FDA A 'study' from one of FDA's sponsored labs

[ambientech]

How about unflavored? Did you try?

Yes, that is when I realized it was the flavorings. Problem is I enjoy the flavors so I just changed the way I vape.

 

[Stosh]

The study is just what the FDA is looking for, considering their wording in the proposed application....

FDA interprets the information required under this provision to include, not only investigations that support the application, but also any investigations that do not support, or are adverse to, the application.

Read this and weep....http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM273425.pdf

 

[Just Me]

- The anti-e-cig doctor who does advisorary studies for the FDA is "concerned" about vapor settling on couches.. whereby people will sit down and absorb nicotine through their skin

Wow. I mean, really. Wow. That would almost be funny if it weren't so STUPID!!!!!!!! This is plainly PATHETIC. I just now waited for a commercial break so I could *warn* my husband (who quit smoking decades ago and doesn't vape, either) to be careful when entering my computer room, so that he wouldn't sit on a chair or something and get nicotine on his person. He almost fell out of his chair laughing.

How 'bout we address some Real issues, like poisons on our food and in the ground, genetically modified Frankenfoods, people whose water stinks and ignites because of fracking, government bloat and waste of taxpayer money, etc., etc., etc. Ohhhhhhhh, DON'T GET ME STARTED!!!!!!!!!!! Ok, deep breaths, deep breaths...

 

[TomCatt]

...

Over 100 ill with 'food poisoning' after attending FOOD SAFETY summit | Mail Online

"Ironically, among those affected were members of the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."


...

...................

 

[Katya]

...................

Baby steps...

 

[Gato del Jugo]

Wow. I mean, really. Wow. That would almost be funny if it weren't so STUPID!!!!!!!! This is plainly PATHETIC. I just now waited for a commercial break so I could *warn* my husband (who quit smoking decades ago and doesn't vape, either) to be careful when entering my computer room, so that he wouldn't sit on a chair or something and get nicotine on his person. He almost fell out of his chair laughing.

How 'bout we address some Real issues, like poisons on our food and in the ground, genetically modified Frankenfoods, people whose water stinks and ignites because of fracking, government bloat and waste of taxpayer money, etc., etc., etc. Ohhhhhhhh, DON'T GET ME STARTED!!!!!!!!!!! Ok, deep breaths, deep breaths...

Oh, I'm not denying that some nicotine might potentially be absorbed through the skin in such a fashion under optimal conditions.. But to actually be concerned about it?? The amount would be extremely tiny, harmless & immeasurable, that it's not even worth mentioning as an argument against vaping...

I'd be more concerned about stray microscopic fibers of a fabric couch entering my lungs, or eating some eggplant or potatoes (which contain nic), before worrying about this..


Like I said, these guys are desperately grabbing at straws these days.. That's not to say they haven't all along, but it seems to be getting more & more obnoxious...

And this Samet guy, who is "advising" the FDA with his bogus scientific studies & claims, and his (former?) ties to BT, is a real piece of work...

 

[Just Me]

And this Samet guy, who is "advising" the FDA with his bogus scientific studies & claims, and his (former?) ties to BT, is a real piece of work...

"Ties". Isn't that always the key word? Seems like wherever there is money and/or power involved, there are always "ties" and agendas. That's the part that disturbs me every time.

But the bottom line in this case for me is...if the FDA/CDC/Cancer Centers of America/whoever and whatever is involved in the health of America...if they think tobacco products cause or contribute to cancer, why hasn't tobacco been banned yet?

Oh, wait, it's money. How ignorant of me to forget that important, significant fact.

 

[tombaker]

Hmmm, I wonder what 'scientific data' will the FDA present during it's rollout of the regs?

news-medical.net/news/
20140430/Study-Electronic-cigarette-vapors-may-worsen-acute-respiratory-diseases-among-youth.aspx

newsobserver.com/2014
/04/28/3819291/triangle-will-produce-much-of.html

They say "To understand what the user inhales, we collected data to characterize the small particles in the vapor and to determine the chemical and toxicological characteristics of e-cigarette emissions.""

Notice they say "....data to characterize...."

On the 2nd page you see they created a device to test this, they did not look at anyone's lungs. This experiment was NOT on a lung of a human or an animal.

To conduct the study, researchers developed an e-cigarette vapor collection and sampling system equipped with a custom apparatus to mimic the conditions found inside the human mouth and respiratory tract.

They certainly did not replicate the cleaning mechanisms that the lung does, all the time.

 

[Katya]

 

[TomCatt]

They say "To understand what the user inhales, we collected data to characterize the small particles in the vapor and to determine the chemical and toxicological characteristics of e-cigarette emissions.""

Notice they say "....data to characterize...."

On the 2nd page you see they created a device to test this, they did not look at anyone's lungs. This experiment was NOT on a lung of a human or an animal.

To conduct the study, researchers developed an e-cigarette vapor collection and sampling system equipped with a custom apparatus to mimic the conditions found inside the human mouth and respiratory tract.

They certainly did not replicate the cleaning mechanisms that the lung does, all the time.

My main concern was that they were characterizing "the small particles in the vapor".

Also how their "custom apparatus" was set up.

 

[graffiti]

Anytime the government gets involved with anything, Its Bad..! IMHO

This is completely not true. Look at what the EPA has done for this country (compare current environment to a country like China).

Regulation is not inherently bad, it's when regulation is done hand-in-hand with the industry it's regulating that it becomes a problem.

 

[beebopnjazz]

Need more?

From 1990...


"'They've stacked the deck with people who have close ties to the tobacco industry,' said Dr. Alan Blum, a founder of the antismoking group Doctors Ought to Care. 'It's pathetic.'

The panel members are linked to the Center for Indoor Air Research of Linthicum, Md. The center is financed by Philip Morris, the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Lorillard Inc., three of the nation's largest tobacco companies. Its board of directors is made up of employees of those companies, said Pamela Phillips, an administrator at the center."

6 Members of Panel on Smoking Have Ties to Tobacco Group - NYTimes.com

When congress gave the FDA tobacco control in 2009, they spelled it out right in the act. Guess it's time to really dig up the dirt.

 

[darkcelestialillumination]

When congress gave the FDA tobacco control in 2009, they spelled it out right in the act. Guess it's time to really dig up the dirt.

That secondhand smoke is basically harmless.

 

[badwolf91]

lol I love it, the saying vape on always reminds me of bill and ted when they are in the future and its all divine and they say "rock on"

sorry not quite related :/

 

[TomCatt]

Update:

RTI is hitting the media:

philly.com/philly/health/HealthDay687570_20140507_E-Cigarette_Vapor_Contains_Potentially_Harmful_Particles__Review.html

New research suggests that e-cigarette vapor produces tiny particles that users suck deep into their lungs, potentially causing or worsening respiratory diseases.

Then:

"These small particles have a high surface area-to-volume ratio," Thornburg said. "When they deposit in your lungs, it makes it easy for whatever chemicals are in them to dissolve into your lung tissue." Those chemicals potentially could cause or worsen respiratory problems such as asthma or bronchitis.

In its review of emissions from two types of e-cigarettes, Thornburg's team did not find any toxic substances in the vapor produced by the devices.

"Everything we found was what the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and others generally regard as safe," he said, noting that the cancer-causing agents produced by burning tobacco are not present in e-cigarettes.

The main ingredients found in the e-cigarette liquids are glycerin and glycol ethers, which are used as the liquid carrier into which all of the nicotine, flavorings and preservatives easily dissolve, Thornburg said. Those substances are not considered harmful.

Look up "glycol ethers" - these are NOT used in e-liquid.

 

[Rossum]

They first tested an e-cigarette liquid designed to create a tobacco flavor. That liquid produced particles about 184 nanometers in size. A second liquid -- this one with a fruit punch flavor -- produced particles about 270 nanometers in size. Those are within the same range as the particles in cigarette smoke, according to Thornburg.

Since different flavors produce particles of different size, it sounds like the particles are are primarily an artifact of whatever flavoring is in the liquid? It would obviously be interesting to test unflavored liquid to see what (if any) particles are produced.

Another thing that would be interesting to know is how is the amount of such particles in vapor compares to the amount of such particles in cigarette smoke.

 

[TomCatt]

Since different flavors produce particles of different size, it sounds like the particles are are primarily an artifact of whatever flavoring is in the liquid? It would obviously be interesting to test unflavored liquid to see what (if any) particles are produced.

Another thing that would be interesting to know is how is the amount of such particles in vapor compares to the amount of such particles in cigarette smoke.

Also would be nice to know how their "new smoking machine built to replicate the physical experience of a 14-year-old boy using one of the devices" is actually set up.

 

[Dave_in_OK]

Just read this Effect of Smoking Abstinence and Reduction in Asthmatic Smokers Switching to Electronic Cigarettes: Evidence for Harm Reversal http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/5/4965"]Link[/URL]

This small retrospective study indicates that regular use of e-cigs to substitute smoking is associated with objective and subjective improvements in asthma outcomes. Considering that e-cig use is reportedly less harmful than conventional smoking and can lead to reduced cigarette consumption with subsequent improvements in asthma outcomes, this study shows that e-cigs can be a valid option for asthmatic patients who cannot quit smoking by other methods.

 

[DrMA]

Since different flavors produce particles of different size, it sounds like the particles are are primarily an artifact of whatever flavoring is in the liquid? It would obviously be interesting to test unflavored liquid to see what (if any) particles are produced.

Another thing that would be interesting to know is how is the amount of such particles in vapor compares to the amount of such particles in cigarette smoke.

For the love of all that is holy in this world, there are no particles in vapor! Stop perpetuating this nonsense!

Vapor is made of tiny droplets of liquid, not solid particles. The risks associated with inhalation of micron size solids does not apply to liquid droplets, especially not to water-miscible liquids such as eliquid.

 

[Rossum]

For the love of all that is holy in this world, there are no particles in vapor! Stop perpetuating this nonsense!

Vapor is made of tiny droplets of liquid, not solid particles. The risks associated with inhalation of micron size solids does not apply to liquid droplets, especially not to water-miscible liquids such as eliquid.

If we had pure vapor, that would be true. But those of us who use flavored liquids don't have pure vapor; evidence of this is a plain as the gunk that builds up on our coils.

Still, my sense is that the amount/concentration of particles in our vapor is insignificant compared to that in smoke.