Researchers of a new study on electronic cigarettes are touting the devices as an effective way of quitting conventional smokes. Boston University School of Public Health professor Michael Siegel said that 31 percent of 222 first-time e-cigarette buyers stayed off cigarettes six months after making the switch.
He said the rate is almost double that of for traditional nicotine replacement products like the patch, lozenge or gum.
“This study suggests that electronic cigarettes are helping thousands of ex-smokers remain off cigarettes,” Siegel said in a statement.
“Removing electronic cigarettes from the market would substantially harm the public’s health,” he said. Read more in AHN.
There are two sides of the story. Granted that the FDA is beyond incompetent and even dangerous as far as their record of releasing deadly “approved” drugs too early and lifesaving “dangerous” drugs too late. Pharmaceutical companies are no angels either, and along the tobacco companies comprise two of the biggest lobby organizations in the US. Having said that, there are other safety issues that have to be raised besides the fact that electronic cigarettes appear to help people quit in a controlled 6 month study:
1. These devices do not “burn down” so it is possible that you can continue to ingest nicotine far longer than you can with a regular “cancer stick”. This can lead to a greater addiction to and consumption of nicotine which can cause narrowing of the arteries,c serious risk of cardio-vascular problems such as irregular heartbeat, brain aneurism and stroke.
2. If kids think that electronic cigarettes are safe they will be more likely to try them and risk becoming addicted to nicotine or be subjuect to the above medical problems.
3. Electronic cigarettes are typically made in China where quality control of electronic and chemical products is dangerous. There are numerous cases of exploding batteries, even in mainstream products like Dell, Sony and others as well as dangerous chemical issues with maintream products for children toys by Mattel, clothing that does not meet children’s fireproof standards and building materials which leech deady chemicals into the home. I have seen many cases of faulty electronic cigarettes which contained toxic chemicals and batteries and chargers which caused severe burns. The Chinese are particulary sneaky and corrupt and have no compunctions about farming out their contracts to low quality “partner” manufacturers without regard to consumer safety. They are also guilty of exhibiting phoney patents and lab test results. Even components that are made in the USA are not regulated, and while they may be higher quality their is no International Standards (ISO-9001) compliance for quality assurance or manufacturing plant inspections. These are items that you put in your mouth, throat and lungs. Propylene Glycol, which is the “fogging” agent used to produce the smoke is a known anti-microbial when used in certain conditions, but this does not sanitize the parts of the electronic cigarette that get reused over and over again and can spread virus and infection, like putting other things in your mouth, especially children.
4. A six month study in non-real world lab conditions does not take into consideration all of the above. The cigarettes used were probably from a well-tested batch and not a random purchase of differing brands (I would bet).
5. Smoking even a so-called “safe cigarette” is not something you would want to set an example even around kids.
6. Believe it or not the greatest success rate for quitters is using hypnotherapy and laser technology.
I quit 26 months ago and i did it with chantix it took me 3 months and it was so much easier then i thought, the side effects were few. the
only one that i had was some weird dreams not nightmares just odd. and 3 months later like i never smoked ever. now if they can make a pill that in 3 months you could lose weight
The standard tactic of those without facts s to assault their “enemies” with baseless accusations.
The nicotine replacement mechanisms do assist those who are trying to quit. If a new public health study supports a new mechanism as being better, I’m all for it. Tearing it down with innuendo and baseless accusations is counterproductive.
Published public health studies are done under strict controls and peer reviewed. Yes, they are not perfect, however, they are better than anecdotal assertions supporting other therapies.
I would caution that those who attack therapies first to then assert their own ideas are the ones who should be ignored.
Were you one of those rodents who participated in those “published public health studies are done under strict controls and peer reviewed”.
What and who are you trying to address? I don’t see the “cheese” in your remarks. Sorry.
Comments are closed.