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

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 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?

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

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?

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 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 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.

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 ?

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 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 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 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 ****!

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?

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

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

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.