[ExI] (no subject)

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Thu May 12 00:05:33 UTC 2016

On May 11, 2016 4:34 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> 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
> ### How low were the nicotine levels? Enough to produce a pharmacological

Again: false advertising like this by itself would be enough to support
regulatory action.

> This does not support FDA's attack on vapes.

Yes it does, despite your attempt to ignore the grounds I was talking about.

>> 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.

I have already done so.  You pretended it was something else.

>> "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
> ### The reliability of research on vapes, the lack of it, does not
justify FDA's attack on vapes.

The lack of reliability is not an attribute of the research itself.  Stop
blatantly lying.

> 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.

We're not talking variance between different products.  30% referred to the
difference between what a given product actually contained and what its
manufacturer claimed.  Last I checked, the standard was somewhere under
1%.  So, no, 30% is not reasonably good.

>> "Also, you are engaging in manipulative rhetoric ("garbage-quality
>> 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.

I said "garbage quality", not just "garbage".  I referred to the degree to
which it is possible to know its composition, relative to the FDA's normal
standards for drugs.

Are you capable of reading what I am actually posting, without an internal
mental filter that tries to find some strawman that would be easier to
rebut?  Your posts suggest you are not.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/c1726e14/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list