hi I'm bread Stanford and this is reg watch by regulator watch calm joining us today in part one of a two-part special discussing the politicization of the science on e-cigarettes after reaction to assertions made by professor Stanton Glantz in our last series as dr. michael siegel a tobacco control expert and professor at Boston University School of Public Health Siegel is a medical doctor and researcher would deep experience in the anti-smoking movement his research covers a wide range of smoking related issues including the health impacts from secondhand smoke cigarette advertising and marketing practices and how tobacco control policies affect smoking initiation and cessation in both youth and adult populations dr. Siegel is also a vocal supporter of e-cigarettes and has never shied a break with Public Health colleagues when he sees the scientific integrity of the tobacco control movement put in jeopardy dr. Siegel thanks for joining us today first off please share with our viewers a little more about your background in tobacco control I worked with Americans for non-smokers rights work with the major health organizations the Cancer Society Heart Association Lung Association so I'm quite familiar with the tobacco control movement and really the inside of the movement which I've considered myself a part of for about 25 years well I take it around in California then in the 1990s when the battle was being waged with big tobacco in fact that was where I did my training understand glance so dr. glance was my my mentor when I was out there and I have to say you know was all I always viewed him as kind of a hero of mine in the tobacco control movement and I have always admired his his work and he was a real pioneer in that area so dr. Siegel let me ask you basically the same question I asked professor glance would you recommend e cigarettes to a patient of yours as a viable alternative to quit smoking absolutely there's no question that that anyone who's smoking that I would recommend e-cigarettes as as an attempt as a a legitimate way for them to quit smoking especially if they were unable to quit in na their way or especially if they had tried other ways to quit and film dr. Siegel your answer is diametrically opposed to professor glance who said no he would not recommend e-cigarettes let's have a listen to why we have a bunch of therapies chantix what you mentioned you know other therapies that have gone through rigorous testing and approval by the government and which work and people should use things that are demonstrated to work so what's the problem with that answer dr. Siegel problem with that response is that the majority of people who are using e-cigarettes are people who have failed using other products without there would be no need for e-cigarettes there would be no market for e-cigarettes if the nicotine patch worked believe me ifs quitting smoking was as easy as buying a nicotine patch and slopping it on your chest everyone would be clamoring to use the nicotine patch everyone would be new using nicotine gum everyone would be popping a pill I mean if anything people love to just pop pills to caught to solve their health problems the problem is that these properties programs aren't working they're not working they have about a ten percent success rate so if you're in that ten percent wonderful the problem is for ninety percent the overwhelming majority of smokers these products are not going to work and as a physician as a public health professional I am NOT content telling those smokers sorry you have to keep trying these products that aren't working so I don't understand how anyone could possibly feel that we shouldn't be promoting or recommending these products to adult smokers I mean yes there need to be protections for youth no we you know we obviously don't want them marketed to youth but to say that we shouldn't be marketing them and promoting them to adults makes no sense whatsoever dr. Siegel you mentioned youth protecting you from e-cigarettes seems to be the overriding concern for the public health establishment and the sole focus of a lot of the alarming headlines here's a short snippet of what Professor glance has to say on the subject the number of kids using e-cigarettes has been increasing way faster than the smoking rate has been dropping the only change that occurred is a lot most of the kids who are cigarette smokers now are also duly users with these cigarettes dr. Segal professor glance says the evidence pointing to e-cigarettes as a gateway to use smoking is provided by well-regarded agencies such as monitoring the future in the Centers for Disease Control he says it's consistent validated and unbiased research what do you have to say about that the CDC has been completely misrepresenting the data and specifically you know the main thing the CDC has done is they have classified electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product when they give their official numbers on the number of youth using tobacco products they include electronic cigarettes and to me that's lying because electronic cigarettes are not a tobacco product there's no tobacco in there there has never been a study that has shown that youth who are using e-cigarettes are are getting addicted to these products in that that addiction is then leading to the use of actual real cigarettes but dr. Segal the FDA the CDC professor glance and others they continue to press the point to the public that youth use of e-cigarettes is a real problem if they just reported the data honestly they would have to admit that even though ecigarette experimentation is skyrocketed the use of tobacco the use of actual tobacco has plummeted so what they've done to get around having to admit that is by adding electronic cigarettes into the category of tobacco they're able to say well overall tobacco has stayed the same and that's what dr. glance was doing that's what the CDC is doing and it's just disingenuous because the reality is that with the advent electronic cigarettes rates of tobacco use not just smoking but weights of tobacco use have plummeted I don't understand what is so scary about admitting that to the public you will not find anywhere on CDC's website where is it where it actually tells people that electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco I couldn't find anywhere on their site what it says is this is a tobacco product and they repeatedly refer to kids using e-cigarettes as being engaged in tobacco use and they're not dr. Segal do you think the CDC has a bias against vaping I don't see any reason why hypothetically you know the CDC shouldn't be able to do a reasonable scientific study of electronic cigarettes the problem is that in reality I think that there is an inherent bias that there is an inherent ideology and they just can't get past they cannot get past the idea but something that looks like a cigarette that's used like a cigarette and involves the inhalation of nicotine could possibly be a good thing you know you could have I'm convinced that you could have a hundred studies showing that electronic cigarettes are helping many many thousands millions of people to quit and the CDC would still not embrace these products I don't think they're capable of condoning in any way the use of a product that looks like a cigarette and that delivers nicotine I just don't think the science I honestly don't think the science is what is at issue here I think is the ideology dr. Segal I'd have to say I'm a bit surprised to hear a scientist talk so openly about fellow scientists not being able to practice objective evidence based research I think that if we're all on the same page and we're all using science-based and you know scientific accurate information there can be disagreements in strategy but when those disagreements are based on lies and misinformation and Miss characterization and misrepresentation the max that's not a tenable situation in public health that's not the way to solve policy dilemmas like this people could die people could die in people are diamond the one thing that's very clear is that the public has a false understanding of the relative risks of smoking and and vaping the majority of the public is not aware that smoking is actually much more hazardous than vaping well it is astonishing 2015 in fact it was the first year ever in which more people came to believe vaping is as harmful or even more harmful than smoking this belief piled on the pressure against vaping and certainly discouraged some smokers from making the switch and our final cost of dr. Siegal could you explain how people came to believe this that is the result of a coordinated campaign by anti vaping groups to try to mislead people into thinking that these are just another form of tobacco that these are just another type of cigarette and that's what happens when you give misinformation when the CDC continually calls these products tobacco products and when they continually say that youth who are using e-cigarettes are engaging in tobacco use that's what's going to happen the public is going to believe them well that's it for this edition of reg watch stay tuned for part two of our interview with dr. Siegel to be released shortly in the meantime please Like us on Facebook and don't forget to follow us on Twitter for regulator watch calm I'm Brett Stafford


