According to a press release issued earlier this week: “In July of this year, the Food and Drug Administration released a study that condemned electronic cigarettes as an unsafe alternative for smokers, but not all physicians are convinced that the study was accurate or even completely transparent to the tax payers that fund them. “We urge FDA to make public the laboratory data behind the July 22 condemnation of electronic cigarettes, along with comparable data on pharmaceutical nicotine products and conventional cigarettes. Then, on the basis of these data, either fully justify or retract the July 22 condemnation of electronic cigarettes,” says Joel L. Nitzkin, Chair of the American Association of Public Health Physicians Tobacco Control Task Force in a letter to the FDA.”

“The letter specifically targets the new tobacco legislation that passed through Congress this summer which gives the FDA power to regulate tobacco products in the United States and notes that the success rate of current smokers who attempt to quit by using pharmaceutical aids is as low as 5%. Making smokers more aware of less harmful alternatives, snus and e-cigarettes included, could significantly reduce the amount of smokers who die due to tobacco-related illnesses.”

“The message the AAPHP is sending to the FDA is a clear one and that is that electronic cigarettes are not the wildly dangerous alternatives that they have been portrayed as in news publications and on television, but perhaps one of the best products available for current smokers to switch to. Only time will tell if the FDA will retract their July study in favor of a more complete one or if smokers will continue to be limited to only products offered by big tobacco or big pharma with no explanation.”

The Rest of the Story

I applaud the AAPHP for taking this strong and science-based stand, which contrasts with the ideology-driven positions that have been taken by a number of anti-smoking groups that have called for the removal of electronic cigarettes from the market, despite clear evidence of their utility in helping smokers quit and their relative safety compared to cigarettes. As I have mentioned previously, every one of these anti-smoking groups, it turns out, has received funding from pharmaceutical companies and thus have a conflict of interest — none have disclosed this conflict.

In contrast, the AAPHP position is based not on pure ideology, but on the science, which clearly indicates that electronic cigarettes are a far safer alternative to regular cigarettes and that they appear to be effective in helping highly resistant smokers to quit successfully.

The anti-smoking groups’ condemnation of electronic cigarettes is based largely on the FDA’s laboratory findings, which actually indicated that e-cigarettes are much safer than regular ones because they contain miniscule levels of carcinogens, while cigarettes contain very high levels of a large number of carcinogens. The level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines is reduced by a factor of up to 1400, indicating a substantial degree of relative safety compared to smoking.

Taking electronic cigarettes off the market is the worst single thing we could do to harm the public’s health. Hundreds of thousands of vapers would be forced to return to cigarette smoking and they would therefore suffer a deterioration in their health. How is that a good thing for the public’s health? So far, none of the anti-smoking groups have answered this question.

Another thing that none of the anti-smoking groups have done is to disclose their conflicts of interest with Big Pharma, a failure which I believe is unethical. Financial interests in pharmaceutical companies which rely upon smoking cessation drugs for substantial profits are quite relevant to policy regarding e-cigarettes because these products represent a huge threat to the financial well-being of these companies. E-cigarettes represent a huge potential threat to Big Pharma, because they appear to be much more effective than pharmaceutical smoking cessation products.

A final thing that none of the anti-smoking groups has done is to meet my challenge of naming even one specific hazard that e-cigarettes likely pose to vapers. While the damage that would be done to the health of huge numbers of vapers if e-cigs are taken off the market is definite, the health damage that is supposedly being done to vapers from using e-cigarettes is purely speculative and completely hypothetical.

The anti-smoking groups don’t appear to want to address the specific scientific issues, probably because they have little ground upon which to stand. Instead, they insist on diverting the issue to talk about anti-freeze, children shelling out $90 to buy e-cigarette kits, and dangerous carcinogens present in e-cigarette cartridges (without mentioning that the levels of these carcinogens are trace levels, and orders of magnitude lower than in cigarettes, confirming their relative safety).

When groups make national policy recommendations without a willingness to actually address the science, you know we’ve got a problem. Never is that more apparent than with the issue of electronic cigarettes.

The Rest of the Story by Michael Siegel.

After receiving their credit card statement, they come to find that the company charged them for their free e-cigarette trial and continues to charge them monthly. After a few months, the company disappears and consumers are stuck footing the monthly bills for electronic cigarettes that never arrived.

“This industry has been flooded with get rich quick schemers, some with very attractive websites that look legitimate”, state Gina King of www.E-CigaretteDirect.com. “It is hard to tell what is real and what is a scam on the internet. Legitimate companies do not offer free product and then collect your credit card information”.

To protect yourself from being a victim of an electronic cigarette scam, do not participate in free trial offers. These free trial offers are a tease or cover-up for a scam. Often times, the customer never receives the product or if they do it is a cheap imitation.

“There is no such thing as free in this country and if it seems too good to be true, it probably is”, states Ms. King. “Our company is based in beautiful Colorado, we only sell quality electronic cigarettes and we have an excellent customer support line. That is the basics of a legitimate company. If people want to try out an electronic cigarette, they can purchase a disposable unit for about $12. Twelve dollars is worth saving the headache of fighting for your money back in these ‘free e-cig trial’ scams.”

But the UI senior wasn’t puffing on a cigarette — he was taking a drag of nicotine vapor from an e-cigarette.

“I don’t think he had a clue what it was,” the 21-year-old said. “But he was not cool with it.”

The white, cylindrical device looks like a real one, but it runs on a lithium battery and produces a steam-like mist that looks like real smoke. The e-cigarette uses no tobacco; rather, it atomizes liquid nicotine, producing a vapor that is drawn into the lungs.

Because the product’s manufacturers — including the brand Ruyan, sold at the Coralville Tobacco Outlet — claim the e-cigarettes have none of the harmful chemicals found in the smoke of other tobacco products, Iowans can use the device in areas deemed “smoke-free” by the Iowa Smokefree Air Act.

And that’s why Fischels splurged on one, at a cost of $60 online. With his new instrument, he can get his nicotine fix legally in places where smoking is prohibited, including his workplace, the movie theater, and his apartment.

“I saw it and was like, ‘What the hell? A digital cigarette,’ ” Fischels said. “Regular cigarettes are just as bad for you, so I figured it’s worth a shot.”

But experts are keen to point out they believe the devices are not risk-free.

E-cigarettes contain nicotine and other chemicals that could be toxic, said Mary Aquilino, the director of the Iowa Tobacco Research Center.

The Food and Drug Administration does not regulate e-cigarettes — which, she said, concerns her because different manufacturers use varying amounts of nicotine and other chemicals in the production.

Because they’re not age-restricted, as are other FDA-regulated nicotine products, and because they are offered in an array of flavors, she said they could potentially increase appeal to young people.

“Some view them as a likely bridge to smoking for youth,” she added.

The FDA has performed “limited testing” on them, finding they contain “detectable levels” of carcinogens, and the agency has warned against their use, according to an FDA news release.

Because the product doesn’t emit smoke and is likewise not regulated by the smoking ban, it has left some local bar employees unclear about how they would handle a user in their establishments.

“If it’s legal and OK to do, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it,” said Victoria Messina, a server at Vito’s, 118 E. College St., who noted that she has not encountered a user.

But Tim Hopper, a bartender and manager at DC’s, 124 S. Dubuque St., said he would be more wary if he saw someone exhaling a smoke-like haze.

“I don’t think we would allow it,” he said, pointing out that if patrons saw someone smoking an e-cigarette, they might be prompted to spark up real ones. “It’d put out the wrong idea.”

Since Fischels bought the e-cigarette in July, he said he uses it about four or five times a week. He noted the device shouldn’t be confusing to other people because the end lights up — his is blue — and the vapor doesn’t have a smoky smell.

“People still try to give me weird looks, though,” he said.

By Chris Curtland; Source The Daily Iowan.

I noticed a short blurb about the “electronic cigarette” during a local newscast a few months ago and decided to look into the product. After reading everything I could find about them, I ordered one … and although it took longer to arrive than expected, the day I received it … I made the switch to vapor. I feel that it is necessary to point out that I did not purchase the product in order to help me quit smoking, I purchased it because I felt it was a viable alternative and it proved to be exactly that. I have not smoked a tobacco cigarette since the day I received it.

We have heard promises for years about intended reduction regarding the harmful effects from smoking tobacco products, but each and every promised attempt has fallen far short of the goal. I’m of the mind, that since we can’t trust someone else to do the right thing for us … perhaps it’s time for us to take control of our own lives and do what we believe is best for us, ourselves.

In all honesty, I really am baffled with regards to the stance the Governments and Health care systems have taken regarding the electronic cigarette. For years, they have stated that they are doing everything possible for both the smokers and the non-smokers, so I am sure you can understand my confusion at their insistence that this product be boycotted and banned. The majority of the Government officials, Health Care staff and FDA personnel, plus many others are all crying wolf, but none of them seem to know anything about the product they are so insistent to rid the market of.

A perfect example is Law Professor John Banzhaf, Esq. the loud and as always, effective voice behind Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). We all know what a wonderful job he has done over the years and is basically regarded as the watchdog looking after the non-smokers rights. He has been instrumental in setting up cigarette bans in his efforts to protect us from the very real dangers posed by the tobacco products.

It is his fight which has forever changed how we think about smoking and has made such a change for the better for so many people. Although a smoker, I had always admired him for his tireless efforts regarding the tobacco products and the advancements which have been made over the years due to his extensive contribution.

Considering his stance on the tobacco products though, I am completely mystified as to why he would now do his very best to stop the sale and ban the use of electronic cigarettes. With his level of education and supposed knowledge of smoking and it’s effects … he is one person that I would have expected to have a sensible view and reasonable approach to this product and instead … he has completely dismissed the facts involved and has effectively vilified a product, that would effectively take us to another level completely, in our fight against tobacco.

For years, he has pushed for smokers to quit using every means available to them. The problem is that a good majority of the products are not effective and the smoker returns to the familiarity of the product he or she has learned to both hate to love and love to hate. There are many others that smoke simply because they like to smoke. As such, the electronic cigarette is a viable alternative to a toxic product which kills hundreds of thousands of people around the globe, each year.

The following is a statement taken from the ASH UK briefing Oct 2009

“ASH supports a harm reduction approach to tobacco, that is, we recognize that whilst efforts to help people stop smoking should remain a priority, many people either do not wish to stop smoking or find it very hard to do so. For this group, we believe that products should be made available that deliver nicotine in a safe way, without the harmful components found in tobacco. Most of the diseases associated with smoking are caused by inhaling smoke which contains thousands of toxic chemicals. By contrast, nicotine is relatively safe. Therefore, e-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the harmful toxins found in tobacco smoke, are likely to be a safer alternative to smoking. In addition, e-cigarettes reduce secondhand smoke exposure since they do not produce smoke.”

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf

The ASH USA site however, has instead vilified the electronic cigarette and placed it alongside the toxic tobacco products, treating them as if they produce the same toxic mix of chemicals, when they in fact, compare instead to the other nicotine products already approved and readily available in the marketplace. Feel free to visit the Smoke vs Vapor website below, for easily accessible information regarding the product, the safety reports and other pertinent information.

http://smoke-vs-vapor.webs.com/

No doubt John Banzhaf is fully aware of the fact that the toxic mix of chemicals he warns of, are produced by the burning process, but these last months, he has made wildly inaccurate claims regarding the actual dangers involved with the use of the electronic cigarette, which go against all of his own research and views he has shared over the years. He has even implied that it is the nicotine and not the toxic mix of chemicals inhaled through the burning process of the tobacco products … which cause the problem.

The following statement taken from the ASH website is a prime example …

“If you don’t want people sitting next to you – in a waiting room, restaurant, bar, or any other area where smoking is now prohibited – using one of these devices to get around smoking bans, and forcing you and your loved ones to inhale deadly nicotine – please help now!”

http://ash.org/4dangers.html

Keep in mind, the ASH UK report states “Most of the diseases associated with smoking are caused by inhaling smoke which contains thousands of toxic chemicals. By contrast, nicotine is relatively safe. “

He has effectively and almost single-handedly, cut millions of consumers around the world, off from a product they had come to embrace as “The” viable alternative for smoking, that they had been looking for. Sadly, in doing so, he has succeeded in forcing those same consumers to return to the tobacco products that he is fully aware will kill them. Amazingly, he has even taken it one step further and demanded that anyone still able to use this new product, be banished and forced to remain among people smoking real cigarettes … thus effectively forcing them to keep inhaling the toxic blend of deadly chemicals that they are trying to get rid themselves of.

Yes … he is a formidable foe for those who oppose him and yes … he is also someone that we have relied on and trusted to look after our best interests for decades, but I am now left to wonder exactly what his agenda is and when his priorities changed. His recent actions have flown in the face of all he has stood for and been preaching for decades and for me, he now represents one of those snake-oil salesman pushing his skewed views from atop his apple-box. I have to say that I am very disappointed in his recent actions, simply because it seems that he did not do his research on the electronic cigarette before setting off on this reckless course of action. In essence, his decision to rid the world of the electronic cigarette seems to lack any sort of reasonable and rational viewpoint … which leaves me wondering if his cheese has finally slid of his cracker.

For anyone that may have forgotten … the SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema And May Complicate Pregnancy.

By Monte_Alto; Source: PRLog.

Thanks to Xeno for lending me his device to try out for a few days!!

first impressions , this thing is pretty honkin huge , it is easy to adapt to , but after using the Protege’ all day it just seemed really big. It is built like a brick house and feels REALLY durable , at 6v the batteries last a good long time , but i did notice the vapor trail off a bit after about 4 hours of use.

nice warm vapor from the 510 atty at 6v and really great flavor. The button is nice and springy and easy to push with either your thumb or finger. It’s so shiny and smooth i just want to vape it non stop.

follow up to come shortly! thanks!

The debate on these devices has intensified in recent months as events have
fueled and focused attention on electronic cigarettes, including a front-page
story last week and a follow-up editorial in yesterday`s edition of USA Today
and stories or editorials in other major newspapers such as the New York Times
and Los Angeles Times. Governor Schwarzenegger`s veto of a bill that would have
denied California citizens the right to purchase electronic cigarettes and a
warning by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on a flawed, narrow
study have also contributed to the growing debate.

“Unfortunately, many of the arguments we`ve seen recently against electronic
cigarettes have been driven by fear of the unknown, insufficient evidence,
political agendas, and ignorance about our members` products,” said Salmon. “As
in the case of California Governor Schwarzenegger, we`ve found that reasonable
people, when willing to honestly and intellectually evaluate the information
about electronic cigarettes, find that these products provide smokers a viable
alternative to combustible tobacco cigarettes.”

Some legislators have taken a stance against electronic cigarettes as a result
of an FDA study that Salmon says was extremely narrow in scope and failed to
follow established scientific protocols. The Electronic Cigarette Association
has called on the FDA to take a more scientific approach and to work with ECA
members before making any hasty decision to ban electronic cigarettes
altogether. Such a ban would leave smokers without an alternative to combustible
cigarettes, whose toxic substances and life-threatening health effects are
clearly documented and which the FDA has no intention of banning.

“We understand that to protect the public, some form of regulation may be
necessary, and we welcome that. Our goal, nevertheless, is to ensure committed
adult smokers the freedom of a clear, better alternative and to prohibit sales
to minors,” said Salmon.

About the Electronic Cigarette Association

The ECA (www.ecassoc.org) is an association of private sector companies engaged
in electronic cigarette technologies. Its mission is to provide the tools and
information necessary for policy-makers, opinion leaders, media, and private
sector companies worldwide to make informed decisions about the management and
use of electronic cigarette technologies. The association institutes and
promotes industry-wide standards and a code of conduct, works to maintain sound
professional practices, educates the public and policy-makers on the industry`s
activities and potential, and works to ensure the ethical use of electronic
cigarette technologies.

Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA)
Media Contact:
Matt Salmon, 202-841-6729
msalmon@policyimpact.com

Source : BussinessWire

“Ruyan Group said that an agreement between the Company and Philip Morris International Management S.A. could not be reached on matters relating to the co-operation between them on its “electronic cigarettes” by the end of the first and exclusive phase of negotiations.”

As the Food and Drug Administration has recently been given authority over the tobacco industry, the move by Philip Morris could be a carefully calculated move to gain controlling interest over the products inside the United States and abroad. The motives of the company are unclear at this point, but speculations include everything from wanting to shut the industry down by acquiring the rights to it all the way to possibly launching its own e-cigarette product and taking it mainstream.

