“Study finds e-cigarettes affect airways, and quickly”

[FAAmecanic]

There are a lot of factors that need to be looked at. I know when I started to vape, I was not used to it and I would cough. Now I'm used to vaping and I never cough or have any problems. I believe this is just a short term issue and has no effect long term. If this is the only thing that vaping effects as far as health, I would say that it is the way to go!

I was wondering about this... vaping at first made me cough like crazy. Now after 1 week (and a reduction from 30 cigs a day down to 5 or less) I dont cough (although some new ejuice I just got seems harsh...needs steeping maybe?). I also notice the newer juices sting my nose more then ones that have sat for a week.

With that said.. Day1 vaping: Went down from 30 cigs a day to 10 cigs. Day 2: Went down to 8 cigs a day, Noticed my sinuses cleared up for the first time in years, Day 3: Down to 5 or less cigs a day, noticed when I lay down or walk quickly I no longer wheeze and rattle. Day 7: I can smell things I forgot smelling. Like eggs cooking waking me up (thanks loving wife cooking my breakfast!)...

All I know is I have tried quitting 7 times. Gum, Patch, Wellbutrin, Chantix.... All of them were like torture to quit. Day 8 will be my first day analog free.... and I have ZERO anxiety about it..why , becuase I KNOW this will work.

 

[JGD]

know it SOUNDS crazy, but I smoked half a pack of cigarettes and ran an hour a day....it can take time before the health impacts of smoking begin to rear their ugly head.

 

[markfm]

I hear you, I ran for decades while up at full PAD, but it did start to catch up. Within about a month of stopping I did notice some improvement.

 

[Vocalek]

Another word about honest research. Once a researcher begins skewing evidence in one situation, it becomes difficult to take anything he writes in the future at face value.

I give you GN Connolly.

In my oral testimony at the July 2011 FDA TPSAC meeting on Dissolvable Tobacco products I stated, "Dr. Gregory Connolly examined data on 13,705 tobacco product poisoning cases and found only one case caused by a dissolvable tobacco product." I was referring to this journal article:

Connolly GN, et al "Unintentional child poisonings through ingestion of conventional and novel tobacco products" Pediatrics 2010; 125: 896–99.

News story on the study: Dissolvable Tobacco Orbs Pose Poisoning Risk to Children

Connolly presented his oral testimony after I did. He stated, "We analyzed the data and we came up with a number of tobacco poisonings over a three-year period, reports to the poison center. And I think of these, there was one death. But that's one too many, in my opinion. To have a child die and say, well, that's not a big deal I think is a very cruel, cruel thing to say, in my opinion."

He pointedly looked at me when he made this statement. The implication seemed to be that I knew that a child had died from ingesting a dissolvable tobacco product and I didn't think that was a big deal. Therefore, I am a cruel, cruel person.

Here are the facts.

There were ZERO deaths among the 13,705 tobacco product poisoning cases. These were EXPOSURES, not deaths. Only one of the 13,705 exposures was caused by a dissolvable tobacco product.

Connolly was talking about his own research project. Either he is a very poor researcher to not have remembered that there were no deaths among the cases they looked at, or he was bearing false witness (that's the kindest way I can think of putting it.)

Call me biased, if you will, but from that day forward I have not trusted a single word attributable to Connolly. I assume that he is obfuscating, exaggerating, or truth-challenged until I see facts that support his assertions.

Footnote: A study published in November of 2011 found only one child death from nicotine poisoning over a span of 27 years, but it was not from dissolvable tobacco products. Frequency and outcomes of accidental... [Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

Abstract

This review assesses published literature related to frequency and outcomes associated with accidental ingestion of tobacco and pharmaceutical nicotine products among young children. Twenty-seven years of annual reports by American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) were analyzed for occurrence and outcomes associated with accidental ingestion events involving tobacco and pharmaceutical nicotine products among young children. Over a 27-year period, and of >50 million contacts for all categories combined, 217,340 contacts involving ingestion of tobacco products were reported. Approximately 89% involved children <6 years old. One fatality was reported, however the co-ingestion of both cigarettes and diazepam complicates an assessment of a contributory role of tobacco.

