Three German Court Rulings - E-Cigs and Liquids are Not Medicinal Products or Devices

Samba

I'm not entirely sure if this will have any bearing on the EU tobacco directive, but regardless, this is very welcome and positive news from Germany!

http://www.ovg.nrw.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/27_130917/index.php

Use chrome or google translate.

csi vegas

Is good ya! It now seems that it's to be taken even further, to the Higher Federal Court - their equiv to our Supreme?

And imagine all because some cranky bíotch kicked up about a shop selling liquid, in an area of Germany where it was 'banned' imagine. Don't know which is more ridiculous.

Hopefully now it can be used as some kind of precedent? It mentions something about case law in there.
One small step...

Samba

csi vegas wrote: »

Is good ya! It now seems that it's to be taken even further, to the Higher Federal Court - their equiv to our Supreme?

And imagine all because some cranky bíotch kicked up about a shop selling liquid, in an area of Germany where it was 'banned' imagine. Don't know which is more ridiculous.

Hopefully now it can be used as some kind of precedent? It mentions something about case law in there.
One small step...

Be careful what you ask for!

You couldn't make it up, it's brilliant and very positive that they've more or less ignored the studies and advice of the German Cancer Research Centre.

I've been doing more research, from my limited understanding, German law trumps any inconsistent EU law. If the appeal is unsuccessful this should set a precedent and should re-open the whole debate on the tobacco directive.

In the meantime it's a bit worrying that they're trying to push through approval of the directive before the next commission takes office in 2014, I'm hoping these appeals are heard before then. Yes, it's their last chance saloon to overturn these rulings, they can't go any higher.

I've summarised the article on the rulings here, ignore the US spelling

csi vegas

Samba wrote: »

Be careful what you ask for!

You couldn't make it up, it's brilliant and very positive that they've more or less ignored the studies and advice of the German Cancer Research Centre.

I've been doing more research, from my limited understanding, German law trumps any inconsistent EU law. If the appeal is unsuccessful this should set a precedent and should re-open the whole debate on the tobacco directive.

In the meantime it's a bit worrying that they're trying to push through approval of the directive before the next commission takes office in 2014, I'm hoping these appeals are heard before then. Yes, it's their last chance saloon to overturn these rulings, they can't go any higher.

I've summarised the article on the rulings here, ignore the US spelling

Just read it, good article, explains things v clearly. Here's hoping the appeals will be worthless.

I'm going to be meeting with a local TD next week and while I'm there I'm going to give letters to him to pass on to particular colleagues - a little about my own personal freedom from cigarettes and an attachment of the studies done by Boston Uni, with a reference to the contradictions discovered which resulted in German cancer trust retracting their 'findings'.

Thanks for link Samba - I needed something of that nature to write about.
Whether or not my letters make any difference at all, who knows, least I know I've done something, huh?

Samba

csi vegas wrote: »

Just read it, good article, explains things v clearly. Here's hoping the appeals will be worthless.

I'm going to be meeting with a local TD next week and while I'm there I'm going to give letters to him to pass on to particular colleagues - a little about my own personal freedom from cigarettes and an attachment of the studies done by Boston Uni, with a reference to the contradictions discovered which resulted in German cancer trust retracting their 'findings'.

Thanks for link Samba - I needed something of that nature to write about.
Whether or not my letters make any difference at all, who knows, least I know I've done something, huh?

You'll find more specific details directly on his blog...

Original criticisms

Follow up after correction

csi vegas

Amazing stuff there on his blog. There are around 2,500 posts on anti-smoking laws/anti e-cig cover-ups/his own pro e-cig studies.
Compiling a saved folder of the German study, his own which disproved and exposed it and a few other nice things to print off for Mr I-hear-you-TD for Monday

dePeatrick

Samba wrote: »

You'll find more specific details directly on his blog...

Original criticisms

Folllow up post after their retraction

So the German Cancer Research Centre lie about effects of e-smoking..... Am getting more and more cynical about a whole lot of things right now....

Occam

Samba wrote: »

You'll find more specific details directly on his blog...

Original criticisms

Folllow up post after their retraction

There was no retraction, at all.

As is common in many papers, a correction was made after publication. This is quite normal, and appropriate.

In this case the correction was changing the text "glycerin may cause lypoid pneumonia" to "inhaled glycerin based oils may cause lypoid pneumonia".

