CASAA Call to Action: Dr. Siegel is a renowned and long time friend of the Vaping Community. For years he has fought ANTZ at considerable peril to his own ability to earn a living and raise funds. An outstanding advocate for Vapers with a genuine and passionate interest in Public Health. He recently announced a new scientific study and request for donations which reads in part: “In BSCiTS, we hope to conduct a six-month, randomized study that looks at changes in smoking behavior over time when smokers who wish to quit or cut down are offered a free, ten-week supply of either nicotine patches or electronic cigarettes.”
Unfortunately, CASAA recently told the Vaping Community: “…After assessing the matter and corresponding with him, we have decided against supporting this effort and are recommending at this point that people not donate to this project.” (Bolded by me) Frankly, I was shocked and dismayed by their statements. I will let you decide the merits of their position. I posted the following plea to CASAA on ECF. I suggest you read the entire thread. My complete post:
TO: CASAA Board of Directors, Officers, and Associates
Some facts on my perspective: I have devoted a significant portion of my life to Vaping Activism. See my signature. I launched a web site out of my own funds in an effort to provide the Vaping Community with resources and views to mitigate the FDA Deeming regulations. I have spent time in the field with local B&Ms evangelizing and educating them. I have always supported CASAA with a prominent spot on my sidebar, my own posts, my own endorsements, engaging in your Call To Actions, and educating anyone who will listen that they should join and support CASAA. I have always admired and respected volunteer activism. I embrace the “Same Page” philosophy even in those cases where I don’t agree with some details of a specific effort. “They are engaged” in a positive manner is all that has ever mattered to me. I am also a regular poster on ECF where for the most part I am surrounded by independent thinkers, Smart Vapers, and members who have helped me understand the issues we face today. My activism may be imperfect in the view of some but my efforts are “pure” with total transparency and extensive details on my “About This Site” page. My comments are inserted below your announcement and source document links appear at the bottom of this post.
We have received several queries about the current fundraising effort by Dr. Michael Siegel. After assessing the matter and corresponding with him, we have decided against supporting this effort and are recommending at this point that people not donate to this project.
–> It’s one thing not to support an effort but to clearly state not to donate is IMHO, a clear signal that one aspect of your position is about money to your own cause and your “favorites”. At the expense and detriment of the entire Vaping Community. Ironically, you actually admit the core of the issue in your final paragraph while attempting to talk out of the other side of your mouth.
It is with a heavy heart that we make this recommendation, which we realize might be misinterpreted as a negative statement about Dr. Siegel. Like many of you, we consider him an invaluable friend of our cause. But it is our assessment that the research project he is seeking funding for will not be useful, and that the resources it requires would be far better spent elsewhere. Dr. Siegel has provided few details about the specifics of his project (a problem in itself), but he is hoping to conduct a randomized clinical trial that includes smokers switching to e-cigarettes. We consider this to be a particularly bad way to study e-cigarettes. Trials like this do not represent the real role of e-cigarettes in society and are likely to grossly understate their value. He believes that this would influence the FDA, but we disagree. We see no reason to believe that this would affect FDA’s major decisions or that they are at all interested in the results of such a study.
–> Respectfully, your statement is specious and self serving. In fact Dr. S HAS provided some details which in fact appear to replicate what new Vapers who wish to mitigate their addiction to combustables experience. Does his presentation leave room for improvement. Absolutly yes. NONE of US are perfect. Myself, CASAA, and every member of ECF. Dr. S has made incredible sacrifices to further our casue. Jeopardized his own reputation to fight ANTZ and his ability to not only earn a living but raise additional funds. You even “spin” the specific nature of his study. Your failure to disclose this and “spin” is disappointing.
–> Specifically: “In BSCiTS, we hope to conduct a six-month, randomized study that looks at changes in smoking behavior over time when smokers who wish to quit or cut down are offered a free, ten-week supply of either nicotine patches or electronic cigarettes.”
–> I am having a very hard time understanding your statement “We see no reason to believe that this would affect FDA’s major decisions or that they are at all interested in the results of such a study.” What factual basis can you provide? IF I had a self serving agenda and was primarily interested in my own contributions and favorites, I could make the same statement about your own efforts with the FDA and your choice in sending Dr. Igor Burstyn and Dr. Carl Phillips to the FDA workshop. Respectfully, your statment is unfair and impunes the credibility of Dr. S just as my own “IF” senario does. I’m sorry but your views convey favoritism and politics at the expense of the entire Vaping Community. Granted, the chances of any study influencing the FDA in a significant fashion is slim to none but you fail to mention the positive traction that could be garnered from the mainstream media with even a survey conducted by a Scientist/MD from a prestigious university with an outstanding CV.
Most important, the proposed cost of this project — $4.5 million — is staggering. If every penny ever given by the community over the last 5+ years for advocacy and research were devoted to this project, it would only cover 5% of the total cost. The only way a study like this could ever be fully funded is a federal grant, and if such a grant happens, then the small sum given by the community would not matter at all.
–> In an effort to justify your own position on this issue you fail to mention the numerous instances of a disclaimer by Dr. S and his team. Specifically: ” Our research team reserves the right to alter the scope of the proposed research project to keep it in line with the funds raised. This might mean reducing how many smokers can be enrolled in the study, or how long we can follow them over time. Alternatively, if the funds we raise are insufficient, we might choose to conduct a survey study to answer these questions. Whatever the case, the purpose of our research will remain the same: to examine changes in smoking behavior associated with the use of electronic cigarettes, in comparison to the nicotine patch.”
—> I could easily conclude that in a worst case situation you also see no value in contributions for a survey since you have chosen to condemn all contributions to Dr. S’s efforts and not your own. Was the “ask” of 4.5 millon an overreach. I would say so but when you study all his plans and his fallback positions it’s certainly not enough justification to warrant a “not donate to this project”.
By contrast, that sum could be enormously valuable if devoted to other projects. The critically important study by Dr. Burstyn, which the community generously paid for, cost only one half of one percent of that sum. Dr. Farsalinos has conducted several crowd-funded studies for similarly low costs. CASAA acts as your advocate at the state and federal level, provides educational materials and ongoing analysis, and supports various research projects for annual expenditures that are about 2% of the budget for this single study. We fear that community donations to Dr Siegel’s project will take away from critical needs elsewhere and will still be insufficient to make the project happen.
–> It’s that last sentence that I take exception to. Your agenda is quite clear. You wish all contributions to go to you and your “chosen” and fail to provide any evidence or even mention that a survey by Dr. S would be significantly less expensive.
We realize that this could be seen as mercenary, and some will think that we are asking people to give money to us and not this study. But this is not about CASAA. It is about the needs of the community as a whole. If you were thinking about donating to the project then, of course, CASAA would appreciate the donation instead. But if that is not your preference, please give the money to, for example, the Vaping Militia, Vape A Vet, your local ecig group, one of the European groups that is trying to form, or hold onto it for Dr. Farsalinos’s next project.
–> I’ve not given up entirely on my devotion and support of CASAA. I’m hopeful and implore you to reconsider your position on Dr. S. Certainly, your current position is in fact “mercenary” and self serving in a short cited effort to convince the Vaping Community to only contribute to you and your chosen few. The net effect is a dilution of our collective efforts, playing into the hands of ANTZ with a lack of unification, and the assurance that we will fail in any effort to mitigate the FDAs efforts to obliterate vaping. To be fair, had you posted all the facts/complete picture with respect to Dr. S’s study and that you are unable to endorse the efforts of Dr. S BUT still encourage Vapers to use and or join/contribute to CASAA and as many resources or organizations as they wish or don’t join any and communicate directly, I still might have had “private” objections but would certainly understand and respect your position.
Sources:
https://www.facebook.com/CASAAmedia
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/…d-raising.html
http://www.biscuitsstudy.com/
http://www.biscuitsstudy.com/files/94697087.pdf
UPDATED: Julie Woessner, the President of CASAA has responded in detail to my specific post which you should read. I’m encouraged by some of her clarification with respect to the original poorly crafted CASAA announcement, and I take particular joy in her comments about “a survey” and their willingness to support Dr. Siegel’s survey under a given set of circumstances. Thank you!
UPDATED: In what I believe to be a very helpful and well written responce to my Post on ECF, Dr. Carl V. Phillips has written “Why clinical trials are a bad study method for tobacco harm reduction“. His post covers all the details of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Thank you!