For Smokers Only: The E-Book With Bonus E-Cig Chapter

In 1994, I published the first professional medical articles documenting that smokeless tobacco contained satisfying doses of nicotine (in the Journal of the American Dental Association, here) and was vastly safer than smoking (in Nature, here), and I proposed “that smokeless tobacco be recommended as a cigarette substitute by persons who cannot stop smoking.” (in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, here).

My scientific articles drew massive opposition.  The National Cancer Institute investigated my university, claiming that my strategy was unethical (documented in Jacob Sullum’s excellent book, For Your Own Good, available here) as other medical groups launched vicious attacks.  

One fact was beyond contradiction: Smokeless tobacco use was at least 98% safer than smoking.  While scientific evidence for tobacco harm reduction was overwhelming, smokers were completely uninformed about the lifesaving option of switching to a smoke-free delivery system.  This led me, in 1995, to address smokers directly with a book, “For Smokers Only: How Smokeless Tobacco Can Save Your Life.”

Recognizing the continuing relevance of this groundbreaking work, publisher Rick Newcombe of Sumner Books has just released it as an e-book, updated with a bonus chapter on e-cigarettes.  From exaggerated health scares to bogus gateway claims, opponents of e-cigarettes are using the same tactics they’ve used against other smokeless tobacco products for decades.   

Dr. Dean Edell, physician and host of an award-winning health radio program for 31 years (here), described For Smokers Only as “credible, logical and eminently do-able.”

The FDA Tobacco Product website offers as an example of “Health Fraud” (here) the suggestion “that a tobacco product is safer, less harmful, contains a reduced level or is free of a harmful substance, or presents a lower risk of tobacco-related disease compared to other tobacco products…To date, no tobacco products have met the requirements that would permit them (sic) to make claims of reduced risk or harm to users and nonusers of their regulated tobacco products.”

Applying that absurd definition, I have been conducting health fraud for 20 years.

Smokers, smokeless and e-cig users, get the help you deserve.  Download For Smokers Only from Amazon (here), Barnes and Noble (here) or ITunes (here).

Health Fraud at FDA.gov

The FDA Center for Tobacco Products on June 27 launched a new consumer web page entitled “Health Fraud” (here).  The page implies that statements about comparative risks among tobacco products are inherently fraudulent:

“Claiming less harm or reduced risk of disease from using tobacco products misleads consumers to think that these products are safe to use.  FDA considers these kinds of claims to be health fraud.”

Is the FDA suggesting that my 18 years of peer-reviewed work, and the findings of many other respected academicians and various U.S. and international medical societies are fraudulent?  

In 1994, epidemiologist Philip Cole and I published a study in Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals (citation here), concluding that “…the average remaining life expectancy of a 35-year old smokeless tobacco user is 45.92 years, only 0.04 year less than that of a non-user.  This 15-day reduction in life expectancy is in sharp contrast to the 7.8 years lost by smokers.”  We noted, “…abstinence is not the only approach to reducing tobacco-related mortality: for smokers addicted to nicotine who would not otherwise stop, a permanent switch to smokeless tobacco could be an acceptable alternative to quitting.”

In the nearly two decades since, the scientific foundation for tobacco harm reduction has expanded enormously.  How, then, can the FDA justify its new post:

“To date, no tobacco products have been scientifically proven to reduce risk of tobacco-related disease, improve safety or cause less harm than other tobacco products.” (emphasis in original)

FDA take note: The above statement is demonstrably false and intentionally misleads consumers.  It should be removed, immediately.