When you can't find a problem, just knock over some straw men.

[hulsey76]

Just thought I'd post a link to a recent article published by the Harvard medical school regarding e-cigs. It's astounding that an MD affiliated with such a prestigious medical institution would actually write such drivel. Hope it's OK to post the link....HERE


The following is the response I left. Actual points he made in the article are in quotations.

1. “To be sure, the dose of these compounds is generally smaller than found in “real” cigarette smoke. But it isn’t zero.” So then we should just keep smoking instead and be exposed to higher levels of these substances, as well as the other 4000 poisons found in cigarettes but not in nicotine vapors? That makes sense….
2. “An FDA analysis recorded nicotine doses between 26.8 and 43.2 micrograms per puff.” And nowhere near those amounts are actually taken into the bloodstream during vaping. It is actually a very inefficient way to get your nicotine when compared to tobacco use. The FDA study was a fishing expedition to create a basis for regulation – otherwise they would have done blood toxicology to see how much nicotine was actual being introduced to the bloodstream vs. traditional tobacco use. Shoddy science at it’s best.
3. “electronic cigarettes deliver an array of other chemicals, including diethylene glycol (a highly toxic substance)” Bullsh**. E-juice is made with PROPYLENE glycol, or vegetable glycol, not diethylene glycol. Propylene glycol is used as a food and pharmaceutical additive and is very safe. Any toxic effect would require you to ingest massive amounts over a very short period of time. The same can be said of water. It is approved by the FDA to be ingested.
4. “They could also be a gateway into tobacco abuse for young people who are not yet hooked.” Ya know what else is a gateway into tobacco use? Tobacco. Kids are going to smoke if they want to smoke, period.Yes, I use e-cigs. My Doctor approves. I can actually breath again. I’m bypassing 4000 toxic substances. My use no longer puts those around me at risk. Oh yeah…and a habit that used to cost me $160/month now costs me only $40. I will listen to any valid argument that might come up against the safety of e-cigs, so long as it is backed with real science and not straw-man arguments and poorly controlled tests designed to justify bureaucratic involvement.​

Be vigilant. There are ignorant people who will try and condemn what we are doing and try to get the government involved.

 

[Vapro]

Thanks for the link. Unfortunatly, being vigilant will not help. "The people who know what's good for you" have little regard for facts. As an example look how they quoted the government study about the dangers of second hand smoke that actually reported its findings as "inconclusive". In their minds, no lie is too big if it gets you to act as they wish.
As vaping becomes more popular, it is only a matter of time before greedy people will ruin it. The only thing that remains to be seen is where the first assault will come from. My guess is a tax hungry govt. will try to pass a " nic parity act" or some such thing. Also remember that Big Tobacco and the healthcare industry stand to loose billions if vaping replaces smoking. They will fight this with everthing they can think of.
Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I think in the not too distant future we will be looking back on today as the "good old days of vaping".
Again, thanks for the link and happy vaping, Vapro

 

[Traver]

I haven't looked at the link yet but the FDA did find diethylene glycol in one of the cartridges it tested. I don't anyone has found since but they will continue to berate us with that one time.

 

[classwife]

Linking these items boosts them in searches...I broke the link by removing [/URL] at the end...

 

[McMongo]

Post i just put up there:

Posted February 8th, 2012 at 11:30 am
David

Perfect example of what’s wrong, here we have a Harvard Associate Professor of Medicine “Dr. Harvey Simon” who is just regurgitating this misinformation found in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine without using any common since, not doing any farther research, not even trying to digging up any government and private sector research that’s been around over 70 years. It is obviously just a cut and paste job, then signed his name on it. Very poor reporting, not good medical advice, and even worst considering he is the chief editor. I know middle school kids who can do a better more informed job than Dr. Simon produced here. He’s either lazy, ignorant, or there’s a money trail behind the scenes. Most likely all three.

David H.

 

[tj99959]

I didn't have to go any farther than the first paragraph!

Despite the appeal of so-called e-cigarettes, we don’t know enough about their safety or effectiveness to give them the green light.

My responce to him is "So find out!"

Everyone wants to say there isn't enough information, well who's damn job is it to collect the information?

 

[DaveP]

People who want smoking to go away will try to discredit anything that extends the life of what appears to be smoking. They don't care that vaping is healthier and just see it as another way to smoke.

if it looks like a duck ... kill it! That's their motto. Non-alcoholic beer got the same resistance. What about kids ... they will want to drink it. Bull ... kids drink beer to get high. I'd rather see people vape than smoke any day. Even if teenagers were able to get vaping supplies they would be better off than smoking tobacco (not that I'd want to see them start either habit).

 

[alten78]

" Despite the appeal of so-called e-cigarettes, we don’t know enough about their safety or effectiveness to give them the green light."

Sooooooooo is he saying because there is no "green light" on e-cigs that everyone should just continue to smoke or go back to analogs until there is one?

