[ExI] (no subject)

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell me where did I lie.
>>
>
> "The references you adduce provide no information in support of FDA's
> attack on vapes."
>
> That's the main one.  You provided follow-up cherry picking a few points,
> suggesting there was nothing else, but that statement said there was no
> supporting information, yet there was.  In addition to the many health
> problems noted, things like "The electronic cigarette cartridges that were
> labeled as containing no nicotine had low levels of nicotine present in all
> cartridges tested, except one." state that e-cigarettes tend to have false
> advertising too, which would be reason enough to go after them.
>

### How low were the nicotine levels? Enough to produce a pharmacological
response?

This does not support FDA's attack on vapes.

-------------------

>
> That said, there were inaccuracies in the follow-ups you did provide.
> (Though you were correct that the FDA memo suggests the nicotine in
> e-cigarettes comes from tobacco - but again, there was far more in the memo
> than that.)
>

### There is nothing in that memo that supports FDA's attack on vapes. Give
me a specific quote which in your opinion provides support for FDA's power
grab.
-----------------


>
> "The BMJ article summarizes the low reliability of research on vapes"
>
> The variability was in the e-cigarettes studied.  That of course causes
> variability in the studies; it doesn't say the research itself isn't
> reliable.
>

### The reliability of research on vapes, the lack of it, does not justify
FDA's attack on vapes. Wasn't this article the one you highlighted as being
most convincing?
----------------


>
> "the third one shows actually a reasonably good level of precision in
> labeling of nicotine content of vapes"
>
> Actually, the third one states, "Electronic cigarette solutions may have
> nicotine concentrations that are significantly (i.e., 30%) different than
> manufacturer claims."  So by its standards, there is not "a reasonably good
> level of precision in labeling of nicotine content".
>

### Yes, it is a reasonably good level of precision in labeling. It means
that an addict can get the dose he desires in a set number of inhalations,
+/- 25% from different manufacturers, which is reasonably good as far as
performance comparisons of various products go.

------------------

>
> "Also, you are engaging in manipulative rhetoric ("garbage-quality
> product")."
>
> That may be your opinion (even if you try to frame it as objective fact),
> but I was summarizing this from the FDA reference, backed up by the BHJ
> study: "DPA's testing also suggested that quality control processes used to
> manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent."  A complete
> lack of quality control is garbage quality, relative to what is normally
> expected for something meant to go in our bodies.
>

### Addicts get what they want from vapes, +/-25%. You don't get what you
want from garbage. Therefore, vapes are not garbage.

Rafał
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/0ab96d07/attachment.html>