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

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

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 :
A case based on an assumption without any evidence to support that assumption.
"According to the study, the glycerin based oils found in electronic cigarettes has been linked to respiratory diseases, like lipoid pneumonia."
Claiming that oils found in ecigs without any evidence of oils in ecigs is a lie
Will you please read both studies before pretending you know what they say.
Will you please read them your self, oh and try reading for comprehensions, your lawyers wriggling is getting tired.
It is totally irresponsible of you to deny the possibility of danger, and then later say that the risks are well known.
Are you slow? The danger of inhaling oils is well known, they are not used in e liquid for this reason theirfore their is no danger.


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 ?
It's possible, it's possible cat piss may be in e liquid, should they have warned about the cat piss used in some eliquid causing a dry mouth?
You now pretty much agree with the GCC.

The hell I do!

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
Go for it


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 ?
Because the German study claimed that the oils caused a case of lipoid pneumonia based on one reported case which was entirely based on a supposition without any evidence and they made no mention of finding any oils in the eliquid. If you cant see that this is junk science then you have something wrong with your definition of science.

Remember that this 'study' didn't say that the possibility of oils causing... or that oils should not be used, it implied that all e liquid contained oils in suficent quantity to cause damage long term. It made this claim without any supporting evidence unless you count one anecdote as evidence.


This is not rocket science. E liquid can be tested as can the flavors and coloring, the safe levels are known, reporting dangers that are known is not a warning, it's scaremongering.

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

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

Wrong. See below.

tommy2bad wrote: »

The danger of inhaling oils is well known, they are not used in e liquid

Wrong, many oils are used in e-Cigs. See analysis below.

tommy2bad wrote: »

"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?."

Go for it

Analysis of e-smoke containing multiple oils can be found http://smoke-vs-vapor.webs.com/Green Smoke Safety Report.pdf

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

Wrong. See below.





Wrong, many oils are used in e-Cigs. See analysis below.



Analysis of e-smoke containing multiple oils can be found http://smoke-vs-vapor.webs.com/Green Smoke Safety Report.pdf

Wow, just wow, so green smoke use 1% PG and 2% VG and use 35% tobacco extract yet claim no carcinogenics in the list! something not adding up!

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Wow, just wow, so green smoke use 1% PG and 2% VG and use 35% tobacco extract yet claim no carcinogenics in the list! something not adding up!

Why are you ignoring the presence of oils which undermine your earlier posts?

Why can you not just admit you were wrong, when you (repeadedly) claimed that "oils are not used in e cigs" ?

A mistake due to ignorance is understandable, to continue trying to cover it up is deceptive.

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

Why are you ignoring the presence of oils which undermine your earlier posts?

Why can you not just admit you were wrong, when you (repeadedly) claimed that "oils are not used in e cigs" ?

A mistake due to is understandable, to continue trying to cover it up is deceptive.

Aggressiveness much?
I'm not ignoring the presence of oils hence the wow! What I am surprised by is the low volume of PG and VG while the tobacco extract is so high. I had presumed the only tobacco extract was the nic which at 35% would be lethal. I suspect that the list is not an acurate reflection of the liquid but may be the flavor portion, I could be wrong. In which case Green smoke have some questions to answer. Green smoke claim to use Johnson Creek liquid and JC say on their site;

Johnson Creek Original Smoke Juice is happy to furnish our ingredient list! In fact, we list our ingredients right on the bottle. USP Grade Propylene Glycol (not in Red Oak Smoke Juice Recipe), USP Grade Vegetable Glycerin, USP Grade Glycerol, USP Grade Deionized water, USP Grade Nicotine (except in Zero Nicotine recipe) Natural Flavors, Artificial flavors, USP Grade Citric Acid.

And;

Q: Does Johnson Creek Original Smoke Juice or Red Oak Smoke Juice contain tobacco?

A: No, but both do contain nicotine derived from tobacco.

http://www.johnsoncreeksmokejuice.com/learn/general-faqshtml
Now see why I'm surprised!

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm not ignoring the presence of oils

Great, so would you like to correct or retract your earlier posts?

You know the ones where you pretended that e-Cigs contained no oils?

You seem to hold everyone else to very high standards, but when fundamental errors in what you say are pointed out, you do nothing....

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

Great, so would you like to correct or retract your earlier posts?

You know the ones where you pretended that e-Cigs contained no oils?

You seem to hold everyone else to very high standards, but when fundamental errors in what you say are pointed out, you do nothing....

So this is more about you being right than finding any truth?

You can go take a flying ****!

mewso

Folks can we keep our calm when discussing things. While tommy2bad has been warned for being uncivil I am not happy with your posting style Occam. You might want to skip the goading from now on. State your case and stop waving the red rag.

Samba

Occam wrote: »

Wrong. See below.

Wrong, many oils are used in e-Cigs. See analysis below.

You provided one case based on one e-liquid manufacturer, I'm not refuting the findings, but to make such a blanket statement implies all manufacturers of e-liquid use oil based flavorings, you should really back that up with more data if that's what you believe. I don't agree with that assertion.

Perhaps you meant to say that some e-liquids on the market do contain oils?

Even so...

Konstantinos Farsalinos - Cardiologist

It is almost impossible to get lipoid pneumonia from e-cigarette use (normal use, not abuse). The risk of aspiration of liquid is almost non-existing. Even if oils are present in liquids (no serious company would use oil-based flavors of course), evaporation would be highly unlikely if we consider the very low temperature of evaporation and the fact that the amount of pure flavoring in an e-cigarette solution is very low

Back on topic...

I've contacted a friend of mine in Germany who is a Lawyer, I've asked him for his professional opinion on these rulings, specifically on whether or not they may have any bearing on the EU tobacco directive.

tommy2bad

tommy2bad wrote: »

So this is more about you being right than finding any truth?

You can go take a flying ****!

Quoting myself, hows that for opinionated
Yes, I was somewhat uncivil now I see it in print, in my head it sounded more jocular.
Apologies offered to Occam.

Occam

Samba wrote: »

to make such a blanket statement implies all manufacturers of e-liquid use oil based flavorings....

I'm afraid it is simply a fact to say that many oils are used in e-cigs, and I have already provided evidence from a well recognised laboratory to support this.

This scientific fact that was denied over and over again earlier in the thread, and that lie\error\misunderstanding was used repeatedly as the basis to falsely improve the safety profile of electronic cigarettes.

We cannot at this time quantify the numbers of e-Cigs containing dangerous oils or substances, as they are not all properly analysed or regulated. As you say, we do know that some of them contain substances which are harmful.

It is imperative and urgent that we know the exact composition of e-cig oil, and regulations need to be brought in for this, as self regulation has not worked. Even Siegel agrees with me on this.

Samba wrote: »

Konstantinos Farsalinos - Cardiologist ....

I would only be ressured by him if he was saying it was not possible to get lipoid pneumonia from e-Cigs, but he isn't. Not sure what this adds to the debate.

If the risk is non zero, what we need to do is quantify the risk, not guess that it is low.

csi vegas wrote: »

Where they cite the case of a person dying from L.P., was pure speculation arising from the inconclusive post mortem (or otherwise) of the deceased,

Where did the GCC report cite a case of death due to lipoid pneumonia caused by e cig smoking? Please quote the relevant page, as I cannot find it.

Did you read the paper?

csi vegas wrote: »

they took the worst bits they could find and put them all together in one place, that paper

If they wanted to take the worst bits, would they not have included the case you mentioned where death was linked to e-Cig smoking?

Not mentioning that case was evidence of balance not bias :rolleyes:


*** Edit - not sure what happened with the quoting of csi vegas... can't see the post anymore?

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

I'm afraid it is simply a fact to say that many oils are used in e-cigs, and I have already provided evidence from a well recognised laboratory to support this.

