Another awful Prue Talbot study

[Petrodus]

I visited the UCR site & posted a comment. Thanks, Kristin, for posting the link.

Add my name to the list of those who posted a comment. Well, a little more than a comment...more like pulling both triggers on a double barrel shotgun. No one ever accused me of being politically correct!

Here is the link again:
http ://universityofcalifornia .edu/sites/uchealth/2010/12/03/study-e-cigarettes-are-unsafe-pose-health-risks/

I guess new comments will not show on the website for a few hours.

 

[Territoo]

considering the tons of tobacco that go into landfills and roadsides every year it seems like any nicotine that actually makes it to landfills without evaporating is relatively minute.

Nicotine is used as a pesticide in farming, so it is already in the water supply due to runoff.

 

[Petrodus]

If you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen

P. Elizabeth Anderson (Health and Science Examiner) did one of those copy/paste things
and put up a page to spread the insanity of the Univ. of California's study.

The page is open to viewer comments
After 2 viewers replied blasting the study...
Ms Anderson jumped in with "reply #3" defending herself

"Please do not take your anger out on me"

If you can't stand the heat, Ms Anderson, get out of the Kitchen
Here is the web page: www. examiner .com/health-and-science-in-national/electronic-cigarettes-are-unsafe-and-pose-health-risks

 

[rothenbj]

Not sure if this comment is going to make it-

What is a medical device according to the FDA? For this discussion I will limit their definition to the applicable points of their description. A medical device is an apparatus which is- intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM127067.pdf

Since there is a growing body of evidence that concussions may lead to disease, specifically ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease).

Does Concussion Cause Motor Neuron Disease?: The Question St... : Neurology Today

“A team of Boston scientists has published a study suggesting that patients with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) may be at greater risk of motor neuron disease (MND). The report, published online Aug. 11 in the Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, is now being hotly debated as neurologists field calls from worried head injury patients and patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) who wonder whether their motor neuron disease was triggered by repeated injuries to the head.”

----------------------------------------------------------

This may require the FDA to step in and demand that all football helmets are taken off the market until the manufacturers can prove they are “safe and effective”.

If the good researchers from the University of California were given the grant by Helmet Control (a division of TC) to study these devices and Prue Talbot, director of UC Riverside's Stem Cell Center, was assigned the task, this article would probably read like this-

“Two days ago, on December 3, researchers at the University of California, Riverside released information suggesting that helmets are not safe and may pose dangerous health risks. Complete study results will appear online in the December 7 issue of Helmet Control.

Researchers evaluated five helmet brands and found design flaws, inadequate labeling, quality control concerns, and health issues. They warn that helmets are potentially harmful and should be removed from the market until their safety can be assessed. The study examined the following helmets: Amads, Scuut, Rydel, Nitekey and All Scar Sports.

What are helmets?

Helmets are essentially head protection systems and are widely available at sporting goods stores, athletic supply companies and on the internet. However, we know little about their health effects.

Helmets are designed to protect the head from injury in the case of collision with other player’s arms, shoulders, feet and heads.

Why are they popular?

People believe that helmets are a “safe substitute for conservative play," said Prue Talbot, director of UC Riverside's Stem Cell Center, whose lab led the research. "However, there are virtually no scientific studies on helmets and their safety. Our study—one of the first studies to evaluate helmets—shows that this product has many flaws, which could cause serious public health problems in the future if the flaws go uncorrected."

More information about helmets:

Helmets have a molded polycarbonate shell, a chin strap, padding, face masks and air systems. Each component is designed to protect the football player from serious injury.”

Now P. Elizabeth, do you have any idea why these helmet should be taken off the market? Why they are dangerous? Why the comments are so negative about your article? It’s not a personal attack, it’s a journalistic attack. You didn’t even give a link to the research or any clue on specific reasons why the researcher came to the conclusion drawn. That in itself is another story.

 

[Petrodus]

"Reformed Vaper" takes shots at the ECF

Hey...PoliticallyIncorrect, there's a "Reformed Vaper" going by the name of "UsedToVape" posting on the Univ. of CA and Examiner pages making you famous as well as "taking shots" at the EFC

"UsedToVape" is following these threads. When he/she reads a post where we point to a website...UsedToVape will be monitoring it with his/her "finger on the trigger"

Here's a small "out-take" from UsedToVape's comments
on the University of California website

There is a concerted effort to drown out any discussion of the issue and all vapers are encouraged to post here and therefore present a somewhat lopsided view of the vaping community.

Here's a small "out-take" from UsedToVape's comments
on the Calif website Examiner's web page

They put out a call to all vapers to come comment to try to suppress anything that does not fit their view.

University of California page:
http: //universityofcalifornia .edu/sites/uchealth/2010/12/03/study-e-cigarettes-are-unsafe-pose-health-risks/

Examiner page:
www .examiner .com/health-and-science-in-national/electronic-cigarettes-are-unsafe-and-pose-health-risks

FDA Mole? "The best you can hope for is FDA GRAS flavoring"

Is a Reformed Vaper some kind of new species?

Oh, by the way...Ms Anderson (Examiner's page) mentioned:
"This study was funded by the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program;
I do not know where they get their money."

 

[kristin]

I posted on the Examiner link:

Ms. Anderson,

Would you agree that the health risks of having a "crutch" can vary widely? Some people drink several cups of coffee or energy drinks to get going for the day. Others need a daily workout. Some use anti-depressants to function. Some go sky-diving or engage in other high-adrenaline activities as stress-relievers. Others find knitting, model building or reading provide them with calming effects. Some smoke or use smokeless tobacco or e-cigarettes. Everyone has some sort of crutch. I'm sure if you think about it, you have an activity you enjoy that has a positive impact on you in some way. Low health risks, combined with a positive impact on a person's overall well-being, should classify an activity as good for society and not portrayed negatively as a "crutch," don't you think?

The difference is in the adverse health affects associated with an activity.

Smoking to get nicotine has been shown to be very high risk for adverse health conditions. The danger is in the smoke, not the unburned tobacco leaf or the nicotine. Nicotine by itself, on the other hand, (while addictive) has been scientifically shown (through numerous studies) to have very low health risks - similar to caffeine use. Caffeine use has been socially accepted, yet nicotine use continues to be vilified - even nicotine use that is not associated with the dangers of smoking. While caffeine use is celebrated with $5 cups of designer coffee, nicotine is considered a horrible "crutch" that needs to be eliminated by all means necessary - even lying about the danger. It is so vilified that anti-tobacco groups greatly exaggerate the dangers of smokeless alternatives such as smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes - a policy that convinces committed smokers that they may as well continue to smoke rather than switch to a scientifically-proven reduced harm alternative.

The study named in your article does make a good point that e-cigarette manufacturing needs quality control and the products need further development for better equipment. THAT is what this study determined. Unfortunately, the researchers make conclusions and claims that the testing in this study does not support. This study did NOT test the chemicals in e-cigarettes and did not test the toxicity or health effects, yet they issue a press release stating conclusively that "e-cigarettes are unsafe and pose health risks." They even note that "virtually nothing is known about the toxicity of the vapors generated by these e-cigarettes," yet they still claim in their headline that e-cigarettes ARE "unsafe" and pose "health risks." If "virtually nothing" is known, so e-cigarette manufacturers shouldn't claim that e-cigarettes ARE safe, how can the researchers then make any claim that that they are known to be UNsafe? Additionally, they use trigger words such as "toxicity," implying that something in e-cigarettes is toxic, when all testing to date - including that by the FDA - has shown that the e-cigarettes tested have shown NO toxic levels of ANY chemicals. Then they release the statement prior to releasing the actual study, knowing that unsuspecting journalists such as yourself will trust their word and spread it on the internet; that the public will read the headlines and MAYBE skim the article; and few (if any) will read the actual study and find out that the actual research shows that the claim that e-cigarettes are "unsafe" and pose "health risks" is actually based on the fact that some cartridges leak and it COULD be bad to get some nicotine on your fingers. They are banking on the fact that most people will ASSUME, by the headline, that the researchers found dangerous, toxic chemicals in the vapor and consumers and journalists will never investigate the whole story.

The irony in all of this is that most e-cigarettes users would welcome thorough testing on these products to once and for all answer the question of safety. Most don't care if the products will get them off of nicotine, because they know that the health risks of nicotine without smoke are negligible. What they care about is that they are no longer exposing themselves to SMOKE. Yet what do these researchers who keep claiming that e-cigarettes are unsafe test? They test how much nicotine e-cigarettes deliver. They test how hard you have to suck on them to get nicotine. They test for leaks, labels and battery life. If they are so concerned about safety and REAL health risks, then why have none of these researchers tested for just that??

They haven't done that research because the answer is obvious - there is nothing in e-cigarettes that should cause concern, as they are all "generally regarded as safe" ingredients. So, they have to skirt the real research and come up with other scary reasons to get people to stick with ineffective (and some times deadly) pharmaceutical products and keep them on the quit-relapse cycle of smoking. It's win-win for the pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies, governments reliant upon tobacco tax revenue and public health groups reliant upon funding from pharmaceutical companies.

Win-win for everyone but smokers, who are kept in the dark about safer alternatives. It's not about defending our addiction, it's about getting the TRUTH from these people and not just skewed "research" that supports their agenda. It's CASAA's mission to get consumers the truth about smokeless alternatives. Millions of lives hang in the balance.

 

[DarkKarma]

I mentioned that pure nicotine can be fatal so I did some digging: The fatal dose appears to be .5 to 1 mg/kg. For those of us a little shaky with metric, that would be 1mg per 2.2lb. For me, weighing 260lb that would be 286 to 572mg consumed in one sitting. For a 6 year old weighing 45lb that would be 49 to 100mg. Out of curiosity, and thanks to my good friend, Google, I found out that the lethal dose of pure caffeine is 150 to 200 mg/kg. (or 2.2lb) For my 260lb frame, that would be 85850 to 114422mg of caffeine. I’d still keep E-Juice and paraphernalia out of the reach of kids. While it may not be enough to kill them, it’s plenty to make them VERY VERY SICK

Just letting you know your math is backwards. You divide your weight by 2.2lbs. For example I weigh ~190lbs. 190/2.2 = 83.4 Kgs. So basically if I got 3-4ml of my 24mg/ml nic juice on me, I could die.

Edit-The last part is assuming 100% absorption through my skin. I have no idea what the actual number is.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Perhaps the ultimate irony of Talbot et al call for FDA to ban e-cigarettes is that the FDA's ongoing effort to ban the importation of e-cigarettes has made it impossible to ensure quality control of the products.

Similarly, Talbot et al call for FDA to ban e-cigarettes would make it impossible to address or resolve all of their purported health, safety and consumer concerns about e-cigarettes.

The most effective way to ensure quality control and accurate labelling for e-cigarette products is for the FDA to reclassify and reasonably regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products.

 

[Petrodus]

I posted on the Examiner link:

Outstanding post!

I have always been envious of your eloquent communication skills.

 

[ShannonS]

It's very simple to dispose of liquid nicotine and carts safely. I have to destroy medications away from proper disposal systems all the time. To waste meds in the field, we place the medications in absorbent kitty litter in a sealable plastic bag, then dispose of that bag in the trash. This keeps the medications out of the ground water and would make it difficult for a dog, child or drug seeker to get sick or get high on.

If its good enough to be approved by the EPA and FDA for disposing of liquid morphine, it should be fine for liquid nicotine.

I plan to repost this in general discussion.

 

[5cardstud]

The one good thing I see in the Talbot report is the brands they tested. They should get those and the Prado off the market.

 

[gb_ibmguy]

Could the timing of the release of this "study" and today's Court ruling be coincidental?
I think the FDA could see they were going to lose this round, so they are off in a different direction.

GB

 

[Traver]

"So basically if I got 3-4ml of my 24mg/ml nic juice on me, I could die."

Maybe I'm just tired but this doesn't make sense. You could vape that much in an hour without ill effects.

Isn't 24mg/ml a concentration as in 24 milligrams per liter. What you actually have is 3-4ml of juice at a of concentration 24mg per liter.

 

[CJsKee]

For me, it's easier to think 24mg = 2.4% by volume, 18mg would be 1.8%, etc.

 

[xg4bx]

based on all the juice i've gotten on my skin and in my mouth i should be dead already then.

 

[Petrodus]

There's a long running discussion on
Nicotine on another thread

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/nicotine/44958-so-we-getting-we-not-nicotine.html

 

[Traver]

based on all the juice i've gotten on my skin and in my mouth i should be dead already then.

Well no! Because 1 milliliter of 24mg per liter juice contains 0.024mg of nicotine.

 

[maddcatt1]

"So basically if I got 3-4ml of my 24mg/ml nic juice on me, I could die."

Maybe I'm just tired but this doesn't make sense. You could vape that much in an hour without ill effects.

Isn't 24mg/ml a concentration as in 24 milligrams per liter. What you actually have is 3-4ml of juice at a of concentration 24mg per liter.

Wouldn't the 24mg/ml actually mean 24 milligrams per milliliter, not per liter? I'm just asking.

 

[john doe]

Wouldn't the 24mg/ml actually mean 24 milligrams per milliliter, not per liter? I'm just asking.

you got it, maddcatt1. So for 1 liter there would be 25mg x 1000 = 25000 mg or 25 grams.

 

[Traver]

you got it, maddcatt1. So for 1 liter there would be 25mg x 1000 = 25000 mg or 25 grams.

I don't remember enough about chemistry to say for sure one way or another. I am having trouble wrapping my mind around the notion that I am vaping a lethal dose of nicotine every day and some people are vaping 3 or 4 times as much.