WHO Report

[JustMeAgain]

It appears WHO released a study today regarding the tobacco Free Initiative.

http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/publications/tsr_955/en/index.html

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241209557_eng.pdf

 

[Stephra]

What I took away was this:

1-We don't know if e-cigs are safe, because we don't have a conclusive study.

2-If they are safe and do work, they should be classified as drug delivery devices, not tobacco products.

3-We don't know if e-cigs are safe, because we don't have a conclusive study.



They're basically saying they don't want any blood on their hands if something turns out to be bad about e-cigs in the long term, and if it turns out they ARE okay, then they should be used as a step-down device, I'm assuming under a doctor's supervision, with the end result being quitting both smoking and the e-cig.

I'm sure this has been talked to death, but what sort of study by what sort of organization would satisfy the nay-sayers? It seems as though one or two good thorough studies could put the whole thing to bed, so how do we as a group get that done? It seems like that should be the number one priority of every pro-vape group that exists (including consumers, retailers, and manufacturers).

And another question - I always see it referred to as a choice between two options, either drug delivery (cessation aid) or tobacco product. Shouldn't there be a third class, specifically for harm reduction products? Why can't we push for re-classification into a new category? It would give some legitimacy to these products, and address the very real shortcomings of both smoking and traditional NRTs.

It's ultimately a question of health - what actions would best protect public health? If NRT products have been "proven" effective - even with their abysmal track record for long-term success - it should be relatively easy to prove that not only do e-cigs pose very little threat, but they also have a remarkably high success rate.

 

[rothenbj]

What I took away was this:

1-We don't know if e-cigs are safe, because we don't have a conclusive study.

2-If they are safe and do work, they should be classified as drug delivery devices, not tobacco products.

3-We don't know if e-cigs are safe, because we don't have a conclusive study.



They're basically saying they don't want any blood on their hands if something turns out to be bad about e-cigs in the long term, and if it turns out they ARE okay, then they should be used as a step-down device, I'm assuming under a doctor's supervision, with the end result being quitting both smoking and the e-cig.

I'm sure this has been talked to death, but what sort of study by what sort of organization would satisfy the nay-sayers? It seems as though one or two good thorough studies could put the whole thing to bed, so how do we as a group get that done? It seems like that should be the number one priority of every pro-vape group that exists (including consumers, retailers, and manufacturers).

And another question - I always see it referred to as a choice between two options, either drug delivery (cessation aid) or tobacco product. Shouldn't there be a third class, specifically for harm reduction products? Why can't we push for re-classification into a new category? It would give some legitimacy to these products, and address the very real shortcomings of both smoking and traditional NRTs.

It's ultimately a question of health - what actions would best protect public health? If NRT products have been "proven" effective - even with their abysmal track record for long-term success - it should be relatively easy to prove that not only do e-cigs pose very little threat, but they also have a remarkably high success rate.

What you and many miss when you hear "proven safe" by these people is what I shall call "bureaucracy save". That translates to tens of years and millions of dollars and lots of reports and studies and meetings and waiting and waiting and waiting and rejections with conditions and studies and meetings and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and, oh, I forgot fees to feed the bureaucracy, and waiting and waiting and, and, and rejection or minimal nicotine content, extremely high cost, doctors prescription and approval by the FDA IF A PHARMA COMPANY IS INVOLVED.

You have to be able to prove efficacy to generate massive profits while insuring that the patient will safely return to cigarette smoking after Pharma gets their cut. Oh, I'm just being pessimistic at this early hour.

 

[Vocalek]

They're basically saying they don't want any blood on their hands if something turns out to be bad about e-cigs in the long term, and if it turns out they ARE okay, then they should be used as a step-down device, I'm assuming under a doctor's supervision, with the end result being quitting both smoking and the e-cig.

I'm sure this has been talked to death, but what sort of study by what sort of organization would satisfy the nay-sayers?

There isn't any way you could construct a study that would convince these particular nay-sayers that using e-cigs in the way that we use them is not hazardous to health. This group believes that permanent use of nicotine in any form is a bad thing.

 

[Stephra]

There isn't any way you could construct a study that would convince these particular nay-sayers that using e-cigs in the way that we use them is not hazardous to health. This group believes that permanent use of nicotine in any form is a bad thing.

Are you saying that any reputable study would inevitably lead to drug device classification?

Or are you saying that no study will ever be accepted at all?

I'm just trying to be clear on exactly what you mean.

 

[Janetda]

I think she's say that most of these groups are against harm reduction strategies. They aren't going to ever like anything that contains nicotine that isn't approved by the FDA as a NRT.

 

[River]

Quit using nicotine??? Why on earth would I do that?

Parkinson's Disease: Nicotine Reduces Levodopa-induced Dyskinesias

"Most of the research on tobacco has focused on its detrimental health effects. Studies conducted over the last 40 years show that the incidence of Parkinson's disease is about 50 percent less in smokers than in the general population. Recent studies in experimental models suggest that the nicotine in smoke may be responsible for this neuroprotective effect."

The people in my family regularly live to be over 100 yrs old, I personally am way more likely to suffer from neurological issues and eventual dementia which studies have clearly shown are reduced in nicotine users.

Nicotine For Alzheimer's: Healthy For Life from the Eyewitness News Newsroom

"Paul Newhouse, M.D.
Professor of Psychiatry University of Vermont
Burlington, VT
"Nicotine can improve learning. It can improve attentional performance."


Paul Newhouse, M.D.
"We think it would provide a way to treat the earliest signs of memory loss and attentional loss."

Boy, you would think that WHO would... y'know, maybe know about health issues...

I guess that's just too much to ask for when there is a political axe to grind.

 

[Vapor Vamp]

What I took away was this:

1-We don't know if e-cigs are safe, because we don't have a conclusive study.

2-If they are safe and do work, they should be classified as drug delivery devices, not tobacco products.

3-We don't know if e-cigs are safe, because we don't have a conclusive study.



They're basically saying they don't want any blood on their hands if something turns out to be bad about e-cigs in the long term, and if it turns out they ARE okay, then they should be used as a step-down device, I'm assuming under a doctor's supervision, with the end result being quitting both smoking and the e-cig.

I'm sure this has been talked to death, but what sort of study by what sort of organization would satisfy the nay-sayers? It seems as though one or two good thorough studies could put the whole thing to bed, so how do we as a group get that done? It seems like that should be the number one priority of every pro-vape group that exists (including consumers, retailers, and manufacturers).

And another question - I always see it referred to as a choice between two options, either drug delivery (cessation aid) or tobacco product. Shouldn't there be a third class, specifically for harm reduction products? Why can't we push for re-classification into a new category? It would give some legitimacy to these products, and address the very real shortcomings of both smoking and traditional NRTs.

It's ultimately a question of health - what actions would best protect public health? If NRT products have been "proven" effective - even with their abysmal track record for long-term success - it should be relatively easy to prove that not only do e-cigs pose very little threat, but they also have a remarkably high success rate.

Expect nothing from the utterly corrupt WHO.

The WHO is a globalist controlled mouthpiece
just recently busted for their role
in perpetuating the swine-flu scam
on behalf of big Pharma.

 

[Vocalek]

I think she's say that most of these groups are against harm reduction strategies. They aren't going to ever like anything that contains nicotine that isn't approved by the FDA as a NRT.

Janet nailed it. And to explain a little further, "Nicotine Replacement Therapy" (NRT) is a misnomer. They should have called it Nicotine Weaning Therapy. FDA only approves products as NRT with dosages that are low to start out with, and the product needs to be sold with directions on how to decrease usage to zero over the course of 12 weeks or so.

Jack Henningfield, one of the authors of the WHO anti-ecig literature, firmly believes that gradually reducing nicotine will help 100% of smokers to quit. He isn't interested in learning about the beneficial effects of electronic cigarettes or permanent nicotine maintenance in any form. I know, because Spikey and I tried to talk with him at SRNT. He did the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "LA LA LA LA LA".

 

[Vocalek]

Quit using nicotine??? Why on earth would I do that?

Parkinson's Disease: Nicotine Reduces Levodopa-induced Dyskinesias

"Most of the research on tobacco has focused on its detrimental health effects. Studies conducted over the last 40 years show that the incidence of Parkinson's disease is about 50 percent less in smokers than in the general population. Recent studies in experimental models suggest that the nicotine in smoke may be responsible for this neuroprotective effect."

The people in my family regularly live to be over 100 yrs old, I personally am way more likely to suffer from neurological issues and eventual dementia which studies have clearly shown are reduced in nicotine users.

Boy, am I ever with you. I finally got a diagnosis on my 88-year old mother: Lewy Body Dementia. Lewy Bodies building up in the brain are what causes symptoms of Parkinsons. She is not only losing her mind; she is also losing her mobility. She says it feels as if her feet are glued to the floor. Biologically, she and I are very much alike. Allergic to the same things, respond the same way to various drugs. Is it outside the realm of possibility that what causes my problems with memory and concentration when I abstain from nicotine is the build-up of Lewy Bodies in my brain?

Nicotine For Alzheimer's: Healthy For Life from the Eyewitness News Newsroom

"Paul Newhouse, M.D.
Professor of Psychiatry University of Vermont
Burlington, VT
"Nicotine can improve learning. It can improve attentional performance."


Paul Newhouse, M.D.
"We think it would provide a way to treat the earliest signs of memory loss and attentional loss."

Boy, you would think that WHO would... y'know, maybe know about health issues...

I guess that's just too much to ask for when there is a political axe to grind.

...or when there is money to be made from the companies that market those 10% effective NRTs.

 

[rtbob]

All I need to know is that I can use the stairs now, I no longer cough up brown sputum, I have more energy through out the day. My wheezing has gone away. All this without any withdrawl symptoms, weight gain, irratibility, depression, insomnia, suicidal thoughts.
The WHO is ignorant to the actual benifets of the electronic cigarettes and must have no desire to learn the truth.

 

[Tom09]

The cited TobReg report should not go without it’s appropriate critizism by Laugesen (scroll down page to open TobRegCritique.doc).

[...]
Denial of the harm reduction principle. Condoms for safer sex, seatbelts for safer driving, are accepted by society, but electronic cigarettes for safer inhalation of nicotine are not yet accepted by TobReg.
This report is a denial of the harm reduction principle, that smokers unwilling to quit should be allowed to maintain their previous behaviour if they must, but be encouraged to do so in a safer way. Reduction of relative harm by e-cigarette is seen as not permissible, unless near absolute reduction of risk on switching to e-cigarettes is proven.
[...]

 

[D103]

For anyone who is interested there is an excellent transcript of an interview with Dr. Carl Phillips re: the significant value and validity of electronic cigarettes as a Harm Reduction alternative for smokers. Dr. Phillips does a good job of explaining common questions as well as debunking widely held myths about this technology as well as the vast array of misinformation being promulgated by 'abstinence-only, anti-smoking prohibitionists.' You can find this at: TobaccoHarmReduction.org click on 'electronic cigarettes'.

 

[Idaho Ron]

For the life of me I can not see why e-cigs should not be BANED. After all look at proabition, it worked so well. They are the same insane people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!