European Ban on E-Cigs?

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

I never said that claims and studies didn't exist, I said they failed to support the claims.

You said ""I have seen no evidence, no studies to back up the concerns expressed by the so called health bodies""

You did NOT say "I have seen no evidence, no studies to back up the 'concerns' expressed by the so called health bodies, which have supported their claims"

You are well aware of the evidence which provides concern, you just want to pretend they do not exist. Like how you tried to pretend that there are no adverse events associated with vaping

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh come on! Ad hominem atacks do nothing for your argument!

When did it become an ad hominem attack to point out that a report was funded by an organisation whose scientific director has received millions in funding from the Tobacoo companies?

Do you not think it might be relevant in deciding how reliable the report is?

If I showed you a paper paid for by Big Pharma would that not influence your evaluation of it ?

Scofflaw

Occam wrote: »

When did it become an ad hominem attack to point out that a report was funded by an organisation whose scientific director has received millions in funding from the Tobacoo companies?

Do you not think it might be relevant in deciding how reliable the report is?

If I showed you a paper paid for by Big Pharma would that not influence your evaluation of it ?

Given that tommy has already used the existence of a research contract between an affiliate of a pharma company and the parent of a tobacco company to claim that lobbying by the pharma company was really on behalf of big tobacco, I think we can spot the answer to that one.

amused,
Scofflaw

Ionised

I have a feeling we might agree that not enough research has been done as yet, and that decisions are being made in respect to regulation without recognising this.

On a personal note... I'm going to live longer vaping rather than smoking, so balls to knee jerk EU regulation. I am, however, going to have to seriously rethink my pension plan :-)

tommy2bad

Occam;
When did it become an ad hominem attack to point out that a report was funded by an organisation whose scientific director has received millions in funding from the Tobacoo companies?

Do you not think it might be relevant in deciding how reliable the report is?

If I showed you a paper paid for by Big Pharma would that not influence your evaluation of it ?

It becomes ad homine when you don't address the report and instead question it's authorship.
This is not the same as pointing out a coincidence between the interests of two connected companies both lobbying for the same result. Sorry if you can't tell the difference.
After reading the paper, not just the press release I would reach a conclusion based on the actual report. See how this works? I could have dismissed all the papers expressing concerns and adverse findings based on pharma funding causing a conflict of interest but so what? If the data in the report backs up the claims then it makes no difference who funded it?

An amused Scofflaw;
Given that tommy has already used the existence of a research contract between an affiliate of a pharma company and the parent of a tobacco company to claim that lobbying by the pharma company was really on behalf of big tobacco, I think we can spot the answer to that one.

As I said above.
I never claimed that they were lobbying on behalf of tobacco companies, I pointed out that tobacco companies and pharma companies had a similar agenda.
Try harder next time.

DubTony

Occam wrote: »

When did it become an ad hominem attack to point out that a report was funded by an organisation whose scientific director has received millions in funding from the Tobacoo companies?

Do you not think it might be relevant in deciding how reliable the report is?

If I showed you a paper paid for by Big Pharma would that not influence your evaluation of it ?

OOOPS! I'm talking through my arse again

FYP

tommy2bad wrote: »

It becomes ad homine when you don't address the report and instead question it's authorship.

You'd think a user named Occam would know this.

Anyway, this has gotten tedious. Can somebody PM me when we get back to the legislation. Thanks.

Now, where's that UNFOLLOW button?

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

If the data in the report backs up the claims then it makes no difference who funded it?

It makes a huge difference, because there are very well understood correlations between the findings of research and the organisation who bought it sponsored it, particularly with the Tobacco and Pharma companies.

In any case, in this study (and I use the term study loosely), there is a very clear selection bias. He literally, did not include studies with which he disagreed with or did not believe. .

Furthermore, most of the analysis presented would require at least a basic qualification in chemistry to have any merit. The author has no background in chemistry. The person with whom he had "frank discussion of relevant scientific matters" has no background in chemistry. Yet they ignore the research of people who do :rolleyes:

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

It makes a huge difference, because there are very well understood correlations between the findings of research and the organisation who bought it sponsored it, particularly with the Tobacco and Pharma companies.

Then we are in the twilight zone as far as studies are concerned because all of them are sponsored or funded by some one If we discount these we effectly have 0 studies.
Who funds them is beside the point, that's why we have peer reviews. Studies can be critizised countered and picked apart.

In any case,

Occam wrote: »

in this study (and I use the term study loosely), there is a very clear selection bias. He literally, did not include studies with which he disagreed with or did not believe. .

