New Eissenberg study vindicates e-cigarettes - Page 2
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: New Eissenberg study vindicates e-cigarettes

  1. #11
    Super Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    CJsKee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    991

    Default

    D103...don't know if you've seen it or not, but this thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...com-today.html is about Dr. Eissenberg's first study...with a surprise ending! It's a long read, but worth it if you haven't read it before.

    But remember, life is a sexually transmitted disease that is 100% fatal.--cappadoc

  2. #12
    PV Master ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    london uk / beijing china
    Posts
    5,001
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    "Truth, fact, morals, ethics, human life or any other considerations important to the individual or even the population at large have no significance here."

    Exactly. So whether e-cigs 'work' or not will likely make no difference to ensuing political nonsense. Endemic corruption, Alice in Wonderland ...
    Last edited by kinabaloo; 07-23-2010 at 05:34 AM.

  3. #13
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Nanaimo BC Canada
    Posts
    523

    Default

    This is not a new study. It is the very same Eissenberg study as was already discussed at length and discredited in this thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...com-today.html.

    This appears to be the final report, which was mentioned as coming in future when the first report was released. The writeup is different and more extensive than the original report. Data from 16 more subjects is supposedly included this time but a note says that there were no significant differences in these subjects, and as far as I can tell the graphs which were in the first report were not regenerated, the graphs in both reports appear identical.

    The good news in this report is that the comments under "Discussion" are far more carefully worded and take into account some of the issues we raised in the thread mentioned above. (Issues we raised which reflect badly on the experiment, e.g. the possibility that the subjects only vaped primer fluid, are of course not mentioned )

    In particular the "Discussion" notes includes "Methodologic considerations of the current study include ... and inclusion of electronic cigarette–naïve participants who may be representative of cigarette smokers sampling an electronic cigarette for the first time, but not of a more experienced electronic cigarette user population."

    The discussion is also cautiously optimistic that electronic cigarettes may have potential for tobacco harm reduction use.

    I think we had a significant impact in Dr. Eissenberg's new slant on the same data.

    Unfortunately none of this rework of the report will undo the damage caused by the original release of this report and the associated comments Eissenberg made to the press. They won't pay attention to this final version. My feeling is that Dr. Eissenberg has both been swayed by us to view his data more correctly, and has also used what he learned from us to clean up the report so that this final version (probably the only version which will be acknowledged to exist in future since the damaging first release was preliminary) won't reflect as badly on him in future.
    If you don't know what you don't know then you don't know what you do know.

  4. #14
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ithaca NY
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kinabaloo View Post
    "Truth, fact, morals, ethics, human life or any other considerations important to the individual or even the population at large have no significance here."

    Exactly. So whether e-cigs 'work' or not will likely make no difference to ensuing political nonsense. Endemic corruption, Alice in Wonderland ...
    which means the states will still try to make it illegal because if everyone were to quit analogs they'd get no revenue from the taxes that they charge.

  5. #15
    Forum Manager Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    rolygate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    7,727

    Default

    Mister - Unfortunately none of this rework of the report will undo the damage caused by the original release of this report and the associated comments Eissenberg made to the press. They won't pay attention to this final version. My feeling is that Dr. Eissenberg has both been swayed by us to view his data more correctly, and has also used what he learned from us to clean up the report so that this final version (probably the only version which will be acknowledged to exist in future since the damaging first release was preliminary) won't reflect as badly on him in future.
    Well, this is very true. Dr E. has certainly made progress. However I don't see his report or his comments as damaging. There is a lot of kerfuffle all around ecigs but it doesn't seem to slow the uptake down much - if that's what you are referring to. People tend not to believe what they read now as it's just so much junk. Lies, damn lies and PR.

    And the key thing is that the report adds to a strong legal position that ecigs don't do anything medicinally. This is very useful to us indeed since that position cannot now be legally challenged. Personally I'm grateful to Dr E and colleagues as they've done us a favor. Perhaps it wasn't the intended result but that doesn't matter. The situation now is that no matter what anyone says or whatever other factors exist:

    Electronic cigarettes are proven not to have any medicinal function or effect


    That position cannot possibly be legally challenged at this point in time. It would require a substantial number of clinical trials with conflicting results, to enable any challenge to be made to that position.

    Therefore if there is an attempt to regulate ecigarettes based on the premise that they deliver a drug, or have some effect on the human body, then that attempt to regulate must fail at law (it won't stand up in court). Three independent clinical trials that show conclusively that there is no drug delivery and there is no effect on the subjects constitutes incontrovertible proof.

    This is why the FDA doesn't want any clinical trials of ecigarettes and has done everything possible to stop them. The results, whatever they might be, will not be good news for them.

  6. #16
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    JollyRogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    I find his results interesting. Three to four days into switching from analogs to my ecigarette and using 30mg smoke juice, I went into definite nicotine withdrawals plus probably some other type of withdrawals from what ever is in Marlboro lights. I got through them after a few days. Recently I have been battling a terrible summer cold, now twice recurring thanks to my son. At the onset of the cold, I could not vape for two days! Not a single withdrawal symptom other then I kind of wanted to vape. I have never tested for nicotine, though I would like to, so I have no idea if I really am ingesting any nicotine. I think I am, but now I question it. I know that another poster went through the effort of self testing and was positive for nic. So that also makes me think I am ingesting nicotine. But this doctor's report says that my ecigarette is not delivering nicotine to my body!? So it definitely isn't a drug delivery system. I think I'll go mix some 0mg and vape that awhile and see how I do...
    The Vaper by Petar K, Orion, NGPs, Piccolo, "Pyrate", GGTS, ProVaris, Precious-L
    Z-atty-G ODY Spheroid DID-mini Lines A-2TM

  7. #17
    Forum Manager Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    rolygate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    7,727

    Default

    Debs63 - Which means the states will still try to make it illegal because if everyone were to quit analogs they'd get no revenue from the taxes that they charge.
    Exactly. Of course, it all comes down to money and power in the end - nothing else is of any significance.

    In the case of e-cigarettes we should entirely forget about any objections made on health grounds or other such matters. These points are merely a smokescreen. It's all about the money, and only about the money. If you want to know who is doing what and why, then follow the money.

    From a personal point of view, I do think there is an argument to be made that ecigarettes will eventually cause severe problems for national tax revenues. Smokers fund the country, or at least a valuable proportion of its services, and we ignore this at our peril.

    You're talking about billions of dollars lost tax revenue and it it has to be found somewhere. My fear is that when tax departments wake up to this, they will join the anti-ecig brigades - and their power is considerable. Look at it this way: where will the money come from when 10% of smokers have switched? How about when 25% of smokers have switched?

    And they will - it's just a question of time. Therefore it is my belief that eventually we will see ecigs being taxed in some way, and personally I have no issue with that, as I prefer to see the roads repaired and the hospitals staffed. The money has to come from somewhere.

    One thing is for sure: in a few years time there will be a massive hole in state and national revenues, and to ignore that as a factor in ecigarette regulation is a mistake. If ecigarettes are allowed to be freely sold then they will be taxed - that is simply unescapable in the long run.
    Last edited by rolygate; 07-23-2010 at 04:33 PM.

  8. #18
    Senior Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Rockport, MA
    Posts
    250

    Default

    I disagree with the notion that anything other than federal and state income tax, as well as state sales tax (when bought in state) should ever be paid on the sale of these devices.

    Through taxes, government has been in bed with big tobacco, forever. In Massachusetts we have some of the highest taxes on cigarettes in the nation. Yet, our bloated and corrupt system gives us beat up roads and little money for local schools. If every convenience and liquor store sold these products, you would still get a decent revenue from local sales tax. In a short time there would be less people getting sick and burdening health care care resources.

  9. #19
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,077

    Default

    This newly published study contains the same laboratory findings cited in Eissenberg's two page letter published in February's Tobacco Control, as two of the seven charts (over 45 minutes following product administration) in this newly published study (plasma nicotine and cigarette craving) also appeared in Eissenberg's previously published letter.

    And while the new study similarly states that "no significant changes in plasma nicotine were observed" following use of the e-cigarettes, Eissenberg didn't issue a press release this time falsely claiming the e-cigarette don't deliver any nicotine. Unfortunately, the new study failed to point out that plasma nicotine increased slightly (just not at a statistically significant level) five minutes after e-cigarette usage and gradually decline thereafter (which mimics, but to a lower degree, plasma nicotine levels following cigarette usage).

    And of course, the new study failed to point out any of the information ECF posters informed Eissenberg about, including
    - 16mg and 18mg e-cigarettes emit less nicotine than other e-cigarettes and e-liquid,
    - participants had never used an e-cigarette before the study,
    - participants were instructed to use an e-cigarette exactly like smoking a cigarette,
    - the e-cigarettes used in the study were used for the very first time.

    The new study also found that e-cigarette usage resulted in only very slight (but not statistically significant) increases in heart rates, while cigarette smoking sharply increased heart rates within five minutes.

    But the newly published study did find that e-cigarettes resulted in NO increase in carbon monoxide in plasma (figure 2), which should be touted as evidence that e-cigarettes don't emit any carbon monoxide (in sharp contrast to cigarette smoke).

    And the new study also found that e-cigarettes helped to calm (figure 3C) and satisfy (figure 3D) users (not as much as smoking a cigarette, but more than inhaling an unlit cigarette). While figure 3A shows the QSU factor for e-cigarettes between that of smoking and inhaling an unlit cigarette, I couldn't find an explanation for or definition of QSU factor anywhere in the study.

    Overall, the most important findings of Eissenberg's study that should be touted include:
    - unlike cigarettes, e-cigarettes emit/deliver no poisonous carbon monoxide,
    - unlike cigarettes, e-cigarettes don't cause a significant increase in heart rate,
    - e-cigarettes reduce cigarette cravings and provide some satisfacton for smokers,
    - e-cigarettes emit/deliver significantly lower levels of nicotine to users than cigarettes,
    - first time users of low nicotine e-cigarettes may not experience the same benefits compared to experienced users of different e-cigarette products.

  10. #20
    PV Master ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI
    Posts
    3,944
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    The only thing I'm concerned about in this study, and the resultant storm of 'placebo effect' claims is:

    IF they get it through their heads that the PV doesn't deliver any nicotine when used, what's to stop the powers that be from only allowing nic-free juices - - - "if it doesn't deliver, why have it IN there in the first place, safety, dangers, poison, blah, blah, blah...."

    WE know that using PV's properly delivers a dose of nic, and like it or not, that dose is what keeps us using PV's and not going back to tobacco or switching to other alternatives... they remove the nic from nic juice, we're going to have a serious problem.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks