For a professional view from our perspective, I suggest you read "the Rest of The Story" as presented by Dr. Michael Siegel at the Boston University School of Public Health, Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force, and Dr. Brad Rodu, Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research University of Louisville. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
One big question in my mind is: If e-cigarettes were tested in comparison to the Nicotrol Inhaler, where are the test results for it? Answer: It's not available because testing on it has NEVER BEEN DONE. How many known toxins are in them? ...I'd LOVE to see the FDA's reply to this.
I have been using an e-cigarette for 8 months with no adverse effects. I have quit a 3 pack-per-day, 40 year habit by using the e-cigarette smoking alternative. I previously tried every NRT available (Including hypnosis) with no success until these devices. I feel better than I have in many years as a result.
The FDA needs to think with their heads instead of their wallets. If public health is truly their concern, tobacco cigarettes would be banned before e-cigarettes.
Although I am not a scientist I would like to quote one from this site http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/
by Brad Rodu who is a Professor of Medicine at the University of Louisville, holds an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research, and is a member of the James Graham Brown Cancer Center at U of L.
[QUOTE] The FDA analyzed 18 cartridges from two e-cigarette manufacturers[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] I have some experience with TSNAs, since I participated in a project with a scientist at the Swedish National Food Administration to measure the levels of these agents in smokeless tobacco products. Our research showed that TSNAs are present in most American tobacco products at extremely low levels, about 0.1 to 12 parts per million by weight. At this level of TSNAs, someone who puts 1 gram (about 1/28th of an ounce) of smokeless tobacco in his mouth is exposed to, at most, about 10 one-millionths of a gram of TSNAs. There is abundant scientific evidence that exposure at this minuscule level is not associated with ANY cancer in smokeless tobacco users. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] Unfortunately, the agency did not report TSNA levels. Instead, it reported that TSNAs were either “Detected” or “Not Detected,” which is entirely inadequate. For hundreds of years, one of the basic tenets of medicine has been “the dose makes the poison.” Mere detection of a contaminant is meaningless; the critical question is: At what concentration is it present?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]In summary, the FDA tested e-cigarettes for TSNAs using a questionable sampling regimen, and methods that were so sensitive that the results may have no possible significance to users. The agency failed to report specific levels of these contaminants, and it has failed to conduct similar testing of nicotine medicines that have been sold in the U.S. for over 20 years.[/QUOTE]
Dear Mr. Potter -
I saw your interview on the Ed Show and just checked out your blog, which is moving to read. I hope that you will use all the skill you have acquired in communications to fight for proper access to health care for the many Americans who do not have or merely BELIEVE they have access now.
But, I am surprised that you were so unaware of the reality faced by so many. You mentioned meetings at CIGNA where you thought only of statistics and profits. You do not mention family or friends.
I have an MBA, a solid work history, and many friends with Master and PhD degrees, having worked many years at the director level in a research university. But, too many friends in their 50s and early 60s now face unemployment, dwindling or used-up COBRA, and little to no prospect of finding individual health insurance.
Of course, we lived in Cleveland, Ohio, which in 2007 lost more people than any other American city, according to US Census estimates. But that is not all that mitigating factor. As you drive around the US these days, look at all of the homes whose maintenance has been neglected for ages. We noticed this last week in NY State. We do not see this in Ontario, Canada, even in deeply rural areas or so-called inner cities (which do not really exist in Canadian cities). I would bet that many are not due to predatory lenders, but simply bankruptcy for medical reasons, which rose from 55 to 62% of personal bankruptcies between 2005 and 2006.
Your personal experience cannot be all that different from mine. Do you not have family members or friends who lost their professional positions, or began small businesses? Did you ever just ask them how they were coping?
One professor friend told me that years ago a friend of hers married her for just as long as it took her to get well after a catastrophic illness (due to which she had lost her job) before she entered academia and could sign up for insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions. Odd? Well, she is a lesbian who had already let everyone know by then. What a shame! My accountant lost his long-time faculty position--and benefits--when his university went belly-up; his wife took antidepressants after her parents' close-in-time deaths for a few months, and he is classified as obese, although he is in great shape and quite angular (heavy bones?), so they are uninsurable, even by AARP. I can go on and on... So, please start asking your nearest and dearest.
My husband and I are lucky. I moved the the US from Canada in 1983 at age 26, newly married, and I was shocked back then. I called the system barbaric when I visited home, said that combining where one works with how one accesses health care must have been dreamed up by someone on drugs.
Finally, we were in a position to move to Canada, so I sponsored my husband up here this year. What a difference! Don't let anyone tell you that this health care is terrible. It's not perfect, but here is what has happened to me so far:
January 2009: my official move, triggering a 90-day wait for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP), the government provided insurance.
April 2009: received OHIP card; visit with family practitioner of my choice. (Which I scheduled in February, knowing when I would have insurance. She also had to accept me into her practice.) Blood, urine tests and EKG. Referrals to specialists, because I have pre-existing conditions, to bring info up to date.
May 2009: visit with chief cardiologist at major Toronto hospital (a top-ranked department in North America), with echocardiogram, EKG, more blood tests.
June 2009: visit with respirologist to ensure no drug interactions if I get lung infection, pulmonary function tests. Visit with family practitioner for skin problem that cropped up--seen on same day that I called(!). (Okay, that is rare timing.)
July 2009: overnight sleep study and follow-up with world-renowned sleep physician (somnambulist?) who specializes in treating heart failure patients. Referral to ENT for permanently enlarged tonsils. Regular densitometry test and my first-ever physical with the family practitioner.