Best to let Dr. Burstyn answer this;

It is clearly the case that only a portion of all industry technical reports were available for public access, so it is possible that those with more problematic results were systematically suppressed, though there is no evidence to support this speculation."
Which tells us nothing more than that he used what was available, discounting secondhand reports.
Read more: http://blog.e-cigexpress.com/2013/08/studies-studies-more-e-cig-studies-are.html#ixzz2nDFN4Kde

Occam wrote: »

Furthermore, most of the analysis presented would require at least a basic qualification in chemistry to have any merit. The author has no background in chemistry. The person with whom he had "frank discussion of relevant scientific matters" has no background in chemistry. Yet they ignore the research of people who do :rolleyes:

As it was not an analysis of the chemistry but an analysis of the data, I'm not sure what difference this makes.
Again we are back to how do you interpret the data. It seems you are happy to accept that all interpretations are fatally flawed, I however think theirs some value in looking at the data and deciding on that.
Suggest a way to decide and suggest appropriate regulations. Is this how you think the EU is proceeding? Or is it more likely that lobbying by vested interest coupled with political ignorance is driving the proposed regulation. BTW I see no difference between tobacco and pharma interests here.

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Who funds them is beside the point, that's why we have peer reviews. Studies can be critizised countered and picked apart.

The paper we are discussing has not been academically published, and has not been subject to peer review. The e-Cigarette\Big Tobacco lobby applauding the report they bought does not constitute peer review :rolleyes:

tommy2bad wrote: »

it was not an analysis of the chemistry but an analysis of the data

Aim number 1 of the study : "Synthesize evidence on the chemistry of liquids and aerosols of electronic cigarettes, with particular emphasis
on the contaminants. "

Aim number 2 of the study : "Evaluate the quality of research on the chemistry of liquids and aerosols produced by electronic cigarettes

Do you not think some knowledge of chemistry would be needed for that?

tommy2bad

Occam, I'm not going to bother answering you. The post above shows that your grasp of English isn't good enough to have a fruitful discussion.

Anyway this is a distraction to what we are discussing, the proposed legislation in the TPD. What informs the process? how it might turn out and what influence we might bring to bear on this process?
So far we have seen the first set of proposals, medical regs,rejected and the whole thing go to trialouge. We have only rumour and dubious leaked documents to go on. The last trialoug meeting is scheduled for Monday the 16, Dec.(and that may not even be the last) So until then it's all guess work.
But sure that's the fun part of politics.

Vaperus

New clinical study on e-cigarettes presented today at EUROECHO 2013 annual congress.
http://www.ecigarette-research.com/EUROECHO2013-ecigs.pdf

dePeatrick

Conclusions: Significantly decreased elasticity and elevated stiffness of ascending aorta was observed after smoking, confirming previous studies. However, no adverse effects were observed after using the EC. Research on ECs should be intensified since they may be potentially useful in reducing the adverse vascular effects associated with smokin.

Copied directly from the article.

I believe that other health benefits will emerge as more studies are done, Dental hygiene being one of them. I am also sure that there will be some side effects from vaping but I am definitely never going back on the stinkies until I see some hard evidence.

It is also completely crazy how the Pharma companies are not way ahead on this research.....wtf is going on here.....Ooops my tinfoil hat fell off again.....

Going Forward

Vaperus wrote: »

New clinical study on e-cigarettes presented today at EUROECHO 2013 annual congress.
http://www.ecigarette-research.com/EUROECHO2013-ecigs.pdf

Also from Farsalinos:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.escardio.org/about/press/esc-congress-2012/press-conferences/Documents/presentations/konstantinos-farsalinos.pdf

Consistent results.

Scofflaw

dePeatrick wrote: »

Conclusions: Significantly decreased elasticity and elevated stiffness of ascending aorta was observed after smoking, confirming previous studies. However, no adverse effects were observed after using the EC. Research on ECs should be intensified since they may be potentially useful in reducing the adverse vascular effects associated with smokin.

Copied directly from the article.

I believe that other health benefits will emerge as more studies are done, Dental hygiene being one of them. I am also sure that there will be some side effects from vaping but I am definitely never going back on the stinkies until I see some hard evidence.

It is also completely crazy how the Pharma companies are not way ahead on this research.....wtf is going on here.....Ooops my tinfoil hat fell off again.....

If the pharma companies demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that e-cigs were safe, there would be less reason to regulate them as medical products...

cordially,
Scofflaw

was.deevey

While those studies are great, it is such a small sample pool and concentrates on relatively small benefits.