The logic, or lackthereof, of some people anger me something fierce

 

[nu2this]

People who want smoking to go away will try to discredit anything that extends the life of what appears to be smoking. They don't care that vaping is healthier and just see it as another way to smoke.

if it looks like a duck ... kill it! That's their motto. Non-alcoholic beer got the same resistance. What about kids ... they will want to drink it. Bull ... kids drink beer to get high. I'd rather see people vape than smoke any day. Even if teenagers were able to get vaping supplies they would be better off than smoking tobacco (not that I'd want to see them start either habit).

My oldest started smoking at 26 and my youngest at 18. I would much rather they both had started with eCigs than analogs. My son's boxing coach would have been much happier as well.

 

[hulsey76]

Thanks for the link. Unfortunatly, being vigilant will not help.

Sadly, Vapro, you might be right. Given the times over the last 12 years I've said "It'll never happen in America..." and then had to turn around and accept that it just happened in America - well, nothing surprises me, and pessimistic is just another way of saying "reality."

 

[Alac]

My favorite part....
"Third, by simulating the cigarette experience, electronic cigarettes might reactivate the habit in ex-smokers. <snip>"

It is this that makes e-cigs so much more succesful then patches.

 

[yzer]

3. “electronic cigarettes deliver an array of other chemicals, including diethylene glycol (a highly toxic substance)” Bullsh**. E-juice is made with PROPYLENE glycol, or vegetable glycol, not diethylene glycol. Propylene glycol is used as a food and pharmaceutical additive and is very safe. Any toxic effect would require you to ingest massive amounts over a very short period of time. The same can be said of water. It is approved by the FDA to be ingested.

Diethylene glycol is toxic and was a problem that the FDA dealt with beginning in 2007. DEG was present industry-wide in all glycerine products.

FDA regulation advised DEG detection methods and prohibited DEG from glycerine USP.

If FDA found DEG in an e-liquid it was probably because the e-liquid producer was using pre-2007 (outdated) glycerine.

 

[yzer]

FDA identified DEG in both Propylene glycol USP and Glycerine USP and issued industry-wide advisories in 2007. Here are the specifics.

www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070347.pdf

 

[hulsey76]

Diethylene glycol is toxic and was a problem that the FDA dealt with beginning in 2007. DEG was present industry-wide in all glycerine products.

FDA regulation advised DEG detection methods and prohibited DEG from glycerine USP.

If FDA found DEG in an e-liquid it was probably because the e-liquid producer was using pre-2007 (outdated) glycerine.

That may have been true 5 years ago, but it isn't the case now. This doctor published the article in 2011. So either he doesn't know anything about vaping and how it has changed in 5 years, and isn't bothered to find out (so he shouldn't be dispensing medical advice or writing articles about it) or he is intentionally perpetuating negative, outdated information because he has an agenda. I don't think I was wrong to call him on it though, because diethylene glycol is not used anymore - so he shouldn't be telling people that it is.

 

[yzer]

It's likely that Harvey B Simon M.D. is relying on the 2009 FDA study that found DEG present in one of two e-liquid samples tested.

Whole Cartridge: Diethylene Glycol by GC-MS
Diethylene Glycol was detected in one sample (Smoking Everywhere 555 High cartridge) at
approximately 1%.
www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf

FDA recommended a DEG safety limit of .01% at the time.

Dr. Harvey B. Simon M.D. is guilty of cherry-picking his data to fit an agenda. This has never been an uncommon practice in medicine.

 

[jdrewry]

How about this for thought:
The FDA isn't about to approve e-cigs, because they can't make money off of them.

Chantix, Wellbutrin, Nicotine Gum, the patch...meh.

But, God help them if I order a starter kit and a few liquids, and I suddenly have no urge to smoke (or have no inclination to see the doctor if I'm feeling good).

When the FDA decides to conduct an actual study--meaning, when I see something in the papers asking for volunteers--I MIGHT listen to them in this regard. In the meantime, I look at it as, "They're way off base with this."

 

[hulsey76]

Dr. Harvey B. Simon M.D. is guilty of cherry-picking his data to fit an agenda. This has never been an uncommon practice in medicine.

True 'nuff, yzer.

 

[ambition]

Lol I love your response the the article. I'd have called bulls..t too.

Think about it, why would the respected doc go out on a limb and proclaim ecigs to be a safe option for smokers? There's no way he could do it without pissing someone off, so better to toe the line.

He could have been kind enough to suggest that they show promise as a viable alternative to NRT pending further study, but of course the pharma companies wouldn't be too thrilled with that.

Why he felt compelled to say anything at all is anyone's guess. Douchbag.

Damn champix and zyban, both those evil concoctions made me suicidal. The pharma companies would rather see me top myself by releasing those drugs without extensive study (only the bare minimum for medical board approval).

It just boggles the mind all the reasons why ecigs can't get the same cursory glance and tick of approval.

 

[RevsVice]

So I was browsing the news headlines today and I see an article about a new "Caffeine inhaler" being sold called "AeroShot". Each puff gives as much caffeine as a single cup of coffee. The inhaler holds more caffeine than a can of Red Bull. People are worried this is being marketed to kids and Sen. Chucky Schumer has asked the FDA to investigate.

And who invented this? A Harvard engineer.