by Carl V Phillips
I finally have a few free minutes while others tinker with the document I have been working on, so I thought I would comment on something that struck me about a post from Chris Snowdon this morning.
In the post, Snowdon rightly ridicules the UK National Health Service for bragging about their programs to assist smokers who want to quit, which he points out reached very few people, with minimal success, and at rather great expense. I found myself taking the thoughts one step further, and questioning whether even the claimed modest NHS accomplishments really occurred.
What struck me is that the anti-tobacco cadre who claim that this (and other similar smoking cessation programs) are a success is the same crowd that will deny clear evidence of THR success, based on such claims as “correlation is not causation; we do not know anything until we have…
View original post 423 more words
You see… my concern is that no company has yet to attain an MA.
I wonder why that is?
Speaking personally, I have doubts whether any company will ever attain an MA for an e-cig, beyond (perhaps) the stagnant, sealed, unflavoured, single-source component cigalikey.
The most difficult aspects of licensing are in regard to efficacy requirements relating to demonstrable and consistent dose and dose-ratios, alongside the thermal decomposition of glycol/glycerin/flavourings, as well as particulate matter from components… all in relation to the inhalation of vapour through the lung.
“”My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to get an MA you must run twice as fast as that.””
The Queen, Alice in Wonderland.
The study, by Prof. Igor Burstyn, Drexel University School of Public Health, is available at the Drexel website, here (pdf). Burstyn reviewed all of the available chemistry on e-cigarette vapor and liquid and found that the levels reported — even in those studies that were hyped as showing there is a danger — are well below the level that is of concern.
And that assessment applies to the vaper himself. The exposure to bystanders is orders of magnitude less and of no concern at all.
The paper is technical, of course, but I believe it does a great job of communicating for readers at many levels. It puts the results in very clear and useful terms — exactly what policy makers need for making decisions.
The study is available at http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdfFor summary and discussion go to