ACSH: "E-Cigarette study is just amateur propaganda"

[McDougal]

This article was published by the American Council on Science and Health today, which pointed out the obvious question about the recent "airways" study released a couple days ago: why didn't they use cigarette smoke as a control sample? The study published in Chest (a pulmonary health journal) and echoed across the internet through big-media Reuters was suspect from the beginning because of its vagueness.

I also suspect the "independent nature" of the study.

From the article:

The current study, published in the journal Chest, provided 30 so-called “healthy” smokers with e-cigarettes, the electronic devices that deliver a dose of nicotine in a vaporized liquid, thereby eliminating the dangerous combustion products of cigarette smoke. After five minutes of using an e-cigarette, the participants’ lungs showed signs of airway constriction and “inflammation,” researchers found.

“So what?” asks ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross. “Anything you inhale will affect your airways. Airway constriction is non-specific and has nothing to do with lung problems like emphysema or lung cancer, which are associated with smoking. You can’t assume from these data that there would be any long-term harm. Further, I wonder what tests these folks used to detect airway ‘inflammation,’ which is not reflected in the airway dynamics they measured.”

And...

ACSH's Dr. Josh Bloom agrees. “The moment I saw that they didn’t run the same experiment using actual cigarettes," he says, "I knew this was pure (and not even especially well done) junk — an agenda-based report clumsily masquerading as science.”

E-Cigarette study is just amateur propaganda > Facts & Fears > ACSH

 

[McDougal]

From the Reuters article:

Researchers in Greece saw changes in the lung function of healthy smokers who puffed on an e-cigarette for just five minutes -- although it's not clear what the long-term result of those responses might be in regular e-cigarette users, the team reports in the journal Chest.

www. reuters. com/article/2012/01/05/us-e-cigarettes-idUSTRE8041WB20120105

It is not known whether that short-term response could translate into health effects in the long run, including lung diseases like emphysema.

First off, contrary to the Reuters article, finding inflammation does not mean a change in "lung function." From the study:

Our aim was to assess whether using an e-cigarette for five minutes has an impact on pulmonary function tests and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) among healthy adult smokers.

chestjournal .chestpubs. org/content/early/2011/12/21/chest.11-2443.abstract

"Tests." Inflammatory markers are separate from actual "lung function."

For example, from a study on air pollution's effects on children:

In this study we assessed the association of short-term air pollutant exposure with inflammatory markers and lung function.

Environmental Health Perspectives: Air Pollution, Airway Inflammation, and Lung Function in a Cohort Study of Mexico City Schoolchildren

Quite simply, "inflammation" and "lung function" are two different things. I have yet to see where lung function changed in the study. However, Reuters ran with it.

It certainly adds credence to the ACSH article.

 

[kristin]

Additionally, by using the term "healthy smokers" and not acknowledging or mentioning common inflammation or reduced lung function after smoking a cigarette, it leaves readers with the impression that otherwise healthy smokers (who were apparently unaffected by cigarette smoke) were no longer "as healthy" after using an e-cigarette as they were when they were smoking.

Brilliant.

 

[oldsoldier]

you folks do realize that linking junk science studies here gives them google juice...

Break the links- If someone here wants to read them it is simple enough to delete the spaces.

 

[McDougal]

you folks do realize that linking junk science studies here gives them google juice...

Break the links- If someone here wants to read them it is simple enough to delete the spaces.

Sorry about that. I wasn't considering that when I posted.

Sir yes sir!

 

[McDougal]

Additionally, by using the term "healthy smokers" and not acknowledging or mentioning common inflammation or reduced lung function after smoking a cigarette, it leaves readers with the impression that otherwise healthy smokers (who were apparently unaffected by cigarette smoke) were no longer "as healthy" after using an e-cigarette as they were when they were smoking.

Brilliant.

Exactly. It wasn't that the study was fraudulent. It was that they didn't put their findings in their proper context. Then, the Reuters article took the out-of-context literature, and took that out of context.

This is really par for the course when it comes to corporate media.

 

[Tom09]

Where is the evidence that suggests "airways inflammation"?

The original study (Vardavas et al. 2011) reports *lower* FeNO values for acute e-cig use.
All you will find on the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) method, shows that inflammation leads to *higher* FeNO concentrations. Smoking, on the other hand, is well known to *lower* FeNO. (Nicotine acts constricting and is decreasing the nitric oxide level).
In short, while FeNO provides a marker useful to detect inflammation, it is that actually *higher* concentrations, not *lower* concentrations, are indicative for inflammation.
The related Reuters article falsely reported measurements of this marker as to indicate inflammation.
Again, a decrease of FeNO, not inflammation, was detected in the original study.

That’s my present understanding of Reuters’ “inflammation”.

 

[McDougal]

Where is the evidence that suggests "airways inflammation"?

The original study (Vardavas et al. 2011) reports *lower* FeNO values for acute e-cig use.
All you will find on the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) method, shows that inflammation leads to *higher* FeNO concentrations. Smoking, on the other hand, is well known to *lower* FeNO. (Nicotine acts constricting and is decreasing the nitric oxide level).
In short, while FeNO provides a marker useful to detect inflammation, it is that actually *higher* concentrations, not *lower* concentrations, are indicative for inflammation.
The related Reuters article falsely reported measurements of this marker as to indicate inflammation.
Again, a decrease of FeNO, not inflammation, was detected in the original study.

That’s my present understanding of Reuters’ “inflammation”.

My understanding at this point is that there were observed effects that are consistent with bronchial inflammation. I think you're right- the more I research, it appears there was no directly observed inflammation, nor any change in lung function. I don't know much about spirometry, but as I understand it, it did not detect change in function. I also believe smoking does change lung function as observed by this method, from what I have been told and what I have read.

 

[nopatch]

Where is the evidence that suggests "airways inflammation"?

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

It doesn't say that Airway inflammation was measured.

Full text:http://www.lungenaerzte-im-netz.de/lin/linaktuell/psfile/pdf/97/Originalar4f0ed30c6b30d.pdf

Quote
However,
284 despite these novel findings, our sample size remains relatively small, while further research is
285 needed to investigate the mechanistic and toxicological effects of long term usage which are
286 potentially adverse and worthy of further investigation.
287 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. We
289 must state though that while the differences within our study are of statistical significance, the
290 clinical changes may be too small to be of major clinical importance.
unquote.

The report is quite balanced.

I don't know why the acsh guy was going ballistic.

 

[nopatch]

From the acsh website: it reads

ACSH promotes the use of sound, peer-reviewed science in the formation of a full spectrum of public health policies.

I don't see anything scientific about the blabbering in the acsh link given.

“So what?” asks ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross. “Anything you inhale will affect your airways. Airway constriction is non-specific and has nothing to do with lung problems like emphysema or lung cancer, which are associated with smoking.

“So what?” .

If this gentleman has peer reviewed scientific data regarding harmlessness of Pg and Vg vapors in the Inhaled air he might be inclined to forward it to cdc to modify their regulations.
Here is the cdc regulation on Propylene glycol
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp189-c7.pdf

 

[Vocalek]

From the acsh website: it reads

ACSH promotes the use of sound, peer-reviewed science in the formation of a full spectrum of public health policies.

I don't see anything scientific about the blabbering in the acsh link given.



“So what?” .

If this gentleman has peer reviewed scientific data regarding harmlessness of Pg and Vg vapors in the Inhaled air he might be inclined to forward it to cdc to modify their regulations.
Here is the cdc regulation on Propylene glycol
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp189-c7.pdf

This might be a more useful reference: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts189.pdf

Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand summarized the scientific evidence on PG on pages 4-6 of this report: http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

 

[nopatch]

This might be a more useful reference: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts189.pdf

How does that change cdc regulation on limits of Propylene glycol in Air ?(Same with glycerin).

From the cdc link i gave before:

The international, national, and state regulations and guidelines regarding propylene glycol in air, water, and other media are summarized in Table 7-1. An MRL of 0.009 ppm has been derived for intermediate-duration inhalation exposure (1.5-364 days) to propylene glycol based on a LOAEL of 51 ppm for nasal hemorrhaging (Suber et al. 1989).

The table reads:
a. Air: Acceptable ambient air concentrations VA 24 hours 1.10x103 μg/m3

Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand summarized the scientific evidence on PG on pages 4-6 of this report: http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

That document prepared on behalf of product vendor(Ruiyan ?) doesn't count much,i reckon.

 

[Vocalek]

How does that change cdc regulation on limits of Propylene glycol in Air ?(Same with glycerin).

From the cdc link i gave before:

The international, national, and state regulations and guidelines regarding propylene glycol in air, water, and other media are summarized in Table 7-1. An MRL of 0.009 ppm has been derived for intermediate-duration inhalation exposure (1.5-364 days) to propylene glycol based on a LOAEL of 51 ppm for nasal hemorrhaging (Suber et al. 1989).

The table reads:
a. Air: Acceptable ambient air concentrations VA 24 hours 1.10x103 μg/m3


That document prepared on behalf of product vendor(Ruiyan ?) doesn't count much,i reckon.

Grrrrr! Then I suppose that GlaxoSmith Kline paid researchers to falsify clinical trials on Chantix, and that the researchers who ran clinical trials on (name-any-FDA-approved-medication) were nothing but lying, cheating paid shills for the Big Pharma manufacturers? <- Yes this is sarcasm.

I apologize, but I see red whenever I hear this "paid for by the manufacturer" accusation. Usually we hear this accusation from the antis, not from members of this forum.

The implication appears to be that if pharmaceutical companies pay for research on their products (which, of course they do) then the researchers are honest, upstanding scientists. If any company other than a pharmaceutical company does the responsible thing and pays to have safety testing conducted their products, then the researcher who did the work automatically is a liar and a cheat? Why the double standard?

For your information, Dr. Laugesen is a respected researcher and an avid anti-smoking proponent in New Zealand. He has authored or co-authored over 30 research papers and reports in national and international scientific medical journals since 1995, on smoking, and latterly on testing of cigarettes and cigarette substitutes.
Dr. Murray Laugesen's Publications

Besides which, I didn't ask you for an evaluation of his findings on the products. I referred you to his summary of the published scientific literature on PG. I even provided you with the page numbers. If you believe that he is lying about those studies, all you need to do is go check the originals!

And BTW, the CDC is not a regulatory body. The document you linked to summarizes standards set by other agencies. The report is incomprehensible to the average citizen. Would the lay person understand that "intermediate-duration inhalation exposure" refers to exposing rats to a concentration in the air they breathe of more than 0.009 ppm of PG continuously, 24 hours a day, for 1.5 to 364 days? I don't know about you, but I take quite frequent and long breaks from inhaling vapor.

Can you please explain to me what the Virginia standard means when applied to intermittent use of an electronic cigarette? Is the standard exceeded if I vaporize 1 gram per day? 2 grams, 3 grams?

 

[nopatch]

Grrrrr! Then I suppose that GlaxoSmith Kline paid researchers to falsify clinical trials on Chantix,

Actually there are NO clinical trials regarding inhalation of Propylene glycol at higher concentrations because there was never any need for that.

and that the researchers who ran clinical trials on (name-any-FDA-approved-medication) were nothing but lying, cheating paid shills for the Big Pharma manufacturers? <- Yes this is sarcasm.

I am not very well versed in pharma clinical trials but there is something called third party double blind trials that minimize funders influence.

Anyhow this has nothing to do with our discussion.

What we have is propogonda pieces written by mediocre scientists and latched up by gullible public.

For your information, Dr. Laugesen is a respected researcher and an avid anti-smoking proponent in New Zealand. He has authored or co-authored over 30 research papers and reports in national and international scientific medical journals since 1995, on smoking, and latterly on testing of cigarettes and cigarette substitutes.
Dr. Murray Laugesen's Publications

I commented before on his shoddy work in analysing Electronic cigarette vapor.This person is not equipped to do any scientific studies on Vapors.period.Any apprentice in fluid engineering lab can point out the glaring mistake he did in measuring PG concentration in air after it came to rest.

Besides which, I didn't ask you for an evaluation of his findings on the products. I referred you to his summary of the published scientific literature on PG. I even provided you with the page numbers. If you believe that he is lying about those studies, all you need to do is go check the originals!

There is something called peer review.I am yet to find any scientist who evaluated his WORK .He is a health researcher who has no competency to do the work he did on ecigarette vapor.

And BTW, the CDC is not a regulatory body. The document you linked to summarizes standards set by other agencies. The report is incomprehensible to the average citizen. Would the lay person understand that "intermediate-duration inhalation exposure" refers to exposing rats to a concentration in the air they breathe of more than 0.009 ppm of PG continuously, 24 hours a day, for 1.5 to 364 days? I don't know about you, but I take quite frequent and long breaks from inhaling vapor.

If you go through the cdc reports carefully you will understand their comment about NOT having any viable data to base their recommendations.To just give an understanding E_cigarette vapor has 10% ( that is 1000000 ppm) propylene glycol.That kind of exposure was never studied by anybody.

Can you please explain to me what the Virginia standard means when applied to intermittent use of an electronic cigarette? Is the standard exceeded if I vaporize 1 gram per day? 2 grams, 3 grams?

The CDC standard means you cannot exhale PG/VG in a closed room because it will violate air quality standards set by them.As for the person who is actually doing the inhalation that is way off the charts and nobody really knows.