Another abysmal study of ecigs surfaces at European conference

[DrMA]

Using severely genetically defective mice known as A/J, researchers try to demonstrate ecig use has adverse effects on the lungs. The problem is, the genetic defects engineered in these mice causes them to have

• High incidence of spontaneous and chemically-induced lung adenomas
• High incidence of spontaneous and chemically-induced mammary adenocarcinomas
• Defect in macrophage function (minimally functional immune system)
• Muscular dystrophy (a lethal condition)

Basically, if you take these mice and think mean thoughts, they'll end up having some sort of lung pathology develop spontaneously. For example, A/J mice develop cigarette smoke-induced emphysema in approximately half the time of other strains.

The authors, naturally extrapolate their results in typical ANTZ FUD fashion to conclude "e-cigarette exposure causes asthma and emphysema in vivo."

https://www.ersnetsecure.org/public/prg_congres.abstract?ww_i_presentation=70441

Note: this is just a conference presentation, not a peer-reviewed article. However, I expect this nonsense will make the press in short order. Prepare for the media maelstrom.

 

[dragonpuff]

Thank you for warning us ahead of time

I, for one, am curious to see what the experimental conditions were in this dismal excuse for a scientific study... did they deliberately expose the mice to vapor created under unusually high temperatures? Hmm... we shall see.

I do like that they said, "Thus, this study shows for the first time that e-cigarette exposure causes asthma and emphysema in vivo." Yeah, probably for the last time too

 

[Steamix]

Study ? ... Or rather a 'staged demonstration' ?

I can toss someone off a five-story building and show doing so is causing health problems...

Sheesh...

 

[Towmotor]

Study ? ... Or rather a 'staged demonstration' ?

I can toss someone off a five-story building and show doing so is causing health problems...

Sheesh...

Yea, but even your study only harms the participant, not the public in general.

 

[Anjaffm]

Yea, but even your study only harms the participant, not the public in general.

depends on who is standing underneath
I would like to suggest a few likely candidates, if I may. For throwing out of window as well as for standing underneath

 

[XJ-linux]

Genetic mutant mice have health issues. Who'd a thunk? They'd have more of a leg to stand on just amalgamating anecdote, hearsay and Wikipedia articles.

 

[Dayglow]

Study ? ... Or rather a 'staged demonstration' ?

I can toss someone off a five-story building and show doing so is causing health problems...

Sheesh...

Just because the study is garbage doesn't mean we won't see the ill effects. Look at the whole autism/vaccine study. It has been debunked for quite a while and concerns a topic that should be a no brainer for any educated individual and yet it still crops up as something we shouldn't do...

 

[Jingles]

My main question would be: Was there a control group? Were they genetically altered mice that weren't exposed to any vapor? Did they develop asthma too or not as soon as those exposed to the vapor? I have read too many stories on here from asthmatics that say they have been able to reduce their meds after vaping for awhile to believe this study!

 

[DrMA]

My main question would be: Was there a control group? Were they genetically altered mice that weren't exposed to any vapor? Did they develop asthma too or not as soon as those exposed to the vapor? I have read too many stories on here from asthmatics that say they have been able to reduce their meds after vaping for awhile to believe this study!

Looks like the control mice were exposed to nebulized PBS (phospahte-buffered saline).

However, that is not the issue. Here's how experiments like this go:

1) create unrealistic exposure scenarios, virtually guaranteed to cause harm - in the case of ecigs, run them hot and dry until solder blobs start pouring out the atty (see Pruebot publication for details of the method). Also use GM model organisms with a high predisposition to develop exactly the kinds of pathology you're looking for.
2) out of multiple control specimens, discard the ones that show pathology and take a picture of the healthiest one
3) out of multiple "exposed" specimens, discard the ones with no pathology, and take a picture of the most diseased one
4) assemble the pictures in a figure and spout alarmist conclusion

 

[AgentAnia]

The ANTZ researchers are having to be more and more creative, aren't they, in order to show harm from ecigs?

I ask myself, how can I trust any work by researchers, given what the anti-ecig scientists are capable of? They're bringing the whole field into disrepute. And that's just sad.

 

[Kent C]

The ANTZ researchers are having to be more and more creative, aren't they, in order to show harm from ecigs?

I ask myself, how can I trust any work by researchers, given what the anti-ecig scientists are capable of? They're bringing the whole field into disrepute. And that's just sad.

