New Eissenberg study vindicates e-cigarettes - Page 3
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: New Eissenberg study vindicates e-cigarettes

  1. #21
    Ultra Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    As a healthcare professional, I'm done following this Eissenberg guy. A "clinical Study" with an N(sample size) of 32 proves nothing. He also seems to keep proving (or trying to prove) that ecig usage is tantamount to some type of Placebo effect. He uses ecig brands that I never heard of (NPRO-Hydro EC??) and allowing cigarette users to use their "own brand" (which means they'll all be different) is a terrible control method.
    His study methodolgy with regards to the actual vaping protocol also shows he knows next to nothing about how real word vapers actually vape.
    Last edited by markarich159; 07-23-2010 at 06:30 PM.

  2. #22
    CASAA Activist Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    Vocalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Springfield, VA
    Posts
    7,164
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    The NPRO is a model (RN4081) sold by NJOY, the only company left in the lawsuit against the FDA. It was my first e-cig. It is pretty underpowered as e-cigs go. I often had to "prime" it to get vapor to come out. (Ever seen someone smoke a pipe? They take several short puffs to get the fire in the bowl revved up. I had to take several short puffs on my NPRO to get the vapor to appear. That's what I mean by "prime" it.)

    I'm unfamiliar with the other brand he was using.

    I'm wondering whether the researchers actually observed visible vapor being exhaled during those 10 puffs. If not, or if vapor only came out for some of the puffs, it's no wonder the blood levels of nicotine were so low.

    Dr. E has undergone some instruction on how real world vapers vape. We will have to wait for his next study to see how well he was paying attention. All his research for this study was already done by the time he met with us. I have to say that the wording for the final version of the journal article is a big improvement over the initial letter he wrote to Tobacco Control.


    ----
    Support CASAA -http://www.casaa.org/Donate_LKWE.html ---

  3. #23
    DC2
    DC2 is offline
    I'm Chucked Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    DC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    18,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rolygate View Post
    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?
    Taxes on fast foods, sodas, candy, potato chips, cookies, etc..

  4. #24
    Full Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    31

    Default

    If these things don't deliver nicotine to the bloodstream then they must have one heck of a placebo effect since I quit smoking cigarettes with virtually no withdrawal symptoms.

  5. #25
    Full Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Near Montreal QC
    Posts
    141

    Smile

    I'm really happy with those results even if participants did not knew how to use ecigs.

    But, I remember very well my first week where I had to fight with both withdrawal symptoms and small OD symptoms.

    The next study should involve "trained" ecigs users. While I know CO levels should stay low I fear for heart rate and nicotine levels. But, even if those levels come way higher we are still free from Co, Tar, Formaldehyde, Benzene et al.

  6. #26
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    United States (Utah) SLC
    Posts
    442
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snik View Post
    If these things don't deliver nicotine to the bloodstream then they must have one heck of a placebo effect since I quit smoking cigarettes with virtually no withdrawal symptoms.
    You and me both! If its all in my head, then great!
    Ive said it before, and I;ll say it again. If my "Mental Addiction" is happy, then I am happy!

    It has to be the brands that were used in the "study" because before I knew not to vape my 510 like I would smoke a cigarette, I over did it and ended up with cold sweats and feeling ill from too much nicotine. The same feeling I got as a teenager after smoking two packs of camels on a one night car ride to Cali.
    But wait, according to the study its all in my head.

    Lol

  7. #27
    Super Member ECF Veteran mpetva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DC2 View Post
    Looking forward to following this discussion...
    I wonder if NJOY knows about this? Would this not help their case? If this study would help, help, I sure hope they see it.
    Last edited by mpetva; 07-25-2010 at 07:38 AM.
    Alone We Fly~Together We Soar!

  8. #28
    Forum Manager Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    rolygate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    7,722

    Default

    North Shore - 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.
    Yes, it would be nice but surely that is not realistic. Billions of dollars in tobacco tax cannot just disappear without some sort of consequence. The consequences are that revenue departments will try to ban e-cigarettes, when they finally wake up, and/or that ecigs will be taxed in some additional way. Right now, ecigs are under the radar for Treasury departments, but they'll wake up sooner or later. There is a reason tobacco sales are ring-fenced by laws and it's not all to do with allowing consumer choice. There has to be a very good reason indeed to allow 400,000 deaths a year to go unchallenged - and it is because of the money. If they leave it too late and ecig users reach a critical mass, and can't then be brushed aside, they will tax ecigs.

    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.
    It would be nice if they got in bed with us, though, wouldn't it?

    The efficiency of the system, or not, probably doesn't come into this. Many governments or regions worldwide have astronomical sums coming into their coffers but there is little to show for it on the street. That's life.

    Lots of stores sell tobacco and it produces a lot of money in tax. If they sold ecigs instead, as things stand, the tax income would shrink to 5% of that, maybe less (just a guess). This is the core of the problem. If you can save money by using an ecig then the government is losing out somewhere. That situation will not go unchallenged by them.

    Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah - 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...."
    True enough. The FDA will play dirty, without doubt, if/when they lose the current case. They probably have a bunch of tricks they can pull and this could be one of them.

    On the other hand, if ecigs are legally being imported and sold, and that process cannot be prevented by them - at least it's a foot in the door. Better than nothing as a result in Round 1. The next step would be to fight to remove restrictions. But that's probably better than an outright ban.

    markarich159 - As a healthcare professional, I'm done following this Eissenberg guy. A "clinical Study" with an N (sample size) of 32 proves nothing. He also seems to keep proving (or trying to prove) that ecig usage is tantamount to some type of Placebo effect. He uses ecig brands that I never heard of (NPRO-Hydro EC??) and allowing cigarette users to use their "own brand" (which means they'll all be different) is a terrible control method.

    His study methodology with regards to the actual vaping protocol also shows he knows next to nothing about how real word vapers actually vape.
    Fair enough, let's assume he has an agenda. Most people have. With a lot of scientists right now, that agenda is to remain employed while the system pumps thousands more scientists out of universities every year. One way to do that is to provide research that is fashionable and has some sort of attraction to corporate employers. I think version #1 of the results was designed to be attractive. Version #2 also covers certain other possibilities.

    This research isn't what we'd fund if we were trying to prove efficacy, or efficacy for the purpose of switching from tobacco to vapor use, or lack of health issues - but we weren't funding it, somebody else was. And right now, actually we don't want research that says how good ecigs are at anything in particular. The best possible result for us (at this point in time) is that research proves ecigs don't do anything. It's a winner.

    Whether or not the results are true or not, and whether or not the results were designed to be favorable to us or not, is irrelevant in this case. They are just what we need right now. The results say ecigs don't do anything, and are the third such set of results achieved. I'd say that was legally significant, as there aren't currently any published results that say otherwise. And until certain legal processes complete, I hope that remains the case.

    The fact is, that the results of clinical trials are easily manipulated to produce any result the provider of the funding wants, and such manipulation is a daily occurrence, and a matter of routine. This was stated recently by an expert clinical researcher and author.

    In this particular case I find no evidence of such manipulation because the researchers were simply ignorant - and that fact has coincidentally assisted us enormously. Also, remember that one or two researchers who are sympathetic to us have also produced near-identical results - so it's not hard at all to reach those conclusions, you just need to know nothing at all about the the thing you are researching.

    Right now we actually don't want a trial that proves ecigarettes are effective at for example supplying nicotine, supplying nicotine in any amount the user wants, allowing tobacco smokers to switch, being attractive to smokers, being highly efficient at long-term maintenance of tobacco cessation - or anything else like that. We just don't.

    Our problem right now is not attracting more smokers to switch, it's simply to survive.

    Once we've survived the onslaught then things are different. First we have to survive. Trials like this that 'prove' ecigs do nothing are just the job right now - in fact if we'd paid for this ourselves, we couldn't have had a better result. Next year will be different and we'll get a real one, because our agenda will be different. Today, it's to survive, and this trial is just the job.

    I keep thinking we must have a secret patron somewhere, funding this stuff, it couldn't work any better to our advantage. Maybe Warren Buffet is a vaper.

  9. #29
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,056

    Default

    rolygate wrote:
    The consequences are that revenue departments will try to ban e-cigarettes, when they finally wake up, and/or that ecigs will be taxed in some additional way.

    Don't know about the UK, but in the US and most other countries only elected officials (e.g. Congress, state legislatures, parliaments), not revenue department bureaucrats, can legally establish, increase or reduce tax rates.

    While e-cigarette taxation is something that could be proposed in the future, we'll have to deal with those policy battles when they arise. I'd support a modest tax (e.g. 10&#37on e-cigarettes (just as I've advocated modest tax rates for smokeless tobacco because they are less hazardous than cigarettes), and taxation of e-cigarettes would make it far more difficult for prohibitionists to ban the products.

    rolygate also wrote:
    Right now we actually don't want a trial that proves ecigarettes are effective at for example supplying nicotine, supplying nicotine in any amount the user wants, allowing tobacco smokers to switch, being attractive to smokers, being highly efficient at long-term maintenance of tobacco cessation - or anything else like that.

    I strongly disagree. Any study that finds e-cigarettes emit significantly fewer contaminants than cigarettes, that finds e-cigarette usage results in significantly fewer respiratory problems than cigarettes, that findes e-cigarettes satisfy the cravings of smokers, and/or that finds smokers have quit smoking (or sharply reduced cigarette consumption) by switching to e-cigarettes should help our efforts.

  10. #30
    Super Member ECF Veteran CartHeadMod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snik View Post
    If these things don't deliver nicotine to the bloodstream then they must have one heck of a placebo effect since I quit smoking cigarettes with virtually no withdrawal symptoms.
    same here....thank goodness for 6 months of placebo effect and no cigarettes.....

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks