Not my usual style for an article title, I know, but I couldn’t think of any other way to say this. Jenny McCarthy is now advertising for Blu e-cigarettes. Blu is owned by Lorillard, a major tobacco company.
“All the fun and none of the guilt of having a cigarette”, she says in one video. Yes, children, smoking is fun. And sexy. Smoke an e-cigarette and you can get a date.
Fun and sexy. Anyone else feel like we are watching an episode of Mad Men (a show about advertising in the 1960’s)?
After her stance on vaccines, Jenny McCarthy wouldn’t promote something that is toxic, right? Of course the health aspects have been tested, right?
Here’s a bit from the Blu FAQ.
Is blu better for me than traditional cigarettes?
blu liquid is made in the U.S. with domestic and imported ingredients by Johnson Creek Enterprises in Hartland Wisconsin; we maintain an organization that inspects product lines at all facilities daily. blu simulates the smoking experience without the tobacco smoke, ash and smell associated with traditional tobacco cigarettes. blu should not be used as a quit smoking device as it has not been approved by the FDA as a cessation device. blu eCigs are not a smoking cessation product and have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, nor are they intended to treat, prevent or cure any disease or condition.
Did you catch where they address the question of whether the health risks are reduced in e-cigarettes? That’s right, they didn’t. They didn’t point out that there are no safety studies. You know, long term health outcomes of the sort that Jenny McCarthy says are lacking in vaccine research making such research in her view — yes — tobacco science.
What’s in the “smoke juice” used in Blu? I didn’t find it easily on their website, but here’s what the manufacturer of the liquid says
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
“Propylene Glycol“. That’s a form of antifreeze. A form that has been approved by the FDA for some food uses. Ms. McCarthy and her team falsely claimed that vaccines contain “antifreeze”. It’s scary in vaccines but OK in an e-cigarette. Is propylene glycol scary? No. But there is heavy irony in her promoting a product using an antifreeze after using this term (falsely) as a scare tactic about vaccines.
Edit to add: The Blu website does include the ingredients and Propylene Glycol isn’t in them.
Ingredients: blu™ flavor cartridges are propylene glycol-free with six (6) key ingredients: distilled water, nicotine (when applicable), FCC grade vegetable glycerin, natural flavors, artificial flavors, and citric acid.
I’m so glad that they use high grade (USP Grade) nicotine. Only the best, right?
Here’s the proposition 65 warning on the Blu website;
| CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65 – Warning: This product contains nicotine, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.
I seem to recall Jenny McCarthy telling the story of how she locked herself in a hotel room so she could quit smoking when she learned she was pregnant. She believed that tobacco ingredients were harmful then. Now she’s selling a nicotine delivery system.
Jenny MCarthy is not new to promoting toxins. Back in her vaccine campaign heyday she touted the benefits of botox. In 2008 she only got a little bit (every two months). Now she’s “Team Botox“.
I will say, her move to promote e-cigarettes was unexpected. Which is different from saying I’m surprised. If someone had said, “do you think Jenny McCarthy would accept money to promote an e-cigarette nicotine delivery system”, I’d have said yes. Jenny McCarthy may not be consistent on her stories and beliefs, but she is consistent in promoting Jenny McCarthy and taking opportunities to make money.
—
By Matt Carey
Note–I posted an early draft of this article which contains errors. The original paragraph is below
“Propylene Glycol”. That would be the same substance used in vaccines that Ms. McCarthy and her team mislabelled “antifreeze”. It’s scary in vaccines but OK in an e-cigarette. Which do you think contains the greater exposure? (Hint, infants don’t carry packs of vaccines every day). Is propylene glycol scary? No. But there is heavy irony in her promoting a product using it after using this substance as a scare tactic about vaccines.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Since my father quit smoking in the mid-1960s when his dentist pointed out the first bits of mouth cancer, I have never been impressed with ingesting tobacco in any form. I have also come to the bias that a stick hanging out of someone’s mouth is repulsive and unattractive, and indicative of low intelligence.
Seeing her with a brown stick hanging out of her mouth is unattractive, and makes her look stupid.
As a smoker myself, I have to say, I don’t take lightly to someone insulting my intellect based solely on an addiction that I picked up before I was twenty and have struggled to drop for reasons that are unrelated to intellect. For example, being autistic, having a cigarette every hour almost obsessively has become routine. Compile that with the many stresses of the life of a reject a la autism, and trying to quit just adds one more that I have been unable to handle.
Perhaps, before I was twenty, I was less intelligent than I am now. But I have learned a lot since, and being a smoker does not make one unintelligent. No argument with repulsive and unattractive, and I try to keep my smoking away from non-smokers, but connecting it to intellect so absolutely is, ironically, not a good sign of your own.
Trust me, I reserve most of the intellect opinions to those who are under the age of twenty. But, still, the smart thing would be to quit. You are paying real money to inhale carcinogens into your lungs. I know it is hard, it took my stepmother twenty years to kick the habit.
At least you acknowledge why others object to it. My opinion is predicated by the actions of those after our company disallowed smoking in our office buildings. I actually walked behind someone who was trying to hide a lit cigarette in his cupped hand in the hallway. I went up to him and asked why he thought no one could smell the smoke wafting behind him.
And truthfully, no one with an ounce of cognitive capacity should have picked up the pricey stinking habit in the USA in the past twenty years.
Oh, and when you do finally quit smoking, you might become just like my father: one of the more militant against cigarette smoke. All you have to clear that toxic smoke from your body to realize what you have been missing.
By the way, should you think I am too cruel to smoking, we have had at least five smoking related deaths in our family. This includes a cousin who was in his early 40s, who died about a year after Health Canada removed his cancerous jaw.
Quit. There are several products to help you to quit that were not around when my stepmother finally quit almost forty years ago.
” But, still, the smart thing would be to quit. You are paying real money to inhale carcinogens into your lungs. I know it is hard, it took my stepmother twenty years to kick the habit.”
It’s not just hard, 50% of smokers die smoking, with 33-50% of smokers dying of smoking related disease.
“it took my stepmother twenty years to kick the habit.”
Case in point. There is hard data on smokeless tobacco’s relative risk over smoking, and the threshold is roughly 4 months of smoking equals roughly a lifetime of smokeless tobacco use. The FDA infers habitual NRP use must be as safe or safer, which is the justification for lifting the 12 week restriction on these products. Thus if she was using nicotine instead of cigarettes, the observation is typically either a reduction or elimination of the smoking habit.
“There are several products to help you to quit ”
Not really since the failure rate on NRPs is roughly 95% after 1 year in 12 week programs, which makes them only 50% better than useless. And the FDA lifted the 12 week restriction which means these products can be marketed for long term use.
And really nothing trumps counseling, but despite this cold turkey remains second only to death for popular cessation methods.
If we applied this logic to heroin users, the smart thing for heroin users to do would be to quit heroin. But it’s been observed telling heroin users to quit doesn’t have much of an effect, so we have methadone programs. Nicotine actually has a much better safety profile, and really smoking is so harmful there really is no right way to quit smoking.
E-cigerettes does not contain any tobbaco, just like nicarette chewing gum does not contain any tobacco so what are you talking about?
Who here said they contain tobacco? They contain a tobacco derivative and are marketed by tobacco companies.
They contain a substance more toxic than those which Jenny McCarthy used to scare people years back. In much higher doses. That’s hypocrisy and that’s what I’m talking about.
I don’t smoke E-cigarettes. I smoke normal cigarettes.
Don’t lecture me. You say you “reserve most of the intellect opinions to those who are under the age of twenty” and then assume I’m some kinda moron that doesn’t know that quitting would be good for me. It’d probably be the best thing that I ever did for myself. I’m thirty years old, I don’t need a lecture about my choices in life but if I did, I’m sure the only person with the right to give that would be my doctor or my mother. You’re neither.
I’m aware of the damage smoking does. I go out of my way to not smoke around my two youngest siblings who are both under the age of 18 and as a role model, the last thing I want is for them to take it up. I always say, the biggest mistake you can make as a smoker, is starting in the first place. I know this, from first hand experience. You say smokers are stupid, I say they’re learning an incredibly valuable lesson that non smokers will never know, and it’s not just related to smoking, but choices in general.
Unfortunately, regardless of my choices, the majority of people that have passed through my short life have treated me worse than the scum between they pick from between their toes, including you with your very condescending lecture. I get that, being autistic and all. When you combine that with acute comorbid depression, and the people you thought you could trust the most breaking promises and tossing you out like a piece of garbage, eventually you get to a point where you don’t give enough of a shit to even try to quit.
And frankly, I don’t want to quit. Like I said, it’s part of my routine now, and I’m quite attached to that routine. It’s comfortable. And until you’ve been in my shoes, and been through what I have, you’ll never understand that. And the same applies for any smoker you don’t know personally. Don’t fucking lecture us on our habit, it’s not your place and it’s not your responsibility. Most people who do it long term are WELL AWARE of the damage it is causing, even if they deny it.
Unless the smoker is an arsehole and they’re smoking in non-smoking areas or something, you then have the right to tell them to fuck off. You still don’t have the right to try to “save them”. Nobody quits unless they really decide to, not when someone else decides for them. Honestly, I don’t care how many smoking related deaths you’ve had in your family, it’s none of my concern and has nothing to do with me or my smoking, and it still doesn’t give you any more right to my personal life and choices than if you were the fucking pope/president/king/emperor.
Marty,
here’s a clue–this blog is primarily focused on disability. If you wish to use the term “moron” as a pejorative, you will do so elsewhere. I don’t have to deal with people stigmatizing my kid on my home turf.
Hi, I’m disabled. When someone talks down to me, disabled or not, they’re gonna cop it. People have talked down to me like an invalid all my life. How do you expect me to respond? I will use the term moron when the person I am addressing as such addresses me like an incompetent child. I don’t know who they’re related to, I don’t know why that should matter to me or my right to defend or stand up for myself. Here’s a thought, as long as you’re defending your children from stigmatization, why don’t you teach them what’s wrong with it. You want stigmatization? Read your child’s own words in their own comment.
“I have also come to the bias that a stick hanging out of someone’s mouth…is indicative of low intelligence.”
Read the condescending lecture I got. Good for you for defending your kids, but I’m entitled to my own defence no matter who the parent is, or who the person attacking me is.
“How do you expect me to respond?”
With respect for people with intellectual disability.
“I will use the term moron when the person I am addressing as such addresses me like an incompetent child.”
Then you will use the term elsewhere.
“, but I’m entitled to my own defence no matter who the parent is, or who the person attacking me is.”
You are entitled to defend yourself. You are not entitled to stigmatize others at the same time.
