Electronic Cigarettes Cause Damage to Lungs, Study Finds

[juicejunky]

That is the title of this Bloomberg article

www. bloomberg. com/news/2012-09-02/e-cigarettes-not-tied-to-risk-of-heart-disease-in-study.html]Electronic Cigarettes Cause Damage to Lungs, Study Finds - Bloomberg


Seems they tested a total of 32 smokers- with good lungs and non smoker- and for 10 minutes after smoking an ecig for 10 minutes they had reduced lung capacity. Nothing about what happened at the 11 minute mark or later. That alone makes me suspicious of their methodology or they just don't want to mention the lack of damage after 10 minutes have elapsed. Would have it been so hard to wait a half hour and test their lungs again?


THey do mention the no harm to heart study later in the article, but it's buried under the lung damage study.

From the anecdotal stuff here and my own experience, I can see the reduced lung capacity for 10 minutes with 100 VG ejuice. VG does make my chest feel heavy for a short period. THere is no way I have reduced lung capacity after vaping for 1.8 years. My oxygen levels are always 99 to 100 percent vs. 96-97% when I smoked.

Anyway the raw study is not accessible from the European Respiratory Society . Anyone know any more about this study?

Someone does not like heart study for sure to make the lead of the article the lame lung study. Sux that Bloomberg is running this as a top story on their web page, but we in the NYC area know his disdain about anything and everything to do with smoking.



More searching finds the ERP position on e-cigarettes from February 2012, European Respiratory Society statement on E-cigarettes and emerging products | which cites the FDA and Canadian studies only. The author Chistina Gratziou seems to be studying Smoking cessation products in general as Assossiated Professor of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,in Medical School of Athens University .

 

[Vocalek]

Yes, I saw that
www. ersnet .org/eu-affairs/item/4494-european-respiratory-society-statement-on-e-cigarettes-and-emerging-products-.html
position paper and I think everyone should take a look. I have to wonder whether whoever wrote it went to graduate school, much less earned a medical degree. The references are a joke! Carl will be doing a post on this soon in the Anti-THR Lie of the Day blog. As for me, I had a few questions for the European Respiratory Society:

1. Please cite references to studies providing evidence that smokeless tobacco products such as chewing tobacco, snus, and dissolvable tobacco orbs damage the respiratory system.
2. Please explain the scientific mechanism by which this lung damage occurs.
3. Please explain how Footnote 1 supports the statement for which it is a reference.
4. Footnote 2 does not appear to support the assertion in the text that there is no scientific evidence to substantiate the claim that some of these new products are harm-reducing. Foulds, et al. reviewed evidence on the effects of moist smokeless tobacco (snus) on smoking and ill health in Sweden and reported that snus does not appear to cause cancer or respiratory illness. They concluded, “Snus availability in Sweden appears to have contributed to the unusually low rates of smoking among Swedish men by helping them transfer to a notably less harmful form of nicotine dependence.”
5. Please explain how Footnotes 3 and 4 support the statement “Rather, available research suggests that these products pose a significant health risk to citizens, placing them at continued high risk for disease and negative health outcomes.” Both articles are press releases that express a number of worries but neither provides any evidence that e-cigarettes cause as much disease as smoking conventional cigarettes—or any diseases at all, for that matter.
6. A position statement by the Utah Tobacco Prevention and Control Program is cited as the source for the statement that e-cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals.
a. Describe the research conducted by Utah.
b. Specify the quantity of carcinogens found in e-cigarettes liquid.
c. Compare the quantity of carcinogens in e-cigarette liquid to the quantity of carcinogens in 20 tobacco cigarettes.
d. Specify the quantity of carcinogens found in e-cigarette vapor.
e. Specify the quantity of toxic chemicals measured in the vapor.

I must admit that these are really "trick" questions because
1. There is no evidence that smokeless tobacco causes respiratory damage.
2. There is no such mechanism.
3. The first reference is a 2007 literature review of such Potential Reduced Exposure Products (PREPs) as "Light" and "ultra-light" cigarettes, the Accord (a 1998 product that heated tobacco and reportedly tasted disgusting), and a couple of dissolvable products. But these researchers didn't even have their facts straight. They thought that Star Scientific's hard tobacco dissolvable orbs were tobacco in a packet, like Swedish Match's Exalt. E-cigarettes were unknown in 2007.
4. The second reference is a paper by the World Health Organization. The "Smokeless Tobacco" section goes on and on about products made in Asia that contain a lot of ingredients that are not even tobacco. The "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems" section expresses a lot of "concerns" but presents no evidence of harm.
5. Neither the third nor the fourth reference provide scientific evidence. Expression of fears (they might do this, they might cause that, they could result in...) are not scientific evidence.
6. The fifth reference is also not a scientific report.
a. Utah did not conduct any research so the rest of the questions cannot be answered by referring to their paper.
b. If ERS wanted to rely on the FDA's lab report for this information, good hunting. The FDA reported it "detected" carcinogens but conveniently forgot to mention a quantity. It turns out the FDA was talking about Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines. Health New Zealand found 8.18 nanograms in liquid with a 1.8% nicotine concentration but noted that this is the same quantity as in a nicotine patch.
c. According to calculations by Dr. Siegel, tobacco cigarettes contain thousands of times higher levels of nitrosamines.
d. The highest reported quantity of nitrosamines in vapor was 3 nanograms
e. German researchers reported finding some potentially toxic chemicals in vapor, but none of these were more than a tiny fraction of the Permissible Exposure Limit set by OSHA.

 

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

Old news, the Antz squeezing the last drops out of the Athens study.

Note the comment by Anonymous. Classic:
www. sciencecodex .com/experts_warn_that_ecigarettes_can_damage_the_lungs-97689
Experts warn that e-cigarettes can damage the lungs | Science Code

 

[Vocalek]

Ironically, appearing directly to the right of the title on that Science Codex article is an advertisement for Blu.

 

[TTK]

This study reads more like an "anti-advert" than a report of a Scientific Study. These reports of studies always seem to lump all ecigs together as if all were the same regardless of the eliquid being used.

 

[vikeme28]

My wife informed me of this article today and gave me the evil eye. The only data I personally have is, my dad has a pulse and oxygen fingertip tester from having his vocal chords and part of his esophagus taken out six years ago due to a 3pack a day habit. When I still smoked my mom would make me put it on when i'd visit and scowl at me because it would read ad low as 88% for oxygen levels. Usually around 92% my dad has been in the hospital these last few days with copd and not getting rid of his co2. Anyways I have been checking it everytime I see him and I am at 97-99% the lowest I had was 95% because I decided to take the 6 flights of stairs for s and G's(which would have never been attempted a year ago). Hows that for decrease in lung function

 

[TTK]

Ironically, appearing directly to the right of the title on that Science Codex article is an advertisement for Blu.

Not everyone sees the same adds. They appear based on your browsing history. First I saw Dragonfly, them later I saw Amazon glass bottles, something I was looking at a few days ago.

 

[Vocalek]

My wife informed me of this article today and gave me the evil eye. The only data I personally have is, my dad has a pulse and oxygen fingertip tester from having his vocal chords and part of his esophagus taken out six years ago due to a 3pack a day habit. When I still smoked my mom would make me put it on when i'd visit and scowl at me because it would read ad low as 88% for oxygen levels. Usually around 92% my dad has been in the hospital these last few days with copd and not getting rid of his co2. Anyways I have been checking it everytime I see him and I am at 97-99% the lowest I had was 95% because I decided to take the 6 flights of stairs for s and G's(which would have never been attempted a year ago). Hows that for decrease in lung function

According to this report www. eurekalert .org/pub_releases/2012-09/elf-ewt083112.php
Experts warn that e-cigarettes can damage the lungs
"In COPD and asthma patients the use of one e-cigarette seemed to have no immediate effect to airway resistance."

From this it would appear that e-cigarettes are only safe for those with COPD and asthma to use. Isn't that strange?

Well, they must be right. I used to be kept awake at night by loud wheezing. I still wheeze if I am exerting myself, but no longer when I'm just lying in bed at night. I used to have a "productive" morning cough. It's gone. I used to go into an embarrassing coughing jag whenever somebody made me laugh. That's gone, too.

As a matter of fact in surveys of e-cigarette users about 90% of users state that their lungs have improved since switching.

I asked Dr. Polosa, who treats patients with lung problems, for his opinion on this study. He said that he is totally unimpressed with this work. "It has the same methodological problems as the Varvadas study."

 

[mwplefty]

I've confronted many Bloomberg editors and journalists on their obvious biases, and it doesn't surprise me that they would use junk science to encourage a more intrusive government (i.e. more regulation and more taxes on e-cigs).

 

[sherid]

I responded to the study on two sites that published it. Here is my response.
Chistina Gratiziou earlier completed a study of the effectiveness of Chantix as a quitting aid. That study was funded by Pfizer, the makers of Chantix. "G and PAP declare that they have no financial competing interests. KG declares a financial competing interest from the research committee of the University of Thessaly. GS, MM and RS declare financial competing interests as employees of and stock holders of Pfizer, the study sponsor. No authors declare a non-financial competing interest." Tobacco Induced Diseases | Full text | Varenicline as a smoking cessation aid in a Greek population: a subanalysis of an observational study
Chantix has been given a black box warning and is held responsible for thousands of suicide, suicide ideation, and other extremely frightening side effects; yet that study concludes that Chantix is a great way to quit smoking. Conversely, this same scientist with financial ties to Pfizer, concludes that electronic cigarettes are NOT a safe way to quit smoking. Since there have been no reported harmful side effects of using electronic cigarettes, despite millions of people using them, there should be a giant RED FLAG for this study. It is all about the money, and e cigarettes are a major danger to the profits of companies that directly compete for the quit smoking industry. Is it hypocritical for a scientist who supports Chantix despite its obvious dangers to then declare e cigarettes with no known side effects unsafe? OR, is it profitable for not only Pfizer but also for the scientists who rely on their funding to declare one product safe and the other unsafe?

 

[Placebo Effect]

Why didn't the author use the Nicorette Inhaler as a control? Wouldn't that have made sense?

 

[Vocalek]

An increase in airway resistance is not "lung damage." Dr. Riccardo Polosa, an Italian asthma specialist, stated, "A recent clinical safety assessment of one such product in 40 smokers showed that mouth and throat irritation and dry cough were commonly reported in the initial few weeks of use, but all appeared to wane spontaneously by the end of the study, after 24 weeks of regular use. Thus the authors’ conclusions are not fully supported by the data, and the accumulating evidence is rather strongly supportive of a good safety profile for the e-cigarettes."

 

[username1970]

Ironically, appearing directly to the right of the title on that Science Codex article is an advertisement for Blu.

I don't see any ads

 

[TennDave]

My wife pointed out that lung study to me this morning as well- evidently it came to her smart phone as Top World News...
Hmmm, anyway, she is still smoking and uses the e-cig I gave her some but has not been convinced that it is truly better for you.
I have send her a link to this discussion. She is smart enough, maybe she can read through the BS and find the truth...well, here is at least hoping.

 

[DC2]

Unless I'm mistaken, this appears to be the same results as a previous study...
www. e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/255037-study-finds-e-cigarettes-affect-airways-quickly.html

Basically, an increase in airway resistance.
As the thread above discusses, that does NOT equal damage to the lungs.

 

[JENerationX]

I'd like to see them test 50 people after exposure to a sauna or shower steam.

 

[Webdoc]

I have received the Power Point of the study from the ERS containing all the nice graphs and other details - but I can not upload it here. If anyone can help with that please let me know

 

[nightroman]

Was any regular e-cig user included at all? They mention non-smokers and smokers. I agree that lungs may react in a way funny for not smokers and smokers but not e-smokers. For example, I do remember funny feelings in my lungs during firsts few days of vaping. But after these few days I started to feel only improvements in lung functioning. Thus, I do not quite get what their study actually proves even if it presents true facts.

 

[McDougal]

Why didn't the author use the Nicorette Inhaler as a control? Wouldn't that have made sense?

It would have made sense if the intention of the study was to put e-cigs in proper context. Unfortunately, we find yet another study that fails to do that.

In projecting bias and forming public opinion, no - using an FDA-approved control doesn't make sense.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The abstract by Gratzui et al presented at the European Respiratory Society's 2012 conference is at (and printed below)
https://www.ersnetsecure.org/public/prg_congres.abstract?ww_i_presentation=59718
and was included in schedule at
https://www.ersnetsecure.org/public/prg_congres.entree?ww_i_congres=130

Please note that "Late Breaking Abstracts" are not those that are submitted and approved by the conference planning committees, but rather are typically approved by conference organizers during the days/weeks before the conference to generate sensationalized news stories.

P1053
LATE-BREAKING ABSTRACT: Acute effect of e-cigarette on pulmonary function in healthy subjects and smokers
S. A. Gennimata, A. Palamidas, G. Kaltsakas, S. Tsikrika, S. Vakali, C. Gratziou, N. Koulouris (Athens, Greece)

Electronic-cigarette is marketed as potentially safer tobacco exposure product, but there are not enough data concerning its impact on the respiratory system. Therefore, we set out to investigate the acute effects of an e-cigarette on respiratory functions in healthy subjects and in smokers with and without chronic airway obstruction (COPD and asthma).

We studied 32 consecutive subjects (16 men), 8 were never smokers and 24 were smokers (11 with normal spirometry, and 13 patients with COPD and asthma). Spirometry, static lung volumes, airway resistance (Raw), airway conductance (sGaw) and a single breath nitrogen test (the slope of phase III; ΔN2/L), were measured before and after the use of an e-cigarette smoked for 10 minutes.

Immediately after smoking an e-cigarette for 10 minutes there was: a) a statistically significant increase in Raw %pred (from 223±80 to 246±86, p=0.008), b) a statistically significant decrease in sGaw %pred (from 46±20 to 41±17, p=0.005), and c) a statistically significant increase in ΔΝ2/L %pred (from 146±100 to 164±121, p=0.002).

Ten minutes smoking of e-cigarette causes a significant increase in airway resistance and in the slope of phase III, and a decrease in airway conductance in our group. These data show that there is an immediate effect of a single e-cigarette smoking. Further studies are needed to establish the immediate and long-term effects of an e-cigarette smoking.