Its just a minor semantic edit, it is misleading to call it a retraction

grindle

Occam wrote: »

Its just a minor semantic edit, it is misleading to call it a retraction

With you on the retraction bit, but semantics? Really?
It would be a semantic edit if they stated "inhaled glycerin based oils cause lypoid pneumonia" and changed that to "inhaled glycerin based oils may cause lypoid pneumonia" because while the first is correct in that it happens sometimes [eg: "Water drowns people."] it could be interpreted to mean it will cause it without fail ["Water always drowns people?!? NOOOOO!!!"drowns in own saliva] so they clarify their position to get their true meaning across ["Oh, water only drowns people who remain submerged without any breathing apparatus for a sufficient length of time? Yay!"].
A semantic edit.

What you call a "minor semantic edit" has them clarifying a fallacious proposition by introducing what will actually cause the illness, revealing their first statement as false in absolute terms.
Hardly semantics. Semantics would imply that the truth of their latter statement was somehow grammatically or contextually inherent in the first but needed clarification.

Edit: WHY AM I NOT ASLEEP?

csi vegas

Guys - what ye'r missing here is that the GCC were trying to get away with saying that PG is an oil, when it is in fact...alcohol, which is of course water soluable.
There aren't (as far as I've read up on in various publications) any currently available known e-liquid compounds that have been tested that have contained any form of 'glycerin oil'.
That seems to be where they are attempting to demonize e-liquid - by deliberately misinforming (is that one word or should it have a - I do love my hyphens!) those who WANT e-liquid to be banned (gov, pharmas, tobac comps) and all the rest of us 'the deliberately misinformed public'.

This is my understanding of it right now anyway, from the bits I've read.
Open to learning, O.U. style...

Expects multi-quote corrections from Grindle...dare I log on tomorrow?

grindle

csi vegas wrote: »

Expects multi-quote corrections from Grindle...

I got what they got wrong, just got pedantic about semantics.

csi vegas wrote: »

dare I log on tomorrow?

Correction: capital 'D', darling.

Multi-quotes FTW!

Occam

csi vegas wrote: »

Guys - what ye'r missing here is that the GCC were trying to get away with saying that PG is an oil, when it is in fact...alcohol, which is of course water soluable.

Rubbish. What they are saying, very clearly, is that the safety of e-cigs has not been well established, and there are some studies which indicate there may be safety issues.

To be honest, given the scrutiny Big Tobacco will have given this, it's amazing that this is all they could come up with.

grindle wrote: »

With you on the retraction bit

Grand, not really interested in getting into further discussion, my post was simply to highlight how misleading it was to claim that findings had been retracted.

Samba

Occam wrote: »

There was no retraction, at all.

As is common in many papers, a correction was made after publication. This is quite normal, and appropriate.

In this case the correction was changing the text "glycerin may cause lypoid pneumonia" to "inhaled glycerin based oils may cause lypoid pneumonia".

Its just a minor semantic edit, it is misleading to call it a retraction

Fair point and you're right, I should have used correction rather than retraction, poor choice of words and I certainly didn't intend to mislead. It's technically speaking a minor edit, but the original text is very misleading and totally false.

They failed to document the presence of any oils, it's a bit of a stretch to attribute the inflammation of the lungs to the use of an ecig in that specific case.

dePeatrick wrote: »

So the German Cancer Research Centre lie about effects of e-smoking.....

I wouldn't say that, but they did publish false information, to say they lied suggests they intended to deceive. I can't say they did do that with any degree of certainty.

csi vegas

Occam wrote: »

Rubbish. What they are saying, very clearly, is that the safety of e-cigs has not been well established, and there are some studies which indicate there may be safety issues.

To be honest, given the scrutiny Big Tobacco will have given this, it's amazing that this is all they could come up with

No, what they were saying was that e-liquid contains glycerine oil and that G oil may cause a particular form of cancer if inhaled BUT PG is an alcohol based compound, not an oil.

To say the safety of e-cigs not being well established is to tie in nicely with their misleading statement - one is part of the other and based upon this one, single sham of a report.
No wonder authorities went nuts and banned their sale in certain areas of Germany - it is to institutes such AS the GCC that people listen and trust in.
They more or less condemned e-liquid.

Wonder how much private and public funding such institutes receive to compile these reports...

Occam

csi vegas wrote: »

No, what they were saying was that e-liquid contains glycerine oil and that G oil may cause a particular form of cancer if inhaled BUT PG is an alcohol based compound, not an oil.

It is pretty clear you have not actually read the report.

It is very clearly a review of the existing studies on e-Cigarettes, rather than a new analysis of the contents of e-Cigarettes. They did not intend to add new theories or data to the debate.

The correction which you are making a song and dance about, relates to a section describing a clinical report carried in the medical journal "Chest", relating to a patient who presented in a hospital in Oregon.

The section which you seem to think is of such importance reads :

"The specialist journal Chest reports about a case study of a patient with lipoid pneumonia caused by glycerine based oils from the aerosol of electronic cigarettes"

This was just one of over 100 well cited references to other studies and reports, and was very clearly a mistake in editing (to anyone with an ounce of sense), and would only have been noticed by a pedantic chemist, or shill for the Big Tobacco lobby.

That someone could possibly think that any of the "key findings" of the paper were undermined by this is simply not credible.

If, somehow, you still think the paper has been debunked \ retracted you might let us know which one of the "key messages" you think has been undermined by making the correction :rolleyes:

csi vegas

Occam wrote: »

It is pretty clear you have not actually read the report.

It is very clearly a review of the existing studies on e-Cigarettes, rather than a new analysis of the contents of e-Cigarettes. They did not intend to add new theories or data to the debate.

The correction which you are making a song and dance about, relates to a section describing a clinical report carried in the medical journal "Chest", relating to a patient who presented in a hospital in Oregon.

The section which you seem to think is of such importance reads :

"The specialist journal Chest reports about a case study of a patient with lipoid pneumonia caused by glycerine based oils from the aerosol of electronic cigarettes"

This was just one of over 100 well cited references to other studies and reports, and was very clearly a mistake in editing (to anyone with an ounce of sense), and would only have been noticed by a pedantic chemist, or shill for the Big Tobacco lobby.

That someone could possibly think that any of the "key findings" of the paper were undermined by this is simply not credible.

If, somehow, you still think the paper has been debunked \ retracted you might let us know which one of the "key messages" you think has been undermined by making the correction :rolleyes:

Whoa! Ease up on the condensation condescention!
I read the study, all 52 pages of it plus Micheal Siegal's entire postings on the matter - and it was he who pointed out the discrepencies and it is he whom I agree with. I am doing nothing more than relaying his report.
You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with his views also :rolleyes:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ie/2013/06/german-cancer-research-center-corrects.html

Dr. Siegel is a Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health. He has 25 years of experience in the field of tobacco control. He previously spent two years working at the Office on Smoking and Health at CDC, where he conducted research on secondhand smoke and cigarette advertising. He has published nearly 70 papers related to tobacco. He testified in the landmark Engle lawsuit against the tobacco companies, which resulted in an unprecedented $145 billion verdict against the industry. He teaches social and behavioral sciences, mass communication and public health, and public health advocacy in the Masters of Public Health program.

His blog post entitled:
'German Cancer Research Center Lies about Health Effects of Electronic Cigarettes to Scare Users and Unfairly Influence EU Directive'
is just that.
In such highly regarded positions there really should be no margin of error. The researchers are all 'fully qualified Doctors and lawyers' and all that (more on this later) and to release a report with such an inherently wrong statement, one that immediately conjures nothing but negative opinion is on par with saying 'smoking kills but keep them legal and e-cigs might kill, we haven't a clue but ban them anyway'.

^^^^
Something (oh! I wonder what it is?!) tells me this man actually knows what he's talking about and I have serious doubts that his advocacy for e-cigarettes (as they currently stand) stems from any association with e-cig marketers/lobbyists (unlike any vested interest an organisation like the GCC would likely hold with local government, pharmas and tobacco giants).

To complile a report of that nature was an utter cop-out on the part of the GCC - practically 90% of it was taken from 'other sources' and all the baddest bits they could find at that.
They used the word 'aerosol' throughout, I lost count...

At the end it credits its 'authors' and 'contributors' - Ms X (sorry I don't remember her name) who is cited a "fully qualified lawyer" - nearly fell off my chair laughing at that one - I mean, as opposed to an 'unqualified' one? FFS!

The whole thing is bias, start to finish and its only purpose was to influence in favour of the EU Tobacco Directive.
They are entitled to their 'study', their 'findings' etc. I am anti-smoking and pro-electronic cigarettes. What's interesting me is which side of the fence are you on?

Also, please don't quote me on the "key messages" and "key findings" thing, I never used the phrases.
To do so twice could be misconstrued a deliberate attempt to mislead

Occam

csi vegas wrote: »

Whoa! Ease up on the condensation I read the study........ please don't quote me on the "key messages" and "key findings" thing, I never used the phrases.
To do so twice could be misconstrued a deliberate attempt to mislead

If you had read either the study, or Siegals commentary, you would know "key messages" refers to the first section of the document. The section cunningly titled "key messages".

Why would you post about a paper you have not read :rolleyes:

Samba

For me the issue is not really about the GCRC and their error, but rather how the error was perceived and compounded by ignorant media outlets, as recently as July

According to the study, the glycerin found in electronic cigarettes has been linked to respiratory diseases, like lipoid pneumonia.

Occam

Samba wrote: »

For me the issue is not really about the GCRC and their error, but rather how the error was perceived and compounded by ignorant media outlets, as recently as July

Do you really think it would have made much difference if the media had reported "According to the study, the glycerin based oils found in electronic cigarettes has been linked to respiratory diseases, like lipoid pneumonia."?

What percentage of that papers readership do you think would even spot the difference ?

Samba

Occam wrote: »

Do you really think it would have made much difference if the media had reported "According to the study, the glycerin based oils found in electronic cigarettes has been linked to respiratory diseases, like lipoid pneumonia."?

What percentage of that papers readership do you think would even spot the difference ?

I don't think the correction was adequate, I've stated my reason as to why previously.

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

Do you really think it would have made much difference if the media had reported "According to the study, the glycerin based oils found in electronic cigarettes has been linked to respiratory diseases, like lipoid pneumonia."?

What percentage of that papers readership do you think would even spot the difference ?

This is the important bit. Their was no glycerin based oil found in any ecig liquid nor has their ever been any found. The German report based this claim on the findings of a medical examiner who speculated at an inquest that ecig liquid may be implicated in a case of lipid pneumonia that he examined.
The fact that the German CRC included this speculation shows that they were barrel scraping for damaging evidence. Thats agenda driven science or junk science.

DubTony

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their was no glycerin based oil found in any ecig liquid nor has their ever been any found. .

Wrong, even Siegel disagrees with you. He argues in his paper that most oils are glycerin based, therefore it makes sense that glycerin based oils, would be found. there is no suggestion that the oils are not glycerin based.

tommy2bad wrote: »

The German report based this claim on the findings of a medical examiner......

It is a statement of fact, not a "claim".

To quote the report : "According to the study, the glycerin based oils found in electronic cigarettes has been linked to respiratory diseases, like lipoid pneumonia."

Are you trying to suggest that it is incorrect to say the Oregon paper linked glycerin based oils to lipoid pneumonia ? They even included the reference.

You may disagree with the paper to which they refer, and that's fine, but you can't deny what the Oregon study says.

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

Wrong, even Siegel disagrees with you. He argues in his paper that most oils are glycerin based, therefore it makes sense that glycerin based oils, would be found. there is no suggestion that the oils are not glycerin based.



It is a statement of fact, not a "claim".

To quote the report : "According to the study, the glycerin based oils found in electronic cigarettes has been linked to respiratory diseases, like lipoid pneumonia."

Are you trying to suggest that it is incorrect to say the Oregon paper linked glycerin based oils to lipoid pneumonia ? They even included the reference.

You may disagree with the paper to which they refer, and that's fine, but you can't deny what the Oregon study says.

Again because you seem to be hard of understanding, it's glycerin or oil, it can't be both! Ecigs contain PG an alcholl not an oil. This claim by the report was bullsh1t! get it now! It makes no difference if glycerin based oils are linked to cancer or pneumonia or moon landings. It's got nothing to do with ecigs. The liquid used in ecigs is made up of PG and VG with maybe water, none of these are oills, all are alcohols except the water unless your Jesus.
In other words some one didn't do the research or they were outright lieing.

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Again because you seem to be hard of understanding, it's glycerin or oil, it can't be both! .... It makes no difference if glycerin based oils are linked to cancer or pneumonia or moon landings. It's got nothing to do with ecigs.

It's pretty clear you have a very weak understanding of chemistry, but for some reason you are pretending you know what you are talking about.

Even one of e-cigarettes biggest advocates, Michael Siegel, disagrees with you. To quote from Siegels article which was linked to above :

"Almost all oils are "glycerine-based" ...... It is theoretically possible that lipoid pneumonia could result from an electronic cigarette product that used oils in its formulation......It is certainly legitimate to ask regulators to ensure that oils are not used in these products"


Are you saying Siegel is wrong ?

Mad_Dave

Haven't had time to have a thorough read as of yet, however from my reading I understand it to make the follow points:
1. "glycerine" and "glycerine based oils" are two seperate things.
2. Glycerine is found in all e-liquids and has not been linked to lipoid pneumonia.
3. Glycerine based oils (GBO) may be found in some brands of e-liquid and may be a cause of this type of cancer. GBO is not present in all eliquids.
4. Siegel is asking that legislation be passed to make the use of GBO illegal.

Is that a correct summation of the arguments ?

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

It's pretty clear you have a very weak understanding of chemistry, but for some reason you are pretending you know what you are talking about.

Even one of e-cigarettes biggest advocates, Michael Siegel, disagrees with you. To quote from Siegels article which was linked to above :

"Almost all oils are "glycerine-based" ...... It is theoretically possible that lipoid pneumonia could result from an electronic cigarette product that used oils in its formulation......It is certainly legitimate to ask regulators to ensure that oils are not used in these products"


Are you saying Siegel is wrong ?

No, I'm saying that that glycerin based oills are not used in e cigs. I agree it should not be used and I'm pretty sure that no glycerin based oils have been found in ecigs so the report was making assumptions about ecigs based on something that is not in ecigs. Simples!
forgot to add, oils might be part of the flavorings, this would be a small amount but it's an area of concern about ecigs and their needs to be regulation and assurances that no oils are used in eliquid, either as the main carrier or as part of the flavour.

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their was no glycerin based oil found in any ecig liquid nor has their ever been any found.

tommy2bad wrote: »

oils are not used in e cigs.

tommy2bad wrote: »

oils might be part of the flavorings.

So e-Cigs definitely contain no oils whatsoever, except the oils it contains ?

If you now accept that some e-cig oil may contain glycerine based essential oil Flavorings, and that they could theoretically cause lipoid pneumonia, you realise you now agree with what you previously called junk science, and lies ?

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

So e-Cigs definitely contain no oils whatsoever, except the oils it contains ?

If you now accept that some e-cig oil may contain glycerine based essential oil Flavorings, and that they could theoretically cause lipoid pneumonia, you realise you now agree with what you previously called junk science, and lies ?

The report we are discussing alleged that a case of lipoid pneumonia was caused by the use of ecigerettes. This is not backed up by any evidence of any oils in ecigerette juice. It was a supposition. That is not to say that their cant be contamination by oils just that to make the assertion without any evidence at all smacks of an agenda.
So far their is no evidence of oils turning up in juice, in fact the danger of using oil based flavorings is well known and has been for a long time.
Using this argument is clutching at straws, something the anti ecig brigade is expert at. Flavorings attract children, they contain anti freeze, they could be used for illegal drugs.

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

The report we are discussing alleged that a case of lipoid pneumonia was caused by the use of ecigerettes.

Wrong again. It just referenced a case in a medical journal which linked e-cigs to a case of lipoid pneumonia. To quote directly from the GCC report which we are discussing :

"According to the study, the glycerin based oils found in electronic cigarettes has been linked to respiratory diseases, like lipoid pneumonia."

Will you please read both studies before pretending you know what they say.

It is totally irresponsible of you to deny the possibility of danger, and then later say that the risks are well known.

tommy2bad wrote: »

That is not to say that their cant be contamination by oils

Ok to recap, you now accept that these oils might be dangerous, and you now accept that it's possible the oils are in e-cigs , and that e cigs should be regulated to prevent people being exposed to these oils ?

You now pretty much agree with the GCC.

tommy2bad wrote: »

So far their is no evidence of oils turning up in juice

Ok, so if I can link you to a chemical analysis of e cig vapor showing ois, will you finally admit you were wrong, and that pretty much everything you have claimed was based on a false assumption?

Hint : The oils are in flavorings and colorings

tommy2bad wrote: »

the danger of using oil based flavorings is well known and has been for a long time.

So if you accept these oils are dangerous why in the name of god are you upset that the German Cancer Study highlighted something you believe well known ?

Calibos

Occam, can we have your opinion on vaccinations and autism, cellphone masts, artificial sweetener aspartame etc so we know where you are coming from?