CDC Bemoans the Fact that the Public Has an Accurate Understanding of Secondhand Vaping Risks

In an article published in the journal Preventing Chronic Disease, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report the results of a national survey of U.S. adults to assess their opinion regarding the harmfulness of exposure to “secondhand” vaping (i.e., exposure to the air in a place where vaping is taking place).

The results of the study were as follows: “Overall, 5.3% of adults responded that secondhand EVP exposure caused “no harm” to children, 39.9% responded “little harm” or “some harm,” 21.5% responded “a lot of harm,” and 33.3% responded “don’t know.””

The article concludes: “Current cigarette smokers and EVP users had greater odds of reporting that exposure to secondhand EVP aerosol causes “no harm” or “little harm” or “some harm” to children compared with never cigarette smokers and never EVP users. However, scientific evidence indicates that EVP aerosol exhaled into the air potentially exposes nonusers to aerosolized nicotine and other harmful and potentially harmful substances, including heavy metals, ultrafine particulates, and volatile organic compounds.”

It appears that CDC has concluded that the correct answer to the question is “a lot of harm” and that answers of “no harm,” “little harm,” or even “some harm” are incorrect. Therefore, more education is needed to inform the public of the “harms” (apparently, the substantial harms) of secondhand vaping.

The basis of the CDC’s contention that secondhand vaping is very harmful is that “this aerosol is not as safe as clean air” and that it “is not harmless and that it can contain harmful and potentially harmful chemicals, including nicotine.”

The Rest of the Story

Apparently, the CDC has forgotten one of the major principles of environmental health, which is that the dose of exposure to a chemical is critical in assessing its health impact. Just because e-cigarette aerosol has been found to contain nicotine and some other chemicals does not mean that it is substantially harmful. What matters is the actual exposure, which is dependent upon the levels of these chemicals in ambient air under actual (real-life) conditions and the duration of exposure. To date, there is no evidence that there is any substantial exposure to harmful chemicals in real-life situations that most adults and children encounter. On the contrary, there is evidence that secondhand “vapor” dissipates rapidly and that exposure to nicotine and other chemicals is very low.

While I agree that public education about the risks of vaping is needed, I believe that “public education” implies giving people the actual facts, not making things up or exaggerating harms that are not known to exist.

Here, the CDC is clearly suggesting that we mislead the public by trying to convince them that secondhand vaping is a significant public health hazard when in fact the evidence suggests the opposite.

The worst that the CDC can document about secondhand “EVP” is that it is “not as safe as clean air” and that it is “not harmless.” That is hardly a ringing endorsement of EVP representing a substantial public health problem or of EVP being very harmful.

Moreover, people who state that they “do not know” the hazards cannot be viewed as being ignorant, as the CDC would have us believe, because there is not a huge body of literature on this topic and the exact risks have not yet been quantified. But there is certainly no evidence at present that secondhand vaping is harmful. Therefore, we cannot say that people who believe that EVP is “not harmful” are wrong.

Clearly, the CDC is not interested in the actual scientific facts. They are simply interested in scaring people about the harms of secondhand vapor – harms that have not been shown to exist. The CDC is engaging in an unwarranted scare campaign against e-cigarettes and apparently is trying to demonize these products because, for some reason, it doesn’t like them.

The unfortunate part of this is not merely that the CDC is violating principles of public health by deceiving the public and by making claims that are not substantiated by scientific evidence. The CDC’s statements are also a tangible threat to the public’s health. By deceiving people about the risks of e-cigarettes, CDC is actually undermining the public’s appreciation of the hazards of smoking and the tremendous difference in risk between the use of combustible tobacco products and the use of tobacco-free, smoke-free, non-combusted products. This could lead to smokers deciding not to quit because there is no point to vaping if it is just as harmful as smoking. It could also lead to former smokers returning to smoking for the same reason.

In this era of the government relying upon and disseminating “alternative facts,” it is especially inappropriate for the CDC to be waging a campaign of deception about the health effects of vaping and secondhand vaping.

Read more: feedproxy.google.com

Why is the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Congratulating a Political Leader Accused of the Murder of Thousands of Innocent Civilians?

In a press release issued this past Tuesday, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids congratulated Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on his election as the new Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO).

Dr. Ghebreyesus’ CV notes that he “facilitated critical health investments and reforms that helped expand health care access to tens of millions of Ethiopians,” which sounds like a strong qualification for his election to this position as leader of WHO. However, the CV is only telling part of the story.

The Rest of the Story

The rest of the story is that Dr. Ghebreyesus, as one of the nine executive members of the politburo of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), has been accused of leading a campaign of repression and murder that some have even called a genocide.

According to multiple sources, the TPLF has allegedly engaged in severe repression of civilian protests in Oromia and Amhara, including a military response in which more than 1,000 innocent civilians were killed, hundreds of thousands imprisoned, and millions displaced.

The repression of dissent in Oromia is documented by a 2014 Amnesty International report, which confirms the TPLF’s role in arbitrary arrest of civilians based purely on dissent or suspected dissent, the arrest of peaceful protestors and students, violations of free speech and assembly rights, violation of the right to education, and even “arbitrary detention,” “enforced disappearance,” “extra-judicial executions,” and “torture,” including rape, psychological torture, torture in and out of detention, and forced labor.

A 2016 report at Genocide Watch outlines numerous human rights violations by the TPLF and concludes that TPLF orchestrated a “genocidal plan systematically designed by the TPLF regime using the unfair land use policy as a tool in Oromia and Southern Ethiopia to achieve the political goal of complete ownership of the land through silent eradication of the indigenous communities in the long-term. “Genocide Watch considers Ethiopia to have already reached Stage 7, genocidal massacres, against many of its peoples, including the Anuak, Ogadeni, Oromo, and Omo tribes.” The people of Oromia in particular, and all oppressed peoples of Ethiopia in general, are struggling to reverse this policy of systematic genocide waged on them by successive regimes of Ethiopia.”

While some of this alleged genocidal campaign occurred prior to Dr. Ghebreyesus’ tenure, it has been estimated that “more than 1000 civilians have been killed by the regime in last 10 months (November 2015 to September 2016).”

The Oramian Economist describes the TPLF’s rule as a system of social and economic “apartheid.”

Dr. Ghebreyesus’ campaign for the WHO directorship is widely characterized as a political campaign funded by the TPLF for political gain. His election was opposed by massive numbers of Ethiopians, apparently on the basis of his alleged “involvement in the killings hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestants. Last year alone, more than well over 1000 civilians were killed by the regime that Tedros Adhanom is fiercely and passionately supporting – the ethnic TPLF government.”

Under these circumstances, I find it shameful that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids offered its congratulations to Dr. Ghebreyesus and is supporting his election to the Director-General position of the World Health Organization. It appears that Dr. Ghebreyesus is someone who should be investigated by the World Health Organization for public health atrocities, not someone who should be leading the organization.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids’ support for Dr. Ghebreyesus casts a dark cloud on the entire tobacco control movement. 

I call on the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to retract its statement and apologize for its support of a political leader who is accused of being involved in the murder of thousands, participation in human rights violations, and supporting a policy of systematic genocide.

I expect an immediate response, given the grave nature of the alleged human rights violations.

Read more: feedproxy.google.com

CASAA Guidance to Members Regarding EVCA’s “Coordination” Fundraising

CASAA is receiving inquiries from our members about the Electronic Vaping Coalition of America (EVCA) and its “coordination” litigation strategy. In particular, our membership has been asking for guidance on the viability of this strategy as well as whether they should support this effort with their time and money. As part of our due diligence, CASAA contacted leadership at EVCA to request additional information in writing to address specific points of concern. EVCA responded to our request by sending us a copy of its press release and asking us to direct those who are inquiring about coordination to the EVCA website. This response failed to address several important questions we posed.

While we may not always affirmatively support another group’s efforts in certain situations, we are rarely publicly critical of those efforts. We appreciate that different groups may have different strategies, and there is often value in pursuing multiple approaches to protect consumers’ access to smoke-free alternatives. That being said, we must comment publicly if we determine that a particular effort is either (1) potentially seriously damaging to another, more viable strategy, or (2) fundraising for the effort employs misleading information. We owe that to our membership.

As explained in more detail below, we are recommending that our members NOT offer any financial or material support for EVCA. Simply stated, we find EVCA’s fundraising for the coordination effort misleading and deceptive.

While one can debate the merits of attempting to apply an untested coordination strategy in connection with the FDA, we note that it has been and is being sold to the public as a “landmark vaping litigation” strategy. To offer some support for the potential viability of this new legal effort, EVCA points to their attorney, Fred Kelly Grant, who is described on their fundraising site as “a seasoned lawyer and expert on the legal process of Coordination. He has conducted over nearly eighty Coordination proceedings, and has not lost a single Coordination case against the federal government.”

During the time of their aggressive fundraising, neither EVCA nor Mr. Grant disclosed the fact that on April 21, 2017, the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued an order “indefinitely suspending” Fred Kelly Grant from the practice of law effective July 3, 2017. We believe EVCA and Mr. Grant had an obligation to disclose the fact that the attorney (whose credibility and experience is the basis for fundraising for this effort) would not be in a position to follow through on the case in his role as an attorney due to a suspension based on allegations of wrongdoing, including “charging an unreasonable fee.” (For more information, see Sanctions and Actions Affecting Licensure FY 17 published by the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission.)

We find this lack of transparency in such an important fact troubling, and it suggests a level of deception that we are simply not comfortable with in connection with fundraising efforts directed at consumers. We also find the explanation offered in EVCA’s press release somewhat disingenuous. While we are sympathetic to Mr. Grant’s health problems as detailed in the press release, the fact is that disciplinary proceedings for allegations of professional misconduct had already begun and the suspension Mr. Grant “personally requested” was in connection with that. (See this article for more information.)

Moreover, we are troubled by EVCA’s assertion that, “This does NOT affect his ability to practice in other states, and it does not affect his ability to continue his coordination and private property work in all fifty states.” (Emphasis in the original press release.). We have no information about whether Mr. Grant is licensed in any other state. And even if he is licensed in another state, disciplinary proceedings in one state do have an impact in other states where the attorney might be licensed. In fact, the order suspending Mr. Grant specifically mandates notice of the suspension be given according to Maryland Rule 19-761(b). In this case, the rule requires notice be given to, among others, the National Lawyer Regulatory Data Bank of the American Bar Association and the disciplinary authority of every other jurisdiction in which the Clerk knows the attorney is admitted to practice.

We also do not believe that this is a viable litigation strategy, nor do we feel there is any reason to believe that FDA will somehow agree to essentially repeal the deeming regulation on the basis that FDA didn’t “coordinate” with the Village of Hartland (or a collection of small municipalities), especially in light of the fact that there was a public comment period for both the proposed regulation as well as the final regulation.

The ramifications of such an admission on FDA’s part would be incredibly far reaching, basically crippling FDA. While it is reasonable to expect further administrative relief beyond the 3-month extension already granted–something that CASAA and other groups are actively working towards–it is simply not reasonable, in our opinion, to expect the kind of result being promised by EVCA in connection with its coordination strategy.

If this were simply a matter of our not agreeing with a strategy by another group, we would likely remain silent. But in this particular case, the amount EVCA seeks to fundraise to support this strategy grows as it is expanding its effort to other cities, and, as we’ve noted, we believe the fundraising itself is misleading and deceptive.

We want to make clear that we do sincerely appreciate all the people who gave of their time and talents to participate in the Hartland hearings–and, of course, the Village of Hartland and its board. There is always value in sharing information about the devastating effects that the current FDA regulatory scheme has on both the industry and consumers.

In summary, we believe that while this could serve as a public relations effort, it is not the “landmark litigation” effort that EVCA claims. And while there is value in public relations, it is important that organizers of the effort be honest and above board in their fundraising so that consumers can make informed choices.

Read more:

A Nod to Harm Reduction from FDA’s New Director, Scott Gottlieb

On Monday, May 15th, Scott Gottlieb M.D. made his first remarks to agency staff as the new director of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Of particular interest are Dr. Gottlieb’s statements regarding the importance of reducing smoking rates. Specifically, we are encouraged by the new FDA director’s statement that, “we need to have the science base to explore the potential to move current smokers–unable or unwilling to quit–to less harmful products, if they can’t quit altogether.”

This is, of course, a step in the right direction, and many will read this as a signal that under Dr. Gottlieb’s leadership the FDA is likely to embrace a harm reduction strategy for reducing the harms of smoking. But CASAA would be remiss if we didn’t point out that this statement is bookended by the familiar (and unhelpful) “tobacco-free” mantra. It is vital to remember that we are working to reduce the harm of smoking and, as shown by decades of research from Sweden, the UK, and here in the US, smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products are a significant part of the solution.

CASAA strongly urges Dr. Gottlieb to consider that rather than redoubling efforts to achieve tobacco and nicotine cessation, the FDA should accept the decades of research currently available that supports the efficacy of harm reduction strategies. Just as harm reduction has proven beneficial in reducing rates of sexually transmitted diseases, overdoses from drug use, and injuries from everyday activities, evidence–more than enough evidence–exists to support a similar policy to be applied to tobacco.

While it may seem like the airwaves and news feeds are populated with strange statements from our political leaders, we still live in a world where words matter. There should be little doubt that Dr. Gottlieb’s statement to FDA staff was thoroughly contemplated and delivered deliberately. We are hopeful that his reference to an archaic abstinence-only message of complete tobacco and nicotine cessation is a fading evolutionary remnant. We believe that the agency is long overdue in acknowledging this strategy and “quit or die” messaging has run its course.

Suggesting that the ultimate goal of the FDA is to “help smokers become tobacco-free” betrays a central pillar of harm reduction and hamstrings the agency before serious policy change can begin. A “tobacco-free generation” borrows heavily from the lofty dream of a “drug-free America.” While those slogans may evoke strong feelings among puritans, they have never worked particularly well as policies in the real world.

We are excited to see the changes that Dr. Gottlieb will bring to the FDA. We appreciate that he will need to overcome deep structural barriers, and a nod to harm reduction is a step in the right direction. At the same time, it is also a clear signal that we must redouble our efforts in demanding access to affordable, enjoyable, and effective low-risk tobacco and nicotine products.

Read more:

Government Testing of Another Vape Shop Reveals No Cause for Concern about Secondhand Vaping

Government officials have now completed an investigation of a second vape shop, finding that levels of chemicals of concern are minimal in the ambient air of the vape shop, thus not posing any significant risk to customers.

The evaluation was performed by the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH). Breathing zone air samples were tested for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and three chemicaals associated with “popcorn lung.”

Results showed that all of these chemicals were well within the NIOSH recommended exposure levels. The formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations were similar to those observed in typical U.S. homes. The “popcorn” lung associated-chemicals were not detected in most samples and detected only at very low levels in the remaining samples.

The Rest of the Story

This is now the second study conducted under the extreme conditions inside a vape shop, and like the first study, it finds that there is no evidence of significant exposure to hazardous chemicals among bystanders in this setting.

This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Chemicals that have been associated with “popcorn lung” were either not detected or detected at very low concentrations.

This study adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, “secondhand vaping” does not appear to pose any significant health risks.

Despite the claims of many anti-vaping organizations, the documented health risks of “secondhand vaping” appear to be minimal. Based on the current scientific evidence, I fail to see the justification for banning vaping in most public places. There must be reasonable evidence before the government intervenes to ban a behavior such as smoking or vaping. With regards to vaping, I just don’t see any reasonable evidence at this time that it poses any significant health hazard to bystanders.

