Billionaire Banzhaf Bashes company over Retraction Request

There is a press release today: ASH Stops E-Cigarette Bullies; Mid-East Moves Against E-Cigarettes that I just had to stop and comment on. The more I read the propaganda John Banzhaf puts out the less respect I have for him and his organization. But this one is some of his finest spin yet. Let's tear it down.

It seems that E Cigarette Direct wrote a letter to the editor of the Peninsula, a news publication in Qatar that had written an article critical of electronic cigarettes when reporting the new ban the kingdom had placed on their import. The company wished them to correct some of the inaccuracies contained within that article.

You'd think the guy who sues companies like McDonald's and Big Tobacco for false advertising would support such an action, after all if the press is going to write about it, it should be true, right? But, Mr. Banzhaf chose instead to write the publication and encourage them not to retract the story and sent out a press release with a few of his own half truths to let the world know he'd done it.

Let's take some points one by one. 

In a recent report on the electronic cigarette your newspaper stated that the electronic cigarette is more dangerous than conventional cigarettes.

from the letter to the editor

Now, did the Peninsula actually say that? Well, yes they did.

Upon testing it was found that the “e-cigarette” harms human health far more than the normal cigarette and it contains 40 times as much nicotine as a regular cigarette.

They allude that the "testing" they are referring too was the FDA report. But the FDA report did not say that E-cigs harmed human health far more then a regular cigarette. In that testing they were not even compared to regular cigarettes. If E Cigarette Direct were Mr. Banzhaf's client, I'm sure he'd be writing a letter demanding they retract that statement too.

The Peninsula had stated earlier in the article that:

The move comes after the issuance of a warning on the use of these devices by the US Food and Drug Administration, which said they contain harmful carcinogenic and toxic substances, notably diethylene glycol, a toxic chemical used in antifreeze

This is not fully accurate, but most news outlets were reporting the same thing because the way the FDA press release was crafted it delivered fear instead of science.

The truth is that 1 out of 18 sample cartridges did actually contain 1% diethylene glycol, but the statement above leads readers to believe all electronic cigarettes contain this deadly poison, a component of antifreeze, which is the popular catch phrase the FDA's been using to increase the fear factor.

They also failed to mention that many products manufactured in china, from toothpaste to cosmetics have been recalled due to the presence of diethylene glycol which is used extensively over there in plastics manufacturing and probably came from an improperly manufactured plastic cartridge. I'm with them on that one though, that's nasty stuff you don't want to be inhaling in any quantity but don't allude that all products contain this poison when only one of 18 cartridges from only two e-cig manufacturers that were tested had it. That's irresponsible journalism, in my humble opinion.

Again, if the company had hired Mr. Banzhaf as their corporate attorney, i'm sure he'd be asking them to correct that too, as any competent attorney would.

Instead, ASH wrote to the publication and told them:

that it should not be bullied by the largely unproven assertions being made by the company, and pointing out the complainer had a clear conflict of interest and little scientific or medical credibility.

So what exactly was unproven that the company had said in their letter? They wrote:

The recent analysis of the electronic cigarette found "very low levels" of four tobacco specific nitrogens in most cartidges tested. According to Professor Brad Radu these TSN's, when found in microscopic quantities, cause no danger when used in smokeless tobacco. These TSN's are also found in approved nicotine cessation products.

That's all true. Although the company says "nitrogens" when I think they meant to say nitrosamines. They also failed to mention Dr. Radu is the Endowed Chair of the Tobacco Harm Reduction Research University of Louisville, hardly some pro tobacco quack.

From the FDA's own report:

Tobacco specific nitrosamines and tobacco specific impurities were detected in both products at very low levels. (emphasis added)

Limit of detection Cotinine 20 ppb. Anabasine 10 ppb; myosmine 69 ppb; ?-nicotyrine 170 ppb – present but at less than the level of the Nicotrol specification. (emphasis added)

So, it seems to me that the company was correct and the Peninsula should retract it's statement and replace it with one that's a bit more accurate.

The company also mentioned:

In addition Professor Michael Siegel, a specialist in preventantive medicine, points out that regular cigarettes contain between 300 and 1400 times the quantity of Tobacco Specific Nitrogens's contained in electronic cigarettes.

Again, completely true and accurate. And I dare Mr. Banzhaf to say Dr. Siegel  has "little scientific or medical credibility". Oh wait, he did claim Siegel was a paid shill for the tobacco and electronic cigarette industry. But again, I digress.

The FDA did not find that electronic cigarettes contained far more dangerous carcinogens than regular cigarettes, instead they actually say they contain less than an already approved smoking cessation product.

But John Banzhaf disagrees:

"The media should not be coerced into retracting articles critical of e-cigarettes by blatantly false self-serving assertions,"

And he's right. they shouldn't. But the company was not blatantly false, but rather exactly right, at least according to how I read the FDA's own report.

As for the nicotine levels. The publication said:

contains 40 times as much nicotine as a regular cigarette

And the company said:

You also stated that electronic cigarettes contain 40 times more nicotine than regular cigarettes.

This is in contrast to Health New Zealand's tests on the Ruyan electronic cigarette, which stated that each puff contained between one half to one third of the nicotine found in an a tobacco cigarette's puff.

Meanwhile, the FDA commissioned report on Njoy and Smoking Everywhere electronic cigarette cartridges found that high nicotine cartridges contained twice as much nicotine as a nicotine inhaler, with zero nicotine cartridges containing far less than the inhaler. Even the highest level of nicotine (31.5 micrograms per puff) is lower than that of regular cigarettes.

At no point was there any suggestion that the cartridges contained more nicotine than regular cigarettes

Now, I couldn't find the exact amount of nicotine contained in a cigarette in mcg, the measurement used in the study. But let's compare it to the control device, the Nicotrol inhaler that they DID test.

One high-nicotine cartridge delivered twice as much nicotine to users when the vapor from that electronic cigarette brand was inhaled than was delivered by a sample of the nicotine inhalation product (used as a control) approved by FDA for use as a smoking cessation aid.

And the other samples? Well, the report says:

So, the high nicotine cartridges did contain more nicotine than the inhaler, but all the med and low level ones contained less save for the tobacco one that contained .5mcg more.

Now, i'm no doctor and i'm no scientist and I couldn't find the exact levels in a cigarette, but do we honestly believe the Nicotrol inhaler contains 20 times the amount of nicotine in a cigarette? So the high cartridges did not contain 40 times the nicotine as the publication claimed.

But then wouldn't you expect these types of levels anyway, when compared to the Nictotrol inhaler? They were the HIGH nicotine levels, meant to deliver the same nicotine as a regular full flavor cigarette. The Nicotrol device is not intended to deliver the same amounts, it's purpose is to deliver less than a regular cigarette. So it's not surprising to me to see the levels falling where they do.

Regardless, it seems the statement of "40 times more" is blatantly untrue and has no scientific data to back it up, certainly not any data from the FDA report.

To be more accurate perhaps the publication might have said "most of the samples delivered nicotine at levels comparable or below the levels delivered by Nicotrol, the smoking cessation inhaler. But they didn't, they made an outrageous claim of 40 times that of a cigarette which doesn't seem to be founded in the science.

But John Banzhaf doesn't seem to care about science, instead he encouraged the publication not to withdraw it's story, one that seems full of "little scientific or medical credibility" and instead accused the electronic cigarette company of being the one that had "little scientific or medical credibility".

As a matter of fact, the company quoted another Doctor, Dr Joel Nitzkin, Chair of the Tobacco Control Task Force for the American Association of Public Health Physicians

Experts such as Dr Joel Nitzkin, Chair of the Tobacco Control Task Force for the American Association of Public Health Physicians, estimate that electronic cigarettes carry one percent and one tenth of one percent of the risk of cigarettes.

But, I guess Mr. Banzhaf feels that the Chair of the Tobacco Control Task Force for the American Association of Public Health Physicians has "little scientific or medical credibility" as well.

Now, we get to the really good stuff. Mr. Banzhaf also claimed the company was "self serving". Did I mention ASH's press release contained everything i've mentioned so far in the FIRST PARAGRAPH of their release? What did the rest say?

ASH pointed out that the news story was based in part upon a report the FDA apparently issued in response to a scheduled appearance by ASH Executive Director John Banzhaf on a major U.S. national television news program.

Talk about self serving? He's bragging in a press release about bullies that he bullied the FDA into releasing a study? 

Mr. Banzhaf claims he is single handedly responsible for the FDA's study? And this is not the only release he's issued with this claim. Are we really to believe the FDA is a puppet controlled by a lawyer and his anti smoking activist group?That's frightening if true.

But they go on to pat themselves on the back even more and push their own self serving activist agenda in the guise of a news story.

However, as ASH pointed out at the time, the dangers which the FDA noted in its report were apparently not the only potential dangers associated with these new e-cigarettes, and that these devices create many known and potential health risks to the users, to bystanders, and to the economy.

