email I got from the FDA

[paise]

I had to straighten my doctor out on my 2nd appt after starting the e-cig. I STILL have no crackles, wheezes, franks, or thrills. He was absolutely happy about that but then he starts a conversation about the FDA then I tell him about how the FDA was getting their information and he was flabbergasted. He couldn't believe they did a non-scientific test based on the 1 or 2 companies' nicotine levels. He started about the nitrasamines (sp?-too tired to look it up; I have the flu - was evidentally exposed prior to flu vaccine since that's the only way to get the flu just after a flu vaccine). I told him that it was all pressure on the FDA from Big Pharma and Big tobacco who are losing a ****load of revenue to the e-cig companies.

Much to my surprise, being that my husband and I had an appt together and usually in the same room so I can make sure the doctor knows ALL of his problems and I can prevent him from lying to the doctor... My husband stood up for me and told the doc I had cut way back even on the e-cigs and now the house has no smell of tobacco, I'm not coughing from smoking, and strangely enough I have no idea how he found out but the smell of tobacco-burning cigarettes makes me nauseous. No offense to tobacco smokers. I can't control how my body reacts to burning tobacco smell esp with my screwed up immune system. I just HAVE to get over this flu before next Saturday because my niece is getting married in a formal wedding with a huge reception and hubby promised to dance with me. I know that's a bit more information that you guys needed to know but I'm not firing on all 8 cylinders today so please forgive me.

After the long discussion over e-cigs, my doctor is still on board with their use, especially with cases like mine and with the elderly whose immune systems are as screwed up as mine. I'm only a few months from turning 40 but there are days when I feel like I am in the body of someone twice that age, especially when sick with any kind of virus, bacterial infection, or the flu. Now my doc has to find out if I can get that Swine Flu vaccine. It comes in two doses but I think it is a live virus and if it is, not only can I NOT have the vaccine injections but I can't be around anyone who has the vaccine because of the autoimmune diseases (lupus/Sjogren's). He's checking to find out if my husband (7mos post-op quadruple bypass and juvenile diabetes not controlled) If DH gets the vaccine, he will have to stay at his mother's house for x number of days until it's safe for him to be around me. If he can't have then he's in a similar situation as me with staying out of large crowds where we won't know if someone has had the vaccine or not - including the wedding. Ugh. I hate these DAMN diseases sometimes, most of the time! It just ruins life as I used to know it. Now I have all these things I have to be careful of such as where I go, who I am with, and to be sure not to overdo it or I end up in a flare, which can ultimately put me in the hospital. Sometimes life stinks. I'm not giving up so don't think that I am saying that but it does really stink at times. Now the FDA is trying to blow my life to hell too; that's just going too damn far. It's none of their fracking business what I do. It is my life no matter how short, long, or when these diseases begin to attack my vital organs. That's my row to hoe so to speak. They need to stay the heck out of it. If I drop dead from a freaking e-cig it was my choice and I believe as a grown woman with a husband, two kids, and a home not to mention being a voter, and a person I should have the right to live as I want to live without them dictating what I can or cannot do to my body. It's my body; not their's!

 

[ArizX]

The FDA's concern over kids developing nic addition because of e-cigs is ridiculous! It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad and scary. I smoked my first cigarette when I was 12, as did many of my other friends. Doesn't matter how young you are, it is not hard at all to get your hand on a cigarette and a lighter and light up. We would steal them from parents or buy them from older kids. By the time I was 15/16, I could go to any local gas station and pick up a pack!

Wake up folks, kids are smoking and it is not hard to buy smokes! They are everywhere and quite accessible, regardless of age. If they are really concerned about kids, they would focus their efforts on cracking down on cigarette retailers rather than making bogus studies to "prove" that ecigs are dangerous. God this hypocritical bull**** makes me angry! I am way too young to be this cynical.

 

[paise]

The FDA's concern over kids developing nic addition because of e-cigs is ridiculous! It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad and scary. I smoked my first cigarette when I was 12, as did many of my other friends. Doesn't matter how young you are, it is not hard at all to get your hand on a cigarette and a lighter and light up. We would steal them from parents or buy them from older kids. By the time I was 15/16, I could go to any local gas station and pick up a pack!