If you dislike how you are perceived as a smoker, you can correct that by quitting. It is all up to you. Either continue to pay tobacco or “e-cig” corporations you cash to inhale nicotine an other toxins into your lungs, or quit.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5935a3.htm…
You may believe it is enjoyable now as it is part of “your routine.” But you may enjoy life more when you get that financial/health chain removed from you system and actually are able to “smell the roses.” And that is a literal reference. Quit.
By the, despite your protestations (I never called you a moron) I am entitled to my opinions. And what is even better, I have the facts to back them up. Stop financing tobacco companies, injuring your health and your senses, quit smoking.
You know, every time someone who doesn’t know a damn about me lectures me on my health and choices, unless it’s my mother or doctor, it actually encourages me to do the complete opposite. I think I’ll keep smoking. In fact, I think, just in spite of you continuing this tirade, I’ll make a nice big donation to a tobacco company from the bottom of my heart.
Once again, you don’t get to lecture me. People who do it to my face get a faceful of smoke. Butt out, mind your business, so on and so forth.
“You know, every time someone who doesn’t know a damn about me lectures me on my health and choices, unless it’s my mother or doctor, it actually encourages me to do the complete opposite.”
Then you are a fool.
You aren’t being lectured. You are a fool is being told he is a fool. Go ahead and donate to a tobacco company. What is that supposed to prove? I’ve already established that you are a fool. Where a fool parts with his money is not my concern.
“They contain a tobacco derivative and are marketed by tobacco companies.”
Nice splitting hairs there too. The bulk of your complains regarding e-cigarettes, chiefly Gummy Bear and Cotton Candy is NOT marketed by a tobacco company. Even Blu, they’re not a tobacco company. They’re owned by Lorillard, but this is called equivocation. Even then, does Blu offer Gummy Bear or Cotton Candy? No? And who’s the other tobacco company marketing Vuze (or is it Vuse). Isn’t that RJR? Do they have a Gummy Bear? No, just Tobacco?
FAIL
Sorry, when did I restrict myself to tobacco companies? Answer, I didn’t. Stop with the straw men.
And, don’t claim others are splitting hairs and then claim that just because Blu is a subsidiary of a tobacco company, which sells a product derived from tobacco, they aren’t a tobacco company. What a logical pretzel you’ve wound.
Unfortunately, people think of ‘giving up smoking’ as losing something. IF you feel you can’t quit, change your brand – you smoke menthol? Get regular. You smoke regular? Smoke menthol. The cheapest, strongest tasting opposite brand – and then see if you can’t stop. You aren’t a robot. You can quit when you choose to quit. I’m an ex-smoker. I didn’t quit on my first time trying but now it’s been 3 years. I gained by quitting, didn’t lose a thing. I gain my time back from a habit that was slowly killing me and controlling me.
The bulk of “our complaints” are not the flavours. They wouldn’t have even been an issue if you and the other almighty faux fag defenders didn’t have your knickers in such a knot derailing the topic. And pssst, Lorillard is a tobacco company; why they even call themselves that. And honestly, because they don’t have specifically “Gummi Bear” or “Cotton Candy” they’re just upstanding, ethical manufacturers with the public interest in mind? Fail is right, but yours yet again.
Okay, firstly I’m going to totally agree with your assertion of irony. Yes, e-cigarettes are a harm reduction product, much like vaccines are a harm reduction product, except present estimates cite vaccines as superior in reducing harm. However there is some fallacious information which I will address.
“Yes, e-cigarettes are a harm reduction product”
Who are you agreeing with? I never said not implied this.
Will someone please look at her tits and tell her she’s pretty so she can go back to her old ways of satisfying her narcissism? Lie as much as you need, it’s for the public good.
I can imagine Jenny shilling for the NRA – wearing a cowboy hat and boots, chaps and holsters, holding up a six-shooter in each hand, saying, “Show me the Money!”
Didn’t Ms. McCarthy admit to smoking, drinking alcohol and a diet of junk food while pregnant? Not to mention her monthly dye jobs. It is a desperate lot that would consider her a spokesperson for their cause.
Nice info digging, Matt, esp on what’s in that “juice” and the parent company being a tobacco company. I’ve seen teens using these e-cigs more and more in the last year, and (1) I don’t think they are “safe” or “safer, and (2) I believe it will probably pull a lot of kids into regular tobacco use, where the addiction will be a lot harder to break.
Let’s see if Dr. Jay Gordon weighs in on his favorite celebrity mom’s latest harmful habit, which still would cause constriction of placental blood vessels should McCarthy become pregnant and while using these e-cigs (which would presumably go against Dr. Jay’s advice in his “preventing autism” book). Something tells me Dr. Jay will reach deep down inside himself (which would be a few angstroms at best) and find the strength to look the other way on this, like he has with vaccines.
Except it’s a false assertion. Blu’s product is vegetable Glycerin based without propylene glycol. Johnson Creek does sell roughly 11 flavors with PG, and 13 without PG.
I would cite my source but I get an error when I try so just google “Blu propylene glycol”
“”All of the flavors Johnson Creek produces for blu are Vegetable Glycerin based which in itself produces a greater amount of vapor compared to a Propylene Glycol based product.” –wiki (dot) blucigs (dot) com.
Noted and corrected.
So, about that Prop 65 warning on nicotine? And “all the fun of smoking” statement? I’m sure you’ve got prepared answers to those. What’s taking you so long?
“So, about that Prop 65 warning on nicotine? And “all the fun of smoking” statement? I’m sure you’ve got prepared answers to those. What’s taking you so long?”
Um, I have a life, and actually I tripped your website’s span censor when I addressed this before. Turns out citing blu’s website does this. And no, I don’t have prepared answers, nice poising the well fallacy there.
Prop 65 is a legal requirement in Cali, it’s not based on any scientific evidence. Case in point, nicotine gum is required to carry this warning with 2-4mg/piece. You can buy nicotine at 40% concentration and it’s exempt under Prop 65 even if a farmer puts it on his produce. Legislators sometimes pass laws without a objective scientific basis, like one attempt to ban Di-hydrogen Dioxide pollution.
Ironically there is NO long term data on NRPs, and doctors have long since been suggesting them beyond 12 week programs. So how could the FDA approve the long term use of nicotine without data specifically on this product.
Click to access UCM232147.pdf
The data is inferred, since smokeless tobacco carries low relative risks to smoking, NRPs must be as safe or safer.
So the FDA lifted the 12 week restriction, without clinical trials, based on research that shows no increase in common cancers though Swedish oral tobacco use. And observation trumps speculation, and a warning that something only causes cancer in California.
So the argument is the FDA considers habitual nicotine use to be safe, or at least a net win if it mitigates a smoking habit, but somehow the same product causes cancer in California?
Don’t try the various argumentation fallacy claims. I know them and I can see you are misusing them. I also see you making fallacious arguments, such as the straw man.
Your name pops up all over the place in discussions of e-cigarettes. Claiming that you’ve already got an answer to the safety question of nicotine is not invoking a fallacy but a simple acknowledgement that you partake in these discussions a great deal. Having done so, you must have faced the question of e-cigarettes as a nicotine delivery system before.
While there is less support for asking you to come up with a pat answer to the question of Jenny McCarthy’s claim that smoking is fun in specific, the general sales pitch of selling smoking and e-cigarettes as fun, sexy, etc. also must have been addressed in your previous discussions.
“The data is inferred, since smokeless tobacco carries low relative risks to smoking, NRPs must be as safe or safer.”
Once again, you set a very low bar for yourself. Asserting that the product you are defending is safer than smoking tobacco is not compelling. I’d love to see Jenny McCarthy in the ad saying, “Hey, it can’t be worse than actually smoking!” There’s a reason why that isn’t in the sales pitch.
“And observation trumps speculation, and a warning that something only causes cancer in California.”
Seriously? “Only causes cancer in California”? First off, if it causes cancer here, it causes it everywhere. Second, READ the warning. It doesn’t say cancer. Prop 65 is a reproductive harm warning bill. I quoted it above.f
“Di-hydrogen Dioxide pollution”
Don’t play the pseudo scientist humor games with me. Especially after you just mistook reproductive harm for cancer causing.
Nicotine: “EFFECTS OF CHRONIC OR REPEATED EXPOSURE: Nicotine is a teratogen (capable of causing birth defects)”. From the CDC. I can find some pubmed abstracts if you like.
“Prop 65 is a legal requirement in Cali, it’s not based on any scientific evidence.”
Well, since you said this.
Together, these findings indicate that smoking cessation is associated with reduced risk of having children with academic and neuropsychological difficulties. These outcomes are discussed within the framework that nicotine may be a neurobehavioral teratogen.
Although not the only constituent of tobacco smoke, there is now abundant evidence that nicotine is a neural teratogen. Thus, alternatives to NRT should be sought as tobacco cessation treatments in pregnant women.
The study design provides a model system for studying the mechanism(s) responsible for the decline in central nervous system function following prenatal nicotine exposure, as well as that of other neurological and behavioral teratogens during pregnancy.
So, willing to retract your statement that “Prop 65 is a legal requirement in Cali, it’s not based on any scientific evidence.”? If not, please just go away. You’ve wasted enough of my time.
See what happened. You made me start looking up e-cigarettes in pubmed.
Metal and silicate particles including nanoparticles are present in electronic cigarette cartomizer fluid and aerosol.
Wow. Metal particles in the vapor.
Good job. You took someone who was neutral on e-cigs and made him find out that (a) their proponents are dishonest and (b) there are problems I never even considered with them.
And now other readers here are finding this information too.
See, even citing the FDA’s website triggers a moderation flag.
Now you claim to know how this blog moderates comments. Interesting. And wrong.
“Your name pops up all over the place in discussions of e-cigarettes. ”
Yes, and vaccines too.
“Once again, you set a very low bar for yourself. Asserting that the product you are defending is safer than smoking tobacco is not compelling”
You’re being dishonest, that is the central claim. People who smoke typically smoke until death, so not smoking is good, thus an alternative product less harmful is good.
“Seriously? “Only causes cancer in California”? ”
Nice cherry picking. Only known to cause cancer in California.
“Prop 65 is a legal requirement in Cali, it’s not based on any scientific evidence.”
Given I cited FDA research on the role of birth defects, I totally fail on this front.
“This product contains nicotine, a chemical known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Totally true statement. Not in dispute.
“This product contains nicotine, a chemical known to the State of California to cause CANCER”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Legal requirement, not based on evidence.
The only point I failed on is NRPs have been except from the CANCER line since 2004. Nicotine is not known to contribute to cancer.
FAIL
“The only point I failed on is NRPs have been except from the CANCER line since 2004. Nicotine is not known to contribute to cancer.”
I never said it did. Hence the strawman argument on your part.
I dont think that anyone in the ecig industry is trying to entice kiddies to try them. Not at all. The products market is aimed at smokers, people who are dependent on nicotine and would like an effective healthier alternative.