This scientific fact that was denied over and over again earlier in the thread, and that lie\error\misunderstanding was used repeatedly as the basis to falsely improve the safety profile of electronic cigarettes.

We cannot at this time quantify the numbers of e-Cigs containing dangerous oils or substances, as they are not all properly analysed or regulated. As you say, we do know that some of them contain substances which are harmful.

It is imperative and urgent that we know the exact composition of e-cig oil, and regulations need to be brought in for this, as self regulation has not worked. Even Siegel agrees with me on this.



I would only be ressured by him if he was saying it was not possible to get lipoid pneumonia from e-Cigs, but he isn't. Not sure what this adds to the debate.

If the risk is non zero, what we need to do is quantify the risk, not guess that it is low.



Where did the GCC report cite a case of death due to lipoid pneumonia caused by e cig smoking? Please quote the relevant page, as I cannot find it.

Did you read the paper?
The reference is on page 8, it's to the Chest journal report of a female patient who presented with symptoms of lipoid pneumonia.


If they wanted to take the worst bits, would they not have included the case you mentioned where death was linked to e-Cig smoking?

Not mentioning that case was evidence of balance not bias :rolleyes:


*** Edit - not sure what happened with the quoting of csi vegas... can't see the post anymore?

Out side of the PDF you linked to I could only find one other instance of rose oil being used, given a % of .1% in the ingredient list. I'm not sure about vanilla, it turns up a lot but doesn't seem to say if it's an extract or an artificial flavor. The other source of oils would be tobacco extract, again I cant find any definitive amounts or indications as to whether this dose contain oils in suficent quantities to be a concern.
Now as you know the dose makes the poison and claiming that oils being present could lead to dangers while technically accurate is a misdirection unless the amounts are quantified.

It is imperative and urgent that we know the exact composition of e-cig oil, and regulations need to be brought in for this, as self regulation has not worked. Even Siegel agrees with me on this.

Their you go again, ecig oil, as if it was all oil. :rolleyes: I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that self regulation has not worked, no fatalities, no reported serious adverse effects and unless you know differently, no evidence of it not working. None the less some regulation on acceptable levels of all the ingredients would be helpful. For the life of me, I can't understand how medical authorization would achieve this better than food regulations.
From the Chest report;

The patient had recently started using electronic
cigarettes (e-cigarettes), about 7 months prior, which
coincided with the onset of her respiratory symptoms.
Her past medical history also was significant for asthma,
reported rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, schizoaf-
fective disorder, and hypertension. Her medications
included amlodipine, albuterol metered dose inhaler ,
lovastatin, lisinopril, multiple vitamins, cycloben zaprine,
citalopram, and multiple psychiatric medications.
The patient reported a recent exposure to fumi-
gation chemicals, as the result of a bedbug infes-
tation of her apartment building 2 weeks prior to
her hospitalization. She had no pets.
...................................................................
As discussed, most cases of exogenous lipoid pneu-
monia are associated with aspiration of mineral oil
or lipid-based preparations. There is one published
case of exogenous lipoid pneumonia due to inhaling
vaporized weed oil. Other cases have been reported
involving inhalation of crack cocaine mixed with
petroleum jelly. To our knowledge, there are no prior
published cases of exogenous lipoid pneumonia due to
the use of glycerin-based e-cigarettes. Importantly, this
case highlights harm caused by the nicotine-solution
carrier and the delivery system of the e-cigarette.

Clutching at straws, I'd call that. No mention of testing the ecig for the presence of the oils implicated in the case at all.


The German report, what can I say? a whole report made up of 'may', 'might' 'could if's' and 'possibly'. The standard of scientific work has dropped but their may be a career in speculative fiction for the authors.

tommy2bad

Found the original press release that caused the confusion over the lipoid pneumonia report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12887335
So this piece of speculation based on no evidence along with the chest speculation based on no evidence at all makes two cases of speculating. Out of the speculated 2 million ecig users I'd call that a pretty good safety record, better that all medically regulated products in fact.

Yeah, I know apples and oranges but isn't that what we are saying?

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Where did the GCC report cite a case of death due to lipoid pneumonia caused by e cig smoking? Please quote the relevant page, as I cannot find it.

Did you read the paper?
The reference is on page 8, it's to the Chest journal report of a female patient who presented with symptoms of lipoid pneumonia.

Wrong, different case. That patient didn't die. Did you even read it? The outcome was that she was fine when she stopped smoking e-Cigs, not that she was dead. To quote from page 8 :"symptoms disappeared when the patient stopped using electronic cigarettes" :rolleyes:

Still waiting for the reference to where the "GCC report cite a case of death due to lipoid pneumonia". You won't find it, because its not there, and this whole thing is a straw man argument.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I cant find any definitive amounts or indications as to whether this dose contain oils in suficent quantities to be a concern.

That's the whole point. We know these substances are present, but we don't know in which e-cigs, and how much there is. We need regulation to force testing, so that we can answer the very questions you raise. Specifically we need to know what substances are in each brand of e-Cig vapour, and in what quantities.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that self regulation has not worked, no fatalities, no reported serious adverse effects.

If you have read the GCC report you know that the FDA have received over 40 reports of adverse affects of e-Cigs, of which 8 have been classified as serious.

You claim you have read the paper, so I can't understand how you would "forget" this....you seem quick to call other people liars tho :rolleyes:

tommy2bad wrote: »

The standard of scientific work has dropped but their may be a career in speculative fiction for the authors

This is laughable given the number of glaring "mistakes" that you have made on this thread. Strange that all of these "mistakes" seem to indicate that e-Cigs are safer than they are :rolleyes:

dePeatrick

Just to add, there are no less than 86 oils added to cigarettes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_additives

Occam

dePeatrick wrote: »

Just to add, there are no less than 86 oils added to cigarettes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_additives

These relate to normal tobacco cigarettes, but it is interesting to note that we have this information for regular cigarettes, but not electronic cigarettes.

We just don't know what substances are in e-Cig vapour, as the vast majority just have not been analysed.

Obviously that doesn't stop some people telling us not to worry, the risks are low, nothing has been conclusively proven, and that lots of people are doing it. Oddly enough the same argument was made by the Big Tobacco companies when people got worried about the dangers of normal cigarettes.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/16/us/cigarette-makers-debated-the-risks-they-denied.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Is history going to repeat itself with electronic cigarettes?

dePeatrick

Occam wrote: »

These relate to normal tobacco cigarettes, but it is interesting to note that we have this information for regular cigarettes, but not electronic cigarettes.

We just don't know what substances are in e-Cig vapour, as the vast majority just have not been analysed.

Obviously that doesn't stop some people telling us not to worry, the risks are low, nothing has been conclusively proven, and that lots of people are doing it. Oddly enough the same argument was made by the Big Tobacco companies when people got worried about the dangers of normal cigarettes.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/16/us/cigarette-makers-debated-the-risks-they-denied.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Sure enough, I would like to know exactly what is in E-Liquid but bear in mind that of those 86 oils approved for use in cigarettes

Is history going to repeat itself with electronic cigarettes?

Sure enough, but bear in mind that none of the 86 oils used in cigarettes have been tested burning, only as additives to foodstuffs.

Scaremongering with dodgy stories about ecigarettes does nothing to enlighten debate. The report from Pony is impossible to take seriously tbh.

Yes it is time for some objective scientific analysis to be done on E-Liquid and the results published for all to see, the consumer is always the last to discover when there is something unhealthy in what we consume.

Personally after 40 years smoking and vaping for 6-7 weeks I am amazed at the health difference, gone is the half hour coughing in the mornings, day long clearing of the throat, and a general feeling of being way healthier and that is in such a short time, so my body votes with sticking with the vaping and see what happens in the long term.

Samba

Occam, you're contorting and sensationalising the facts to suit your position on this debate, funny how your use of language has shifted from oils, to dangerous oils, do you work in tabloid media by any chance?

Perhaps you would care to provide a case study where lipoid pneumonia can be clinically attributed to the use of an e-cig containing these "dangerous oils".

I agree with you on regulation, just not with the current regulatory proposals but that's a separate discussion. Regulatory framework should be outlined and introduced based on short and long term clinical trials.

If studies stemming from clinical trials are released tomorrow showing serious negative health implications, then I would have no choice but to reconsider my position on e-cigs.

Until such a time, I'm not really interested in debating may and could potentially could cause x, y and z without any tangible clinical evidence to support these theories.

Short term studies have successfully shown that e-cigs are less harmful than smoking tobacco, regulation should be outlined and approached with this knowledge, with a view to establish long term clinical trials that quantify and document all associated health risks.

The first step should be international production standards for e-liqiud imho.

To date, regulatory proposals have been structured from reports and findings that show no tangible data that can clinically document or quantify long term associated health risks. (other than what we already know on substances such as nicotine)

Occam

dePeatrick wrote: »

Scaremongering with dodgy stories about ecigarettes does nothing to enlighten debate.

What is dodgy about the reports of illness carried in established medical journals???

How could the debate be enlightened by hiding medical reports? Are consumers not entitled to see the evidence for themselves, and draw their own conclusions?

dePeatrick wrote: »

The report from Pony is impossible to take seriously tbh.v

e-Cigarette retailers are using it as part of their marketing. For example : http://greensmoke.co.za/index.php?_a=viewDoc&docId=43

If the report is impossible to take seriously, as you claim, we need regulation to stop the e-Cig industry using it to increase sales, while if it is accurate, it contradicts many of the claims made regarding e-Cig safety.

We need conclusive analysis and not people randomly dismissing the results of established and accredited laboratories because it makes them feel better.

dePeatrick wrote: »

my body votes with sticking with the vaping and see what happens in the long term.

Great, but probably not something that should feed into pan European health strategy

dePeatrick

Occam wrote: »

What is dodgy about the reports of illness carried in established medical journals???

How could the debate be enlightened by hiding medical reports? Are consumers not entitled to see the evidence for themselves, and draw their own conclusions?



e-Cigarette retailers are using it as part of their marketing. For example : http://greensmoke.co.za/index.php?_a=viewDoc&docId=43

If the report is impossible to take seriously, as you claim, we need regulation to stop the e-Cig industry using it to increase sales, while if it is accurate, it contradicts many of the claims made regarding e-Cig safety.

We need conclusive analysis and not people randomly dismissing the results of established and accredited laboratories because it makes them feel better.



Great, but probably not something that should feed into pan European health strategy

They are not using the Pony test, the link is dead! Apologies. The link does work.

Edit:The link works but is not to the report on E-liquid, it is a report on delivery device(s).

Occam

Samba wrote: »

If studies stemming from clinical trials are released tomorrow showing serious negative health implications, then I would have no choice but to reconsider my position on e-cigs.

Until such a time, I'm not really interested in debating may and could potentially could cause x, y and z without any tangible clinical evidence to support these theories.

This is an exceptionally dangerous position to take, as it is possible that we will never establish definitive, and indisputable evidence which you are seeking.

For example, some argue we still don't really have it for tobacco smoking, the Big Tobacco companies still deny that smoking causes cancer, and even that nicotine is addictive.

Science is very rarely definitive, and the best we can ever do is go by the balance of the existing evidence.

Occam

dePeatrick wrote: »

They are not using the Pony test, the link is dead! Apologies. The link does work.

Edit:The link works but is not to the report on E-liquid, it is a report on delivery device(s).

Eh did you try clicking above the text which says "See page 16 for list of ingredients."

Its the same list of ingredients (and report) discussed earlier, guess what page the data which you don't want to take seriously is on :rolleyes:

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

What is dodgy about the reports of illness carried in established medical journals???
They reach a conclusion based on speculation without supporting evidence. Thats whats wrong.
How could the debate be enlightened by hiding medical reports? Are consumers not entitled to see the evidence for themselves, and draw their own conclusions?



e-Cigarette retailers are using it as part of their marketing. For example : http://greensmoke.co.za/index.php?_a=viewDoc&docId=43

If the report is impossible to take seriously, as you claim, we need regulation to stop the e-Cig industry using it to increase sales, while if it is accurate, it contradicts many of the claims made regarding e-Cig safety.
Not just the claims of people but the claims of green smoke themselves as I pointed out!

We need conclusive analysis and not people randomly dismissing the results of established and accredited laboratories because it makes them feel better.



Great, but probably not something that should feed into pan European health strategy

The trouble is conclusive analysis seems to be not available, either from the manufactures or the proponents of regulation. While you may think that medical regulations would give us this analysis, I doubt it because first thing is the cost which will reduce the applicants so much we will not have any ecigs to test and most importantly, no ecig will get past the first stage of application to get as far as analysis. The requirement for a measured and consistent dose.

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

This is an exceptionally dangerous position to take, as it is possible that we will never establish definitive, and indisputable evidence which you are seeking.

For example, some argue we still don't really have it for tobacco smoking, the Big Tobacco companies still deny that smoking causes cancer, and even that nicotine is addictive.

Science is very rarely definitive, and the best we can ever do is go by the balance of the existing evidence.

Without evidence what should we base our decisions on? You claim we may never have the evidence but we should assume the dangers are their anyway unless we have evidence of none. Which as you know is never going to be enough to satisfy the nay sayers.
Some would be right, we don't have all the evidence on tobacco smoking, we in fact have more on ecigs at this stage. They big tobacco co don't btw, on that you are just wrong. As to nicotine's addictivenes, we only have the word of the people claiming this extreme addictivenes, their is no scientific evidence to support the claim, you know, scientific evidence? the thing they claim we need to make claims!

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

The trouble is conclusive analysis seems to be not available, either from the manufactures or the proponents of regulation

This is exactly the problem, and its the very same problem that was faced with tobacco smoking. The Big Tobacco companies played on the fact that a link to cancer could not be conclusively established to limit regulation.

To quote them : "We don’t believe it’s ever been established that smoking is the cause of disease.” .... “I’m unclear in my own mind whether anyone dies of cigarette smoking related diseases.”..... “I do not believe that nicotine is addictive.”

The exact same tactics are being used now in the argument to limit regulation of e-Cigarettes,and some of the very same companies are involved in the e-Cigarette industry. That makes me nervous.

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

Wrong, different case. That patient didn't die. Did you even read it? The outcome was that she was fine when she stopped smoking e-Cigs, not that she was dead. To quote from page 8 :"symptoms disappeared when the patient stopped using electronic cigarettes" :rolleyes:

Still waiting for the reference to where the "GCC report cite a case of death due to lipoid pneumonia". You won't find it, because its not there, and this whole thing is a straw man argument.
I never said it was the case of death, I merely pointed out where the report contained a reference to lipoid pneumonia. I even posted a link to the case where a death was attributed to ecig use, do you even read the posts?



That's the whole point. We know these substances are present, but we don't know in which e-cigs, and how much there is. We need regulation to force testing, so that we can answer the very questions you raise. Specifically we need to know what substances are in each brand of e-Cig vapour, and in what quantities.



If you have read the GCC report you know that the FDA have received over 40 reports of adverse affects of e-Cigs, of which 8 have been classified as serious.
Read the report, couldn't find any ref to the FDA 40 adverse reports. Is it in the refs at the end? I'm lost and a search turned up no results, that could be a spelling thing though. Care to help out with a page no?
You claim you have read the paper, so I can't understand how you would "forget" this....you seem quick to call other people liars tho :rolleyes:

Yep I'll call out a liar when I see one and the German CRC report is a good example of lieing by implication!