Wake up folks, kids are smoking and it is not hard to buy smokes! They are everywhere and quite accessible, regardless of age. If they are really concerned about kids, they would focus their efforts on cracking down on cigarette retailers rather than making bogus studies to "prove" that ecigs are dangerous. God this hypocritical bull**** makes me angry! I am way too young to be this cynical.

There was a store next to a few of the schools I attended. When the bus arrived at school or a cousin dropped me off, I would slip over to the store next to the school to buy a pack or two of cigarettes before school began. I did this almost every day and I was only about 12/13 years old! I was buying alcohol in bars without question when I was 15 and 16 and oddly enough, I look young for my age even now. The year I went for graduation, the woman handling the ceremony sent me out at first because she thought I was only 14. I had to show her a picture of my infant daughter and my driver's license to PROVE I was 20 years old and not some teenager. That was a compliment but I always thought back to the days when I could get into clubs when my friends couldn't, I could buy alcohol at the liquor store when they couldn't, and I could buy cigarettes without any questions.

I realize much of it was the result of my looks (Once upon a time before lupus and Sjogren's, I was one of those "pretty people" but those days are slowly falling behind me with the autoimmunes tearing my system all to heck) but still, I could buy almost anything I wanted. Hell, the bathrooms had condom dispensers and I was never questioned when walking into a men's room bathroom to get condoms for Pete's Sake! I was a rowdy, angry, teenager with a lot of problems. Not only did I smoke but I drank too among other problems.

Kids smoked, drank, and did drugs (esp weed) in my day, my mother's generation, and generations before her and after me. If a teenager wants to get something or do something they will find a way. The FDA believes they are stopping something but in truth and reality, they aren't. A certain amount of teenagers will smoke, drink, and do drugs and a certain amount of teenagers won't. I think we are all just hard-wired somehow from birth to be addicted to certain things.

Today I am no teenager; those years are far behind me but I remember, well I remember much of those years but not all because I drank to the point of having blackouts at times but the ONLY way we as a group are going to stop or curb the drinking, smoking, and drugs is to have parents that are more diligent and open with our children. It doesn't matter what the FDA does. It is up to the parents to teach their children different - not the FDA. The FDA is not our children's parents and they are not OUR parents so they should just shove off and leave the parenting where it belongs - in the hands of the parents. And, I am not against sex ed in school or even DARE or MADD programs in school as long as these organizations do not step over that line where the problem becomes that of the parents. The ONLY reason I agree with having these programs in schools is because there are some parents out there who should have never had children - my parents included. For those children, any education from a reliable source and not the Bush's abstinence-only crap but a full-rounded education on sex and the dangers of drugs as well as the difficulty of stopping smoking before they start.

I am extremely proud of my oldest daughter. She grew up among tobacco users all her life and when she attempted to slip a few of my cigarettes one time, it make her turn green and she was sick for two days. I never had to worry about her smoking again. Her dad and I talked to her extensively about it. We also never hid the mystery of alcohol just as we don't hide it from our 12yo. They know what wine, mixed drinks, and beer tastes like so therefore we removed the mystery. My oldest wasn't out at beer blasts on the weekends like other teens. She was with friends who didn't smoke, didn't drink, and didn't do drugs. I think the drugs part come from the fact she had grown up with her father and I having no choice but to take drugs (doctor prescribed) in order to stay alive and as well as possible. This lessened her desire to want to take them. She saw the other side of the fence and often told what few friends she had that experimented what they would do if they had to take certain drugs every day of their life for the rest of their life as her mom and dad did or risk dying. She walked them to the guidance counselor and even helped in the detox procedures. I'm so proud of this child I could burst with joy. I've made many mistakes but I think the things I did right outweighs the things I did wrong and hopefully it will help me do better with our youngest daughter.

So, I agree with you 100%. Teenagers will be teenagers and they will experiment no matter what if they are that hell-bent on trying. There is nothing we can do to stop it, not even the FDA can stop it if the teenager is motivated enough.

 

[dragonpuff]

I had my first puff off a cigarette when i was 10; my friend's older sister was passing one around for us to try. When i was 12 i inhaled for the first time, and i loved it. Within a couple months, you couldn't pry a pack of cigarettes from my hands. My parents tried really hard, did everything they could do to keep me from smoking, and i just snuck around and did it anyway. I was hooked.

I've tried to quit many times, and i've known many others who've also tried. I've noticed a very clear trend among those who quit versus those who don't: the only quitters i've ever known started smoking when they were 17 or older. Those who never quit started smoking at age 12-14. It's a very clear reality to me: the younger you are when you start smoking, the less likely you will be able to quit. I've also noticed that those who started smoking very young are more likely to be heavy smokers and are less likely to want to quit.

I'm not saying that those who started when they're older are any less addicted, just that if you're a heavy smoker, its likely that you started young. And if you started young, its far more ingrained in you and your everyday life, and for many in this position the thought of quitting is ridiculous, unattainable at best. For many of us, the choice of "quit or die" presents only the option of "die."

Conclusion? Barring smoking alternatives from the public is blatantly discriminating against people who started smoking before they were old enough to really choose.

It's disturbing, to say the least.

 

[rothenbj]

But it felt like a nic hit from a "Non-Nicotine" cartridge, and that's when I switched to Johnson Creek, who don't even use any tobacco-derived ingredients anymore.

Hey, hxj

Are you sure about that no tobacco-derived ingredients or are you talking only about the non-nicotine variety of JC? I heard that before and posed the question to them. The only response I got was from the help desk and they pushed the question to the tech people who never got back to me.

 

[hxj]

Hey, hxj

Are you sure about that no tobacco-derived ingredients or are you talking only about the non-nicotine variety of JC? I heard that before and posed the question to them. The only response I got was from the help desk and they pushed the question to the tech people who never got back to me.

Supposedly it's all varieties. They changed all their recipes a few months back (losing a lot of fans), retooling them to have zero tobacco-derived ingredients. The nicotine is allegedly synthetically formulated, just like in Intellicig's ECOpure liquids (which also use zero tobacco-derived ingredients).

Quote from their site: "Instead of being lit, an electronic cigarette vaporizes a solution of water, nicotine & flavoring. There's no smoke, no combustion, and in the case of Johnson Creek Original Smoke Juice, there's no tobacco at all." When I emailed to confirm that meant that the liquids had no tobacco-derived ingredients, I was told that was correct.

Seems pretty clear that Johnson Creek wants to be able to state that its product has nothing to do with tobacco and therefore isn't subject to tobacco regulations. Sounds like a good plan to me. Unfortunately, lots of people dislike the new non-tobacco liquids. Fortunately (for me, anyway), I'm not one of them. I'm a big fan especially of both the JC Original and the Tennessee Cured, which I switch between as my everyday liquid, and then I swap in some Summer Peach when I'm in the mood for a change-up. Most of the other flavors I can take or leave.

Although I really do wish someone would come up with a safe-to-vape completely-non-tobacco-yet-completely-realistic tobacco flavor.

 

[Angela]

...just like in Intellicig's ECOpure liquids (which also use zero tobacco-derived ingredients).

This one seems to be going around like Chinese Whispers! At no point has intellicig stated this to my knowledge!!!!

 

[hxj]

This one seems to be going around like Chinese Whispers! At no point has intellicig stated this to my knowledge!!!!

Well, I asked InnoVapor, Intellicig's largest US distributor, and that's what they told me...

EDIT: found a post confirming InnoVapor's stance on it...

A better word to use is synthetic. The nicotine in ECOpure is 99.8% pure pharmaceutical grade nicotine. It is made in a laboratory and is not derived from tobacco. Hope that helped

 

[rothenbj]

Supposedly it's all varieties. They changed all their recipes a few months back (losing a lot of fans), retooling them to have zero tobacco-derived ingredients. The nicotine is allegedly synthetically formulated, just like in Intellicig's ECOpure liquids (which also use zero tobacco-derived ingredients).

Quote from their site: "Instead of being lit, an electronic cigarette vaporizes a solution of water, nicotine & flavoring. There's no smoke, no combustion, and in the case of Johnson Creek Original Smoke Juice, there's no tobacco at all." When I emailed to confirm that meant that the liquids had no tobacco-derived ingredients, I was told that was correct.

Seems pretty clear that Johnson Creek wants to be able to state that its product has nothing to do with tobacco and therefore isn't subject to tobacco regulations. Sounds like a good plan to me. Unfortunately, lots of people dislike the new non-tobacco liquids. Fortunately (for me, anyway), I'm not one of them. I'm a big fan especially of both the JC Original and the Tennessee Cured, which I switch between as my everyday liquid, and then I swap in some Summer Peach when I'm in the mood for a change-up. Most of the other flavors I can take or leave.

Although I really do wish someone would come up with a safe-to-vape completely-non-tobacco-yet-completely-realistic tobacco flavor.

Thanks for the info, I'll have to go back and re-read their site on the nic source info, however I like the idea since it will definitely put a distance between analogs and their juice. Now if I could just close that distance myself because I'm still not 100% cig free (more like 85% free from an over 2 pack a day habit).

Anyway, I like their juice also and have only been buying from them. Stockpiling a bit in case things go bad fast. I'm more on the kid side I guess with liking the vanilla, strawberry and choc. flavors most.

However, and you've probably noticed this too. They mark up the labels with an ink that doesn't stay on the bottle. I've got a few bottles that I don't know what flavor I'm loading. I just get a surprise when I hit the vape button. Liking those kid flavors though.

 

[hxj]

Anyway, I like their juice also and have only been buying from them. Stockpiling a bit in case things go bad fast. I'm more on the kid side I guess with liking the vanilla, strawberry and choc. flavors most.

The strawberry's one of the very few flavors of theirs I haven't tried. (I think the only other one is Arctic Menthol; never been much of a menthol guy.) I do like the French Vanilla, actually, because it's not a straight vanilla-- very much like the Tennessee Cured but with a dash more vanilla, to my mind. I liked the Chocolate Truffle at first, but now I find it a bit cloying and odd, largely due to the PG aftertaste. When (if?) they finally come out with all-VG formulas again, I'll probably revisit the chocolate.

I mixed the Chocolate Truffle and Black Cherry and it was pretty darn good. Have you mixed your three favorites yet? Sounds like you'd get a Neapolitan ice cream sort of vibe.

 

[sunnyday]

While I am obviously a believer in e-cigs (or I wouldn't be here), the FDA really has no choice in this matter. This isn't a case of a board considering whether e-cigs are better then cigarettes for your health, they have to operate within their mandate and rules, and consider the devices on their own. If congress says that they have oversight over the category, which they have, then the FDA has to evaluate them according to existing procedure. If the recent decision to give them oversight of tobacco products hadn't been made, they may have been able to turn a blind eye, but between that and all the local legislation about their use that is currently underway, they don't even have that option. The only out is really around the devices themselves, if manufacturers market them as herbal atomizers (as Ruyan has already begun to do) then they can "look away" from that, but the juice is really where they have no choice but to directly intervene. Sadly. Unless a major corporation invests a lot of money, which is unlikely as they would just be doing the legwork for everyone else who could then copy the product with out the start up costs, then this is likely to go nowhere for some time. The best hope is that when they do proceed too a ban (which is probably not as imminent as envisioned due to appeals process and the recent "warning" issued by the FDA, which will lessen pressure for the time from politicians and tobacco lobbyists), they also issue guidelines for what would be required for sales to be allowed (acceptable toxin levels, similar to patches, warning labels, etc). But don't fear too much, fake Rolex watches have been illegal forever, there are plenty of people in China happy to ship them to you, this will be no different

Well put Puma. As unjust as we are being treated there is a defined protocol which must be followed by the FDA. The outcome of their research can be swayed in any direction and it's obvious they are licking the hands who feed them. Of course they have no loyalty to vapers. The snag IS with the liquid, and though nicotine and propolyne glycol are approved by the FDA it's the INHALED consumption effect they don't know about, hence, a warning. It's between the analog smoker and e cig alternative as far as I'm concerned. Keep up the good work.

 

[MrKai]

Hooboy

I've been reading the to-and-fro between dopebeat and SLDS...as well as the myriad anti-FDA rants in general here.

While I am new to this forum and eCigs, I am NOT new to skeptical thinking and analysis...and as...painful as this may be to some of you, we would all be better served taking dopebeat's stance...and here is why...and you ain't gonna like it:

Within the scope of this argument, removing the passionate defense of a bunch of addicts () both dopebeat and the FDA are right *at this time*.

