I agree with you in principle CB. What I protest is a lack of it. We're deluged in a sea of may's and maybe's.
Good luck.
Vaping and the immune system?
- Thread starter Chuck64
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I agree with you in principle CB. What I protest is a lack of it. We're deluged in a sea of may's and maybe's.
Good luck.
I agree with you in principle CB. What I protest is a lack of it. We're deluged in a sea of may's and maybe's.
Good luck.
I don't have the resources to summon peer review and more studies. What
Last edited:
If someone wanted to do a real study, here's an idea. Go to a vape store and find the youngsters, in their 20's, preferably never smokers. Follow them for at least 5 years and take note of any autoimmune diseases they develop. While you're at it, you might as well track how many colds and doctors visits they have while you're following them. Could be pretty boring over the 5 years, but that would give us real world information..
Last edited:
It's an avenue of study that should be followed up. My issue with something like this is, it's not actually a study. It's a press release. A press release of unconfirmed results. Without the actual study, with full methodology and data, we don't actually know anything of what they did, just what they want to tell us.
I'm not a medical researcher, but there are some oddities here.
I'm going off my memory of reading the articles last night so I may be off. Did they say more genes were suppressed in the 0 nic vapers than the nic vapers? is the nic acting to protect the genes? Other than the nic, the liquids should be identical.
I'm very surprised that all genes are suppressed and none were reported up regulated... unless they are saving the data for another publication. But this is inconsistent with other publications. Well, that's science. I wish to see the whole paper so I can make my mind about it. Nicotine itself is anti-inflammatory so most likely suppress some "immune genes". Actually, I believe that nicotine is used to treat some autoimmune syndromes... This paper seems to suggest that vapers maybe immuno-compromised, the flavors been in question. But at which extent? Is it systemic or localized to the exposed tissues? In the mean time, PG is anti-bacterial and anti-fungal, so when they see decrease uptake of bacteria by macophages and neutrophils with ejuice diluted in tissue culture media, is it because the PG actually kills them? Looking at gene expression is not enough, the results need to be confirmed at the protein levels. In the mean time, many type of food are also anti-inflammatory like some containing anti-oxidants, also available in forms of supplements in stores. These are supposed to be good for us... Not trying to dismiss the finding, just trying to be critic on a topic relevant to us. I may get my hands on the original paper someday. Thanks for posting this.
Edit just to raise an obvious caveat. Is it a direct effect on immune cells? If bacteria are directly kills by PG, the immune cells in our nose, systematically exposed to air born pathogens would have less work to do, which would explain, maybe in part, the decrease expression of "immune genes".... That's the best part in science, questioning the facts to catch potential flaws and understand further.
Edit just to raise an obvious caveat. Is it a direct effect on immune cells? If bacteria are directly kills by PG, the immune cells in our nose, systematically exposed to air born pathogens would have less work to do, which would explain, maybe in part, the decrease expression of "immune genes".... That's the best part in science, questioning the facts to catch potential flaws and understand further.
Last edited:
I don't think anything specific about nicotine levels or otherwise identical liquids was mentioned in the article. I don't recall that they were testing based on any particular e-liquid criteria. I had just thought simply non-smokers, smokers, and vapers, and not the specifics of what was consumed. If tests are to control for e-liquid constituency and levels, then the same should apply to smoking...everyone smoking the same blend, etc. I suspect all that was outside of the premise of this study. This is the first I recall of a study examining gene mutation in this context. No doubt the study concluded with something like, 'More research is needed...'
Where would one look to find 'full methodology and data' supporting the study?
I went back and checked and what I was thinking of was actually in the second article that you linked, not in the OP's article, though they're about the same researchers presenting at the same conference.
These aren't studies, these are press releases about studies that have been done, with no mention of whether or not the studies have been published in peer reviewed journals(which usually means they haven't).
This is just a guess, but seems to be what usually happens these days. They get an idea and do a "preliminary study" with very limited scope. They find a result, or sometimes manufacture a conclusion from what they observed, and then they send the word out that they've FOUND SOMETHING! That may or may not lead to a grant to perform the actual study, and we may or may not see an actual study paper at some point that would detail the hypothesis, methodology, data, and conclusions. In a press release you usually only get the hypothesis and/or conclusions.
I read the original article before coming here and had the same questions, through the comments and i believe subsequent update to the article the study is currently unpublished. It is my understanding the press release is about a presentation at a conference about a study that is yet to be published or peer reviewed.
I could be wrong, but I believe that is an abstract of their presentation at the conference. Reading it gives me the impression that they have not conducted the formal studies yet.
That is indeed the presentation abstract, not sure about the study itself other than it is not currently published.
"They also obtained nasal lavage fluid, urine, and blood samples from participants to study the changes in genetic and proteomic markers of tobacco and nicotine exposure, as well as other markers of inflammation or immune responses."
Put that in your e-cigarette and smoke it, or should you? — News Room - UNC Health Care
Put that in your e-cigarette and smoke it, or should you? — News Room - UNC Health Care
This wording makes me think they haven't "Using translational human in vitro and in vivo approaches, our studies will ascertain whether exposure to e-cigs, with a specific focus on cinnamon-flavored e-liquids/e-cigs, have immune suppressive effects on the respiratory mucosa."
They may actually be doing what is SOP for studies like this, presenting the idea and preliminary findings, opening themselves up to comments and critiques from other researchers, to better design the study. The "problem" arises when they put out a press release suggesting something that they currently don't have evidence for.
One might Google, "Ilona Jaspers, University of North Carolina ecigs" for further...
I did, and I find a bunch of articles referencing the same thing, but not one mention of where this "study" is published. If you find something else, I would love to read it.
If it doesn't have a methodology and data/results section, it's not the actual study.
Thank you for catching that! I tried to get an actual peer-reviewed paper on that topic in Pubmed, but nothing comes out... I guess we call that delusional or confabulate science...
Actually, I found one paper that claims the opposit... lol
Last edited:
To clarify, I am not saying that there is nothing to see here. I am saying that we don't actually know what we're looking at, because we're being shown specifically what someone wants us to see. That is not how science works.
Correction, that is not how good science works.
Correction, that is not how good science works.
I have no idea of what the process may be for making (ongoing?) research methodology and data available to the public.
It's usually not available. However, you don't normally see researchers issuing press releases with conclusions that are not supported by an actual study that is available, outside of public health. That is my problem with this.
- Status
Similar threads