This is laughable given the number of glaring "mistakes" that you have made on this thread. Strange that all of these "mistakes" seem to indicate that e-Cigs are safer than they are :rolleyes:

Try to stick to the topic rather than engaging in personal atacks. The topic btw is E cigs are not a medicinal product.

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Without evidence what should we base our decisions on?

We have lots of evidence, its just not conclusive.

tommy2bad wrote: »

we don't have all the evidence on tobacco smoking, we in fact have more on ecigs at this stage.

This is absolute rubbish. We have 50+ years of tobacco data and research conducted all over the world, into almost every aspect of tobacco smoking.

We don't even know the chemical constituents of most e-Cig vapour.

tommy2bad wrote: »

, we only have the word of the people claiming this extreme addictivenes, their is no scientific evidence to support the claim.

You are now claiming that nicotine is not addictive ???

Samba

Occam wrote: »

This is an exceptionally dangerous position to take

It would be if there was no clinical data showing the benefits of vaping over smoking, but there is.

Before statements such as "the use of e-cigs may cause lipoid pneumonia" are trotted out by respected bodies such as the GCRC, they should have some form of tangible data to back up these claims. These claims were made and based on extrapolative theory.

In that particular case the person had recently had their home fumigated with chemicals that are well documented in causing lipoid pneumonia.

I completely understand your concerns with regards, that's what the big tobacco companies said. To the best of my knowledge, the tobacco industry never could put forward independent clinical data that refuted the general consensus among the scientific community.

Instead they launched a campaign that was aimed to deceive and reassure smokers that the claims of the scientific community were lies. You can't argue that's the same case with the e-cig industry, I don't think your comparison is appropriate because there is independent clinical data to support their claims.

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

This is exactly the problem, and its the very same problem that was faced with tobacco smoking. The Big Tobacco companies played on the fact that a link to cancer could not be conclusively established to limit regulation.

To quote them : "We don’t believe it’s ever been established that smoking is the cause of disease.” .... “I’m unclear in my own mind whether anyone dies of cigarette smoking related diseases.”..... “I do not believe that nicotine is addictive.”

The exact same tactics are being used now in the argument to limit regulation of e-Cigarettes,and some of the very same companies are involved in the e-Cigarette industry. That makes me nervous.

Except the difference is that their was research and evidence of smoking causing cancer. Also their was no excuse of not being able to afford the research for Big Tobacco.
Research is expensive, the ecig industry is made up of mostly small businesses who to their credit have funded research though this research is unacceptable to the legislative as it industry funded. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
We also have the years of research into tobacco smoking and years of research into the use of nicotine without smoke to use in an evaluation of the risks of ecigs. We are not working in the dark here.
You seem to be assuming that the ecig industry is against regulation, it's not, it's against medicine regulation. You know the arguments against this and must realize that the arguments in favor of medicine regs are based on supposition ideology and a profound misunderstanding of what ecigs are and how they work.
No one is saying that vaping is risk free unless in the sense that mobile phones or drinking coffee is risk free. Nothing is risk free but their's an acceptable level of risk and so far no one seems to admit this, they use the tinyest risk as justification for draconian regulation that would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Serious because we may loose the biggest opertunity in public health since vaccination. (which isn't risk free ither)

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

We have lots of evidence, its just not conclusive.

And your point is?


This is absolute rubbish. We have 50+ years of tobacco data and research conducted all over the world, into almost every aspect of tobacco smoking.

We don't even know the chemical constituents of most e-Cig vapour.
Oh for gods sake, stop. we do!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublichealth.drexel.edu%2FSiteData%2Fdocs%2Fms08%2Ff90349264250e603%2Fms08.pdf&ei=39JGUq3_LsSQ7Aa3s4G4DQ&usg=AFQjCNHVV0feYWkLUqrXUHgMO53-Khy0Cg&sig2=OoI4GQM0Z1ovLZMmqp90GQ&bvm=bv.53217764,d.ZGU

You are now claiming that nicotine is not addictive ???

I said we have no evidence to prove it's addictive, not one human trial, some inconclusive tests on rats but that's all. See how this works?