Pharma Vaporizer And The Billionaires

I have not seen this on the Forum before - did I miss it ?

From Vapun Magazine 9/24/2019
Pharma Vaporizer Brings Big BILLIONAIRE Names

some quotes from the article...
Hava Health is about to launch Hale – what Tech Crunch referred to as “the first vaporizer designed for smoking cessation"

Hale claims to be different because it will be the first device that uses “4 Pharmaceutical grade ingredients” for “two different oil formulations.”

Hava Health has some big-named backers that include: Village Global, Backstage Capital, Hardware Massive and other angel investors on their website.

One name that stands out listed as part of The Network on Village Global website is none other than Mike Bloomberg. The same Bloomberg who donated $160 million to anti-vaping efforts in New York, as reported by New York Times.

Another is Bill Gates. Both Bloomberg and Gates have donated heavily to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK) and the CDC Foundation. CTFK has been notoriously anti-vape–they were one of the parties that successfully sued the FDA, claiming officials did not have the authority to extend regulatory deadlines for the vapor industry. The CDC Foundation has been previously investigated for allegedly allowing private donations to influence CDC policies, as reported by Roll Call and The Times of India.



So...yea, there is a definite personal interest for Bloomberg to kill vaping - he is INVESTED in a pharma device !!


More...

As e-cigarettes come under fire, Hava Health readies a vape pen to help people quit smoking – TechCrunch

https://www.tryhale.com/

Hava - Quit Nicotine



Holy cow - Evil abounds...PURE EVIL !!  

As e-cigarettes come under fire, Hava Health readies a vape pen to help people quit smoking – TechCrunch  

Got this from the world wide web and wanted to share it here.

Apologies if it's already been shared. It's a handy list for reference as well as informative.

E-CIGARETTE POLICY BRIEF: Seven Things Policy Makers Need to Know

All references are hyperlinked to official WHO and government reports, and peer-reviewed studies

The death toll from smoking is enormous

8 million people die every year from smoking-related diseases (WHO), including 480,000 in the USA (CDC) 1.1 billion people smoke worldwide (WHO), including 34 million in the USA (CDC) In the USA, smoking is now concentrated among low-income and LGBTQ people, people living with mental illnesses, and indigenous peoples (American Lung Association)

→ Tobacco smoking is, by far, the world’s leading cause of preventable cancer, heart and lung disease

Harm reduction can reduce that death toll

There is growing independent consensus that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking (35+ official public statements) There is strong evidence that smokers who switch to e-cigarettes have lower risk of cancer, heart & lung disease When not in tobacco smoke, nicotine itself does not cause cancer, heart or lung disease (CDC and IARC/WHO) → Other examples of harm reduction include seat belts, bicycle helmets, parachutes, methadone and condoms

Safer nicotine alternatives help smokers quit

Big pharma nicotine patches & gum (NRTs) cause neither addiction nor cancer, heart or lung disease (FDA; CDC) NRTs increase quit success from 5% (cold turkey) to 9% (on average, smokers try and fail 30 times before quitting) E-cigarettes are two times more effective than NRTs (Cochrane review of 50 peer-reviewed studies worldwide) Many adult vapers “quit by accident” with e-cigarettes (online survey); NRTs only benefit those who want to quit 92% of US all vapers are ADULTS; 4.3 million US adults have quit smoking completely with nicotine vapes (CDC) The adult cessation total may be 5.4 million because 26% of those who quit with e-cigarettes later quit vaping 2.1 million UK smokers (UK government) and 7.5 million EU smokers (Eurobarometer) have quit with e-cigarettes ‘Flavors’ are up to 2.3 times more effective for smoking cessation than tobacco flavor (Yale study) (UK study) 80% of US adult vapers prefer fruit, dessert or candy flavors that don’t remind them of smoking (FDA submission) → Forcing ex-smokers to vape tobacco flavor is like forcing recovering alcoholics to drink rum-flavored club soda

Teen vaping is undesirable, but not a crisis

In the UK, which promotes nicotine vaping for adult smokers, teen “current use” by never-smokers is just 1% US high school “current use” of vaping products dropped 29% between 2019 and March 2020 (CDC/NYTS) By March 2020, only 1 in 20 US high school students vaped daily (4.4%, but 53% of that may be THC not nicotine) US youth & young adult vaping dropped another 32% during the pandemic (JAMA survey up to November 2020) If both surveys are combined, just 1 in 10 US high school-age teens are now “current users” (13%) → If this assumption is correct, then US teen past 30-day ever-use is now lower than it was in 2015 (6 years ago)

Proposed policy “cures” are worse than the “disease”

Proposed policies to reduce teen vaping include higher taxes, ‘flavor’ bans, online sales bans and shipping bans E-cigarette taxes have caused cigarette sales to increase in 8 US states (National Bureau of Economic Research) E-cigarette taxes “increase prenatal smoking and lower smoking cessation during pregnancy” in female smokers Ecig flavor bans increased cigarette sales in San Francisco; Washington; Rhode Island; New York; and Nova Scotia Online sales and mail shipment bans reduce adult access, so are also very likely to strengthen cigarette sales → Higher taxes, ‘flavor’ bans, and online/mail bans protect big tobacco’s main cash cow: deadly cigarettes

Unintended consequences and logical inconsistencies

Probable outcome of ‘flavor’ bans: Teen vapers will switch to THC vaping or to cigarette smoking; many adult vapers will relapse to smoking; fewer smokers will quit; an illicit market (with no age-checks) will arise

The same organizations that claim teen vaping is a gateway to tobacco smoking, also claim tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes repel teens (i.e., banning ‘flavored’ nicotine vapes will reduce teen vaping)

→ Definitions differ: adult current use = daily or regular use; teen current use = past 30-day ever-use

Full context of adult products that teens use, but should not use

US teens are more likely to smoke pot or use illegal drugs than to be “current users” of e-cigarettes (NIDA MTF) US teens are 2X more likely to binge drink than vape “frequently”; 3X more likely to binge drink than vape daily US teen binge drinking causes 3,500 deaths and 119,000 ER visits/year (CDC); US policy response? Age-checks US teen “current smoking” rates dropped 3X faster than historical trends after 2012 (NIDA MTF) → Teens should not vape, smoke, drink or use cannabis (and adults should try to avoid irrational moral panics)  

If you’re from the United States or probably any Western country, you will know how quickly our culture can go from one extreme position to the next on just about any issue. Around 25-30 years ago, nicotine went somewhat suddenly from being a socially acceptable vice that could be done in nearly every public place by almost anyone to a highly stigmatized addiction that turned millions of smokers into second-class citizens. Unfortunately, since the most common delivery of nicotine had been through traditional cigarettes that have been lethal for so many people including both my grandfathers, the stigma behind nicotine has persisted into the era of vaping. And it doesn’t help that the practice “looks like” smoking.

However, in and of itself nicotine is not dangerous. It occurs naturally in fruits and vegetables, and does not cause lung cancer. It’s a drug, just like any substance or activity that releases dopamine in the brain. I’m personally much more concerned about the consumption of highly-caffeinated, high-sugar drinks, which are not age restricted, “flavor” restricted, and aren’t taxed to death. I’m also much more concerned about the proliferation of flavored beer and spirits in the last couple decades, which have minimal restriction on advertising and haven’t been scrutinized by the FDA to any degree comparable to JUUL or the e-cigarette industry in general. And while those substances can be very addictive, they are often encouraged in social settings, can be “enjoyed in moderation”, and aren’t considered an epidemic. Without getting too political, I’m entirely convinced that progressives would rather have 400,000 smokers continue to die each year because they didn’t switch to vaping than a new generation take up a significantly less harmful habit.  

Okay, so I Vape in very “precise” ways but I cannot figure out how to calculate (do the proper math) on how much I nicotine I am consuming. Can someone help? I have been vaping the exact same way daily for a long time, but still don’t know how much nicotine I get (just an estimate) per session because I suck at math...

Details:
1.) I vape 3mg (3mg of nicotine, per ml of juice) of nicotine using a “Smok Nfix” that holds a 3ml pod of nicotine juice. So that’s 9mg of nicotine, per pod.

