Ecigs May Affect Genes in Airways

[Bob Chill]

https://www.sciencedaily.bom/releases/2016/06/160620141317.htm

Not sure if it's junk science but doesn't appear to be on the face. I broke the link anyways. Change .bom with .com.

Here's the link to the study in the AJP. Doesn't really have much detail.

E-cigarette use results in suppression of immune and inflammatory-response genes in nasal epithelial cells similar to cigarette smoke | Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology

There is nothing conclusive on what the actual affects may be but it's good to see respected universities do studies on ecigs either way. We need unbiased medical research whether it shows good things or bad.

I'm not sure what to make of the article. It's not detailed enough. If the genes are being altered with immune suppression response, which ingredient is doing it? I doubt it's PG. We would already know because that has been studied for inhalation quite a bit. That leaves nic/vg/flavors. Flavors being very hard to pin down. Nic and VG would be easy.

Of course we don't know how the devices were used and what juices were used either. Not sure what to think. Seems that if it's true, ecigs would be worse than smoking for immune suppression. But anecdotally it seems almost all of us report not getting sick very often anymore. Heck, I've only had 1 notable cold in 3 years.

 

[Lessifer]

I haven't read the new article yet, but the preliminary study presentation was discussed back in February here Vaping and the immune system?

 

[sofarsogood]

All terribly interesting, of course, but is vaping lower risk than smoking or not? This, whatever it is, could all be true but vaping could still be 95% less risky than smoking. The people who depend on cigarette taxes for their funding know who they are and they are desperate, of course.

 

[VNeil]

https://www.sciencedaily.bom/releases/2016/06/160620141317.htm

Not sure if it's junk science but doesn't appear to be on the face. I broke the link anyways. Change .bom with .com.

Here's the link to the study in the AJP. Doesn't really have much detail.

E-cigarette use results in suppression of immune and inflammatory-response genes in nasal epithelial cells similar to cigarette smoke | Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology

There is nothing conclusive on what the actual affects may be but it's good to see respected universities do studies on ecigs either way. We need unbiased medical research whether it shows good things or bad.

I'm not sure what to make of the article. It's not detailed enough. If the genes are being altered with immune suppression response, which ingredient is doing it? I doubt it's PG. We would already know because that has been studied for inhalation quite a bit. That leaves nic/vg/flavors. Flavors being very hard to pin down. Nic and VG would be easy.

Of course we don't know how the devices were used and what juices were used either. Not sure what to think. Seems that if it's true, ecigs would be worse than smoking for immune suppression. But anecdotally it seems almost all of us report not getting sick very often anymore. Heck, I've only had 1 notable cold in 3 years.

Is Harvard University respectable? They are the ones that measured trace amounts of barely measurable diketones and announced to the world that eCigs are as bad as cigarettes, without mentioning the level of diacetyl in cigarettes- over 100 times what they found in eCigs.

There do not appear to be any respectable institutions when it comes to eCig research ...

 

[Bob Chill]

I haven't read the new article yet, but the preliminary study presentation was discussed back in February here Vaping and the immune system?

The study results were released on June 10th so not the same.

After reading it, it was clear that they werent implying any specific acute or chronic heath risk. Just the results on a cellular level and that more research is needed.

I don't plan on quitting vaping basically ever and I'm totally comfortable with my choice. If any specific compound found in a flavor is shown to have more adverse affects than others then I'll simply avoid them because I can. I've been exclusive diy for 2 years. And I enjoy unflavored as well. Further reducing harm while using a reduced harm product is easy. Lol

 

[VNeil]

My take on the article and study... Yet Another Opportunity to claim that e-cigarettes are worse than smoking. I already see the headlines coming out of this. And as you point out, they claim no actual health risk, they just present an opportunity to suggest e-cigs are worse than cigarettes.

 

[Lessifer]

The study results were released on June 10th so not the same.

After reading it, it was clear that they werent implying any specific acute or chronic heath risk. Just the results on a cellular level and that more research is needed.

