Archive for April, 2009

Lies, Damned Lies – and SmokeFree Wisconsin

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

Some rather thick skulled anti-smoking advocates over at SmokeFree Wisconsin have resorted to blatent if stupid lies in their effort to disparage the electronic cigarette.

In the latest argument against e-cigarettes SmokeFree Wisconsin state that ECigarettes are “the latest ploy by big tobacco to hook kids.”

In fact, the tobacco bill underway in the US, which has the support of Tobacco Free Kids and Philip Morris, is likely to ban electronic cigarettes in America by requiring research that is physically impossible to carry out. (See our interview with Dr Nitzin for elucidation!)

This bill has the support of America’s largest tobacco company. Philip Morris has seen that the bill will aid the company to crush both smaller competititors and safe alternative tobacco products. As a result, it takes some imagination to believe that big tobacco could be behind electronic cigarettes.

SmokeFree Wisconsin might want to read the reply to Lautenburg’s letter, again by Dr Nitzkin, which argues:

simply informing current adult smokers that they could dramatically reduce their risk of tobacco related illness and death by switching to alternative near-zero-risk nicotine delivery products could possibly save 4 million or more of the 8 million current smokers who will
otherwise die of a tobacco-related illness over the next 20 years.

The fact of the matter is that people like SmokeFree Wisconsin are partly responsible for the deaths of smokers who could and would have changed to safer alternative tobacco products like Snus and e-cigarettes but have remained on the cigarettes that are far more lethal to kill them.

A Death Blow to the FDA?

Monday, April 27th, 2009

One question suppliers and indeed customers often ask of new products is:

"Is it approved by the FDA?"

Despite concerns over the overworked FDA – for example, by the fact that research is often paid for by the very companies whose products they are testing – FDA approval is still valued highly.

This is likely to change after a new tobacco bill has been approved.

The Tobacco Bill will force the FDA to approve a product known to be approximately 100,000 times more dangerous than is generally considered to an acceptable level for consumer products.

When the FDA does this, all value of FDA approval will disappear.

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Uk Budget: Tax Increase on Cigarettes

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009
The Chancellor has once again increased the tax on cigarettes. 
The enourmous taxes already suffered by smokers – which pays for the cost of smoking diseases several times over – is obviously not enough for the high spending, money grabbing Labour government. 
As a result the tax on cigarettes has increased by 7 pence a packet. 
A Tax on the Poor
More poorer people than richer people smoke. 
In Scotland, for example, people in the poorest areas are three times more likely to smoke than in more affluent areas. 
On average, people in these areas spend a massive 25% of their income on cigarettes. 
These are the people, many of whom are living just above the poverty line, who can least afford to pay out an increase in taxes.
Not So Easy to Give Up
It’s easy to say smokers should give up, and smokers often try when taxes rise. 
But with only 1.6% of smokers able to give up for more than a year even with the aid of expensive nicotine replacement aids that’s easier said than done. 
Some doctors even argue that nicotine is as difficult to give up as heroin and morphine. 
Not About Health…
Given that obese people are as likely to die young as smokers, let’s not pretend that this has anything to do with health – if it was, fast food would be taxed as heavily as cigarettes. 
This is about an incompetent government grabbing money from an easy target: smokers. 
Not Yet Taxed…
E Cigarettes are not yet taxed by the government. In fact its still cheaper to smoke them than cigarettes. 
If this government remain in power, though, that’s not likely to be the case for long…

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Passive Smoking – Diverging Opinions

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009

I have just finished an interview with Dr Nitzkin (it will take me a little while to transcribe and upload the interview) on e-cigarettes.

Just as an aside, I asked him about a topic that interests me, that of passive smoking.

I was originally convinced that passive smoking killed. However, a seed of doubt was planted in my head when I heard Sir Richard Dahl, the scientist who discovered the link between cancer and smoking, disparage the connection between passive smoking and smoking diseases in a radio interview not long before his death.

My sceptism was increased when I saw the money that had been poured into smoking disease research and anti-smoking campaigns by pharmecutical companies.

Dr Joel Nitzkin, however, stated that passive smoking was responsible for 30,000 deaths a year in America.

With around 400,000 smokers dying from smoking related diseases in America, that would mean that for every 11 or smokers that die from smoking, one non-smoker would be taken along with them.

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Electronic Cigarette Affiliate System Launched

Monday, April 20th, 2009

We have now launched our electronic cigarette affiliate system. Features include a £25 sign up bonus, a low payout threshold of £25 and a commission of ten percent.

For more information or to sign up head over to our electronic cigarette affiliates page.

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Tobacco Bill Will Damage FDA and Help Philip Morris

Friday, April 17th, 2009

An academic article in Business Source argues that the current tobacco bill will damage the FDA and help the largest tobacco company, Philip Morris.

Some of the salient points are:

  • Philip Morris opposed regulation until it realised it could capture and manipulate the provisions to suit themselves
  • Philip Morris has admitted that making profits is the driving force behind their support for the bill
  • the tobacco company’s huge resources as compared to the under-funded and overwhelmed FDA means that it is Philip Morris which is likely to win any litigation arising from the FDA’s new found control
  • In determining the efficacy of reduced risk cigarettes, the FDA would rely on the evidence submitted by the tobacco company, not by neutral parties. The development of a ‘healthier cigarette’ would obviously be a boon for any tobacco company able to do so.
  • Forcing the FDA to issue standards for a product that kills would lead to the FDA, a body designed to protect the consumer, to have an ideological crisis.

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

UK E-Cigarette Petition

Saturday, April 11th, 2009

Paul Reynolds has kindly pointed out an e-cigarette petition on the the Number 10 website.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to keep the use of electronic cigarettes indoors and in public places legal.

Submitted by max – Deadline to sign up by: 16 June 2009 – Signatures: 96

Currently it has just 96 votes, so if you are British and find the e-cigarette a viable alternative to smoking please sign up.

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

NRT Effective for 1.6% of smokers

Friday, April 10th, 2009

New evidence reveals that the expensive Nicotine Replacement Therapy products marketed by big pharm are effective for a tiny 1.6% of smokers.

Measured over a 12 month period 98.4% of smokers were unable to quit with the NRT products.

These finds have been exposed in a post by Michael Sigael, a professor in the Boston University School of Public Health.

Given that:

  • NRT therapy does not work
  • smoking diseases kill 1/3 to 1/2 of all long term smokers
  • many e-smokers have already tried to quit and fail

the implications of denying e-smokers the choice to safer alternatives is clear.

1. Profits for big pharm who can continue to sell expensive products that don’t work.
2. Safeguarding the estabished tobacco industry.

And for at least a third of e-smokers?

Death.

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Nicotine, The FDA and the Electronic Cigarette

Thursday, April 9th, 2009
ECig org has a great post on the legality of the Electronic Cigarette.
The writer has gone to the effort of contacting the officials involved and reported that all were suprised to hear that the electronic cigarette itself does not contain nicotine (as opposed to the cigarettes/e juice that fill it). 
He also points out that the FDA, which argues that it has jurisduiction over the e-cigarette as it is a form of drug, has also been denied that authority in the past. 
In 1994 it decided that the nicotine contained in cigarettes made them a pharmecutical, meaning they had jurisdiction over cigarettes. However, this was overturned by the supreme court, which stated that the FDA did not have the authority to govern tobacco products. 
Of course, the electronic cigarette is not a tobacco product – instead, as with nicotine inhalers, it gives a measured dose of nicotine to the user.
 Furthermore, the game plan is about to be changed, with the FDA about to be given jurisdiction over tobacco, with the same legislation putting obstacles in the way of the alternatives that can safe lives (smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes).
Probably the only gainers from the legislation will be the big pharm profiting from the sale of nicotine cessation profit with their 5% success rate (measured over 12 months) and big tobacco – now wonder Philip Morris are supporting the bill!

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Doctor Opposes Electronic Cigarette

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009
On seo tips for health blogs the number one tip should be say something negative about the electronic cigarette or e-juice – it is a guaranteed way of getting both comments and links to your blog from fervent e-cigarette supporters.
No exception is a blog post on the electronic cigarette by Dr Mathew Mintz – currently building up to 20 comments. In the post Dr Mintz ridicules the excellent Health New Zealand website for their defence of the electronic cigarette, stating:

“…the electronic cigarette is dangerously being promoted as safer alternatives to cigarettes that contain tobacco as well as possible aids to smoking cessation. Make no mistake: these products are not safe, in some ways could be riskier than cigarettes, will not be effective smoking cessation aids, and are scarily unregulated by the FDA and far too available in the US.”

Why Dr Mintz is wrong:
- There is already some convincing evidence that the electronic cigarette is safer than the cigarette. Human trials are continuing but there are already some pretty good product assessments, including that of Murray Laugesson, who concluded that they are “very safe relative to cigarettes, and also safe in absolute terms on all measurements we have applied.”
- There is irreffutable evidence that cigarettes are dangerous, with estimates that 1/3 to 1/2 of smokers will die from a smoking related disease. Essentially Dr Mitz is arguing that we should favour a product that we are certain will kill millions over a product that we are pretty certain is safe.
- There is a convincing support for the electronic cigarette from Tobacco Harm Reduction Experts. David Sweanor, for example, stated:
“If there is anyone who believes cigarettes are no more hazardous than e-cigarettes I’d recommend a remedial course in basic sciences.”

China Argument
Dr Mintz also uses a further ridiculous if common argument:

“Currenlty, most e-cigarettes are made in China and bought on the internet, where it is very difficult for federal agencies to regulate.”

As we have pointed our before, a huge proportion of our goods are made in China, including a large proportion of medicine. To argue that a good should be banned because it is made in China is not only racist but nonsensical. And what has he got with selling over the internet – does he want to close Amazon down?
Recommending the Alternatives that Don’t Work
It is clear that Dr Mintz is interested in stopping smoking via other methods, stating:
There is now very good evidence and current guidelines recommend that EVERY smoker interested in quitting be offered medication. This can be in the form of nicotine replacement such as the patch or gum. Pills have be shown to be even more effective and both bupropion and Chantix are available by prescription.”

However, according to Dr Nitzkin only 5% of those who try to give up smoking using smoking cessation aids quit when success rates are measured over a year.
Dr Mintz, however, wants us to try Chantix. While few side effects have been recorded with e-cigarettes, plenty have been reported with Chantix. Here’s what one user reported feeling after trying the drug:
  • headache
  • sleep problems and insomnia
  • unusual dreams
  • nausea
  • stomach pain
  • indigestion
  • vomiting,
  • constipation
  • gas
  • weakness
  • tired feeling
  • unpleasant taste in mouth
By recommending the current state of affairs continue – promoting ineffective nicotine cessations aids or aids which users stop using because of side effects, while continuing to remove the choice of using safer products such as smokeless tobacco, Doctors like this this are essentially recommending that we continue to let smokers die.
I wonder why?