First Step: Scientific Evidence

[Bahnzo]

Since this got lost in a discussion that turned into political bashing.....

As of right now, from what I've been able to discover via Google, there is no *true* scientific evidence on the health effects of electronic cigarettes. If we really want to make sure they are treated fairly, then this needs to be done. Otherwise, there are no facts to back up claims, either for or against. I do realize that maybe the facts will be simply be ignored, but I still think it's important.

There needs to be a true, unbiased, independent study done on this by a trusted institution. One study I could find is this one: Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes'; VCU News Center

The problem with this study is it has nothing to do with health, and it's done by a school in the third largest tobacco growing state in the US, which raises concerns about it's legitimacy in the face of funding from the tobacco industry.

The other I could find is this one, a study done by Health New Zealand: Electronic cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem here, is it's done in New Zealand. Personally, I'd bet it's numbers are good. BUT, most Americans aren't going to give any credit to a study not done here in the USA.

So.....I believe this is something that *has* to be done. It's good to inform your friends, it's certainly good to inform your representatives, but w/o hard scientific facts to back things up, your average person is simply going to equate e-cigs to real cigs. Unfortunately I have no idea on how to get this done, but still I think it's something that has to be done.

Ideas?

 

[Thulium]

There's been quite a bit more research done than that...

CASAA.org - Resources - Lab Reports

Quite frankly, the relative safety of e-cigarettes compared to smoking is undeniable as all the ingredients have been available for decades. Since e-cigarettes have only been available for a few years, obviously there has not been time to thoroughly evaluate the long term effects but there is no reason to expect any significant health issues. Even the FDA's own report failed to find any chemicals at levels known to be toxic or carcinogenic in the concentrated liquid, and carcinogens or toxins were not detected in the vapor itself.

There is of course the possibility of contaminants or accidental nicotine overdose, so some regulations for safety and quality control are justified and we certainly need to continue studying these... That's why we need to support peer reviewed studies like the Indoor vaping Air Quality Study (IVAQS) that we can expect to prove conclusively that e-cigarettes do not pose any risk to bystanders.

Beyond that, I encourage you to read the 2010 Tobacco Harm Reduction yearbook. It's available as a free PDF download from: THR2010. (tobaccoharmreduction.org) It includes reports that the FDA has deliberately concealed the fact that it is specifically the products of combustion and fire hazards that account for at least 99% of all deaths attributed to tobacco use. The simple fact that smoke-free tobacco products eliminate combustion (by definition) reduces the harm so dramatically that the remaining risk is hardly worth mentioning. Apparently the FDA thinks it is their responsibility to "protect" us from the truth because if the public finds out that smokeless tobacco is relatively safe, they might not buy products from the FDA's Big Pharma "sponsors".

 

[Bahnzo]

There's been quite a bit more research done than that...

The problem is, most those studies appear to be financed by the manufacturer. They can easily appear biased. It's no different than Phillip Morris commissioning a study on their product.

What needs to be done is a real study, by a credible university that can't be accused of having a bias. Until then, there are no real scientific facts that either side can point to.

 

[kristin]

Absolutely! Got 7 years and several million dollars?

Sorry.

Why would any university study ecigs without getting money from someone who has an interest? ALL studies can be accused of having a bias, because someone pays for it.

The other side of the coin is that the FDA and an IRB won't allow the needed research, because it would require using human subjects and a control group that would have to be encouraged to continue smoking. Not going to happen.

Think of this, as well: Are tobacco cigarettes required to show that they have positive health effects? No.

So, as long as real cigarettes are legally sold on the market, why should electronic cigarettes be held to a higher standard? As long as they make no health or nicotine cessation claims, they shouldn't be. They contain all FDA-approved ingredients, so there is no valid concern of danger to the public.

With truthful labeling of ingredients, warning labels about nicotine poisoning if ingested and no health/cessation claims, there should be no more requirements to prove anything than what is currently required of tobacco cigarettes, as e-cigarettes are alternatives, not a treatment or cure for nicotine addiction.

By admitting that e-cigarettes are tobacco products, the FDA has the power to regulate them in the same manner as traditional cigarettes and the e-cig manufacturers would not be required to prove any health benefits.

 

[Bahnzo]

I certainly agree. But...do we really want e-cigs put in the same classification as analogs? Do we want states and cities banning their use in public? If not, then scientific evidence would go a long way towards avoiding these things.

I totally agree there needs to be regulation....truth in labeling, no sales to minors, etc...all the things you mentioned. But I would hate to see them lumped into the same category as analogs.

 

[kristin]

Just because it's a "tobacco product" doesn't mean it's lumped in with tobacco cigarettes.

There is a HUGE difference between the health effects of smokeless tobacco and cigarettes and electronic cigarettes are more akin with smokeless tobacco.

It's been established scientifically that the danger from and all of the rules, taxes and regulations over cigarettes are because of the SMOKE. E-cigarettes don't have smoke. To date, that argument has kept them exempt from several attempts to add them into indoor smoking bans.

That's why a significant inclusion in the battle over e-cigarettes is forcing the government and public health groups to admit that smokeless tobacco is safer than cigarette smoking - it's all a part of the argument for reduced harm alternatives and the reason CASAA is not just an e-cig advocate, but a truth about ALL smoke-free alternatives advocate.

So, the intent isn't to "lump e-cigs in with analogs" but to have e-cigs and other smokeless tobacco acknowledged as reduced harm tobacco alternatives.

 

[kristin]

That all being said, people are trying to get studies done to prove to the naysayers that e-cigs aren't a threat to non-smokers and bystanders. But only as a way to shut them up, because logically, as long as they aren't more dangerous than cigarettes, how can the justify banning e-cigs while cigarettes remain legal?

But trying to prove them as safe or healthy is a long, expensive road and the government is against that happening, so they won't support university studies. (If they had any desire to back e-cigs, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to have them classified as drug delivery devices in federal court.) The only option is private funding by someone with VERY deep pockets.

And we want to avoid e-cigarettes being lumped in the only other legally available catagory - as a pharmaceutical product. If that happens, they will be immediately required to be removed from the market until each and every company produces studies showing that THEIR e-cigs are effective nicotine cessation devices - which is not even how the majority of consumers use them. This would not only make e-cigs much more difficult to obtain for current users, but also stop millions of smokers who don't know about or haven't tried e-cigs yet from getting the opportunity for years. And the products which will finally get on the market 10 years from now will be very expensive (as most nicotine reduction products are) and reduced to the same inefficient and useless levels of nicotine.

How many more smokers have to die while they stall e-cigarettes coming back onto the market, requiring them to prove the obvious?

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

Hello Bahnzo, welcome to the world of vaping!

Right now, electronic cigarette proponents are in the process of setting up a study on the indoor air quality of a room in which electronic cigarettes are used. This study would prove once and for all which compounds are present as "second-hand vapor".
The name of the lab and those involved is being withheld for the present time due to security concerns (ie: FDA interference). The lab that will be doing the testing is run by a PhD who has extensive knowledge of environmental contaminants, and the lab itself has been involved in air quality testing for various groups, including state and local governments. They have previously done studies on second-hand smoke, which gives them the expertise to evaluate the risk to bystanders caused by "second-hand vapor" (if any).
The study is to be funded by consumer groups, such as the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association and National Vaper's Club, and various private donors. It will be peer-reviewed and published in respectable medical journals.
For a (redacted) abstract of the study, please see http://www.v a p e r s c l u b.com/IVAQSProposal.pdf?articleID=100&l=a&p=
If you would like to contribute to this study, feel free to stop by CASAA.org or http://donate.v a p e r s c l u b.com

Thank you for your interest in helping progress the cause for electronic cigarette usage.

-Nathan Dunn

 

[Vocalek]

CASAA now has a special page dedicated for the purpose of making donations to the IVAQS research project. This link takes you directly to the IVAQS donation page. CASAA.org

There is a link to this page on the CASAA Home Page. Actually, there are two links.

 

[CtryBoy]

It's tough when bias is obvious intended or not. Opponents and proponents alike tend to focus on what they want to see. If first line of report says what you want and the rest doesnt, quote the first line only, repeat until it is the truth and the rest if forgotten. WOrking with the American Cancer Society to update their links which give lip service to the FDA's flawed study and show no counter view. We'll see what they think of our research vs FDA's. Hopefully they will objectively review documentation, but when dealing with human beings everyone comes to the table with preconsieved notions and if you arent careful you will only find that which proves you right. Want to find something nasty in e liquid, then focus on the fact that PG is found in antifreeze, not that it was put in antifreeze to make it safer.

Again both views are truthful, but first is a bit selfserving and a lie of omission.

 

[Smix]

Since this got lost in a discussion that turned into political bashing.....

As of right now, from what I've been able to discover via Google, there is no *true* scientific evidence on the health effects of electronic cigarettes. If we really want to make sure they are treated fairly, then this needs to be done. Otherwise, there are no facts to back up claims, either for or against. I do realize that maybe the facts will be simply be ignored, but I still think it's important.

There needs to be a true, unbiased, independent study done on this by a trusted institution. One study I could find is this one: Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes'; VCU News Center

The problem with this study is it has nothing to do with health, and it's done by a school in the third largest tobacco growing state in the US, which raises concerns about it's legitimacy in the face of funding from the tobacco industry.

The other I could find is this one, a study done by Health New Zealand: Electronic cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem here, is it's done in New Zealand. Personally, I'd bet it's numbers are good. BUT, most Americans aren't going to give any credit to a study not done here in the USA.

So.....I believe this is something that *has* to be done. It's good to inform your friends, it's certainly good to inform your representatives, but w/o hard scientific facts to back things up, your average person is simply going to equate e-cigs to real cigs. Unfortunately I have no idea on how to get this done, but still I think it's something that has to be done.

Ideas?

I'm having great difficulty in understanding why people will have trouble finding Dr Laugesen's findings as incredible. I personally take great offence to the notion that the NZ study is somehow discredited due to it being 'non-US material'.

Dr Laugesen has been actively involved in reducing tobacco usage in New Zealand since 1985. Can you please supply a reason as to how that lessens his credibility? How does being a Kiwi alter his findings in any way?

Have a look at his CV...it sure looks like he knows what he's talking about?

Without trying to resort to 'US bashing' have a look at the findings of the FDA. 'Your' results are hardly credible and are actually somewhat humorous.

Also please let me know how you came to the conclusion that Dr Laugesen's numbers are "good"? I can't seem to get my head around that statement. He has used scientific testing to find his numbers ... not a gut feeling as it seems you have.

To add to that, it's my understanding that Dr Laugesen is quite active in releasing his findings on e-cigs and the effects on the body. If anything I would be inclined to say that he's actually a world leader in e-cig research and it's a bit childish to be discrediting him based on peripheral issues.

 

[CtryBoy]

Part of the issue, particularly with the FDA, is that a SCIENTIFIC study (double blind, peer reviewed, etc etc) would be impossible (well unethical, immoral, but not impossible) because it would require one group to continue smoking x number of cig/day till it killed them. So since the normal rules cant be ethically applied, anecdotal evidence must be used and this opens up a bit of a can of worms. Starting with researchers trying to test them like they are regular cigarettes instead of enlisting seasoned vapers to show them how PV's are actually used. Of course if using seasoned vapers, you'll be accused of reverse bias since the vapers have a vested interest in outcome. Man this is a viscous cycle.

Sure there is enough of a brain trust interested in problem to come up with good tests and good data, of course that data can be misinterpreted like the TSNA's found and reported as DANGEROUS (at least made to sound dangerous) but when put in context as the CASAA documents show it's clearly one of the leaders in fewest TSNA's vs any realistic alternative. Again same valid data, all in presentation.
CASAA.org

 

[Bahnzo]

I'm having great difficulty in understanding why people will have trouble finding Dr Laugesen's findings as incredible. I personally take great offence to the notion that the NZ study is somehow discredited due to it being 'non-US material'.

Believe me, I'm not questioning his credentials or findings. But living in America, I'm pretty confident the average person here would see a study done in *any* other country and not consider it as credible as one done here in the USA. It's just the way the majority of Americans think is all. I can understand how that would seem stupid or offensive to someone else in another country, and especially to you being from NZ.

 

[Janetda]

I believe the problem with Laugesen's research is that it's not been published in a peer reviewed journal and it was paid for by Ruyan. It's not about it being from NZ or Dr. Laugensen credibility. He is a well respected researcher and NZ is at the forefront (somewhat draconian IMO) in their tobacco control efforts.

 

[Janetda]

Believe me, I'm not questioning his credentials or findings. But living in America, I'm pretty confident the average person here would see a study done in *any* other country and not consider it as credible as one done here in the USA. It's just the way the majority of Americans think is all. I can understand how that would seem stupid or offensive to someone else in another country, and especially to you being from NZ.

Well respected research is done all the time in other countries. In the science & medical fields, being from the US means nothing more than being from any other country. Country of origin means nothing if the research is done properly.

 

[Bahnzo]

Well respected research is done all the time in other countries. In the science & medical fields, being from the US means nothing more than being from any other country. Country of origin means nothing if the research is done properly.

And like I said, I don't disagree with that. I'm simply stating that most people here in the US, along with lawmakers and those who make policy, aren't going to put as much (if any) credence into a study not done here. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

 

[Janetda]

And I'm saying that you may feel that way, but it's simply not true in the scientific community. This has to do more with publication and political agenda. Research that doesn't get published is almost worthless. It's very difficult to get something published that doesn't prove the established ideal de jour. This has been happening throughout history. Every new idea in science has had to fight the establishment.

I'm not talking about lay persons here. I'm talking about why no one is taking the current e-cig studies seriously. This is why studies such as Eissenberg's get the love and Health New Zealand is left blowing in the wind. The scientific community has never been accepting of new ideas.

 

[Bahnzo]

And I'm saying that you may feel that way, but it's simply not true in the scientific community. This has to do more with publication and political agenda. Research that doesn't get published is almost worthless. It's very difficult to get something published that doesn't prove the established ideal de jour. This has been happening throughout history. Every new idea in science has had to fight the establishment.

I'm not talking about lay persons here. I'm talking about why no one is taking the current e-cig studies seriously. This is why studies such as Eissenberg's get the love and Health New Zealand is left blowing in the wind. The scientific community has never been accepting of new ideas.

Scientists don't make policy...they might influence it, but ultimately politicians do. And they also make policy that makes them look good to their constituents.

Eissenberg gets acceptance...because it's an American university. Health New Zealand isn't, and therefore get's ignored. It certainly doesn't mean that VCU's study is better, that's just the way it is. That's the mindset here in America, whether we like it or not. It's also what the media reports...what's a better story: An American university runs a study that shows e-cigs are bad, or a NZ study that shows they aren't?

Sorry, but for any study that shows reduced harm or safety for an e-cig, it will have to come from an American source or it will be dismissed by lawmakers and the average person on the street they are trying to get elected by.

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

IVAQS Project