Archive | November 2013

Cancer Research UK finally admit what we all know!

Original article: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/infozone/news/cancer-research-uk-finally-admit-what-we-all-know.html

 

Today Cancer Research UK (CRUK) released a report titled “The Marketing of Electronic Cigarettes in the UK” – it’s long document and along with some interesting observations, and some infuriating – but one particular one stood out to us.
Direct Quote from CRUK’s briefing on E-cigarettes:

Consumers are being given more accurate information about nicotine, and specifically being told that the health problems of smoking are not caused by it, but by other chemicals. In theory, this should have the effect of increasing the acceptance and appeal of nicotine (or at least reducing its lack of appeal) and hence boost NRT options. However, as discussed below, it is uncertain whether cessation or NRT is likely to do well out of the e-cigarette revolution.  

3 guesses who CRUK are protecting

“Consumers are being given more accurate information about nicotine, and specifically being told that the health problems of smoking are not caused by it, but by other chemicals.”

Yes, and this fact is generally ignored when talking about e-cigarettes, but apparently is highly important when discussing Pharma  owned NRT products?  Why aren’t CRUK doing more to inform the smoking public that the dangers of smoking are not through nicotine, but through the 7000 other chemicals and the process of setting fire to tobacco leaves.  Why won’t they state honestly that electronic cigarettes are an effective alternative for smokers and a safer way for smokers to consume nicotine …..read on!

“In theory, this should have the effect of increasing the acceptance and appeal of nicotine (or at least reducing its lack of appeal) and hence boost NRT options.”

Yes, NRT is not only ineffective but also by CRUK’s own admission lacking in appeal.  That is why it has failed and that is why electronic cigarettes, despite much misinformation from pharma funded bodies such as CRUK, ASH and BMA and RCP has continued to thrive.  Shame on them.

For the rest of the article please see Page on E-cigarette-forum

No More Compromise

No More Compromise.

Article by Josef K – Strong language – discretion advised!

E-Cigs in Canada

E-Cigs in Canada

A Few Quick Facts on E-Cigarettes in Canada.

Is there an Answer?

We are all aware of the health damages caused by smoking, so here is a look at a different side.

The worst part of the current situation in smoking is that some Public Health officials and many of the associated bodies seem to be politically motivated to prolong smoking in many people.
Some bodies such as the CDC appear to be exaggerating the possible negative effects of SHR (Smoking Harm Reduction) and the currently best tool out there to achieve this. In the USA, the consumption of cigarettes has decreased by something like 6% by the latest figures over the previous year, but this figure is ignored as it appears to be a consequence of the continuing uptake of the “trendy” electronic cigarettes (e-cigs). In order to preserve their jobs and positions of “health advisors” and anti-smoking authorities, many of these pundits are cherry-picking the few bad points and ignoring the actual figures which show that e-cigs are not only less harmful to the users, but are are considerably better for the people associating with the users.

Facts:

  • E-cigs are 95 – 99% less harmful than traditional cigarettes.
  • The “Passive vaping” worries of some people are almost laughable. An e-cig stops producing vapour when it is not being used (no sidestream), and the exhalate is almost solely water vapour ( with a small amount of glycerin, and propolyne glycol (both medically used in inhalers and medicines) with a trace amount of nicotine. Other chemicals are present, but in quatities below levels which do damage.
  • The uptake of e-cigs by minors does not seem to be happening, a recent study, showed that almost only minors who were already smokers were using e-cigs.

Why are PH bodies encouraging these misconceptions?

  • These bodies are primarily funded by the big pharmaceutical companies, the direct competitors of e-cigs in the field of SHR.
  • Many of these bodies will lose their influence, funding and much of their power if the market for e-cigs continues to grow at its present rate (currently doubling every year).
  • To be fair, some of the individuals involved are good, honest people who believe that the devil is nicotine, rather than just smoking causing all the harm. Nicotine has an LD50 (50% lethal dosage) officially of about 60mg, even this has recently been proven incorrect, the correct LD50 is about 1200mg if inhaled or ingested, but about 600mg for contact. Nicotine apparently is a mildly beneficial and harmless drug, albeit slightly addictive, again new studies in the recent months have shown that it is not the real devil, as there are some chemicals in cigarettes that appear to potentiate the nicotine to make it and smoking much more addictive.

Why does the pharmaceutical industry encourage this scenario?
Big P and Big T both have a financial interest in seeing smoking continue, as a lot of their turnover comes from selling anti-smoking drugs, and the drugs which can help with smoking caused diseases, and Big T of course sells the tobacco products in the first place. The “Quit Cycle” is very profitable to both industries, and the e-cig is threatening this cycle itself.

The Quit Cycle.

  1. A smoker decides to stop smoking, and buys NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) products from Big P. These products have a failure rate of 90+% at one year.
  2. The smoker relapses, and is again a customer of Big T.
  3. The smoker tries to stop again, this time probably using a more expensive product. Since the failure rate is still averaging 90% …
  4. The smoker relapses.
  5. Redo from start [1] if the smoker has not by now contracted any of the fatal diseases associated with smoking.

This cycle is highly profitable for both industries.What often happens now that e-cigs are available is:-

  1. A smoker decides to stop smoking, and buys an e-cig (any brand).
  2. If he likes it, he will continue with it. If he doesn’t like it or it’s not successful in keeping him away from cigarettes, then he may either return to smoking or try a different brand or generation of e-cig. Either way, there is no profit to Big P, and a good chance of a reduction in the profits of Big T. He may of course continue with his e-cig, and still smoke (a considerably reduced amount) as well, this is common in a new user, as it is an indication that the user has not yet found an e-cig that is right for him.
  3. The e-cig vaper continues to vape into the future, with minimal harm to himself and those around him. He may reduce the nicotine concentration in his e-cig, and eventually come down to using a zero-nicotine liquid, with the possibility of actually stopping completely one day. This is not the object of e-cigs as they are not medicines, but it is a choice made by each user, to continue as he is, or to vary his consumption.

For links to the scientific research papers mentioned here, please see my blog on Quora (E-cigs) or my wordpress blog (

wordpress.com

A school of dolphins).

First published on Quora.com @ http://e-cigs-board.quora.com/

 

The Skycig Puffcount Fail!

http://www.skycig.co.uk/blog/2013/10/21/the-maths-of-electronic-cigarette-equivalency-explained/

This post has now been removed from the SkyCig site.

This Blog post by Skycig was recently drawn to my attention, mostly because it is still using the outdated and fairly thoroughly debunked, puffcount and nicotine content equivalence to say how many combustible cigarettes a Skycig was equivalent to!

This entry was posted in Smoking Tips and Advice on October 21, 2013 by .

We were recently asked how we figure out the cigarette equivalents that we place on our packaging. On many of our packs you might have seen that we estimate one cartridge refill be equivalent to approximately 30 traditional cigarettes – “where do you get this number from?” we hear you cry – well here’s the maths:

Let’s compare our 18mg cartridges to say a pack of Marlboro Gold brand cigarettes

marl

As you can see in the picture, a pack of 20 Marlboro Gold’s has 0.5mg of nicotine per cigarette. So if we consider that 1 SKYCIG cartridge has 18mg of inside it we can see that:

18mg divided by 0.5mg = the equivalent of 36 Marlboro Gold’s in a SKYCIG Cartridge

Or if we’re assuming that there is the equivalent of 30 cigarettes per SKYCIG cartridge, to figure out what nicotine strength each “cigarette’s worth” of SKYCIG vapour is we could do:

18mg divided by 30 cigarettes = 0.6mg per “cigarettes worth”

But as we know, it’s not just about the nicotine; it’s about how long it lasts. This one is a little harder to quantify as we know that everybody puffs at different rates. You might take really short puffs, where as your friend might be inclined to longer, more luxurious draws.

If Lyndsey Wilson were to be a user of e-cigs, she would know how inaccurate both the puff-count and nicotine content methods of description are.
I use approximately 7ml of 36mg/ml liquid per day. and I was a 2 PAD man.
So I find that 250mg approximately equals 40 analogues (0.9mg for my brand). Thus 6.25mg of nicotine vaped will be the approximate equivalent to 0.9mg combusted or about a ratio of 7:1.
Verey’s figures in his comment give a ratio of about 10:1
Matt Gluggles’ figures give a lower ratio, but still nowhere near the 1:1 you seem to assume.

The nicotine absorption from low temperature vaping is both much slower, and less complete than the absorption from the high temperature burning of a combustible analogue cigarette. Please take this into account in the future when you are doing tests.

I have tried a rechargeable Skycig, and I went through three cartridges in 5 hours, about what I expected from the figures. Good flavour though, and reasonably satisfactory prices – but please dump the equivalence, if you are going to do it mechanically or mathematically, without taking into account the difference in physiological reactions to temperature etc.

Day 70 in the House of Commons and still no debate. However now the MPs have noticed!

About time too!

Save e-cigs

 On the 4th of September the European Scrutiny Committee formally recommended that the draft TPD be debated in full by European Committee C.  Last week we raised the question of why this debate has not taken place yet.  Well it is now 70 days since the initial recommendation and still no debate! However, it does seem that we are being listened too.  Today we received the following statement from the European Scrutiny Committee Chairman:

 “In our Report of 4 September, we recommended a debate on the Directive in European Committee.  We asked that, prior to the debate, the Minister write to the Committee with the key changes sought by the European Parliament and the Government’s views on them. Today’s Report scrutinises the Minister’s response, notes that trilogue negotiations may be concluded by the end of the year and presses the Government to hold the debate as soon as possible.

 We hear that…

View original post 28 more words

10 things e-cigarettes won’t tell you – 10 things – MarketWatch

10 things e-cigarettes won’t tell you – 10 things – MarketWatch.

So there you have it. Only I think we need to retitle the article now.

I’ve got it:

10 Lies The Control Freaks Won’t Stop Telling You.

And there again we have that admission. They don’t care that it’s safe. Or, to be generous, they don’t care whether it’s safe or not. They’re pissed that people are rejecting their social conditioning. They’re vexed that adults are making their own personal choices regardless of these legions of dictatorial fucking Mary Poppins wannabes trying to run other peoples’ lives.