Recent Posts

Jack Straw is a mighty big parliamentarian, lets hope his weight can be brought to bear on Linda McAvan and Glenis Willmott.

I would also hope Jack Straw gets a better answer to his questions than the response I had to a letter to the health secretary...



www.dropbox.com/s/eufuejwj6j9pumj/JeremyHuntOfficeReplyReMHRAConflictOfInterest11.7.2013.docx


Original letter

Rt Hon Mr Jeremy Hunt


Dear Mr Hunt,

I am writing to request an answer to questions over the way the MHRA decided that the UK will regulate electronic cigarettes as medical devices. I will also send a copy to my MP, Laura Sandys.

Is it possible the committee involved in making this important decision was not comprehensively screened for conflicts of interest? I understand that the following members had declared interests in pharmaceutical companies:

- Chair: Professor Ian V D Weller : Emeritus Professor of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, University College London Medical School. Declared Interests: Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Boehringer , Ingleheim, Gilead, Abbott, Bristol Myers- Squibb, Tibotec. (co-chair of an Oversight Committee which oversees a large programme of research paid for by the companies listed).
- Paul Aveyard: McNeil (Consultancy (NRT)), Pfizer Consultancy (Nicotine vaccines)
- Martin Jarvis: Pfizer (Consultancy fees as Member Varenicline Worldwide Scientific Advisory Board + European Policy Advisory Board)
- Christopher Marriott: Shares in Vectura Limited. Shares in Medpharm Ltd,? Shares in Remedica Ltd, Shares, directorship + fees from Halation Ltd
- Marcus Munafo: Servier (Consultancy), Pfizer Grant (VARENICLINE), Pfizer Grant (Grant (D CYCLOSERINE)

I can forward recent data that shows the exponential use of electronic cigarettes in quitting cigarettes if that is helpful.

Secondly, it appears that this public health decision was based in part on research done by British American Tobacco, a company with a huge financial interest in the outcome of the committee’s deliberations. BAT’s revenues in Western Europe and the Americas fell £256mn in 2012. Morgan Stanley’s tobacco analyst predicts 1.5 billion fewer cigarettes will be sold in 2013, which he puts down to the exponential growth in electronic cigarettes. Clearly a lot of money is at stake.

Is this not in breach of the World Health Organizations clear guidelines on tobacco control: the WHO states that tobacco companies should under no circumstances be involved in public health decisions on the basis that their interests run counter to public health.


Any reassurance you can give that any failings will be investigated and corrected would be very welcome.

I will remain at you disposal should you or your colleagues wish to respond. Please correct me if you think I am misinformed.

Hi,

Hope this helps, apologies in advance if it's overkill!

I think maybe the research documents cited by the MHRA in last week's announcement as the basis for their decision would be a good thing to take. However there are about 20 of them. The one you want to show your MP is the one done by BAT. Maybe AAEC could provide a link so that anyone could download the documents? Also the links below have some very weighty scientific arguments in favour of electronic cigarettes.

If you are feeling brave, ask you MP to table the following question in Parliament:

Would you be prepared to ask the following question in Parliament?

Is it true the MHRA has based a public policy health decision on research done by tobacco giant British American Tobacco?

Is it also true the decision to regulate electronic cigarettes benefits British American Tobacco and not the roughly one million people who have
switched to electronic cigarettes?

Has the MHRA therefore put the interests of a big tobacco company above the public health?



In case it is helpful, here is an email I sent this morning. Maybe you can use some of the links (eg the BMJ article could not be more clear that eCigs should be freely available), or maybe some of the arguments might help? Please feel free to copy and paste etc or use in any way helpful.


Dear XXX,

In light of the recent announcement by the MHRA, would it be possible to arrange another brief meeting with Laura Sandys MP?

Feelings are now running higher than ever on this issue within the vaping community. Many who have benefited from using electronic cigarettes care passionately about the issue of the reclassification of nicotine as a medicine. To say this move is unpopular with the UK's million-plus vapers is an understatement. It is considered unhelpful by the people it is presumably trying to help. Vapers across the UK are now asking their MPs to ask the question contained at the end of this email in Parliament.

We think the government risks making a big mistake moving towards aggressive regulation of nicotine containing products, which are clearly safer than traditional tobacco products. No chemist in their right mind would suggest the vapor produced from an electronic cigarette is more toxic than the smoke produced by burning tobacco. And yet the MHRA has taken opinions and research by British American Tobacco (amongst others with financial interests), as the basis for its supposedly public health decision. This can be seen by visiting the MHRA’s website and downloading the research cited as the basis for the decision. The result is that fewer people will switch from burning tobacco to a safer alternative. And this is a decision made on the basis of research by a tobacco company?

As a vendor of electronic cigarettes, I have been told repeatedly by customers that if the products we sell are withdrawn from the market place in their current form and replaced with ineffective pharmaceutical equivalents, they will return to smoking. This announcement has already no doubt put some people off trying a safer alternative to smoking. We think the MHRA’s announcement last week advising people not to use electronic cigarettes has already damaged public health. Clearly people’s lives are at stake and we all want to see healthier alternatives to smoking.