Its ridiculous there is not many many more studies that focus on the likes of lung capacity, energy levels, smokers cough, sense of smell and taste along with ongoing year-to-year health issues that regularly effect smokers worse than non-smokers e.g. flu's, colds, allergies, athsma, phlegm buildup and as DePeatrick mentioned Dental issues.

Studies however need to be done once an ex-smoker has been using an ecig for a prolonged period of time and the body has removed most of the crap from itself and compared against non-smokers, not just smokers. Honestly I can say it has taken me almost a year to comfortably say i'm just about as healthy and can perform tasks I could not before just as a non-smoker would.

tommy2bad

was.deevey wrote: »

While those studies are great, it is such a small sample pool and concentrates on relatively small benefits.

Its ridiculous there is not many many more studies that focus on the likes of lung capacity, energy levels, smokers cough, sense of smell and taste along with ongoing year-to-year health issues that regularly effect smokers worse than non-smokers e.g. flu's, colds, allergies, athsma, phlegm buildup and as DePeatrick mentioned Dental issues.

Studies however need to be done once an ex-smoker has been using an ecig for a prolonged period of time and the body has removed most of the crap from itself and compared against non-smokers, not just smokers. Honestly I can say it has taken me almost a year to comfortably say i'm just about as healthy and can perform tasks I could not before just as a non-smoker would.

Yep, the problem is that all the things you mention are long term. We have no longterm indications of what the effects would be because it would require a large user base and a long time frame. It's compounded by the fact that the user base would be mostly/exclusively ex smokers, so to be of value you would need a cohort of non smoking non vaping ex smokers as a control.

I this we are mistaken if we think the health outcomes for smokers is of any concern to tobacco control at this stage. They have given up on smokers and are concentrating their efforts on preventing new smokers. This is why the e=cigerette is such a threat to them. They see it as a trojan horse, not just ecigs but any form of harm reduction is now off the table. The end game is elimination of smoking. They see the fastest and best way to achieve this as preventing new uptake and leting the current users die.

was.deevey

It's compounded by the fact that the user base would be mostly/exclusively ex smokers

Sorry I mean a control group of literal never smoked a fag non-smokers
vs
100% Vapers
vs
100% Smokers

This would give us a proper baseline as regards the improvements in health vs the actual negative factors (which could then be compared legitimately to other legal substances such as coffee, alcohol etc.)

But yes even with the people in place it'd be another year of study before there were results. It just irks me that these studies were done, they had the subjects, and they didn't follow up on the health issues most people question.

tommy2bad

Yes it wouldn't be that hard to do a study of a random selection of vapers, say vaping for more than a year and test things like blood pressure, lung function heart rate, the usual health checks and compared to non smokers, smokers and former smokers. It could be kept going for say five years. The thing is you would want to know the answer to ask the question and I don't think they want to know.
We have clear evidence that where a reduced harm alternative is available, people switch from smoking. Because of snus Sweden will probably become the first 'smokefree' country. Yet they oppose this because?

Some vapers group could organize it but it would be dismissed as biased. Any one else would need the funding and that's the stumbling block, a study of sufficient size would cost a fortune.
BTW theirs a study similar to the Drexel one being done atm,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010216/full
It's from The Cochrane Collaboration, well respected in the field of health research. Again more chemical analysis and an emphasis on helping people quit. But it's something.

tommy2bad

Press conference postponed but this from Rebecca Taylor.

the decision to ban refillable cartridges and devices has been taken without any evidence of health and safety dangers to consumers.”

From here;
http://libdemmeps.com/?p=1516
This is not good, it looks like the original commission proposals have won the day.
Fight!

Scofflaw

Hmm. Looks this morning like no EU refillable ban, and consumer regulation for anything under 20mg/ml: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152076893547324&set=a.10150970394827324.473527.374974667323&type=1

cordially,
Scofflaw

Vaperus

http://www.chrisdaviesmep.org.uk/

http://libdemmeps.com/?p=1516&fb_action_ids=266061750207927&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=wp

https://www.facebook.com/groups/vapersunite/

tommy2bad

Looks like the least important bit of the TPD kept the whole thing going well into the early hours.
No doubt we'll hear of the victory for health against evil tobacco, how plain packaging will reduce smoking and how banning menthol will stop youth initiation. How now consumers have access to safe reliable ncp.
And big tobacco can carry on as before because if I was them loosing branded packs and a flavored product that didn't sell well anyway would be the best I could hope for.

The trouble with this is the nic level is too low and not based on anything at all. The review in two years of refillables is laughable,a camel is a horse designed by a committee they say.

iba

tommy2bad wrote: »

Press conference postponed but this from Rebecca Taylor.