At the present time (according to cancer research website) Every year around 157000 children aged 11-15 start smoking tobacco cigarettes. Tobacco cigarettes are not going anywhere and those that start smoking due to peer pressure are going to continue to do so.
Obviously the ideal would be that kids were not to start smoking, however despite billions of dollars spent on research and campaigns to stop such, even today every day 1000s of kids do start smoking tobacco cigarettes. Surely in a world where the ideal is hard to attain, it is better to support the ecig industry that will later on give such kids an escape route, than to malign it and so give such kids no alternative later in life, once they realise their mistake.
I have to disagree Clare. Have you seen the flavours that e-cig companies offer? It really does appear to be marketed toward a younger crowd in part. I personally don’t think e-cigs are the devil’s spawn and don’t appear to be as much or more harmful than tobacco products but I’ll certainly reserve the right to say otherwise as more evidence arises.
I find Ms. McCarthy’s hawking of them downright hypocritical given her positions on “teh evil toxins” in vaccines and caterwauling about safety studies but fine to suck on a magic juice stick with no safety studies and shoot herself up with one of the planet’s most potent neurotoxins for vanity.
Jenny McCarthy doesn’t say “e-cigs” are fun, she says smoking g is fun (all the fun with one of the guilt. Because there’s no guilt in making people addicted to nicotine).
To be clear, she does say that smoking tobacco is not sexy, while selling e-cigs as sexy.
The company that Ms. McCarthy is working for doesn’t seem to have a lot of kiddie flavors. But others have bubble gum, gummi bear and other flavors
http://vapingzone.com/search-results.php?keyword=bubble%20gum×tamp=1376234690
Regards the flavours… it is not that once you pass 18 years old people only want tasteless stuff. Adults also demand taste and variety of flavours and that is why the flavours are there. Not to attract kids, but to satisfy mature taste buds.
I think that using terminology such as “shooting up” is a little out of place when speaking of nicotine. Generally that trem is used in association with illegal class A drugs, not substances such as nicotine.
Nicotine is a naturally occuring plant substance. It is not only found in the tobacco plant, it is also found in egg plants, tomatoes, peppers and various other veg.
When it is in its pure, neat form, it is extremely toxic. However it is extremely diluted in e liquid and in such a diluted form, it has a very mild effect, like caffeine does.
I think it is important not to automatically assign all the negative information about tobacco smoke, onto e cig vapour. As the two are very different things.
Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 harmful chemicals, many of which are carcinogenic. Ecig vapour contains propylene glycol (the medium used in asthma inhalers to transport the medication to the lungs, well tried and tested for safety) and very dilute quantities of nicotine. Nicotine is not known to be carcinogenic.
Ecigs have been in use for over 7 years with no adverse effects yet reported by the millions of ex smokers who have found them a great help to stay off tobacco smoking. there are also quite a few studies online about the effects, here is just 1 such recent report http://antithrlies.com/2013/08/08/breaking-news-new-study-shows-no-risk-from-e-cigarette-contaminants/
Someone whose URL is http://www.eliquidlabs.co.uk says e-cigs are OK. Great.
I’m sure you have an answer for everything. do you have an answer for whether Jenny McCarthy is a hypocrite for promoting a nicotine delivery system given her zero tolerance stance on toxins?
I’ll let you pass on commenting on her assertion that smoking is fun. Not e-cig smoking. Regular smoking is “fun”. Given your own comments about the number of toxic substances in tobacco smoke, you aren’t in a good position to defend that.
first, we have different definitions of “no adverse affects yet reported”. It took me less than 60s to find this:
Health-Related Effects Reported by Electronic Cigarette Users in Online Forums
http://www.jmir.org/2013/4/e59/
Second, Blu has a warning letter from the FDA for their previous claims that e-cigs help people get off cigarettes. Perhaps you might want to be more careful about the claims you make.
Science Mom,
per the MSDS, nicotine is more toxic than thimerosal. But, hey, smoking is fun, right? Vaccines? Preventing disease, where’s the fun in that?
“It really does appear to be marketed toward a younger crowd in part. ”
Have you seen the flavors pipe tobacco is offered in? It’s a good deal cheaper than smoking, but we don’t see teens with corn cob pipes, well, except for a token “tried it” around ~5% of teen smokers. One can’t imply that cupcake flavored vodka is targeted to a “younger crowd” simply because it’s flavored as we know mixed drinks are popular among adults.
It’s interesting the teen demographic who smoke consider e-cigarettes to be “robot dicks” with the typical demographic being ~40 years old, present day smoker.
Great, so both e-cigarettes and regular tobacco have products attractive to young users.
Nice to know that 40 year olds feel so free to puff on gummi bear and bubble gum flavors.
“Blu has a warning letter from the FDA for their previous claims that e-cigs help people get off cigarettes. Perhaps you might want to be more careful about the claims you make.”
Maybe you need to be more careful about the claims you make. Sure Sept 2010 tons of companies were sent warning letters, even Blu. But if I recall correctly there was also the claim that Diethylene Glycol was detected in e-liquid which we can say for a fact Blu doesn’t use propylene glycol, and it was established by Judge Leon that Blu overstepped their authority. Maybe if you can produce this letter we can actually see the claims made, and if those claims are valid. Until this is done, and given the court ruling, such letters are not in themselves evidence.
They also sent a letter to Cixi making the same diethylene glycol claim, but they lost the samples and the labs for this product. I’m not going to defend Cixi, but a warning letter by the FDA doesn’t qualify as evidence. The labs and screen shots would be evidence.
“Maybe you need to be more careful about the claims you make”
Why? The statements that follow this in your comment have nothing to do with what I said. If you want to go defend e-cigarettes, there are (as you well know) many venues to do so. My statement was on topic. Yours is not. I don’t need to defend myself against statements I didn’t make.
Funny, the only time Diethylene Glycol is mentioned in this FDA letter is in a statement by Johnson Creek pointing out that they don’t use it.
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2010/ucm225206.htm
I have no idea why you decided to defend this point here as no one brought it up but you. But, let’s assume that the FDA took on Blu for the false claim that they include diethylene glycol. Does that mean that they were wrong about the promotion of e-cigarettes as a way to avoid smoking tobacco?
“Great, so both e-cigarettes and regular tobacco have products attractive to young users.”
Again, pipe tobacco has had these flavors for decades. Cherry specifically over 2 centuries. You’ve obviously never been in a tobacconist, even a modest one like the Tinderbox.
The point you’re missing despite the so called fun flavors, we don’t see teen use of pipes, with maybe 5% of teen smokers “tried” a pipe.
“Nice to know that 40 year olds feel so free to puff on gummi bear and bubble gum flavors.”
“Cotton Candy, Buttered Popcorn, Key Lime Pie, Whipped Cream, Rainbow Sorbet, Cupcake, Regular Cake, Glazed Doughnut, Maple Bacon, Blueberry Pancake, Icy Mint, Passionfruit, Coconut, Ginger Anise, Pumpkin Pie” just some of the flavors Vodka is available in, as well as e-cigarettes. The common factor is this is what flavoring comes in.
http://ejuiceconnoisseur.com/2013/08/10/double-standard-much/
And FWIW I love gummi bears as an adult.
Do you see how unconvincing your arguments are? You lack substance and data. A lot of your impressions.
People like you lost the lawsuit over Joe Camel.
“Fun flavors”. Really? Don’t speak tho loudly in your forums. The echo chamber will cause hearing loss.
E-cig companies can only offer tobacco or menthol flavors, by law. I think you’re thinking of vendors who make juice for personal vaporizers — they use all kinds of flavors. Not sure how offering candy flavors is necessarily “market[ing] toward a younger crowd.” Adults don’t buy and eat candy?
Seriously, find another counter argument. This is so plainly misleading.
“Adults don’t buy and eat candy?”
Yeah, I remember as a kid having to push my way past all sorts of adults to get to what I wanted at the candy store…
Yes, adults eat candy. But, seriously, do kids prefer candy or something that tastes like tobacco? Also, leave aside kids, it doesn’t serve the argument that e-cigs are an alternative to tobacco. “I’m a smoker, but I figured I’d put down the tobacco and pick up a cotton candy e-cig as a replacement”. Right.
Seriously, guys, you are doing more harm than good for your cause. Before today I didn’t realize that only now are bans being put into place of sales of e-cigarettes to minors. And I’m supposed to believe that no one manufacturing “fun flavors” ever thought of the younger audience?
I’m sure you guys already have the prepared answers to the news in Utah that kids and young adults are trying them?
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705397994/Utah-children-are-experimenting-with-e-cigarettes.html?pg=all
Oh, but they think they are “robot dicks”, right?
Previous comment here:
“Yes, adults eat candy.”
Glad you concede the point.
“But, seriously, do kids prefer candy or something that tastes like tobacco? ”
Here’s the paradox since kids (teens) overwhelmingly choose tobacco, either traditional flavored, or methanol. Kids don’t smoke pipes to any statistical degree, kids don’t opt for roll your own with flavors like peach, sassafras, chocolate, or apple despite being able to get them for ~$20/carton thanks to low loose tobacco taxes. Kids (teens) smoke cigarettes to the rate of roughly 2 for every smoker who dies. I’m sorry if you can’t accept a high teen smoking rate, you’re not paying attention.
To nail your argument in the cough’in NRPs are available in “fun flavors” yet you don’t claim they’re targeting kids.
“it doesn’t serve the argument that e-cigs are an alternative to tobacco.”
No, they’re an alternative to SMOKING. Tobacco doesn’t equal smoking.
“I’m a smoker, but I figured I’d put down the tobacco and pick up a cotton candy e-cig as a replacement”. Right.”
Yet here we have a billion dollar industry and adults by the millions doing exactly that. This form of argumentation is known as an appeal to ridicule. The fact of the matter is it’s hard to replicate “tobacco” flavors, and there is a whole industry of food grade flavorings from the likes of Capella, Flavor Art, Lorann, Perfumer’s Apprentice. And it’s not happening to a small degree, there is a correlation between e-cigarette uptake and people not buying cigarettes.
And logically it makes sense, as you concede tobacco tastes bad, and candy tastes good. E-cigarettes taste better than cigarettes, and it serves the utility of a pleasant alternative. Thus the smoker going back to cigarettes is disgusted. And contrary to your believe, we DON’T see a huge kid (teen) uptake.
I haven’t asserted that there is a huge kid uptake. I have linked to a story noting that there is some uptake among kids in Utah. I searched for information on that after you tried to obfuscate the question of whether kids are involved with e-cigs at all with patently transparent arguments. I see you haven’t commented on the story from Utah. Surely you’ve already prepared an answer to that story.
“I’m sorry if you can’t accept a high teen smoking rate, you’re not paying attention.”