I know. But "read me out" here.

A lot, and I mean a LOT of the posts here border on "fringe lunacy" with regard to the FDA and Big Tobacco. Seriously...this isn't helping the lot of us *not* sound like crazed addicts, ok?

The "Evil Big Tobacco" operates within the law and is heavily monitored and regulated.
"Little Vape" is not. In ANY way.

The notion that the FDA should be testing Electronic Cigarettes against traditional ones is kind of amusing. They aren't remotely the same thing...we all know it.

The closest thing they can logically be compared to would be, in fact, other non-tobacco Nicotine Delivery Systems...and due to some astoundingly poor judgement of some eCig marketers, other known, regulated NRT.

There is no denying that based on this fair, logical and yes, scientific metric, albeit with an initially small sample set, the eCig camp failed miserable.

I can also tell you this: if the FDA found the kinds of variances in the OTHER stuff they tested that they did in their eCig sampling...there would be hell to pay. There are reasons why there are voluntary recalls, and quite frankly, if the eCig market wasn't so haphazard, nascent and had *decent PR flaks* that is EXACTLY what they would have done.

Big Pharma and Big T have worked this out. It is easy to appease the FDA; you simply acknowledge and appeal to their power and authority.

Regardless at this stage of what the relative harm is vs tobacco cigs or anything else, this is what we do know, in this case, and what both the FDA and deadbeat are saying:

We don't know what the hell is in this stuff with a degree of certitude that it would be irresponsible for the FDA to not say "wait one minute."

Look...e-juice is pretty much the *ultimate* 'snake-oil' of our time...it contains a very powerful, addictive drug. e-Juice is a product with NO STANDARDS whatsoever.

Hell even the herbal crap that people buy by the carload at least has to follow *food rules* as they are (ehem) 'dietary supplements' that no one can prove does what they say outside of anecdotal evidence.

And what of the ECA, thus far? Do they require their members to *prove anything*? Maintain audit trails, work with known suppliers of raw materials that *also* do these things? Or are they at this point simply an arguably ineffective lobbying group bolstered and funded by what could emerge as "Big Vapor"...eh?

Studies, even the FDA's, are just that: studies. They do not hold water in and of themselves and are not generally accepted as proof of anything in responsible science without a LOT or corroborating evidence including some double-blind action.

So while we may find the FDA's "study" valueless, pretty much everyone else's is too according to "the rules"...however the FDA has the authority to not allow certain products (it is presently narrowly restricted to what they know) to enter the US in the interest of public safety. It is their job.

State and Locals have taken it upon themselves to ban these things, or at least in the less facists ones, open the issue to public debate so that a determination can be made. These are the facts as we have them and as we know them, and anything outside of this scope starts to drift into fallacy-land.

To be honest, as dope said, the right group of jokers with as little as $5-$10K can get a street address, a WATS/Toll Free, a slick website, slick videos, have some chinese crap branded for them and have enough left over for at least one chem analysis and if they are closer to the $10K point, a gas chromo done.

And then sell utter garbage that is made with who-knows-what.

Any group or distro you know right now at any time could make a business decision, innocently or even intently with disregard for product safety over profit, and endanger a lot of people.

We have a lot of anecdotal "evidence" that suggests that eCigs certainly on paper are a hell of a lot safer than smoking tobacco...but really, in the grand scheme of things...

That's not saying much, because damn near everything outside of high-velocity lead poisoning qualifies when you think about it. But at the end of the day, "common sense" isn't proof. Historically 'common sense' and 'conventional wisdom' have held true the utterly ridiculous.

Let the FDA do their job, because while they do sometimes fail, the numbers fall heavily in their favor on this and cherry-picking cases where they have failed in their mission smacks of confirmation bias and an utter lack of objectivity and *good* sense.

Just because 'ApezThatVapz' (man I hope that isn't really someone's name on here; it is meant as an example...sorry if it turns out that that IS someone, heheh) shows up with 'decent' prices and starts astroturfing here doesn't mean they have any idea what they are doing...ya' dig?

In fact how do any of the more emphatic here even know if some of these stateside folks aren't essentially "kitchen labs" and practice even the most trivial of safety standards?

Here is what I do know, from personal professional experience: even the pieces of paper that get printed up and inserted into boxes of drugs have to be printed in places that use certain inks, have certain schedules for cleaning the presses, need to be separated from regular printing operations on their own lines, have dedicated staff, must be handled with gloves and the people doing the work wearing surgical caps.

To print inserts. To reduce certain contamination risks. And they are inspected. Regularly.

Establishments making e-Liquids could very well be in someone's rat and roach infested kitchen, some shop bench somewhere, whatever.

Understand?

So please, let's not just wave this stuff off. I can see why dopebeat's tone started to turn to one of incredulity, because it appears that many people could easily become victims of their own gullibility.

See: Tobacco Cigarettes



-K

 

[warp1900]

Let the FDA do their job, because while they do sometimes fail, the numbers fall heavily in their favor on this and cherry-picking cases where they have failed in their mission smacks of confirmation bias and an utter lack of objectivity and *good* sense.-K

You clearly have no clue, and not only about e-cigs or the FDA.


-

 

[MrKai]

You clearly have no clue, and not only about e-cigs or the FDA.


-

No. I disagree.

This doesn't mean I don't have a clue.

However, feel free to enlighten me based on rational thinking and not an emotional appeal.

If you consider the FDA your "enemy" here then you have already lost. many people with wide and varied experience in their fields that also enjoy eCigs are making this clear on these forums and other places...as well they should.

Hell, I have been reading complaints people have about the very thing that the FDA stated put this firmly in their sights...but people still see to want to clown on the FDA.

I believe what I posted makes this crystal clear to people that are not blinded by anger and confirmation bias.

The point ISN'T about if or not eCigs are safer than smoking cigarettes. The POINT is if or not e-Liquid solutions are under the current conditions.

Do you understand this? it bears repeating: The point isn't about if or not eCigs are safer than smoking cigarettes. The point is if or not e-Liquid solutions are under the current conditions.

I am not sure how this is being missed or why it is being ignored...but sadly, I fear it will take a tragedy to make it clear, which by that point it will be checkmate.

Instead of resisting a responsible course of action it is in all of our best interest to *follow one*...hence the beginnings of stuff like CASAA and the founding of the ECA.

If you don't work in Public Policy, SciTech or even *marketing* these things may not be clear to you but they are all part of the big picture and to launch a personal attack at me is not only poor form, but part of the problem...not the solution.

 

[MrKai]

...going to piss off some more people/cause more anger than I intended or anticipated, I will put it another way:

Do you think if the FDA did their tests again, using a wider sample from all known vendors, great and small, the results would be BETTER or WORSE?

Think about this before responding, flaming me:

If right now, today, in the current market, the FDA said "oh, alright, fine we weren't 'fair' or 'scientific enough'...you win" and went out and bought 10,000 samples of e-Liquid and prefilled carts, examined the label contents and stated amounts noted and measured them...

Do you think they would find that MORE than 5% of the products were mislabeled...or LESS than 5%?

Do you think that if they went out and bought 1000 bottles of say, Advil, there would be a similar disparity?

Do you see the problem...yet?

Do you ultimately see this as being *better* for eCigs, or the death knell for them?

-K

 

[warp1900]

Do you think if the FDA did their tests again, using a wider sample from all known vendors, great and small, the results would be BETTER or WORSE?


-K

First of all I don't consider either you or the FDA an enemy. You sound a little paranoid repeating that everyone will be angry at you.

You are the one completely missing the point, FDA, tests or no tests is exactly the same since the end results are/will be dictated by pharma and not the FDA, regardless of whatever the truth is.
That is how it is, has always been and will always be.


This is not a theory, it is just simple everyday life fact, most prefer to not see it, but that doesn't change reality.


--

 

[HaploVoss]

Just to add to that point... why does anyone think there are more and more drugs approved every year that inevitably end up with class action suits against them and taken off the market for horrendous side effects? While at the same time, many simple and amply tested alternatives get denied or have to re-route their products to the 'alternative health' arenas where they suffer from market losses due to the dubious outlook the media gives it by splashing all items into one basket. Along with major organizations like the FDA.

