ECF e-cigarette-forum.com on medical claims

I was doing a little research to see the public's reaction after last Friday's FDA letters to the five ecig manufacturers claiming violations of the FDCA in regards to unsubstantiated medical claims in their marketing and, as usual, the forums are abuzz with outrage, debate and some intelligent arguments... and a few not so intelligent ones. Ah, well, such is the ecig Internet.

One post that caught my eye though was over at the ECF, the e-cigarette-forum.com, arguably the largest ecig forum in history. It's also one that more than a few of us have had issues with in the past because of their very strict "no medical claims" policy. Basically, if you profit from ecigs in any way and make any comments on your website they deem inappropriate or reference or discuss any medical studies, doctor quotes, news articles or say ecigs might help you quit using tobacco, or if any of the ecig makers you reference, are affiliated with or advertise on your website make any such claims they don't like, you are banned banned banned. Seems reasonable right? After all we don't want the FDA to ban ecigs based on unsubstantiated claims.

I myself was banned from posting links there months ago and deemed "an unapproved vendor" because they disagreed with some of my arguments and my mentioning of some of the medical studies here on my own site (not ones i made on their site mind you, those were ok, but rather ones I made here on my own blog) and they pointed to a couple of claims one of the companies I'm affiliated with had made, like "no carcinogens" and "healthier", claims that were later taken off their marketing in no small part due to my arguments with them that such claims were unproven, damaging to the industry and in violation of FDCA. So I really do understand where the ECF is coming from with their policy.

However, it seems I'm totally banned from posting at the ECF now, so I thought i'd post my response to one of their threads that caught my eye here.

The main problems i have with the ECF is that they are a bit snobbish about their policies and it seems to be applied a bit unevenly and hypocritically. Some vendors are kicked for referencing tobacco in any way (or in my case I caught their eye for saying "in the past marketers have made claims they could help you quit smoking" and had an ad for a vendor they didn't like) while many of their approved vendors feature testimonials from customers claiming they quit and one even goes so far as having a letter from the founder talking about how he quit smoking with ecigs. Yet, the mantra of the ECF has always been "If we don't mention tobacco, the FDA has no jurisdiction so buy from our approved vendor list because they don't make any claims."

Which brings us to today's comments. You see, there's a really good reason none of the ECF approved suppliers have to make any claims: the ECF does it for them. Most of these companies pretty much live off ECF members and those of other forums who are more than happy to make the claims in their stead. So the whole "pat ourselves on the back cause our suppliers don't make claims" posts this weekend just rubbed me the wrong way.

After all the ECF is a forum that's basically, according to the types of things the FDA quoted in their warning letters, unsubstantiated claims surrounded by advertisements from their "approved vendors" who pay the forum owners for advertising. Contrary to their policy of "if you profit from ecigs you can't make claims" they profit from the sale of ecigs and make unsubstantiated claims every single day... or rather they let other people make thier claims for them and then they and their suppliers pat themselves on the back for being so responsible.

Here's what I'm talking about, lonercom explains it best:

lonercom starts out with:

The issue (IMHO) still appears to be the claims made or implied by these 5 sites about the medicinal value of the e-cig. When a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer says that these can help a smoker not smoke, they are making a medicinal claim. When they publish someone else's comments to that effect, they are implyig a that medicinal claim. When they make reference to a study or editorial that makes a medicinal claim they are implying the same thing. In all of these areas the FDA believes that thet have to get involved to ensure that those medicinal claims are backed up.

Take any reference to smoking away and it takes the FDA's drug/device authority away. This action appears to be consistent on the FDA's part.

We, as consumers want these products to stick around awhile and take the FDA actions personally. If the folks that are involved in the sale and distribution of e-cigs want to make more than a quick buck from this, they need to pay attention, organize, and quit making these claims.

There is not one dealer associated with ECF that needs to say anything about smoking in their literature or websites. We are most likely the largest source of their income and we are already well aware of the benefits of vaping.

Exactly Lonecom, you totally hit the nail on the head. Your suppliers don't need to make any claims, the forum does it for them. They don't need to convince anyone that ecigs are great, they dont' need to advertise, they don't need to do anything the bigger companies do. The forum does all the work for them... and brings in new customers every single day who are sold on the benefits of ecigs by other members and then simply pointed to the "approved suppliers list" to make their purchase. Hell, a couple of vendors actually put on their website FAQ "go to the forums to learn about ecigs and why they might be right for you." to avoid having to explain it themselves.

