From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback

[Kilroy]

I love reading intelligent, thoughtful discussion and appreciate Dr. Eissenberg taking the time to join us and post. Thank you sir.

[teissenb]

I think you are misunderstanding Dr. Chaouachi's claim. He does not say MY work is funded by Pfizer. He writes: "All of them are also members of Globalink, the world antismoking network of about 6,000 activists around the world, sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry (Pfizer laboratories among others)..." He means that Globalink, which is a listserv for tobacco control researchers, is funded by Pfizer. I am a member of Globalink, and I do not know but would not be surprised if it were funded by Pfizer. I have never received any support from Pfizer and my research has never been funded by them.

As an aside, Dr. Chaouachi spends a great deal of time attacking me and any other researcher who presents data that suggest that smoking tobacco using a waterpipe (hookah, narghile, shisha) might pose health risks. I am sorry he does this, and cannot control his behavior. As with the data on e-cigarettes, I do not control the waterpipe data, I merely report them.

[teissenb]

The copyright to a scientific paper is held by the journal. Posting it to a forum lke this would violate copyright law and I cannot do it. I again ask Tropical Bob to please e-mail me at my vcu.edu and I can share copy with him for his personal use. If he chooses, he may share it with each of you for your personal use.

[TropicalBob]

E-mail request sent.

[teissenb]

PDF sent, TB. Thanks. TE.

[TropicalBob]

Note: As stated, for copyright reasons, this PDF cannot just be posted. I have sent a link to it to Sun Vaporer, BigJimW, and Dvap. If you get a "page not found", add .PDF to the link I sent you. Anyone can pass it along one to one, so ask a friend. It is technical, scientific, not easy reading. Anyone who has read this thread has digested the gist of the study.

I am going to further send this to the two doctors internationally who are conducting trials of e-smoking.

[oso]

Great thread! Thank you for joining us, teissenb.

[Sun Vaporer]

There is the Doctirine of Fair Use but since it is not helpful, it makes no difference.


Sun

[trailblazer6]

Sounds like a load of poo. Where are the flys?

[curiousJan]

No offense to Dr. Esseinberg (and much appreciation for his comments in the forum), but after reading the pdf I'm a bit confused and disturbed.

(not that I'm not usually disturbed ... ... who me, I'm an angel ) .... on to my point ...


The datapoints at 45 minutes are not included except in the graph, and I located an older study on nic-gum that was quite clear that nic absorption through the mucosa of the mouth and throat is substantially slower than that of a combustion cigarette. Was this difference in absorption time and manner accounted for within the study ... it doesn't appear so from the limited information in the pdf. In fact the different absorption mechanism isn't even identified as far as I can see.

But most disturbing is the last sentence: "At the least, consumers should be aware that, unlike several regulated nicotine products (eg, gum, patch), these putative drug delivery systems do not delivery nicotine effectively after acute administration." (emphasis mine ... cue title of post.)

Just sayin'
Jan