Vaping and the immune system?

[MacTechVpr]

CB in all fairness if the author had not aligned her premature results with the AAAS or evidently with the FDA your position would seem more valid to me. Not being the case, it's one more pilin' on as far as I can reasonably see it (so far). And that is the risk that is offensive to me. The politicalization of the science which is vital to us is also an attack on our we'll being as a community. That we should have to dig down to such levels of scrutiny. It makes our task as individuals of evaluating risk far more difficult. I remain as equally skeptical as to the advantages of vaping as for the manipulations of institution to denigrate or offset them. Have to, my life depends upon it.

Good luck all, really.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I don't have the resources to summon peer review and more studies. What might do you suggest, Mac?

I'll get back to you on this CB if/as I have to to access. I'd love to see whatever formal finding is published. This particular study is of interest to me for a number of reasons. You take care.

Good luck.

 

[pennysmalls]

It seems to me that folks here are grasping at straws trying to find something wrong with the process of the study. Apparently there is a difference in what the study is finding and what many would like to believe. Is it that 'we just have to find something wrong here?' ...and a bit of cherry-picking in the approach.

I really don't know enough about the process of the study and procedures of research to criticize anything about it, nor do I feel a compelling need to. I do know enough to say I have developed an uncharacteristic autoimmune disease since taking up vaping.

Anybody can raise questions or criticize a matter, but who here is truly qualified to critique the matter? If you are, please list those qualifications. Does someone have lengthy experience in doctorate level research?

And let's leave out the post-modern playing of the victim card. "They're picking on us!"

Perhaps this study brings forth what is an inconvenient truth.

I'm not qualified to critique the matter but I can tell you that back in 2010 when I first began experiencing my symptoms I went into hyperdrive researching the various autoimmune diseases. From medical journals down to personal discussion with other people, and everything in between, I read it all. They all have one thing in common, no one understands what triggers them or why one disease will affect one subset or population more than another. One disease will affect African americans more than whites and another will affect whites more than Asians. Yet another will only affect Asians. One disease will affect children more than adults and another will do the opposite. Science has been able to hone in on which genes will show changes but not why. And one disease will "act" completely different from one person to the next.

In RA the standard blood test looks for a protein in the blood that attacks healthy tissue and if that test comes back negative then no RA or so patients were told for many years. Yet later, seronegative diagnosis's of RA started showing up, classic symptoms but no protein detected in the blood. So for some of these disease's blood tests themselves have become unreliable for help in diagnosis. That is what happened to me. No protein in my blood yet swollen painful joints were present and obvious. My right index finger has been swollen for 5 1/2 years. My rheumatologist stated it's most likely RA but hard to tell for sure because lots of these diseases have over lapping symptoms. Xrays will show damage from RA but that takes time, years in some cases so even radiology can't always help. My eyes were the next targets but once again another overlapping symptom, no diagnosis due to uncertainty.

So through my personal journey and from everything I've read over the years I've learned that pretty much nothing is understood about these disease. No firm protocols for diagnosis in several of them, no concrete information for disease progression and certainly no clues as to their causes. Knowing what proteins and genes and antibodies end up getting affected from the disease is not the same as knowing why they're affected. So for me, reading this article, my BS detector went into overdrive. I get angry when I read something like this because nothing is understood in the autoimmune world yet these people want to claim they know something after a few months of study on vapor products? Very suspect to me and down right insulting and arrogant too.

 

[Lessifer]

It seems to me that folks here are grasping at straws trying to find something wrong with the process of the study. Apparently there is a difference in what the study is finding and what many would like to believe. Is it that 'we just have to find something wrong here?' ...and a bit of cherry-picking in the approach.

I really don't know enough about the process of the study and procedures of research to criticize anything about it, nor do I feel a compelling need to. I do know enough to say I have developed an uncharacteristic autoimmune disease since taking up vaping.

Anybody can raise questions or criticize a matter, but who here is truly qualified to critique the matter? If you are, please list those qualifications. Does someone have lengthy experience in doctorate level research?

And let's leave out the post-modern playing of the victim card. "They're picking on us!"

Perhaps this study brings forth what is an inconvenient truth.

As I said before, I'm not saying these researchers are wrong. I'm saying that we don't even know exactly what it is they are saying. We're being given conclusions without even knowing what they were looking for, or how they were looking for it. It's too early in the process for this one. However, the researchers decided to send out a press release discussing the conclusions of a study that, from what anyone can tell, hasn't actually been performed yet.

 

[skoony]

It seems to me that folks here are grasping at straws trying to find something wrong with the process of the study. Apparently there is a difference in what the study is finding and what many would like to believe. Is it that 'we just have to find something wrong here?' ...and a bit of cherry-picking in the approach.

Speaking for myself although I do believe others here may feel the same way
way, there may be disagreements and different opinions. I would hardly call
it grasping for straws.
I have been a member here for over two years. I have found a ton of good
information to help me along my way. I also became aware of the social and
and political firestorm brewing against vaping. For the last half year I have been
intently following the politics and science behind this modern day witch hunt.
I have read study after study,post after post and,listened seriously to the
comments of those in these forums. Now after having a chance to form my
own opinions I will tell you quite frankly I'm not shy about sharing them.
My opinion concerning this article is simple. It doesn't pass the smell test.
It reeks. At first I couldn't figure it out as I am no scientist nor have had
any practical training nor interest prior to when I quit smoking. Something
didn't seem right though. Then it dawned on me. It was what they didn't
say.
Hear me out on this. They took samples from the nose,blood, and I can't
remember what else off hand but, the only findings they choose to highlight
as significant were the muted DNA markers found in the nose. About then
I could start smelling the coffee. The nose. What about the nose? It's two
holes we use to filter the air we breathe. Filter. What does a filter do?
I am going to take a wild guess and say it removes stuff from the air
we breathe. Now I know whats cooking. Basically if you are looking for
garbage at the dump you are going to find a lot of it. Having not explained
their methodology and how environmental factors such as how ones
own dead skin cells were accounted for or,how they managed to get
DNA from cells only exposed to the test medium alone is a big red
flag to me. If you take the apparent lack of any mention of things
that may have been found say in the blood you begin to wonder
whom is grasping at straws. They may in the future account for all
of this. We shall see.

From what the article related to the public it can only be assumed
it's a drive by FUDDING of the collective psyche. Some actual
definitive info would be a breath of fresh air.
IMHO of course.
Time for a breather Regards,
Mike

 

[pennysmalls]

Another thing that is highly suspect to me is why test vapor products? These diseases have been around forever so the causes have already been around forever too, whatever the causes may be. Why the need to rule out vapor products? This brings to mind the breast implant scare for me.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

I'm not sure I understand the references to 'press release.' It is unclear to me exactly how the results became generally available.

I definitely don't understand the references to 'premature results,' because the processes of doctorate level research, symposia, AAAS, etc. are all outside of my realm of experience and understanding along with the thoughts of my first paragraph. As well, as it seems to be an ongoing study, might the expression 'preliminary results' just as well apply as far as we know?

I have no quibble with the notions that changes in genes were found in higher prevalence in vapers than others, and “The gene expression changes we’re seeing are consistent with a modified immune response.”

 

[Lessifer]

I'm not sure I understand the references to 'press release.' It is unclear to me exactly how the results became generally available.

I definitely don't understand the references to 'premature results,' because the processes of doctorate level research, symposia, AAAS, etc. are all outside of my realm of experience and understanding along with the thoughts of my first paragraph. As well, as it seems to be an ongoing study, might the expression 'preliminary results' just as well apply as far as we know?

I have no quibble with the notions that changes in genes were found in higher prevalence in vapers than others, and “The gene expression changes we’re seeing are consistent with a modified immune response.”

This is a long read, but does a good job of covering the scientific process and how you should approach new information.
Understanding scientific studies (EUFIC)

 

[Cool_Breeze]

This is a long read, but does a good job of covering the scientific process and how you should approach new information.
Understanding scientific studies (EUFIC)

Were I to read that, would I come to an understanding that Ilona Jaspers erred by presenting her findings at the AAAS symposium? Was something wrong in the science news oriented media picking up on the findings and publishing them?

 

[Lessifer]

Were I to read that, would I come to an understanding that Ilona Jaspers erred by presenting her findings at the AAAS symposium?

No, presenting at the symposium is part of the process. There isn't an "error," it's more of the state of public health research and the reporting of public health research.

This appears to be what has happened so far, with this particular bit of information:
1. The researchers had an idea.
2. To determine whether or not this is a fruitful avenue of investigation, they performed a preliminary study. One with very limited scope, meaning very few subjects, and not well defined parameters.
3. They believe the results of the preliminary study warrant further investigation.
4. They are presenting the preliminary study at this conference, where there should be a panel, and questions to refine the actual full scale study.

This is where we are right now. Hopefully the next steps that will be taken are:
5. They will design a full scale study with well defined parameters, that will be reviewed by committee.
6. They will perform the study.
7. They will write up the study, including hypothesis, methodology, population data, results, conclusions.
8. The study will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal.
9. The study will be reviewed, concerns addressed.
10. The study will be published.

Then there is what SHOULD happen next:
11. Other researchers read the study, decide it is worth confirming, replicate the study.
12. The results of those replications are published.

They are at step 4 and have presented information to the media as if their hypothesis is a definite conclusion. They are careful with their words, but as we know, it is not the meat of the article that matters, it is the headline.

So who is in the wrong? Is it the researchers for sharing their hypothesis before it's confirmed? Is it the media for taking that and translating it into "ecigs will kill you?" Is it the academic arena which seems to care more about how many hits your name gets in a google search than the quality of your work?
I don't know. I do know that I will reserve judgement of the actual information attempting to be presented here, until the picture is more complete.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

No, presenting at the symposium is part of the process. There isn't an "error," it's more of the state of public health research and the reporting of public health research.

This appears to be what has happened so far, with this particular bit of information:
1. The researchers had an idea.
2. To determine whether or not this is a fruitful avenue of investigation, they performed a preliminary study. One with very limited scope, meaning very few subjects, and not well defined parameters.
3. They believe the results of the preliminary study warrant further investigation.
4. They are presenting the preliminary study at this conference, where there should be a panel, and questions to refine the actual full scale study.

This is where we are right now. Hopefully the next steps that will be taken are:
5. They will design a full scale study with well defined parameters, that will be reviewed by committee.
6. They will perform the study.
7. They will write up the study, including hypothesis, methodology, population data, results, conclusions.
8. The study will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal.
9. The study will be reviewed, concerns addressed.
10. The study will be published.

Then there is what SHOULD happen next:
11. Other researchers read the study, decide it is worth confirming, replicate the study.
12. The results of those replications are published.

They are at step 4 and have presented information to the media as if their hypothesis is a definite conclusion. They are careful with their words, but as we know, it is not the meat of the article that matters, it is the headline.

So who is in the wrong? Is it the researchers for sharing their hypothesis before it's confirmed? Is it the media for taking that and translating it into "ecigs will kill you?" Is it the academic arena which seems to care more about how many hits your name gets in a google search than the quality of your work?
I don't know. I do know that I will reserve judgement of the actual information attempting to be presented here, until the picture is more complete.

Thanks, Lessifer. I'm sure the EUFIC document is useful and interesting.

I'm tired (fatigue often accompanies RA) and didn't really feel up to making my way though "Understanding Scientific Studies" at this time, so I appreciate your digest.

 

[Lessifer]

Thanks, Lessifer. I'm sure the EUFIC document is useful and interesting.

I'm tired (fatigue often accompanies RA) and didn't really feel up to making my way though "Understanding Scientific Studies" at this time, so I appreciate your digest.

No problem. I realized it was a very long read, and it didn't directly answer your question. It was more of a "what information is missing from what we're being told" kind of thing.

It's not just this particular instance. The scientific community is having issues the last couple decades. There are articles, even from institutions like the NIH discussing the current state of scientific research. I can some if you like. In the rush to be the first to publish something, many researchers are side stepping the usual process, and the usual process is what makes science more than belief, and makes it actually applicable. One of the major problems today is irreproducability. One reason for including detailed methodology is so that another researcher can follow your method and achieve the same results, confirming your findings. Well, much of the research being performed has such sloppy methodology, or the populations are so constrained, that they cannot be reproduced.

Of course there are other issues, like the NEJM formaldehyde study, where it becomes obvious from the methodology that what the researchers found was not what they say they found, because due to their methodology they were actually observing something else altogether(dry puffs vs actual vaping).

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Thanks for the fill, Lessifer.

Then there's the media... Oh, that's a whole other topic.

 

[skoony]

I have no quibble with the notions that changes in genes were found in higher prevalence in vapers than others, and “The gene expression changes we’re seeing are consistent with a modified immune response.”

I found nothing that indicated that the genes in the DNA had changed at all.
It appears to me they are discussing the state of a gene depending on what
condition the gene was in. Correct me if I am wrong a state of being muted
does not indicate damage in any sense of the word. It's words people. What do
the words mean. The word muted in and of itself doesn't indicate harm rather than
a restriction and or natural state of idleness. The question is are the genes being
restricted to prevent them from doing their job or, are they in an idle state because
they are not needed for a task at hand?
Regards
Mike

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Gee, skooney, I dunno. I'll strike changes in genes and insert gene expression changes. Does that make things better?

What is important for me and perhaps others is whether or not evidence supporting potential harm from vaping is being found in the study in question. Please don't take that as exactly anything and exactly everything and/or my final and/or complete word. I claim limited liability for use of any word, expression, terminology, thought, phrase and/or anything else. I reserve the right to modify, retract, restate as I see fit. People attempting to interpret what I say here should consult expert council, or simply, use their own head.

 

[puffon]

I do know enough to say I have developed an uncharacteristic autoimmune disease since taking up vaping.

Just wondering if you are still vaping...

 

[Cool_Breeze]

I am.

 

[LaraC]

This is a long read, but does a good job of covering the scientific process and how you should approach new information.
Understanding scientific studies (EUFIC)

I really appreciate your posting that link, Lessifer. A very interesting, educational read.

 

[englishmick]

Deja-vu anyone?

----Finally, exposing mice to e-cig vapors increased plaque buildup, which is a sign of emerging atherosclerosis, reported Daniel Conklin of the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Cigarette smoke did too. In both cases, he noted, it appears that toxic aldehydes, such as acrolein, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, are contributors. As such, he concluded, it appears electronic cigarette vapors “could adversely impact the cardiovascular health of users.”

Maybe they should try running these experiments without the formaldehyde. From my experience with dry hits those poor mice must have gone through hell.

----Males exposed to nicotine-laced vapors showed no gene-activity changes. Among females, vapors laced with nicotine appeared to alter the activity levels of 148 genes in the brain’s frontal cortex. But among rodents exposed to nicotine-free vapors, a whopping 830 or more genes in the frontal cortex showed substantially altered activity — either much higher or lower than in unexposed mice. Here, both males and females were about equally affected.

Well I'm good then. I'm a guy and I use nicotine-laced juice so my brain should be fine. Sorry for your luck girls, you should send your vaping gear to the guys right away before your frontal cortexes go full zombie. Or cut out the dry-hitting I suppose. But I like my first idea better.

----“The challenge to science,” he says, will be to tease out: “Is this really true?” For now, he says, “We really don’t know.”

I hope they get back to us when science finishes the teasing. Maybe we could help speed up the process by sending them a link to some of the previous formaldehyde related vaping research. Then they could tweak their protocol to use something resembling actual vapor rather than the toxic waste products of burned glycerol.

Mind you, only 2 of the three scientists used formaldehyde enhanced vapor. The other one collected cells for analysis and then exposed more cells to juice. Should I be worried? I think I'll wait until they publish their results.

 

[inspects]

Deja-vu anyone?

----Finally, exposing mice to e-cig vapors increased plaque buildup, which is a sign of emerging atherosclerosis, reported Daniel Conklin of the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Cigarette smoke did too. In both cases, he noted, it appears that toxic aldehydes, such as acrolein, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, are contributors. As such, he concluded, it appears electronic cigarette vapors “could adversely impact the cardiovascular health of users.”

Maybe they should try running these experiments without the formaldehyde. From my experience with dry hits those poor mice must have gone through hell.

----Males exposed to nicotine-laced vapors showed no gene-activity changes. Among females, vapors laced with nicotine appeared to alter the activity levels of 148 genes in the brain’s frontal cortex. But among rodents exposed to nicotine-free vapors, a whopping 830 or more genes in the frontal cortex showed substantially altered activity — either much higher or lower than in unexposed mice. Here, both males and females were about equally affected.

Well I'm good then. I'm a guy and I use nicotine-laced juice so my brain should be fine. Sorry for your luck girls, you should send your vaping gear to the guys right away before your frontal cortexes go full zombie. Or cut out the dry-hitting I suppose. But I like my first idea better.

----“The challenge to science,” he says, will be to tease out: “Is this really true?” For now, he says, “We really don’t know.”

I hope they get back to us when science finishes the teasing. Maybe we could help speed up the process by sending them a link to some of the previous formaldehyde related vaping research. Then they could tweak their protocol to use something resembling actual vapor rather than the toxic waste products of burned glycerol.

Mind you, only 2 of the three scientists used formaldehyde enhanced vapor. The other one collected cells for analysis and then exposed more cells to juice. Should I be worried? I think I'll wait until they publish their results.

I understood the paper the same way...was wondering if I had misunderstood it after reading all the replies to the OP.