These include possible contamination, smokers who otherwise would quit instead remaining addicted to nicotine, the deadly danger nicotine inhalation can pose for people with risk factors for heart attacks, the propensity of inhaled nicotine to sustain or even trigger an addiction, the worry that youngsters will use e-cigarettes as "training wheels" on the way towards cigarette smoking, and the potential risks to those around e-cigarette users -- including infants and young children, the elderly, those with existing medical problems, etc. -- who will be exposed to the exhaled vapors.

I"ll ignore the economy part and just mention that I personally find it interesting that an activist funded by drug companies who actively encourages outrageous tobacco taxes would mention the economic effects electronic cigarettes may have. To whose economy? His? or his contributors?

Now, let's go down those one by one:

1. possible contamination- of what? He skillfully leaves that to your imagination as any good propaganda writer or social activist will do to increase the fear in your mind.
   
   
2. smokers may not quit - Well, he's right there. Ideally we might wish all smokers would quit. But he fails to mention that nicotine addiction has been compared to heroin and cocaine by the medical community and is generally regarded by scientists, doctors and especially smokers as one of the hardest to break. Most smoking cessation products have been proven to have a less than 20% success rate after a year.
   
   So, Mr. Anti smoking, the drug company funded social activist, instead of supporting a product that helps smokers take an important first step on the road to becoming addiction free, one that helps aleve their fears, and gives them control over their own doses of nicotine to lower gradually, which is the way most smoking cessation products work, while completely eliminating the smoke, which doctors say is the root cause of most of the dangerous side effects of smoking like lung cancer and the biggest killer of all, he demands they either quit (using the products made by his contributors) or return to Big Tobacco's scientifically proven killer cancer sticks (so he can sue them on your behalf).
   
   
3. the deadly danger of heart attacks - Again, he's right there. nicotine is bad for your heart, but he skillfully leaves out the fact that the electronic cigarette is marketed and intended for use by current smokers, who already use nicotine and suffer the same, if not a greater risk of heart attacks by smoking tobacco.
   
   
4. the worry youngsters will use them as training wheels - The average e-cigarette starter kit is over $100 USD. Mr. Banzhafs own organization trains it's activists to campaign for higher taxes because higher costs have been proven to discourage youth from using tobacco. I don't think most kids are going to shell out $100 bucks or more to start smoking when they can go to the gas station across from the school and buy cigarettes for $5 bucks.
   
   I'd actually argue that the reality is that electronic cigarettes would be a great set of "training wheels" for smokers to take the first step to quitting. Once they are smoke free and feeling healthier, it would be easier to get them to take the final step towards weaning themselves off nicotine completely. Something they can easily do with electronic cigarettes by lowering the nicotine levels gradually. You can't do that with a tobacco cigarette. ASH even admits this and is involved in lawsuits against the tobacco companies for false advertising of their "light" products because they don't actually help smokers lower their intake of nicotine, and in some cases actually encourage them to increase their nicotine intake.
   
   
5. Potential risks to those around them - This is right out of the anti smoking activist training manual and usually refers to second hand smoke, something proven to effect those around you. There is no science to support the assertion that e-cigarettes have any form of "second hand smoke". It's simply a proven technique used by activists to successfully lobby for smoking bans and is being repackaged to attack e-cigs as well. There is no scientific data I've seen to support it. As they say, it's all smoke and mirrors.

Now, he gets to one point I actually agree with.

indeed, ASH pointed out, there is new evidence that e-cigarettes "are potentially lethal to children."

Not all e-cigarettes. But many of the less responsible companies out there with the cheaper versions of the product require that you manually refill the cartridges with a liquid, one that is often not labeled as containing dangerous nicotine, one that sometimes simply has a label of "cherry" or "chocolate" and these bottles may contain enough nicotine to kill a child or cause a nicotine over dose. There is a need for better labeling by many manufacturers. He's right about that.

Electronic cigarettes are not for use by children and the nicotine "e-liquids" should be labeled "keep out of reach of children". Children, and even adults, should treat these liquids with the utmost care and avoid having any contact with the raw liquid. OR they can just buy the higher quality brands that come with sealed disposable, pre-filled cartridges.

Whew. So by now you might think we are done with the self serving "pat ourselves on the back" ASH propaganda machine, right? Nope!

Also, ASH pointed out, as a result of the FDA report, the sale of e-cigarettes has been banned by state law in a least one U.S. state, ads for the product have reportedly been banned by Facebook, and virtually all of America's major national health and antismoking organizations have called for a ban on the sale of e-cigarettes.  Moreover, at least one company is now offering the product to provide users with Cialis as well as nicotine, illustrating still other potential risks as such products could be used to administer many dangerous drugs, most of which otherwise require prescriptions.

Wait, what? Which state has banned their sale by law? None that I know of. And you still see ads for electronic cigarettes on Facebook.

(editors note: California did consider such a bill in Sept of 09 which was ultimately vetoed by the governor on the grounds that adults have the right to use tobacco products and it's not up to the state governments to define what is and isn't a federally regulated drug or a tobacco product. That should be left up to the FDA)

"the sale of e-cigarettes has been banned by state law in a least one U.S. state" This is a completely false statement and should be removed from the press release entirely. As of this writing I do not know of any state that has banned the sale of any electronic cigarette product. There is no such state law in any state.

What he's referring to, and the press release they link to confirms this, is the case in Oregon where a court order prohibited two retailers from selling the products due to "unlawful trade practices" revolving around the way the products they were selling were being marketed.

Mr. Banzhaf is a professor of law, and it's my opinion that if he doesn't know the difference between a court order and state law, perhaps the university should rethink his tenure and maybe the parents and his students might wish to rethink where they are getting their education from. Attorney Generals and courts do not make state law, the legislature does.

Now, ready for the kicker?? Mr. Banzhaf brags incessantly how he bullied the FDA into doing studies and how his organization bullied state Attorney Generals around the nation to "crack down" on electronic cigarettes. He makes claims and reiterates them in almost every press release he sends out about how his letters and threats have prompted action all around the country. So now he goes on to say:

ASH urged the publication and its readers to rely upon the impartial governmental body charged by U.S. law with evaluating such products [FDA], major U.S. national health organizations which are impartial and have the necessary scientific authority and credibility to address these issues, and decisions by impartial and unbiased entities such as the Attorney General of Oregon, etc.

You mean the impartial entity you claim to have bullied into a study with the threat of a TV appearance whose own report proves the statements made by the publication are blatantly false and have "little scientific or medical credibility"? Or the impartial entities you claim to have bullied into court orders that somehow morphed into state law?

"The media should not be coerced into retracting articles critical of e-cigarettes by blatantly false self-serving assertions," says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, especially since concerns about them continue to rise.  More recently two states have taken legal action against the sale, and PayPal is refusing to assist in the sale of a product which the FDA has declared is illegal.

To my knowledge the FDA has not declared electronic cigarettes illegal, as a matter of fact, a Federal court is currently hearing the case and has yet to decide if the FDA even has jurisdiction to do so. Electronic cigarettes continue to be sold online and in retail outlets across the nation. If they had been declared illegal, I'd think there would be some sort of law enforcement action, there isn't. The case has yet to be decided.

And so it finally ends. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. As I've clearly shown here, the company, E Cigarette Direct, didn't try to coerce anyone with any blatantly false statements. They asked journalists to be responsible and report the truth. While they may have self interests at heart, as retailers of the products that were criticized, they only asked that the publication retract blatant falsehoods and statements that had "little scientific or medical credibility."

The only self serving going on here is at the hands of Mr. Banzhaf and ASH. Most of this article was not about the story, but rather about "we urged" and "we pointed out" and "we wrote" and "we threatened" and 'we we we".The whole point of this press release was to say "look at what we did." All so they could get some press and further their own activist agenda.

You sir, are the one being self serving. And no where did I see it mentioned that you receive large grants from drug companies such as Pfizer, makers of stop smoking cessation products which have been linked to hundreds of deaths and will soon face many lawsuits of their own from their customers who claim to have suffered horrible side effects and life long disabling diseases from their use of these "FDA approved safe drugs."

The companies who fund you stand to lose millions if electronic cigarettes are allowed to be sold by the FDA. Further more they stand to make millions if they can hijack the technology and release it as their own FDA approved nicotine replacement therapy, with, of course, the customary high price tag pharmacutical companies are accustomed to charging. This makes me wonder what your own conflicts of interest might be in your zealous attack on electronic cigarettes.

So, I'll end with a quote, one you are familiar with as I advise every journalist, publication, website and person on the planet that they

should not be bullied by the largely unproven assertions being made by the company, and pointing out the complainer had a clear conflict of interest and little scientific or medical credibility

Namely those of self serving Mr. Banzhaf, the drug company funded social activist billionaire lawyer and his propaganda spewing money machine ASH.