E-liquid lab/toxicology reports

[ZeroNullity]

The only problem with e-liquid is that it's unregulated...(most of it comes from china) and much easier to get a tainted product. However of course this never stopped the FDA from passing tainted/harmful products themselves. (so many prescription & OTC drugs) I agree & disagree with the FDA views. I think they should keep the product safe, but not ban it or help cause license/tax issues, etc. FDA already claimed to find harmfull ingredients in tainted e-liquid that shouldn't be there in any case. I think it's a good thing so far as we can guarantee a safe supply. I've been a e-smoker for awhile & "former" smoker much longer.

[Azrael]

Hello,

As I was looking for a Djarum Black recipe I came upon one that of course contains Cloves, which in turn contains the numbing ingredient eugenol. I've researched eugenol and its effects when inhaled and reports say hospitalization has occurred from this chemical from smoking Djarum Black (krekets) alike.

My question... Does inhaling clove really have a negative effect concerning its ingredient eugenol? Is their an alternative to making an e-juice to creating the same numbing effect? And is there another oil that tastes like clove... something sweet, spicy, and cinnamon per say?

Thank you guys...

[Koman]

Links to toxicology reports for different vendors. Do not take information found on these links to be 100% accurate, do your own research to satisfy yourself of the authenticity of the results.

• Supersmoker JP (pdf)
• Pillbox's Totally Wicked
• Health NZ's analysis of Ruyan

Ongoing list project, please contribute any relevant information

Thanks. I will bookmark this. Hopefully they expand the list with time.

[bobtow]

For what its worth I have a shortcut to a letter written to the FDA in response to their report and the negative reporting on TV. It is by AAPHP from a medical journal. That states that ecigs "are not the wildly dangerous alternatives as they have been portrayed, but one of the best products today for a smoker to turn to"

[DirtyHarry]

raw FDA report from their website; go back a page in this forum - I'm not quite up to 15 posts yet. Give me a break; I joined less than a week ago

I find this report interesting in it's complete lack of contextual meaning or even purpose. Your tax dollars at work, I suppose.

It reports X amount of nicotine in a given sample (which are not described other than being acquired from some unnamed distributor of a particular e-cig; that is, the carts are filled with fluid manufactured by WHOM?). This is hardly unexpected as the fluid is supposed to have nicotine in it, and pointless as nicotine is not in and of itself harmful (as best anyone knows, outside of rare allergies) in the quantities listed.

The report then goes on to indicate a handful of "Tobacco specific nitrosamines" were "detected in both products at very low levels".

So what? "Detected" is the only analysis given (probably because the levels are so low that a mass ratio was impossible to calculate using that equipment). There is no discussion of what health effects are known or unknown about said "Tobacco specific nitrosamines" in what quantities over what periods of time.

This is simply a lab procedure report, much like we did in High School Chemestry class to assure the teacher we did our lab work as specified. It not only draws no conclusions about real-world effects, it cannot draw any conclusions, because it is simply raw (and ambiguous) data without context.

In short, other than as a "checklist result" for a lab tech, this report is almost utterly meaningless.

[ElectroDart]

How is there no solid, thorough study on E-cigs? Seems like a fantastic product to eliminate the toll of smoking.

[sunriseha]

Rez, when do u think vaccines were invented or the germ theory and antiobiotics, just sayin

[Altmed]

There is a newer, more complete, version of this report available here.

Cheers,
Silver

Interesting from a country w/ serious bias against eCigs & even nicotania veggies like tomatoes, potatoes, etc.

The baseline CO looks a bit off, or seems to need more explanation as to why the CO levels before were so different???

So, what more does the FDA want? Their credibility is about zip with me at this point!

Dangerous drugs are OK, safer herbals & eCigs, even with testing showing they are safe aren't? I knew the FDA had some, what I'd refer to as suspected pay-offs to get seriously dangerous drugs on the market & keep them there & other highly questionable actions & inaction, but this is ridiculous!

This just shows how unhealthy the FDA seems to want everyone to keep the pharma companies in their pockets!

[Altmed]

In that report is a link to a table from another study re: cigarette smoke http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...4424table1.pdf

from California. That table shows contaminants that have been banned for YEARS & I have to wonder what the same values for our food supply would be under the same testing... some veggies & fruits would be clearly more susceptible than others... not going to give a biology/botany lesson here, but no comparison there, as usual, to cigarettes that are organically grown &/or that have no additives! The chloramines is most of our municipal water & in other countries, along with the DDT levels would suggest that this study was done in a country that has allowed he use of DDT & other chemicals until relatively recently (DDT sticks around for a LONG time!)

What are they smokin' & how long ago was that done? It "appears from the name given to the study that this was done in CA, USA...

There is CLEARLY an agenda to stop cigarettes & anything else THEY want to control financially. Are chemically laden cigarettes healthy? Clearly not, but I have to wonder where they got the "cigarettes" they say they tested for this, from what country (or for what country's export) as anyone who's tried foreign cigarettes knows they are NOT the same, even if made in the US.

Again, WHAT ARE THEY SMOKIN'? And why aren't they comparing to other plants grown in the same place, especially food plants that retain these sorts of chemicals?

This pseudo-"research" table, and the many, many others like it I've seen, are CLEARLY biased against ANY cigarettes AND they are trying to apply this to eCigs when it clearly doesn't even begin to compare?



"Tobacco Control is an international peer review journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; tobacco's effects on population health, the economy, the environment, and society; efforts to prevent and control the global tobacco epidemic through population level education and policy changes; the ethical dimensions of tobacco control policies; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies.
Essential reading for everyone with an interest in tobacco control, including public health professionals, researchers, policy makers and educators."

For those who don't know what the BMJ is, it is the "British Medical Journal". I never thought any medical journal would accept ANY so-called, "research" that is CLEARLY designed to mislead, but am learning fast it's all about the money & certainly NOT about health any more, not with the BMA or the AMA & certainly not the FDA.

Tobacco Control - BMJ Journals ... the name says a lot... Their apparent motto on their front page says even more...,

"Tobacco Control is an international peer review journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; tobacco's effects on population health, the economy, the environment, and society; efforts to prevent and control the global tobacco epidemic through population level education and policy changes; the ethical dimensions of tobacco control policies; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies.
Essential reading for everyone with an interest in tobacco control, including public health professionals, researchers, policy makers and educators."

Peer reviewed by who? Others who agree with their agenda? What a sick joke with highly questionable pseudo-science.

-Altmed

[Altmed]

In that report is a link to a table from another study re: cigarette smoke http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...4424table1.pdf

from California. That table shows contaminants that have been banned for YEARS & I have to wonder what the same values for our food supply would be under the same testing... some veggies & fruits would be clearly more susceptible than others... not going to give a biology/botany lesson here, but no comparison there, as usual, to cigarettes that are organically grown &/or that have no additives! The chloramines is most of our municipal water & in other countries, along with the DDT levels would suggest that this study was done in a country that has allowed he use of DDT & other chemicals until relatively recently (DDT sticks around for a LONG time!)

What are they smokin' & how long ago was that done? It "appears from the name given to the study that this was done in CA, USA...

There is CLEARLY an agenda to stop cigarettes & anything else THEY want to control financially. Are chemically laden cigarettes healthy? Clearly not, but I have to wonder where they got the "cigarettes" they say they tested for this, from what country (or for what country's export) as anyone who's tried foreign cigarettes knows they are NOT the same, even if made in the US.

Again, WHAT ARE THEY SMOKIN'? And why aren't they comparing to other plants grown in the same place, especially food plants that retain these sorts of chemicals?

This pseudo-"research" table, and the many, many others like it I've seen, are CLEARLY biased against ANY cigarettes AND they are trying to apply this to eCigs when it clearly doesn't even begin to compare?



"Tobacco Control is an international peer review journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; tobacco's effects on population health, the economy, the environment, and society; efforts to prevent and control the global tobacco epidemic through population level education and policy changes; the ethical dimensions of tobacco control policies; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies.
Essential reading for everyone with an interest in tobacco control, including public health professionals, researchers, policy makers and educators."

For those who don't know what the BMJ is, it is the "British Medical Journal". I never thought any medical journal would accept ANY so-called, "research" that is CLEARLY designed to mislead, but am learning fast it's all about the money & certainly NOT about health any more, not with the BMA or the AMA & certainly not the FDA.

Tobacco Control - BMJ Journals ... the name says a lot... Their apparent motto on their front page says even more...,

"Tobacco Control is an international peer review journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; tobacco's effects on population health, the economy, the environment, and society; efforts to prevent and control the global tobacco epidemic through population level education and policy changes; the ethical dimensions of tobacco control policies; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies.
Essential reading for everyone with an interest in tobacco control, including public health professionals, researchers, policy makers and educators."

Peer reviewed by who? Others who agree with their agenda? What a sick joke with highly questionable pseudo-science.

-Altmed