From here;
http://libdemmeps.com/?p=1516
This is not good, it looks like the original commission proposals have won the day.
Fight!

Tommy2bad,

I just read that article and unless I totally misread it all seems to be good.

1) Ecigs are not going to fall under the control of Health sector

2) Refillables are allowed

3) Different flavours are allowed

4) Highest strength allowed will be 20mg (this is bad I suppose for some people)

So all in all it seems ok, no?

Regards

Samba

iba wrote: »

Tommy2bad,

I just read that article and unless I totally misread it all seems to be good.

1) Ecigs are not going to fall under the control of Health sector

2) Refillables are allowed

3) Different flavours are allowed

4) Highest strength allowed will be 20mg (this is bad I suppose for some people)

So all in all it seems ok, no?

Regards

http://ecrgroup.eu/news/eu-set-to-introduce-draconian-overregulation-of-e-cigarettes/

They're still trying to peddle the ban on refillable devices, a ban would be almost inevitable, which is not what I would describe as reasonable.


There is also a review in 2 years time, does anyone know any details on Slovakia's position? They will be taking over the presidency in 2 years time.

grindle

Nope. 20mg is abysmal for DIYers and too low for me even in premixed juices. Giving in to truly pointless limits is a road toward more limits being introduced precisely because the limits are pointless due to their being invented due to wholly hypothetical concerns.

iba

Samba wrote: »

http://ecrgroup.eu/news/eu-set-to-introduce-draconian-overregulation-of-e-cigarettes/

They're still trying to peddle the ban on refillable devices, a ban would be almost inevitable, which is not what I would describe as reasonable.


There is also a review in 2 years time, does anyone know any details on Slovakia's position? They will be taking over the presidency in 2 years time.

The presidency's view is not really that important. What is more important is if the Presidency puts the proposal high up on its objectives and also how much the Commission are pushing for it to get over the line.

Ok, so to put this in perspective. A review in two years. Then discussion of this review. Then if necessary a new proposal or amendment to this current proposal. This could take another year or two to be adopted. Then it will take another tow years probably for the Directive to actually come into force.

So being conservative, teh earliest that this would get through is 5 years from now and the longest could be 7 years.

Regards

iba

grindle wrote: »

Nope. 20mg is abysmal for DIYers and too low for me even in premixed juices. Giving in to truly pointless limits is a road toward more limits being introduced precisely because the limits are pointless due to their being invented due to wholly hypothetical concerns.

But can't you just make what you want anyway?

StickyIcky

Saying that 20mg limit is okay is like saying...

"they only took a very small part of our land we should be thankful they didn't take it all. they will be back in 2 years time but I'm sure they won't take any more land"

tommy2bad

Some more detail here;
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/december/e-cigarette-decision-kicked-to-member-states/79100.aspx
The problem with this compromise is it moves regulation from parliament to the commission from now on. The commission as we know are so against ecigs as are the member country governments that this effectly is a cart blanch for them to regulate them out of existence. The medicalization of ecigs isn't gone away, now any state can declare them medicinal and ignore the EU directive. Worse if 3 members ban refilliables then they all must to ensure market harmonization.

The whole thing has to go back to parliament as this went farther than the commission had authority to do so it might get some further amendments, I doubt it though as the main objective for the EUP is getting the actual cigarettes part of the tpd done and dusted. We have been out maneuvered.

I haven't seen any mention of the advertising restrictions or anything else so it could be worse than what we see here.
We have a fight on our hands to just get what is in this proposal as any government can add restrictions as they see fit. What they can't do is take a more lenient approach even if they wanted to.

Originally Posted by iba;
Tommy2bad,

I just read that article and unless I totally misread it all seems to be good.

1) Ecigs are not going to fall under the control of Health sector

2) Refillables are allowed

3) Different flavours are allowed

4) Highest strength allowed will be 20mg (this is bad I suppose for some people)

So all in all it seems ok, no?

Regards

No because 1) ecigs can still fall under medical regs in any state that decides to do so. 2) for two years unless 3 states decide to ban them,then all must ban them 3) unless individual states reduce the number of flavors alowd 4) 20 is too low for anyone starting out and no good for diy, black market on the way.
Basically what this dose is set maximum limits on ecigs and leaves the rest to member states.

grindle

iba wrote: »

But can't you just make what you want anyway?

If they have a 20mg consumer limit how could I make what I want?
20mg is already too low for me to vape, adding flavours will dilute that down.

What StickyIcky says is precisely the point - if we give them the go-ahead to fuck us once, why wouldn't they think we want to be fucked again?