  1. kids consuming caffeine based energy drinks sold EVERYWHERE. . perfectly ok….. vaping bad mmmm kay….

  2. Excellent interview wth Dr. Siegel, thank you. However, the one area he didn't raise is the money! The Government receives hundreds of billions of dollars in tobacco taxes and the states also receive money from the Master Settlement Agreement. This agreement is for the tobacco companies to pay the individual states money based on the number of cigarettes sold and this money is supposed to be used for education against smoking. However, only 14% at most is ….. the rest is used to shore up budgets. It's no wonder then that as this money is decreasing as smoking rates are falling, thanks to ecigs, the states are going all out to ban or tax ecigs as tobacco.

    As far as the money from tobacco taxes is concerned, there are many in tobacco control and other NGOs also benefitting massively from it and scientists like Stan Glantz receiving millions of dollars from it. On top of that, many organisations and people in public health, including the health charities, receive massive funding from pharma and now favours are being called in. We know that both the tobacco companies and pharma have been furiously lobbying governments worldwide for overly strict regs on ecigs so the market is destroyed and it's paid off, so far. The way the FDA Deeming Rules are written, the only organisations able to afford the millions of dollars and the inferior generation one designs to comply are the tobacco and pharma companies. All the thousands of small independent companies and jobs making and selling much more advanced ecigs will be wiped out. When the tobacco companes were forced to jump on the bandwagon or face that Kodak moment, why would they buy into generation one closed systems (instead of generation 3 open systems), unless they already knew that thanks to strict regs, that would be all that was left? It's the difference between a basic cell phone and a smartphone. Cigalikes are inferior, which means that some will return to smoking, others will go to the black market and many current smokers won't ever switch.

    The NRT and Champix market from pharma has been a complete con using placebos that don't work, but very lucrative for them and best of all, they get to treat the smoking related diseases. Also, when people die early, the government and insurance companies don't have to pay out pensions. Stopping teens from using ecigs ensures a new generation of smokers. Despite what they all say to the contrary, it's clear they want people to keep smoking ….. they all need the money!

  3. Thank you for having an actual Dr. and expert on your show.

  4. Shared to Twitter,Google,Facebook,Pintrest been cigarette free for 2 years!!! Love regulator watch and Dr. Siegel so the truth!!!

  5. Thank you Dr. Seigal! This is how a scientist should be. I smoked for 47 years and went from 1.5 pks/day to 0 since Dec 12 and have not wanted/craved or had a cig since. I've also stepped down from 18mg to 1.5 -3mg ejuice slowly over time. I have not even gone back to stronger ejuices. I will probably still vape once I hit 0mg cause I still enjoy the habit. But no tar or nicotine!

  6. lord knows that I wouldn't want my son to touch any of it…..but I would be FAR less concerned if he came and said he was trying vapes, than if he he told me he was smoking cigarettes! I know from experience that teens are gonna do what they want regardless unless you lock them away in their room….cause I did…..my mom tried with everything she had to keep me from cigarettes and I still did it…so I would much rather the less harmful of the two

  7. The plunge in TOBACCO use has terrified Big Tobacco, so they are
    fighting dirty. No surprise there.
    They just want the law to force us
    to keep smoking, or switch to a medical product from Big Pharma – which
    they know won't work.
     Also, Big Tobacco wants to keep the real figures hidden from their shareholders.

  8. WOW! Very interesting point of view. I believe his way of thinking about e-cig. Thanks Brent 👍

  9. This channel should get advertised by all the major Vape players around YouTube and social media! Like GrimmGreen, RIP Tripers, Phil busardo etc… because the content here need to be spread far and wide!

  10. Well said Dr. Michael Siegel and great vid REG WATCH

  11. First? Wow! Yes, let the truth be known. We need more of this kind of scientist to come out and support our cause.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *