Very nice site!

Very nice site! [url=http://apxyieo.com/qyoarx/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]

Very nice site! <a href="http://apxyieo.com/qyoarx/1.html">cheap viagra</a>

Hello! dddkkck interesting dddkkck site! I'm really like it! Very, very dddkkck good!

Set your life more easy get the <a href="http://goodfinance-blog.com/topics/business-loans">business loans</a> and everything you need.

Leaders@myinlife.com: That website is run by inLife LLC, whom you,uh, WORK FOR. Thanks for "running across" it, though, and for the laugh!

I use an e-cig and would be lost without it! I came across this website truthaboutecigs.com All the scientific facts you need on e-cigs!

The FDA has a pretty fun history: it took root in the work of chemist Harvey Washington Wiley, and was formally established under Teddy Roosevelt in 1906. One of the first big court cases under the act was the amazingly-named United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola of 1909, after which it was decided that the name "Coca-Cola" did not imply cocaine content (which had been removed in 1904), and that the soda must reduce its caffeine content. (Caffeine and nicotine are both natural pesticides, though the latter is lethal at much lower doses.) Most of the legislation concerning the FDA comes (extensively amended, these days) from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, passed in 1938 after the Elixir Sulfanilamide Disaster, in which over 100 patients died from a drug containing diethyene glycol, a chemical found, but only in trace amounts, in one of the e-cigarettes tested by the FDA.

Anyway, you are right, VocalEK: the e-cigarette seems less harmful than tobacco, what with the absence of tar, carbon monoxide, and so on. Its inclusion in this article on Quitting Smoking is merely to indicate that it is not a smoking cessation device. All FDA-approved smoking cessation devices are intended to break one of one's dependence on nicotine, and not to be used permanently. You're also right that not smoking is absolutely safest of all.

As for using nicotine indefinitely on its own: until non-anecdotal, double-blind medical studies and peer-reviewed medical articles can firmly cement the physical safety of prolonged nicotine intake, we at Book of Odds can't assert the safety of nicotine delivery products (as distinct from temporarily-used smoking cessation products). Searching "nicotine" in the search bar above, though, at least reveals that the odds an adult has ever been diagnosed with a nicotine dependence disorder are 1 in 3.38. For now, it is unclear how much nicotine use is too much. But thanks for the spirited discussion!

Zack: I'm feeling rather frustrated here. I hear you saying, "I recommend you avoid this product because it may not be 100% safe. So if you can't quit smoking using cold turkey or an approved method, it is probably healthier for you to just keep smoking."

Can you point me to any proof tobacco smoking is healther than inhaling vaporized nicotine? Any proof that this product has harmed anyone? I won't even insist that your proof come wrapped in a peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal article.

Back in June the FDA invited the public to submit adverse event reports about e-cigarettes to MedWatch. If anything serious had been reported, the FDA would have been shouting it from the rooftops and submitting it as evidence in the Federal court case.

BTW, speaking of that court case, why do you suppose FDA's press release was spun in such a way to make it sound as if e-cigarettes are more likely to give you cancer than tobacco cigarettes?

You are waiting for the FDA to "clear up the issue." In order to clear up the issue, they would have to claim that they made some rather large scientific blunders or else be forced to admit that they purposely misled the public. I don't see them fessing up unless the judge or some other authority orders them to do so.

Why is it so important to you that this product has FDA-approval before you can recommend it?

Changing the product to meet FDA approval would destroy its effectiveness. The nicotine dosages would need to be kept well below the amount taken in by smokers. The product would need to be distributed with a plan to taper nicotine down to zero.

The odds for quitting smoking using FDA-approved nicotine product (e.g., patch, gum,lozenges, oral inhaler, nasal inhaler) are approximately 1:10 for people who give it a concerted effort for up to a year. In their meta-anlysis of nicotine replacement therapies, Etter and Stapleton concluded: "Because the long-term benefit of NRT is modest, tobacco dependence treatment might be better viewed as a chronic disorder, requiring repeated episodes of treatment."
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/15/4/280.abstract

If we don't change our approach to the problem of smoking prevalence, we are going to keep getting the same results. We need a more rational approach. David Sweanor, Senior Legal Counsel for the Non-Smokers' Rights Association wrote: "Currently those who are strongly dependent on nicotine will go back to cigarettes after they have "failed" to break their nicotine addiction with patches, gum, etc. From a health standpoint the end of tobacco use is far more important than the continuing need for nicotine." Sweanor suggests shifting the current monopoly on nicotine maintence from the tobacco cigarette to alternative, less-harmful sources of nicotine. http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/index.cfm?group_id=1207

I’d like to challenge you. Stop just repeating what your being told. Do something no one has done before, be a real journalist. Write an article that tells us how bad nicotine really is for us compared to let’s say caffeine. Now, I don’t mean smoking cigarettes. I mean just plain ol’ nicotine. Then I want you to look at the ACTUAL data the FDA released regarding e-cigarettes and compare that to the ACTUAL data on approved methods of quitting, let’s say nicotine gum.

VocalEK: E-cigarettes do seem like an improvement from a carcinogenic point of view, and I’m glad you’ve been able to quit regular cigarettes and to improve your health! Until the FDA approves them and clears up the whole traces-of-tobacco-specific-carcinogens issue, though, I’m wary of declaring them an appropriate smoking cessation device. I admit I should have been clearer in the article, or left e-cigarettes out entirely. But I appreciate the lively debate!

I also appreciate the links. The survey you mention (http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf) was conducted, not by the University of Alberta, but (as the U of A specifies) by a British online e-cigarette merchant called E-Cigarette Direct. U of A makes clear in the first paragraph that "other than anecdotal accounts, there is little information about who uses e-cigarettes, and whether people who switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes experience changes in symptoms caused by smoking."

They also say, on page 2, that those surveyed are "highly motivated and passionate e-cigarette users who may have different experiences than average e-cigarette users or smokers, and thus the estimates cannot be extrapolated to all smokers or e-cigarette users."

And on page 3: "There are many testimonials and anecdotes on the internet about people switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes but, to our knowledge, there have been no quantified data published."

They do have some positive discussion on page 6, writing: "This study demonstrates that some e-cigarette users replace all or some of their cigarette use for e-cigarettes, and perceive health benefits subsequent to this behavioral change. E-cigarettes (like all other smoking cessation strategies) do not work for everyone, but this survey does demonstrate that e-cigarettes have enabled some people to quit smoking, including some people for whom other methods had proven ineffective."

But on page 5: "It is not surprising that none of the respondents indicated that their health got worse after they started using e-cigarettes, as this sample was very interested in, or in other words favourably disposed towards, e-cigarettes (given their participation in the e-cigarette forum and blogs). If people had started using e-cigarettes and their health got worse, they would likely have stopped using/purchasing e-cigarettes and therefore would not have been aware of the survey."

And at the bottom of the article, the authors must legally declare competing interests, which they do: "CVP [Carl V. Phillips] and his research group (which includes KH [Karyn Heavner], PB [Paul Bergen] and CN [Catherine Nissen]) are partially supported by an unrestricted (completely hands-off) grant to the University of Alberta School of Public Health from U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company. The grantor is unaware of this study, and thus had no scientific input or other influence on it. JD [James Dunworth, the remaining author] owns 10% of E Cigarette Direct."

On their homepage (http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/) -- and on any page you can navigate to from there -- E-Cigarette Direct has the following to say, at bottom-left: "Important: We require customers to be over 18. Once purchased, keep the electronic cigarette and cartridges away from children - remember, nicotine is a poison!"

The blog you cite is written by Michael Siegel, of the Boston University School of Public Health. In an opinion piece in a 2007 edition of the NY Times, entitled "Unsafe at Any Level" (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/opinion/28siegel.html), Siegel writes: "It’s not enough to regulate the varying degrees of nicotine in cigarettes. Ultimately, there’s only one way to deal with the addictive effects of nicotine, especially on children: grant the F.D.A. the authority to get nicotine out of cigarettes altogether."

Are there other articles you're aware of? I am still having trouble finding any unbiased, peer-reviewed medical-journal articles asserting the safety of e-cigarettes. Do you have any other sources?

VapeGirl: I'm sorry, we don't mean to offend here at Book of Odds, merely to stimulate discussion and skepticism. Could you help me find the articles you're talking about? I'm just having trouble finding articles in any peer-reviewed medical journals.

To the writer of this blog. It is good that you are writing about the different methods people can use to quit smoking - this really is good. However, I think you made a serious mistake when you wrote about the electronic cigarette. Yep, I am another user. I ask and I beg that you do not mislead or devy out misinformation regarding this wonderful product. I tried the gums, the nic inhalers, patches and even Chanix...none...none of that costly spendy stop smoking stuff worked.

6 months ago a friend introduced me to electronic cigarettes. It was like smoking, but without all the bad stuff you find in cigarettes. The experience was pleasant one. So I bought my own. Two weeks later I had my last cigarette and haven't touched them since. Not one. That is 6 months without smoking and I do not even crave one. Imagine that. Nothing else worked, but this managed to stop my smoking habit in two weeks!

I was a pack a day smoker for 17 years and I quit using an electronic cigarette. I breath better. I can smell things again. My taste has come back. I no longer smell of smoke. Nor does my house or car and I no longer pass on dangerous second hand smoke to those around me. So you tell me...if everything else failed and this worked...wouldn't you be more likely to suggest others try this wonderful product that could very well stop them from smoking? By you saying the FDA and WHO advises people not to use electronic cigarettes under false pretences of a faulty and misleading test...yes it was faulty and misleading...you are helping to deprive people of a potentially like prolonging device that may be the only means to get them to finally stop smoking.

Does that make you feel good?

If you had done a little research you would find that further studies have since been done and that test have shown that electronic cigarettes do not contain carcinogens as the FDA would have people believe. I and thousands, yes thousands and growing, users know the truth. Why don't you join us and help spread the word that there is a better alternative to stop smoking - it is called the electronic cigarette.

First, let's get some terminology straight. When the FDA and other health organizations talk about "smoking cessation", what they really mean is "nicotine cessation." If you stop inhaling smoke but continue to use nicotine, that just isn't good enough to suit them.

I agree that electronic cigarettes are not proven to achieve nicotine cessation. Nevertheless, some users have reported being able to more easily taper their nicotine dose down to zero with e-cigarettes than with other nicotine products.

However, the purpose of the product is for current cigarette smokers to use these as an alternative to lighting up tobacco cigarettes and inhaling the smoke. The University of Alberta conducted a survey of e-cigarette users and found that 79% have completely stopped smoking tobacco cigarettes. http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf

In an ongoing poll that, as of this writing, has more than 1400 responses, over 81% of users say they no longer smoke "analogs" (real cigarettes), and an additional 17.5% have reduced the number smoked. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/polls/6470-e-cig-success-rate.html

The reason e-cigarettes work this well is because users can get sufficient amounts of the nicotine they require without needing to light up a cancer-stick. Can you explain why you believe that inhaling vaporized nicotine is equally hazardous to health as inhaling nicotine that is delivered to the lungs via droplets of tar, along with carbon monoxide, heavy metals, hundreds of carcinogens, and thousands of toxins?

Here is a comparison of the harmful ingredients in two types of cigs: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

Logic should tell you that tobacco smoke would be more of a health risk. And experience tells us this is true. Over 13,000 people signed the Electronic Cigarette Petition and thousands of them reported the same kinds of improvements in health as I experienced after I substituted an e-cigarette for tobacco cigarettes: e.g., better lung function, lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available

Now if 8 out of 10 people who use e-cigarettes on a regular basis are able to substitute them for all their tobacco cigarettes, and if people are experiencing the exact same health improvements experienced by people who quit nicotine altogether, how can we justify denying smokers access to this product?

Researcher Carl Phillips has performed a risk-benefit analysis and concluded, "Smoking for just one more month before quitting causes greater health risk than switching to a low-risk nicotine source and never quitting it." http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/6/1/29

From where I sit, the benefits greatly outnumber the risks. If more smokers knew about this option, just think of the dent we could make in the smoking prevalence rates.

The concern is that the e-cigarette should not be seen as a method of smoking cessation. Both the FDA and e-cigarette companies have stated that, in the words Walt Linscott (a lawyer for e-cig brand Smoking Everywhere Inc.), "like a traditional cigarette, this product is not intended to produce a therapeutic effect... This is an adult smoking experience, and it should be thought of and regulated in that similar construct."

The FDA is concerned that the nicotine and other detected trace chemicals may be harmful; e-cigarette companies are concerned that their product might be mistaken for a smoking cessation product. Most e-cigarette websites (see Smoking Everywhere, for one) make no solid health claims -- they merely say that the e-cig "offers smokers a tar-free way to enjoy smoking and the freedom to smoke most everywhere. The smokers still get their nicotine, but don’t get the side effects attributable to tar which contains real tobacco." The idea being a) you can smoke indoors in smoke-prohibited areas, and b) you can get all the nicotine of a real cigarettes minus the "the side effects attributable to tar." Note that nowhere may they legally make solid, peer-reviewed health claims. They can (and do) market e-cigs as vaguely healthier, and then lean harder on the e-cig's environmental and economic benefits.

Ultimately the "potential for misuse" refers to the possibility of people getting addicted to e-cigarettes while under the impression that the health risk is little to none. Also, I'm having extreme difficulty finding a source to support the idea that an e-cigarette increases the odds of one's quitting by 80%. Most e-cig sites claim one can SAVE up to 80% by purchasing e-cigs over real cigarettes but -- again -- even e-cigarette companies stress that e-cigs are not smoking cessation devices, but rather a way to get your nicotine no matter where you are, while still appearing to smoke a real cigarette.

Hence, in this article I can say that the e-cig delivers nicotine to stem cravings, but so does a real cigarette. Until it is FDA-approved, the e-cig is not a smoking cessation device, but simply another way to get all the nicotine a smoker could ever want.

It's amazing how effective the internet is at perpetuating ideas that are untrue. The FDA did a much more effective job at spreading alarmist propaganda than it did at practicing science. The amount of tobacco-specific carcinogens in the electronic cigarette cartridges (8 ng/g) matches the amounts found in FDA-approved nicotine products (8 ng/g). FDA didn't share that fact. FDA also forgot to mention that tobacco cigarettes contain those carcinogins in quantities thousands of times higher (5,000 - 11,000 ng/g). FDA managed to give the false impression that you will get cancer faster by switching to e-cigarettes than by sticking with your tobacco cigarettes. That's unethical!

But let's talk about Odds. Using an FDA-approved nicotine product doubles your odds of successful quitting -- from 5% to 10%. Using an electronic cigarette increases your odds of quitting to 80%. That's right, e-cigarettes are 800% better than the FDA-products.

Please explain what you mean by the "potential for misuse". How is it misuing the product to replace some or all of your tobacco cigarettes with inhaled nicotine? I've heard a lot of worry about things that might happen, but I have yet to read any reports of people being injured by these. I have been off the tobacco version for almost 10 months. My lung health and cardiovascular health are very much improved, thank you.

Well I have purchased a Crown7 electric cigarette kit and it has helped me do away with regular cigarettes. Ive tried the patch, gum, and chantix but the Crown7 is the only thing that has worked for me. Its about time an alternative came out that ACTUALLY works. You can check out Crown7 at http://www.Crown7.com