2.) I set the wattage to exactly 22W on the vape, always, and it is a MTL pod device.

3.) I take EXACTLY 5 puffs over a period of 5-10 mins. Every puff is EXACTLY 5 seconds. Sometimes only 4 seconds, but just say 5 to make it easier. I use my watch or phone’s timer to make certain the timing is exact. I inhale the same way every time. So 5 puffs X 5 seconds, per puff, equals 25 seconds total for each vape session. After those 5 puffs, I don’t vape again (at all) for 1-3 hours, just depending.

....But how do I figure out how much nicotine I am getting in those 5 puffs? I know that in my Nfix pod there is 9mg of nicotine, in each pod.

I also believe 1 full pod (3ML) gives approximately 325 seconds worth of puffs, with each puff being only 1 SECOND. I only tested this one time so I am not certain, but it’s an estimate.

Can anyone help me do the right math here?
I also still smoke ultra light Marlboro cigarettes (from what I read on multiple sources you only absorb about 0.5mg to 0.7mg of nicotine per cig on the ultra lights) but only 1-3 cigarettes per day.
But I am wondering if my 5 puffs on the vape (5 puffs @ 5 second each) is even remotely close to being equal to an ultra light cigarette that has about 0.5mg nicotine per cig?
Thanks, I suck at math so if anyone can help lol  

I'm a 45yo New Zealander, and I have absolutely no axe to grind, except one:

I smoked for 25 years. Therefore the tobacco companies have had more than their fair share of my money, and more importantly my health.

Thanks to vaping, using RBAs and mods, and diying my own ejuices - I've been smoke-free for 20 months.

One company that looks like winning, with all the fake news and hysteria being dredged up in USA over vaping is Phillip Morris International. And I'm not talking about their cigarette products - but rather their IQOS product.

A Device That Heats Tobacco, But Doesn't Burn It, Can Now Be Sold in the U.S. Here's What to Know About IQOS

The FDA have already approved this product for sale in USA. And how does the IQOS work?

the FDA says the pen-like IQOS device heats, but does not burn, “tobacco-filled sticks” wrapped in paper, creating an aerosol that contains nicotine. Marlboro, an Altria brand, will make the tobacco sticks used inside the cartridge, which will come in menthol and unflavored versions.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much a cigarette, that goes into a device which 'heats' the tobacco, so you can inhale it.

Here's Why IQOS Could Completely Own the U.S. E-Cig Market | The Motley Fool

And how safe is it?

Comparison of Chemicals in Mainstream Smoke in Heat-not-burn Tobacco and Combustion Cigarettes. - PubMed - NCBI

There is little scientific data, however, of the hazards and toxicity of iQOS. In this study, we evaluated several harmful compounds (nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide (CO) and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)) in the mainstream smoke and fillers of iQOS, and compared their concentrations with those from conventional combustion cigarettes.

The concentrations of nicotine in tobacco fillers and the mainstream smoke of iQOS were almost the same as those of conventional combustion cigarettes, while the concentration of TSNAs was one fifth and CO was one hundredth of those of conventional combustion cigarettes. These toxic compounds are not completely removed from the mainstream smoke of iQOS, making it necessary to consider the health effects and regulation of iQOS.
Click to expand...

iQOS may not be as harm-free as claimed, study finds

The University of California study found that, since the device could only be used for six-minutes before it needed to be recharged, it may cause some people to shorten the interval between puffs in order to make sure they did not waste any of the tobacco stick which could increase the possible toxic exposure.

But of greater concern was that the polymer filter melted slightly during use and released formaldehyde cyanohydrin, a toxic substance which could be fatal to humans. The compound is metabolised in the liver and broken down into formaldehyde and cyanide.

"This study has shown that the iQOS system may not be as harm-free as claimed and also emphasises the urgent need for further safety testing as the popularity and user base of this product is growing rapidly," the study concluded.

University of Otago public health and marketing Professor Janet Hoek said the findings led her to question whether it really was a "reduced harm" product as claimed by the manufacturers.

If users inhaled more frequently as it was suggested, it was likely they would "increase their nicotine intake and exposure to harmful compounds present in the inhaled aerosol", she said.