Read more: feedproxy.google.com

Gallery post

  • wide-slider2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec et dapibus ligula, et commodo purus. Etiam mauris ligula, bibendum nec blandit vitae, iaculis ac quam. Praesent consequat diam magna, id rutrum diam ultrices ac. Integer et ante vel erat pharetra porttitor varius id est. Morbi eget risus pretium, luctus ligula et, eleifend justo. Etiam et mauris sed massa ultrices mollis. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus a facilisis justo, vitae porta ipsum.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec et dapibus ligula, et commodo purus. Etiam mauris ligula, bibendum nec blandit vitae, iaculis ac quam. Praesent consequat diam magna, id rutrum diam ultrices ac. Integer et ante vel erat pharetra porttitor varius id est. Morbi eget risus pretium, luctus ligula et, eleifend justo. Etiam et mauris sed massa ultrices mollis. Vestibs orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus a facilisis justo, vitae porta ipsum.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec et dapibus ligula, et commodo purus. Etiam mauris ligula, bibendum nec blandit vitae, iaculis ac quam. Praesent consequat diam magna, id rutrum diam ultrices ac. Integer et ante vel erat pharetra porttitor varius id est. Morbi eget risus pretium, luctus ligula et, eleifend justo. Etiam et mauris sed massa ultrices mollis. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus a facilisis justo, vitae porta ipsum.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec et dapibus ligula, et commodo purus. Etiam mauris ligula, bibendum nec blandit vitae, iaculis ac quam. Praesent consequat diam magna, id rutrum diam ultrices ac. Integer et ante vel erat pharetra porttitor varius id est. Morbi eget risus pretium, luctus ligula et, eleifend justo. Etiam et mauris sed massa ultrices mollis. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus a facilisis justo, vitae porta ipsum.

Read more:

An open letter to the New York Times: Very little is “sensible” about the FDA vapor regulation.

By way of background, in April, the New York Times’ Editorial Board published an op-ed regarding lobbying efforts against the FDA deeming regulations. Alex Clark, CASAA’s Executive Director, emailed a response to the article in an effort to clarify some of the more wildly inaccurate points that were made. Instead, the New York Times published a response from a representative of a major tobacco company.

The New York Times has had ample opportunity to report on the debate regarding tobacco harm reduction but, time and time again, the paper fails to dig deeper into this issue. This recent misrepresentation of the stakeholders involved in the pushback against the FDA’s unreasonable regulation of vapor products is, sadly, just another failure.

Letter to NYT Editorial Board – FDA rules on vaping

___________________________________________

May 4, 2017

Dear New York Times Editorial Board,

Your recent editorial, “Big Tobacco Attacks Sensible FDA Rules on Vaping,” presents several alarming inaccuracies regarding the effort to modify the FDA’s deeming regulations. Even the title of your article dangerously mischaracterizes the impact of the agency’s rule by calling it “sensible.” There is nothing sensible about the wholesale removal of low-risk vapor products that are currently saving lives.

The only manufacturers that are expected to survive implementation of the FDA deeming rule are large tobacco companies. The diverse vapor market, which has no ties to tobacco interests, will be eliminated, along with consumer choice. It is appropriate to say that supporters of the FDA regulations are effectively the most significant lobbyists for the cigarette industry.

Characterizing opposition to one aspect of the FDA regulations as trying to prevent the FDA’s overall ability to regulate e-cigarettes is nonsense. The FDA has and will continue to have, authority to regulate these products. The Cole-Bishop amendment and HR 1136 propose changes that merely prevent the FDA from imposing the most draconian regulatory system possible. Moreover, this bipartisan legislation would provide significant consumer protections that FDA has thus far failed to address.

In reality, small to medium vapor businesses–and the millions of consumers who rely on their products–want sensible regulations that protect the public. Indeed, today, the FDA has the authority to enact manufacturing standards that ensure quality and safety, require accurate labeling and warnings, enforce a ban on sales to minors, and impose reasonable advertising and marketing restrictions. Instead, the agency is requiring vapor businesses to submit to a market approval process that was designed to keep new products off the market.

Especially egregious in your editorial is the assertion that modernizing the 2007 predicate date would allow tobacco and vapor companies to aggressively market and sell e-cigarettes to youth. This is demonstrably false. It is fully within the power of the FDA (as well as the Federal Trade Commission) to impose advertising restrictions on e-cigarettes at any time, regardless of the predicate date. Prior to the deeming rule being finalized, 48 states passed laws prohibiting the sale of vapor products to minors. With the deeming rule, the federal minimum legal purchase age for tobacco and vapor products will remain 18-years-old, again, regardless of the predicate date.

The editorial board also appears to be ignoring the groundswell of grassroots opposition to the deeming rule. It is concerning that The New York Times would actively diminish the voices of a vulnerable population struggling to quit smoking in favor of a narrative that blindly and cynically pits big business against public health. Contrary to this depiction, there is an obvious parallel between HIV/AIDS activists in the ‘80s and ‘90s and vapor consumers of today demanding access to life-saving products NOW.