So again, you can't dismiss the fact that this is about the FDA and not just liquid or even the e-cig itself - the major factor here is yet another example of major companies paying a fortune, leaning over and metaphorically or even directly saying 'hey - this is going to wreck our profits... axe it or your funding goes buh bye'.

Unfortunate facts, and you can try to deny it all you want but I have an immediate family member that works for Roche. They talk about this all the time and has nearly quit on a few occasions just over backwater crap that went on about some of my past epilepsy meds. Long story so not going to go into it - but believe me - this crap happens.

Take care,
- Hap

 

[MrKai]

First of all I don't consider either you or the FDA an enemy. You sound a little paranoid repeating that everyone will be angry at you.

You are the one completely missing the point, FDA, tests or no tests is exactly the same since the end results are/will be dictated by pharma and not the FDA, regardless of whatever the truth is.
That is how it is, has always been and will always be.


This is not a theory, it is just simple everyday life fact, most prefer to not see it, but that doesn't change reality.


--

Facts are provable. Supposition is not.

Is this the part where you 1. you assume I have no knowledge of Pharma, 2. Decide I am a 'plant' or a 'shill' and/or 3. Begin an endless stream of logical fallacies beginning with ad hominem arguementum*/a stream of red herrings?

I see you have yet to answer the question, so I will pose it another way:

Do you believe if 10 independent labs (meaning not the FDA) performed these tests on as few as 100 products on the market, that they would or would not find inconsistencies such as those discovered by the FDA?

-K

*actually, this already began and I chose to ignore it...

 

[MrKai]

Just to add to that point... why does anyone think there are more and more drugs approved every year that inevitably end up with class action suits against them and taken off the market for horrendous side effects? While at the same time, many simple and amply tested alternatives get denied or have to re-route their products to the 'alternative health' arenas where they suffer from market losses due to the dubious outlook the media gives it by splashing all items into one basket. Along with major organizations like the FDA.

How many products do you think the FDA monitors? What do you suppose their statistical failure rate is?

More importantly, what has that got to do with the discrepancies that were found? Do you believe them to be false?

So again, you can't dismiss the fact that this is about the FDA and not just liquid or even the e-cig itself - the major factor here is yet another example of major companies paying a fortune, leaning over and metaphorically or even directly saying 'hey - this is going to wreck our profits... axe it or your funding goes buh bye'.

Of course I can, because you haven't presented any facts pertinent to this case in particular. Do you believe they made it all up? Do you believe that they didn't find what they found, including but not limited to the labeling discrepancies?

Unfortunate facts, and you can try to deny it all you want but I have an immediate family member that works for Roche. They talk about this all the time and has nearly quit on a few occasions just over backwater crap that went on about some of my past epilepsy meds. Long story so not going to go into it - but believe me - this crap happens.

Take care,
- Hap

At no point did I state that the FDA is perfect. What I said was I understand dopebeat's concerns and I too am puzzled why they seem to be dismissed and glossed over given the evidence of the mislabeling issues discovered on these very forums. I cannot fathom why this isn't a valid point of concern or debate.

Assuming that you trust the word, experience, chemical knowledge and anecdotal accounts of members here...why is the FDA making the same or similar discoveries...not valid?

-K

 

[HaploVoss]

Do you believe if 10 independent labs (meaning not the FDA) performed these tests on as few as 100 products on the market, that they would or would not find inconsistencies such as those discovered by the FDA?
-K

Pardon me as I am coming in on the middle of this, but I don't understand your point...

The kind of inconsistencies they found, by what you are asking - let us assume that 10 independent lab studies were performed, and that all 10 of them found inconsistencies - even slighlty more anomolous.

Upon investigation of the studies provided by the FDA - if you were to send 100 cans of beans to 10 independent labs - you would find also most liekly find a similar number of anomolies with the same types of chemicals.

With publicly available data on what is in our current foods and suppliment products, there are countless examples of the same components in greater quantities.

So is your question as to whether or not you think the labs would find anomolies in a mask set of 100 products and that would qualify or quantify the current standing of the FDA?

I am not trying to be rude - I am just trying to understand your question and what answer you are trying to get here.

Take care,
- Hap