E-cigarettes change blood vessels after just one use

[iVapeDIY]

E-cigarettes change blood vessels after just one use, study says - CNN

Thanks to TheBoss (at another forum). Main thesis is from ...

The Effect of Electronic-Cigarette Vaping on Cardiac Function and Angiogenesis in Mice

it was found that significant amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in e-cigarette vapor, and at higher temperature, trace amount of acetone and acrolein were detectable, suggesting some shared toxicity between e-cigarettes and c-cigarettes. It was reported that e-cigarettes and associated flavoring agents may produce harmful effects in stem cells and gingival fibroblasts by generating aldehydes/carbonyls from e-cigarette vapor, resulting in protein carbonylation and dna damage, as well as cellular senescence

Aldehydes, acetone and acrolein ... all typically found in gunk build-up, which is exacerbated by higher temps. These we've known for some time. More frequent coil and wick changes should minimize 'gunk' exposure ... prohibitively expensive if using cartridges.

 

[CarolT]

You can always tell they're lying because they never disclose what fraction of exposure the e-cigs represent, i.e., put it into perspective. An adult human body normally produces and metabolizes over 50,000 mg of endogenous formaldehyde daily. If that kind of background information is missing, it's deceitful fear-mongering. They want you to think it's a real issue when it's not.

 

[CarolT]

E-cigarettes change blood vessels after just one use, study says - CNN

Thanks to TheBoss (at another forum). Main thesis is from ...

The Effect of Electronic-Cigarette Vaping on Cardiac Function and Angiogenesis in Mice

it was found that significant amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in e-cigarette vapor, and at higher temperature, trace amount of acetone and acrolein were detectable, suggesting some shared toxicity between e-cigarettes and c-cigarettes. It was reported that e-cigarettes and associated flavoring agents may produce harmful effects in stem cells and gingival fibroblasts by generating aldehydes/carbonyls from e-cigarette vapor, resulting in protein carbonylation and dna damage, as well as cellular senescence

Aldehydes, acetone and acrolein ... all typically found in gunk build-up, which is exacerbated by higher temps. These we've known for some time. More frequent coil and wick changes should minimize 'gunk' exposure ... prohibitively expensive if using cartridges.

Those are two different studies. The new one is in Radiology.
https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2019190562

This clown says, "Using MRI scans, it found, for example, changes in blood flow within the femoral artery in the leg after just one use." "'But if someone vapes regularly,' Wehrli continued, there's a possibility that, over time, things might not go back to normal as readily." And that's all there is to his flimsy theory of causation, which could as easily be applied to anything and everything, and is therefore worthless.
Study: E-cigarettes change blood vessels after just one use

 

[Louise Sparkes]

The CI for this "study" is not stated in the actual study. The P-value they used to say "statistical significance" is one used generally for studies of the social sciences, not hard science. Their P-value, etc. just means they don't know or not if their conclusions are relevant or based on any fact other than random chance. If they used the P-value for studies of science the data are useless.
What a nerdy debate about p-values shows about science — and how to fix it

https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2019190562

Some common misperceptions about p-values

P-Value - (In research) the statistical probability of the occurrence of a given finding by chance alone in comparison with the known distribution of possible findings, considering the kinds of data, the technique of analysis, and the number of observations. The P-value may be noted as a decimal: P <.01 means that the likelihood that the phenomena tested occurred by chance alone is less than 1%. The lower the P-value, the less likely the finding would occur by chance alone.
So their .05 (5 percent) is higher and not really relevant. Statistically significant means something entirely different in the research world from what the average person would assume.

 

[zoiDman]

 

[iVapeDIY]

Replicability and overwhelming preponderance of evidence would be nice with higher P-values, double-blind and/or elaborate multi-factorial designs with huge truly randomized samples.

However, a good correlation with 1/20 chance (of being random) is good enough for me to take notice. Heck, even a Chi-square, tetrachoric or point-biserial correlation will make me take notice since my health is at stake.

Regardless, I personally change my coils frequently to not only minimize exposure to aldehyles and acroleins but for the taste. Nothing is quite as pleasurable as a fresh coil and cotton (in my case, Shiseido).

 

[zoiDman]

The CI for this "study" is not stated in the actual study. The P-value they used to say "statistical significance" is one used generally for studies of the social sciences, not hard science. Their P-value, etc. just means they don't know or not if their conclusions are relevant or based on any fact other than random chance. If they used the P-value for studies of science the data are useless.
...

This is an Extreme Oversimplification at best. And to say that the "data are useless" because a P-Value was used to Qualify the author's results is just Wrong.

All Research as applied to a Population that can Not be 100% Sampled is based on Statistics Analysis. The P-Value a Calculated Probability of Rejecting the Null Hypothesis when it is actually True.

If I Don't have to Disclose a P-Value, I can Present just about Any Result I like. Because there would be No Way to Determine what the Probability is that I am Rejecting the Null Hypothesis when it is True. Or, in Lay Terms (and my long dead Stats 350 Instructor would Cringe if he heard me say this), accepting the Null Hypothesis when it is False.

Don't get me Wrong. I'm not Defending the "Study" that the OP Posted. Because there are Plenty of ways to have a Strong P-Value and yet a Junk Study.

 

[iVapeDIY]

This clown says, "Using MRI scans, it found, for example, changes in blood flow within the femoral artery in the leg after just one use." "'But if someone vapes regularly,' Wehrli continued, there's a possibility that, over time, things might not go back to normal as readily." And that's all there is to his flimsy theory of causation, which could as easily be applied to anything and everything, and is therefore worthless.

Don't think the research is based on a wider theory, but is a hypothesis intended to be seminal and have inductive seminal implications particularly for ancillary research on nicotine having hypertensive correlations.

In any case, preponderance of evidence (replication and other studies) is what matters. It would be equally dogmatic to accept or reject the research at this point. At best, the research is a data point supporting frequent coil changes as a best practice.

 

[GOMuniEsq]

What kind of twisted sadist would subject innocent mice to nasty dry hits?

 

[Beamslider]

Walking up the stairs causes change in blood vessels immediately.....Please take elevator only

 

[Rossum]

Walking up the stairs causes change in blood vessels immediately.....Please take elevator only

So can drinking a cup of coffee.

 

[Rossum]

What kind of twisted sadist would subject innocent mice to nasty dry hits?

One who is also well known for P-Hacking:

 

[jumpstop]

Those are two different studies. The new one is in Radiology.

My issue with the Radiology study, and I could be wrong but this is what it looks like to me, is the controls look weak to nonexistent. Ideally I would have liked to see a placebo, could be water vapor if they're vaping in the light, could be ambient air through a tube if they were to do it in the dark. It would be necessary to simulate the static pressure of the Eco cigalike they used for the study (supposedly pharma grade 70/30 PG/VG but no specs on the atomizer that I can see).

At first I thought their breath-hold challenge would act as a kind of control and to some extent it does but without the controlled breathing of the Eco puffs. A real skeptic might say that the breath hold challenge is not a control at all, it's just a way to amplify the results by having the person be under some stress while the test is occurring.

 

[stratus.vaping]

I'm no expert or even a novice in this field, all that P mumbo-jumbo makes me dizzy, multiple Brownie points to those who do work with it. 8) I understand a little about biochemistry and animal testing however.

Please tell me if the test conditions are realistic in terms of relating the results to the effects on humans? Or even realistic in any sense of the word?

From this link the OP gave The Effect of Electronic-Cigarette Vaping on Cardiac Function and Angiogenesis in Mice

I read, for example that these restrained mice are exposed to vapour at a frequency of 1 puff per minute and duration of 10 seconds per puff. Total exposure time 3 hours per day, 10 min break every hour for 14 consecutive days.

Is this methadology realistic? A 10 second puff is a very long puff, repeat every minute for 3 hours ( bar the breaks) is heavy chain vaping - for 14 consecutive days. Ok it's not all being inhaled but..

Was the dose for the mice calculated to correctly model the human vaping experience?

I also read that only PG, VG and nic were used, no flavourings. Is there any detail of how often cotton, coil are changed? If at all?

How does the fact that these unfortunate mice are restrained and anaesthetised for tests affect the experiment? Could those stresses account for the observed Angiogenesis? Or would the control group results balance that out?

Thanks for your posts, fascinating, please excuse my noob questions.

 

[CarolT]

The CI for this "study" is not stated in the actual study. The P-value they used to say "statistical significance" is one used generally for studies of the social sciences, not hard science. Their P-value, etc. just means they don't know or not if their conclusions are relevant or based on any fact other than random chance. If they used the P-value for studies of science the data are useless.
What a nerdy debate about p-values shows about science — and how to fix it

https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2019190562

Some common misperceptions about p-values

P-Value - (In research) the statistical probability of the occurrence of a given finding by chance alone in comparison with the known distribution of possible findings, considering the kinds of data, the technique of analysis, and the number of observations. The P-value may be noted as a decimal: P <.01 means that the likelihood that the phenomena tested occurred by chance alone is less than 1%. The lower the P-value, the less likely the finding would occur by chance alone.
So their .05 (5 percent) is higher and not really relevant. Statistically significant means something entirely different in the research world from what the average person would assume.

Their pretext for pretending this represents a heart disease risk is so ridiculous that you should not dignify it by nitpicking about p values. It implies that you accept their specious "reasoning."

 

[CarolT]

Don't think the research is based on a wider theory, but is a hypothesis intended to be seminal and have inductive seminal implications particularly for ancillary research on nicotine having hypertensive correlations.

In any case, preponderance of evidence (replication and other studies) is what matters. It would be equally dogmatic to accept or reject the research at this point. At best, the research is a data point supporting frequent coil changes as a best practice.

Snort. In other words, some hypothetical study sometime (supposedly) might be able to demonstrate a link. But this one can't, and it doesn't even have a plausible hypothesis. I.e., if vaping causes changes that might not reverse, what about changes caused by exercise? Something this weak should be rejected automatically.

 

[CarolT]

Walking up the stairs causes change in blood vessels immediately.....Please take elevator only

Congratulations, you got the point. For that matter, even mental arithmetic causes changes in blood vessels. These people are pulling our legs (and demonstrating how stupid the mass media are).

 

[CarolT]

So can drinking a cup of coffee.

And by all means, avoid getting out of bed in the morning.

 

[jumpstop]

Is this methadology realistic?...How does the fact that these unfortunate mice are restrained and anaesthetised for tests affect the experiment? Could those stresses account for the observed Angiogenesis? Or would the control group results balance that out?

I don't know but I do notice that the restraint chamber for the mice under test is shown in fig 1 but all we know about the control group is "Control mice were held in a separate chamber that exposed to room air only." At least IMO if the control group did not experience the same stress then the result might not have been due to vapor at all.

As for your other questions I can't answer, there might or might not be problems related to physiology, toxicology or statistics but none of that even matters to me if an experimental design doesn't have a meaningful baseline aka "compared to what?".

 

[CarolT]

I don't know but I do notice that the restraint chamber for the mice under test is shown in fig 1 but all we know about the control group is "Control mice were held in a separate chamber that exposed to room air only." At least IMO if the control group did not experience the same stress then the result might not have been due to vapor at all.

As for your other questions I can't answer, there might or might not be problems related to physiology, toxicology or statistics but none of that even matters to me if an experimental design doesn't have a meaningful baseline aka "compared to what?".

It wouldn't be justifiable to fear-monger the public that mental arithmetic causes heart disease, no matter how good the experimental setup was.