Is vaping sticky?

[Oliver]

My friend Amelia and I wrote the first of a two-part essay on how existing research methods into smoking cannot result in an understanding of vape, or new technology generally.

Amelia is a PHD candidate at the University of Waterloo, Canada. She has a particular interest in the social, political and cultural dimensions of expert knowledge-making in science and technology.
She's one of the most interesting thinkers I know, so writing this with her has been a real privilege.

Have a read!

Is vaping sticky enough? And how can we tell?

 

[Robino1]

I posted in a thread just yesterday about new vapers needing something that is as easy to use as a lighting a cig. We need something for those new vapers that is safe and easy.

We also need new vapers so we have more pull in what goes on with regards to regulations.

 

[HBcorpse]

I'm not sure how the vaping community in general feels about the JUUL...but I think it is hands down the easiest "start-up" kit on the market.

There are lots of other similar kits, but the JUUL is the simplest, sleekest, and most widely available (being sold at gas stations all over, at least where I live)...

I've had a lot of success getting folks to quit smoking by showing them how easy and available the JUUL is.

Several of them have progressed into more advanced gear, and a lot of them have made the switch permanently to the JUUL, dropping cigarettes entirely.

One guy has already stepped down off the JUUL, and is finally nicotine/smoke/vape free after 20+ years of a 2.5 pack-a-day habit!

It only took him 3 months with a JUUL to accomplish this!

 

[Oliver]

I think the vaping community probably feels pretty positive about Juul! It's a great device.

 

[cats5365]

Thank you for sharing this. I agree that comparing 2009 to 2017 in vaping isn't really going to work well. They might as well try to compare the AM/FM original Sony Walkman to the latest smart phone. Research studies are always going to be behind by the time they get published, and if they involve technology, they will be horribly outdated because the devices they are reviewing have changed considerably during that time.

The cigalike kit devices may not be enough to get smokers to switch completely, but I think many of us started there and got the idea that vaping might work if we got something better. If the governments kill vaping now, it will be extremely hard for today's smokers to find the more customisable devices many of us use now. I really think all of the anti's need to back off a bit and give vaping enough time to do some real long-term studies. I think we have enough anecdotal evidence that it might really be safer and more effective as a tool to get people off cigarettes.

I prefer customisable to advanced as a way to describe the products many of us on ECF use because I think the ability to customise our gear to suit our tastes is what got many of us to switch completely. The kits may not help all of the people that are ready to switch if they don't offer the bits and pieces that each smoker needs to get off the cigarettes. We joke in here about MTL is beginner and sub-ohm DL is advanced, but really it comes down to whatever it takes to keep us happy and off the burning tobacco.

I was watching a Chantix commercial on TV a few days ago and thought it was rather interesting that they were comparing it to gums, patches, and other BP quitting methods and saying that their pills will help those people that couldn't quit with the officially endorsed aids. They didn't mention that they tried to compare it to vaping, and all I could do was think, "Hmmmmmm...."

 

[Kent C]

My friend Amelia and I wrote the first of a two-part essay on how existing research methods into smoking cannot result in an understanding of vape, or new technology generally.

Amelia is a PHD candidate at the University of Waterloo, Canada. She has a particular interest in the social, political and cultural dimensions of expert knowledge-making in science and technology.
She's one of the most interesting thinkers I know, so writing this with her has been a real privilege.

Have a read!

Is vaping sticky enough? And how can we tell?

Some comments:

"Bonnie Herzog reported in her “Takeaways From First U.S. E-Cig Summit” email that 87% of vape consumers continue to smoke and to smoke as much as they did previously:

“ e-cigs may be less harmful than cigs, but smoker satisfaction still remains weak – 87% of e-cig users still smoke the same amount of combustible cigs (dual-users) because they don’t find e-cigs to be as good or better at delivering nicotine”

For Herzog, there's a difference between 'vape consumers' and 'ecig users'. She was one of the first 'outsiders' to differentiate between ecigs and VTMs - Vapor/Tank/Mods. And has reported in the past that VTMs are better at delivering nicotine - so rather than saying that 87% 'vape consumers' (as edited from what she actually said), continue to smoke as much as they did - something that I think have been proven wrong in other studies - I think her comment on 87% "ecig users" (ie. NOT ''vape consumers') is consistent with her comments regarding ecigs vs. VTMs.

