Testing: What else is needed and how much will it cost?

[riddle80]

Hi everyone,

From what I gather, there are still tests that are yet to be performed on e-smoking. I read in one thread on here that we need these tests to prove our case if government/FDA/big corps tries to shut it down. Also, to have accurate information for the media and new vapors to obtain as well. We still need studies on "2nd hand vapor" and the effects of the vapor to the person inhaling it correct?. What else needs to be tested? How much would these studies cost?

It looks like it's been a rough go trying to find funding for these tests as it's not regulated by anyone. What about suppliers getting together and giving a percentage of profits and have someone perform non bias testing? Maybe having a Paypal donation for the same tests here on the site? I don't know if this would fly, but it's worth a mention. If everyone gets there heads together I bet we could come up with some great ideas to get the info we need. I'd dish out money if it could help save these from getting banned in the future!

I don't have a clue who would be best to actually perform such testing or how much it would cost. I'm just trying to figure out if there's a solution to this issue. I'd love to tell people this is safe and have facts to back it up .

I'm not really worried about the tests (if and when they are performed). Nothing could be worse than those horrible analogs I was constantly puffing on before. My aunt passed away this year after lung cancer and COPD and I only wish I would of known about these sooner as they could of gave her a few more years. I just hope e-cigs continue to be affordable and available so I don't end up where she did. As much as I hate cigarettes, I'm terribly addicted and have struggled for a long time to quit. This could improve and save lives, and I think it's something that deserves some decent unbias testing.

Thoughts and comments appreciated!

 

[dc2k08]

PA-07-174: Testing Tobacco Products Promoted to Reduce Harm (R01)

Check that out. It is the opportunity to apply for a grant put out by the NIH as part of a plan "to stimulate multidisciplinary research on potential reduced-exposure tobacco products, both smoked and smokeless, through the interplay of basic, biological, and behavioral research, surveillance, and epidemiology"

Basically, they are accepting applications for a grant that will fund a study proposed by an eligible candidate that will test whether tobacco products that are being marketed as being safer, are in fact safer. It was deleted before, but was put back up at another URL.

You might think that they would never fund a study on electronic cigarettes on the grounds that they do not contain tobacco. but it is my opinion that they would. electronic cigarettes after all been described by a South Korean health official as "falling under the category of tobacco prescribed in the Tobacco Business Act", while a Bahrain health minister has also said of them "As far as we are concerned, these are cigarettes and should be treated as such"

We might be able to use these qualifications to our advantage, but what we need to do is find an organisation, whether it is a college or something similar that is willing to do the tests and help in filling out the application. The NIH are accepting proposals from any country, in other words, the organisation where the tests are proposed to be carried out does not have to be located in America.

 

[TropicalBob]

DC and I have a friendly disagreement on whether e-smoking would fall under this grant. Given all of the publicity about smokeless products, this study is aimed at snuff, snus and chew -- all tobacco products said to be "harm reduction".

Doesn't hurt to apply. Just don't expect anyone to know what you're talking about or approve a non-tobacco harm reduction, any more than they would a study of hypnosis, candy cigs or thumb-sucking.

 

[dc2k08]

there is the chance of course that a grant would be denied on the grounds that electronic cigarettes cannot be defined as a tobacco product but this has not stopped the two fore mentioned countries from classing them as such.

maybe if an application came from one of these countries, it would increase the success of it winning the grant, that is to say unless this has only been set up to fund a witch hunt against smokeless tobacco products like the ones you mentioned.

I should really write to them and put the question to them in brief before I go finding an organisation that would be willing to do the study though.

 

[TropicalBob]

Good idea. Nothing really to lose. It would be great if a grant could finance such a study of e-smoking.

 

[jackie_UK]

riddle_80, I thoroughly agree with your post.
Like you, I am (or was) totally addicted to cigarette smoking. Truth to tell, I still smoke about 10 analogue cigs a day - but that's nothing compared to what I HAVE been smoking for umpteen years. My last 5 weeks, since discovering e-cigs, have been amazing.

There must be some university department in the world that's looking for funding projects where there might even be funding available. But even without that, we need all the tests we can get, starting with e-liquid (obviously).

It makes me mad when I read media coverage of e-smoking and they so obviously haven't got a clue what they're talking about. You would think they'd do a bit of research before they condemn e-cigs out of hand. They need to know that many, many of us e-smokers are VERY concerned about the Health and Safety aspects, but more than willing to support any testing that can be done. The suppliers seem to be in favour of testing (if this forum is anything to go by) and that's SURELY a good sign, as they are the ones with a lot to lose. They are to be applauded.

I don't like to think of e-cigs as being dangerous, but I guess anything that gets you to inhale ANY vapour that isn't just water must have inherent dangers - although less problematic than analogue cigarettes.

I for one would be willing to make a donation to proper testing as I want to continue e-smoking safely. Is it too fanciful to suggest that we might pay a nominal extra amount of money to our suppliers each time we make a purchase ? If suppliers could organise the 'donations' and then pass them on to a central 'Testing Fund', would that work ? Mind, I am talking here without an understanding of how much it would actually cost to test a) e-liquid and b) the wider issues of e-smoking (e.g. second-hand vapour, nicotine levels etc.)

Just a thought. It's brilliant that so many on this forum are sensible and appreciate that the future of e-smoking could well be tied up in the testing that needs to take place just as soon as it possibly can.

 

[TropicalBob]

Please put aside any idea of funding a test. These tests simply must be done by manufacturers; the legality of their products hangs in the balance. Testing is complicated, time-consuming and expensive.

At present, a 12-month clinical trial (very big deal TEST) is being completed in New Zealand. It was done by Health New Zealand and funded by Ruyan, the originator of e-smoking devices. The results apply exclusively to Ruyan products. It's not enough to say "we do the same." The results are for Ruyan's use.

Dr. Jim Loi in Malaysia has been testing e-smoking for more than six months, on more than 300 of his clinic's patients. The government tried once to quash him -- and pretty well stymied his testing. But he soldiers on. He will let us know if any red alarms go off. So far, so good. In both New Zealand and Malaysia.

Liquid makers have submitted liquids for independent lab tests and some have published results. No contamination has been found. Some changes in liquid composition have been suggested.

Understand that e-smoking is so new that long-term tests haven't been done. Long-term means longer than we've been e-smoking. WE ARE THE GUINEA PIGS. There's no other way to say it. But read the "germ-killing vapor" thread and rest assured that what we're doing might actually be healthy.

What we must worry about is some cost-cutter in China putting junk in our liquid (Big Lots in the U.S. today recalled chocolate made in China because it contained melamine -- after all the horrors of dog food and baby formula!). Greed is God, I guess. And as the economy staggers, he's getting more appealing and powerful.

 

[mothakaf]

riddle_80, I thoroughly agree with your post.
Like you, I am (or was) totally addicted to cigarette smoking. Truth to tell, I still smoke about 10 analogue cigs a day - but that's nothing compared to what I HAVE been smoking for umpteen years. My last 5 weeks, since discovering e-cigs, have been amazing.

There must be some university department in the world that's looking for funding projects where there might even be funding available. But even without that, we need all the tests we can get, starting with e-liquid (obviously).

It makes me mad when I read media coverage of e-smoking and they so obviously haven't got a clue what they're talking about. You would think they'd do a bit of research before they condemn e-cigs out of hand. They need to know that many, many of us e-smokers are VERY concerned about the Health and Safety aspects, but more than willing to support any testing that can be done. The suppliers seem to be in favour of testing (if this forum is anything to go by) and that's SURELY a good sign, as they are the ones with a lot to lose. They are to be applauded.

I don't like to think of e-cigs as being dangerous, but I guess anything that gets you to inhale ANY vapour that isn't just water must have inherent dangers - although less problematic than analogue cigarettes.

I for one would be willing to make a donation to proper testing as I want to continue e-smoking safely. Is it too fanciful to suggest that we might pay a nominal extra amount of money to our suppliers each time we make a purchase ? If suppliers could organise the 'donations' and then pass them on to a central 'Testing Fund', would that work ? Mind, I am talking here without an understanding of how much it would actually cost to test a) e-liquid and b) the wider issues of e-smoking (e.g. second-hand vapour, nicotine levels etc.)

Just a thought. It's brilliant that so many on this forum are sensible and appreciate that the future of e-smoking could well be tied up in the testing that needs to take place just as soon as it possibly can.

How much mini electronic cigarette does cost?

 

[robw]

HOLD ON!!!

Right now there is no regulation on these things, so why open a can of worms for everyone.

The FDA can not do a thing if no one complains.

If you ask for an investigation you can come out on the wrong end if you do it wrong.

 

[jackie_UK]

How much mini electronic cigarette does cost?

mothakaf - I'm sorry, I have no idea how much electronic cigarettes cost in Egypt. I don't even know if they are for sale in your country.
Can I suggest that you might 'Google' 'e-cigarettes' and see what you come up with ?
I paid £26 (26 British pounds) for my starter kit and then I have added on juices and extra bits and pieces. It is working out MUCH cheaper than cigarettes over time, as ordinary cigarettes cost a lot in the UK.
Hope you have some luck !

 

[Kate]

HOLD ON!!!

Right now there is no regulation on these things, so why open a can of worms for everyone.

