Brad Rodu: Imaginary hobgoblins from e-cigarette liquid lab tests

[Bill Godshall]

Brad Rodu: Imaginary hobgoblins from e-cigarette liquid lab tests
Tobacco Truth: Imaginary Hobgoblins From E-Cigarette Liquid Lab Tests

Another excellent article delineating why cell and mouse studies are inaccurate, unreliable and inappropriate for assessing human health risks (for vapor products and for all other products).

Note that warfarin was sold as rat poison before it was found to be a harmless but very effective blood thinner when ingested by humans.

 

[Scottitude]

Thanks for posting this, BG.

 

[defdock]

A gigantic great laugh. Thank for the post. I love your humor

 

[Kent C]

Thanks for posting Bill! ★★★★★

This is stuff that is important in almost all the studies we see posted here and what, as Brad Radu says, vapers need to keep in mind when reading them, or I might add, when reading the news media scare-mongering articles.

Of particular note, imo, wrt all studies that we've seen - pro and con - on the effect of cells:

"E-cigarette consumers – vapers – need to understand that what happens in these lab experiments does not necessarily mirror cellular action in humans. Human cells nurtured in labs’ artificial environments are exquisitely delicate; even under perfect conditions, it is exceedingly difficult to keep them alive – a minor change in the environment can skew an experiment and even kill the cells.

"Humans are far more resistant to small doses of chemicals than are cells in a petri dish. Famed biologist Bruce Ames wrote in 2000, “Humans have many natural defenses that buffer against normal exposures to toxins…Examples of general defenses include the continuous shedding of cells exposed to toxins. The surface layers of the mouth, esophagus, stomach, intestine, colon, skin and lungs are discarded every few days; dna repair enzymes, which repair dna that was damaged from many different sources; and detoxification enzymes of the liver and other organs.” (abstract here)."
---
So not only do some methods in the lab not reflect the reality of the use of ecigarettes - esp. using smoking machines, but the use of cells in a petri dish, also doesn't take into account, again, in reality, how the body reacts to toxins to treat and heal itself. Cells in a petri dish can't 'call 911' to send for help :- )

 

[Kent C]

This article is filled with 'gold':

"Environmentalists are quick to accuse their opponents in business of having vested interests. But their own incomes, their fame and their very existence can depend on supporting the most alarming versions of every environmental scare. ‘The whole aim of practical politics’ said H.L. Mencken, ‘is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’ Mencken’s forecast, at least, appears to have been correct.’

Taking it to the ANTZ ecig studies - this is exactly the same as we've seen. In fact, there is more of a direct connection to 'their own incomes' in that the gov't grants given from the FDA and other 3 and 4 letter agencies is more direct than studies coming from THR groups, while some coming from tobacco companies are more along the line of gov't grants. However if ANTZ studies don't support the gov't that is giving them money, that money would dry up quickly, never to be seen again. And while the same could be said for tobacco companies, the labs are already in the private market and could transfer to other areas more easily.

 

[Kent C]

More 'gold':

Radu:
"“Aaron Wildavsky discusses worst-case risk assessment in his book But Is It True: A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues: ‘We should be guided by the probability and extent of harm, not by its mere possibility. The search for possibilities is endless and it trivializes the subject. There is bound to be great diversion of resources without reducing substantial sources of harm. "

This studying 'mere possibility' and 'endless possibilities' and the trivializing**, applies to ANTZ studies as well as some of 'ours', imo, as you can see here:

Effect of variable power levels on the yield of total aerosol mass and formation of aldehydes in e-

Where "catering to the hand-wringing safety types, tends to detract and distract from the momentum of spreading the safer products to a wider public."

It calls into question those who think they're all about harm reduction when some issues tend to detract from and endanger the spread of ecigarettes' harm reduction properties to the larger public.

** and as Lessifer pointed out in another thread - leads to the impossible task of 'proving a negative'

 

[Katya]

‘The whole aim of practical politics’ said H.L. Mencken, ‘is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’

Truer words have never been spoken...

 

[CarolT]

"Humans are far more resistant to small doses of chemicals than are cells in a petri dish. Famed biologist Bruce Ames wrote in 2000, “Humans have many natural defenses that buffer against normal exposures to toxins…Examples of general defenses include the continuous shedding of cells exposed to toxins. The surface layers of the mouth, esophagus, stomach, intestine, colon, skin and lungs are discarded every few days; DNA repair enzymes, which repair DNA that was damaged from many different sources; and detoxification enzymes of the liver and other organs.” (abstract here)."

Oops, your link demanded a login first.

 

[Kent C]

Oops, your link demanded a login first.

Carol, the link is from the link in the OP. Oddly it works if you go to the OP link but not when duplicated as a quote?? Try this:

Paracelsus to parascience: the environmental cancer distraction. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[CarolT]

Carol, the link is from the link in the OP. Oddly it works if you go to the OP link but not when duplicated as a quote?? Try this:

Paracelsus to parascience: the environmental cancer distraction. - PubMed - NCBI

Here's the whole thing.
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/pdfs/Paracelsus.pdf

 

[Kent C]

Here's the whole thing.
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/pdfs/Paracelsus.pdf

Thanks Carol.

 

[Kurt]

Bill: excellent find, and extremely important analysis from Rodu. The hyper-sensitivity of some types of cell cultures to e-vapor is something that makes in vitro studies very difficult and/or leads to conclusions that are often erroneously assigned to actual human usage. I am getting involved with this type of ecig research now, and there are indeed considerable challenges for doing meaningful work because of this sensitivity. But I do think meaningful and good studies, when done in the right context, can be achieved in vitro.

This studying 'mere possibility' and 'endless possibilities' and the trivializing**, applies to ANTZ studies as well as some of 'ours', imo, as you can see here:

Effect of variable power levels on the yield of total aerosol mass and formation of aldehydes in e-

Where "catering to the hand-wringing safety types, tends to detract and distract from the momentum of spreading the safer products to a wider public."

It calls into question those who think they're all about harm reduction when some issues tend to detract from and endanger the spread of ecigarettes' harm reduction properties to the larger public.

** and as Lessifer pointed out in another thread - leads to the impossible task of 'proving a negative'

As we have discussed, Kent, I do not think our aldehyde study did anything of the sort. Its gives vapers options to avoid aldehydes and/or dry-puff, and simply get info on how to get a better vape. It gives manufacturers of new vaping technology some benchmark data to help make future devices safer, easier to use, and more enjoyable. I know you believe this is a done deal and they are safe enough now and should not be scrutinized, but the FDA doesn't care what you or anyone else believes, they want hard data, and so do many consumers. We can let junk studies continue to proliferate the media, which they probably will, and hope people will ignore them, but they won't, and because of the some of the previous aldehyde studies some people switched back to smoking, thinking it was no worse than vaping. I know several such people myself. Our study and its implications are getting a bit of media coverage now, and I think sending the right message about this issue (Vaping Emits Less Formaldehyde than Previously Thought). This story does not cater to the hand-wringing type, and I even talk about how if aldehydes are being significantly produced the vaper will most likely stop using the device naturally. Without hard published data presented in the right context, we could easily be allowed to only purchase in the future devices that don't work for quitting or work very poorly in general. We also need hard data to either help remove or change the Feb 2007 grandfather date for the deeming. Showing the current high-end devices to be much safer and perform better than some older models, I believe, helps this cause.

There is a LOT of money going to research with an anti-ecig agenda, either by the funding agencies or the researchers themselves to get the money. Burying our heads, or bleating complaints will do very little to counter this well-funded campaign. It is vital that good research be carried out and published to counter it, or that good research be done quicker to preempt the junk.

 

[Kent C]

As we have discussed, Kent, I do not think our aldehyde study did anything of the sort.

If you go to that particular link of my last post, it was about our disagreement on degree of safety, not on anything particular about the study.

I know you believe this is a done deal and they are safe enough now and should not be scrutinized

And while we disagree on the degree of safety, I never said 'no safety', or that certain aspects of vaping shouldn't be scrutinized - I've done my share of scrutiny in the threads mentioned - dangerous carto, ego types forum, TC forum, and some eliquid threads as well. If I thought it was a 'done deal' I wouldn't have gone past the Janty 510 ecig. :- )

but the FDA doesn't care what you or anyone else believes, they want hard data

I'm not sure that is true. There's a lot of information from the FDA and statements that imply otherwise. I think the some of the FDA funded studies show they want just the opposite - subjective data that can be spun against ecigs rather than hard objective data. I can give you many examples if you wish.

Our study and its implications are getting a bit of media coverage now, and I think sending the right message about this issue (Vaping Emits Less Formaldehyde than Previously Thought).

I saw that and it's commendable when people understand and have the whole context but when, as we've seen with some of Dr. F studies - where media takes things out of context, the only thing that gets reported is the one case where "the ecig has 15 times the aldehydes of cigarettes".

And while the full context is helpful to many here with those concerns and may alter their choices of how they vape, the larger public without the context or concerns, may continue to smoke or even switch back to smoking. I'm not saying you shouldn't continue your work - only showing how it can be, and has been translated to the larger public through some media that don't care about context, only headlines. If the current election hasn't shown you that, I don't think there's any way for me to really 'convince' you of that being the case. And I'm not saying you should alter your studies or your phrasing of the results - only that media cherry picks. Although perhaps adding that fact into the report as a prophylactic might help. :- )

Burying our heads, or bleating complaints will do very little to counter this well-funded campaign. It is vital that good research be carried out and published to counter it, or that good research be done quicker to preempt the junk.

I don't think anyone here would think I'm burying my head in the sand, although some wish I would. lol... And I don't 'bleat complaints' - I give the best analysis I can on why certain things aren't helpful and suggest how people can help counter ANTZ studies and media articles - even those that give what looks like a 'balanced' view, all the while dragging out all of the negative talking points against ecigs - that is, if you have the same or similar views, do things I do - email or comment on articles, email representatives, federal, state and local. Respond to CAASA's Call to Actions, and when possible contribute money to those most helpful to our cause.

I've been supporting smoking rights for decades and while I find it 'interesting' of the back and forth of the scientific community on many issues, the main issue for me and for others with similar views - is we have the right to vape and to smoke regardless of any real or imagined harm that it may do to us - it's our choice, no one else's. Esp. scientists and junk scientists where their conclusions may imply or start with "shoulds" and end up as a basis for "forced mandates" of government regulation.