From wiki:
"In the US, tobacco producers have a significant share of the e-cigarette market.[55][243] As of 2015[update], 80% of all e-cigarette sales in convenience stores in the U.S. were products made by tobacco companies.[244] According to Nielsen Holdings, convenience store e-cigarette sales in the US went down for the first time during the four-week period ending on 10 May 2014.[245] Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog attributes this decline to a shift in consumers' behavior, buying more specialized devices or what she calls "vapor/tank/mods (VTMs)" that are not tracked by Nielsen.[245] Wells Fargo estimated that VTMs accounted for 57% of the 3.5 billion dollar market in the US for vapor products in 2015."

The article concedes:

"To be clear, this is Bonnie’s takeaway. It’s not her opinion – it’s what she heard from the Summit."

And it is not clear where/what study 'from the Summit' stated that 87% of ecig users still smoke as much as they always did, or whether the study cited differentiates between ecig users and VTM users.

IF the study meant all 'vape consumers' then I think that is either false or a study from some ANTZ source, or both. And that it shouldn't be repeated.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 'sticky' - undefined in the article, although I 'get' the idea, but I think a better adjective could have been used. It sounds like a cousin of 'dicey' which usually has some unspecified implication rather than any fact.

 

[Opinionated]

My friend Amelia and I wrote the first of a two-part essay on how existing research methods into smoking cannot result in an understanding of vape, or new technology generally.

Amelia is a PHD candidate at the University of Waterloo, Canada. She has a particular interest in the social, political and cultural dimensions of expert knowledge-making in science and technology.
She's one of the most interesting thinkers I know, so writing this with her has been a real privilege.

Have a read!

Is vaping sticky enough? And how can we tell?

Great article thus far, specifically I am at the section in your article: "Is Vaping Less Sticky Than Smoking"

At point three, you mention FUD, Fear uncertainty and doubt, and go on to explain why some of that might be.

Which you also raise excellent points, and I haven't read much further, but there is one point I feel could or should be added. And that is the fear and uncertainty due to the fact by the time most of us have reached the point of looking to vaping, we have already spent years in many cases trying one thing after another to stop smoking.

I know there wasn't a medication, whether prescription or non prescription that I hadn't tried, I also tried off the wall stuff like hypnosis to quit. All these things cost so much money, and none of them worked.

Therefore, by the time I found vaping and was willing to give it a shot, I also had tons of doubts that it was going to be anything more than just another unsuccessful money pit, and I was very much unwilling to sink a lot of money into it - although I was, at one point, willing to try it, so long as I didn't put a lot of money into it.

For me personally, the only thing that got me through at that point to being a full fledged vaper, was utter determination to quit. I spoke to a vape shop owner, and a couple people who had successfully quit smoking using vaping. I found out what they thought was the most helpful method of making the switch, which was using a device that you added your own e juice in.

Then, I sought out the absolutely cheapest method where I could get a battery and a refillable tank, and at the time that was off eBay getting a cheap Chinese ego battery with a ce4 tank for 10.00.. I bought it, then found the gas station nearby sold 10ml bottles of ejuice, the highest nicotine level they had was 18mg/ml.. which, coming from a two pack a day Marlboro red habit, was not enough nicotine when my consumption was so low on that ce4..

But, I needed to quit, as much as I wanted to. My breathing had reached the point where I was in desperation to quit smoking, and that carried me through the withdrawals, and meant that I was able to fully make the switch.

If I had not had that level of determination mixed with necessity - I probably would not have made it through the initial quit..

I learned a lot since, found what devices work even better, and run around helping every one I can, to the point even of purchasing people's first set up for them. Since I have quit, I helped a friend of mine and her husband successfully switch to vaping, as well as my sister-in-law, her husband, my son has now fully switched to vaping and my husband is vaping now in dual fashion, hopefully soon he will make the full switch. Without me, all those people would still be smoking..

However, it took a lot to get me here, to be able for me to make the switch.. it was a trial an error in how to make a full switch to vaping nary spending a dime . Lol..

This is where a LOT of the fear comes from, because the pharmaceutical industry is more about how to rake in as much cash as possible instead of how to get people away from their addiction to cigarettes, vaping is approached with MUCH caution and fear. And someone who has failed so often in their attempts to quit smoking, who may not yet have reached the point in their health where they are simply desperate to quit, will buy something cheap because of the fear of the money pit, it won't stop the withdrawals, and they will walk away from it thinking they just escaped being sucked into an other money pit..

