WNEM Michigan E-Cig Report 5/11/11

[steakneggs]

Ugh, saw the report this morning, some 5 minute journalism must had went into their fact finding..

Local Video

Any MDs here want to help them out?

 

[RobertY]

Wow, that is some very poor reporting. The reporter went to a respiratory specialist that gets PAID good money to "help" people quit smoking. What did the reporter think that said specialist would say about something a lot cheaper than he is? Did that reporter really think that the "specialist" would give ecigs a glowing report?

Sheesh....

 

[jtpjc]

No, I won't get angry. Nope I won't. Tired of getting angry. It's bad for my mental sanity, never will do it again, never. Look at me, how calm I am. I'm all zen. Which isn't easy, considering this splitting headache.

 

[Demarko]

We need to make a video that asks the same question... And then have everyone they interview (it would be a joke video) going... "Of course they're better... Are you f-ing ......ed? A 3 year old can tell you that!"

 

[RobertY]

We need to make a video that asks the same question... And then have everyone they interview (it would be a joke video) going... "Of course they're better... Are you f-ing ......ed? A 3 year old can tell you that!"

They would somehow misquote that and say we are trying to get toddlers hooked on ecigs.

 

[Codyh]

The "FDA bulletin" shows the e-cig plugged in Via the mouth end of the cartridge

This makes me sad to live in Michigan.


oh noez this dangerous antifreeze chemical !!!! I guess I won't use anything with PG in it like:

As a solvent in many pharmaceuticals, including oral, injectable and topical formulations. Notably, diazepam, which is insoluble in water, uses propylene glycol as its solvent in its clinical, injectable form.[5]
As a humectant food additive, labeled as E number E1520
As an emulsification agent in Angostura and orange bitters
As a moisturizer in medicines, cosmetics, food, toothpaste, shampoo, mouth wash, hair care and tobacco products
As a carrier in fragrance oils
As an ingredient in massage oils
In hand sanitizers, antibacterial lotions, and saline solutions
In smoke machines to make artificial smoke for use in firefighters' training and theatrical productions
In electronic cigarettes, as a vaporizable base for diluting the nicotine liquid
As a solvent for food colors and flavorings

 

[squirrel64]

Not enough information ?????? Geeeeesh. Haven't they bothered to read anything on one of the worlds largest forums

 

[kristin]

"The FDA said it was going to try again"

?????????

SO WRONG!

 

[Vocalek]

The "FDA bulletin" shows the e-cig plugged in Via the mouth end of the cartridge

This makes me sad to live in Michigan.


oh noez this dangerous antifreeze chemical !!!! I guess I won't use anything with PG in it like:

As a solvent in many pharmaceuticals, including oral, injectable and topical formulations. Notably, diazepam, which is insoluble in water, uses propylene glycol as its solvent in its clinical, injectable form.[5]
As a humectant food additive, labeled as E number E1520
As an emulsification agent in Angostura and orange bitters
As a moisturizer in medicines, cosmetics, food, toothpaste, shampoo, mouth wash, hair care and tobacco products
As a carrier in fragrance oils
As an ingredient in massage oils
In hand sanitizers, antibacterial lotions, and saline solutions
In smoke machines to make artificial smoke for use in firefighters' training and theatrical productions
In electronic cigarettes, as a vaporizable base for diluting the nicotine liquid
As a solvent for food colors and flavorings

Actually, the FDA wasn't talking about PG when they used the "antifreeze" label. They were talking about 1% Diethylene Glycol (DEG) found in one of the 18 cartridges tested. DEG can be a very dangerous chemical; however 0.01 ml is a non-toxic quantity.

 

[lordpeep]

Man I am really just a loss here. How can you report something and not know any of the facts, or even remotely give two sides of the story? Basically that wasn't a story about ecigs, it was a story about how "stupid people" think they are being safe when clearly there are so many "toxins and stuff that we just don't know about yet". Why didn't they think it prudent to talk to a real doctor about this subject instead of a therapist. There is a vast difference in their educational background between the two. The sad thing about this story is, the uninformed public watching this now thinks that ecigs are worse than normal cigs...

 

[kristin]

I sent the reporter an email.

Dear Ms. Gelardi,

After reviewing your special news report on 5/11/2011, "Tough Questions: Are E-cigarettes Any Safer?", the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) was dismayed to hear so many inaccurate statements being made about e-cigarettes. Unfortunately, journalists tend to rely on the FDA press statement and interview laypeople or consumers and uninformed medical professionals when doing stories on e-cigarettes, which leads to many misinformed and misleading reports. CASAA is a non-profit, 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. CASAA is not affiliated with nor beholden to any e-cigarette, tobacco or pharmacetical companies.

You stated in your report that it "Turns out that the fake smokes could be just as harmful to your health, as bad as the real thing. Well, no one really knows."

This is simply not true. There is both scientific and real world evidence available to strongly suggest that e-cigarettes are nowhere near as bad for a smoker's health as tobacco smoking. If you look at the facts, there is simply no way to come to any other conclusion. We know that e-cigarettes contain propylene glycol, vegetable glycerine, food flavoring and are available with or without nicotine. They do not create any real smoke. All of the ingredients are considered safe for human consumption by the FDA. Nicotine is a stimulant, but it is not carcinogenic, nor is it toxic in the amounts found in e-cigarettes. When not delivered by smoking, nicotine carries approximately the same health risks as caffeine.

Medical professionals and researchers will tell you that over 99% of the health risks caused by tobacco use comes from burning tobacco and inhaling the smoke. By removing exposure to smoke, users of e-cigarettes eliminate exposure to over 4,000 chemicals and over 50 carcinogens which are found in the smoke itself. Essentially, if you removed everything harmful that is found in tobacco smoke, what you would have left is what is found in e-cigarette vapor. With that in consideration, e-cigarettes and other smokeless tobacco products could not possibly be "just as bad for your health" as smoking. That would be like claiming fat-free, sugar-free ice cream is just as bad for you as the real thing. It's a completely illogical conclusion.

It is shocking that the respiratory therapist in your story would state that he would not recommend that his smoking patients switch from a known toxic and carcinogenic product to a non-combustible product containing ingredients which are generally regarded as safe. Basically, he is telling his patients who are unable or unwilling to quit to continue to smoke, rather than try a product which has had no reports of illness or injury in seven years on the world market, is widely hailed as a success by consumers and has had numerous tests revealing no harmful levels of any chemicals or carcinogens.

The therapist claims that there are a lot of toxins and other additives that "we don't know" are in these e-cigarettes. It is non-sensical to claim that "we don't know" while simultaneously claiming that they are toxic and dangerous. If "we don't know" then how can they claim to know there is a danger? Regardless, your report went on to cite the FDA report of 2009, claiming that e-cigarettes tested contained toxic chemicals found in anti-freeze and carcinogens. This press statement is widely reported and used as justification for claiming that e-cigarettes are dangerous, yet journalists and medical professionals fail to read the so-called "study" upon which the FDA based its grossly misleading press statements.

The FDA tested only two brands of e-cigarettes - not coincidentally from the same companies with which they were embattled in a lawsuit - and found that in only one cartridge out of all 18 tested they "detected" diethylene glycol and in two others, traces of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), which are considered carcinogenic to humans at higher levels. What they didn't reveal to the public was that the diethylene glycol detected was at such low levels that it would only be harmful if someone actually drank the liquid from a few thousand cartridges in a single day. This was a completely non-toxic and non-dangerous level, which can be found in many products that also contain its close bi-product cousin, harmless propylene glycol. Propylene glycol and trace amounts of diethylene glycol can be found in numerous products ranging from McDonald's nugget dips to Baby Orajel. The FDA usually only steps in when diethylene glycol, or its real antifreeze counterpart ethylene glycol, are found in a product at potentially toxic levels. The level found in the one e-cigarette cartridge was clearly neither toxic nor was it even found in the vapor itself.

The same applies to the claim of finding "carcinogens." If you read the actual report, rather than depend upon the press statement, the FDA detected "trace" amounts of TSNAs using extremely sensitive standards not normally used when testing products. They tested at parts-per-trillion, rather than at the typical parts-per-million and were still only able to detect trace levels. In case you are unclear about the terminaology, "trace level" means that it is too small to be accurately measured. While the FDA did not disclose the actual amount, another study by Health New Zealand had already discovered and reported that the e-cigarettes they tested contained TSNAs at around the same level as found in the FDA-approved nicotine patch, which the FDA has never warned of as a cancer risk. The FDA approved the patch because they clearly know that the TSNAs are obviously not a cancer risk at such low levels. To further make the point, a Marlboro cigarette contains approximately 11,000 ng/g of TSNAs, while the patch and e-cigarettes contain approximately 8 ng/g. There is absolutely no comparision in the cancer risks between tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes!

Calling the tiny amount of diethylene glycol "toxic" and "found in anti-freeze" and claiming that e-cigarettes contained "carcinogens" was a gross exaggeration and extrememly misleading. So much so that the American Association of Public Health Physicians sent the FDA a petition demanding that the FDA retract those statements and issue a corrective statement. And Canada and Australia may have banned e-cigarettes, but they did so without any scientific evidence or justification whatsoever, so making that statement provides no support to any story about e-cigarettes.

Finally, your news anchor reported that the FDA lost the court case (Smoking Everywhere et al vs. FDA) while trying to impose stricter standards, but stated that the FDA said "it was going to try again." This is also false. The FDA announced that it would be regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products instead of as drug delivery devices. The FDA lost its case because it claimed that the e-cigarette companies were making therapeutic claims as smoking cessation devices, however the court found that the companies were advertising as "smoking alternatives." Research supports the companies' claims, as the majority of e-cigarette consumers - in contrast to the ladies you interviewed - use the devices as a lower risk alternative to smoking, rather than a nicotine addiction treatment.

In conclusion, if you would really like to ask the "tough questions," you may want to ask why the FDA was so keen to exaggerate the results of their testing with a negative spin and why medical professionals and public health groups are lobbying to get a product removed from the market which is making consumers happy, have had no reports of injury or death and have presented no evidence of risk to the public. As with any good story, absent any logical evidence, the rule of thumb would be to "follow the money." A little research will show that the lobbyists sending misinformation to medical professionals and legislators are paid by groups that receive millions in donations from pharmaceutical companies, which make the nicotine addiction treatment products that are in direct competition with the e-cigarette market.

Millions of smokers have the opportunity to reduce their health risks by up to 99% by switching to a smokeless alternative such as e-cigarettes. Your viewers deserve to know the whole story about these devices. CASAA is asking that you do a follow-up story to this news piece, asking the really tough questions and getting the truth. We would be happy to answer any questions and connect you with CASAA members in your area for interview. You may also be interested in the factual evidence which supports our claims provided on our web site at: CASAA.org The claim by medical and health professionals that "we don't know" is only true because they failed or refused to look at the available evidence.

Sincerely,
Kristin Noll-Marsh
Secretary of Directors
Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association

 

[DC2]

That is one hell of a letter!

 

[kristin]

That is one hell of a letter!

Too much? lol

 

[MoonRose]

I would say it was just about right ... lol.

 

[sanjosse]

Kristin,

Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to send that most informative letter. I hope WNEM makes/takes the time to see their error and corrects it.

Sincerely,
sanjosse

PS. No, not to long ;-)

 

[KDK]

Thank You Kristin! No, it wasn't too long, and it was wonderful! Just right, giving the facts, and encouragement to do more research. Wish I had your gift for writing.

 

[Linden]

I am STEAMING over this. Propoganda at its sleaziest. *Somebody* out there is spending some big $$ to stifle this industry.

 

[DC2]

*Somebody* out there is spending some big $$ to stifle this industry.

You bet there is... and it turns out that the makers of smoking cessation products are the culprit.

 

[steakneggs]

Too much? lol

No, that was perfect. There has to be a way to get that on their Facebook page, I can't bring my self to respond simply because I do not have your patient or tact lol..

 

[rothenbj]

Excellent email Kristin, you are the best and awfully tactful when you decide to be. My approach at this poit would have been a big FU.