Rolygate, the ECF website manager responded:

You're right of course.

Ecigarettes are an alternative method of smoking, and if someone wants to claim they are useful for other things like quitting tobacco then they need to prove it. Since none of the vendors have bothered to fund any proper research, that can't be done.

Because of this issue we *try* to enforce a no-medical-claims rule, but you wouldn't believe how hard this is. When we contact suppliers about removing claims of this type, we are often met with incomprehension, and sometimes with screams of rage or a barrage of abuse. It's as if they just can't see that making medical claims puts you under the pharmaceutical licensing authority.

To describe some of these vendors as blind or stupid or both is the understatement of the year. They just can't seem to figure it out. It's as if they think they have an automatic right to put anything they like in their marketing materials. Unfortunately they might take all of us down with them.

Trying to explain to them that you cannot avoid the universal law that medical claims make you a drug seller and therefore licensable, and that you can only state as fact what is proven in medical research trials, is like talking to a brick wall. It's as if they have a collective death wish.

And, to be honest, I have to agree with a lot of that. It does seem that many ecig makers, particularly the likes of E-Cig Technology have a death wish. I've commented many times in various articles and forums that I firmly believe sometimes that Smoking Everywhere's mission statement is "Let's bring down the industry and make as much money as we can first." I can imagine how some people react when they get the ECF "We noticed you are making some claims" letter. I think my interaction with them was civil and in the end we simply argreed to disagree when I refused to let them dictate what I wrote on my own private blog when it was the exact same things that were being written at the ECF, but I can imagine some people are not as understanding.

Why? Because his post shows some of their arrogance and hypocricy. We "try to enforce a no-medical-claims" rule, but if you browse their forum that's all you see!!! They've built their entire business model on exactly that: Thousands of members talking about this study and that study, what this doctor said and what that doctor said, what this article said, how they quit smoking using ecigs, how stupid the FDA is, how it's all Big Pharma or Big Tobacco out to get us, how nicotine is no more dangerous than caffeine, how ecigs have no tar, no carbon monoxide, none of the toxic chemicals that cigarettes do, how ecigs are far safer than cigarettes and if the government can't see that then they are morons. The very same stuff that the FDA quoted as being illegal claims in their letters.

Most of the forum is people talking about just such things, and many of them with banners in their sigs that say "I quit smoking 243 days ago with ecigs."

The ECF is the single largest depository of unsubstantiated medical claims regarding ecigs on the Internet. And the whole time their owners and approved vendors benefit while patting themselves on the back for not making any such claims. They just let the members do it for them.

It's brilliant actually, as a marketing strategy. It allows them to put down the competition and give their paying suppliers an army of marketing volunteers eager to spout the benefits of ecigs and a constant source of new customers eager to buy based on what they've learned from the forums. And the whole time they can pat themselves on the back for never having to personally make any claims. It's genius.

But how long can it last? After reading the five FDA letters one of the things that really caught my eye was the fact the FDA was listing customer comments claiming they quit using tobacco as "proof" that these companies were making claims about their products. As far as the FDA is concerned, if your customers say it helped them quit smoking or stop using tobacco, you are a smoking cessation device and are selling a drug. How long will it be before some of these suppliers start getting letters from the FDA quoting posts from their ECF forums or reviews there as "marketing materials"?

Could member comments from forums like the ECF or blogs like this one be thought of as marketing claims? If a supplier has an "approved" forum area, particularly one they pay for, could that be construed as part of their marketing? Would forum comments, particularly those that include "I quit smoking with ecigs" banners be seen as claims by your company if you allow them? Could companies even be seen as making claims simply for advertising in a forum where such claims are common place?

Hum... certainly worth thinking about. Only time will tell how far the FDA goes. But one thing I do know, the ECF should not be pointing the finger or patting itself too hard on the back in regards to no medical claims by it's suppliers as long as such a large portion of their own sites content is their member's medical claims surrounded by suppliers ads.

The first round of letters went to those obviously in violation and a couple of whom made completely outragious claims. But to be honest, I didn't see anything in any of those letters that I don't also see on a daily basis posted by vapers in forums like the ECF.

For now, perhaps more suppliers just need to take down any mentions of smoking or the benefits of ecigs and just pay the ECF or another forum to do their marketing for them.