 

[Uncle Willie]

As someone else already pointed out, it's difficult to not question a study that flies in the face of our own personal experience. If you look at the population surveys, you see that somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of regular users are reporting that their lung function has improved. We see stories every day of folks who have COPD getting much better exam results when they go back to their lung specialists after switching.

So that leads us to the suspicion that the study may be been set up either by mistake, or on purpose, in such a way that skewed their results. What factors did the researchers not consider in their study design? Does the control group concept make sense? Theoretically, the control group should represent the real-world opposite of the study group.

In the real world, people don't choose between inhaling vapor or inhaling air. They choose between inhaling vapor or inhaling smoke.

So they found that inhaling vapor does constrict airways. That isn't necessarily a negative thing. You need to know what it means. How much does vapor constrict the airways? Does it do so to dangerous levels? The study didn't provide that information, so it failed to tell us whether there is a serious health risk for non-smokers to take up use of an e-cigarette.

And what if by switching to vapor, a smoker actually REDUCES the amount of temporary airway constriction? Or what if it INCREASES the amount of airway constriction when compared with smoking? So the study also failed to tell us whether it is harmful or beneficial to switch from smoking to e-cigarettes.

Pardon us for being paranoid, but we have just seen too many studies that seem to have been scientifically designed to give the antis something to scream bloody murder about.

As an example, I give you the studies showing that nicotine causes high blood pressure. Sounds awful, until you find out that nicotine doesn't cause chronic high blood pressure (aka hypertension, which requires treatment). When you find out that the high blood pressure increase only lasts about 20 minutes, and that other things (such as healthy exercise) also raises blood pressure for 20 minutes (a condition that does not require medical treatment), then the fact that nicotine causes high blood pressure isn't clinically relevant.

I am with you .. believe me .. all I am saying is what I've said .. should we not welcome any and all info .. ?? Is the PV for everyone .. ?? Do the experiences of many that tout the "I feel better" scenario mean studies are not needed .. ??

Let's never forget that analogs were once considered harmless ..

why not answer the questions rather than continue to discredit .. ??

 

[DC2]

why not answer the questions rather than continue to discredit .. ??

Do you consider this study to be answering any questions?

In my opinion, this study is just one big DUH! and accomplishes nothing.
It's as if they are looking for ways to make electronic cigarettes look bad and went for something obvious.

What questions do you want answered?
What kinds of studies would you like to see that address those questions?

The thing is, I feel like you don't understand that everyone agrees with you.
We all pretty much agree we want to know what is in our electronic cigarettes.
We all pretty much agree we want to know the safety profile of any and all aspects of vaping.

What we are doing is encouraging people to do more studies.

And what we are also doing is trying to discourage and debunk misleading propaganda.
And much of that misleading propaganda comes from junk science funded and performed by anti-tobacco people.

Should we not be trying to debunk it?
What should we be doing in your opinion?

I'm pretty sure your answer will be we should be finding some way to force the vendors to come together.
If you have ideas on how to do that, I for one would be willing to listen.

 

[JGD]

But I should mention that OF COURSE my running abilities have greatly improved over the past month since switching to e-cigs. No question.. they have improves my health, my skin, my moods, my stamina physically.. and the relationship I have with my family most of all. But on the outside (and the inside) for a short time period you CAN smoke and win the game or Russian Roulette. But it's just a matter of time before it catches up to you... I try to tell my mother this. She's still smoking a pack a day at age 62 and swears shes "as healthy as a horse". Yeah, a horse with a broken leg with a gun to it's head maybe.....

 

[kcofohio]

Friday, I had a couple of people @ my work come up to me to tell me they had heard this report on the news. One guy comes up and says' "You had better watch those e-cigs, they say it will constrict your breathing."
I'm thinking, wow, that is bogus, but also realized as most here do, that it's a scare tactic.

Before I would even consider taking a "clinical study" serious, I would want to know all the factors. What was their juice mix, the ohms/voltage, and actual wattage under load of the attty/carto? How well was the juice wicking to the coil? And at least a month of vaping before a preliminary report could be made.

Look how long it took for many of us to find that "sweet spot". You cannot just go and pick somebody of the street and have them puff on an e-cig for a day to get a conclusive or preliminary report. Especially with stock or from a kiosk e-cig.