The FDA can not do a thing if no one complains.

If you ask for an investigation you can come out on the wrong end if you do it wrong.

I don't think anyone is proposing an investigation by authorities or regulators but are hoping for research and trials by academics and medics.

We may want to dodge the regulators for now but it's in all our best interests to have esmoking studied.

Eventually, studies could save us from the regulators.

 

[TropicalBob]

Mothakaf, please look through a forum for an appropriate thread to post to. This is NOT a thread about how much e-cigarettes cost and ruins the thread. You can find costs in the review section. You can find costs by Googling the question. Or going to eBay and typing "electronic cigarettes." Please post appropriately if you contribute here.

 

[riddle80]

I don't think anyone is proposing an investigation by authorities or regulators but are hoping for research and trials by academics and medics.

We may want to dodge the regulators for now but it's in all our best interests to have esmoking studied.

Eventually, studies could save us from the regulators.

Exactly Kate . It seems as if we're walking a tightrope now and I don't like the feeling. It really is the manufacturers responsibility, but they aren't required to do these tests. The people on this forum seem very passionate about e-smoking and I thought maybe we could find ways to protect it instead of keeping our fingers crossed. Also, by waiting we could see the testing done by people/companies with ulterior motives against e-smoking and we wouldn't have any evidence to contradict it if it were conflicting.

 

[Kate]

I've been looking into research a bit and have made a contact, Amanda, at the National Institute for Health Research in the UK. NIHR HTA programme : Home She said she would look into the possibilities for us and would visit us on the forum to discuss ways to set some research up.

At the moment not much seems to be happening but at least the word is out in the UK and things might slowly start to move.

I think there is more chance of getting somewhere if we do something locally as well as collaborate internationally. If I hear of research opportunities in the US I'll mention it here. All I did was to email a few places that co-ordinate studies to try to generate some interest. Nothing might come of it but it's only cost a little bit of time.

 

[TropicalBob]

It's always "follow the money."

The people who stand to profit from marketing these are the people who should invest in research to be certain the products they market are safe and effective. I'm so pleased that Ruyan is underwriting the New Zealand research, even though some embittered types won't accept the clinical trial results because Ruyan financed them.

I tried to plant a seed with Dr. Brad Rodu, the "harm reduction" guy, when I exchanged emails with him in preparation for an article I wrote. Right now, the Big Money bets are on smokeless products (snus, dissolvables, etc) as ones repentant smokers will turn to. We think otherwise, of course. We think e-smoking warrants study.

Do understand that our potential foes have bottomless pockets. How much could Big Pharmaceutical, Big Tobacco or Big Smoking Foes afford to spend to send these Chinese products back to within the borders of China? Limitless, if they want to. We have already put our trust and dollars in manufacturers. They can repay us by conducting needed studies.

 

[Kate]

The genie is out of the bottle now, it can't be uninvented and we know esmoking is a good thing, there's no way to cover it up. We might face opposition and setbacks but tobacco burning will eventually be displaced and esmoking has a role to play in doing that.

It's a long, uphill trek but eventually we'll get esmoking tested and accepted.

 

[TropicalBob]

I wish I were certain enough to make that last statement, Kate. I'm not. I could spell out 10 hair-raising reasons to ban e-smoking right now. We all know those reasons. Sure, we know what we're doing (and accept the unknown risks) -- but will authority continue to allow us to do it? I don't think that's at all a foregone conclusion.

In fact, I fear it's only a matter of time before the opposite happens. Do you really see the authorities taking a good look at our liquids and saying, "What the hell, let 'em through like they are."?

Big changes lie ahead. Genie is in for a makeover and we may not be satisfied with the results.

 

[jackie_UK]

I'd be interested in the 10 good reasons, TropicalBob. I mean that in the nicest way - I don't want to sound as if I'm questioning your statement or anything: it's just that, being fairly new to e-smoking, I want to learn as much as I can about them, and you seemed very well informed.

If the 10 'problems' about e-smoking are identified, we may be able to clarify exactly where research needs to be targeted - whether it be chemical based and/or the social aspects of e-smoking. And we on this forum, I would suggest, could do with having a shared understanding of the issues needing to be addressed. We can't really assume that 'everyone knows the risks', or that everyone will identify the same risks.

Many people on this thread appear to be seeing research as a 'threat' to e-smoking (especially commercially), but looking at it positively, research also has the potential to legitimise e-smoking and maybe save a few lives (ours).

The more we understand and agree about what we are investing our time, money and health in, the better. Maybe TropicalBob's list of 10 bad things about e-smoking would be a good starting place to getting that shared understanding.

 

[TropicalBob]

Let's not call these Tropical Bob's reasons. And remember that I was asked to spell it out. They're the reasons e-smoking will be sharply criticized and perhaps banned by regulators:

1. They might appeal to young people. You'll always hear this first. What we do NOT want is e-smoking to become cool. Any move to "bling" status is a death warrant. The sharper looking the devices, the worse. If e-smoking catches on with the young, our movement is history. Partying college kids should smoke Marlboros.

2. Our liquid is poison. Deadly, deadly poison. A half-thimble full would kill a child. Ditto a pet. A thimble would kill an adult. Where can anyone so easily buy such a deadly liquid, that neither tastes nor smells awful? In what country will you read of the poisoning of a child playing "tea party" or a spouse killed by e-liquid being mixed with salad dressing for supper?

3. Our liquid is not property labeled. It should state ingredients, be labeled as poison so first responders know what it is, have an expiration date, instructions for storage, child-proof caps and a pressure relief system for international air transportation (it leaks in flight).

4. Our devices can be triggered by pressure differences. Air blowing over a penstyle will trigger atomizer activation. Same happens when pressure drops occur. Many have arrived burned out or hot after flight transportation. These are hazardous cargo and should never be shipped in a connected form. Yet some are.

5. Cuban tobacco is the source of the tobacco flavor and nicotine in some cartridges. China-Cuba. Communist trade partners. Duh. This is true. I copied to keep the Web sites that show Cuba makes the stuff, which is under a strict U.S. embargo. That liquid is not legal to sell in America. Swedish snus made from Cuban tobacco (Montecristo and Romeo y Julieta) is illegal to import into the U.S. E-liquid would be no different.

6. There is no recurring safety evaluation of devices or liquids. Do you feel comfortable sucking into your lungs something made in secret Chinese factories? Do recent melamine-for-greed poisonings bother you? The FDA recently put eight people in China. That's like one chaperon to oversee Harvard University parties. We have no assurance any part of e-smoking is safe. Our motto: "In China We Trust."

7. Claims that the devices will help "quit smoking" can be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission and manufacturers forced to produce proof. That was done with Nicowater back in 2002 and the FTC banned the liquid. Nicotine water recently made a return to market -- six years later! There is no "sell it until we know" doctrine. A ban and fine is immediate if the FTC rules against it. And there is no proof at all, anywhere in clinical trials, that e-smoking is a safe and effective way to quit smoking. Yet the seller sites still proclaim this as a way to quit. E-smoking is an alternative to tobacco cigarettes, not a way to quit.

8. It looks too much like real smoking. Well, isn't that what we want? Many do, but it confuses law enforcement sworn to prevent smoking in no-smoking areas. It will confuse airline passengers and bar patrons and sports enthusiasts in stadiums. To avoid confusion, it will be banned. So much for the "smoke anywhere" argument. False advertising .. again.

9. Since some liquid makers do not list complete ingredients (a trade secret, they say), we do not know if any ingredients have long-term carcinogenic or mutagenic properties. If even one does, the government has an obligation to protect us from its ingestion. Instant ban. We need full disclosure and extensive testing of liquids -- now.

10. This could easily be opposed, at any time, by Big Pharmaceutical and/or Big Tobacco. They are powerful forces, major contributors to campaigns, with wide-reaching influence. Big Pharma has paid millions to market its quit-smoking products. Big Tobacco has seen soaring taxes cause smokers to give up their habit/addiction. Big Pharma could demand the same extensive-expensive testing of e-smoking. Big Tobacco could demand "leveling the playing field" so all products compete equally. And Big Governments all over the world depend heavily on tobacco taxes, so they might oppose losing revenue if enough smokers move to e-smoking. They will say "we already have products available for smokers who want to get off cigarettes." Do not expect them to see the value of sending more dollars to China at the expense of American company profits and taxes paid to governments. Listen, e-smokers are a flea now. If we cause an itch, the foot that scratches us might easily kill us.

I could go on, but even one reason could be enough to trigger harsh regulation. It's already happened in some countries. It's what lies ahead for us.

 

[dc2k08]

great post Bob. I also propose 2 more, though these excuses won't be spoken of:

11. electronic cigarette sales diminish the lucrative revenue states enjoy from taxing cigarette smokers, especially in a time when many states have boosted tobacco tax to bolster their waning coffers as we slide deeper into recession. past recessions have proven that the worrying poor like to smoke and they'll be damned if these poor switch to a cheaper means and avoid paying 'the man' for the privilege.

12. electronic cigarettes might allow people to live longer. your government won't tell you this to your face, but the only kind of old people they like are dead old people. cigarettes work as a fantastic population control as their most fatalistic side effects usually kick in as a person reaches their retirement age. perfect for avoiding payouts and the faster to divie up any assets you might have been hoarding and get them back into circulation.