E-cigarettes safety questioned

[MoralFibre]

from...
E-cigarettes safety questioned - Life & Style - NZ Herald News

What's the real deal on this new research ???

quoted article...
"
Using e-cigarettes is no safer than smoking tobacco with nicotine, scientists warned after finding the vapour damages dna and could cause cancer.

Researchers at the University of California created an extract from the "smoke" of e-cigarettes and used it to treat human cells in a laboratory.

The exposed cells developed dna damage and died far sooner than untreated ones.

Nicotine-free e-cigarettes caused 50 per cent more DNA strand breaks; for those with nicotine, the damage rose three-fold in eight weeks.

Dr Jessica Wang-Rodriguez, professor of pathology at the university in San Diego, said: "Our study strongly suggests that electronic cigarettes are not as safe as their marketing makes them appear. E-cigarettes on the whole have something to do with increased cell death. Based on the evidence to date I believe they are no better than smoking."

Public Health England says "vaping" is far safer but the World Health Organisation remains concerned. The study used normal epithelial cells, which line organs, glands and cavities such as the lungs.

Ones exposed to the vapour showed forms of damage.

The team tested two types of each e-cigarette: nicotine ones caused most damage but vapour from nicotine-free versions was still enough to alter cells.

Scientists know of some troubling chemicals in the products such as formaldehyde, a carcinogen.
"

The research was published in the Journal of Oncology.

 

[curiousJan]

Cell harm seen in lab tests of e-cigarettes...

 

[casey jobe]

from...
E-cigarettes safety questioned - Life & Style - NZ Herald News

What's the real deal on this new research ???

quoted article...
"
Using e-cigarettes is no safer than smoking tobacco with nicotine, scientists warned after finding the vapour damages DNA and could cause cancer.

Researchers at the University of California created an extract from the "smoke" of e-cigarettes and used it to treat human cells in a laboratory.

The exposed cells developed DNA damage and died far sooner than untreated ones.

Nicotine-free e-cigarettes caused 50 per cent more DNA strand breaks; for those with nicotine, the damage rose three-fold in eight weeks.

Dr Jessica Wang-Rodriguez, professor of pathology at the university in San Diego, said: "Our study strongly suggests that electronic cigarettes are not as safe as their marketing makes them appear. E-cigarettes on the whole have something to do with increased cell death. Based on the evidence to date I believe they are no better than smoking."

Public Health England says "vaping" is far safer but the World Health Organisation remains concerned. The study used normal epithelial cells, which line organs, glands and cavities such as the lungs.

Ones exposed to the vapour showed forms of damage.

The team tested two types of each e-cigarette: nicotine ones caused most damage but vapour from nicotine-free versions was still enough to alter cells.

Scientists know of some troubling chemicals in the products such as formaldehyde, a carcinogen.
"

The research was published in the Journal of Oncology.

I know a lot of white knights will stand to defend every single bit of "research" that is provided, but the fact is not everyone of these articles are "lol big tobacco". Vaping is going to cause damage, nothing you put into your lungs is healthy. Hell, PG alone isn't as harmless as a lot of people say it is, I gave vaping up about 2 months ago and I feel so much better it's ridiculous, I know everyone is different but I legitimately feel better. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that vaping isn't safe. Better than cigs? Oh hell yeah, but that's not saying much. If it's between the 2 and you can't quit, go with vaping, but I have never had an issue quitting smoking, it was a joke as a matter of fact...vaping just tasted good and was convenient. Exercise and eating healthy can definitely help you with cravings if you don't feel comfortable vaping.

 

[MoralFibre]

Well I'm very pleased to announce, I found this rebuttal....

from:
No, there's still no evidence e-cigarettes are as harmful as smoking

"
Professor Linda Bauld unpicks recent headlines around a study looking at the impact of e-cigarette vapour on human cells, and finds little support for the claim that they’re as harmful as smoking
..
Just under a year ago, I wrote a response to an article by a journalist who claimed there was no evidence that vaping is less harmful than smoking. Since then, many new studies have been published, including a Cochrane review showing their promise for aiding smoking cessation, and a comprehensive review for Public Health England that concluded, as previous reports have done, that e-cigarettes were significantly safer to users than continuing to smoke.

Yet the debate in the media rages on, fuelled in part by misleading press releases from journals and academics. The latest example involves a study published online in the journal Oral Oncology in November, but press released just this week, at a time when many smokers are making new year resolutions to stop smoking. The press release cited the lead author who concluded that ‘based on the evidence to date, I believe that [e-cigarettes] are no better than smoking regular cigarettes’.

So what did the study involve? A team who specialised in studying head and neck cancer conducted a lab study that exposed human epithelial cells (the type that line the mouth and lungs) in Petri dishes to the vapour from two brands of e-cigarettes. The cells were treated with e-cigarette extract every three days for up to eight weeks, with some of the extract containing nicotine and some being nicotine-free.

At the end of the treatment period, the cells were harvested and examined for damage using established methods. The treated cells were more likely to show DNA damage, and some of the cells died. The authors highlight in the press release that DNA strand breaks were observed, damaging the cellular repair process, and that this can ‘set the stage for cancer’. Worse damage was observed in the cells exposed to the e-liquid that contained nicotine, but the nicotine free liquid also altered the cells.

In vitro studies like this are useful for examining how certain substances can affect cell growth and repair, but they can’t show what actually happens to cells in the human body under ‘real world’ conditions. For example, one of the main constituents in electronic cigarette liquid is propylene glycol, which has been shown in In vitro studies to have toxic effects and to damage cells. Yet propylene glycol is widely used in a range of products including those we consume such as cough syrup, asthma inhalers and the ‘fog’ (sometimes called ‘dry ice’) used in theatrical productions.

Yet the key issue for this current study of e-cigarettes is not whether extensive and prolonged exposure to e-liquid vapour (of a duration and intensity that wouldn’t occur in human use) changes human cells, but rather what the e-liquid was compared to, and what this can tell us about the relative harm of tobacco smoking compared with e-cigarette use. The authors claim their study shows that e-cigarettes are no safer than tobacco, and experienced science editors in newspapers were quick to reproduce these claims without careful scrutiny of the original article.

In reality this study tells us little or nothing about the safety of e-cigarettes compared to smoking. The main results in the study compare e-liquid treated cells with completely untreated cells, and show more damage to those exposed to e-liquid vapour.

In only one small part of the article, not covered in the press release and not picked up by the media, do the authors mention that they also exposed some cells to tobacco smoke, using media from Marlboro Red filter cigarettes. Yet the authors could not directly compare the cigarette and e-cigarette treated cells, because the cigarette treated samples all died within 24 hours. Cigarette smoke was so toxic that the cells did not survive beyond this short period, whereas the e-cigarette cell lines were topped up with e-liquid every three days, and the testing continued for several weeks.

It is possible that the authors originally set out to directly compare cell response between cigarette and e-cigarette treated cells but were unable to because of the high toxicity of tobacco smoke. All they were left with was to examine the absolute (rather than relative) risk of e-liquid on cells. Indeed an alternative headline for the press release, as a colleague from a cancer charity has already pointed out, could have been ‘cells can survive for 8 weeks in e-cig liquid but only 24 hours in cigarette extract’. In other words, if we compare e-cigarette vapour with fresh air we find the presence of some toxicants, UK and USA has shown that smokers increasingly believe that these alternatives to tobacco are just as harmful as cigarettes . Studies like this one and media hype about their results contributes to this misperception. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people suffer and die prematurely each year in the UK from cancer, heart disease and other conditions directly linked to smoking. Electronic cigarettes offer one possible escape route. Researchers and journalists need to stop blocking the exit.

Linda Bauld is Professor of Health Policy at the University of Stirling, Deputy Director of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies.and holds theCRUK/BUPA Chair in Behavioural Research for Cancer Prevention at Cancer Research UK . She is a former scientific adviser on tobacco control to the UK government and chaired the NICE guidance group on tobacco harm reduction.
"

 

[sofarsogood]

Plenty of research has been done on ecigs since they first appeared. The safe thing to say is it's lower risk than smoking. How much lower? Probably a lot lower. It's also a lot less expensive and that's my favorite part. Bill Godshell who posts on this forum gathered links to a lot of the research done over the years into the long document below. I read all the text yesterday and followed a few of the links. Lots and lot of links to follow.

 

[MoralFibre]

Good stuff. Cheers.

 

[BigEgo]

As Farsilinos says, cell studies should mostly be ignored because there's so many variables involved and because cells aren't people. The real evidence will come from real life human longitudinal studies, but those take decades.

 

[albert zegiel]

this was i thought .. the key to the article, so i think it needed to be posted again by itself so it is not missed yet again.. (added below)

Plus i would add that the cells where doused or treated, where it is a vapor we use, most of which is not absorbed but exhaled, and i have read that in the case at least of the evil "NIC", given the same amount in a delivery or drag between vapor and cigs, less is absorbed from vaping than the cig.. so,.. how may that change the so called survival of the cells?

Al.
...................................................
In only one small part of the article, not covered in the press release and not picked up by the media, do the authors mention that they also exposed some cells to tobacco smoke, using media from Marlboro Red filter cigarettes. Yet the authors could not directly compare the cigarette and e-cigarette treated cells, because the cigarette treated samples all died within 24 hours. Cigarette smoke was so toxic that the cells did not survive beyond this short period, whereas the e-cigarette cell lines were topped up with e-liquid every three days, and the testing continued for several weeks.

It is possible that the authors originally set out to directly compare cell response between cigarette and e-cigarette treated cells but were unable to because of the high toxicity of tobacco smoke. All they were left with was to examine the absolute (rather than relative) risk of e-liquid on cells. Indeed an alternative headline for the press release, as a colleague from a cancer charity has already pointed out, could have been ‘cells can survive for 8 weeks in e-cig liquid but only 24 hours in cigarette extract’.

 

[TheotherSteveS]

this was i thought .. the key to the article, so i think it needed to be posted again by itself so it is not missed yet again.. (added below)

Plus i would add that the cells where doused or treated, where it is a vapor we use, most of which is not absorbed but exhaled, and i have read that in the case at least of the evil "NIC", given the same amount in a delivery or drag between vapor and cigs, less is absorbed from vaping than the cig.. so,.. how may that change the so called survival of the cells?

Al.
...................................................
In only one small part of the article, not covered in the press release and not picked up by the media, do the authors mention that they also exposed some cells to tobacco smoke, using media from Marlboro Red filter cigarettes. Yet the authors could not directly compare the cigarette and e-cigarette treated cells, because the cigarette treated samples all died within 24 hours. Cigarette smoke was so toxic that the cells did not survive beyond this short period, whereas the e-cigarette cell lines were topped up with e-liquid every three days, and the testing continued for several weeks.

It is possible that the authors originally set out to directly compare cell response between cigarette and e-cigarette treated cells but were unable to because of the high toxicity of tobacco smoke. All they were left with was to examine the absolute (rather than relative) risk of e-liquid on cells. Indeed an alternative headline for the press release, as a colleague from a cancer charity has already pointed out, could have been ‘cells can survive for 8 weeks in e-cig liquid but only 24 hours in cigarette extract’.

One could interpret this as saying that vaping is >50 times less harmful than smoking...which is probably still and underestimate.

The other point raised by @BigEgo about the need for logitudinal studies is, of course true, but almost impossible to unless a cohort of never smokers who have taken up vaping can be assembled as the major control group (the other being never smokers who dont vape of course). Its a real problem!

Having said that, other studies would be useful such as a comparison of vaping ex-smokers vs no-vaping ex-smokers vs smokers would be valuable. These should be done!!

 

[MoralFibre]

Yep, probably 1,000 times safer might be a better estimate.

 

[TheotherSteveS]

Yep, probably 1,000 times safer might be a better estimate.

Well if a collection of medics and other experts state in the PHE document that they are 95% safer than cigs, you can bet your rear end that there is a comfortable margin of safety built in to that statistic, probably a factor of 10 or even more. These people are, quite correctly, not going to expose themselves by say its safer than it is. The best way is to add a bit of extra risk estimate on top of the real to cover themselves! I work in the biomedical arena as a research scientist, and I know this is the case. I even do it myself in other contexts!