Does smoking E-Cigg cause water retention in lungs?

[tj99959]

Simple fact, if information isn't from a PUBLISHED study, it's a lie.

There is yet to be a PUBLISHED study stating that there is something wrong with e-cigs! There are plenty of PUBLISHED studies showing that they are NOT harmful.

 

[InTheShade]

If it's on the internet, it must be true.



Bonjour.

 

[carrielsal]

Simple fact, if information isn't from a PUBLISHED study, it's a lie.

There is yet to be a PUBLISHED study stating that there is something wrong with e-cigs! There are plenty of PUBLISHED studies showing that they are NOT harmful.

Just because a study is published still doesn't mean it's based in fact. Just take a look at Dr Farsalino's rebuttal to the studies performed on vaping cinnamon, http://www.ecigarette-research.com/...9-50-07/138-cinnamon-flavours-in-e-cigarettes.

"The latest study by Talbot’s group discussed about the cytotoxicity of cinnamon flavors in e-cigarette. Interestingly however, IF SOMEONE READS THE PAPER, he will find that the researchers never used any e-cigarette. Moreover, they never produced vapor! They tested the liquids in liquid form, not in vapor. How can you support that the results have implications for e-cigarette users when no e-cigarette was used and no vapor was produced? However, there is a bigger mistake. The authors mentioned that they tested 8 refill liquids with cinnamon flavor. They mention the names of the liquids and the companies they got them from. After personally searching on the internet and communicating with some companies, I found out that 4 of the samples were concentrated flavors, not refills. The authors themselves found cinnamaldehyde (the substance giving the cinnamon flavor in the liquid) at levels that differed between samples by up to 100 times. This confirms what I found: some of their samples were concentrated flavors."

 

[Sloopoke]

I have not found any water retention issues after fairly heavy vaping full time for 3 months now after 40++ years of cigs. I never did have a "smokers cough", but I can breath in deep and exhale and feel that my lungs are more clear and that was after 2 months. sense of taste and esp smell have made huge improvements!

Finally found 3 nice flavors to vape on all day and even though dripping a lot filling carto's is a pain, it still beats the hell out of all the dirty ashtrays! After a week and a half of replacing ceiling tiles and washing and painting brown walls, I now have a VERY bright white lower level that used to be the same as now! I'll stick with the e-cigs.

-Vape on

 

[rhean]

Here is a good discussion of this: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/06/german-cancer-research-center-corrects.html

I just skimmed through the article again to refresh my memory. It seems that there was one case study where a user of electronic cigarettes was diagnosed with lipoid pneumonia. However, there were other factors that could have contributed to the pneumonia. They never proved that the electronic cigarette was the cause. A case study is just the study of one or a few cases, and generally these aren't taken as very strong scientific evidence. There are no control groups, just a write up of patient histories, symptoms, outcome, etc... In this particular case, there was nothing much to link the ecig to the pneumonia. If someone had a case study of 3-4 patients who used ecigs and developed pneumonia, that would be a little stronger. Also, a case study that wants to link a cause and effect is stronger if it proposes a plausible mechanism of action. This case study proposed it was oils in the liquid that caused the pneumonia, but ecig liquids do not usually contain oil, so the biological mechanism these researchers used to link the two events is implausible.

Yes. I read that article, too, and cause-effect was inadequate, to put it mildly. That one vaper developed a specific type of pneumonia does not mean that vapers are more likely than non-vapers to develop this type of pneumonia.

 

[AgentAnia]

I believe OP meant to refer to fluid retention (aka pulmonary edema; for a discussion of PE, see Pulmonary edema: Causes - MayoClinic.com). If OP does indeed mean water retention, there are two main causes: drowning, and near drowning. (Third reason, if you're like me, is trying to use a neti pot...)

 

[tj99959]

Just because a study is published still doesn't mean it's based in fact. Just take a look at Dr Farsalino's rebuttal to the studies performed on vaping cinnamon, Cinnamon flavours in e-cigarettes: how inappropriate research can misinform the public and the (amateur) professionals.

