I found this quite interesting. Seems like BAT are going to attempt to change WHO's thinking.
Proper appraisal
Proper appraisal
British American Tobacco getting in on the testing
- Thread starter Mossy
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'm not sure why BAT wouldn't want to show that certain e-Cigarettes present Less Harm/Risk that Combustible Cigarettes?
@zoiDman I am not sure either.
Here's the part people with ANTZ like opinions will completely over look.
"
The biological impact of e-cigarette vapor compared with cigarette smoke can be tested in the lab using cell-based tests. One test uses a 3-D model of human lung tissue to examine the impact of e-cigarette vapor versus smoke on cell health. Also, there is a “scratch test” that examines a tissue’s ability to repair itself (when scratched) after exposure to e-cigarette vapor or cigarette smoke (see Figure 2).
The first test uses a dye to observe the impact of aerosol exposure on the cells. Healthy cells have an enzyme that breaks down the dye so that it changes from purple to yellow. Healthy cells will therefore appear more yellow in color than unhealthy or dead cells. This test reveals that exposure to cigarette smoke for six hours causes near complete death of human airway cells in this test. But even after hours of continuous exposure, the impact of the e-cigarette vapor on the airway tissue was found to be similar to that of air.6
In the “scratch test,” a layer of cells is scratched and the cells’ ability to close the scratch/wound is observed. The scratch mimics natural wear and tear in the cardiovascular system. This test can be used to compare the effect of e-cigarette vapor on wound healing compared with cigarette smoke. When the cells were exposed to smoke, they seemed to lose their sense of direction and position relevant to other cells; they appeared “confused” and could not find their way across the gap—the wound did not close. By contrast, when the cells were exposed to e-cigarette vapor, the cells quickly closed the gap in much the same way as they do when just exposed to air.
These early-stage results demonstrate that in comparison to cigarettes, these new products have great potential to demonstrate a reduction in disease-relevant risk."
I have heard very many times the average time for smoking related illness to
manifest itself is 20-40 years of smoking. Looking at the difference between what
smoke did to these cells and what vapor did one wonders how long of an exposure
rate and what levels would vaping even begin showing significant harm if in fact
any harm that might occur could be below the threshold of becoming accumulative
and permanent.
Someone posted in another thread here concerning this study or one very similar
that by using the 20-40 year comparison for smokers to become ill a vaper would
have to vape heavily for 160 years or more to get the same exposure. I am not
sure if their assumption was correct and have forgotten who said it or what thread
it was in in but, it made quite an impression on me.
Regards
Mike
Here's the part people with ANTZ like opinions will completely over look.
"
The biological impact of e-cigarette vapor compared with cigarette smoke can be tested in the lab using cell-based tests. One test uses a 3-D model of human lung tissue to examine the impact of e-cigarette vapor versus smoke on cell health. Also, there is a “scratch test” that examines a tissue’s ability to repair itself (when scratched) after exposure to e-cigarette vapor or cigarette smoke (see Figure 2).
The first test uses a dye to observe the impact of aerosol exposure on the cells. Healthy cells have an enzyme that breaks down the dye so that it changes from purple to yellow. Healthy cells will therefore appear more yellow in color than unhealthy or dead cells. This test reveals that exposure to cigarette smoke for six hours causes near complete death of human airway cells in this test. But even after hours of continuous exposure, the impact of the e-cigarette vapor on the airway tissue was found to be similar to that of air.6
In the “scratch test,” a layer of cells is scratched and the cells’ ability to close the scratch/wound is observed. The scratch mimics natural wear and tear in the cardiovascular system. This test can be used to compare the effect of e-cigarette vapor on wound healing compared with cigarette smoke. When the cells were exposed to smoke, they seemed to lose their sense of direction and position relevant to other cells; they appeared “confused” and could not find their way across the gap—the wound did not close. By contrast, when the cells were exposed to e-cigarette vapor, the cells quickly closed the gap in much the same way as they do when just exposed to air.
These early-stage results demonstrate that in comparison to cigarettes, these new products have great potential to demonstrate a reduction in disease-relevant risk."
I have heard very many times the average time for smoking related illness to
manifest itself is 20-40 years of smoking. Looking at the difference between what
smoke did to these cells and what vapor did one wonders how long of an exposure
rate and what levels would vaping even begin showing significant harm if in fact
any harm that might occur could be below the threshold of becoming accumulative
and permanent.
Someone posted in another thread here concerning this study or one very similar
that by using the 20-40 year comparison for smokers to become ill a vaper would
have to vape heavily for 160 years or more to get the same exposure. I am not
sure if their assumption was correct and have forgotten who said it or what thread
it was in in but, it made quite an impression on me.
Regards
Mike
The Reason I Mentioned what I did was because BAT makes and Sells e-Cigarettes. So I would be Very Surprised (Shocked Actually) if they were Involved in a Study which was Published that Showed any Significant Harm coming from a Small Sampling of e-Cigarettes and e-Liquids.
It just Wouldn't have been Published if it Did.
One also has to consider the Limitations of ANY study that has been Published. And not fall into the Trap of Saying that All e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids are "Harmless" in the Short and Long Term because of One Study that showed Little Harm under Selected Conditions.
That would be Doing what are Detractors have been Doing. Lumping ALL e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids into One Conclusion based on a Very Narrow Criteria.
I am Encouraged by Any Positive Results from Any Type of "Study". And I would like to see More Research done. Especially using e-Cigarette Hardware/Wattages which more Closely resembles what the Average Vaper uses.
I'd trust BAT to do the right thing for altruistic motives about as far as I could throw them.
Case of "Cherchez l'argent!" if you ask Old Cynical G. I suspect this is simply the forerunner of their attempts to penetrate deeper into the market.
Case of "Cherchez l'argent!" if you ask Old Cynical G. I suspect this is simply the forerunner of their attempts to penetrate deeper into the market.
Large Tobacco Conglomerates due tend to put Profits over Altruistic Activities don't they. LOL.
But that isn't to say that there can't be any Truth in what a Study says.
I agree zoiDman, but I have not, nor ever will, forgive them nor Big Pharma for their dirty work behind the scenes in Europe to persuade the EEC to Demonise and over legislate Vaping in Europe.
Also in my mind is the wise saying that "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" BAT became BAT by taking over in a less than friendly manner just about all the smaller/medium sized tobacco firms in the UK at the start of the 20th Century...
Also in my mind is the wise saying that "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" BAT became BAT by taking over in a less than friendly manner just about all the smaller/medium sized tobacco firms in the UK at the start of the 20th Century...
The USA is on the Same Route as Europe went. It's just that we are about 2 Years behind you.
Demonize e-Cigarettes with Media Hype, Rhetoric and Junk Science to Sway the Ill-Informed Masses.
Enact Sweeping Regulations and Taxes on BOTH the Sate and Federal Level.
Shift the Market thru Regulations to BT and BV.
Then do a 180 and Reverse the "Official" position about Level of Harm Regulated e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids actual present.
@Falconeer @zoiDman I personally get the impression that BAT is playing
the game on both sides of the field and following the rules prescribed depending
on which side of the field they happen to be on. I do not think they would associate
themselves with a study which appears easily duplicated and the possible confounding
that would result. I am not patting them on the back for this. It is what it is.
I consider this just another piece of the puzzle along with a lot of other
studies purporting to the relative safety of vaping especially when compared
to smoking. This helps more than it hurts.
Regards
Mike
the game on both sides of the field and following the rules prescribed depending
on which side of the field they happen to be on. I do not think they would associate
themselves with a study which appears easily duplicated and the possible confounding
that would result. I am not patting them on the back for this. It is what it is.
I consider this just another piece of the puzzle along with a lot of other
studies purporting to the relative safety of vaping especially when compared
to smoking. This helps more than it hurts.
Regards
Mike
Last edited:
@Falconeer @zoidmann I personally get the impression that BAT is playing
the game on both sides of the field and following the rules prescribed depending
on which side of the field they happen to be on. I do not think they would associate
themselves with a study which appears easily duplicated and the possible confounding
that would result. I am not patting them on the back for this. It is what it is.
I consider this just another piece of the puzzle along with a lot of other
studies purporting to the relative safety of vaping especially when compared
to smoking. This helps more than it hurts.
Regards
Mike
I just think what you are seeing with BAT is what they have Known for a Long Time. But are Unwilling to publish Until regulations are Certain.
I mean, if you are BT, why would you come out 2 Years ago and Publish anything that shows any Positive aspects of e-Cigarette use? Wouldn't you Wait until Regulations guaranteed your position in a Market of Select Manufactures?
Once Regulations are in Place that give BT and BV complete Domination of the e-Cigarette/e-Liquid market, then we will see more and more published Works about e-Cigarettes reduced Risks/Harm over Combustible Tobacco.
And the FDA, CDC, NIH will all fall in line and will probably publish Reports such a the UK's Health Ministry did citing something similar to e-Cigarettes are "95% Safer" than Smoking.
@zoiDman agreed. I have opined as much considering this possibility also.
The FDA locks it up or BT and along with the CDC takes care of things
for BP and Big Medical Establishment's et al.
Regards
Mike
The FDA locks it up or BT and along with the CDC takes care of things
for BP and Big Medical Establishment's et al.
Regards
Mike
What the Big Fly in the Frosting is that e-Cigarettes DO present less Harm than Smoking. It would be So Much Easier if they Didn't.
So after the Regs are Finalized, and the Taxes are in Place, there really Isn't a Reason for Health Agencies to keep the Façade going that they aren't.
Sure, they will still say that Quitting Smoking and Not Vaping is your Best Bet. Which it is. But all the "e-Cigarettes are Evil" hype will Die Down.
And I can see the Day where most Hospitals are handing out e-Cigarettes to Post Ops. Or State Agencies giving e-Cigarettes to people Help them Quit Smoking.
Right on but,we average vapers will be paying outrageous prices with
confiscatory taxes while the hospitals and state pay ten times as much
for medically approved cessation ENDS.
Mike
Right on but,we average vapers will be paying outrageous prices with
confiscatory taxes while the hospitals and state pay ten times as much
for medically approved cessation ENDS.
Mike
Absolutely.
The Market is going to Change. Don't even think stevegmu could Deny That.
The test has not been shown to correlate with any actual, real-life health outcomes. So it's just crap that's designed to look "sciency" to gullible people.
The prime directive for a corporation is to produce a return on investment for the owners, the shareholders. I believe that ecig technology is going to end the Tobacco Age. I think BT bellieves that too. They can fight it or be a part of it. I think they have decided to be a part of it.
The kind of testing being discussed makes sense to me and it shouldn't take so long as in the past. I believe the DNA200 board can collect and save the fine details of how power is being used on the device and that can be downloaded and evaluated. So add bluetooth and compatibility with a smart phone and test subjects could provide real time data about how they use their devces. That would simplify and speed up a study process.
I'm a greedy capitalist too but I'd rather not be in a business that makes people sick. May be they feel the same. I'm keeping an open mind that they are persuing enlightened self interest and are more on our side than not on our side--for now.
Completely agreed, but I'll expand your definition just a bit. Corporations (of any particular size) are amoral entities who's purpose is to turn a profit for owners and investors. Their concern for the customer or general public is driven by profit motive including return customer business and positive public relations to generate new business. This is the main reason why capitalism works as an economic model because it's based on mutual benefit between the business and the customer, and not some phony altruistic trust principal.
The problem I have with BT (given what I just said above) is that they have enjoyed a rigged market for a very long time, supported by corrupt regulation and other government support like the MSA. Because of this, the normal influences of the open market were greatly decreased and a few tobacco companies were able to dominate the market. I'm very concerned that given their unfair advantage over the years in their traditional market, that they will continue to lobby to dominate the vapor products market in the same fashion. It is my opinion that it is probably in their best interest to do so for themselves and their shareholders, and we've already seen their fingerprints on state legislation restricting vapor product use.
As much as I don't like the idea of condemning the entire big tobacco industry, their history and partnership with corrupt government officials and policies makes me very cautious of their potential role.
The tobacco companies have the money and the knowhow to do useful valid science if they choose to do that. If they actually do that it will steal the thunder from the half assed half baked pseudo science we've seen reported in the news. That would be nice. Up to now the science has been for the purpose of discrediting vaping instead of figuring out how to balance the risks. That needs to change. We are hearing about what the tobacco companies plan to do. All we can do is wait to see what they come up with.
Inasmuch as it is nearly impossible to simulate real life conditions let alone
outcomes in a laboratory testing like this does provide data that can be expanded
on as more advanced techniques and knowledge become available. I believe the
data is valid inasmuch as it is leading to the right direction. It might not be 100%
correct in each and every individual experience but, it's still a relatively good
indication of where things might lead.
I agree. The beauty of their position is they have both bases covered. I believe they will
be ok either way and I don't really care. Although I am certain they would not rather spend
the money but for the deeming a healthy tax right off wouldn't be the end of the world in
thier eye's.
Regards
Mike
You realize that this is 1/2 of a Doubled Edge Sword?
Because if one feels this way about Testing that is Done using this type Protocol, then if Next Week a Study is Published, using a the same type of Protocol and some Negative Aspects of Vaping was shown, that one would need to Consider these Negative Results.
Right?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
