Wisconsin Dr. says e-cigs don't work, calls vendors pushers

[kristin]

I posted a comment now, too:

I completely agree with Dr. Pater's advice to continue beyond the recommended use time for nicotine gum rather than relapsing back to smoking. This is called "tobacco harm reduction." It means that the health risks of smoking far outweigh the low health risks of a SMOKELESS nicotine addiction. It is far better to be addicted to the gum than return to smoking. Nicotine is not a carcinogen and has very low health risks compared to smoking. Replacing a very high-risk product with a very low-risk product makes sense. However, Dr. Paster drops the ball and misinforms readers when considering other smokeless options.

Nicotine gum succeeds in helping smokers quit nicotine only 7% of the time. (Established, scientific FACT.) Would you consider your car's brakes to be a "safe and effective" product if it FAILED 93% of the time? About 1/3 of all gum users become persistent users. So, who are the real "gun slingers" and "snake oil salesmen" here then? The doctor's advice is to ignore the FDA recommendations because we "know unequivocally the gum is safer than tobacco," but where are the long-term studies showing this to be true? There aren't any, because the gum has always been intended for short-term use! Yet, Dr. Paster sees the risks of smoking as far outweighing the risks of smokeless nicotine, which makes perfect sense. So, why does this theory not apply to a smokeless tobacco product, as well? That DOESN'T make sense and the science proves it.

That is why the tobacco makers "want you to think that smokeless tobacco is much safer" because that is the TRUTH. Again, it is established, scientific FACT that SMOKING tobacco is what causes 99% of the disease and death associated with tobacco use. Eliminate the SMOKE and you eliminate 99% of the health risks. How can anyone deny that 1% of the health risks of smoking doesn't qualify something as "much safer?" For Dr. Paster to even hint that this is not true is unconscionable and a great disservice to his patients who smoke and would consider at least switching to smokeless, if they cannot or will not quit tobacco/nicotine altogether!

As far as electronic cigarettes don't "satisfy the craving...and users often find themselves back on tobacco," I would challenge Dr. Paster to show proof to back up his claim. All scientific and real-life evidence to date indicates the exact opposite. Surveys and research studies from 2008 to present have shown that e-cigarettes "are proving acceptable as a complete replacement for smoking for up to 79% of consumers" . (Heavner, Dunworth, Bergen, Nissen, & Phillips, 2008)and "Smokers with a documented history of recurring relapses were able to quit and to remain abstinent for at least six months after taking up an e-cigarette...e-Cigarettes can substantially decrease cigarette consumption without causing significant side effects in smokers not intending to quit." (Polosa, 2011)

After 8 years on the world market, there have been no reports of serious adverse health effects or deaths related to e-cigarette use reported on the FDA Medwatch. Compare that to the hundreds and hundreds of complaints filed against Chantix and FDA-approved nicotine products. "Over 90% of users report that their health has improved." (Heavner, Dunworth, Bergen, Nissen, & Phillips, 2008)

To compare e-cigarettes to "snake oil," when they use the exact same nicotine as the gum - which Dr. Paster touts as "unequivocally safer than tobacco" - is illogical. Since e-cigarettes also eliminate the smoke exposure (eg. 99% of the health risks) and go one step better than the gum by addressing the behavioral aspect of smoking, there is no logic behind claiming that they are less effective and not as safe as the gum.

If smokers are able to quit all tobacco and nicotine use, that is obviously the ideal. We should all eat only healthy foods, exercise regularly and not do drugs, smoke or drink. But that isn't reality. Unfortunately, there are 45.3 million Americans who still smoke, because they cannot or will not quit. Those people deserve to know the TRUTH about smokeless options.

Kristin Noll-Marsh
CASAA Vice President
casaa.org

(CASAA is a non-profit, all volunteer organization that works to ensure the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking and to provide smokers and non-smokers alike with truthful information about such alternatives.)

Read more: Discussion : Dr. Zorba Paster: Addicted to nicotine gum? At worst, it's still better than smoking

 

[Mr. Buttflakes]

I wanna see the Dr.'s reply on these comments, which we'll never see unfortuneatly.

 

[spaceballsrules]

The public is made guinea pigs for ANY product. If you think testing on lab animals or a few dozen carefully chosen human study participants tells us more than real-world reports of adverse effects, then you need to research what happened with Chantix. All "scientific research" is is an educated guess. They don't really know what is going to happen until a product gets out into real-world use and reports come back. We've had 8 years of real-world e-cigarette use and there have been no reports of serious adverse health reactions related to e-cigarettes. Compare that to the FDA MedWatch reports for Chantix and "safe and effective" pharmaceutical nicotine products over the past 8 years.

..........

Hey Kristin. I actually agree with you. The only point that I was really making is that research should be done just to prove all of the anti-ecig yahoos out there wrong. Of course the burden of proof does not fall on the shoulders of ecig manufacturers, but rather with those claiming that they are bad.
Of course, even with irrefutable evidence, some will not be dissuaded. Example - climate change.

I just recently found out that VG is used in hospitals to administer some drugs through inhalation. A very few people have adverse reactions to VG, but it is typically due to an allergy.
I also read about the PG tests done in the 40's (in Germany IIRC). So there you go. Proof that at least the solvents in ejuice are, in FACT, 99% safe for the general population. (100% is impossible, but you know that )

One thing I will admit I am wrong about is FDA testing. I am not going to pretend I know how the FDA works its mojo, but I do know that if vapers want their case to be heard, it needs to start at city hall and move its way up to Capitol hill. That was my point. If you want awareness, you need to spread the word, which you are obviously doing.

There are so many dangers that surround us daily that we become desensitized to their presence. Car exhaust is an example. Most people don't think about the ways that sitting at a traffic light inhaling exhaust is affecting them, or they don't want to think about it, and so they go on their merry way. But God forbid that someone light up a cigarette (analog) within 100 yards of them. With e-cigs, the common reaction is WTF is that?

I am glad you brought up Chantix as well. What a horrible idea that is. I still have the starter box sitting on my counter, and I will NEVER touch it.

I think people need the oversight on certain products just so they can sleep comfortably at night.

Now, that being said, should e-cigarette manufacturers be monitored to make sure that their products are being made in the safest way possible - no cheap shortcuts substituting GRAS ingredients with dangerous ingredients such as diethylene glycol, clean and sanitary manufacturing practices, full disclosure of the ingredients so consumers can make an informed purchase, warnings on the label not to swallow liquid and keep away from children and pets and offering child-resistant packaging? No sales to minors? ABSOLUTELY! Those are reasonable expectations. But unless e-cigarette use is shown to be harmful by reports of serious adverse effects by users or there are reports that manufacturers are purposely adding known harmful ingredients without public knowledge, there is no reason to require them to go through expensive (and relatively pointless) clinical trials to try to "prove" they are safe for everyone.

Yes! I say take steps to ensure that people are made aware of how to avoid a danger, should it exist, and don't give the naysayers a chance to retort.

P.S. Fat free ice cream sucks!

 

[minigoat]

Reply from the doctor… geez maybe he should have gotten the cassy

http ://host . madison . com/wsj/news/local/ask/dr-paster/dr-zorba-paster-e-cigs-have-not-proven-to-be/article_c36a922a-4128-11e1-8023-0019bb2963f4.html