Bonnie Herzog of US bank Wells Fargo has predicted that within 10 years there could be more people using electronic cigarettes than traditional tobacco products and this forecast looks less and less outlandish every day. The figure used in the media this week for the current number of vapers is between one million and 1.3 million. So clearly tobacco companies and pharmaceutical companies have a keen interest in the decisions made by the MHRA. And clearly the MHRA is listening to them. It is using research funded by these commercial interests and citing them in the announcement of its decision.

Electronic cigarettes also have supporters within the medical community. Professor John Britton, chairman of the Royal College of Physicians Tobacco Advisory Group: “The likelihood is that smoking electronic cigarettes is better than smoking tobacco. Electronic cigarettes have the potential to save lives.” There is a growing list of proponents of this new technology from within the medical community. A recent list of public documents includes:

British Medical Journal: Should electronic cigarettes be as freely available as tobacco? Yes www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3845
First toxicology study on vapor proves electronic cigarettes are much better than tobacco www.ecigarette-research.com/web/i...an-tobacco
Electronic cigarette effects on cultured living cells officially published www.ecigarette-research.com/web/i...-published
Video: Evidence given to FDA Hearing on safety of electronic cigarettes
Effects of electronic cigarette use on myocardial function www.ecigarette-research.com/web/i...l-function
Chronic idiopathic neutrophilia, relieved after smoking cessation with the use of electronic cigarette www.ecigarette-research.com/web/i...-cigarette

Your continued support is deeply appreciated, if only in helping us understand what the proposals mean and how they will affect us. And perhaps also reflecting our views in Parliamentary debate?

I can forward the documents cited in the MHRA's announcement last week as the basis for its decision, including extended scientific analysis done by BAT.

In their current form, most of my customers say they will return to smoking as the regulated pharmaceutical products do not meet their needs. Many also say they will turn to UKIP who have promised to fight the Tobacco Products Directive. Personally I think it unlikely I will ever be able to vote for UKIP, but for many vapers this has become probably the issue which will decide their vote.

As your constituents, we also ask your support for a local small business employing three people.

Charles Piggott

Lets find out about the successful challenges in The Netherlands and Germany.

1) this is a decision made in bad faith by an agency funded by big pharma. See MP Paul Flynn's blog paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/01/mhra-self-regulation-no-regulation.html

2) the decision goes beyond the powers of the MHRA, unless nicotine has been reclassified as a medicinal product (much as big pharma might wish this true, it's not), making it ultra vires and not enforceable


five minute legal brief:


If there are enough people that want to challenge this decision, it is possible, but it would need to be done quickly.


Where a government decision has been made and not yet implemented, judicial review can be considered. This is a ‘discretionary remedy’: permission is not automatic even if a government decision is obviously flawed. Permission comes from the High Court.



The process is two staged, first stage is obtaining permission. The second stage is the decision. Sometimes the two can be combined in one hearing for urgent cases only (unlikely in this case). There is an absolute three month time limit for cases to be brought and action must be taken ‘promptly’. High court refusal can be given on the basis of failure to act promptly even within the three month time limit.



This is a specialist case and likely to be expensive. Even if sucessful, the legal costs are likely to be high.



A good judicial review lawyer would find a specific decision to challenge within the time limit. There will have to be enabling legislation to follow today’s announcement by the MHRA and therefore several points at which a legal challenge might be made. But the longer this is left, the harder it becomes.



Government decisions can often be challenged on the basis of:



· failing to take something relevant into account



· taking something irrelevant into account



· authorities misunderstanding or overstepping their legal powers



· bad faith (misuse of legislation for inappropriate legislation etc)



· ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ (decisions unreasonable enough that no decision maker properly directing themselves about the law could have come to that decision, ie the decision is outside the possible boundaries of reasonable decision making)



The last two are hard to prove, but included in legal challenges where appropriate. The solicitor stage might be bypassed (in the interests of speed and cost), but you would have to be able to comply with the Direct Professional Access rules. A specialist barristers’ chambers would be able to advise.



To recap on the main three points: this would be a costly process, involve specialists and would need to be done quickly.

I'm really sorry about the postal rates, we wish we could send everything out for free. If you just want us to send you a spring or a pack of carts, we'd be happy to do that for 99p. Just send us an email via the shop. We're always happy to do that. But don't forget if the item is over 2.5cm including packaging it will cost us £3.10.

Most RM packages (including juice and even kanthal orders) cost us £3.10 and some first class signed for packets cost us over £10 (!!), which is why we now subsidize the courier rates as RM have priced themselves out of the market IMO. It's not ideal. If we went to free postage for all orders, we would have to put the prices up to cover the costs. To give you an idea, I'm working 18 hour days and have yet to take any payment from the business. So to say times is tight is an understatement. So please forgive us we are getting orders out as cheap as we can. And when we compare prices with other vendors we also take into account how much they subsidize their shipping.


In stock:


SS V2 Vamos £35.69 after discount
Chrome V2 Vamos £31.44 after discount

I have some BB and GJ, not really my bag. Anyone interested please PM me. From memory I have a bigger bottle of GJ and three smaller bottles of BB. Would have to check exactly. But I'm not going to vape it so its just going to waste....

Sorry about that Denis. We're building a new website, totally upgraded platform, so do try again in a few weeks.