Nice straw man argument. You keep doing that.
You do a lot of hand waving. With such clear logical gaps that you invite people to do their own research. And it isn’t going well for you in my case, I can assure you. You’ve taken someone who didn’t give this industry a second thought and made him do some reading. And I don’t like what I see.
“This form of argumentation is known as an appeal to ridicule.”
No. This is reduction to the absurd. The arguments of you and your colleague are absurd. It’s not my fault for pointing it out.
“I have linked to a story noting that there is some uptake among kids in Utah.”
Didn’t see it.
“I see you haven’t commented on the story from Utah. Surely you’ve already prepared an answer to that story.”
Again with the poising the well fallacy. If you mean I research the issue unlike you, sure.
Right-o, the claim was e-cigarette uptake with high in Utah according to the public health department, yet those numbers were not published. That’s a bit odd, an important survey used as evidence to promote an indoor use ban. And it’s double odd a state with a VERY low teen smoking rate somehow represented a high percent of the e-cigarette market.
I’ll have to get someone else who knows the Utah details better than I, but the “Youth Tobacco Survey” (YTS) doesn’t cover e-cigarette habitual use, only “ever tried it”
In future, Google is no substitute for research.
What, you are ignoring the other half of this conversation? You don’t read what others write in online discussions?
What are you doing, then? Just trolling the internet to raise the noise level on any discussion that is in the slightest way negative towards your topic?
“Again with the poising the well fallacy. If you mean I research the issue unlike you, sure.”
Nope. As already noted, you spend a lot of time on this subject. And your facebook link says you are from Utah. So you can find an obscure autism blog to carry on your discussion but you ignore data and news from your own state?
“That’s a bit odd, an important survey used as evidence to promote an indoor use ban. ”
Funny, you didn’t know about it. Now it’s an important survey used as evidence to promote an indoor use ban…in your own state…
“In future, Google is no substitute for research.”
I’ve seen zero research from you. Just opinions. I’ve also brought in pubmed. Which is also rebutting a lot of your claims.
Your last comment was too crude to approve. Have a nice day.
“Didn’t see it”
So, someone named MattZuke commented twice on this
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/705397994/Utah-children-are-experimenting-with-e-cigarettes.html?pg=all?ref=https://www.google.com/
That’s not you?
You seem to be skipping responding to this question as well.
Also, you did have pat answers to the subject of the survey in Utah. Funny, you act indignant that I predicted you would, and then you did. You claimed it is invalid because it hasn’t been published. And, yet, you’ve seen the data. Because the CDC publishes to their own website. You claim it’s invalid because:
“And it’s double odd a state with a VERY low teen smoking rate somehow represented a high percent of the e-cigarette market.”
Utah is, of course, a state with a large LDS population. The LDS church discourages tobacco use. What was their position, if any, on e-cigarettes? A strict reading would be that the nicotine containing versions should be avoided, I would imagine. But have they actually made any statement? If not, wouldn’t it be unsurprising that kids who are restricted from tobacco use would be inclined to e-cigarettes? Or, just that they are using the e-cigarettes which don’t use nicotine?
As to your statement:
In a short period of time you went from not knowing this to being familiar. That said, the National Youth Tobacco Survey does cover more than “just tried it”. Just tried it is question 36. Have used it more is question 37.
The Survey asks kids if they have ever tried tobacco in a pipe, which is yes 7.8%. 3.5% smoked during the past month. And yet you tell us that kids don’t smoke pipes. You are likely gearing up to call this a “token” amount and downplay it. But given that in the same question about 10% of kids said that they smoked cigarettes in the past month (question 13), we are talking about only 1/3 of the size of the youth cigarette smoking population. I.e. it is a large group by comparison.
Now, let’s use that 10% benchmark (the fraction of youth smoking cigarettes in the past month) as a benchmark so no one dismisses apparently small numbers as “tokens”, shall we?
Kids who tried flavored cigarettes: 9.5%
Flavored little cigars: 8.0%
3.9% admit to using flavored cigarettes on 1 or more days in the past month.
3.1% admit to using flavored little cigars on 1 or more days.
So, out of the 10% who smoked cigarettes in the past month, 40% of those youth smoked flavored cigarettes.
If you are going to try to convince me that offering flavors doesn’t influence kids to smoke, try harder. Use data.
e-cigarettes–
3% had tried them, 1% at least one day in the past month (that question 37 that slipped your mind).
So, the population using e-cigarettes in the past month (in 2011, one can reasonably assume that interest has climbed) was 1/10 of those smoking regular cigarettes. Not a “token”. Small.
In 2011, 6% of adults had tried e-cigarettes
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/tobacco/one-fifth-of-adult-smokers-in-united-states-have-used-e-cigarettes-cdc
So, 6% of adults had tried them and 3% of youth have tried them. The percentage of youth is only 1/2 that of adults. That’s no token amount. Nice how you give half the data and make it seem like it’s small.
And, what was the number in your home state?
“Nearly 8 percent of Utah’s twelfth-graders reported they had experimented with e-cigarettes and 3 percent had used them in the past 30 day”
Play with the numbers all you want. Tell us you know the facts and then forget key parts (that whole question 37 thing). You are not doing your cause any service with your dishonesty.
I apologize for the dishonesty statement. But your arguments are not doing your cause a service.
“Your last comment was too crude to approve. Have a nice day.”
In other words you can’t refute the argument so you’re ignoring it.
“No. This is reduction to the absurd. The arguments of you and your colleague are absurd. It’s not my fault for pointing it out.”
Colleague? Don’t know them, it’s not a conspiracy.
You’re just projecting here, let’s review your argument.
1) Kids like candy
2) Tobacco is yucky
3) Tobacco that takes like candy targets kids.
Yet kids do smoke, so while your assertion (2) is true, it’s also has no logical bearing on teen smoking. Teens overwhelmingly pick up CIGARETTES at a rate of roughly 2:1 for every smoker who dies. And if your assertion was true, pipe tobacco would be FAR more popular since it comes in “fun candy” flavors. And nicotine gum too, fruit wave and fruit chill?
Adults ARE using e-cigarettes, and yes adults are excited about gummy bear flavored e-liquid. Kids are not excited what they describe as “robot dicks”.
Observation trumps speculation.
Nope. It was crude. I don’t have to approve crude comments.
Colleague was tongue in cheek. Humor. Deal with it.
I never said tobacco is yucky. You once again resort to a straw man.
Your speculation is elevated to “observation”. Got it.
Pubmed trumps your speculation.
Gee, you are back to relying on “robot dicks”. That’s your idea of “observation”? Anecdote at best.
“So, someone named MattZuke commented twice on this”
Nice splitting hairs. Sure I totally saw this LAST YEAR. I didn’t see your link to it.
“Nearly 8 percent of Utah’s twelfth-graders reported they had experimented with e-cigarettes and 3 percent had used them in the past 30 days, according to a 2011 Utah Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health survey”
Yet that information wasn’t published in the Utah Division SAMH. And it’s doubly odd since Utah has a low smoking rate. In fact none of these claims have been verified.
Maybe you should be investigating the facts and not people who disagree with 😛
Not splitting hairs (you over use that term, in my opinion).
If you want to say I misinterpreted your statement of “I didn’t see it” as “I didn’t see the link you provided” rather than “I didn’t see the story”, you have a place to start. Otherwise, this is just silly
As I’ve already noted, I wonder if the conditions which may be causing the low smoking rate in Utah would also support a higher rate of trial of e-cigs.
“The Survey asks kids if they have ever tried tobacco in a pipe, which is yes 7.8%. 3.5% smoked during the past month. And yet you tell us that kids don’t smoke pipes”
Again, nice lie. I said EXCEPT A TOKEN 5% WHO HAVE TRIED IT. One survey citing 7.8% would be splitting hairs.
PUTTING THINGS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS DOES NOT MAKE THE STATEMENT TRUE.
I’m calling out you claim that the percentages for pipe smoking and for flavored tobacco smoking of other sorts is not “token”. You only gave part of the information, leading to a misleading conclusion.
You neglected to give information on flavored tobacco smoking of methods other than pipes.
Second, by your accounting, all cigarette smoking by minors amounts to a “token” because the numbers are much less than 100% of the total population.
The fact is that kids are trying e-cigs at a rate lower but comparable to adults. Not token. The fact is that kids are trying e-cigs at a rate that is a substantial fraction of the rate that they are trying regular cigarettes. Not token.
Your “token” comments were misleading.
“Nope. It was crude. I don’t have to approve crude comments.”
You’re being dishonest. It was not crude at all, I specifically went out of my way to deal with the courtship ritual without being crude. So epic fail there.
“Colleague was tongue in cheek. Humor. Deal with it.”
No, appeal to ridicule, fail.
“I never said tobacco is yucky. You once again resort to a straw man.”
Liar, you suggested that “fun flavors” are for kids since kids NEVER USE TOBACCO. This implies that tobacco is no fun. So fine, I’ll say NO FUN from now on just so you can’t accuse me (incorrectly) of a strawman.
“Your speculation is elevated to “observation”. Got it.”
Again, you’re just projecting. You cite teen use of certain products at ~5%, and you SPECULATE since some used them in the past 30 days according to the survey this equals HABITUAL USE. FAIL
“Pubmed trumps your speculation.”
Hold on, surveys and your speculation somehow equal empirical evidence? FAIL FAIL FAIL
“Gee, you are back to relying on “robot dicks”. That’s your idea of “observation”? Anecdote at best.”
Let’s review you’re logic shall we?
E-cigarette companies have candy flavors. Kids like candy, so e-cigarette companies are targeting kids. That’s not even anecdotal evidence, that’s pure speculation. Yet we don’t see these products where teens buy real cigarettes, but we do see these flavors on websites that sell to people with credit cards.
Top 5 flavors from {Sleazy} e-juice company. Maxiboro, Tiger’s Blood, Toasted Marshmallow, Bitchin Birdy, Turkish. I totally don’t endorse this company, quite the reverse. But unless kids are borrowing a credit card, observation trumps your speculation.
FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
“Hold on, surveys and your speculation somehow equal empirical evidence? FAIL FAIL FAIL”
What sort of games are you playing? Follow the pubmed links I’ve provided. Not speculation.
You present your opinions without data. Your opinions have repeatedly been shown to be false, using data. CDC data. Pubmed data. And you play internet debate man and claim some sort of playground victory? Grow up.
If you can’t keep up with what’s been posted in the discussion, leave.
“E-cigarette companies have candy flavors. Kids like candy, so e-cigarette companies are targeting kids. That’s not even anecdotal evidence, that’s pure speculation.”
How about your argument? Kids don’t smoke pipes. Therefore they don’t partake of flavors. Anectdotes. Refuted by data and evidence.
Don’t ask for a higher standard of evidence than you are capable or willing to provide.
I really hope you are better at discussing vaccines than you are tobacco.
“Liar, you suggested that “fun flavors” are for kids since kids NEVER USE TOBACCO”
Really? Where did I say kids never use tobacco (with or without leaning on my caps lock key)? Oh, that’s right, I didn’t. I provided data showing that kids smoke all sorts of tobacco.
I usually look at URL’s and I didn’t in your case, nice catch Sullivan. You aren’t exactly an unbiased reporter here are you Clare? So tell me, what sophisticated smokers’ tastes are inclined towards “Gummi Bear”, “Bubble Gum”, “Vanilla”, “Chocolate”, “Pina Colada” and “Peach Snapps”?
I was referring to her Botox habit; it’s injected intradermally.
Pretty weak sauce and shown to be incorrect. The e-cig industry initially made the claim that they were a smoking cessastion device. But regulatory agencies wanted proper safety and efficacy trials given that pharmaceutical device claims were being made. Rather than do that, the industry dropped that claim and announced they are a “smoking alternative”. You don’t get to make this claim because you don’t have any trials to back you up.
Instead of shilling your products, stick to the topic which is the hypocrisy of promoting products for money while simultaneously decrying their toxicity.
“The e-cig industry initially made the claim that they were a smoking cessastion device.”
That’s a lie. The claim was it was an alternative product. That was the design and function, for people who like to smoke.
“But regulatory agencies wanted proper safety and efficacy trials given that pharmaceutical device claims were being made.”
Patently false. The claim was it was an alternative product, but the FDA banned imports under the presumption it was a cessation device/drug. This assertion was overruled by Judge Leon who asserted they are no more a drug delivery system than cigarettes. The FDA got slapped.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2010-01-15/news/36777602_1_nicotine-mixture-electronic-cigarettes-e-cigarettes
More interesting the designer worked for a pharmaceutical company, and spent big bucks conducting safety tests (HealthNZ) which the FDA promptly ignored.
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2010/ucm225206.htm
including statements like
“E-Smoking vs. Cigarette Smoking … To many who take up e-smoking, it completely takes over for regular cigarette smoking. In fact many report never picking up a cigarette again after starting to e-smoke …”
and
“A Letter From the Founder … For the past six months, we’ve been working tirelessly creating a formula that actually produces more vapor, more throat hit … yet also happens to use fewer ingredients and is 100% tobacco-free! … Comments … August 2, 2009 at 3:22 pm . .. I smoked for 40 years and was unable to quit until I purchased my first e-cigarette. I have not had a tobacco cigarette for over 3 months, and I no longer have any desire to have one!””
Again, if your goal is to show that something is not as bad as regular tobacco smoking, you’ve set yourself a low bar.
“The e-cig industry initially made the claim that they were a smoking cessastion device.”
No, the FDA issued warning letters to companies because they were making claims of smoking cessation without the regulatory approval to do so. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm225224.htm
Just because the e-cig manufacturers made a successful legal argument, doesn’t exonerate them from making false claims. Your link doesn’t support your claim at all.
For this to be relevant you need to provide the evidence that appropriate clinical trials were conducted to support the claim a.)e-cigs are a safe alternative to tobacco products and b.)e-cigs are a smoking cessation device.
“No, the FDA issued warning letters to companies because they were making claims of smoking cessation without the regulatory approval to do so.”
No, that’s a total lie. Sure they sent out letters, but it was ruled in court e-cigarettes are not a cessation product.
“To many who take up e-smoking, it completely takes over for regular cigarette smoking.”
This was ruled as not a cessation claim. The FDA was slapped for overstepping their authority. It’s a bit like asserting using one can’t smoke by using scuba gear. It’s not a cessation claim.
“For this to be relevant you need to provide the evidence that appropriate clinical trials were conducted to support the claim”
Except e-cigarettes were ruled no more a drug delivery device as cigarettes, and as cigarettes are legal, e-cigarettes are legal. As such the claim to replace smoking isn’t a medical claim. Never returning to cigarettes or nicotine would be a medical claim.
It’s patently easy to understand.
If it’s so easy to understand, why did you just misrepresent the facts.
Reread your statement. The FDA issued the letters. Whether there were court actions later doesn’t erase that.
I’m not sure why you e-cig fans decided to descend on this article. Frankly you took me (someone who could care less about e-cigs) and made me aware that e-cig fans share a lot in common with vaccine skeptics.
I see a lot of apologist actions avoiding the strong possibility that flavors are creates targeting a younger audience. Your compatriot asserted that there are no reports of adverse events with e-cigs, ands when that was proved false did some fancy backpedaling.
It’s much like the Streisand effect. You’ve created a problem that wasn’t there. The statement that Jenny McCarthy is a hypocrite for promoting e-cigs doesn’t have any impact on you, but you chose to dig in and defend against an attack that didn’t exist.
Here’s the FDA’s current page on e-cigs. I don’t see them retracting any statements.
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm172906.htm
If others here are like me, you’ve taken a group who didn’t care about e-cigs and created an negative image of the product for them.
Nice work.
“No, the FDA issued warning letters to companies because they were making claims of smoking cessation without the regulatory approval to do so.”
“To many who take up e-smoking, it completely takes over for regular cigarette smoking.”
You have yet to demonstrate that this was a lie. The FDA didn’t issue warning letters because several e-cig companies didn’t make the claim. Again, just because e-cig manufacturers changed their game plan and won a legal decision doesn’t change the fact that they did make direct smoking cessation claims and continue to wink-wink-nudge-nudge it.
“For this to be relevant you need to provide the evidence that appropriate clinical trials were conducted to support the claim”
You said this which is what my response was to:
You don’t even address this. Who cares if some safety studies were carried out in NZ (which you haven’t even provided); there is nothing for the FDA to ignore unless those safety studies were for the express intent of licensing e-cigs as smoking cessation devices. Since e-cigs don’t fall under the auspices of FDA regulation it is a vapid claim.
Then why are you having so much difficulty?
Sullivan is absolutely right; this blogpost was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Jenny McCarthy shilling for e-cigs. But ZOMG mention that some flavours appear to be marketed to a youth demographic and the apologists/rabid vapers come swooping in. If e-cigs were catering to “mature, sophisticated tastes” then why not cognac and truffles instead of butterscotch and cotton candy? What measures is the e-cig industry taking to ensure that their products are not sold to minors? Right, none.
“What measures is the e-cig industry taking to ensure that their products are not sold to minors? Right, none.”
I was surprised to see that only now are laws being passed banning the sale to minors. Yes, there are places where you can buy an e-cigarette under 18.
pat answer from the e-cig fans in 5..4…3…2….1
“If e-cigs were catering to “mature, sophisticated tastes” then why not cognac and truffles instead of butterscotch and cotton candy? ”
This is a strawman and a false dichotomy. No one claims juice makers are targeting mature, sophisticated tastes. But this doesn’t equal targeting children, nor does offering butterscotch, which is an alcoholic drink BTW, preclude or exclude offering cognac. Also you concede adults CAN like Gummy Bears.
2 seconds in Google yields cognac e juice. Truffle as well. Neither are my glass of tea, chocolate doesn’t lend itself well to e-juice IMHO.
Here’s a hint, juices in the US tend to use vegetable glycerin, which a sugar alcohol. Even a modest base of 30% VG (roughly 21% total volume) only flavors that lend themselves to being sweetened taste good. Whiskey doesn’t lend itself well to e-cigarettes unless it’s a triple malt. Faux Fruit, or Gummy Bear on the other hand does.
Understand? It’s simple. If the base is 21% sweeter on the conservative side of things, the result is going to be candy sweet. Thus it’s not a conspiracy. E-cigs tend to be sweet because the base that produces the most vapor is sweet.
That said, my last order from Israel was Ecto Cooler, Camel Green Apple, Citrus Plasma, and Yellow Custard. I like 100% VG, which is roughly 70% sweetener by volume. I also got a sample of Israeli Captain, which is one of the better faux tobaccos I’ve met. But silly me, not smoking I’ve lost my taste for tobacco. Fancy that.
Observation trumps speculation 😛
“Observation trumps speculation”
Calling your anecdotes “observation” doesn’t make them data.
Seriously, you are not good at this. You provide noise, which I’ve seen from one e-cig forum linking to this article is the point of sending people here to comment. But all you’ve accomplished is to show that there are dishonest e-cig promoters.
I have not tried to hawk any products here, I have simply stated a few facts to set straight the record, due to some rather unsubstantiated allegations being made in the comments here. The fact that I have an interest in the ecig industry, does not negate what i say, a fact is a fact, it doesnt matter who says it.
I was just pointing out, that the demand for sweet and fruity flavours is not necessarily from kids. Plenty of adults demand such flavours and enjoy such flavours.
Regards health related effects of ecig users on forums…when someone quits smoking, they experience a range of symptoms, mouth ulcers, irritabilty, dizziness and more. If someone who has quit smoking starts using an ecig they often confuse the symptoms of the tobacco withdrawal, as being an effect of using an ecig. Some of them even go back to tobacco smoking and of course then their symptoms subside.
This has been noted in a study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15370162 This concern first appeared in people using NRT products, it is a similar scenario.
Anyway, i have defended my corner to a degree against what I saw to be unfair allegations about ecigs being marketed to kids. Of course I agree that someone who believes that ecigs are dangerous, would be a hypocrite to then appear in an ad for that product. Personally I dont agree with anything being marketed to appear sexy or the like, it bugs me…i mean even with my vested interests and as a vaper myself..i would agree that ecigs arent sexy…but they are an effective, healthier alternative to smoking tobacco.
http://blog.casaa.org/2013/08/new-study-confirms-that-chemicals-in.html
i removed my previous link from my name as it bothered some people.So I just posted using my wordpress a/c, I thought the name would remain the same, but to clarify, the above Chandrika12, is Clare…
It’s not that your link “bothered people” Clare but is an obvious conflict of interest which you failed to claim. It’s sad that you don’t see that.
Oh, it seems that the post I made before that didnt submit so wasnt shown…I had mentioned in this post, that my position is not relevant…that a fact is a fact…wherever it comes from…
I have not tried to hawk any products here, I have simply stated a few facts to set straight the record, due to some rather unsubstantiated allegations being made in the comments here. The fact that I have an interest in the ecig industry, does not negate what i say, a fact is a fact, it doesnt matter who says it.
I was just pointing out, that the demand for sweet and fruity flavours is not necessarily from kids. Plenty of adults demand such flavours and enjoy such flavours.
Regards health related effects of ecig users on forums…when someone quits smoking, they experience a range of symptoms, mouth ulcers, irritabilty, dizziness and more. If someone who has quit smoking starts using an ecig they often confuse the symptoms of the tobacco withdrawal, as being an effect of using an ecig. Some of them even go back to tobacco smoking and of course then their symptoms subside.
This has been noted in a study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15370162 This concern first appeared in people using NRT products, it is a similar scenario.
Anyway, i have defended my corner to a degree against what I saw to be unfair allegations about ecigs being marketed to kids. Of course I agree that someone who believes that ecigs are dangerous, would be a hypocrite to then appear in an ad for that product. Personally I dont agree with anything being marketed to appear sexy or the like, it bugs me…i mean even with my vested interests and as a vaper myself..i would agree that ecigs arent sexy…but they are an effective, healthier alternative to smoking tobacco.
http://blog.casaa.org/2013/08/new-study-confirms-that-chemicals-in.html
I agree that a conflict of interest does not negate what one says. It’s valuable information, though. e-cigarettes use candy flavoring. I put that in the same category as “Joe Camel”.
“So tell me, what sophisticated smokers’ tastes are inclined towards “Gummi Bear”, “Bubble Gum”, “Vanilla”, “Chocolate”, “Pina Colada” and “Peach Snapps”?”
I don’t know about sophisticated, but I’m 40 and some of those sound pretty tasty.
Another problem with your “won’t someone please think of the children” pearl clutching would be the existence of zero nicotine flavored juices. Because that’s a thing. You can look it up on your laptop, if you can lift your head from the fainting couch.
“I don’t know about sophisticated, but I’m 40 and some of those sound pretty tasty.”
Right. And the guys making those flavors never thought they would be attractive to kids. Don’t insult me.
It took 61 comments before someone pulled the “you feign shock” ploy. I really figured someone would pull this a long time ago.
Nice job “filling up the comments” though. The story was never about the safety of this product (which, I will admit, I dislike. Profiting from addiction) but about Jenny McCarthy’s hypocrisy. Nice demonstration of the Streisand effect. Blogs with a lot more reach than mine are now picking this story up.
“Right. And the guys making those flavors never thought they would be attractive to kids. Don’t insult me.”
Adults are buying them. Lots of adults. I don’t see how it matters whether kids like them or not. If no kid ever bought them from now until forever, they’d still make them, because enough adults want them.
“which, I will admit, I dislike.”
nicholascageyoudontsay.jpg
“I don’t see how it matters whether kids like them or not”
Then you are a fool.
“Then you are a fool.”
Nice appeal to ridicule,
No, just a sane rational adult. Fruit Blast Nicorette is one of those so called fun filled flavors you’re afraid of, but somehow this is okay?
Guess you’ve never heard of the nicotine paradox. While nicotine was isolated as the addictive compound in cigarettes, it wasn’t observed to be as addictive as cigarettes. It’s cool you’ve heard of pubmed, but helps to actually use it. So why aren’t teens who experiment (not I didn’t say use implying habitual use) with NRPs don’t become habitual users. It can’t be the speed of delivery otherwise smokeless tobacco would not be addictive. Turns out the minor alkaloids reinforce nicotine dependence esp. in adolescents.
So while giving teens nicotine gum presents an objective risk of abuse, the abuse potential is not at the same rate of cigarettes, roughly 75% experiment to habitual use.
E-cigarettes contain the very same nicotine, except the nicotine free ones. They’re chiefly mail order, with fun flavors in specialty shops, no fun flavors in mini-marts. So morally you can’t be opposed to them, not if they’re mitigating a smoking habit in adults and if they supersede cigarettes the evidence suggests it doesn’t lend itself as well to habitual use in teens.
Remember, you’re talking to former smokers who started in their teens, so it’s totally not a conspiracy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15496937
Belluzzi, J.D.; Wang, R.; and Leslie,
F.M. Acetaldehyde enhances acquisition of nicotine self-administration in
adolescent rats. Neuropsychopharmacol 30:705–712, 2005.
Calling you a fool is not an appeal to ridicule. It’s a statement of my observation. Anyone accepting the statements made is, in my opinion, a fool.
Nice to see you can search pubmed. Too bad the vast majority of your anecdotes are not supported with data.
“While nicotine was isolated as the addictive compound in cigarettes, it wasn’t observed to be as addictive as cigarettes. ”
Gee. Not as addictive as cigarettes. You once again set a very low bar for yourself. Not a paradox, by the way.
Thanks I did and guess what? Even the juices labelled zero nictotine had substantial amounts of nicotine and those with specifically-labelled concentrations of nicotine had much higher concentrations. By the way, if I want chocolate; I’ll eat it not smoke it.
“You don’t even address this. Who cares if some safety studies were carried out in NZ (which you haven’t even provided); there is nothing for the FDA to ignore unless those safety studies were for the express intent of licensing e-cigs as smoking cessation devices. Since e-cigs don’t fall under the auspices of FDA regulation it is a vapid claim.”
This is your WHOLE argument, your assertion that e-cigarette companies didn’t submit studies to the FDA. This totally happened by healthNZ, which I did link too which is suspiciously missing. I can’t link without moderator approval so google “Safety Report on the Ruyan® e-cigarette Cartridge”.
So the hypocrisy kicks in. A CIGARETTE required no pre-market review, but an e-cigarette, an alternative product, required a standard of evidence the FDA wouldn’t permit.
“FDA to ignore unless those safety studies were for the express intent of licensing e-cigs as smoking cessation devices”
Here’s where your dishonesty kicks in, e-cigarettes were never designed as a cessation device. They were designed as an alternative product. They just show more promise as a cessation device if used that way, where the FDA now allows promoting of NRPs for habitual use.
Now here’s were it gets funny. The FDA requires clinical trials to be conducted in the USA at an accredited institution, which approval from the ethics committee, which bows to the FDA, which wouldn’t permit this research even though safety studies were submitted by HealthNZ. Nice circular logic there.
“Sullivan is absolutely right; this blogpost was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Jenny McCarthy shilling for e-cigs. But ZOMG mention that some flavours appear to be marketed to a youth demographic and the apologists/rabid vapers come swooping in”
Because there is NO evidence what so ever of a strong youth appeal, and evidence that adults are using these flavors. There is overwhelming evidence faux-tobacco flavor tastes horrible, and gummy bear tastes better.
“Now here’s were it gets funny. The FDA requires clinical trials to be conducted in the USA at an accredited institution, which approval from the ethics committee, which bows to the FDA, which wouldn’t permit this research even though safety studies were submitted by HealthNZ. Nice circular logic there.”
Really? I’ve seen clinical trials for other products listed in countries outside the U.S..
“Because there is NO evidence what so ever of a strong youth appeal, and evidence that adults are using these flavors. ”
As already noted, youth tried e-cigarettes at 1/2 the rate of adults. What flavors, I don’t know. But you have asserted that they aren’t trying at any rate above “token”. I believe that to be false.
“You don’t even address this. Who cares if some safety studies were carried out in NZ (which you haven’t even provided); there is nothing for the FDA to ignore unless those safety studies were for the express intent of licensing e-cigs as smoking cessation devices. Since e-cigs don’t fall under the auspices of FDA regulation it is a vapid claim.”
Blimey you’re thick. You don’t see how utterly contradictory you are? Let me try to explain it again; there is no reason for the e-cig manufacturers to produce safety data unless they were after regulatory approval. You argue that they never claimed their products were a smoking cessation device (for which you were demonstrably wrong) but yet the FDA ignored some of their safety data. If e-cigs were always going to be a “tobacco smoking alternative” then the FDA didn’t ignore anything because they don’t need that data.
“FDA to ignore unless those safety studies were for the express intent of licensing e-cigs as smoking cessation devices”
You’re clinging to this myth like my kid clings to his blankie. They were initially marketed in part as a smoking cessation aid and still are by distributors with plausible deniability by the manufacturers. Just because the manufacturers switched primary marketing strategies doesn’t falsify one of the original intents.
Yes this is extremely funny I’ll agree because you don’t have a clue of what you are even talking about. The FDA does not require clinical trials to be “conducted in the USA at an accredited institution,…” Clinical trials are conducted globally for FDA or EMEA approval. So the FDA didn’t disallow anything. Again, safety studies aren’t required for the way e-cigs are currently regulated, any more than cigarettes. There is no reason why NZ health can’t publish their safety data in a reputable journal. Your tin foil beanie is too tight.
“Sullivan is absolutely right; this blogpost was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Jenny McCarthy shilling for e-cigs. But ZOMG mention that some flavours appear to be marketed to a youth demographic and the apologists/rabid vapers come swooping in”
“What measures is the e-cig industry taking to ensure that their products are not sold to minors? Right, none.”
Again, another lie. Now the e-cigarette INDUSTRY is chiefly cottage industry with hardware from China, with no real centralized authority save one trade group and CASAA, and golly both support bans to sales to minors. Aaron Frazier (Utah Vapers) is specifically working in Utah with the Health Department supporting mail order sales with age delivery confirmation. Most recently in Rhode Island it was the vendors who pushed for an e-cigarette sale ban to minors, yet it was vetoed thanks to the Tobacco Free Kids claiming it was a trap. More distance past there was the ban to minors proposed by The Vaporium in Pierce County, with her citing she sells Toasted Marshmellow.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/121963999.html
Since e-cigarettes are chiefly mail order, and bank accounts and credit cards require one to be 18, as do pre-paid cards, there is a natural barrier already. And given teens typically buy cigarettes from corner stores, and not mail order, you really don’t have much of an argument.
Njoy agreed to not sell anything but “tobacco flavors” in the US, and Blu products are not seen in corner stores or gas stations in anything but faux-tobacco or menthol. So add that to your list of lies about targeting kids with candy flavors.
Now the funny thing is Aaron has it right IMHO. Kids (teens) get cigarettes either from peers or from corner shops, thus permitting mail order with age confirmation would likely do more than present efforts focused on cigarettes. I’ll limit the age to 21 rather than 18, but as the smoking age in Utah is 19, and USPS doesn’t have a option other than 21, it’s the best they can do.
FAIL
Right. They are not taking substantial measures. That would be a FAIL on their part. (Again, the ey marked Caps Lock is very useful but don’t over use it…And spare me the “that’s logical fallacy type N retort).
Quit your silly logic Sullivan. The double-standard is so pathetic isn’t it?
What double standard? The vaccine stance made her money and got her face before the public. Promoting e-cigarettes makes her money and puts her face before the public.
Prettyy funny stuff Sullivan. Look at the toxins in E-cigarettes, you say. No studies have ever been done to prove that E-ciagettes are safe, you say. That makes you just the same as the Mercury Moms. You have an remarkeable fixation on Jenny McCarthy’s attractiveness.
If you read everything absolutely literally, you might come to the incorrect conclusion you reached. Perhaps you might want to consider the term sardonic.
You do yourself no service by making such obviously baiting comments as your last sentence. It exposes the rest of your comment.
The double standard of villifying a product (vaccines) for not being adequately studied (a false claim) and also falsely representing excipients as “toxic” to make money and draw attention but shilling for potentially harmful products which have inadequate safety data. We agree that she just does what will make her money and some fame, ethics be damned.
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html
Hopefully the body count for the e cigarette is lower.
Are there any that are decidely “kid-aimed” like bubble gum, peanut butter, ice cream, butterscotch, cheesecake, cotton candy, banana dessert and gummi bear? Do cigarettes come in those flavours? Your analogy fails on that front and also the availability of alcholic beverages versus e-cigs. All you have to do is say you are 18 and you can buy them.
“Are there any that are decidely “kid-aimed” like bubble gum, peanut butter, ice cream, butterscotch, cheesecake, cotton candy, banana dessert and gummi bear? ”
You understand butter school is an alcoholic beverage?
Bubble gum only in hookah. Banana is available in pipe tobacco, as well as sassafras, chocolate, coconut, pink lemonade (hookah) strawberry, red bull (hookah), cotton candy (Cade’s Cove Cavendish). gummy bear (Guarana – Guarana and lemon flavor). As well as Cherry Bon Bon (milantobacco), Buttered rum (milantobacco), Cherry Velvet, French Vanilla, Hazelnut, honey, Neapolitan ice cream, Peaches & Cream, Purple Giraffe. Oh yes, and WHITE GUMMY BEAR (hookah)
“our analogy fails on that front”
Ah, no it doesn’t. I totally have to cite hookah for Bubble Gum and Gummy Bear, but you’ve so obviously NEVER been inside a Tinderbox. Your so called “fun kids flavors” are sold to adults with no evidence of teen use, with the exception of a token 5% “tried it”.
“All you have to do is say you are 18 and you can buy them.”
Yet we DON’T SEE TEENS BUYING THEM. Why is that? Could it be the high entry cost of hookah, pipe smoking, and golly gee, e-cigarettes? Could it be that kids still think cigarettes are cool, but pipes are not?
Sorry your assertion “but they’re targeting kids with flavors” is an epic fail. If you’re assertion was true pipe smoking would have over taken cigarettes among teens 30 years ago.
“but you’ve so obviously NEVER been inside a Tinderbox”
I love people who read minds and tell fortunes. They are almost always 100% wrong.
“I love people who read minds and tell fortunes. They are almost always 100% wrong.”
If you have been inside a tinder box the first thing you’d notice is the pipe tobacco, roughly 36 options, in fun flavors.
Who cares?
You care obviously, you made it a point to suggest you’ve been inside a Tinderbox, with all sorts of fun flavors of pipe tobacco, yet kids overwhelmingly smoke cigarettes with either no flavor or menthol.
Right…based on your past lack of accuracy, I don’t take any of your statements as factual without data to support them.
We’ve gone from weak arguments that kids don’t partake of flavored tobacco, so they won’t be interested in e-cigs with candy flavors to “well, sure, they do partake of flavored tobacco, but only menthol”. As an assertion.
I made no point to suggest I’ve been inside a Tinderbox. I responded to your badgering and pointed out I’ve been in tobacco shops in the past. You posed those to present yourself as some sort of authority and me as not having the standing to partake in the discussion. A cheap debate trick, which failed.
“Are there any that are decidely “kid-aimed” like bubble gum, peanut butter, ice cream, butterscotch, cheesecake, cotton candy, banana dessert and gummi bear? ”
You understand butterscotch is an alcoholic beverage?
Bubble gum only in hookah. Banana is available in pipe tobacco, as well as sassafras, chocolate, coconut, pink lemonade (hookah) strawberry, red bull (hookah), cotton candy (Cade’s Cove Cavendish). gummy bear (Guarana – Guarana and lemon flavor). As well as Cherry Bon Bon (milantobacco), Buttered rum (milantobacco), Cherry Velvet, French Vanilla, Hazelnut, honey, Neapolitan ice cream, Peaches & Cream, Purple Giraffe. Oh yes, and WHITE GUMMY BEAR (hookah)
(pardon the double post, triggered a moderation flag)
“our analogy fails on that front”
Ah, no it doesn’t. I totally have to cite hookah for Bubble Gum and Gummy Bear, but you’ve so obviously NEVER been inside a Tinderbox. Your so called “fun kids flavors” are sold to adults with no evidence of teen use, with the exception of a token 5% “tried it”.
“All you have to do is say you are 18 and you can buy them.”
Yet we don’t see teens buying them? Why is that? Could it be the high entry cost of hookah, pipe smoking, and golly gee, e-cigarettes? Could it be that kids still think cigarettes are cool, but pipes are not?
Sorry your assertion “but they’re targeting kids with flavors” is an epic fail. If you’re assertion was true pipe smoking would have over taken cigarettes among teens 30 years ago.
Never…oh wait now that I’ve been shown actual data I’ll admit it’s 5%. Or was prior to 2011.
“Yet we don’t see teens buying them?”
Who are “we”? Where’s your data? Your assertion just moments ago was that there were none. I would bet money you were aware of the statistics in Utah, but you tried to assert that there were none.
And now you are trying to narrow the board to only those under 18. Young people don’t like them, calling them “robot dicks”. That was you, right?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23746429
Ah, but you’ve already moved the goalposts so that 5%=none, right? And that was 2009, the early days of e-cigs, right? Are we to believe that e-cig use has grown elsewhere but gone down among young people?
Interesting how 1/8 of those trying e-cigarettes had never smoked a conventional cigarette. How’s that “it’s an alternative” argument working out? Not well, I can tell you.
You’re being dishonest. I’m quite sure I said a token 5% that “tried it”. This differs greatly from TEEN USE.
And I happen to know the content of the Youth Tobacco Survey (YTS) and guess what, it didn’t cover teen use in 2009, or 2011. It covers high school and middle school students who “have tried e-cigarettes”, not USE.
And to add to your intellectual dishonesty of those teens who who “have tried it” how many have tried cotton candy? What you don’t know? This is your central thesis. Here’s a hint, NJOY doesn’t offer any flavor other than tobacco or menthol in the US as per their agreement. Blu last I checked doesn’t offer any flavor except the same in stores.
The ONLY place I can buy these flavors are in specialty shops. FAIL Teens use cigarettes, sorry 😛
“It doesn’t change the fact that it is an alternative product, as in contains NO tobacco, isn’t set on fire, and user’s don’t inhale the byproducts.”
My read of the 2011 survey results are different. Question 36 asks if one has tried, question 37 asks if one has used in the past month.
“Here’s a hint, NJOY doesn’t offer any flavor other than tobacco or menthol in the US as per their agreement. Blu last I checked doesn’t offer any flavor except the same in stores.”
When did I limit the discussion to any of these companies?
Youth use cigarettes…and pipes…and flavored little cigars…and e-cigarettes. All documented in the CDC’s survey.
“Electronic cigarette use by college students.”
And a nice piece of dishonesty there since this survey covers COLLEGE STUDENTS.
And college students are young people. You’ve tried to move the goalposts to be only minors, not me.
“How’s that “it’s an alternative” argument working out? Not well, I can tell you.”
Again, you’re being dishonest. A token amount who “claim” to have tried it doesn’t equal use. It doesn’t change the fact that it is an alternative product, as in contains NO tobacco, isn’t set on fire, and user’s don’t inhale the byproducts.
Nice splitting hairs 😛
See my other statement. You are making two false assertions
1) that the survey only reports claim to have tried. It also polled use in the past month.
2) that the amounts are only tokens. By comparing to the full population and not the fraction who are smoking, you make the numbers seem small.
“It doesn’t change the fact that it is an alternative product, as in contains NO tobacco, isn’t set on fire, and user’s don’t inhale the byproducts.”
Alternative product–agreed
contains no tobacco–half agree, many contain a tobacco derivative (nicotine)
isn’t set on fire–agreed. However, they are vaporized by a mechanism which could result in unwanted byproducts.
users don’t inhale the byproducts–disagree. As noted in elsewhere in this discussion, biproducts like metal particles are inhaled. Byproducts of tobacco (aside from whatever traces are left over from purifying nicotine) are not.
Why do people keep listening to this twat? She is nothing more than a whore who made her money by taking her clothes off & yet a bunch of semi-retarded “Earth mothers” take her as their health care guru? I just don’t understand why anyone would listen to her!
1) I don’t appreciate the term “whore”.
2) I don’t care how she broke into show business. The fact that she was able to move past the playboy model phase actually says a lot about her drive and determination.
3) The term “retarded” stigmatizes my kid and all others with intellectual disability. Find another term or another blog.
4) People can underestimate Jenny McCarthy at their own peril. It’s easy to dismiss her as a former model. She’s making a lot of money. She rode the vaccine/autism story to sell books and gain notariety and she seems smart enough to be trying to downplay that now. She’s wrong, but she’s no fool.
And Sullivan. Unless you’re going to lecture the person attacking me on forum etiquette as well, lecturing me alone for something they’re doing at the same time is called hypocrisy. Don’t flatter yourself into thinking you have some authority over me if you can’t be fair and balanced about it, mate, because I simply won’t listen to someone who takes sides over an issue they have with a wrong that’s been done and i equally committed by the side they have chosen, and chosen to ignore.
“Don’t flatter yourself into thinking you have some authority over me if you can’t be fair and balanced about it, ”
It is not flattery for the owner of a blog to tell someone to go away. I don’t care if you listen to me. I don’t have to listen to you.
I’m not lecturing you. I’m informing you of the way things run here. If you want to stigmatize disability, you will do it elsewhere. Not a lecture. A fact.
OK, after reading the crap you wrote I have to reply.
Firstly you said:
“Did you catch where they address the question of whether the health risks are reduced in e-cigarettes? That’s right, they didn’t. They didn’t point out that there are no safety studies. ”
There are safety studies, but according to law – they are not allowed to say that they are safer. Thank you FDA (Short for Federal Dumb Asses) for that.
Then you go on with some more LIES:
” “Propylene Glycol“. That’s a form of antifreeze. A form that has been approved by the FDA for some food uses. ”
Propylene Glycol (PG) IS NOT ANTI-FREEZE. It is an ingredient in anti-freeze used to make Anti-Freeze less toxic, also there are different grades of PG, Industrial grade (which is used in Anti-freeze) and Pharmaceutical Grade which is the grade used in electronic cigarettes, foods, ashma inhalers and a wide variety of medicines and foods designed for human consumption. It is also used in some foods, ashma inhalers, and other medicines.
And you quote the following:
” Here’s the proposition 65 warning on the Blu website;
| CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65 – Warning: This product contains nicotine, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.
”
More Bullshit by the way, nicotine – outside of a tobacco cigarette, is fairly benign in the doses you get from an electronic cigarette – about as bad for you as caffeine in the doses you find in the typical Electronic Cigarette.
Sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291
http://www.naturalnews.com/023138_propylene_glycol_products_natural.html
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0066317
And these are just a few, there is plenty of info available if you just take the time TO DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE WRITING A LOAD OF BULL……
So get your facts striaght.
Jenny McCarthy pushing e-Cigs just shows how much of a hypocrite she is (getting us back on topic).
Perhaps you should get your facts straight before commenting or go away to hug your gun and suck on your faux fag. I was very agnostic about e-cigs until the faithful came to defend their beloved vaping missing the point of the blog post entirely.
You too are clueless how this works. They are not allowed to claim they are safer unless they are going for regulatory approval as a smoking cessation device. They are free to publish the safety data; they just can’t make specific claims.
Not only are you wrong about this but way to miss the point. Propylene glycol is the active ingredient in some brands of anti-freeze; it’s mixed with water and occasionally dye. The author did make the point that there is pharmaceutical or food-grade propylene glycol that is recognised as safe in safe doses. That’s not the point; the point is is that Jenny McBimbo whinges on about “anti-freeze” in vaccines (which it isn’t) but shills for a product that actually does contain an antifreeze which one sucks into their lungs.
I’m sure you will fail to see the irony of your sources not supporting your claims. Real impressive research skillz you have there. Nicotine is not benign and neither is caffeine. http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00002018-200124040-00005
Your one abstract that uses oncogenesis as their only endpoint would not capture teratogenesis. Fail.
Your very impressive link to the mindless Natural News is also moot since no one has made any claims that propylene glycol as in e-cigs is harmful. And your Plos One study is a safety study on e-cigs which blows your claim that safety data can’t be released by the eveel FDA out of the water.
You should look up the definition of paradox before using it, or better yet, explore other explanations for an observation. Smoking entry is guided by peer pressure, availability and perhaps ease of use. Kids don’t smoke pipes because their peers don’t. Pipes are more clumsy to use than cigarettes even if they are cheaper and tobacco available in silly flavours. Rolling your own is also clumsy. Cigarettes are only available in traditional and menthol and there is good reason why you won’t see flavoured cigarettes for the very same reason that e-cig flavours are a concern. And oh look, “the flavours are fun”: http://lakehighlands.advocatemag.com/2013/04/lh-teens-drawn-to-e-cigs-local-shop/
Reblogged this on Meizac.
As for Jenny’s comments, they are getting ripped completely out of context. This ad is aimed at smokers. Notice how they made a big point of guilt-free smoking? This implies allready smoking, and Blu being a better alternative. Use the few braincells you have, and think things through properly before spouting utter garbage.
She is being a hypocrite. Adult women can get pregnant. Encouraging those adults to inhale nicotine, a known teratogen while at the same time telling them that vaccines is dangerous is the height of hypocrisy.
The only way Ms. McCarthy can get off the hook is to:
1. Tell women who are pregnant or can become pregnant to refrain from both tobacco and nicotine delivery systems (patches, gum and e-cigs).
2. Explain that if one smokes they should stop, and to also stop using various nicotine delivery systems.
3. Retract every word she has said about vaccines, and apologize to all the children who have had pertussis, measles due to non-vaccination.
4. Distance herself from Generation Rescue.
this has nothing to do with autism, smoking cigarettes are a sick behavior.Mary Jane is your friend 🙂
What a pathetic apologist thing to say. You heard a mildly clever term that maybe a handful of teens use to describe e-cigs and you are extrapolating that to an entire demographic. The fact is, is that we don’t have hard numbers and e-cigs do appear to be very attractive to teens. http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/story/More-Kids-Using-E-Cigarettes/BOJX12ivm0ikA3kN9wjsNA.cspx
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/09/11/electronic-cigarettes-quebec.html
That sounds perilously close to any pseudo-scientific claim.
Do some research! Nicotine is found in loads of other plants BESIDES Tobacco! There is a company in Wisconsin I believe, that gets all of their nicotine from other plants beside tobacco plants, therefore is not subject to any tobacco taxes.
Nicotine is not inherently dangerous. Proven by many studies and by leading psychologists.
Propolyne Glycol does NOT = the AntiFreeze you put in your car’s radiator. They are totally different and are compromised of totally different ingredients.
Nicotine is NOT the bad thing in Tobacco, its the other chemicals and carcinogens that kill you.
My uncle died of Lung Cancer in April, he suffered for a year and the last time I spoke to him, he was barely holding onto reality. I have not touched a real cigarette in over a year, however, I use a personal vapourizer to get my nicotine and I am hurting NO ONE.
“Propolyne Glycol does NOT = the AntiFreeze you put in your car’s radiator.”
Please tell that to Ms. McCarthy. She made the claim that its use in vaccines was dangerous because it was “anti-freeze.”
It does not matter if there are plants with nicotine, that is not the issue. It is that e-cigs are a nicotine delivery system. You might actually try reading the above article, as the quoted part of the ingredients said “USP Grade Nicotine.” .
I have to take exception to anyone who says “Nicotine is not inherently dangerous.” Nictoine can be deadly.
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning, which roughly agrees with what I remember from toxicology in medical school):
Nicotine poisoning describes the symptoms of the toxic effects of consuming nicotine, which can potentially be deadly.[1] Historically, most cases of nicotine poisoning have been the result of use of nicotine as an insecticide.[2][3] Whereas more recently poisoning typically appears to be due to accidental ingestion of tobacco or tobacco products or ingestion of nicotine containing plants.[4][5][6]
The probable lethal dose of nicotine has been reported as between 40 and 60 milligrams (the total amount in about 2 cigarettes if all of the nicotine was absorbed) in adults and about 1 mg/kg in children (less than 1 cigarette) .[7][8][9] Children may become ill following ingestion of one cigarette,[10] ingestion of more than this may cause a child to become severely ill.[11][5] In some cases children have become poisoned by topical medicinal creams which contain nicotine.[12]
People who harvest or cultivate tobacco may experience Green Tobacco Sickness (GTS), a type of nicotine poisoning caused by dermal exposure to wet tobacco leaves. This occurs most commonly in young, inexperienced tobacco harvesters who do not smoke tobacco.[4][13]
That needs to be put in context however…
for example
the lethal dose of alcohol is is 5 to 8g/kg (8- 10 drinks consumed in 1 hours can kill you)
the lethal dose of caffeine is 150 to 200 mg/kg
What I mean is that most substances are toxic in their pure undiluted form, yet we consume them still, in small quantities they are not lethal and in some instances even have positive effects.
Nicotine in particular is a substance that is very self regulating regards toxicity levels. As every smoker knows, you become very aware when enough is enough your body lets you know when to stop, long before a lethal dose is reached, nausea and dizziness are experienced that would make further intake extremely unpleasant.
I wont bore you with details of blood plasma levels of nicotine studied during vaping, but suffice to say, they are very low and way off dangerous levels, even for heavy vapers, vaping high strength ejuice.
It would be extremely difficult, probably impossible, to vape a lethal dose of e liquid, as it takes around a day for the average vaper to get through a few ml. Only about 1/3 of the nicotine in eliquid is absorbed, due to being suspended in PG, so as long as people do what it says on the bottle and dont decide to drink the stuff, then there is no harm.
I have heard that another danger of nicotine is that otherwise ordinary persons become “rabid vapers”… as the very charming Science Mom so sweetly pointed out. 😛
Pregnant women should not drink alcohol either. And nicotine is still bad for babies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=pregnancy+nicotine
Now do tell us a mother smoking an e-cig is some much more healthy than vaccines on the American pediatric schedule.
“Now do tell us a mother smoking an e-cig is some much more healthy than vaccines on the American pediatric schedule.”
Even was “diagnosed” with “autism” in 2005, putting his birth at 2003 or so. Ruyan’s first products rolled out May 2004, e-cigarettes ~2007. As such, it’s totally impossible for Jenny to have access to an e-cigarette, highly unlikely she’d have access to a Ruyan e-cigar.
That said, nicotine during pregnancy presents a risk, even NRPs. In objective terms, vaccines likely present a far lower risk. As there is no research on e-cigarette use and pregnancy, I won’t speculate on the risk of NRPs or e-cigarettes vs smoking during pregnancy. I accept it’s possible mitigating smoking could be positive, but I don’t actually know.
“As there is no research on e-cigarette use and pregnancy”
there are data on nicotine and reproductive harm.
Matt Zukowski–you’ve done your job. You threw up the smokescreen.
You’ve also shown yourself to be poorly informed, and dishonest. Time and again you present us with your anecdotes which we are supposed to take as somehow valuable because you relabel them “observations”. You have made repeated false statements while calling everyone else a liar.
But, once again, I’ll point out. You’ve done a nice job of convincing people who didn’t care about your passion that it’s not benign and supports are going back to the tobacco company playbook of misinformation and dishonesty.
Good luck out there defending e-cigs. What a waste.
Interesting that in e-Cigs, something is good, but in vaccines, it is bad? Yeah, that’s anti-vax logic for you….
For your enjoyment, I found this old cartoon about Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, a certain blogger, vaccines and antifreeze:
http://cectic.com/160
You know Clare, the more you yes, rabid vapers clammour to defend your beloved product when it wasn’t even the point of the blogpost, the more pathetic and defensive you look. You are creating negative attention for something that wasn’t even the main topic. Even with that my rational brain is waiting for the data and agnostic but on a personal level; you people are pathetic and pre-emptively tanking any valid positive reputation e-cigs could have obtained.
Right-o double checked with a source in Utah, and the 2011 SHARP, contrary to your assertion, didn’t include ANY questions on e-cigarettes. Sure the health department was quoted many times asserting e-cigarette use by teens in Utah, but never provided this data.
You’re a big boy, you surely know the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources don’t you? In this context a newspaper is a tertiary source, some reporter quoting someone at the health department quoting a study. My friend, in this context, is a secondary source, a guy in Utah who in 2011 and questioned asked why these numbers weren’t published and discovered it wasn’t asked in the SHARP.
Can’t blame you on this one, I remember well newspapers citing Utah as e-cigarette kings, which would be odd as cigarette use is way below average, and as I recall only one source never bothered with a retraction.
Observation trumps fabrication 😛
https://www.facebook.com/groups/casaamembers/permalink/549466135091238/
Gee, I didn’t assert anything. I read the CDC report. I’ve got it open now. You’ve moved goalposts. The Youth Tobacco Survey (You are the one, I believe who first used YTS as an acronym in this discussion, now it’s SHARP?)
Apparently you lied when you said you had read the report. Or, you misled us because you hadn’t read it and you somehow thought it was some other thing you have read.
The summary data from the CDC are a primary source. Google is your friend. So is data.