Article on sciencebasedmedicine.org

[pamdis]

E-cigarettes: The growing popularity of an unregulated drug delivery device « Science-Based Medicine

 

[xhuffer]

Cliffs? As in pro or con.

 

[Pinggolfer]

You get dizzy reading it.

 

[pamdis]

Neutral - mainly talking about the lack of 'convincing' evidence. Slamming both sides for extreme rhetoric.

 

[Spazmelda]

Neutral - mainly talking about the lack of 'convincing' evidence. Slamming both sides for extreme rhetoric.

I actually thought the article was quite negative. How many times did he refer to Jenny McCarthy? She is not loved among scientists. Hell, having her hawk ecigs makes me question my own positive thoughts on them (I comfort myself with the old saying that, "even a broken clock is right twice a day"). He slams the positive ecig research that has been done (without saying much at all about the quality of the negative research). The questioning of the quality of current positive ecig research is by and large correct, but the negative research is (IMO) worse. He does not touch at all on the question of why more research has not been done. This, to me, is a huge glaring question. Why is there such a lack of well done studies? The researchers who seem open to the possibilities lack funds. Why? Why aren't health agencies funding/encouraging well thought out studies? The researchers whose minds are already made up can do shoddy research and get the answer they want.

 

[AgentAnia]

I haven't read the article yet; reached my quota of junk earlier this evening. But the headline, referring to ecigs as "unregulated drug delivery devices," has me seeing red already. As far as I'm concerned, nothing positive in the article could overcome the negativity of that headline.

 

[Petrodus]

You get dizzy reading it.

Reminds me of the famous Beetlejuice quote referring to
The Handbook for the Recently Deceased.
"It reads like stereo instructions."

 

[Orb Skewer]

Why use 200 words, when 2000 gets the same message across-but makes you look smart
I got as far as Jenn...............
.

 

[retired1]

Bottom line I get from the article is more study is required. Which is true. The long term effects are not known. That's basically what he's getting at. Just not in a very good way.

 

[ClippinWings]

Crazy that that article was so long... here's a summary (the points of which get repeatedlseveral times in different ways) :

• Jenny Macarthy is a vile human being for appearing in Blu ads and opposing vaccinations... Author really hit the vaccination thing a lot.
  
  
• ACSH who are normally hard on Tobacco, are for some reason cheerleaders for eCigs, author can't figure out why.
  
  
• eCig proponents rhetoric("banning eCigs will kill smokers") is more offensive, and as a result, must mean that they are hiding a bigger pile of BS
  
  
• All the Studies for both sides suck
  
  
• Testimonials and surveys of eCig users who claim to have quit smoking aren't worth anything
  
  
• the Drexel university study must be ignored because it is non-peer reviewed propaganda
  
  
• It is reasonable to conclude through basic logic that eCigs would be less harmful than cigarette smoking

NOTE: that last point was mentioned 4 times. HOWEVER, in each case it was followed by some sort of qualifier that negated the statement.

 

[tommy2bad]

The guy has a bee in his bonnet because of the Jenny McCarthy add. Nothing will convince him e-cigs are good after her endorsement.
He doesn't even understand the product or grasp the THR principal.

 

[Spazmelda]

[*]It is reasonable to conclude through basic logic that eCigs would be less harmful than cigarette smoking
[/LIST]

NOTE: that last point was mentioned 4 times. HOWEVER, in each case it was followed by some sort of qualifier that negated the statement.

I noticed that too, but couldn't figure out a way to put into words my feelings on this matter. I'm a scientist and I like science. I like research. There are many things that would be great to know about electronic cigarettes. At the same time, it really doesn't require loads of data to ascertain that electronic cigarettes are much less unhealthy than cigarettes. Barring some weird unforeseen chemical reaction that occurs when ecig components are heated to moderate temperatures, previous research on the harmful components of cigarettes, research on propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin, research on NRTs and snus, should give us a pretty good idea of where on the 'harm spectrum' e cigarettes fall. I'm hopeful that good thorough research will happen, but there should be acknowledgement that we don't really have to start over from scratch. We can extrapolate from previous research and knowledge. So far there is no evidence that the knee jerk reaction to ban ecigs is even remotely appropriate. Just because we CAN gather data and do studies doesn't mean that we know absolutely nothing until those are completed.

I don't know if what I'm saying makes sense...

 

[Orb Skewer]

I noticed that too, but couldn't figure out a way to put into words my feelings on this matter. I'm a scientist and I like science. I like research. There are many things that would be great to know about electronic cigarettes. At the same time, it really doesn't require loads of data to ascertain that electronic cigarettes are much less unhealthy than cigarettes. Barring some weird unforeseen chemical reaction that occurs when ecig components are heated to moderate temperatures, previous research on the harmful components of cigarettes, research on propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin, research on NRTs and snus, should give us a pretty good idea of where on the 'harm spectrum' e cigarettes fall. I'm hopeful that good thorough research will happen, but there should be acknowledgement that we don't really have to start over from scratch. We can extrapolate from previous research and knowledge. So far there is no evidence that the knee jerk reaction to ban ecigs is even remotely appropriate. Just because we CAN gather data and do studies doesn't mean that we know absolutely nothing until those are completed.

I don't know if what I'm saying makes sense...

Evaluating the E-cigs 'harm profile' by aggregating all the (known and tested data from) all the single components used in them ?

 

[2coils]

I noticed that too, but couldn't figure out a way to put into words my feelings on this matter. I'm a scientist and I like science. I like research. There are many things that would be great to know about electronic cigarettes. At the same time, it really doesn't require loads of data to ascertain that electronic cigarettes are much less unhealthy than cigarettes. Barring some weird unforeseen chemical reaction that occurs when ecig components are heated to moderate temperatures, previous research on the harmful components of cigarettes, research on propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin, research on NRTs and snus, should give us a pretty good idea of where on the 'harm spectrum' e cigarettes fall. I'm hopeful that good thorough research will happen, but there should be acknowledgement that we don't really have to start over from scratch. We can extrapolate from previous research and knowledge. So far there is no evidence that the knee jerk reaction to ban ecigs is even remotely appropriate. Just because we CAN gather data and do studies doesn't mean that we know absolutely nothing until those are completed.

I don't know if what I'm saying makes sense...

THanks for the post. Well said

EDIT: The ANTZ are approaching e-cigs like we are back in the 1950's before such huge scientific and technological advancements have been made. Some of the claims are ridiculous. Research has come a long way. I am not dismissing the fact that we still need longer term studies, but we can already make some conclusions.

 

[Berylanna]

I commented and subscribed to followups. This guy is a flaming ANTZ. His replies sound like Glantz ...that weird ability to make the other person sound stupid just by using a certain "tone" -- and missing the huge holes in his own statements. My stomach hurts.

 

[Orb Skewer]

OP-break that link
JUNK

 

[ClippinWings]

my comment is awaiting moderation... but I'm wondering if you all think I'm off base... Hew asked a question I've never considered... and my answer surprised me.

“Based on medicine and science, what are nicotine containing e-cigarettes, if not a drug/device combination whose sole purpose is to deliver a dose of nicotine to the lungs?”

Good Question… The answer get’s a bit complicated….

First, that is not their sole purpose. If it was, there would be no visible vapor and flavoring wouldn't matter.
But it does. I’ve vaped flavorless liquid and it’s boring and not very pleasurable.
Also, it is possible to exhale no vapor, called “stealth vaping”... also, boring and not as pleasurable.

So when you take into account the flavor and pleasure derived from the act, in addition to the addictive nature of the nicotine that they may OR may not contain.

I guess they should be regulated like Coffee.
It’s the only logical comparison… OK, maybe Carbonated Soft Drinks is a good one too.

Certainly not a Medical device like an insulin pump or a tobacco product like Cigarettes.

Both of those could only be seen as viable comparisons to people who have never vaped.

 

[pamdis]

my comment is awaiting moderation... but I'm wondering if you all think I'm off base... Hew asked a question I've never considered... and my answer surprised me.

Your comment got posted and the author replied saying your analogy doesn't hold. I tried to reply, but the site wouldn't let me saying my Facebook account had expired.

I think your analogy does hold. Nicotine and Caffeine are both mild stimulants which people enjoy. If I'm 'addicted' to caffeine and the only possible way to get it would be Diet Soda with Aspartame in it, (and Aspterteme was not only harmful to me, but somehow harmful to others, and society had campaigns trying to get people to quit), then along comes this new drink called Coffee - Miracle! I can still get my caffeine, but somehow all the people who were trying to get me to quit Diet Soda are telling me that Coffee may be just as bad for me, and I should not be allowed to drink it, (keep drinking that Diet Soda that we already know everything about) until Coffee has been studied to death for the next 30 years. On second thought let's just ban coffee, because we don't really want to know, we just want you to quit Diet Soda all together, caffeine is just the ingredient that is addicting you to your Aspartame habit, you should just quit, not find an alternative.

 

[Petrodus]

The author (David Gorski) posted ... in part

Yes, there are many parallels between the e-cig boosters who have descended on this blog
and the antivaccine movement. The sad thing is, I am agnostic with respect to e-cigs,
as I’ve pointed out many times before.

 

[Berylanna]

The author (David Gorski) posted ... in part

Yes, there are many parallels between the e-cig boosters who have descended on this blog
and the antivaccine movement. The sad thing is, I am agnostic with respect to e-cigs,
as I’ve pointed out many times before.

And if you believe him....Need a bridge? I can sell it to you cheap and you'll make a fortune on tolls (provided it's not the Golden Gate, which does not accept cash under any circumstances.)