Lol... I was just doing some searching and came across this:

"First and foremost, any epidemiologist will admit epidemiology cannot identify causes or ‘prove’ something, only offer a link for further analysis. In this case, that was done in animal studies. To this day, scientists have not managed to induce lung cancer in any animal through tobacco smoke (excluding the F334 rats and A/J mice, specially bred to develop cancer). What the animal studies routinely do is embarrass researchers by having the animals outlive the non-smoking ones, and in the case of the F334 and A/Js, not only did they outlive the non-smoking ones, those exposed to smoke exceeded the total life expectancy of those breeds, and suffered less cancer than would be expected in them."

CATCH-2 | Frank Davis

Don't know who Frank Davis is (jman? and what his cause is.... didn't take the time to fully investigate.

 

[AgentAnia]

Frank Davis is a British blogger I follow somewhat regularly: Frank Davis | Banging on about the Smoking Ban ("Banging on About the Smoking Ban")

Both he and Junican: Bolton Smokers Club | A FORUM FOR THE PEOPLE OF BOLTON WHO ENJOY TOBACCO make some excellent points in their posts about sprurious statistics related to smoking and to a lesser extent about ecigs. Junican in particular provides some good background about the McTear case (in which it was found to be impossible to prove that smoking causes lung cancer). He also blogs regularly about his grow-your-own-tobacco experiments, which may become relevant to us in a worst-case scenario (only the tiniest amount of hyperbole in saying that...).

 

[zoiDman]

After Skimming over that "Study", I guess All of these People in the Thread below are Wrong.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/585244-anyone-notice-lung-improvement.html

 

[Kent C]

Frank Davis is a British blogger I follow somewhat regularly: Frank Davis | Banging on about the Smoking Ban ("Banging on About the Smoking Ban")

Both he and Junican: Bolton Smokers Club | A FORUM FOR THE PEOPLE OF BOLTON WHO ENJOY TOBACCO make some excellent points in their posts about sprurious statistics related to smoking and to a lesser extent about ecigs. Junican in particular provides some good background about the McTear case (in which it was found to be impossible to prove that smoking causes lung cancer). He also blogs regularly about his grow-your-own-tobacco experiments, which may become relevant to us in a worst-case scenario (only the tiniest amount of hyperbole in saying that...).

I saw later, some association with Velvet Glove/Puddlecote ....

 

[Kent C]

After Skimming over that "Study", I guess All of these People in the Thread below are Wrong.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/585244-anyone-notice-lung-improvement.html

Oh...that's 'anecdotal' Even though many have had tests that show improvement. There should be a sticky, informing all newbies to go take a 'before' test

 

[readeuler]

Oh...that's 'anecdotal' Even though many have had tests that show improvement. There should be a sticky, informing all newbies to go take a 'before' test

I wish I had the foresight to take a "before" test! Tomorrow will be three months in, I bet there's still some room for improvement though...

 

[DC2]

depends on who is standing underneath
I would like to suggest a few likely candidates, if I may. For throwing out of window as well as for standing underneath

Oh, this sounds like a very fun game!!

I've got my own suggestions.
Count me in for sure!!

 

[DC2]

After Skimming over that "Study", I guess All of these People in the Thread below are Wrong.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/585244-anyone-notice-lung-improvement.html

Oh great, another thread I never noticed and therefore never chimed in on...

--When I was smoking I could hold my breath for around 30 seconds
--After 12 months of vaping I could hold my breath for around 90 seconds
--After 17 months of vaping I got a Pulmonary Function test and my results were slightly better than average
--After 30 months of vaping I could hold my breath for around 110 seconds

I'll go post that there now...

 

[zoiDman]

Oh great, another thread I never noticed and therefore never chimed in on...

--When I was smoking I could hold my breath for around 30 seconds
--After 12 months of vaping I could hold my breath for around 90 seconds
--After 17 months of vaping I got a Pulmonary Function test and my results were slightly better than average
--After 30 months of vaping I could hold my breath for around 110 seconds

I'll go post that there now...

Believe it or Not, I rode 42 Miles on Thursday of Last Week. Lost 7 Pounds in Water (and Probably Brain Cells) due to the Heat.

When I Smoked, 4.2 Miles would have Kicked My Azz.

But then again, I'm not a A/J Mouse. If I was, I'm Sure that I would have Hacked Up a Mouse Lung riding 42 Miles in 96 Degree Heat. Because e-Cigarettes have been Shown to Cause Lung Problems.

 

[AgentAnia]

After Skimming over that "Study", I guess All of these People in the Thread below are Wrong.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/585244-anyone-notice-lung-improvement.html

They're not wrong, they're just not severely genetically defective mice.