Just thought to point that out... as this IS another point where fear and doubt comes into play..right now in history, vaping is not our first rodeo.. but it can be our last.

 

[Opinionated]

My friend Amelia and I wrote the first of a two-part essay on how existing research methods into smoking cannot result in an understanding of vape, or new technology generally.

Amelia is a PHD candidate at the University of Waterloo, Canada. She has a particular interest in the social, political and cultural dimensions of expert knowledge-making in science and technology.
She's one of the most interesting thinkers I know, so writing this with her has been a real privilege.

Have a read!

Is vaping sticky enough? And how can we tell?

I have finished the article now. I do like it, and I look forward to part two..great job!



I would however agree with the poster that the word sticky is not really understandable..

 

[Ryedan]

My friend Amelia and I wrote the first of a two-part essay on how existing research methods into smoking cannot result in an understanding of vape, or new technology generally.

Amelia is a PHD candidate at the University of Waterloo, Canada. She has a particular interest in the social, political and cultural dimensions of expert knowledge-making in science and technology.
She's one of the most interesting thinkers I know, so writing this with her has been a real privilege.

Have a read!

Is vaping sticky enough? And how can we tell?

I enjoyed the essay Oliver and Amelia, well done

When you say 'sticky' in the essay, I think 'addictive'. That may not be the technically correct term, but I think you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Using stickier systems may well be a good move to help more smokers switch to vaping, but I've felt for a while this could be a slippery slope too. Too sticky (addictive) could become a real problem. It is happening though so we'll get to see how it turns out in time. Hopefully it gets done well and works out.

 

[Oliver]

Some comments:

"Bonnie Herzog reported in her “Takeaways From First U.S. E-Cig Summit” email that 87% of vape consumers continue to smoke and to smoke as much as they did previously:

“ e-cigs may be less harmful than cigs, but smoker satisfaction still remains weak – 87% of e-cig users still smoke the same amount of combustible cigs (dual-users) because they don’t find e-cigs to be as good or better at delivering nicotine”

For Herzog, there's a difference between 'vape consumers' and 'ecig users'. She was one of the first 'outsiders' to differentiate between ecigs and VTMs - Vapor/Tank/Mods. And has reported in the past that VTMs are better at delivering nicotine - so rather than saying that 87% 'vape consumers' (as edited from what she actually said), continue to smoke as much as they did - something that I think have been proven wrong in other studies - I think her comment on 87% "ecig users" (ie. NOT ''vape consumers') is consistent with her comments regarding ecigs vs. VTMs.

From wiki:
"In the US, tobacco producers have a significant share of the e-cigarette market.[55][243] As of 2015[update], 80% of all e-cigarette sales in convenience stores in the U.S. were products made by tobacco companies.[244] According to Nielsen Holdings, convenience store e-cigarette sales in the US went down for the first time during the four-week period ending on 10 May 2014.[245] Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog attributes this decline to a shift in consumers' behavior, buying more specialized devices or what she calls "vapor/tank/mods (VTMs)" that are not tracked by Nielsen.[245] Wells Fargo estimated that VTMs accounted for 57% of the 3.5 billion dollar market in the US for vapor products in 2015."

The article concedes:

"To be clear, this is Bonnie’s takeaway. It’s not her opinion – it’s what she heard from the Summit."

And it is not clear where/what study 'from the Summit' stated that 87% of ecig users still smoke as much as they always did, or whether the study cited differentiates between ecig users and VTM users.

IF the study meant all 'vape consumers' then I think that is either false or a study from some ANTZ source, or both. And that it shouldn't be repeated.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 'sticky' - undefined in the article, although I 'get' the idea, but I think a better adjective could have been used. It sounds like a cousin of 'dicey' which usually has some unspecified implication rather than any fact.

Hi Kent,

Apologies, perhaps I didn't make it clear. The 87% is from Kasza et al., which is an analysis of the first wave of P.A.T.H data. It's what Jonathan Foulds was reporting at the Summit, and is where Bonnie got her figure from.

So, this figure is the proportion of e-cigarette "users" that also use another tobacco product (i.e. who don't use e-cigarette users exclusively). In other words, P.A.T.H data shows that of all people who used an e-cigarette in 2013/2014, 87% also used another tobacco product (mostly cigarettes). The corollary is that ~13% only used e-cigarettes. I think this is quite an important thing to emphasize!

P.A.T.H is a massive population-wide tobacco study. The initial funding was $120m (!). I think the 87% can be trusted to be accurate across all forms of vape, in so far as it's measuring what it purports to measure. But that's kind of the point about the rest of our essay - what is it really measuring? In any case, it covers the e-cig/vape divide.

The Kasza study certainly does not state that they "still smoke as much as they always did", and I don't believe Foulds stated that at the Summit, and Amelia didn't remember hearing him say that. I don't know where Bonnie got that from.

 

[Oliver]

I enjoyed the essay Oliver and Amelia, well done

When you say 'sticky' in the essay, I think 'addictive'. That may not be the technically correct term, but I think you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Using stickier systems may well be a good move to help more smokers switch to vaping, but I've felt for a while this could be a slippery slope too. Too sticky (addictive) could become a real problem. It is happening though so we'll get to see how it turns out in time. Hopefully it gets done well and works out.

Ah ok. I actually quite like "sticky", because it's non-specific. It's a shorthand for "people aren't moving to vaping products as quickly as we'd like". In other words, sticky is a function of how much people are likely to stick with vaping and stop smoking.

Some researchers have called for vaping products to become "more" addictive so that they "satisfy" smokers more readily. I don't necessarily agree (or disagree). What does concern me is that this is reductive and pushes regulators (and perhaps innovators) towards one area of vape's characteristics.

There's this elephant in the room that approximately 1/3 of people who try a cigarette go on to become long-term daily smokers. Nothing like this is the case with vape. The interesting question is why?

The nicotine PK will have something to do with it, but there will be a whole host of other reasons (reasons that vapers have been discussing for years, and maybe other reasons too).

But our essay is fundamentally about saying: "look, this is what the current research methodology cannot answer".

In part two we'll be explaining exactly why it can't.

 

[Oliver]

Great article thus far, specifically I am at the section in your article: "Is Vaping Less Sticky Than Smoking"

At point three, you mention FUD, Fear uncertainty and doubt, and go on to explain why some of that might be.

Which you also raise excellent points, and I haven't read much further, but there is one point I feel could or should be added. And that is the fear and uncertainty due to the fact by the time most of us have reached the point of looking to vaping, we have already spent years in many cases trying one thing after another to stop smoking.

I know there wasn't a medication, whether prescription or non prescription that I hadn't tried, I also tried off the wall stuff like hypnosis to quit. All these things cost so much money, and none of them worked.

Therefore, by the time I found vaping and was willing to give it a shot, I also had tons of doubts that it was going to be anything more than just another unsuccessful money pit, and I was very much unwilling to sink a lot of money into it - although I was, at one point, willing to try it, so long as I didn't put a lot of money into it.

For me personally, the only thing that got me through at that point to being a full fledged vaper, was utter determination to quit. I spoke to a vape shop owner, and a couple people who had successfully quit smoking using vaping. I found out what they thought was the most helpful method of making the switch, which was using a device that you added your own e juice in.

Then, I sought out the absolutely cheapest method where I could get a battery and a refillable tank, and at the time that was off eBay getting a cheap Chinese ego battery with a ce4 tank for 10.00.. I bought it, then found the gas station nearby sold 10ml bottles of ejuice, the highest nicotine level they had was 18mg/ml.. which, coming from a two pack a day Marlboro red habit, was not enough nicotine when my consumption was so low on that ce4..

But, I needed to quit, as much as I wanted to. My breathing had reached the point where I was in desperation to quit smoking, and that carried me through the withdrawals, and meant that I was able to fully make the switch.

If I had not had that level of determination mixed with necessity - I probably would not have made it through the initial quit..

I learned a lot since, found what devices work even better, and run around helping every one I can, to the point even of purchasing people's first set up for them. Since I have quit, I helped a friend of mine and her husband successfully switch to vaping, as well as my sister-in-law, her husband, my son has now fully switched to vaping and my husband is vaping now in dual fashion, hopefully soon he will make the full switch. Without me, all those people would still be smoking..

