What do you think of the new Eissenberg study showing that ecigs deliver virtually NO nicotine?
Study: 'Electronic cigarettes' don't deliver - CNN.com
Study: 'Electronic cigarettes' don't deliver - CNN.com
Eissenberg study
- Thread starter hgielm1
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well, I would definitely have to disagree. Unless, that is, that after all these decades, the FDA and whatever other agencies erred in stating that nicotine was the main addictive ingredient in tobacco. Now that would be interesting...
I think the FDA will be trying to discredit him and his report - if they don't they lose their case currently under review do they not?
I think that Dr. Eissenberg is sincere and reported what he found. I'm not sure that the methodology is all that it could have been, but... Dr. Eissenberg is now a member of the forum, and is reading what we have to say. I think that he wants to learn, and report truth.
how conclusive the result is?? many forum members reported feeling the nic in their system but the study suggest that no nic will be present in ecig users system using just ecigs!!!!
Well I for one feel the nic, i have smoked for 35 years and have tryed more than once to stop with no success. I have been smoke free now for
51 days and dont crave a cig at all. My husband smoked more and he has quit also was a little harder for him, but he has done it with e-cigs. They
are a life saver for us. He had a heart attack over a year ago and had to stop. I had a bad cough and now its gone. Had some test done Dr says i have COPD but i feel soooo much better now and i can breath alot better now. Thanks to E-Cigs
51 days and dont crave a cig at all. My husband smoked more and he has quit also was a little harder for him, but he has done it with e-cigs. They
are a life saver for us. He had a heart attack over a year ago and had to stop. I had a bad cough and now its gone. Had some test done Dr says i have COPD but i feel soooo much better now and i can breath alot better now. Thanks to E-Cigs
Also...on this study...if the people using the e-cigs weren't "proficient" in using it they may not have gotten a very nice draw on the e-cig and therefore wouldn't be getting the full effects. Also, I notice very little nicotine from auto switches and much more from manual switches (because I'm in control of cutoff and take huge drags!)...so the study is subjective at best. Also, that might mean that the people who made the prefilled cartridges lied to save money? how the heck would we ever know!
Not very, and he makes that clear. The good news is, he used only Njoy, and probably used an atty that was not deprimed at that. The CNN spin has been this is conclusive for all ecigs. He picked a crap model, one that we generally dislike here because they don't work very well, and his results supported that. I sincerely think, however, after reading his posts on ECF, that he was simply naive about PVs in general, and there was no nefarious intent or shilling for BT or BP. His funding was standard NIH/NSF. I also think that the refs who reviewed it were also relatively naive. His data it seems was sound. It was the NJoy, however, that was the dud for whatever reason. He used one 16 mg cart on a right-out-of-the-plastic atty. I for one would not want to be an Njoy exec right now...serious egg on their faces.
I think some of the chemistry folks gave him some great ideas to look into. There were also some rather aggressive interactions from people convinced he was a shill that I felt were rude and uncalled for, but nic withdrawal, or overuse, will make some cranky and belligerent. Like kids angry their cookies were going to be snatched. Kids...gotta love 'em.
The issue is not the study. The study is severely limited, but sound. The issue is how the news media will spin it, and CNN is already howling at the moon and generalizing across the board. Don't worry, your vaping is not placebo...that has been shown catagorically...in this world by exogenisis and DVap, amoung others who got blood tests. Its just that the good Dr. E's world is not this world, and out there ain't in here, and out there don't know much 'bout these 'lectric smokes. Ideally, the CNN message should be don't buy NJoy. I'm afraid their message is don't buy PVs.
Last edited:
What could account for finding very little nicotine being absorbed?
It seems to me, any or all of these, could be to blame. (I am CERTAINLY getting nicotine from vaping.)
-Neophyte vaping technique - the subjects may have had no clue as to how to properly inhale. They may have pulled hard, rather than gently, as is necessary with most PVs. Did they take primer puffs?
-Atomizers not broken in, hence producing little vape, aside from the non-nic primer, that is.
-The carts may not have been attached long enough to get e-liquid into the atomizer.
-Was the PV held at the correct angle to get the e-liquid to flow into the atomizer?
-Were the carts properly filled at the factory?
-How long were the inhalations that the subjects took? 1 second? Less? Did they inhale the vapor, or merely hold it in the mouth? Was it breathed out immediately after the vaporizer was used?
-Were the batteries fully charged?
-et cetera, et cetera.
What worries me about this study is that some neophyte vaper is going to read it, assume that PVs deliver very little, if any, nicotine, and that person is going to OD, vaping large amounts of high strength (36mg+) juice. Then, we'll be reading on CNN about how PV's deliver TOO MUCH nicotine, and need to be banned to protect the "ignorant" public.
It seems to me, any or all of these, could be to blame. (I am CERTAINLY getting nicotine from vaping.)
-Neophyte vaping technique - the subjects may have had no clue as to how to properly inhale. They may have pulled hard, rather than gently, as is necessary with most PVs. Did they take primer puffs?
-Atomizers not broken in, hence producing little vape, aside from the non-nic primer, that is.
-The carts may not have been attached long enough to get e-liquid into the atomizer.
-Was the PV held at the correct angle to get the e-liquid to flow into the atomizer?
-Were the carts properly filled at the factory?
-How long were the inhalations that the subjects took? 1 second? Less? Did they inhale the vapor, or merely hold it in the mouth? Was it breathed out immediately after the vaporizer was used?
-Were the batteries fully charged?
-et cetera, et cetera.
What worries me about this study is that some neophyte vaper is going to read it, assume that PVs deliver very little, if any, nicotine, and that person is going to OD, vaping large amounts of high strength (36mg+) juice. Then, we'll be reading on CNN about how PV's deliver TOO MUCH nicotine, and need to be banned to protect the "ignorant" public.
Last edited:
Overall, I am not as worried about this study and how it will be spun as much as I am worried about the constant barrage of "contains antifreeze" and "more dangerous than real cigarettes" articles that abound in mainstream media, mostly promulgated by Banzhaf and his ilk.
I believe the latter category is far more dangerous to public perception. At least Eissenberg's study gives a different (conflicting?) story that, in my view, only creates more questions than it answers, and also creates a need for more testing and court challenges that can only slow things down as far as banning or regulation go.
In other words, FDA and other authorities can't have it both ways (they do deliver nicotine; they don't deliver nicotine; which one is it?). There has to be a consistent proclaimation about what these devices do, what they contain, and how they should be labeled, marketed, and seen by the general public. To our benefit, Eissenberg's study only has the capacity to create more questions and slow down the process of litigation. That's actually a good thing for us.
I believe the latter category is far more dangerous to public perception. At least Eissenberg's study gives a different (conflicting?) story that, in my view, only creates more questions than it answers, and also creates a need for more testing and court challenges that can only slow things down as far as banning or regulation go.
In other words, FDA and other authorities can't have it both ways (they do deliver nicotine; they don't deliver nicotine; which one is it?). There has to be a consistent proclaimation about what these devices do, what they contain, and how they should be labeled, marketed, and seen by the general public. To our benefit, Eissenberg's study only has the capacity to create more questions and slow down the process of litigation. That's actually a good thing for us.
I think the vapor was analyzed, not blood work done on someone vaping. It was 10 "puffs" only, so it was likely just primer PG boiling off.
I agree, ChipsCurtis, our problem is the rabid media spin. For some reason they are hell bent on stirring smokers away from ecigs. I doubt the FDA will do one thing or another about this directly, but if they are asked, they will have some 'splainin' to do.
I agree, ChipsCurtis, our problem is the rabid media spin. For some reason they are hell bent on stirring smokers away from ecigs. I doubt the FDA will do one thing or another about this directly, but if they are asked, they will have some 'splainin' to do.
I retract that...blood plasma levels were checked. Sorry, my bad. I still maintain it was primer, and not actually nic juice, though.
I sent an email to the good doctor back on Feb. 11th and shared my experiences moving from regular tobacco to a cheap ecig, to a better one and custom juice. Then I sent him links to some of the major forums and links to better juice sources, including this one. The fact that he has joined this community, according to an earlier post, tends to indicate that he is indeed sincere. Perhaps some good will come of this. At least, I hope so.
A
A
I got the impression he is very upset about how his study is being spun. Nothing in his posts told me he was anything but a rigorous and well-respected, but in this case naive, researcher. He may well be scrambling to take the many suggestions we gave him to do a far better study. And his reviewers were also naive, and this is the biggest problem, I think. But then who would a paper like this be sent to for review...its a brand new field, especially in this country. There are no academic experts of ecigs...just a lot of expert normal people making them and using them. That he did at all, and especially that he came here to join and interact, is huge. I know about academic chemistry, and it ain't the 70s anymore. People are leery of studying questionable compounds connected to vice if it seems like it could support their use. That's how people get laughed at and funding gets cut.
- Status
Similar threads
