an intense frustration here. The media for the most part is repeating flawed and debunked "knowns" like the 09 FDA study over and over and over again when the most recent data disproving it is readily available. Some opinion pieces do in fact point out more accurate data but those articles are buried under an enormous amount of noise and misinformation.

At some point it will be impossible to hide the truth but it could easily be too late. One thing our Government does terribly bad is go backwards with regulation. Especially with issues like this.

 

[Uma]

I agree, & cringe every time a trace is mentioned. The common people don't know the definition of a scientific trace. It's scary to them, but not scary enough to research what it means, or how it relates. They gasp out an OMG! Then proceed on to read the sports page, Wall Street, comics, dear Abby, horoscopes, ...
Maybe someone can get Forbes, &/or Reason to explain the definition of scientific traces in words that even Glantz could understand. .

 

[Kent C]

I agree, & cringe every time a trace is mentioned. The common people don't know the definition of a scientific trace. It's scary to them, but not scary enough to research what it means, or how it relates. They gasp out an OMG! Then proceed on to read the sports page, Wall Street, comics, dear Abby, horoscopes, ...
Maybe someone can get Forbes, &/or Reason to explain the definition of scientific traces in words that even Glantz could understand. .

That's another thing.. there used to be 'morgue files' on various subjects at newspapers (now - probably 'good links' files ;-), where a reporter (or newbie reporter trying to make a name for themselves) would find stories already written on subjects and all the lies and deceptions usually in the headlines as a hook, are carried forward by 're-citing' old material, much of which had been long debunked (not headline material), making the reporter look like they've "researched" the subject. This is obviously the case with ecigs.... as you point out.

 

[EleanorR]

I agree, & cringe every time a trace is mentioned. The common people don't know the definition of a scientific trace. It's scary to them, but not scary enough to research what it means, or how it relates. They gasp out an OMG! Then proceed on to read the sports page, Wall Street, comics, dear Abby, horoscopes, ...
Maybe someone can get Forbes, &/or Reason to explain the definition of scientific traces in words that even Glantz could understand. .

Honey, let me assure you that Stan Glantz is impervious to facts. They bounce right off his skull like bullets off of Superman's chest!

 

[rothenbj]

Well said, Kent.

We all share an intense frustration here. The media for the most part is repeating flawed and debunked "knowns" like the 09 FDA study over and over and over again when the most recent data disproving it is readily available. Some opinion pieces do in fact point out more accurate data but those articles are buried under an enormous amount of noise and misinformation.

At some point it will be impossible to hide the truth but it could easily be too late. One thing our Government does terribly bad is go backwards with regulation. Especially with issues like this.

I fully agree about government's reluctance to back out of regulation. However, I believe the FDA has a real concern with how they should propose regulation here. They made their stance once and got spanked in court. They didn't get away with regulating them as pharma products. They don't have a lot of science to use as a defense if they end up in court over proposed regulation. The "We just don't know" defense won't work. The "What about the children" defense won't work. They need some science to bring to the courtroom and there's very little that supports any strong stance against e cigs.

I believe they realize they have a dilemma in that their opponent was very weak financially the first time around, but there's a lot more ammunition available now. It will be interesting to see how they try to resolve this.