I don't plan on quitting vaping basically ever and I'm totally comfortable with my choice. If any specific compound found in a flavor is shown to have more adverse affects than others then I'll simply avoid them because I can. I've been exclusive diy for 2 years. And I enjoy unflavored as well. Further reducing harm while using a reduced harm product is easy. Lol

Right, when it was discussed in February it was about a presentation at conference concerning a "preliminary study." This is that same person, only now it seems the study is done and published. Still no actual conclusions to be drawn though.

Basically, they've observed this effect, but have no idea what it means. At least that's what I got from it. I don't know enough about immunology to know if checking nasal cells can provide a good indication of the response of lung cells. No conclusions have been drawn as to the actual effect of the suppression of these specific genes.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

"To study what effects e-cigarettes have on genes that help our upper airways fight off potentially harmful pathogens, Jaspers' lab recruited 13 non-smokers, 14 smokers, and 12 e-cigarette users."

Not sure how this test plays out. Are the gene effects they studied immediate? Seems to me the e-cig users in this test were former smokers (yes/no?). It doesn't say. If these results can be measured in real time I'd think you'd have to find e-cig users who have never smoked before.

But what the hell do I know? I started my lab partner's blouse on fire in Chem 101.

 

[Lessifer]

"To study what effects e-cigarettes have on genes that help our upper airways fight off potentially harmful pathogens, Jaspers' lab recruited 13 non-smokers, 14 smokers, and 12 e-cigarette users."

Not sure how this test plays out. Are the gene effects they studied immediate? Seems to me the e-cig users in this test were former smokers (yes/no?). It doesn't say. If these results can be measured in real time I'd think you'd have to find e-cig users who have never smoked before.

But what the hell do I know? I started my lab partner's blouse on fire in Chem 101.

They took the swabs after, I think, a four week period. I saw the tables with the averages of use, and urinalysis proving they were non-smokers and nicotine users.

This is definitely one of those things where some very smart people will have to look at this and tell us if anything is actually being said, and even then, it will take more study to know exactly what is being said.

 

[Bob Chill]

Right, when it was discussed in February it was about a presentation at conference concerning a "preliminary study." This is that same person, only now it seems the study is done and published. Still no actual conclusions to be drawn though.

Basically, they've observed this effect, but have no idea what it means. At least that's what I got from it. I don't know enough about immunology to know if checking nasal cells can provide a good indication of the response of lung cells. No conclusions have been drawn as to the actual effect of the suppression of these specific genes.

That's what makes pinning down chronic use and effects so hard. This is just one tiny thing either way and hardly threatening. We're all guinea pigs no matter which way you slice it. That can't really be denied. Then the wildcard of each persons reaction to something. Doesn't matter if it's vaping, allergens, alcohol use, industrial work place exposure, or whatever. It's a huge list. Food additives and sweeteners and all that stuff affects people differently. Human chemistry is hardly homogenous.

I only posted the article because it was a real study. And I totally agree that saying something in ecigs is affecting nasal cells or even lung tissue doesn't mean that it's anything to worry about at all. Nothing was stated about any definitive health concerns.

Human bodies are quite resilient. I'M of the opinion that if there are true health concerns about vaping that they will quickly resolve if you stop it. You could probably heal damage quickly if there is any worth healing. Once you've smoked long enough you've gone too far. Your body is never bouncing all the way back if you quit. I certainly don't view vaping in the same light. Not even close.

I don't live a clean and perfect life and have no issues with it. I love beer and bourbon. Nobody is ever taking that away from me. Otoh- I don't drink any sweet drinks, avoid refined grains, and hardly ever eat processed food. My diet is quite natural. I choose to do that because I definitely feel better. I'll be 50 in 3 short years. My doc says my kidneys are pretty much perfect. I know they wouldn't be if I drank sodas and ate pasta and bread all day. Diabetes is serious stuff and I have 3 friends who never smoked develop type 2 in their 40's.

My biggest issue my entire life was smoking. I got rid of that. My friends with type 2 gave me crap for smoking and I gave them crap for eating like crap. I managed to skirt chronic illness and I'm thankful and really have zero worries or issues with vaping. But I will always pay attention to studies and adjust my vape habit accordingly. Adjusting won't include quitting though. Lol

 

[Lessifer]

That's what makes pinning down chronic use and effects so hard. This is just one tiny thing either way and hardly threatening. We're all guinea pigs no matter which way you slice it. That can't really be denied. Then the wildcard of each persons reaction to something. Doesn't matter if it's vaping, allergens, alcohol use, industrial work place exposure, or whatever. It's a huge list. Food additives and sweeteners and all that stuff affects people differently. Human chemistry is hardly homogenous.

I only posted the article because it was a real study. And I totally agree that saying something in ecigs is affecting nasal cells or even lung tissue doesn't mean that it's anything to worry about at all. Nothing was stated about any definitive health concerns.

Human bodies are quite resilient. I'M of the opinion that if there are true health concerns about vaping that they will quickly resolve if you stop it. You could probably heal damage quickly if there is any worth healing. Once you've smoked long enough you've gone too far. Your body is never bouncing all the way back if you quit. I certainly don't view vaping in the same light. Not even close.

I don't live a clean and perfect life and have no issues with it. I love beer and bourbon. Nobody is ever taking that away from me. Otoh- I don't drink any sweet drinks, avoid refined grains, and hardly ever eat processed food. My diet is quite natural. I choose to do that because I definitely feel better. I'll be 50 in 3 short years. My doc says my kidneys are pretty much perfect. I know they wouldn't be if I drank sodas and ate pasta and bread all day. Diabetes is serious stuff and I have 3 friends who never smoked develop type 2 in their 40's.

My biggest issue my entire life was smoking. I got rid of that. My friends with type 2 gave me crap for smoking and I gave them crap for eating like crap. I managed to skirt chronic illness and I'm thankful and really have zero worries or issues with vaping. But I will always pay attention to studies and adjust my vape habit accordingly. Adjusting won't include quitting though. Lol

Definitely. I didn't mean to imply that the research is not worthwhile, I am in favor of more research being done. I only linked to the previous discussion since it's relevant.

Also, in the previous discussion, my issue was not with the research itself, it was with the way that it was presented, especially then, because there was even less information than there is this time around. The researcher also gave interviews which resulted in articles like "Scientists Offer New Evidence E-Cigarettes Could Kill You" which is NOT what the research implies.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

...old news here. ...has just moved from 'presented/preliminary' to 'published,' if I understand correctly.

 

[Kent C]

Definitely. I didn't mean to imply that the research is not worthwhile, I am in favor of more research being done. I only linked to the previous discussion since it's relevant.

Also, in the previous discussion, my issue was not with the research itself, it was with the way that it was presented, especially then, because there was even less information than there is this time around. The researcher also gave interviews which resulted in articles like "Scientists Offer New Evidence E-Cigarettes Could Kill You" which is NOT what the research implies.

I recall the previous 'pre-study'. It smelled like someone with a 'theory' trying to prove it. The sampling is quite small, iirc. And the PR in the media, as you point out - overstated the case even before the study. A 'conditioning' perhaps. :- ) ... and there will be some here who completely believe it.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

I recall the previous 'pre-study'. It smelled like someone with a 'theory' trying to prove it. The sampling is quite small, iirc. And the PR in the media, as you point out - overstated the case even before the study. A 'conditioning' perhaps. :- ) ... and there will be some here who completely believe it.

That's not to say there are some here that unquestionably 'completely believe' the 'ECF perspective,' nor that many of the hands on the pump handle here don't have financial material interest in e-cig success.

 

[skoony]

This study shows nothing. The genes were not damaged. The genes were suppressed.
Some of our genes are always active. Some of our genes appear to be inactive.(suppressed)
Some of our genes are inactive (suppressed) until they are triggered. PG/VG is antibacterial and
antiviral. With the lack of pathogens to trigger a immune response these genes would normally
be in a inactive (suppressed) state.

This has been observed in smokers also. The problem is when these genes are inactive
damage may be done to cells to the point they are no longer repairable and be susceptible
to any pathogen which would run amok and be very hard for the immune system to deal
with once the immune system triggers the immune response. The cells may have been damaged
from chemical reactions to the point the immune response can't be triggered.

So the question becomes does vaping damage the cells or does vaping provide an
environment to the tissues that is cleaner and thus not in need to have these genes
in an active (non-suppressed) state.

Regards
Mikie

 

[CarolT]

Good god, man - you're calling UNC-Chapel Hill and UC-SF (the home of Stanton Glantz!) "respected universities." They're not. And it's not "unbiased medical research," it's hate propaganda manufactured to the specifications of some future Surgeon General report, to be compiled with other similarly biased useless junk, and thus enable groundless fear-mongering and justifications for prohibition, etc. In other words, malicious pseudo-science just like they did the smoking.

Hint: The outermost layers of airways are NOT where all that T-cell stuff happens anyhow! The main action is with IgA, which for some (!) reason they ignored.
Immunoglobulin A - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[VNeil]

Good god, man - you're calling UNC-Chapel Hill and UC-SF (the home of Stanton Glantz!) "respected universities." They're not. And it's not "unbiased medical research," it's hate propaganda manufactured to the specifications of some future Surgeon General report, to be compiled with other similarly biased useless junk, and thus enable groundless fear-mongering and justifications for prohibition, etc. In other words, malicious pseudo-science just like they did the smoking.

Hint: The outermost layers of airways are NOT where all that T-cell stuff happens anyhow! The main action is with IgA, which for some (!) reason they ignored.
Immunoglobulin A - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have to admit though, it's really well done hate propaganda. Fooled a lot of people here

 

[Vaslovik]

I'm betting that the thousands of toxic chemicals BT puts in their cigarettes are far more harmful, and I have a keen filter for ANTZ propaganda.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The brilliant Zvi Herzog has posted the following comment on the study at
E-cigarette use results in suppression of immune and inflammatory-response genes in nasal epithelial cells similar to cigarette smoke. - PubMed - NCBI


"Nicotine alone changes gene expression Zhang S, 2001, Bavarva JH, 2013. However, this is unlikely to be of major clinical significance, considering the epidemiological evidence from nicotine replacements and snus.

The authors mistakenly exclude the possibility that increased gene suppression in nasal mucosa of e-cigarette users relates to nicotine:

Based on the similar serum cotinine levels in cigarette smokers and e-cigarette users, it does not appear that the overall difference in number and level of gene expression changes is dependent on nicotine.

However, unlike smoking, e-cigarette use commonly involves nasal exhalation (as any video documentary on the subject can demonstrate). Thus, the nasal mucosa in e-cigarette users is exposed to much more nicotine in e-cigarette users than nasal mucosa in smokers."

 

[sofarsogood]

The brilliant Zvi Herzog has posted the following comment on the study at
E-cigarette use results in suppression of immune and inflammatory-response genes in nasal epithelial cells similar to cigarette smoke. - PubMed - NCBI


"Nicotine alone changes gene expression Zhang S, 2001, Bavarva JH, 2013. However, this is unlikely to be of major clinical significance, considering the epidemiological evidence from nicotine replacements and snus.

The authors mistakenly exclude the possibility that increased gene suppression in nasal mucosa of e-cigarette users relates to nicotine:

Based on the similar serum cotinine levels in cigarette smokers and e-cigarette users, it does not appear that the overall difference in number and level of gene expression changes is dependent on nicotine.

However, unlike smoking, e-cigarette use commonly involves nasal exhalation (as any video documentary on the subject can demonstrate). Thus, the nasal mucosa in e-cigarette users is exposed to much more nicotine in e-cigarette users than nasal mucosa in smokers."

I tried inhaling vapor through my nose to see what would happen. What happened is it hurt like hell and the hurt didn't go away for a while. NOT recommended. I'm sure the result would be the same if you tried that with a cigarette.