Testing for Diacetyl and Acetyl Propionyl, How its done, What is meaningful testing? Flavor Vendors

[tombaker]

Well, they have several legal loopholes in their favor.

There is NO limit on how much of a GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) substance can be present in a food product. In fact, you can legally buy and have a barrel of pure diacetyl delivered right to your doorstep, because it is considered safe for ingestion. FDA defines GRAS: "adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use." So here we have:

Loophole #1, do not mention inhalation. Any food can contain any amount of diacetyl. Food with over 1% diacetyl must include "artificial flavor" on the ingredient list, so:

Loophole #2, label the product "artificial flavor." Artificial butter (I Can't Believe It's Not Butter) contains staggering amounts of diacetyl and GRAS substitutes, but look at the ingredient list and diacetyl is not listed. It's just "artificial flavor." If it's less than 1% of the product, it doesn't even have to be mentioned at all, thus:

Loophole #3, use less than 1% diacetyl. Now, that's all for food products. For e-liquid, there are NO regulations whatsoever. I suppose the FDA might consider them food product and subject to the regulations above, but if they are explicitly and clearly intended for inhalation and NOT ingestion - no laws or regulations exist, so:

Loophole #4, market it for inhalation and put whatever the heck you want in there. Smack on a sticker that says it's "diacetyl free!" while you're at it. It could possibly be argued that FTC's Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is violated, but even that is a stretch. Certainly no e-cig-related vendor has been prosecuted under that (or any other) regulation.

...so no - I don't think e-liquid vendors have ANY legal repercussions to fear!

And all of that is blown away, by one person testing an E-Liquid that says its supposed to be diacetyl and AP free, and then solid testing shows otherwise.....then you watch to see the outcome......as we wait for Pip at Suicide Bunny to explain

 

[HeadInClouds]

Perfurmers Apprentice ... They are entirely quiet on AP still.

If you mean TFA/TPA doesn't disclose acetyl pyrazine, you are wrong.

Here is the page on their website with all flavorings containing it; click 'list' to the right of any flavor to see the components: http://shop.perfumersapprentice.com/specsheetlist.aspx?cas=600-14-6

 

[tombaker]

A note that should probably be clarified is that I do not think that any lawsuit in this arena has much chance of prevailing simply because of the general lack of brand loyalty among users.

And so ends that awesome precedent setting case of for Popcorn-Lung, You think the 10 years of popcorn eating he keep all the receipts of the popcorn bags. or he only used one brand, and could prove it for all the years? Oh well. Per you, the lawsuits will be a snowball's chance

 

[tombaker]

Without reliable vendor info, one thing we can ALL do is learn to detect diketones ourselves - by scent. I swear you can learn to do it! It's not hard. Many homebrewers learn to check for concentrations lower than most flavor manufacturers ever test for, just by scent. So can you!

Once you've learned the distinctive scent of diacetyl/subs, it's just a matter of getting better at detecting smaller amounts. The longer you avoid using them, in my experience, the easier it becomes to detect them when you do. If I can help anyone out learning to do this, just let me know.

Okay come on, seriously you are just fucking with everyone now.
First you claim that 5 ppm is not accurate enough, then you say you need parts per BILLION, then now, you are saying
Yeah yeah, all you need to do is give it a good whiff. If you smell AP or Diacetyl, its there. Ipso facto! I do it, and so can you.
Diacetyl and AP smell perfectly the same also?
Perhaps get a trained dog to do independent testing? (Actually at least the dog would have a real good chance)

 

[tombaker]

When a post starts off like that, I have a mental block that prevents me from reading the rest.
I'll never know if you had some good points to make after that opening.

Facts you have, Not. Avoid, deflect, obfuscate.

 

[tombaker]

Tom, what is publicly known about Capella v2 flavors is already in that other thread. Please feel free to add to it, but I don't see the point of reposting all the conversation here.

The point of posting the 1940-50 methods was to show that ppm diacetyl was the standard all the way back then, and it it didn't require the expensive equipment that's used by today's labs. Just an interesting resource that perhaps a chemist could use to develop a handier method than spectroscope. Not I, but you never know who finds info on the web. Some entrepreneur could make a small fortune selling ppm diacetyl dip-stick test kits to vapers.

5ppm sounds very tiny, I agree. Yet it's enough that beer is a complete failure and Cheddar cheese is rejected during the production process.
Does 5ppb sound just unfathomably tiny to you? Most American mass-market beers assure such small amounts. It's common to measure in ppb - check your local water-quality report. Yes, if the tool is commonplace, why not use it?

So you do not believe that Capella's V2 line is clear of Diacetyl and AP like they say? ... Or are you saying you don't trust their representations.
Are you aware of anyone who has tested and POSTED the results of tests saying Capella V2, or Flavour Art has D and AP where they said they have not.

Asking you, You.

Again, take ppm in e-liquid on whatever amount of fluid you want to say is consumed under one draw, combine it with 1 liter of air that has 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules......and what is in the resultant vapor? The parts per megaompalumpaajillion is going to be small, in practice. no?

 

[HeadInClouds]

Are you saying that you don't think accuracy down to 5 ppm testing is not good enough for you, for the liquid?...
So What----IF ANY, level of accuracy in testing the finished E-Liquid do you think is appropriate?

In my opinion, 5ppb test results would be appropriate for vendor liquids. In my opinion, vendors should still be able to sell liquids with any quantity.
No, I'm not contradicting myself. Tests would catch and report as little as 5ppb; actual content should be reported for consumers to see. Maybe you are comfortable vaping 5,000 or 50,000 ppb (5 or 50 ppm) - and nobody would deny you that informed choice. But others could avoid it.

Why 5 ppb? First, because that is the figure NIOS/OSHA use in safety regulations. Workers in areas with diacetyl vapors of 5 ppb are required to wear full-face respirators. (NIOSH initially lobbied for 1 ppb.) Why this figure? The calculations are explained in excruciating detail in this 500+ page document. After reading that and the details of the studies referenced, I personally came to agree with their 5 ppb recommendation. If you take the time to read it, you will understand where that figure comes from.

 

[tombaker]

If you mean TFA/TPA doesn't disclose acetyl pyrazine, you are wrong.

Here is the page on their website with all flavorings containing it; click 'list' to the right of any flavor to see the components: http://shop.perfumersapprentice.com/specsheetlist.aspx?cas=600-14-6

I said the MSDS itself, but that is fine. Your ingredient list is helpful. Less than half a percent used, is of course many times larger than 5 ppm. So would you think the testing of TPA is good enough?

