An Interview with Professor Michael Siegel

[StringDancer]

A good read.

"Perhaps the most interesting example of the dependence upon ideology rather than science and a strong evidence base is the issue of electronic cigarettes. The major national anti-smoking groups have asked the FDA to take these products off the market. This is despite evidence that electronic cigarettes are much safer than conventional cigarettes and much more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapy products in keeping smokers off cigarettes. It really comes down to ideology vs. science.

"The anti-smoking movement's ideology - which is guided by an abstinence only type of philosophy - just doesn't have room for a product that looks and acts like a cigarette but happens to be orders of magnitude safer. In this case, the science - the health effects - just don't matter. The ideology is too deeply ingrained to allow the product to be given a chance of saving lives.

.....

"Whether electronic cigarettes are safer than conventional cigarettes is really a non-issue. The real questions are how effective the product is in helping smokers keep off cigarettes, how electronic cigarettes could figure into a long-term strategy for promoting smoking cessation, and what specific messages about electronic cigarettes and health would be appropriate to communicate to the public."

Source:

http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/intervie...ael-siegel.html

[Christopher]

Good read indeed. Can agree more.

Any new news on the SE lawsuit against the FDA that I havn't heard about?

[PoppaC]

Hey, some common sense. There is some still out there. Good stuff!

[StringDancer]

Here's another excellent article written by the good Doctor Michael Siegel:

Senator and Anti-Smoking Groups Want to Ban Less Harmful E-Cigarettes and Protect the Most Toxic One

Excerpt:

This is about as idiotic and irrational an approach as I have ever seen in my 22 years in tobacco control and public health.

One company has a product on the market which delivers only nicotine. There are potentially serious health effects of this nicotine, especially with regards to heart disease. However, there are no other toxic chemicals and no carcinogens, so there is no risk of cancer or chronic obstructive lung disease.

Another company has a product on the market which delivers nicotine plus more than 4000 other chemicals and toxins, including over 60 proven carcinogens, and which we know kills over 400,000 people a year.

Our health groups' response: prohibit the first company from marketing its product, but officially provide government approval of the products manufactured by the second company.

What Senator Lautenberg and the health groups are trying to do is ban a much less harmful type of cigarette but to give an official government seal of approval to the much more toxic one that we know is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.

The logic of these actions completely escapes me.

Or at least the logic did escape me until The Ashtray Blog pointed out that Senator Lautenberg is the recipient of more than $128,000 from pharmaceutical companies (in 2008 alone).

Edited June 12, 2009 by StringDancer

[kathyst]

I am reading all of this press with much interest of course. It is so messed up -- that "they" say we must quit, yet they really want us to kekep smoking, because they want the revenue from us, and also due to Big Pharma needing people to smoke so they can make money off smoking-cessation items.

Plus just all the ridiculous non-scientific and just plain illogical perspectives from the moral police, etc. But I know I'm preaching to the choir here.

kathy