However, it took a lot to get me here, to be able for me to make the switch.. it was a trial an error in how to make a full switch to vaping nary spending a dime . Lol..

This is where a LOT of the fear comes from, because the pharmaceutical industry is more about how to rake in as much cash as possible instead of how to get people away from their addiction to cigarettes, vaping is approached with MUCH caution and fear. And someone who has failed so often in their attempts to quit smoking, who may not yet have reached the point in their health where they are simply desperate to quit, will buy something cheap because of the fear of the money pit, it won't stop the withdrawals, and they will walk away from it thinking they just escaped being sucked into an other money pit..

Just thought to point that out... as this IS another point where fear and doubt comes into play..right now in history, vaping is not our first rodeo.. but it can be our last.

Great post. Thanks.

 

[VictorC]

Excellent read, thank you.
All points are good, but I hope you will elaborate more on FUD in part 2.
"They specifically cast doubts on the “effectiveness” of the products in helping people stop smoking, highlighted numerous (exaggerated) dangers of vaping, while also making them out to be extremely lame."
Unfortunately perception is reality.
I had a number of discussions with friends and co-workers who are still smoking and none of them sees vaping as a safer alternative or socially acceptable activity. It would be almost impossible for them to have a satisfied vape if in their minds vaping is unnatural, and as dangerous (if not more) than smoking.

 

[cats5365]

Ah ok. I actually quite like "sticky", because it's non-specific. It's a shorthand for "people aren't moving to vaping products as quickly as we'd like". In other words, sticky is a function of how much people are likely to stick with vaping and stop smoking.

Some researchers have called for vaping products to become "more" addictive so that they "satisfy" smokers more readily. I don't necessarily agree (or disagree). What does concern me is that this is reductive and pushes regulators (and perhaps innovators) towards one area of vape's characteristics.

There's this elephant in the room that approximately 1/3 of people who try a cigarette go on to become long-term daily smokers. Nothing like this is the case with vape. The interesting question is why?

The nicotine PK will have something to do with it, but there will be a whole host of other reasons (reasons that vapers have been discussing for years, and maybe other reasons too).

But our essay is fundamentally about saying: "look, this is what the current research methodology cannot answer".

In part two we'll be explaining exactly why it can't.

I dearly hope they don't go "messing" with vape to make it addictive in the same way tobacco was manipulated. If they want people to stick with vaping and not go back to traditional smoking, they should stop trying to kill it by banishing the vapers from public view and limiting flavors to nothing or what the thought police believe would be appropriate for such a sad group of addicts. I really think that when the tobacco companies' manipulations came out as true fact, that was the time when the attitudes towards smoking and smokers really changed and put us where we are now.

Keeping vaping as something that is more pleasurable than smoking and offers a variety of high quality, safe hardware and many flavors and options in the juice will also encourage smokers to switch and stay with vaping. They may never convert 100% of the smokers, but if 95% could switch, that would be something to celebrate.

I think it is also important to keep vaping companies in business and allowing them to thrive and innovate. It is harder for the regulators to keep track of so many different vendors, but by preventing a privileged few companies from taking over the industry will make it harder for the monopoly to manipulate the products as they did with tobacco.

 

[Robino1]

I agree. They should most definitely NOT manipulate vaping to make addictive. That totally defeats the purpose of what vaping is about.

Vaping is a way to step away from an addiction to cigarettes. A majority of vapers have been able to step down their intake, nic levels and even finally put the tool down.

If they make vaping addictive....I just cannot fathom that thought process! To me it sounds like they want to make it another money grab!

 

[DaveP]

I was surprised at her discovery that most vapers still smoke. My experience is one of vaping for a year and then quitting cigs for good. After the first couple of weeks vaping I realized that I was only smoking one after meals and one or two with my morning coffee. Once that became apparent I eventually quit buying cigarettes and my vape became my new habit.

I can truly say that I haven't bought cigarettes since April of 2011 after starting the vape in April 2010. I quit completely on my 1st vaping anniversary and rewarded myself with a Provari V2.

 

[DaveP]

I agree. They should most definitely NOT manipulate vaping to make addictive. That totally defeats the purpose of what vaping is about.

Vaping is a way to step away from an addiction to cigarettes. A majority of vapers have been able to step down their intake, nic levels and even finally put the tool down.

