Tag Archives: Every Try Counts

Vaping

Can you quit smoking with patches and gums?

10 Comments

Quit smoking patch gum

CAN you quit smoking with patches and gums?

Are attempts with these quit smoking products successful? Can you find success rates for them? Do they work? Can you quit smoking? I’m sure there are a few who will say yes. I say it is a deceptive practice to say you can.

In fact, the practice is on the smoker with an average of THIRTY tries.

That’s right.

“Understanding that for many smokers it may take 30 or more quit attempts before being successful may assist with clinical expectations.”

Estimating the number of quit attempts it takes to quit smoking successfully in a longitudinal cohort of smokers

To quit smoking with any approved method is a challenge. Why is that?  Can you quit with Nicorette® patches and gums? I asked, not so innocently, for success rates with Nicorette® product(s). I was given an 800 number to get personalized attention.  Has anyone ever thought to ask as they were purchasing their product? I’m always asking silly rhetorical questions. It’s a hobby.

Will quitting be successful for you?

If they were as successful as commercials and graphics are intended to make you “feel” by helping people quit smoking, wouldn’t they say so immediately? Give me something, like a 94% satisfaction rate. 85% of our customers are smoke-free. Repeat the successful rates of the product to potential customers, not the success of repeat customers trying again. Fine, I’m reaching for the perverbial stars, I suppose.

I’m guessing a 7% success rate.

What are success rates for Nicorette® patches and gums? I don’t know. Nicorette® evidently doesn’t either. It is that time of year, with New Years Eve coming up, ads will be convincing you that you can succeed. Keep trying. Do your best. Their subtle guilt trip illusions are coming.

I asked  “What are the success rates with your product” directly to Nicorette®,  made by Glaxo-Smith Kline on Twitter. I didn’t think it would be a hard question.

Not that Glaxo-Smith Kline would ever do anything to deter any other method of…..

Can you quit smoking?

People spend hours looking up the reviews on the latest appliance they’re thinking about purchasing, but spend 30 seconds deciding on an “approved” method, because you know, if it isn’t an approved method, it must be (bad, dangerous, unproven, deceitful, not taxable, pharma’s idea) just plain wrong.

There are times in some smokers lives where they either choose to quit smoking, or because of various reasons, want to quit. In my instance, I switched to vaping accidentally. I had, however, tried the patches and gums years before and they just didn’t work.

I didn’t even think to ask the doctor about success rates, I assumed they worked. So does the rest of the world. I’d like to see success rates after 6 months, 1 year, heck, call me crazy, 5 years – with relapse rates. (With all that data-driven stuff people like to blab about). Implying that it works isn’t enough any more. Proof by assertion isn’t enough.

How about real world stuff… still waiting.

I’ll direct you here:

Whistleblower sues GlaxoSmithKline over nicotine product

I am guiding you to this by Amy Renshaw from Vanderbilt University:

The Real Story Behind The Nicotine Patch and Smoking Cessation

DO they work? This article stated “the most rigorous long-term study” said no”.

Mine, where, ~dare I say~ patches and gums do not work because you are not addicted to nicotine itself. You are possibly addicted to the other chemicals or chemical reactions within smoking tbacco, but nicotine “addiction” without tobacco simply does not exist. Period.

There is no data or science showing nicotine “addiction” without tobacco and MAOI’s.

It’s like I’m a mind reader… really….

In fact, (added 12/21/17)

Why Is Smoking Addictive? It’s Probably Not Just Nicotine, Despite What We’ve Been Told For Years

Then this came up 12/22/17:

Nicotine patches and medications aren’t enough to quit smoking, a study finds

Nicotine is not addictive.

I rephrased my question, at the time of publishing this blog, there was no response.

My guess is a 93% failure rate.

Don’t take my word for it.

The patches and gums “may, could, might” work. I would say percentages of success are 7%, and I’m being very optimistic with that. For your own sanity, call the company and ask them about success rates. Ask your doctor. Let me know how they respond.

Here’s one (2009) with “effectiveness”… (Thanks, Jenny!)

Effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy assisted reduction to stop smoking: systematic review and meta-analysis

One with the Patch (1993)

Effectiveness of a nicotine patch in helping people stop smoking

What about Zyban or Chantix?

Pfizer’s quit-smoking Chantix fails study in adolescent smokers

From my survey:

https://atomic-temporary-76342073.wpcomstaging.com/2015/03/08/doctors-orders-take-your-medicine-vaping-over-chantix-zyban/

One with e-cigs (Thanks, Elaine!)

EffiCiency and Safety of an eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as Tobacco Cigarettes Substitute: A Prospective 12-Month Randomized Control Design Study

Another with e-cigs (Thanks, Jenny!)

Electronic Cigarettes As a Smoking-Cessation Tool

Effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Smoking Cessation Aids (Thanks, Skip!)

“pharmaceutical aids for smoking cessation, despite strong evidence for efficacy from randomized trials, have not been effective at increasing successful quitting”

Effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Smoking Cessation Aids in a Nationally Representative Cohort of American Smokers

I don’t want Nicorette feeling singled out, I also asked Pfizer quite a while ago:

 

Added 01/01/18

Smokers Willing to Try E-Cigarettes More Successful at Smoking Less, Study Says

Ask your government, they’d tell you, because they care, that every try counts.

Speaking of timing

Here’s Carl V. Phillips with his latest timely post over at The Daily Vaper:

Science Lesson: Smoking Cessation Is Not Medical Treatment

 

You can see here what the FDA charts with all “approved” methods here:

Table Data: FDA Approved Drug

Added 2/01/2018

Easiest Way to Quit Smoking

This is pretty awesome.

Not only does this wonderful company love you as a group, they are also ready to give you their “personalized attention”.

Easiest Way to Quit Smoking

Added 6/14/2018

I didn’t know there was “preloading” of…. never mind:

No clear evidence that nicotine ‘preloading’ helps smokers to quit

Advertise with YOUR text link or banner!

Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk? 

vapersukgraphic.JPG

You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

You can also find me on LinkedIn

Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life

GONZO GIVES

Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:

Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin

think

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.

 

 

 

data, E-Cigarette, Every Try Counts, Experts, Health Professionals, Journalists, News, Nicotine, Research, Science, Smoking Cessation, Vaping

What We Know About E-Cigarettes: Data and Science Is Available

2 Comments

Are E-cigarettes Harmful

What We Know About E-Cigarettes

What We Know About E-cigarettes is clear. Data is easily found. Science is piling up. The Food and Drug Administration released their “Every Try Counts” campaign. I looked for the e-cigarette section on the link provided ~ because I’m a curious soul, and found the section “What We Know About E-Cigarettes”.

I’ve completed my meta-analysis and the data shows here that “Every Try Counts” only eludes to every try counting. The propaganda found on the website does not support e-cigarettes as a “try”. In fact, It looks like I may have found the “what we know about e-cigarettes” master draft journalists are using as a coloring contest fill in the blank exercise. By adding sentences, sprinkled opinions, various lies and fodder between the text and adding an ever catchy title with scary words for a click-bait title , ~voila~ they have a full article of “we just don’t know” here.

What should you know about e-cigarettes

If you are are a journalist. If you are a professional. If you are in any capacity in the medical field, feel free to reference my sentiments on the challenges of e-cigarettes public health experts face daily, here.
If you are a person with a prestigious title similar to “politician, front group liaison, expert, media contact”, etc.) and have an uncontrollable urge to look stupid, please, consider not doing that.
Science and data show e-cigs are a safer option and cessation rates are high according to available government research.

Below are my edits in bold, italics, etc, and with links below each paragraph to data and science.

Paragraph one:

E-cigarettes are officially known as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). They are more commonly called e-cigarettes, e-cigs, e-hookah, or vapes. You may have seen ads or stories on the internet that say e-cigarettes are a safe safER choice to help smokers quit choose to switch from smoking. There isn’t enough is plenty of scientific evidence to say if this is true or not. Opinion alert: Here’s what doctors and researchers do know right now.

What we know about e-cigarette research

Research: Here, here and here. Oh, here, here, here and here. That should get you started.

Paragraph two:

We already know this: E-cigs work by heating a liquid that may or may not has have nicotine and other chemicals in it. Heating the liquid turns it into a vapor. That’s what the user inhales and exhales. Some research shows that this vapor includes chemicals that are known to be less harmful. Scientists are studying the health effects of using e-cigarettes. New information is coming in, but they don’t have the answers yet. but is being all but ignored.

What we know about withholding information:

There’s Withholding differential risk information. Information is available here, and “Lower Carcinogen Levels” here, scary science here, and “Harm reduction in COPD smokers who switch” here.
Paragraph three:
Although FDA is working to regulateregulating e-cigarettes to restrict, tax and ban these devices,no more innovation can be achieved,currently they are not regulated. That means the makers of e-cigs don’t have to say what is in them. There are ways to know is no way to know exactly what chemicals are in e-cigarettes, it’s called science or how much are in these products.

What we know about regulations

National Tobacco Day is covered here.

Paragraph four:

We do know that some, not all e-cigs contain nicotine. Nicotine is by proof of assertion, what you believe is addictive what makes tobacco addictive. Nicotine can (may, could, might) also affect how the brain develops. Because childhood and teen years are times of important brain development, the nicotine in tobacco and e-cigs is believed to be especially bad for children and teens.

What we know about nicotine

Nicotine is covered here, and here with “approved” methods, proof by assertion (the addiction to saying it is addictive) is covered here, and more nicotine is here, nicotine propaganda is covered in-depth here, and by me here.

Think of the children™ is covered in-depth, where there is no such thing as a gateway here, 10 years of smoking rates are plummeting for children here, described as weak here and covered here, and very interesting points of restrictions here… my fingers are tired, but I’ll press on because it’s important.

I’ve covered gateways and nicotine addiction, here.

Paragraph five:

It’s also not very clear if e-cigs do help people quit smoking or or if  and the government, public health, tobacco control experts purposely get in the way of people quitting. Researchers are working hard to find the answers to these important questions. For now, we do not know if using e-cigs is a safER and helpful way to quit smoking, so using e-cigs is not recommended. There are other proven, safe, and effective methods for quitting smoking.

Explore the options to find a quit method that’s right for you.

What we know about helpful

There’s that pesky National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) showing 79% success rate here.

Clarity on research misconduct happens to be here.

I can show you 7,238 answers to helpful here.

Science and data show e-cigs are a safer option and cessation rates are high according to available government research.

I typed slow, but you can bookmark this page and refer to it anytime, share it with your professional friends, and while you’re here, may I suggest if you’re writing an article or op-ed on e-cigarettes, try harder for information. Look to the left and right of this blog.

Repeat after me:

Science and data show e-cigs are a safer option and cessation rates are high according to available government research.

Advertise with YOUR text link or banner!

Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk? 

vapersukgraphic.JPG

You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

You can also find me on LinkedIn

Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life

GONZO GIVES

Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:

Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin

Food and Drug Administration, Smoke-Free World, Smoking, Taxes, Tobacco Harm Reduction, Vaping, World Health Organization

Smoking Is Preferred According To Public Health Leaders

3 Comments

Smoking Is Preferred

Smoking Is Preferred

You wouldn’t think smoking is preferred by public health leaders. Any opportunity to “eliminate” smoking should be of the highest priority to those claiming it causes XXX,XXX deaths a year. If it were important, public health would take crucial steps to stop it using any means necessary. Well, the evidence is in, it isn’t that important. They prefer a “middleman”, an illusion of clean hands, fiscal integrity, an indirect conflict of interest, professionally. See, the leading cause of funding for tobacco control is taxes derived from smoking. Let me put that another way: Smoking funds finance tobacco control.

Hypocrites.

When “professionals” heard of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, they were outraged. In fact, there was a “Frank Statement” against it. There is an open letter from 123 health groups (count the number of groups addicted to sales of tobacco and taxes derived in any form on that list). Accepting grants directly from a tobacco company to fund research of course, is not acceptable to professionals. Taking money from smoking the “old fashioned way” to “fight” smoking? They’re addicted to that, that’s just fine.

When tobacco control “experts” and public health leaders around the world received an email from Derek Yach, President of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, the reaction was typical, the result was elementary school-yard bullying.

There were less than than professional responses. Dr. Michael Siegel, a former student of Professor Glantz,  has refused a position at the newly formed Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. (Covered here and by me, here.)

Smoking Is Preferred According To Public Health LeadersHow is tobacco control funded again?

One example: California’s Prop 56 is funded ” through tobacco excise taxes”.

Matt Myers created the Master Settlement Agreement. He worked WITH tobacco companies to create the largest ponzi scheme in the world. In one year, between 2016 and 2017, that scheme lost 1.8 Billion dollars.

The problem is, taxing something and needing it to fund the solution
for it….. doesn’t….. work. On the contrary, it creates a Ponzi scheme and that money goes up in smoke.

Smoking is important to control

According to The Wire, Ilona Kickbusch stated

“I head a WHO collaborating centre and have no wish to be associated with tobacco companies and money in any way.”

Abject stupidity. Taxes from smoking are devoured.

According to the World Health Organization, there are rules. Among other ~controlly~ things within, it seems silly to mention, Article 5.3 directly states:

  • Require that information provided by the tobacco industry be transparent and accurate.
  • Parties should ensure that any interaction with
    the tobacco industry on matters related to
    tobacco control or public health is accountable and
    transparent.
  • Where interactions with the tobacco industry are necessary, Parties should ensure that such interactions are conducted transparently. Whenever possible, interactions should be conducted in public, for example through public hearings, public notice of interactions, disclosure of records of such interactions to the public.

I couldn’t find anything showing demands of public health requiring transparency, ethics or integrity of itself. That’s ok. I can see right through them.

Smoking

The louder they scream wolf

A big mouth, with little context, retired professor Simon Chapman tweeted:

Smoking

The reaction by select global public health leaders is simply another unprofessional example of the public health scream test. Tobacco “Control” has always been at “war” with tobacco. They are shifting the blame, creating a smokescreen they have accused tobacco companies of doing for decades. Pressure is mounting, and the “endgame” they love to talk about has new rules. This isn’t about harm reduction, it isn’t about heat not burn, or snus, or ecigs.

It’s about money. Fiscal Health. Control. It seems Philip Morris, despite the appearance others are trying to portray, has found peace with its position and, despite even my own weak suspicions, is trying to change the world.

Experts want smoking just the way it is. What are they afraid of? Despite false flags, innuendo and well-thought-of tactics, they have become their own enemy and are afraid of smoking going away. They are not the ones in control. They’re threatened by what is obvious, their own demise. In reality, the younger generation is proving itself over the last decade, tobacco control will be another casualty of smoking – it already is without them.

This is Why Tobacco Control Should not be Trusted

Here’s what happened last year:

from Neil McKeganey Ph.D. Christopher Russell Ph.D. themselves:

Why Academics Should Resist Pressure to Disengage with the Tobacco Industry

Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk? 

vapersukgraphic.JPG

You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

You can also find me on LinkedIn

Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life

GONZO GIVES

Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:

Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin

think

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.

Addiction, Anti-Tobacco, Blogging, Blogs, Cessation, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, Government, Manipulation, Nicotine, Propaganda, Smoking Cessation, Tobacco, Tobacco Control, Vaping

FDA launches “Every Try Counts” campaign to manipulate smokers

5 Comments

EveryTryCounts.jpg

FDA launches “Every Try Counts” campaign

Attention, smokers. The FDA launched their latest campaign to help smokers with an “adult smoking cessation education” campaign aimed at encouraging cigarette smokers to quit through messages of support called “Every Try Counts”. While the challenge will remain the same, their “tough love” approach of demonizing and shaming and nicotine guilt trips has turned into – well, a softer, kinder “positive” type of manipulation to say the same thing. Keep trying.

There seemed to be buzzwords like “stakeholders“, “medicinal” products, and “health” coupled with “technology” and “smoke-free society”. In the latest battle cry of “Every Try Counts“, there certainly seemed to be more grab-assery in the almost 2 1/2 hour Glantzian propaganda video than there was “effort” put forth by the FDA.

I did find e-cigarettes. The “e-cigarette” section of this campaign claiming “for now, we do not know” is difficult to find and treated like a red-headed stepchild on the naughty step (hat tip to Agent Ania who I adored and miss dearly), here.

What I know they know is in their possession all over this blog here, and here and so on.

“Every Try Counts”

In the latest smokescreen release:

“The FDA is committed to reducing tobacco-related disease and death by helping people quit combustible cigarettes and implementing comprehensive policies to reduce addiction to nicotine. Our aim is to render cigarettes minimally or non-addictive”

Stop. Do you know what a 100 Million+ Dollar commitment of comprehensive policies from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) return on investment might look like? I do.

*If any of you know of 100 million dollars being spent in a similar fashion for e-cigarettes, snus, etc., PLEASE link them in the comments.

fda conflict of interest.JPG

I couldn’t tell if this was a slip, or a tactically designed ploy by using the words “spectrum of risk” at 1:03:40 and 1:04:07 in the video….

According to “22nd Century” – “Spectrum” is the name of their product at this time)

bold is my emphasis within below:

MRTP designation

Perhaps the most immediate upside comes from the possibility of its very low nicotine cigarettes Brand A (containing 95% less nicotine compared to conventional cigarettes) to get the Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) designation.

The company would then be able to market Brand A as such, a very low nicotine cigarette which has less health risk as it reduces addiction.

An official application was made to the FDA in December last year, and a rather substantial meeting (involving no less than 22 FDA staff members and another 20 by telephone) took place within two weeks, suggesting substantial FDA interest.

This interest was already evident from the ($10M) financing by the FDA and NIDA of a landmark study using 22nd Century’s Spectrum research cigarettes that appeared in October 2015 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

This double blind, parallel, randomized clinical trials involving 840 smokers, found that smokers of Spectrum very low nicotine cigarettes consumed far fewer cigarettes per day and doubled their quit attempts versus smokers of cigarettes with conventional nicotine content.

“Every Try Counts”

Here’s the “landmark study”:

Randomized Trial of Reduced-Nicotine Standards for Cigarettes

How will the FDA get a return on investment with this campaign? They’re in the tobacco business. They’ll sell more cigarettes and collect the tax. I predicted it in advance here, and where “expert” personalities and political front groups are on board, I covered it here.

“while encouraging the development of potentially less harmful tobacco products for adults who still want or need access to nicotine.”

Well, thanks very much.

Continued babbling

The announcement rambles on, stating:

“At the same time, we’re also taking new steps to improve access and use of FDA-approved medicinal nicotine products to help smokers quit.”

The government and experts claim “government approved methods work to help smokers” but no one brags of 93% failure rates. No one mentions false hopes choosing those options. No one mentions the methods approved by the government, fanatically promoted and shoved into smokers faces, are designed to fail.

Imagine my surprise to see political front groups such as the Heart, Lung, Truth Initiative along with CVS “pledging” resources manipulation with the FDA.

The last campaign was a $200 million dollar flop.

Every Try Counts, right before your eyes

There’s a hashtag “#MedNicotine ” entangled in the manipulation.

What Duke-Margolis is quoting from Fred Saunders of Glaxo-Smith Kline (GSK) to smokers is:

Give us a call because you’re too stupid to understand we’re not going to make a product to help you, so call us: we’ll explain how you’ll fail. These products are useless without counseling. Give us money. Do as you’re told. Use them anyway.

Fundamentally.

Fund Us Mentality.

Added 12/14/17:

The day after this blog, this comes across my eyes:

“preclinical research conducted at Duke University”

Seems “#MedNicotine” was pretty serious….

Seems “Every Try  Counts” includes “medical nicotine”.

Axsom Therapeutics Collaborates with World-Leading Nicotine Addiction Research Center for Phase 2 Trial of AXS-05 in Smoking Cessation

The FDA can’t prove nicotine addiction or gateways exist.

Without tobacco/maio’s, Nicotine is not addictive.

When will the class action law suits begin?

One more thing. I primarily tweet and blog about e-cigs, but that does not mean I am against Heat not burn, snus, and so on. In my opinion, if you’re trying, it all counts.

I saw “dip” but Swedish Snus isn’t talked about enough, either.

From Bengt Wiberg

I urge you to read what Brian Fojtik has to say:

We Don’t Need The Government To Solve Smoking Problem

Advertise with YOUR text link or banner!

Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk? 

vapersukgraphic.JPG

You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

You can also find me on LinkedIn

Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life

GONZO GIVES

Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:

Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin

think

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.

Batteries, E-cigarette safety, ecigs, FDA, Safety, Vaping

Battery Safety: E-cigarettes

9 Comments
battery fda

Battery Safety: E-cigarettes

Battery Safety. The FDA wants to call e-cigarettes “vape”. I took the liberty of fixing the FDA’s graphic (from here, where you can also report an explosion) above because it is idiotic.

  1. First, no one purposely places a device in a puddle, in the rain, and allows it to get wet.
  2. Second, batteries are considered tobacco products, and we’re probably never getting past that.
  3. Third, their mediocre “tips” are barely enough for you to read or understand.

Moving on.

The press loves a fire.

Practice battery safety!

Each time one of you catches yourself on fire (stop doing that), the press grabs a gas can. “Experts” around the world tweet & snicker with glee.

Under normal manufacturer specifications, millions (if not billions) of batteries are in use every day around the world.  From laptops to airplanes, hoverboards to cellphones, technology can be flammable. Batteries in any device can be dangerous. Dr. Russell explained that – a year or more ago here:

batteriescr

Repeat after me

DO NOT carry LOOSE batteries in your POCKETS with keys, coins, or any other metal. Stop doing that. Battery safety and e-cigarettes is important. You’re asking to catch yourself on fire.

From experience in work-related exposure, batteries (primarily CR123 and 12V batteries) should SHALL be safely encased, taped, covered, transported and handled in a safe manner. If batteries are damaged, do not throw them in the trash. They shall be disposed of properly according to your local laws and ordinances.

With ANY device, battery charging is important, do not mix chargers or batteries and do not leave them unattended. Keep the correct charging device with the correct batteries. Follow the manufacturer instructions.

Education

From the FDA graphic above, I have a feeling the vaping community is far ahead of safety than (governments) will ever be.  Technology and innovation are restricted by the FDA deeming rules. Honestly, there’s no excuse for accidents. With forums, facebook groups and word of mouth, the problem exists but is rare.

In 2015

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA):

“In 2014, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) published an alert that identified 25 separate e-cigarette fires and explosions dating to 2009 that were reported in the media.”

Electronic Cigarette Explosions and Fires: The 2015 Experience

Added 01/04/18

From NFPA for 2017:

Reports of 195 separate e-cigarette fire and explosion incidents in the U.S. were found, dating from January 2009 to Dec 31, 2016. In 68 percent of these incidents, 133 acute injuries were reported. No deaths were reported during the study period.

  • Sixty-one incidents occurred when either the device or spare batteries for the device were in a pocket.

  • Sixty incidents occurred while the device was being used.

  • Forty-eight incidents occurred while the battery in the device was being charged.

  • Eighteen incidents occurred while the device or battery was stored.

  • In seven incidents, it is not reported whether the e-cigarette was in use, stored, or being charged.

  • One incident occurred during transportation on a cargo aircraft.

 

Electronic Cigarette Fires and Explosions in the United States 2009-2016 (PDF)

Below are just a few extremely important links and graphics urging you to practice battery safety. Don’t assume you know it all. If you’re doubting your experience or knowledge, if you have a question, ASK in your respective forums. ASK a consumer group.

James Jarvis joins Shane Thompson of Battery Solutions in Miami, Florida at the Vapevent – to explain battery safety.

CASAA:

From the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA)

Battery Safety – Making Peace With Power

Dave Upton via VapersUK:

Basic Electricity for Beginners

Ecig Advanced

E-Cig Battery Safety – A guide

Irish Vape Vendors Association

Battery safety for peace of mind

New Nicotine Alliance

One man’s misfortune – a lesson for all of us.

JAC Vapour

Battery Safety

Stop setting yourselves on fire

I want to keep you off the news and to keep yourself from catching on fire. I prefer you purchase your battery cases through CASAA here for a donation of only $2.50 each.

It is a great way to support CASAA, and you are helping yourself not catch on fire!

CASAA Battery Case

You can also get them on Amazon.
Or FastTech

Battery Safety: E-cigarettes
Battery Safety: E-cigarettes
batteriesivva
batteries2

Added 6/8/2018:

Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk? 

vapersukgraphic.JPG

You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

You can also find me on LinkedIn

Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life

GONZO GIVES

Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:

Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin

FastTech - Vaper's one stop shop - great prices and free shipping

Legal:

“I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for (me) to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.”

I am also a participant in other affiliate sites such as FastTech.

Advocacy, Bullshit, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, regulations, Vaping

The FDA can’t prove nicotine addiction or gateways exist.

37 Comments

fraud

Nicotine addiction and gateways do not exist. Is the Food and Drug Administration exempt from providing proof of the decision to classify and change the definition of nicotine as a tobacco product?

Aside from the government putting out fraudulent research, massive propaganda and the plain old “we aren’t listening” – or “we heard you and don’t care” stances, the deeming regulations of e-cigarettes rest, without being questioned, on the government’s word.

Stern and believable soundbites like “we’ve looked at the data” and “redoubling efforts” (what the hell is that?) and “guided by evidence” with other fun catch phrases are tossed around profitably, like cigarette butts.

Well, I don’t trust them or their word.

Meanwhile, as defined, states are getting away with taxing e-liquid and components as tobacco.

Is there a reason the following three things aren’t being focused on by organizations in the United States?

Maybe it doesn’t matter.

I’ll get to my points.

There are three things

In my best estimation, any decisions made by the Food and Drug Administration cannot be determined by fraudulent research or simple and contrived assertions.

These three things are what the FDA needs to validate for the “deeming” regulations to be valid.

  1. The definition of nicotine as tobacco
  2. Nicotine addiction without tobacco and MAOI’s
  3. Gateways

 nicotine thingiverse

1. The definition of nicotine as tobacco

They had to change the definition of nicotine. Why is that?

Nicotine is not tobacco.

Nicotine is .06% to 3% dry weight of tobacco. (Source)

I’m no chemist, and certainly no mathmatician, so I’ll go with what I’ve got:

Tobacco contains a much higher percentage of:

  1. “Malic acid” at 2.83 %
  2. “Calcium as CaO” at 2.22%
  3. “Potassium as K20” is at 2.47

“Reducing sugars as dextrose” is astronomically higher at 22.09%.

Why are those chemicals not deemed “tobacco” or considered addictive?

Have you ever seen milk squirt out from raw hamburger or steak?

  • Milk isn’t defined as beef.

 Have you ever got a splinter with your pancakes?

  • Syrup isn’t defined as wood.

You’ve never found any flowers in your beer?

  • Alcohol isn’t defined as hops or barley.

Public health and government are not honest.

Added 6/21/2018

Science

The FDA claims nicotine is tobacco. These people do not.

“notably that e-cigarettes do not contain tobacco or generate side-stream emissions…”

Characterisation of the Spatial and Temporal Dispersion Differences between Exhaled e-cigarette mist and Cigarette Smoke.

Added 6/24/18:

E-cigarettes are NOT tobacco, in fact this says (bold is my emphasis)

“…this judgment is the product of policy developments around the role of the FDA and their ability to provide regulative guidance and authority relating to a range of products.”

“If all products containing nicotine derived from tobacco were labelled as “tobacco products” internationally, then nicotine replacement therapies would be classified as tobacco products, which they are clearly not. As a scientific journal, definitions matter, and a legal ruling in a single country is not a sound basis for determining whether a certain definition is valid.”
Please click their link, and the PDF link is within their page:

Nicotine isn’t tobacco.

 censored

2. Nicotine addiction without tobacco and MAOI’s.

Of the “thousands” of chemicals, nicotine is the addictive ingredient?

There is no data or science worth reading showing nicotine addiction without tobacco and MAOI’s.

Let them force them to find it in their secret files and produce it.

I’ve asked for them from various “experts” and government and body parts organizations.

Nicotine is not addictive.

gate

3. Gateways

They don’t exist. Among other places, it is

Shown here:

Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would)

Shown here:

Gateway effects and electronic cigarettes.

Oh, it’s shown here:

Complicated Models Can’t Alter the Data: Smoking Among Youth and Young Adults Is Way Down

Just stop.

There is NO gateway.

No combustion:

E-cigarettes and the obsolescence of combustion

Proof By Assertion

Can the FDA prove these three assertions? You know, like in a court of law?

Is proof by assertion all the government needs to claim nicotine is addictive? That gateways exist? That, without science and real data, allows them to classify nicotine as tobacco?

Nobody’s caught on to that yet? Why?

fingers in ears

Doesn’t this scare you?

  • Really? Just me? (Pretend my arms are flailing around)
  • Has anyone challenged these points? (Pretend my voice went up)
  • Did anyone ASK them for proof? (Pretend I’m red faced)
  • Does it prove addiction or gateways? (Pretend I’m screaming)

All parties involved are well aware of the deception. This isn’t about health. This isn’t about “the children™”.

Regulations boil down to one thing. Revenue. Fiscal health. Cash.

“Rationale”

Listing “disclosures”, the National Cancer Institute, State and Community Tobacco Control Initiative, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health and of course the American Cancer Society and Cancer Action Network were involved with this:

“Rationale for ENDS Taxation”
• Improve Public Health
• Encourage switching from combusted to potentially less harmful products
• Prevent youth initiation
• Raise Revenue
• Replacement revenue source as revenues from cigarettes and other tobacco products fall

Read it again.

That’s included in this PDF

Prices, Taxes and the Demand for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

They all breaking the law, or various laws.

These are fictitious claims, no one is loud enough to challenge them.  I’m waiting on someone to have some balls to challenge it with lawsuits, something.

Alan Beard

Alan had this to say about industry in the U.K.:

“as a consumer directly influenced by their current and future viability these thoughts are directed towards them.”

Challenges for Vendors and Desirability of Compulsory Membership of a Trade Association

I mentioned the organizations at the beginning of this blog. With that, I’m including legitimate vendors and brick & mortar businesses in that realm of “organizations”.

I’m also talking about the fly-by-count-my-money-at-night vendors who are doing less than nothing for anyone but themselves.

Whether it be industry or consumer organizations who are well established, I am asking: Are these three points above a waste of time?

How will doing nothing (or any other inaction) impact consumers?

Why are consumers having to settle for less?

Are my questions “too little, too late”?

These are the things that keep me up at night.

Added 8/22/17

Elaine Keller, well respected by me, had this to say on my post of this blog on Facebook:

“In my personal opinion, the problem lies within the law itself, not some arbitrary decision on the part of the FDA”

Nicotine has been defined as “tobacco” is defined in the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act”. It, among other things:

Defines a tobacco product as any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption.

That’s here in:

H.R.1256 – Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

That needs to be changed. Immediately.

Added 4/04/18

“The effects of nicotine on the brain are similar to those of sugar, salt, exercise, and other harmless substances and events”

“There are so many findings that conflict so starkly with the view that nicotine is addictive that it increasingly appears that adhering to the nicotine addiction thesis is only defensible on extra-scientific grounds.”

Short version:

Nicotine as an Addictive Substance: A Critical Examination of the Basic Concepts and Empirical Evidence

Full version is here.

And:

Tobacco Alternative Gums Market: Sales Volume, Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast

The usual suspects:

“One of the important growth factors for the global tobacco alternative gums market is the increasing price of cigarettes.”

Tobacco Alternative Gums Market: Sales Volume, Revenue and Growth Rate Forecast

For you who are fighting at the industry level, and I do know who you are, thank you.

For you who aren’t fighting, I know who you some of you are – I’m a couple times behind on telling both the government, and you, to kiss my ass.

Added 8/23/17:

Brad Rodu:

Negligible Evidence of Radical Nicotine Reduction Benefit

Added 12/14/17

FDA launches “Every Try Counts” campaign to manipulate smokers

Added 01/13/18

https://atomic-temporary-76342073.wpcomstaging.com/2018/01/05/health-impacts-of-e-cigarettes/

Advertise with YOUR text link or banner!

You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

You can also find me on LinkedIn

 Have you met my friends at vapers.org.uk?

vapersukgraphic.JPG

Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:

Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives

think

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save