"The latest study by Talbot’s group discussed about the cytotoxicity of cinnamon flavors in e-cigarette. Interestingly however, IF SOMEONE READS THE PAPER, he will find that the researchers never used any e-cigarette. Moreover, they never produced vapor! They tested the liquids in liquid form, not in vapor. How can you support that the results have implications for e-cigarette users when no e-cigarette was used and no vapor was produced? However, there is a bigger mistake. The authors mentioned that they tested 8 refill liquids with cinnamon flavor. They mention the names of the liquids and the companies they got them from. After personally searching on the internet and communicating with some companies, I found out that 4 of the samples were concentrated flavors, not refills. The authors themselves found cinnamaldehyde (the substance giving the cinnamon flavor in the liquid) at levels that differed between samples by up to 100 times. This confirms what I found: some of their samples were concentrated flavors."

That is exactly my point! The "cinnamon study" was never published, it was just released to the press is all. If you look closely at that "study" it will be obvious that it would never pass "peer review" in order to be published.

Did you know that when a study is released to the press before peer review and acceptance for publication, it becomes barred from publication? (there just might be a message in that)
Many so called "studies" hit the press for no other reason than to sway public opinion with no intention of ever being submitted for publication.

 

[K_Tech]

I read that a while back and thought then, as I do now, that it's just another pitiful attempt to discredit ecigs. It kind of makes one wonder why they're trying so hard?

Taking the risk that was NOT a rhetorical question, I'll just do the math.

Let's say a median price of $6 a pack of cigarettes, one pack per day. In a year, that's $2190 NOT going to big tobacco and the government.

Multiply that by the 169,702 vapers that belong to this forum, that's over $371 MILLION that the government and BT are "losing" just from US.

Sure, they're not bleeding money yet - but if it keeps up, they're definitely gonna feel it!

 

[Spazmelda]

That is exactly my point! The "cinnamon study" was never published, it was just released to the press is all. If you look closely at that "study" it will be obvious that it would never pass "peer review" in order to be published.

Did you know that when a study is released to the press before peer review and acceptance for publication, it becomes barred from publication? (there just might be a message in that)
Many so called "studies" hit the press for no other reason than to sway public opinion with no intention of ever being submitted for publication.

I'm dubious of the idea that a study released to the press before peer review is barred from publication. That may be a rule that specific journals have, but I've never heard that it is fact across the board. It's a good idea and i think it would be a good policy for journals to adopt, but I don't know that it's true. Do you have a link or something? I googled "science by press release" and got a lot of good information, but did not find anything suggesting that research was subsequently banned from publication if the researchers did promote it to the media before peer review.

As was pointed out earlier the fact that something has been peer reviewed is not a guarantee that it is a quality study. Peer review is far from a perfect system. Not that I think you are suggesting that, but I just wanted to make sure that point is clear.

I think that the Drexel Study commissioned by CASAA has not yet been published in a peer reviewed journal, though it has been released. I did read somewhere that it has been submitted and hopefully will be published in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[ShariR]

There are risks in everything you do. Life is weighing the risks of your actions, many of which we take for granted. Every time you cross the street you risk getting run over by a vehicle. There are risks in vaping too. The point is that the risks you take with vaping seem to be much less than the known dangers of smoking tobacco.

I can not vape vanilla custard or cinnamon flavored juices. I am sensitive to them. So I do not use them. Many people have no problems with them and they vape them. Some people vape juices that have things like peppermint oil in them; I don't. If you were allergic to peanuts, you would not eat them. Same thing with vaping. If you are sensitive to something, don't use it.

We know smoking is a killer. We know that vaping is less harmful than smoking. I no longer smoke, I vape, thus reducing my risk of all the bad effects of smoking. I feel better, my doctor says I am healthier and breathing better and I am enjoying it. Everyone has to make their own decision on whether to vape or not.

The healthiest thing to do would be to not smoke and not vape.