August 2009: visit scheduled with colo-rectal surgeon preparatory to having regular colonoscopy.
September 2009: scheduled follow-up visits with cardiologist and sleep study specialist.
October 2009: regularly scheduled mammogram.
OHIP--the government plan--covers, without limits, deductibles or copayments: doctor visits, diagnostics, emergency clinics, hospital stays, inoculations, and much more. It does not cover prescriptions (though there is an excellent need-based government-run program), except for seniors (who pay only the dispensing fee), 25% of durable medical equipment, or purely cosmetic surgery. Private health insurance, included in many employers' benefits, covers these things.
And with all this, I am able to choose my own doctors. Patients do need referrals to see specialists, but then one can choose anyone in the province, which in this case, has over 11 million residents, so plenty of choice. In all this, my waits have been reasonable, and I could have seen these physicians sooner had I had the need.
Perhaps most important, doctors do not need to check with ANYONE before ordering a test, doing a procedure or anything else. They are presumed to be professionals and are in charge and all conversations between physician and patient are purely medical. There is little feeling of bureaucracy. I concede that their offices are not fancy, but they tend to have things like bottles of disinfectant everywhere for patient use, and face masks in doctors' and hospital lobbies. (They have learned much in Toronto from SARS.)
My only complaint: the parking is expensive in downtown Toronto where the specialists I have chosen are practicing! But I am interested in those who are doing research and publishing right now, alongside their practices, so big-city hospital/research university physicians are whom I need. So far, nothing else has cost me directly. I am seeking work, which is taking a while in this economy, but then I will begin paying for this health care out of my income tax--a great deal. And--yes, also so important!--my employer will not need to know anything about my health, as there is no information sent to employers about employee health care usage. There is simply no connection.
I could go on and on, but I do hope that you will read this and work hard for all those whom we left behind. All the best to you and I applaud and will follow your efforts.
Hey Wendell,
I'm a CIGNA retiree and I'm so glad to see you out there speaking up.
I hope you can get on air somewhere to respond to Shawn Tully's July 24th article that's posted on CNNmoney site: 5 Endangered Freedoms. Most Americans covered by employer plans (or even individual plans) don't currently have any of the "freedoms" he/she is talking about. It's evident he/she is no expert on the subject, but he/she has written a piece that many lay people might believe.
They were talking about this article on CNN today. I believe it's meant to mislead people, so I hope you can read it and respond on air soon.
Thanks for all that you are doing.
Thousands of people (including myself) are using e-cigarettes as an alternative to tobacco smoking. In doing so they are avoiding something like 4,000 chemicals, many of which are harmful and some of which cause cancer.
It's not a perfect system; but it's helping many people to finally quit smoking and using tobacco products. To ban it just doesn't make sense, unless there is some reason why the FDA wants people to keep smoking cigarettes...
For a professional view from our perspective, I suggest you read "the Rest of The Story" as presented by Dr. Michael Siegel at the Boston University School of Public Health, Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force, and Dr. Brad Rodu, Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research University of Louisville. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
One big question in my mind is: If e-cigarettes were tested in comparison to the Nicotrol Inhaler, where are the test results for it? Answer: It's not available because testing on it has NEVER BEEN DONE. How many known toxins are in them? ...I'd LOVE to see the FDA's reply to this.
I have been using an e-cigarette for 8 months with no adverse effects. I have quit a 3 pack-per-day, 40 year habit by using the e-cigarette smoking alternative. I previously tried every NRT available (Including hypnosis) with no success until these devices. I feel better than I have in many years as a result.
The FDA needs to think with their heads instead of their wallets. If public health is truly their concern, tobacco cigarettes would be banned before e-cigarettes.
Although I am not a scientist I would like to quote one from this site
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/
by Brad Rodu who is a Professor of Medicine at the University of Louisville, holds an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research, and is a member of the James Graham Brown Cancer Center at U of L.
[QUOTE] The FDA analyzed 18 cartridges from two e-cigarette manufacturers[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] I have some experience with TSNAs, since I participated in a project with a scientist at the Swedish National Food Administration to measure the levels of these agents in smokeless tobacco products. Our research showed that TSNAs are present in most American tobacco products at extremely low levels, about 0.1 to 12 parts per million by weight. At this level of TSNAs, someone who puts 1 gram (about 1/28th of an ounce) of smokeless tobacco in his mouth is exposed to, at most, about 10 one-millionths of a gram of TSNAs. There is abundant scientific evidence that exposure at this minuscule level is not associated with ANY cancer in smokeless tobacco users. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] Unfortunately, the agency did not report TSNA levels. Instead, it reported that TSNAs were either “Detected” or “Not Detected,” which is entirely inadequate. For hundreds of years, one of the basic tenets of medicine has been “the dose makes the poison.” Mere detection of a contaminant is meaningless; the critical question is: At what concentration is it present?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]In summary, the FDA tested e-cigarettes for TSNAs using a questionable sampling regimen, and methods that were so sensitive that the results may have no possible significance to users. The agency failed to report specific levels of these contaminants, and it has failed to conduct similar testing of nicotine medicines that have been sold in the U.S. for over 20 years.[/QUOTE]
Thousands of people (including myself) are using e-cigarettes as an alternative to tobacco smoking. In doing so they are avoiding something like 4,000 chemicals, many of which are harmful and some of which cause cancer.
It's not a perfect system; but it's helping many people to finally quit smoking and using tobacco products. To ban it just doesn't make sense, unless there is some reason why the FDA wants people to keep smoking cigarettes...
Pages