She said those who had tried unsuccessfully to quit smoking were better off considering e-cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Just my

 

This is part of an newsletter email:
Q: Do the words used to describe vaping alter perceptions of risk?

A: At first sight, the two headlines appear very similar: “Labeling e-cigarette emissions as ‘chemicals’ or ‘aerosols’ increases the perceived risk of exposure” and “Accurate labels like ‘aerosol’ or ‘chemicals’ increase perceived risks of e-cigarette use”. The ironic thing is that while both fairly accurately reflect the study being reported, one – the one that uses the word “Accurate” – is not quite so, well... accurate.

As any chemistry teacher will tell you, everything is composed of chemicals – you are, your food is, the screen you’re reading this on is made up entirely of chemicals. Which makes the labelling of e-cig vapour as “chemicals” self-evidently true at one level, but deliberately misleading at another. (Don’t drink that water, it’s nothing but chemicals!)

As it turns out, those headlines – one from News-Medical.net, the other from Medical Xpress – are placed over identical reports (i.e. an uncritically reproduced press release) of a study published this week in the Journal of American College Health. And the very title of that study, “Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy”, tells you at once that this is hardly unbiased science, seeking answers not yet known, but rather that sadly common form of pseudo-science that starts out with its conclusion in place and sets out to “prove” it.

The study of college students in 2018 and 2019 found – not altogether surprisingly – that those asked to assess the harmfulness of secondhand “aerosol” or “chemicals” emitted by e-cigarettes were more inclined to see them as dangerous than those who were asked to assess “vapor”.

It also found, unsurprisingly, that they were around twice as likely to support a tobacco-free campus policy. This being the US, where authority routinely seems to miss the point that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, we can take that to mean a vape-free campus policy too. Which, it is not hard to assume, is exactly what the researchers wanted them to support.

The study’s conclusion is itself a masterpiece of deception (perhaps self-deception). It is this: “Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.”

Just how the term “chemicals” – which, after all, encompasses every breath you take – is more “accurate” than “vapor” the authors make no attempt to explain.

Now it may be true that much research which purports to support e-cigarette use is equally tendentious, setting out with its conclusion already prepared. But to respond with such blatantly bad science is no help to anyone who really wants to discover facts as yet unknown. And there are plenty of those yet to be discovered in the field of vaping.

Oh, and the answer to the question posed above is: “Yes, of course”.
Click to expand...

This is a link to the study mentioned.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293  

At first I was not too concerned about a flavor ban because my wife and I use no flavoring and I mix my own... But now Romney and some dude named Jeff have a bill on the floor that includes banning refillable cartridges. That scared the holy bejesus out of me. It sounds like they want all e-cigs to be like the "Mojo" (a disposable closed system).

The frustrating part about this current situation is that all of this seems to have started from some black market THC cartridges, which has absolutely nothing to do with vaping. PG is used in children's asthma medication and nicotine is really not much more dangerous than caffeine, but everyone out there thinks that e-cigarettes are killing people.

I think our first mistake was calling them "e-cigarettes" instead of something like "nicotine delivery device"... The name "e-cigarettes" just causes those that are clueless group them in the same category as cigarettes. Big Tobacco and Big Pharma are probably loving this right now. Smoking kills 450-500k people per year, as far as I know vaping has killed 0, but sure, go ahead and put severe restrictions on vaping. I know it saved my life, 12 years ago I could not manage walking up a flight of stairs, every time I laughed it ended in a coughing fit. Then e-cigs came along and all of that changed.

I wish there was some way to educate the public, especially our government officials.  

How Long Will I Live? - Life Expectancy Calculator


According to the calculator (above) white non-smoking American male have life expectancy of 77 years.

1 PAD smoker – 72 years. It means average white American pays for smoking a pack a day with 5 years of his life expectancy (2 PAD = 9 years).

Vaping by far is not as damaging as smoking. The problem is we do not know how big is that “by far”.

So, my question:

How much of your life expectancy can you sacrifice for vaping?

If tomorrow it will become known for sure that vaping reduce life expectancy by 1 year, will you continue vaping?

If it will be 3 months, what then?  