If they make vaping addictive....I just cannot fathom that thought process! To me it sounds like they want to make it another money grab!

DIY is a good way to control that possible aspect of vaping. At least you know/think that what you mix is free of anything other than what you put into it. If there's something going on with flavors or nic base I think we'd find out soon after it happens.

I don't really believe that flavors we use will succumb to addictive additives. The power of the masses will find out and put those that do on the do not buy list.

 

[dripster]

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of cloudiness.

 

[Eskie]

OK, I read your commentary. I also read the presentation that Fould's gave at Penn State. I went into the PATH study wave 1 and looked at the questionnaire concerning e cigarettes. I did not look at the raw data, and I didn't count up all the question on e cigs from page 66 to 90 in the survey.

I've got a few problems with interpreting this stuff. First, retrospective surveys are limited in their utility to the questions asked. Now, they did ask all sorts of questions of the e cig users. There is only one question that asks the single most important issue :
"[Do | Did] you use e-cigarettes as an alternative to quitting tobacco altogether?
1 Yes
2 No
-8 DON’T KNOW
-7 REFUSED"
this is from page 90 of DS1001 Wave 1 Adult Data questionnaire. There are lots of other questions looking at those surveyed for what appeals to you, what doesn't, how much do you smoke, how often do you feel the need to smoke, and all sorts of questions. But what Fould never provides (and I'm not even sure if it can be extracted based on how this thing was set up) is: How many people who dual use (that big 87% group) tried or used or chose as a method, to stop smoking. If most of those users never planned to stop, and were only using it to fill in as a stopgap such as being somewhere cigarettes could not be used, purchased on a whim at the convenience store, or whatever OTHER than "I bought this specifically to stop smoking and I tried real hard to not smoke or cut down smoking while using an e cig" then that 87% figure is useless.

Dual use is not being documented solely among those who view e cigs ONLY as a smoking cessation aid/device. That dual use group identified provided no specific evidence that their e cig use was to stop smoking. Now, maybe the data is buried somewhere in there, but what I would want to know is this:

In the 13% only e cig users, what percentage used e cigs to achieve the goal of smoking cessation (I'd bet a pretty high percentage), and in the 87% dual users the same question (I'd bet lower than the e cig group). Without that all you have is selection bias that could have easily been avoided, and loaded the deck to miss that basic question. It is in fact the very first question required, as it would split the group and assure that things like dual use, e cig preferences, and satisfaction apply to the correct population, not just anyone deciding to mess around with an e cig without a strong motivation to quit smoking.

 

[Kent C]

Hi Kent,

Apologies, perhaps I didn't make it clear. The 87% is from Kasza et al., which is an analysis of the first wave of P.A.T.H data. It's what Jonathan Foulds was reporting at the Summit, and is where Bonnie got her figure from.

So, this figure is the proportion of e-cigarette "users" that also use another tobacco product (i.e. who don't use e-cigarette users exclusively). In other words, P.A.T.H data shows that of all people who used an e-cigarette in 2013/2014, 87% also used another tobacco product (mostly cigarettes). The corollary is that ~13% only used e-cigarettes. I think this is quite an important thing to emphasize!

P.A.T.H is a massive population-wide tobacco study. The initial funding was $120m (!). I think the 87% can be trusted to be accurate across all forms of vape, in so far as it's measuring what it purports to measure. But that's kind of the point about the rest of our essay - what is it really measuring? In any case, it covers the e-cig/vape divide.

The Kasza study certainly does not state that they "still smoke as much as they always did", and I don't believe Foulds stated that at the Summit, and Amelia didn't remember hearing him say that. I don't know where Bonnie got that from.

Ok. I haven't been following things as much as I used to, but in looking up PATH - this is a group of vaping enemies (Kasza, Goniewicz, et al) closely associated with the FDA, Roswell group, all the 3 and 4 letter agencies - likely backed by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

VapingPost reports part of my concern:
"Some experts are afraid the PATH study may not be able to capture crucial details about the use of electronic cigarettes, vapor tanks and other devices as tastes and technology are evolving so rapidly. They can be reassured, an expert view already noticed from the earliest results, without going into the details of the whole dataset, that the published studies assimilating a 30-day use as a regular use of e-cigarette are misleading."

I would hope Bonnie Herzog would edit her comments.....