But the media is all for bogus reports when and where it suits them. And many are hungry/gullible for it. IMHO.

 

[Njt07]

I'm in the Army, normally run 2+ miles at least every other day if not everyday, or ruck march with at least a 35lb pack or doing cross fit style exercise (lots of cardio strength type exercises.) before I started with my PV I would feel a burning sensation in my lungs with anything really strenuous, black spots in my vision, light headedness etc. while ruck marching my legs would burn and I would be very short of breath on the uphills, darn hills..., cross fit style workouts... Man it was all I could do to catch my breath or not throw up and ive been doin this military thing for 13 years.

Now after 6 months with my trusty Reo or VV box I no longer have burning lungs, ruck marches are so much easier when you can breath and feel your legs, and, while I still feel like I'm gonna die from crossfit, I CAN breath easier. Oh and no black spots around the edges of my vision after or during a death run (1-2 mile dead sprint run, slow down till you catch your breath a bit and sprint again) makes my life a lot easier. Hills are still a PITA though, stupid hills.

 

[kcofohio]

@Njt07, maybe they ought to do research on the hills, there could lie the problem. lol
Seriously, Thanks to all of you who serve our country!

 

[McDougal]

First off, I question the statement in the study that says the participants also used the PVs with the "cartridges removed." I'm not sure how you could use it that way unless dripping onto the atomizer, which wouldn't make sense in this study.

Second, if they were smokers and used the PV for "five minutes," they would have used them like a cigarette, and puffed nearly continuously.

Overall, I am glad there are independent studies going on, and I do want to learn more about long term effects as more studies unfold.

The abstract conclusion states:

Conclusions: E-cigarettes assessed in the context of this study were found to have immediate adverse physiologic effects after short term use that are similar to some of the effects seen with tobacco smoking, however the long term health effects of e-cigarette use are unknown but potentially adverse and worthy of further investigation.

I have never thought using these are "good" for you. I don't see any health benefits from using them, other than curbing smoking. But, ending smoking is a huge one, and based on the studies I have read thus far, I would still say the existing evidence point heavily to e-cigs being exponentially safer.

 

[Jorge22]

I started vaping back in february and never had one single analog puff again. I vape a bit heavily (don't we all?). I'm planning on seeing a doctor to test my respiratory functions soon. Then, I'll know. I saw the studies you mentioned in this thread and quite frankly, then I'll know...

 

[McDougal]

I'd have to believe that if they took non-smokers and had them inhale a regular cigarette for 5 minutes, they'd have similar results - it is probably the body's way of saying, "Whoa, what is this new substance?". I coughed the first few times I tried vaping until I got used to it. Big deal.

The conclusion section of the study abstract says exactly this: that the immediate pulmonary effects are similar to smoking.

The abstract is here: Acute pulmonary effects of using an e-cigarette: impact on respiratory flow resistance, impedance and exhaled nitric oxide

However, they didn't use examples of other things people breathe in all day, like particulates found in air pollution. Also, they didn't use examples of food additives that are also harmful to humans. In other words, like the FDA study, there was nothing to put this study in context. This approach was heavily criticized by many public health academics, because the FDA failed to mention that approved nicotine replacement products contain about the same amount of toxins as e-cigs. And in this study, they are not showing the results as relative to anything else, other than cigarettes.

I am going to research to see other studies of various products/airborne particles that give similar results as this study.

 

[Jim Bob]

Therein lies the truth of the matter ... I don't Care IF vaping is not better than breathing clean air!(not sure where you will find really clean air)
I DO care that it's much safer than smoking ever was, and I don't need studies to confirm this. No tar, co, arsenic, lead, formaldehyde , cyanide, and a huge list of other things which there can be NO doubt being bad for you. Comparing vaping to anything other than smoking tobacco is asinine (at best)

That being said I am not one to tell anyone they are not free to smoke on until it's "studied" but myself I'm already convinced, for those who want to worry and live in big cities I can't help them.

Hey Sunny Crack, (trying not to picture that) If you need to be 100% sure vaping is perfectly safe, wait 15 years for the studies (by the FDA, who we can all trust 100%) to be complete and then decide for yourself it vaping is a better alternative than smoking. I don't need researchers to tell me I'm doing great on the vape, I can feel it.
EDIT: and I don't have the 15 years to wait

 

[Vocalek]

Excuse me, but I see this as obfuscating.