The vapor industry was born out of consumer demand for a reliable, effective, and low-risk solution to a massive public health crisis. Rather than bring the vapor industry under reasonable regulations that offer real consumer protections, the FDA rule is a de facto ban of vapor products that will harm the very people the agency has an obligation to protect. This outcome clearly violates the mission of the FDA to protect public health.

Historically, pushing people into the shadows to procure goods on an underground market has always resulted in harm. It is deeply concerning that a national newspaper of record might be so blinded by self-righteous indignation that it fails to acknowledge our own disastrous history with prohibition.

Regards,

Alex Clark

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA)

Executive Director

Read more:

Audio

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Proin accumsan dictum tellus, imperdiet pulvinar justo ornare pretium. Nunc a egestas diam. In vitae rutrum felis. Sed scelerisque sed ante non sagittis.

Read more:

Sticky Post

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fusce tortor arcu, convallis tempus blandit eget, eleifend ac nisi. Vivamus sed augue lectus. Vestibulum et egestas velit. Nunc sodales eget ante nec vehicula. Aliquam hendrerit magna ut ipsum euismod venenatis. Aenean ac imperdiet arcu, a ultricies enim. Donec quis nulla at sapien egestas malesuada. Integer volutpat at tellus in lobortis. Praesent a quam sodales, rhoncus nisl eu, accumsan nulla. Integer condimentum malesuada ante eu venenatis. Integer nec consequat turpis, non sodales nibh. Aliquam eu urna dapibus, tincidunt lorem eu, consequat ligula. Sed vehicula nunc vitae iaculis molestie. Pellentesque hendrerit eros et semper sollicitudin. Proin luctus mauris at mauris ullamcorper, sit amet gravida nibh venenatis. Sed diam nisl, ullamcorper a sapien vel, dictum tincidunt ante. Etiam est diam, volutpat eget sollicitudin ut, commodo et ex. Pellentesque bibendum orci enim. Quisque egestas metus at ligula interdum vehicula et id justo. Ut in quam in massa imperdiet condimentum vitae euismod nisl. Nunc justo leo, lobortis non arcu et, molestie tempus orci. Phasellus nec vehicula nunc. Sed neque mauris, lobortis sed cursus sed, suscipit at diam. Duis et placerat libero. Fusce quis mi tincidunt, facilisis lacus a, pellentesque nibh. Pellentesque at mauris id arcu commodo mollis. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Pellentesque id sem sit amet nibh tempor vehicula.

Read more:

Video Vimeo

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec et dapibus ligula, et commodo purus. Etiam mauris ligula, bibendum nec blandit vitae, iaculis ac quam. Praesent consequat diam magna, id rutrum diam ultrices ac. Integer et ante vel erat pharetra porttitor varius id est. Morbi eget risus pretium, luctus ligula et, eleifend justo. Etiam et mauris sed massa ultrices mollis. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus a facilisis justo, vitae porta ipsum.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec et dapibus ligula, et commodo purus. Etiam mauris ligula, bibendum nec blandit vitae, iaculis ac quam. Praesent consequat diam magna, id rutrum diam ultrices ac. Integer et ante vel erat pharetra porttitor varius id est. Morbi eget risus pretium, luctus ligula et, eleifend justo. Etiam et mauris sed massa ultrices mollis. Vestibs orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus a facilisis justo, vitae porta ipsum.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec et dapibus ligula, et commodo purus. Etiam mauris ligula, bibendum nec blandit vitae, iaculis ac quam. Praesent consequat diam magna, id rutrum diam ultrices ac. Integer et ante vel erat pharetra porttitor varius id est. Morbi eget risus pretium, luctus ligula et, eleifend justo. Etiam et mauris sed massa ultrices mollis. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus a facilisis justo, vitae porta ipsum.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec et dapibus ligula, et commodo purus. Etiam mauris ligula, bibendum nec blandit vitae, iaculis ac quam. Praesent consequat diam magna, id rutrum diam ultrices ac. Integer et ante vel erat pharetra porttitor varius id est. Morbi eget risus pretium, luctus ligula et, eleifend justo. Etiam et mauris sed massa ultrices mollis. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus a facilisis justo, vitae porta ipsum.

Read more: