I believe that the entire situation boils down to the FDA and popular "news" media asking the WRONG QUESTION.
You should not be asking "Are E-cigarettes safe?"
You should ask "Are e-cigarettes SAFER than traditional ones?"
Write the FDA, phrase the question like that, as I did, and expect the following answer...
"We are unwilling at this time to quantify the safety of electronic cigarettes as compared to traditional cigarettes."
There is some simple, 1st grade math that you can do to answer the question though... Is 4-7 carcinogens less than 75+? orrrrrr, 7<75? Is it more likely for you to dodge 7 bullets or 75? easy answer, easy question.
The "quit or die" mentality doesn't work. nicotine addicts have a lower success rate at quitting than heroin addicts. Less than 6%. At least just let us have the safeR fix.
Not entirely sure why the federal agency responsible for our health is doing so, but they are exaggerating their claims to produce public fear of e-cigarettes.
In the following link you can see the full details of the FDA "study" of e-cigarettes... http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf
If you read this article you will see that they only tested ten different products of only two companies (despite there being many many producers currently). Of those twenty total e-cigarette cartridges, only one showed any signs of diethylene glycol (the percentage of which is not mentioned).
The nitrosamines detected in the liquid were stated to be "impurities" inherent in the purification of nicotine with the ability to be removed through more rigorous purification.
Furthermore, the FDA failed to mention that every single chemical that they found in the e-cigarettes, including the anti-freeze, is found in real cigarettes in substantially higher concentrations. Add in the lung damage, the other 75+ known carcinogens, the other 5000+ potentially toxic chemicals, second-hand smoke, and terrible smell and then tell me e-cigarettes are just as dangerous as regular cigaettes.
Your article says nothing about how Arab countries and special interest groups use PR to advance their causes. In the late 1960s Yaser Arafat was one of the first to hire a PR firm to "sell" the Arab "Palestinians" to the world. I remember it clearly; I was a teenager at the time, and thought no one would be fooled by so obvious a tactic. I'm sad to say I was proven wrong; the Israelis are very late in trying to catch up in a game their enemies have played for decades.
The article also cites groups like Human Rights Watch. They have been proven wrong in their statements about the so-called slaughter in Ramallah, and have a clear, pro-Arab political agenda, taking donations from the Saudis and other special interest groups. Using a name like "Human Rights Watch" doesn't qualify them as being fair or netural.
I also note that the Red Cross admitted the (Arab/Muslim) Red Crescent as a full partner long before they agreed to admit the Magen David Adom (the Israeli emergency medical organization), which cares for both non-Jews and Jews in Israel. Their neutrality is also suspect.
Dear Mr. Potter,
I am grateful for your courage to speak out on the Healthcare issue and expose the efforts by the Healthcare Industry to derail real healthcare reform. Unlike the belief's of Frank Lutz & his Republican counterparts that a Public Option will lead to rationing, I know as well as they do that we already have rationing with the current Industry run system!
I have also asked my German friends what their opinion is of Germany’s Healthcare system and they said they were very satisfied with the service and care they received when they lived in Germany. Unlike Frank Lutz’s talking points they did not experience rationing or government interference with their healthcare while living in Germany.
Please keep speaking out and working to dispel the miss-information & propaganda perpetuated by the Healthcare Industry and their Republican supporters. Below is a letter I sent to Senator Feinstein on this topic.
Sincerely,
Tom
Dear Senator Feinstein,
I just want you to know that I support President Obama’s suggestion for including a Public Option in the Health Care reform plan. The main reason I can think of as to why someone would not support a public option is that they are too close to the health care industry and maybe accept too much money and or support from this industry. I wonder what their position on this subject would be if all elections were publically funded and they could not accept any money or support from the health care industry?
First of all I do believe that health care is a right and not a privilege. With this premise in mind then maybe the basic heath care providers should operate as “Not for Profit” organizations and should not be set up as for profit businesses? I urge you to work for the American citizens and put their interest first before the Health Care industry in this debate and restructuring of our health care system.
If you take the side of Republicans like Representative John Boehner and the health care industry then I will be very disappointed in your position and you will lose my support as well as my other Democratic friends support. We will work to get Democrats elected who truly support the citizens of this country and not special interest like the Health Care Industry!
Sincerely,
Thomas Radich
PS: It seems to me after listening to the debates on health care reform, Cap & Trade & reform of the financial institutions by Congress, that the only hope for real reform in any area is to get money out of politics. The special interest groups seem to have much more influence over Congress than the American People. I urge you to also support campaign finance reform & I support publically funded elections.
Mr.Wendell Potter is truly a patriot who has the credibility to provide the OTHER SIDE of the story in these critical days!
Thank you for visiting Wise County and visiting with many of my friends and former colleagues.
Your July 31st interview with Bill Moyers on the Journal is a message that every American needs to hear.
I believe that the entire situation boils down to the FDA and popular "news" media asking the WRONG QUESTION.
You should not be asking "Are E-cigarettes safe?"
You should ask "Are e-cigarettes SAFER than traditional ones?"
Write the FDA, phrase the question like that, as I did, and expect the following answer...
"We are unwilling at this time to quantify the safety of electronic cigarettes as compared to traditional cigarettes."
There is some simple, 1st grade math that you can do to answer the question though... Is 4-7 carcinogens less than 75+? orrrrrr, 7<75? Is it more likely for you to dodge 7 bullets or 75? easy answer, easy question.
The "quit or die" mentality doesn't work. nicotine addicts have a lower success rate at quitting than heroin addicts. Less than 6%. At least just let us have the safeR fix.
Not entirely sure why the federal agency responsible for our health is doing so, but they are exaggerating their claims to produce public fear of e-cigarettes.
In the following link you can see the full details of the FDA "study" of e-cigarettes... http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf
If you read this article you will see that they only tested ten different products of only two companies (despite there being many many producers currently). Of those twenty total e-cigarette cartridges, only one showed any signs of diethylene glycol (the percentage of which is not mentioned).
The nitrosamines detected in the liquid were stated to be "impurities" inherent in the purification of nicotine with the ability to be removed through more rigorous purification.
Furthermore, the FDA failed to mention that every single chemical that they found in the e-cigarettes, including the anti-freeze, is found in real cigarettes in substantially higher concentrations. Add in the lung damage, the other 75+ known carcinogens, the other 5000+ potentially toxic chemicals, second-hand smoke, and terrible smell and then tell me e-cigarettes are just as dangerous as regular cigaettes.
Your article says nothing about how Arab countries and special interest groups use PR to advance their causes. In the late 1960s Yaser Arafat was one of the first to hire a PR firm to "sell" the Arab "Palestinians" to the world. I remember it clearly; I was a teenager at the time, and thought no one would be fooled by so obvious a tactic. I'm sad to say I was proven wrong; the Israelis are very late in trying to catch up in a game their enemies have played for decades.
The article also cites groups like Human Rights Watch. They have been proven wrong in their statements about the so-called slaughter in Ramallah, and have a clear, pro-Arab political agenda, taking donations from the Saudis and other special interest groups. Using a name like "Human Rights Watch" doesn't qualify them as being fair or netural.
I also note that the Red Cross admitted the (Arab/Muslim) Red Crescent as a full partner long before they agreed to admit the Magen David Adom (the Israeli emergency medical organization), which cares for both non-Jews and Jews in Israel. Their neutrality is also suspect.
Pages