Conclusions: E-cigarettes assessed in the context of this study were found to have immediate adverse physiologic effects after short term use that are similar to some of the effects seen with tobacco smoking, however the long term health effects of e-cigarette use are unknown but potentially adverse and worthy of further investigation.

I could say that drinking a Hires has similar physiologic effects to drinking a Heineken. The statement would be truthful, but misleading.

Their assertion would be more believable if they had made a head-to-head comparison of the effects of inhaling smoke with the effects of inhaling vapor. They would need to back it up with quantitative data.

Can they state that there was no statistical difference between the amount of constriction caused by inhaling vapor and the amount of constriction caused by inhaling smoke?

In each case, what is the significance of this constriction? Is this constriction a normal bodily reaction or is it a symptom of some permanent damage process going on?

 

[kristin]

It's sad that we will all throw out or discount any study that looks negative on ecig use. I've had several smokers try my e-cig and immediatly put it down and start coughing insanely.. Usually they smoke it like a cigarette (direct lung inhale).. That would probably be the reason...

We NEED to know if these are safe.. I think we all had issues in the beginning. And yes, perhaps our bodies have adapted (just like they did to cigarettes), that doesn't mean they are safe..

No, we DO NOT need to know these are "safe," we need to know that they are not as harmful as cigarettes - and most of the medical and scientific communities have reluctantly acknowledged that these could not possibly be as bad as smoking. If you want "safe" you need to immediately stop inhaling anything but 100% fresh, clean air into your lungs. Because there is NO WAY that e-cigarettes are "safe" for 100% of the population - people WILL have negative reactions to them, whether from PG allergy, food flavoring allergy or nicotine exacerbating a heart condition. E-cigarettes are intended to reduce the harm risks of cigarette smoking and by eliminating the smoke and using relatively benign ingredients, there is no reason to think they don't reduce the risks compared to smoking.

And this study made no attempt to show e-cigarettes vs. smoking, they compared e-cigarettes to air. Where you sucking on a straw before you switched to vaping? Does this study tell you anything at all then?

It's always nice to see a voice of reason .. I never understood why the minute a negative study comes out, members jump on it immediately and try to discredit it .. should we not welcome any and all info .. ?? Is the PV for everyone .. ?? Do the experiences of many that tout the "I feel better" scenario mean studies are not needed .. ??

Let's never forget that analogs were once considered harmless ..

I am with you .. believe me .. all I am saying is what I've said .. should we not welcome any and all info .. ?? Is the PV for everyone .. ?? Do the experiences of many that tout the "I feel better" scenario mean studies are not needed .. ??

Let's never forget that analogs were once considered harmless ..

why not answer the questions rather than continue to discredit .. ??

No, we should not "welcome any and all info" when it is based on junk science. PERIOD. We should welcome any and all unbiased, relevant and scientific info.

I've seen this study in it's entirety and it's designed to come to the conclusion that they want it to come to - NOT science. False and manufactured information is NOT helpful information. The conclusions they came to are worthless, because they did not compare it to SMOKING. If a new drug is introduced to help with coke addiction, do you test it on people who don't even use coke? Do you compare it's negative effects to a powdered placebo instead of the devastating effects of real coke, which it is meant to replace?

They failed to use basic reasoning, especially since they acknowledge in the study that e-cigarettes are marketed as a reduced harm product for tobacco smoking.

Who uses these devices? Smokers. So what should they be comparing e-cigarettes to? Smoking. What did they compare e-cigarettes to? Air.

To clear up some confusion - they tested SMOKERS, not non-smokers - so that was good. But they tested the effects of vapor for just the first 90 seconds after these never-users tried the device and then compared it to smokers who were trying ...nothing. They should have been comparing it to the effects of smoke on the control group's breathing in the first 90 seconds, because that is what the vapor is replacing! Had they tested compared to smoke, THEN we would possibly have seen this as a valuable test. But they also did not consider two other important factors - vapor is heavier than smoke and they didn't give enough time for it to be absorbed into the lung tissue. That "heaviness" right after vaping is pretty common, especially in new vapers, but it goes away after a few minutes. Because they only went 90 seconds after vaping, it tells us no more than testing someone's blood sugar level too soon after they eat sweets. It frequently spikes in people, but then levels out, so it's not an indication that someone is diabetic!

Put it this way and turn it around - would you feel comfortable knowing that a new seat belt design was tested going only 2 miles per hour, when the old seat belts were rated at 80 miles per hour and you know most fatal accidents don't happen at 2 miles per hour? A study which does not use realistic scenarios are pointless and worthless and this e-cigarette study did not use a realistic scenario. THAT is the kind of study we object to and unfortunately, those are the only kinds of studies we've seen from the ANTZ so far.

The "studies" we take issue with are ones that are either A) obviously biased and designed to get what they are looking for or B) obviously not properly researched and poorly designed.

It has nothing to do with not wanting the truth or real studies. Like I said, if they had done this study correctly - research how they are used IRL, tested it against smoke NOT air and given it more than 90 seconds (which they would have known to do had they done background research) - then we would have given this study serious consideration. But it is so obviously flubbed and/or designed to prove a conclusion they had already reached that it doesn't even deserve serious consideration. We've seen enough REAL studies to know when one is junk. I don't know why you seem to be ready to take every piece of garbage that comes from these people as valid "science?"

 

[Pav]

To clear up some confusion - they tested SMOKERS, not non-smokers - so that was good.

How do you know this? As I (and others) pointed out the text clearly states "non smokers" were used, even though the stated goals were supposed to find out the effects on smokers.

As a PP pointed out they actually didn't use healthy smokers, they used healthy 'non-smokers'.



Acute pulmonary effects of using an e-cigarette: impac... [Chest. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[kristin]

How do you know this? As I (and others) pointed out the text clearly states "non smokers" were used, even though the stated goals were supposed to find out the effects on smokers.

Like I said, I've seen the actual study and not just the abstract. The abstract has a typo. The actual full text makes it clear that they tested smokers.

Quote:

93 Subjects
94 Our study sample was comprised of 30 adults (14 male, 16 female) of a mean age of 34.8
95 years (range 19-56) recruited from a community setting, in Athens, Greece. All subjects were
96 smokers with a minimum pack/year index of 5. Exclusion criteria included any chronic and/or
97 lung disease (including history of bronchial asthma or bronchial hyper reactivity), acute illness
98 during the previous two weeks, current pregnancy or lactation, current use of any medication. All
99 subjects were instructed not to eat and drink any kind of beverages for at least 2 hours prior to the
100 exam, and to avoid smoking in the previous 4 hours.

The subjects enrolled in the experimental group were instructed to use the e-
111 cigarette at lib, for 5 minutes as they would usually smoke.

Controlling for baseline
279 measurements allowed us to focus on the changes due to using the e-cigarette and not take into
280 account underlining damage due to previous cigarette smoking or lung condition.

In conclusion, using an e-cigarette for 5 minutes was found to cause an increase in
288 impedance, peripheral airway flow resistance and oxidative stress among healthy smokers.

After the abstract, the word "non-smoker" never appears again.

 

[throatkick]

I am with you .. believe me .. all I am saying is what I've said .. should we not welcome any and all info .. ?? Is the PV for everyone .. ?? Do the experiences of many that tout the "I feel better" scenario mean studies are not needed .. ??

Let's never forget that analogs were once considered harmless ..

why not answer the questions rather than continue to discredit .. ??

It has been seen time and time again that many have used their "titles" to spew garbage about e-cigs in hopes of swaying public opinion against them. One headline feeds off the other and before you know it, conclusions are being drawn and accepted blindly by the public.

I think the dilemma stems more from the fact that some appear to take people at their word than anything else, especially the word of government agencies.

It is not surprising that the research was done in Greece. Over 250,000 Greeks have switched from smoking to e-cigs and the government very recently raided suppliers. Public outcry and the fact that supplies could be ordered via the Internet have caused the government to back down.

The timing of this study is a bit suspect for me.

 

[Pav]

Like I said, I've seen the actual study and not just the abstract. The abstract has a typo. The actual full text makes it clear that they tested smokers.

Cool. Thanks