Ruyan Group’s stock trading was suspended on November 2nd pending an announcement on a price sensitive matter. This could be related to a sudden 20% jump in the company’s stock price.

But, that isn’t the first time Ruyan Group’s stock has soared. Back in June, the stock rose over 35% after the announcement that the Company was negotiating with what Quamnet called an “independent third party”. Shortly afterward on July 6th, that third party became known to be Philip Morris.

In related news, Ruyan Group also sold their office properties for HK$28.57 million to an undisclosed buyer on October 23rd.

What this could mean for the e-cigarette industry both in the United States and internationally is uncertain, but what’s clear is this: Philip Morris wants in.

By Tiffany Ellis, source OfficalWire.

November 2, 2009 — Switching to low-risk nicotine products, like smokeless tobacco, electronic cigarettes, and pharmaceutical nicotine, offers smokers a chance to almost completely eliminate their health risks. While these alternative products still pose some very small health risk, a new study at the University of Alberta School of Public Health in Canada shows that in most cases switching is better for reducing lifetime risk than trying to quit. The study by Prof. Carl V. Phillips, just published in Harm Reduction Journal, shows that for most smokers, immediately switching to a low-risk alternative will lower their risk of dying from their habit more than quitting eventually, even if they use the smoke-free product for the rest of their lives.

For the average smoker, the study finds, smoking for just one more month poses a greater health risk than a lifetime of using one of the increasingly popular low risk products like snuff, snus, the new electronic imitation cigarettes, nicotine lozenges, or some other non-combustion alternative. Switching products is a strategy known as “tobacco harm reduction.” “It has long been known that while no nicotine product is completely harmless, harm reduction products pose only about 1% the risk from smoking,” says Dr. Phillips, “and this difference is so great that for the average smoker, using a smokeless product for the rest of his life poses about the same risk as 30 days of continuing to smoke.” What this means is that most smokers, even those who plan to quit soon, will not quit before damaging their health far more than using low-risk products for a lifetime. Moreover, for some older smokers, smoking for a day or two more poses a greater risk than using a low-risk product for the rest of their life. Since switching products is often much more appealing to smokers than quitting nicotine entirely, this option is more practical than quitting and leaves the former smoker happier and less likely to relapse. Those who switch can still choose to quit entirely later, lowering their risk further still.

Dr. Phillips and his public health research group publish the website www.TobaccoHarmReduction.org, and have worked for years to educate smokers about the advantages of low-risk alternatives. The new study, which also looks at some of the history and politics of tobacco harm reduction, suggests that efforts to promote abstinence as the only healthy choice may be killing thousands of smokers per month. Discouraging switching causes the deaths of far more smokers than could ever die from using low-risk nicotine products for their entire lives.

This study comes on the heels of a major study by Peter Lee, published in another BioMed Central journal, BMC Medicine, that showed that the cancer risk from smokeless tobacco is so small it cannot even be reliably measured. Given the ample evidence about the risks of different products, “there is no scientific basis for denying the benefits of tobacco harm reduction” says Phillips, “and it is time that we offer smokers honest public health interventions rather than the moralizing and deadly ‘abstinence-only’ approach.” The abstinence-only approach leaves many ex-smokers miserable and leaves millions of others no choice but to keep smoking. Some activists object to alternative products because they let smokers stay addicted to nicotine or allow companies to profit from selling the products. But, asks Phillips, “is addiction to a low-risk habit — not much different from drinking coffee — really such a problem, or is the profitability of some companies so terrible that it outweighs the millions of lives that could be saved by harm reduction?”

Contact: Dr. Carl V. Phillips, Associate Professor, University of Alberta School of Public Health: cvphilo(at)gmail(dot)com; +1 651-503-6746.

Professor Phillips is an epidemiologist and health policy researcher, journal editor, popular educator, and consultant. He and his work group are leading advocates of tobacco harm reduction, and he advises and works with many other organizations who are trying to promote it, some of which are companies that hope to profit from selling low-risk nicotine products. The www.TobaccoHarmReduction.org research group at the University of Alberta School of Public Health is partially supported by an unrestricted (completely hands-off) grant from U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company. No funder, company, or other organization played any role in initiating, designing, or conducting this research.

Source TobbacoHarmReduction.org