Drug Trials

[Symmetric]

Okay, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a big ol' geek. So I'm reading the November issue of Wired and I come across an article about a program called Archimedes that sounds like EXACTLY what we in the vaping community are looking for. it's less expensive than clinical trials (like 1% if memory serves) and a 10 year trial can e completed in a matter of days.

Modeling Human Drug Trials ? Without the Human | Magazine

Check it out. I don't know how we could get them to run the trial, or how effective it would be, but I think it might be worth looking in to.

I guess the first question we could ask is if they can prove that analogs cause cancer (As a control only, since everyone's pretty much agreed)...

*edited for clarity

 

[happily]

analogs don't cause cancer...........but weaken the immune system which in turn makes you susceptible to cancer(hence the possibility of colon cancer...because most of us don't smoke through our colon)

 

[Adrenalynn]

I thought the currently accepted theory is that carcinogens excite the production of cancer cells. The cells can travel anywhere in the body through normal means. Cancer cells are just damaged cells - and we all have 'em - they have the "switch" telling them to die disabled, effectively.

We've had a lot of years of statistical sampling - enough to see that there is a tremendous correlation between smoking and certain types of cancers, most especially small cell lung cancer. I think denying that correlation at this point without some pretty substantial data is like living under a rock with ones fingers in their ears going "lalalalalala" at the top of ones voice.

Back on topic - Pretty new and unproven, therefore untrustworthy IMHO. And who's going to pay for these trials? This market is still fragmented and relatively small (although I suspect will grow tremendously) - certainly the vendors can't afford the going rate for such a pseudo-trial, no?

 

[happily]

I guess my main point is you won't absolutely get cancer if you smoke. You are correct about carcinogens

 

[Adrenalynn]

I agree. And you won't absolutely get hit by a car if you streak naked up the left lane of a major freeway during rush-hour either. But statistically - it's really probably a pretty bad idea.

 

[Mary Kay]

I read somewhere that since we all have these damaged cells, certain behaviors will trigger them into turning cancerous. If the behaviors (smoking, eating certain foods and some drugs,) are done by people who don't have a family history of cancer..they may get away with it. So it stands to reason that the probability of getting cancer due to behavior is hereditary.
Sometimes it's just bad luck.
If you work in a coal mine, cotton mill, popcorn making factory that uses powered butter products or work around asbestos...you are in the wrong line of work.
My mom smoked since she was 16 until she passed away at 85. Over her lifetime she had cancer 5 times, all in different places and types. My grandma had one spot of skin cancer on her nose other then that no cancer in my mom's family...at all. So in my mother's case it wasn't hereditary.

 

[Sheryl]

I had uterine cancer when I was 22, recently had bilateral breast cancer. I'm now 54. No family hx of cancer, but COPD is prevalent.

 

[leaford]

I agree. And you won't absolutely get hit by a car if you streak naked up the left lane of a major freeway during rush-hour either. But statistically - it's really probably a pretty bad idea.

Best analogy of the day!

 

[JohnnyVapor]

I guess my main point is you won't absolutely get cancer if you smoke. You are correct about carcinogens

My understanding of biology is that you will die of cancer unless you die of something else first. DNA replication is not perfect, and errors do occur. Even if every new cell generation's DNA is 99.99% perfect, you will start having critical errors at some point down the road. You might have a major flaw in 10 generations if you're unlucky. You might not have a major flaw even after 100,000 generations. A lot of it is left up to chance.

One of the factors in our control is what we do to those cells. If we introduce harmful chemicals, we might increase that error rate. However, chance still rules the day. You might smoke a pack a day for 80 years and never get cancer, but you've still increased your risks.

I do think that we need to educate the populace better, but as a simple(grade school level) explanation, 'smoking causes cancer' is acceptable, if wrong. If you went out and said "Smoking introduces carcinogenic substances to the body that may cause cancer at some point in the future" people's eyes would glaze over. Simplified yet technically incorrect statements run rampant in our society, unfortunately. How about "Unprotected sex causes AIDS", or even "Unprotected sex causes pregnancy"?

 

[Adrenalynn]

Worse yet: Smoking has be shown in a statistically significant population, to increase the risk of being afflicted by certain cancers to nearly a 1:1 ratio less some statistically insignificant margin of error.

And if you die from nothing else, your cells will at some point simply stop reproducing.

 

[RiskyBusiness]

Random interjection: Cancerous cells can not survive in an oxygen rich environment...

 

[Adrenalynn]

Random counter interjection: In elevated partial pressures - neither can humans. [hyperoxia]

 

[DaShiVa]

I just read the OP's linked article, That kind of stuff is right up my alley, thanks for linking it.

I'd be interested to see what it had to say about vaping, although I don't think anything it says will have any legal impact, it could have a social impact, and help both elevate awareness, and, one would think, would indicate that vaping is much healthier than smoking. And while I think that social views and feelings about vaping mean more than actual evidence (as demonstrated by the FDA's current use of statistics), Still, it won't hold up in any court or as evidence for the FDA. (Unless it reflects that vaping is bad, then the FDA will be all over it lol)

 

[Adrenalynn]

There's a link in there?

 

[DaShiVa]

There's a link in there?

Okay, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a big ol' geek. So I'm reading the November issue of Wired and I come across an article about a program called Archimedes that sounds like EXACTLY what we in the vaping community are looking for. it's less expensive than clinical trials (like 1% if memory serves) and a 10 year trial can e completed in a matter of days.

Modeling Human Drug Trials ? Without the Human | Magazine

Check it out. I don't know how we could get them to run the trial, or how effective it would be, but I think it might be worth looking in to.

I guess the first question we could ask is if they can prove that analogs cause cancer (As a control only, since everyone's pretty much agreed)...

*edited for clarity

Yup, in that OP - the modeling human drug trials link

 

[Adrenalynn]

Oh yeah, sorry - I was just looking at Page 2. Yeah, already said my piece on that.