 

[tombaker]

In my opinion, 5ppb test results would be appropriate for vendor liquids. In my opinion, vendors should still be able to sell liquids with any quantity.
No, I'm not contradicting myself. Tests would catch and report as little as 5ppb; actual content should be reported for consumers to see. Maybe you are comfortable vaping 5,000 or 50,000 ppb (5 or 50 ppm) - and nobody would deny you that informed choice. But others could avoid it.

Why 5 ppb? First, because that is the figure NIOS/OSHA use in safety regulations. Workers in areas with diacetyl vapors of 5 ppb are required to wear full-face respirators. (NIOSH initially lobbied for 1 ppb.) Why this figure? The calculations are explained in excruciating detail in this 500+ page document. After reading that and the details of the studies referenced, I personally came to agree with their 5 ppb recommendation. If you take the time to read it, you will understand where that figure comes from.

The standards you are talking about are for VAPOR, and NOT LIQUID. 2.86 x 10^22 molecules per liter of air. Thats 22 zeros. You just are refusing to understand you are using VAPOR numbers for LIQUID tests.

Its about as clear as can be.....if you don't accept the error, hardly worth trying more. You seem to have your head in the clouds, without understanding that a Cloud has many many molecules, and a cup of water does not have nearly as many.

 

[Hermit]

1 liter of hot air has a mass of 0.00000000000000000118 tombaker posts. That's pretty small, in practice, no?

 

[Hermit]

Well, I could try to be civil, I suppose... 1 liter of air has mass of 1.18 grams.

How much juice is consumed in one 'standard' draw? Maybe 0.01 ml?

For water, that would be about 3.3 x 10^20 molecules. But what a daft way to work it out.

 

[InMyImage]

Mine in Blue
[QUOTE="InMyImage, So you insult me and then use a four year old case to argue your point after pointing out previously that a 2 year old case was basically irrelevant?
oh boo-hoo! You lean into me calling me a know nothing, I lean back calling you a clown. Only difference is you are pouting for the crowd.

If you read what I posted, it was the judge tossing out the case on the merits after failing a Daubert challenge to the worth of the expert testimony.

You had said the Watson verdict would be enabling as precedent. That is why i replied it not a strong precedent at all. My post 23 your 27 and 31.

Forgot what you said: Here is your fuzzed up Crystal ball.

"Diacetyl lawsuit precedents have started outside of the vaping industry, they will become more common now that someone has won a very large settlement."​

In post 34 I showed you how the Doctor in the Watson case was all used this case. The judge rejected it "you precedent case" could be used. That Judge already said you are wrong. Dr. Rose said said heck we can not really be sure, but Watson won, some days you get a great jury.

Dr. Rose herself qualified her conclusions: “It is difficult to make a causal connection based on a single case report. We cannot be sure that this patient’s exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease.”
​

So yes, I did say your case as precedent was BS. The expert witness for the Plaintiff said the same. A judge reviewing reliance on that evidence ruled that all of it was worthless, tossed it out of the other case, and shut that case down.

So sure you tell me I know nothing on the law. How about you show how and why that case can be used for anything meaningful going forward? The judge will keep junk science out, via Daubert.

You then go about pointing out the information got into the Watson case. Fine, and so what. When it was attempted to be used as information and precedent, it was REJECTED, and the case was dismissed.

So please, now, explain how its a good precedent. Way too many of your predictions and opinions are stated as fact, when they are a layman's speculations. Speculation all you want, but they are not facts. You will go on to say lawsuits are coming, then say they won't work, and predict and reject your own predictions on the whims.

Sorry, you are confused. I didn't call you a know nothing... I merely said that you don't seem to know much about the law. I did it maturely and succinctly, and I am pretty confident, accurately.

Your posts to me have pretty much tried to belittle me in some way in each of their first sentences. I understand that some people seem to have their debate skills perpetually stuck in the fifth grade, but you make such good, interesting points. Why completely obliterate them by opening up with such immaturity? I'd like to engage you in an adult discussion, but you just make it so hard...

As for your other comments, I think that if you go back and re-read the thread you will discover that we posted 2 separate cases. The fact that you appear to have inserted "Watson" into a few key areas within the context of the case you posted is misleading and wrong.

The case you cited was from Newkirk et al. v. ConAgra Foods Inc., No. 2:08-cv-00273 (E.D. Wash. 7/2/2010).
It was lost based on the defense winning a Daubert Motion to Dismiss expert testimony Dr. Egilman, not Dr. Rose. Dr. Rose's involvement was to say that she did not believe that there was a causal relationship between the two cases. Her testimony in either case was in no way undermined by this prior case. The legal precedent of Watson v Dillon Cos was not set until 2 years later, which additionally would indicate that Dr. Rose had 2 additional years to treat and form her basis of evidence for the Watson case. -- In case it still isn't clear, this case did not attempt to use Watson as a precedent, it attempt to use Watson's condition as evidence, there is a significant difference.

The case I cited was Watson et al. v. Dillon Cos. Inc. et al., case number 1:08-cv-00091, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
It was won after a failed Daubert Motion to Dismiss expert testimony of Dr. Rose
The settlement for the plaintiff was 7.2 million dollars. In order to avoid lengthy appeals process and further product and corporate exposure, a settlement agreement was later agreed to for $5.82 million.

All of this was shown in my previous posts in some detail.

Now, I am going to belittle you a bit just because I think you deserve it... I saw that you caught up on the meat of this thread at least by 1pm EST today, but it took you quite a while to come back and post your response. I'll be here tomorrow so you can take enough time to read the thread again and let me know what I missed or don't understand.

If you can formulate an introductory paragraph using mature, well thought out sentences I might even read it beyond the first one.

Now, after you have gotten all your puffery under control, have at it. I look forward to the parry.

The one thing that was consistent in all my law classes was to follow the evidence. Whether that evidence be physical, monetary, ideas, patents, or trademarks. The common thread is to follow the trail from beginning to end. Somewhere in the middle is where you will find your answer. When you read this thread, I think you got distracted a bit in the middle...

BTW, dismissed cases are not used as precedents. Cases with a verdict are because there was actually a decision that has merit and value.

Bill

 

[InMyImage]

start listening at around 1:25 (regarding whether vendors claimed they were A&D free)

https://soundcloud.com/soundcloud.com%2Fvp-live%2Fsmoke-free-radio-episode-3

Thanks, especially for the time stamp to look for!

Bill

 

[HeadInClouds]

The standards you are talking about are for VAPOR, and NOT LIQUID. ...
You just are refusing to understand you are using VAPOR numbers for LIQUID tests.
if you don't accept the error, hardly worth trying more. You seem to have your head in the clouds

Yes, that is why I intentionally italicized the word vapor in my post.

I am not arguing "safe" versus "unsafe" at all. The chemists and biologists can hash it out; keep an ear to the ground for that. You asked what testing level would satisfy me; I answered. It's my opinion. I did not say what is "safe" - I said what data I'd like us all to have available.

Having all vendors list to the nearest whole percent would be an improvement over current (lack of) data. Parts per thousand would be nice. Parts per million would be better. Why not just go completely nuts and use the modern lab standard ppb? (That's actually a rhetorical question, but feel free to comment.)

 

[InMyImage]

And so ends that awesome precedent setting case of for Popcorn-Lung, You think the 10 years of popcorn eating he keep all the receipts of the popcorn bags. or he only used one brand, and could prove it for all the years? Oh well. Per you, the lawsuits will be a snowball's chance

Sorry, but my personal opinion of a case's ability to prevail today, versus a plaintif attorneys with expert witnesses and deep pockets are two different things.

I personally don't think a case against a single manufacturer would win.

And again, I realize that you probably haven't finished digesting the rather long post I just left, but you really need to accept the fact that the Watson case was WON. It's in the books. You can't undermine it with your silly nonsense about receipts, carpet chemicals, and the slim chance that huffing popcorn bags did it. It has been tried and a verdict rendered. Accept it and move on.

 

[InMyImage]

The standards you are talking about are for VAPOR, and NOT LIQUID. 2.86 x 10^22 molecules per liter of air. Thats 22 zeros. You just are refusing to understand you are using VAPOR numbers for LIQUID tests.

Its about as clear as can be.....if you don't accept the error, hardly worth trying more. You seem to have your head in the clouds, without understanding that a Cloud has many many molecules, and a cup of water does not have nearly as many.

If you go back and reread the testing of Dr F that you like to reference over and over, you will find that his testing was on the vapor, not the liquid. You really should familiarize yourself better with evidence that you try to throw in other peoples faces. Sometimes we'll notice that all the pages are blank...

 

[HeadInClouds]

Okay come on, seriously you are just fucking with everyone now.
First you claim that 5 ppm is not accurate enough, then you say you need parts per BILLION, then now, you are saying
Yeah yeah, all you need to do is give it a good whiff. If you smell AP or Diacetyl, its there. Ipso facto! I do it, and so can you.
Diacetyl and AP smell perfectly the same also?
Perhaps get a trained dog to do independent testing? (Actually at least the dog would have a real good chance)

That's right, Tom - even you can do it if you try. An actual flavorist recommended the method, and I explained how you can verify your results. Have a little more faith in yourself.

(Did you see the first few words in my post: "Without reliable vendor info..." - that's what many of us have, and this is a big step up from that.)

 

[tombaker]

Well, I could try to be civil, I suppose... 1 liter of air has mass of 1.18 grams.
How much juice is consumed in one 'standard' draw? Maybe 0.01 ml?
For water, that would be about 3.3 x 10^20 molecules. But what a daft way to work it out.

This explains it, http://www.epa.gov/athens/learn2model/part-two/onsite/doc/Indoor Air Unit Conversions.pdf
as does this
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/convert.html

I am going to go with Dr. F and the testing labs remarks on Click Bang, for my belief that the standard of being able to test to the precision of 5 ppm in liquid form is good. I also see that Dr. F did the math and converted the NOISH standards to apply to his tests.
as I show here: http://gfn.net.co/downloads/2014/posters/122 Farsalinos - DA_AP.pdf

I am pretty much not going to think otherwise, at this juncture, as it wouldn't be prudent to do so. If a vendor provides data that the end liquid has lower than 5 ppm, I am going to go with, its effectively zero.....and zero on a very very tough grading scale. If I were hear Dr. F or a testing lab say otherwise, I would consider that.....but geez they already said it the other way, I doubt it will happen.

YMMV, but this is distance, and its not going to change.

 

[tombaker]

That's right, Tom - even you can do it if you try. An actual flavorist recommended the method, and I explained how you can verify your results. Have a little more faith in yourself.

(Did you see the first few words in my post: "Without reliable vendor info..." - that's what many of us have, and this is a big step up from that.)

HIC, if you have Diacetyl free flavors, that you are sure of the tests, and recipes that specify the specific vendors of flavorings, I may hunt those down by going over to the DYI thread. As far as your evaluation of a fully certified testing facilitate providing results. I am going with them. All day long.
I understand that AEMSA does not have a monitoring system in force right now. But its a moving target, time goes on, and they can improve.

That you say its goal to help other DYIers is great. Some of your angst and anger at vendors of bottled juice, I don't agree with. I do think that all Flavor companies should publish analysis for their flavors. Very much so. And even if not the entire analysis, they can be very specific to D and AP.

The fuel on this rocket seems done, eh?

 

[Warhawk-AVG]

all I know is I ain't getting this any more

 

[tombaker]

If you go back and reread the testing of Dr F that you like to reference over and over, you will find that his testing was on the vapor, not the liquid. You really should familiarize yourself better with evidence that you try to throw in other peoples faces. Sometimes we'll notice that all the pages are blank...

That's the kind of jackassitry that I responded to, laced in and throughout.

So as you lay that out. In whatever style you may want to self describe.....you realize you are wrong.
WRONG
Dr. F tested both ways. Read the PubMed, or read this document which has graphs.
Here you go, take a gander. http://gfn.net.co/downloads/2014/posters/122 Farsalinos - DA_AP.pdf
Guts to admit you are wrong, with a simple ooops....for you....about 10% chance

 

[tombaker]

And again, I realize that you probably haven't finished digesting the rather long post I just left, but you really need to accept the fact that the Watson case was WON. It's in the books. You can't undermine it with your silly nonsense about receipts, carpet chemicals, and the slim chance that huffing popcorn bags did it. It has been tried and a verdict rendered. Accept it and move on.

Well lets see, I said the case was not a good precedent for others.
I understand the verdict was in.
I understand that the same set of two doctors were at work on the first case that lost.
The case that lost is a real hoot too. The doctor who was excluded and cause much of what caused the case to be dismissed. Tried to appeal, well he actually did appeal, because he thought the Judge insulted him. Even more funny is this is one of the doctors all over PubMed, spinning up the Diacetyl stuff.

Read this and not laugh

Defendants filed joint motions to exclude Dr. Egilman’s testimony. The district court granted the motions and also entered summary judgment for Defendants. Egilman appeals the exclusion of his testimony, claiming that the district court abused its discretion by using defamatory language in its order.

LOL, Judge looked at his evidence, scoffed, tossed it, tossed the case, and he goes after the Judge, for being dismissive, when he dismissed the case.......LOLOL Any parallels seen are way too obvious.

 

[tombaker]

Sorry, you are confused. I didn't call you a know nothing... I merely said that you don't seem to know much about the law. I did it maturely and succinctly, and I am pretty confident, accurately.

Oh yes, so much better, all that, for saying "Bozo".

Your posts to me have pretty much tried to belittle me in some way in each of their first sentences. I understand that some people seem to have their debate skills perpetually stuck in the fifth grade, but you make such good, interesting points. Why completely obliterate them by opening up with such immaturity? I'd like to engage you in an adult discussion, but you just make it so hard...

Still going....and going...and going. Ate at Taco Bell?

As for your other comments, I think that if you go back and re-read the thread you will discover that we posted 2 separate cases. The fact that you appear to have inserted "Watson" into a few key areas within the context of the case you posted is misleading and wrong.

Ummm nope, if you would have read, what I put down, you would see that both the same two doctors were working both cases. Egilman attempted to use Dr. Rose and her case, but was rejected. Judge obliterate him, and pointed out "Dr. Rose herself qualified her conclusions: “It is difficult to make a causal connection based on a single case report. We cannot be sure that this patient’s exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease.” That is the treating Doctor from the 2nd case. Dr. Rose. Their testimony almost got excluded but the judge decided to err on letting the treating Doctor testify.

The thing is that Dr. Rose took the patients well established hypersensitivity pneumonitis, switched it to Popcorn Lung.

The case you cited was from Newkirk et al. v. ConAgra Foods Inc., No. 2:08-cv-00273 (E.D. Wash. 7/2/2010).
It was lost based on the defense winning a Daubert Motion to Dismiss expert testimony Dr. Egilman, not Dr. Rose. Dr. Rose's involvement was to say that she did not believe that there was a causal relationship between the two cases. Her testimony in either case was in no way undermined by this prior case. The legal precedent of Watson v Dillon Cos was not set until 2 years later, which additionally would indicate that Dr. Rose had 2 additional years to treat and form her basis of evidence for the Watson case. -- In case it still isn't clear, this case did not attempt to use Watson as a precedent, it attempt to use Watson's condition as evidence, there is a significant difference.

Dr. Egilman and Dr. Rose are involved in both bases for Plantiffs. There was no legal Precedent set by Watson v Dillion, it was a win. Thats all. And Dr. Rose said of her evidence. “It is difficult to make a causal connection based on a single case report. We cannot be sure that this patient’s exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease.” That is not a precedent, twice over. How we got here is I said it was not going to be a very useful case for Precedent.....still true....but even louder.

The case I cited was Watson et al. v. Dillon Cos. Inc. et al., case number 1:08-cv-00091, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
It was won after a failed Daubert Motion to Dismiss expert testimony of Dr. Rose
The settlement for the plaintiff was 7.2 million dollars. In order to avoid lengthy appeals process and further product and corporate exposure, a settlement agreement was later agreed to for $5.82 million.

yes, I still understand that....jazz-hands!

All of this was shown in my previous posts in some detail.

tick tock

Now, I am going to belittle you a bit just because I think you deserve it... I saw that you caught up on the meat of this thread at least by 1pm EST today, but it took you quite a while to come back and post your response. I'll be here tomorrow so you can take enough time to read the thread again and let me know what I missed or don't understand.

<----- My proof you are a Bozo.

If you can formulate an introductory paragraph using mature, well thought out sentences I might even read it beyond the first one.

Oh you might read it, if I am oh to be so lucky, how so very sweet of you........you're an

Now, after you have gotten all your puffery under control, have at it. I look forward to the parry.

See above, and thanks for confirming it.

The one thing that was consistent in all my law classes was to follow the evidence. Whether that evidence be physical, monetary, ideas, patents, or trademarks. The common thread is to follow the trail from beginning to end. Somewhere in the middle is where you will find your answer. When you read this thread, I think you got distracted a bit in the middle...

Yada Yada Yada, stuck in middle, where the answer is, I guess that is the theory.

BTW, dismissed cases are not used as precedents.

Sure they can, and are, and will cause other cases to not be filed. As the courts will reject, as established by...........

Cases with a verdict are because there was actually a decision that has merit and value.

All this started with me replying saying the case would not be a good precedent for anything else concerning Diacetyl, it has not changed. The only thing that changed was the a new Doctor, who decided his case should be changed to popcorn lung.

 

[Hermit]

This explains it, http://www.epa.gov/athens/learn2model/part-two/onsite/doc/Indoor Air Unit Conversions.pdf
as does this
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/convert.html

I am going to go with Dr. F and the testing labs remarks on Click Bang, for my belief that the standard of being able to test to the precision of 5 ppm in liquid form is good. I also see that Dr. F did the math and converted the NOISH standards to apply to his tests.
as I show here: http://gfn.net.co/downloads/2014/posters/122 Farsalinos - DA_AP.pdf

I am pretty much not going to think otherwise, at this juncture, as it wouldn't be prudent to do so. If a vendor provides data that the end liquid has lower than 5 ppm, I am going to go with, its effectively zero.....and zero on a very very tough grading scale. If I were hear Dr. F or a testing lab say otherwise, I would consider that.....but geez they already said it the other way, I doubt it will happen.

YMMV, but this is distance, and its not going to change.

Great! Stop screaming 20 vagillion molecules per liter of air then!

In the interview, Dr F. pointedly did not give a limit in terms of ppm or μg/ml, stating safety limits in μg/day instead - calculated with various assumptions based on the NIOSH limit. But yeah, for diacetyl, the 65 μg/day allows for 13ml of juice at 5ppm.

 

[InMyImage]

That's the kind of jackassitry that I responded to, laced in and throughout.

So as you lay that out. In whatever style you may want to self describe.....you realize you are wrong.
WRONG
Dr. F tested both ways. Read the PubMed, or read this document which has graphs.
Here you go, take a gander. http://gfn.net.co/downloads/2014/posters/122 Farsalinos - DA_AP.pdf
Guts to admit you are wrong, with a simple ooops....for you....about 10% chance

No, the report says that they tested the vapor produced by the liquid. No where in that report does it say that they tested the liquid itself. The liquid content is irrelevant, it is the vapor that we inhale, and that is what was tested. Read it again.

Edit: I looked at the report one more time regarding a number that I wanted to look at again based on Hermit's comment and did find the line in the report indicating that they found a similar concentration in the liquid. I concede that point, although it doesn't really affect any of your points other than I missed the fact that they did in fact look at the liquid concentration in addition to the vapor. Minor mistake, but correction conceded.

 

[InMyImage]

Well lets see, I said the case was not a good precedent for others.
I understand the verdict was in.
I understand that the same set of two doctors were at work on the first case that lost.
The case that lost is a real hoot too. The doctor who was excluded and cause much of what caused the case to be dismissed. Tried to appeal, well he actually did appeal, because he thought the Judge insulted him. Even more funny is this is one of the doctors all over PubMed, spinning up the Diacetyl stuff.

Read this and not laugh

Defendants filed joint motions to exclude Dr. Egilman’s testimony. The district court granted the motions and also entered summary judgment for Defendants. Egilman appeals the exclusion of his testimony, claiming that the district court abused its discretion by using defamatory language in its order.

LOL, Judge looked at his evidence, scoffed, tossed it, tossed the case, and he goes after the Judge, for being dismissive, when he dismissed the case.......LOLOL Any parallels seen are way too obvious.

As you state again, Dr. Egilman's testimony was dismissed. Dr. Rose was not an expert witness for the prosecution. Dr. Egilman based his testimony citing Dr. Rose's treatment of Mr. Watson, but Dr. Rose stated that there was no causal relationship that could be drawn between her patient and Dr. Egilman's conclusions. She made it clear that Dr. Egilman's findings were flawed.

Again, his flawed findings and dismissal have no bearing on the precedent that was LATER set by the Watson case. Read the briefs, read the legal reviews of the case. Read the briefings and documents after the case that indicate it was a precedent that opens the door to additional lawsuits.

The information is clear and is out there, you just need to read it, understand it and accept it.

Bill

 

[InMyImage]

Oh yes, so much better, all that, for saying "Bozo".


Still going....and going...and going. Ate at Taco Bell?


Ummm nope, if you would have read, what I put down, you would see that both the same two doctors were working both cases. Egilman attempted to use Dr. Rose and her case, but was rejected. Judge obliterate him, and pointed out "Dr. Rose herself qualified her conclusions: “It is difficult to make a causal connection based on a single case report. We cannot be sure that this patient’s exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease.” That is the treating Doctor from the 2nd case. Dr. Rose. Their testimony almost got excluded but the judge decided to err on letting the treating Doctor testify.

The thing is that Dr. Rose took the patients well established hypersensitivity pneumonitis, switched it to Popcorn Lung.


Dr. Egilman and Dr. Rose are involved in both bases for Plantiffs. There was no legal Precedent set by Watson v Dillion, it was a win. Thats all. And Dr. Rose said of her evidence. “It is difficult to make a causal connection based on a single case report. We cannot be sure that this patient’s exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease.” That is not a precedent, twice over. How we got here is I said it was not going to be a very useful case for Precedent.....still true....but even louder.


yes, I still understand that....jazz-hands!

tick tock

<----- My proof you are a Bozo.

Oh you might read it, if I am oh to be so lucky, how so very sweet of you........you're an

See above, and thanks for confirming it.

Yada Yada Yada, stuck in middle, where the answer is, I guess that is the theory.

Sure they can, and are, and will cause other cases to not be filed. As the courts will reject, as established by...........

All this started with me replying saying the case would not be a good precedent for anything else concerning Diacetyl, it has not changed. The only thing that changed was the a new Doctor, who decided his case should be changed to popcorn lung.

Again, all this demonstrates is your total lack of understanding of how product liability and case law works. You keep citing the same erroneous point over and over again. It doesn't make you right, it just points out how little legal understanding you have.

See other post for more clarification and note that a plaintiff can call a witness but sometimes that witness does not give the answers that they were hoping for. It does not affect the credibility of the witness, it affects the credibility of the prosecutions case.

 

[InMyImage]

Oh yes, so much better, all that, for saying "Bozo".


Still going....and going...and going. Ate at Taco Bell?

Umm... I think that you have thrown a bit more my way in other posts... and WTH is the "Taco Bell" comment about?

 

[cherrycakes]

That confused me too

 

[HeadInClouds]

This explains it, http://www.epa.gov/athens/learn2model/part-two/onsite/doc/Indoor Air Unit Conversions.pdf
as does this
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/convert.html

I am going to go with Dr. F and the testing labs remarks on Click Bang, for my belief that the standard of being able to test to the precision of 5 ppm in liquid form is good. I also see that Dr. F did the math and converted the NOISH standards to apply to his tests.
as I show here: http://gfn.net.co/downloads/2014/posters/122 Farsalinos - DA_AP.pdf

I am pretty much not going to think otherwise, at this juncture, as it wouldn't be prudent to do so. If a vendor provides data that the end liquid has lower than 5 ppm, I am going to go with, its effectively zero.....and zero on a very very tough grading scale. If I were hear Dr. F or a testing lab say otherwise, I would consider that.....but geez they already said it the other way, I doubt it will happen.

YMMV, but this is distance, and its not going to change.

YES - Let's dig into this, starting with Dr. Farsalinos' peer-reviewed, published paper:
title: Evaluation of electronic cigarette liquids and aerosol for the presence of selected inhalation toxins
abstract: The purpose of this study was to evaluate sweet-flavoured electronic cigarette (EC) liquids for the presence of diacetyl (DA and acetyl propionyl (AP), which are chemicals approved for food use but are associated with respiratory disease when inhaled.

Major Observation #1: The actual science that has been peer-reviewed and published concerns only the presence of these chemicals. PERIOD. That it the entire scope of the paper. He did NOT recommend a 5 ppm testing limit for eliquid (or anything else) in this paper. This is very important to understand. His paper is just measures. Everything else he has discussed, suggested, recommended, theorized, and computed is entirely OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS PUBLISHED RESEARCH. If you look at the poster Tom links to above, you see no mention of any of this. I do not dispute or doubt Dr. F's published research.

Major Observation #2: The first couple links Tom posted above do not "explain" anything - they are standard calculators that convert between measured ppm of a particulate in AIR to the scientific standard used in air quality measures, which is units per cubic volume of air. If you use the second one, enter 5ppm, select diactyl, and you see 17.605 mg/m^3. This is just a simple conversion based on the molecular weight of diacetyl. It means this: 5ppm of diacetyl IN THE AIR is 17.605 milligrams of diacetyl per cubic meter IN THE AIR. And vice-versa of course. Different matter (diacetyl, ap, or any other substance) has different molecular weight, so when it is a given number of parts of something, you use the substance's molecular weight to figure out the mass of that substance per unit of volume. So we know 5ppm of diacetyl "weighs" 17.605 mg/m^3. Very simple.

The Crux of the Matter: From this point on (during interviews and so on), Dr. Farsalinos has engaged in conjecture. First he took NIOSH's recommended 8 hour/day, 5 day/week exposure limit (5ppb) and mathematically computed total weight of the molecules of maximum exposure level per day allowed without a full-face respirator. He assumed steady exposure with every breath over the course of a 12 hour vaping day. He completely ignored NIOSH's other published limits for maximum 15-minute exposure. Then he made numerous assumptions about vaping equipment, vapers' habits, percent of flavoring used in e-liquid (and so on) to arrive at a suggested 5ppm measure in finished e-liquid as a "reasonable figure." His assumptions, list of variables, calculations, and his conclusions are not published research and have not been submitted for peer review. In science, this is called conjecture. Conjecture in science is subject to refutation. So now we await refutation by other scientists.

All the above is simple, verifiable fact.

Here is a very partial list of basic questions you can expect to see in any refutation of Dr. F's conjecture that 5ppm is a reasonable test figure for e-liquid:
* is his recommendation intended to protect the theoretical "average" vaper, a "typical" vapor", the majority of vapers?...and which group should it be designed to protect?
* is the assumption that e-liquid is consumed evenly over the course of 12 hours/day appropriate/prudent/reasonable?
* is his assumption regarding ml consumed per day appropriate?
* Is his assumption regarding level of flavoring appropriate?
* is his assumption regarding air-intake levels of vaping devices appropriate?
* is his assumption regarding lung capacity appropriate?
* is his assumption regarding the quantity of liquid vaporized in a given time period appropriate, given the range of equipment in popular use?
* is his assumption regarding hours/day spent vaping appropriate?
* etc.; each assumption must be fully-justified and in accordance & relation with the NIOSH standard he uses as a starting point

*** The big question: Is it appropriate/prudent/reasonable to take a NIOSH-recommended figure (5ppb) for an 8 hour/day, 5 day/week weighted average exposure, and compute total exposure, and allow it full exposure to that amount in an undefined, uncomputable period of time? That is in clear conflict with NIOSH's shorter-time limits and is not the type of calculation used in any exposure to any toxin in any regulation.

The burden of proof will be on Dr. Farsalinos. In the meantime, we have NIOSH's 5 ppb figure.

 

[InMyImage]

Dr. Egilman and Dr. Rose are involved in both bases for Plantiffs. There was no legal Precedent set by Watson v Dillion, it was a win. Thats all. And Dr. Rose said of her evidence. “It is difficult to make a causal connection based on a single case report. We cannot be sure that this patient’s exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease.” That is not a precedent, twice over. How we got here is I said it was not going to be a very useful case for Precedent.....still true....but even louder.

== Begin Quote
Or, Dr. Egilman manipulated the data from those studies to reach misleading conclusions of his own. Slip opin. at 25. For example, he relied on statements by a Dr. Cecile Rose, on a patient (and another consumer plaintiff), Mr. Watson, who allegedly contracted disease from popcorn fumes. But this was in the nature of a single case report, and in it even Dr. Rose did not assert that her conclusions could be extrapolated to other consumers in the absence of publication or peer review; Dr. Egilman acknowledged that Dr. Rose did not publish the exposure levels measured in Mr. Watson’s home -- so no such comparison was possible. Dr. Rose herself qualified her conclusions: “It is difficult to make a causal connection based on a single case report. We cannot be sure that this patient’s exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease.”
== End Quote

Again, in the Newkirk case in 2010, Dr Egilman attempted to use data from the reports of Dr. Rose which would lead to the foundation of the Watson case that was in 2012. His attempts to leverage her data in his testimony was thrown out in the Newkirk case. This had no effect on the Watson case.

 

[Scuba-Matt]

What I gathered out of reading all of this besides a headache, Is why would we want to vape something that is known to be harmful when we don't have too. It's up to the flavor companies to clean up the flavors for vaping and Vendors to test their final product. Or let the FDA step in and lay down their law. One or the other will happen.

 

[HeadInClouds]

The possible dangers of using 5 ppm as a standard for e-liquid testing.

Dr F did not dispute NIOSH's 5 ppb figure; in fact, he used part of their recommendations as the basis for his conjecture. He had to. That is the largest figure available to work with. The only other figure regarding inhalation is ZERO - the known safe exposure limit. He used this part:
"For Diacetyl, a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 5 parts per billion (ppb) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average, (TWA) during a 40-hour work week. To further protect against effects of short-term exposures, NIOSH recommends in the draft document a short-term exposure limit (STEL) for diacetyl of 25 ppb for a 15-minute time period." ( from the study linked to here )

So there are 2 different NIOSH limits: 5ppb and 25ppb. Workers can breath 5ppb as a per-hour average, each hour, all day, every working day, 40 hours per week. (as NIOSH explains, this will reduce bronchiolitis obliterans cases to 1 per 1000 workers who do this work for 45 years) But workers might be exposed just part of the day (like a vapor who doesn't vape with every single waking breath). No matter how low the average hourly (daily, weekly) exposure, no 15 minute period can surpass 25ppb.

Why have a 15-minute exposure limit? This prevents a factory from allowing brief exposure to higher levels ("hey - pour this bucket of diacetyl into that vat - it'll just take a minute") and justifying it by averaging that larger exposure over the entire hour/day/week.

Yet that type of justification (brief exposure to higher amounts is okay as long as the average for the day is within limit) is precisely how Dr F arrives at his 5 ppm e-liquid testing recommendation. He uses NIOSH's 5ppb figure, multiplies by 12 hours per day, then continues with that total for his next set of calculations.

Often times, toxins have no effect at a low-level exposure, yet do have an effect with brief higher-level exposure. That effect is documented in animal studies of measured diacetyl exposure and reflected in human case studies. NIOSH fully document both limits; Dr F focuses on one of them. Remember, if he did not reference 5 ppb to start with, the only other figure available for him to begin with is -- zero! (known safe exposure level.)

NIOSH's standards are calculated to theoretically protect 999 out of 1000 exposed workers from diacetyl-related bronchiolitis obliterans. What portion of vapers will Dr F's higher figures protect? Where is the documented proof to support that figure? It doesn't exist.

In my opinion it is prudent to stick with existing, documented, justified NIOSH standards, rather than undocumented conjecture that higher amounts 'should' be safe for some theoretical 'typical' vaper with some assumed set of habits and equipment.

 

[HeadInClouds]

one last clarification, especially for Tom:

If you have a substance (e-liquid) in liquid form and measure ppm (or ppb or mg/ml^3)
and then you vaporize the substance
the measure does NOT CHANGE concentration - just volume.
The concentration does not change. This is basic science. You do not have more molecules when matter changes physical state, and no concentration change.

Dr F fully understands and acknowledge this. His calculations dilute the vapor with unjustified (using scientific definition of the word, not personal opinion) quantities of air with zero diacetyl -- later, in a separate series of steps.

 

[InMyImage]

What I gathered out of reading all of this besides a headache, Is why would we want to vape something that is known to be harmful when we don't have too. It's up to the flavor companies to clean up the flavors for vaping and Vendors to test their final product. Or let the FDA step in and lay down their law. One or the other will happen.

Well said Matt

And congrats for sticking with it and wading your way through this mess. Sorry I'm probably to far away to offer you one of my migraine puffers.

 

[Cloudy Peak Vapes]

Well, checking the site I order liquids from lately, it appears the 100% diacetyl free statement has been removed. I'm pretty sure it was on the homepage, and I scoured the site and couldn't find it. As I've already said, I figured there was no way it was true after absorbing all of this, and honestly, I commend them for doing so.

 

[InMyImage]

Well, checking the site I order liquids from lately, it appears the 100% diacetyl free statement has been removed. I'm pretty sure it was on the homepage, and I scoured the site and couldn't find it. As I've already said, I figured there was no way it was true after absorbing all of this, and honestly, I commend them for doing so.

I imagine that a lot of them are doing that until they can definitively say it given the recent debates and Suicide Bunny issue.

 

[Hermit]

Here is a very partial list of basic questions you can expect to see in any refutation of Dr. F's conjecture that 5ppm is a reasonable test figure for e-liquid:
* is his recommendation intended to protect the theoretical "average" vaper, a "typical" vapor", the majority of vapers?...and which group should it be designed to protect?
* is the assumption that e-liquid is consumed evenly over the course of 12 hours/day appropriate/prudent/reasonable?
* is his assumption regarding ml consumed per day appropriate?
* Is his assumption regarding level of flavoring appropriate?
* is his assumption regarding air-intake levels of vaping devices appropriate?
* is his assumption regarding lung capacity appropriate?
* is his assumption regarding the quantity of liquid vaporized in a given time period appropriate, given the range of equipment in popular use?
* is his assumption regarding hours/day spent vaping appropriate?
* etc.; each assumption must be fully-justified and in accordance & relation with the NIOSH standard he uses as a starting point

*** The big question: Is it appropriate/prudent/reasonable to take a NIOSH-recommended figure (5ppb) for an 8 hour/day, 5 day/week weighted average exposure, and compute total exposure, and allow it full exposure to that amount in an undefined, uncomputable period of time? That is in clear conflict with NIOSH's shorter-time limits and is not the type of calculation used in any exposure to any toxin in any regulation.

The burden of proof will be on Dr. Farsalinos. In the meantime, we have NIOSH's 5 ppb figure.

Using μg/day instead of ppm avoids most of those assumptions, and that seems to be what Dr F. prefers to use. However, it's still reasonable to derive other figures for a 'typical' vaper, for less formal use. And of course, any assumptions made in converting from a workplace exposure limit to a vaping exposure limit could be refuted and/or refined.

 

[Cloudy Peak Vapes]

I imagine that a lot of them are doing that until they can definitively say it given the recent debates and Suicide Bunny issue.

I said earlier in this thread that companies should do that, not only is it ethical, but it helps to a large extent to protect them legally. As I said, it might sound strange but were lying to ourselves if we think we aren't vaping diacetyl or AP in at least some amounts. As an individual who continues to make my own choice to vape, I respect a company removing something that they realize can't be backed up 100%.

Buttery custard flavors are far from the only ones containing it, it's been found in just about every flavor profile to my knowledge, so for now, we make our own choices, and take responsibility for doing so. However, if a company tells me it's free from said chemicals and it is not, that bothers me. Vape on! I wish this weren't going on, but I suppose it's best we know, educate ourselves, and hopefully can eradicate these chemicals from our juices.

 

[Cloudy Peak Vapes]

Oh, and @HeadInClouds, I just noticed in the Colorado thread that we live in the same state... I've been planning on attempting DIY, so you might receive a PM from me. If we're close enough I might have to pester you into meeting up and giving some pointers. Always good to meet a fellow vaper, too .

 

[tombaker]

== Begin Quote
Or, Dr. Egilman manipulated the data from those studies to reach misleading conclusions of his own. Slip opin. at 25. For example, he relied on statements by a Dr. Cecile Rose, on a patient (and another consumer plaintiff), Mr. Watson, who allegedly contracted disease from popcorn fumes. But this was in the nature of a single case report, and in it even Dr. Rose did not assert that her conclusions could be extrapolated to other consumers in the absence of publication or peer review; Dr. Egilman acknowledged that Dr. Rose did not publish the exposure levels measured in Mr. Watson’s home -- so no such comparison was possible. Dr. Rose herself qualified her conclusions: “It is difficult to make a causal connection based on a single case report. We cannot be sure that this patient’s exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease.”
== End Quote

Again, in the Newkirk case in 2010, Dr Egilman attempted to use data from the reports of Dr. Rose which would lead to the foundation of the Watson case that was in 2012. His attempts to leverage her data in his testimony was thrown out in the Newkirk case. This had no effect on the Watson case.

The judge in Watson also kicked out parts of Dr. Egilman, In Newkirk, he was kicked out, because he tried to use the work of Dr. Rose, which the court found not sufficient to be used in court, for cause. You ignore the 2nd case that of Popcorn-lung in consumer homes, that lost, and Dr. Eiglman was involved. Dr. Egilman was used (attempted to be)in all three cases. Same with Dr. Parmet. And Dr. Rose entire work is reviewed in Newkirk.

The only reason that court allowed Dr. Rose to be used in the case that won, was she was the treating Doctor for Watson. She was the one who changed his previous diagnosis from hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP), she was the one who claimed to have first Home case of Popcorn lung, and she was the one who was writting letters to the FDA in 2007.

Dr. Egilman relies on the findings of Dr. Rose and Dr. Martyny despite their own reflections that the methodology underlying their work with Mr. Watson could not support extrapolating to general causation for a broader group of consumers. Therefore, Dr. Egilman's opinions based on Dr. Rose and Dr. Martyny's examination of Mr. Watson's potential exposures are not based upon sufficient facts or data or the product of reliable principles and methods.​

There is a ton of evidence and problems with Diacetyl from Popcorn popping from being the cause of anything. The evidence in support is being tossed out by the courts for being Obviously not reliable. Dr. Rose got in only because she was the treating Doctor.

