E cigarette flavoring and heart disease

[Philabos]

It is difficult to determine the impact vaping has on BP.
We do know BP spends freely on advertising smoking cessation products, ineffective as they may be, and the media loves them as a result. They also contribute to political campaigns.
I have read there may be 11 million vapers, but personally I think that number is overblown. That would mean about 1 vaper for every 3 smokers.
Whatever the real number of people vaping may be, every one of them is viewed as a lost opportunity for BP. Millions of tablets and patches means real money to BP.

 

[Rossum]

I have read there may be 11 million vapers, but personally I think that number is overblown. That would mean about 1 vaper for every 3 smokers.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are 11 million vapers in the USA now, but smoking and vaping aren't mutually exclusive, and I would guess half or more of those 11 million are dual-users.

 

[CarolT]

This garbage is where the mass media FUD-crud came from:

Modeling Cardiovascular Risks of E-Cigarettes With Human-Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell–Derived Endothelial Cells.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume 73, Issue 21, June 2019
Modeling Cardiovascular Risks of E-Cigarettes With Human-Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell–Derived Endothelial Cells

Note who's funding it: a couple from the American Heart Association; a bunch from the National Institutes of Health; a couple from the University of California Tobacco Related Disease Research Program; and a couple from the FDA Center for Tobacco Products.

All are 100% anti-smokers, and the FDA Center for Tobacco Products has an agenda to pursue, namely outlawing tobacco (and everything resembling it). So this money went to ideologically loyal flunkies who manufactured results which serve that agenda.

This study is pure garbage, because there is no such thing as "modeling cardiovascular risks" to actual humans by piddling around with endothelial cells in petri dishes. The very title of this trash is an act of gross deceit that should have been rejected by the journal itself, assuming they had any scientific ethics.

 

[Eskie]

This garbage is where the mass media FUD-crud came from:

Modeling Cardiovascular Risks of E-Cigarettes With Human-Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell–Derived Endothelial Cells.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume 73, Issue 21, June 2019
Modeling Cardiovascular Risks of E-Cigarettes With Human-Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell–Derived Endothelial Cells

Note who's funding it: a couple from the American Heart Association; a bunch from the National Institutes of Health; a couple from the University of California Tobacco Related Disease Research Program; and a couple from the FDA Center for Tobacco Products.

All are 100% anti-smokers, and the FDA Center for Tobacco Products has an agenda to pursue, namely outlawing tobacco (and everything resembling it). So this money went to ideologically loyal flunkies who manufactured results which serve that agenda.

This study is pure garbage, because there is no such thing as "modeling cardiovascular risks" to actual humans by piddling around with endothelial cells in petri dishes. The very title of this trash is an act of gross deceit that should have been rejected by the journal itself, assuming they had any scientific ethics.

Well, the link is to the summary of the study. Did you buy, download, and read the entire article? Could you share it (unofficially of course) so the rest of us can read it?

If you haven't done that calling it a piece of trash and an act of gross deceit, in addition to questioning whether or not anyone has "ethics" seems as blinded and irrational as anything we complain about when the ANTZ crowd pile on with no objective evidence to support their claims.

The sponsors are all clearly documented. The NIH has and is funding multiple studies which have been "pro" vaping so not sure where that hate comes from. The model of endothelial cell exposure and looking for evidence of oxidative stress and increased production of proinflammatory agents is pretty well accepted in the medical and scientific community as a method of testing. I was actually very impressed they tested with serum derived from actual vapers which would establish the concentrations tested weren't some 100 fold higher than real life exposure error.

I'm looking forward to tracking down the complete article to read. If you actually have it I'll give you a thanks for posting it on like Dropbox or Google Drive so I can give it a looksee faster than hunting around. Worse case I guess I'll buy it if you don't have a copy to share.

The sort of reaction of "fake" science because we don't like the results is about as useful as others who love to turn to screams about fake news that fly in the face of evidence and fact. Maybe as a community if we stopped dumping on anything negative the same way the ANTZ crowd will crap all over anything positive about vaping we might achieve something. I don't see anything in the limited information which that short summary provided that suggests any major flaw in their methods or findings, and I sure wouldn't pan, or praise, without access to the actual article and the actual ability to interpret what I'm reading.

So I would suggest before calling something manufactured data by flunkys of, well I'm not quite sure, maybe a bit more information be obtained and objective review of what it was they actually did might serve everyone well.

 

[puffon]

NVM

 

[Eskie]

The link to the study is posted in Dr Farsalinos article
Comparison of the Cytotoxic Potential of Cigarette Smoke and Electronic Cigarette Vapour Extract on Cultured Myocardial Cells

Evaluation of the cytotoxic potential of e-cigarette vapor on cultured cardiac cells: a new study

The article by Dr. F was written in 2014, 5 years ago. The second link to an e cigarette website is a discussion about a completely different article (6 months ago so it's not this one).

If you have something Dr. F or someone else has written about this specific article and its findings I'd appreciate a link. The findings in either Dr. F's 2014 article or that commentary on a completely different study in January are not directly (and I'm not even sure on the indirectly either) about anything in this article.

I'd love to see whether or not this study is flawed. Right now I don't have sufficient information to call it one way or another. Maybe I'll buy it if I can't find another way to access it, but for now I can't make any judgement on whether their results are useful, let alone applicable for decision making on overall safety. But I did read enough in the basic blurb summary to make me pay attention and want to follow up on the complete presentation of what they did and what they found.

Maybe it's me and I'm just weird, but generally I am happier with evidence than speculation. On the surface this may suggest that some of the components may in fact be capable of irritating and inflamming the cells that line our arteries. Whether that's enough to be concerned about as an actual health hazard isn't at all clear, which is why more information regarding this specific study is important rather than collateral information that doesn't address this study.

 

[Vape1048]

I read quite a different article once... that indicated that over several years of vaping, the risk of heart disease was actually significantly reduced. These British studies are not "official" by our US standards, nor does the FDA care to replicate them. Too much corruption and money exchanging to allow their precious tobacco commodity to be overtaken by a proven healthier option.

 

[brad-man]

Well, I can state for an absolute fact that I have lost some hair since I started vaping. Coincidence?

 

[puffon]

The article by Dr. F was written in 2014, 5 years ago. The second link to an e cigarette website is a discussion about a completely different article (6 months ago so it's not this one).

If you have something Dr. F or someone else has written about this specific article and its findings I'd appreciate a link. The findings in either Dr. F's 2014 article or that commentary on a completely different study in January are not directly (and I'm not even sure on the indirectly either) about anything in this article.

I'd love to see whether or not this study is flawed. Right now I don't have sufficient information to call it one way or another. Maybe I'll buy it if I can't find another way to access it, but for now I can't make any judgement on whether their results are useful, let alone applicable for decision making on overall safety. But I did read enough in the basic blurb summary to make me pay attention and want to follow up on the complete presentation of what they did and what they found.

Maybe it's me and I'm just weird, but generally I am happier with evidence than speculation. On the surface this may suggest that some of the components may in fact be capable of irritating and inflamming the cells that line our arteries. Whether that's enough to be concerned about as an actual health hazard isn't at all clear, which is why more information regarding this specific study is important rather than collateral information that doesn't address this study.

Yes, that why I retracted the post...

 

[englishmick]

Well, I can state for an absolute fact that I have lost some hair since I started vaping. Coincidence?

You too? I think I see a statistically significant trend here.

 

[Letitia]

Vape with one hand and give yourself a scalp massage with the other twice a day.

 

[englishmick]

Well, the link is to the summary of the study. Did you buy, download, and read the entire article? Could you share it (unofficially of course) so the rest of us can read it?

If you haven't done that calling it a piece of trash and an act of gross deceit, in addition to questioning whether or not anyone has "ethics" seems as blinded and irrational as anything we complain about when the ANTZ crowd pile on with no objective evidence to support their claims.

The sponsors are all clearly documented. The NIH has and is funding multiple studies which have been "pro" vaping so not sure where that hate comes from. The model of endothelial cell exposure and looking for evidence of oxidative stress and increased production of proinflammatory agents is pretty well accepted in the medical and scientific community as a method of testing. I was actually very impressed they tested with serum derived from actual vapers which would establish the concentrations tested weren't some 100 fold higher than real life exposure error.

I'm looking forward to tracking down the complete article to read. If you actually have it I'll give you a thanks for posting it on like Dropbox or Google Drive so I can give it a looksee faster than hunting around. Worse case I guess I'll buy it if you don't have a copy to share.

The sort of reaction of "fake" science because we don't like the results is about as useful as others who love to turn to screams about fake news that fly in the face of evidence and fact. Maybe as a community if we stopped dumping on anything negative the same way the ANTZ crowd will crap all over anything positive about vaping we might achieve something. I don't see anything in the limited information which that short summary provided that suggests any major flaw in their methods or findings, and I sure wouldn't pan, or praise, without access to the actual article and the actual ability to interpret what I'm reading.

So I would suggest before calling something manufactured data by flunkys of, well I'm not quite sure, maybe a bit more information be obtained and objective review of what it was they actually did might serve everyone well.

Are you familiar with Sci-Hub? Haven't got around to trying it, just read about it. Apparently contains something like 85% of all published scientific papers for free, with 200,000 downloads a day. The USA is one of the heaviest user countries. Along the lines of Napster. It's been around since 2011. Might take a bit of figuring out because they have to keep changing domain names. I read that a lot of colleges in the third world rely on it because they can't afford the astronomical fees for legal access. The whole firewall deal seemed like a bit of a scam. The authors of the papers don't get anything, or the universities where they did the work. Just a handful of companies who have somehow come to own the rights. Someone mentioned it here and I googled it.

 

[ShowMeTwice]

I've been searching for an 'in the wild' version of Volume 73, Issue 21, June 2019
Modeling Cardiovascular Risks of E-Cigarettes With Human-Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell–Derived Endothelial Cells

So far no luck. Hopefully one shows up in the future.

I did find this from 2017: "Immunological and toxicological risk assessment of e-cigarettes" which may have been seen and previously discussed on ECF (sorry I don't remember).
https://err.ersjournals.com/content/errev/27/147/170119.full.pdf

While it does not specifically address flavoring and heart disease is does mention one instance of possible damage to the heart. See the section titled "Vaping: is it safe for our health?" first paragraph where I copied what follows.

"the use of e-cigs containing nicotine may have a damaging effect on heart cells, as acute e-cig use was found to affect left ventricular function and cause a delay in myocardial relaxation in a 70-year-old female".

Hardly a large study group there. I tend to discredit a study group of one. The paper goes on to say what has been previously stated in this thread, and elsewhere, which is there are currently no long term studies to definitively state yay or nay.

While I enjoy reading these types of papers/reports/studies and can to some extent follow along, and thus draw my own limited conclusion, I lack the qualifications to comment further. Or to make any attempt at blindly laying claim one way or another.

I will stand up and take notice once there is honest non-biased fact and evidence. Cause and effect.

 

[B2L]

Well, the link is to the summary of the study. Did you buy, download, and read the entire article? Could you share it (unofficially of course) so the rest of us can read it?

If you haven't done that calling it a piece of trash and an act of gross deceit, in addition to questioning whether or not anyone has "ethics" seems as blinded and irrational as anything we complain about when the ANTZ crowd pile on with no objective evidence to support their claims.

The sponsors are all clearly documented. The NIH has and is funding multiple studies which have been "pro" vaping so not sure where that hate comes from. The model of endothelial cell exposure and looking for evidence of oxidative stress and increased production of proinflammatory agents is pretty well accepted in the medical and scientific community as a method of testing. I was actually very impressed they tested with serum derived from actual vapers which would establish the concentrations tested weren't some 100 fold higher than real life exposure error.

I'm looking forward to tracking down the complete article to read. If you actually have it I'll give you a thanks for posting it on like Dropbox or Google Drive so I can give it a looksee faster than hunting around. Worse case I guess I'll buy it if you don't have a copy to share.

The sort of reaction of "fake" science because we don't like the results is about as useful as others who love to turn to screams about fake news that fly in the face of evidence and fact. Maybe as a community if we stopped dumping on anything negative the same way the ANTZ crowd will crap all over anything positive about vaping we might achieve something. I don't see anything in the limited information which that short summary provided that suggests any major flaw in their methods or findings, and I sure wouldn't pan, or praise, without access to the actual article and the actual ability to interpret what I'm reading.

So I would suggest before calling something manufactured data by flunkys of, well I'm not quite sure, maybe a bit more information be obtained and objective review of what it was they actually did might serve everyone well.

I must admit, I’m guilty as charged. No, this wasn’t in response to anything I posted but I did agree. I will try to remain more objective but will say that in the current climate where blatantly misleading information, or just outright lies, are presented as facts it is difficult to not just dismiss such articles out of hand.

Well, I can state for an absolute fact that I have lost some hair since I started vaping. Coincidence?

You too? I think I see a statistically significant trend here.

Not to be an alarmist here but I resemble that remark

 

[puffon]

Just got this e-mail from Dr. F's site:
Published today.
Do the properties of cinnamon change when it is present in e-cigarette liquids? The pro-inflammatory/oxidative and anti-inflammatory/anti-oxidant properties of cinnamaldehyde

I would think they should have tested by actually vaping the flavors, not putting the raw flavors on the cells.

 

[Tabac man]

Well, I can state for an absolute fact that I have lost some hair since I started vaping. Coincidence?

It's the custard man. The custard.

 

[CarolT]

Well, the link is to the summary of the study. Did you buy, download, and read the entire article? Could you share it (unofficially of course) so the rest of us can read it?

If you haven't done that calling it a piece of trash and an act of gross deceit, in addition to questioning whether or not anyone has "ethics" seems as blinded and irrational as anything we complain about when the ANTZ crowd pile on with no objective evidence to support their claims.

The sponsors are all clearly documented. The NIH has and is funding multiple studies which have been "pro" vaping so not sure where that hate comes from. The model of endothelial cell exposure and looking for evidence of oxidative stress and increased production of proinflammatory agents is pretty well accepted in the medical and scientific community as a method of testing. I was actually very impressed they tested with serum derived from actual vapers which would establish the concentrations tested weren't some 100 fold higher than real life exposure error.

I'm looking forward to tracking down the complete article to read. If you actually have it I'll give you a thanks for posting it on like Dropbox or Google Drive so I can give it a looksee faster than hunting around. Worse case I guess I'll buy it if you don't have a copy to share.

The sort of reaction of "fake" science because we don't like the results is about as useful as others who love to turn to screams about fake news that fly in the face of evidence and fact. Maybe as a community if we stopped dumping on anything negative the same way the ANTZ crowd will crap all over anything positive about vaping we might achieve something. I don't see anything in the limited information which that short summary provided that suggests any major flaw in their methods or findings, and I sure wouldn't pan, or praise, without access to the actual article and the actual ability to interpret what I'm reading.

So I would suggest before calling something manufactured data by flunkys of, well I'm not quite sure, maybe a bit more information be obtained and objective review of what it was they actually did might serve everyone well.

It's not necessary to download the entire article to see and criticize the disjoint between its design and its pretensions.

"The model of endothelial cell exposure and looking for evidence of oxidative stress and increased production of proinflammatory agents is pretty well accepted in the medical and scientific community as a method of testing."

There's no established connection between those things and actual cardiovascular disease in actual humans. So don't try to tell me that just because some clique of charlatans thinks that their adventures in petri dishes are impressive, that these are anything other than junk.

And what use is it to whom? It's useless to clinicians, unless they just want to spout some fashionable mumbo-jumbo about "oxidative stress," etc., at patients.

It's primary value is to mongers of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (aka FUD), who want to frighten people away from vaping.

And needless to say, these are the same charlatans who smugly ignore the role of cytomegalovirus infection in cardiovascular disease, whose impact is at least as great as hypertension, the so-far acknowledged cause.
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US
Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty

Smokers, and likewise ex-smokers and vapers, are more likely to have been exposed to CMV, for socioeconomic reasons.

 

[muth]

Dr Farsalinos to the rescue, from his article...

“Both these conclusions are simply wrong and constitute epidemiological malpractice and misinformation.”

E-cigarette use increases the risk of stroke and heart attack: conclusions that constitute epidemiological malpractice

That's what I thought. The internet is flooded with misinformation or propaganda for a myriad of reasons. Not to say that we shouldn't be vigilant about our health concerns but just be careful out there.

 

[HauntedMyst]

I just saw this...

New study reveals vaping may lead to severe rectal trauma.

Well, I can't get the link to work but apparently a new study show of vapers who carry their mods in their back pockets and fall down the stairs backwards can end up in the ER with very serious issues. Be careful out there people.

 

[somdcomputerguy]

Are you familiar with Sci-Hub?

Sci-Hub at DuckDuckGo