Copied from another group.
With permission

I am the owner of Sapphyre Nicotine. I have been in the e-cig and vape business since 2009. This post is a little long but hopefully it is informative for some.

In 2009 the FDA started seizing shipments of electronic cigarettes under the claim that they were drug delivery devices and therefore need to pass FDA approval prior to being marketed and sold in the USA. The industry was just starting out and this was a big blow. Shipments of product were not allowed to enter the USA. Credit card companies were not allowing ecig companies to work with them. It was not looking good for ecigs. A company called Smoking Everywhere sued the FDA and made the argument that ecigs should be regulated as a tobacco product since they contained nicotine which is derived from Tobacco. Njoy joined the litigation and eventually took over when Smoking Everywhere went out of business. In 2010 Njoy won the litigation and ecigs ended up being regulated as tobacco products. This was the best outcome of two evils. The FDA appealed the decision and lost that as well. That’s when the ecig industry really started taking off. Bigger players got into the market and eventually RJR, Altria/Philip Morris, BAT and other big tobacco companies came out with ecig products. They quickly became the dominant sellers in c-stores. The tobacco companies were happy selling tobacco and menthol flavors only. That’s what they knew and that’s what they were good at.

A few years later eliquids and open systems started getting popular. These products were not very popular in c-stores. That is when vape stores started opening up. They were mainly concentrating on open system (eliquids, mods and great tasting flavors). For a short time c-stores tried to sell eliquids, but they didn’t have the know how or the time to educate customers. C-stores were good at selling closed systems and vape stores were good at open systems.

To the uninformed public we are all lumped in as one industry --- electronic cigarettes.

In reality there are 2 different industries that are somewhat related.

A) The ecig/closed system industry: In the USA as of Sep 2019 is a $6.4 billion industry. It is controlled mostly by big tobacco companies. Juul (Altria/PM), Blu (Imperial Tobacco), Vuse (British Tobacco, formerly RJR), Njoy (only independent supplier), Logic (Japan International). 75% of ecigs are sold in C-Stores, drug stores and food stores. As a comparison, regular cigarette sales in the USA are around $80 billion dollars and about 75% comes from c-stores.

While ecigs sales increased at a 40% year over year rate, regular cigarette sales dropped by 7% year over year. That is a large number that is troubling to big tobacco.

The closed system industry sells primarily tobacco and menthol/mint flavors. If flavors were banned it would not impact the industry very much. The companies selling closed systems are not going to join our fight to save flavors. They have no monetary incentive to do so. In addition all of these companies are going to apply for PMTA. They are not going to sue the FDA and risk getting PMTA approval unless it greatly impacts their business.

The vapor/open system industry: In the USA as of sep 2019 is a $2.6 billion industry. It is NOT controlled by a few large companies. There are a lot of hardware and ejuice suppliers. It is mostly sold at adult only vape stores. $1.7 Billion sold at vape stores, $350 million in c-stores and $550 million online. Lots of suppliers, distributors, small businesses are part of this industry. They mostly sell flavored eliquid as opposed to tobacco and menthol flavors.

Having been involved with both the ecig business and the vape business, I can say that they are completely different. The vape industry is getting punished for crimes committed by the ecig industry. Unfortunately we are being lumped in as one. We are the easier one to target. We need to do a much better job getting this message out.

I would also like to make a point regarding zero nicotine flavors being regulated by the FDA. The reason our industry is regulated by the FDA as a tobacco product is because the eliquid contains nicotine. This is the only reason the FDA has authority over these products. Because zero nicotine ejuice does not contain nicotine, it is no longer a tobacco product. While the FDA is going to try and enforce regulation of zero nicotine ejuice as a tobacco product by using the “intent to use” rationale, that argument is simply not valid. The FDA will also not be able to regulate zero nicotine ejuice as a drug/drug device combination either. Ejuice with no nicotine does not cause a change in the body and therefore will not be classified as a drug. This is only my educated opinion. I am not an attorney and am not making any legal claims.

I hope this was somewhat informative to people that have not been involved with ecigs and vapes as long as I have. Feel free to add, correct if you have information that I missed.

Feel free to share