Why are we even here, because I simply said that Watson Case that won for Popcorn Lung, WOULD NOT BE GOOD OR USEFUL PRECEDENT, for other cases. That is still true, and proven true.

The 2 of the 3 cases that lost and were appeal, tried to get in the Watson evidence.....and failed. Watson got lucky with it being the treating doctor, and a great jury, but as Precedent its not helpful to other cases. Watson won, the other 2 attempts failed.

You can pretend to think you are right, but I think its obvious you are just trying to defend a position that the Judges already ruled against.
There is not much else to show.

 

[InMyImage]

Again, your quote was from the Newkirk case. http://courtweb.pamd.uscourts.gov/courtwebsearch/waed/1kotvZhaoR.pdf page 30.

Again, the attempts to link the work of Dr. Rose/Watson was not admissible because of lack of a causal link. It in no way diminishes the significance of the Watson case.

 

[bluraff3]

@HEADINTHECLOUDS and @tombaker

First, thanks to both of you (and everyone else participating) for putting all of this out there. I've been following along intently as this is all very helpful and important dialogue. Please keep it going.

I believe I've followed everything so far and I have a few questions/comments that I'd like everyone's thoughts on (I apologize in advance as I have not had the time to read all of the reports and I'm not sure I would be able to understand them if I did):

1) The method Dr. F derived his recommended 5ppm D content makes sense to me, but it seems pretty clear that the actual exposure to the chemical that someone experiences while vaping a liquid with this D content will vary significantly based on how they vape and how often.
Questions: Is Dr. F saying that 5ppm is safe for ALL vapers (i.e. it's physically impossible to inhale a dangerous amount of D at this concentration)? Or is this based on average vaping habits? If it's the former, then I don't see an issue with labeling a liquid with this concentration as D free. If it's the latter, then I think the limit to be considered D free should be lower, how much lower, I have no idea.

2) HIC, I think you've made a lot of good points, but where I get lost is where you propose a 5ppb limit to deem a liquid D free. Yes, this is the OSHA recommended maximum % of air content in the work place and it is also where Dr. F starts his derivation, but he translates this to a 5ppm limit in e-liquid for a reason. Content in the air : content in liquid is an apples : oranges comparison. If 5ppm in liquid is unsafe for some vapers, then the limit would need to be lower than this, but 5ppb seems like an arbitrary limit, given the lack of congruity in the comparison. For all I know, it could be possible to vape enough of a 5ppb liquid in a day to inhale a dangerous amount.

3) If vendors are going to list the D content of their liquid, then for the sake of full disclosure, I think it makes sense to measure to the smallest level possible. If it's possible to measure D in ppb (as HIC has pointed out, I think it's pretty clear that it is), then I think venders should consider doing this. If we know that 5ppm is ABSOLUTELY safe to vape, then I might think otherwise, but until then doesn't it make sense to disclose the D content as accurately as possible?

 

[bluraff3]

@tombaker, this is your thread, so obviously you can take it where you want to, but I would like to comment on the legal pissing contest between you and @InMyImage.

I think there's a lot of important conversation going on in here, and I don't think this is part of it. Would you two consider taking this to another thread?

Whether or not a vendor can be sued for selling liquid with D in it is not irrelevant, but (at least for me) the tedious details of the possible legal process is. I might be alone in this opinion, but I think the discussion regarding the safety of vaping these chemicals is really interesting and important, but I really don't give a shit about the hypothetical lawsuits that may or may not take place. Obviously I care if some of the nice B&M vendors I've met face hard times as a result of a lawsuit, but I don't see how arguing how these lawsuits might go down makes any sense at this point in time.

 

[HeadInClouds]

Personally, I've appreciated the legal analysis by @InMyImage. I never took more than an intro business law class, so I've gained some knowledge from reading his posts. Vendors (anyone selling their product) might be reading, now or later, and gain an appreciation for applicable legal details here.

 

[tombaker]

Umm... I think that you have thrown a bit more my way in other posts... and WTH is the "Taco Bell" comment about?

Aiiiiii-Chawawaaaaaa que lastima. All the to do fuss. If you don't have the facts, keep on complaining about clowning. Feel free to ignore all the real content for precious sensibility sake. The case is not a good precedent....if that is your single issue, agree to disagree, and spare everyone the pity-party tactics.

 

[tombaker]

As you state again, Dr. Egilman's testimony was dismissed. Dr. Rose was not an expert witness for the prosecution. Dr. Egilman based his testimony citing Dr. Rose's treatment of Mr. Watson, but Dr. Rose stated that there was no causal relationship that could be drawn between her patient and Dr. Egilman's conclusions. She made it clear that Dr. Egilman's findings were flawed.

I say its not a good precedent case. Qualtiy wise. 2 of the 3 cases failed, Egilman in 3, Dr. Rose and/or her depositions for Watson, used in all 3.
Please simply read what you wrote. Dr. Rose says the Watson case can not be used for precedent. Heck she goes on to say she is not really sure if Diacetyl is the cause, or why she changed her patients diagnosis and wrote to the FDA about it before the lawsuit. She claims he is the first case.

The information is clear and is out there, you just need to read it, understand it and accept it.

Sure thing ya _______.
And there was no Prosecution, there was a Plaintiff.

 

[tombaker]

Again, all this demonstrates is your total lack of understanding of how product liability and case law works. You keep citing the same erroneous point over and over again. It doesn't make you right, it just points out how little legal understanding you have.

See other post for more clarification and note that a plaintiff can call a witness but sometimes that witness does not give the answers that they were hoping for. It does not affect the credibility of the witness, it affects the credibility of the prosecutions case.

You ignore everything quite well, and then profess how right you are, without citing much at all. Here is what you ignore

And Dr. Rose said of her evidence. “It is difficult to make a causal connection based on a single case report. We cannot be sure that this patient’s exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease.​

• She said that on her own evidence, not others.
• She is not even sure on causation. You get that? Without causation you got nothing. Case gone.
  
• Ordinarily she would have bee tossed out, and they tried, because she was the Treating Doctor, the judge said he must allow her in.

Let me guess, you are going to skip all of that and talk about a fear of red bulbous noses.

 

[bluraff3]

Personally, I've appreciated the legal analysis by @InMyImage. I never took more than an intro business law class, so I've gained some knowledge from reading his posts. Vendors (anyone selling their product) might be reading, now or later, and gain an appreciation for applicable legal details here.

Fair point. I did not consider it from a vendors perspective. There have definitely been some informative points, but it feels tedious at this point. Not trying to step on anyone's right to say what they want. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[tombaker]

ouch.....my error on milligram ..... retract....perhaps redo