First study to compare vaping and smoking in animal model

[DrMA]

vaping shown harmless at 10x the exposure used for cigarette smoke

[url=http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2015.191.1_MeetingAbstracts.A4686]
Electronic Cigarettes Are Less Toxic, When Compared To Traditional Cigarette Exposure In An Acute Animal Model And On Human Alveolar Cells[/URL]

 

[Semiretired]

@DrMA looks like you got an error on the link.

 

[Joe Gordon]

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[Joe Gordon]

The link works just shows up that interesting read thank you for sharing

 

[DrMA]

fixed. thank you

 

[Semiretired]

I am so curious as to where all the research will end. In the favor of ecigs or out... We know many things to date from research, but we still do not know the ultimate end of where it will lead.

 

[Mossy]

Looks really quite positive reading the abstract,won't let you download pdf unless you pay. I'll try and find it somewhere and post it.

 

[philoshop]

I am so curious as to where all the research will end. In the favor of ecigs or out... We know many things to date from research, but we still do not know the ultimate end of where it will lead.

The research involving vaping will never "end". There may be at some point a 'settled science' consensus, but even that won't happen any time soon. There are far too many parties involved with contrasting views and values.

 

[Semiretired]

There are far too many parties involved with contrasting views and values.

That is so much the truth.

 

[Bob Chill]

I wouldn't expect the research to show anything else. Well, unless you turn up the power to 25 volts so you can lie to the general public about it.

 

[caramel]

I predict Dr. Antz will reject the study as un-american and irrelevant, based on the mice citizenship. Plus "we don't know what methods they use there" and a new call for FDA approved studies.

 

[CarolT]

That stuff and everything like it is junk, pure crapola designed to look 'sciencey' to ignorant people, because: It is unclear whether their "Total Particle matter / m3" has any resemblance to actual human exposures. Nor do their measurements demonstrate any actual health outcome or disease. And this isn't even a published study. It's a conference abstract that by definition hasn't been accepted anywhere yet! So if you're dumb enough to fork over $5 for a pdf, that little one-page abstract is all you'll get for your money, because that's all there is to a conference abstract.

 

[Pyxus]

That stuff and everything like it is junk, pure crapola designed to look 'sciencey' to ignorant people, because: It is unclear whether their "Total Particle matter / m3" has any resemblance to actual human exposures. Nor do their measurements demonstrate any actual health outcome or disease. And this isn't even a published study. It's a conference abstract that by definition hasn't been accepted anywhere yet! So if you're dumb enough to fork over $5 for a pdf, that little one-page abstract is all you'll get for your money, because that's all there is to a conference abstract.

Well, it may not provide a link to human disease, but comparing the effects of 2 treatment groups to control on whatever biological outcome they chose is still valid. Certainly not more junk than whatever Antz usually put forward, IMO.

 

[CarolT]

Well, it may not provide a link to human disease, but comparing the effects of 2 treatment groups to control on whatever biological outcome they chose is still valid. Certainly not more junk than whatever Antz usually put forward, IMO.

No, it's not "still valid," because there's more to good science than just performing a ritual. And being good enough in the eyes of anti-smokers does not make it good enough.

 

[Jman8]

Headline: Researchers Investigating What Anecdotal Evidence Established As Fact Years Ago

 

[skoony]

That stuff and everything like it is junk, pure crapola designed to look 'sciencey' to ignorant people, because: It is unclear whether their "Total Particle matter / m3" has any resemblance to actual human exposures. Nor do their measurements demonstrate any actual health outcome or disease. And this isn't even a published study. It's a conference abstract that by definition hasn't been accepted anywhere yet! So if you're dumb enough to fork over $5 for a pdf, that little one-page abstract is all you'll get for your money, because that's all there is to a conference abstract.

oh,so they are lying?
mike

 

[Bill Godshall]

Since a puff of e-cig vapor contains less than 5% of the particles that a puff of cigarette smoke contains, in order to expose animals and human cell cultures to 10 times more particles than cigarette smoke, the researchers would have had to expose the animals to at least 200 times more vapor (than cigarette smoke) to achieve the same level of particulates.

Perhaps even more interesting is that the American Thoracic Society accepted this abstract for presentation at its conference, as the ATS (which is the sister organization of the American Lung Association) has been lying about e-cigs and lobbying to ban them since 2009 (when FDA illegally banned them).

Also, CarolIT is wrong again, as the number of particles or particulates/m3 is how the level of particle (or particulate) exposure to humans, animals and the environment is measured.

 

[nopatch]

It is a stupid study.There are no appreciable Particulate matter in ecig vapor except may be some metal particles after the ecig is used quite a bit of time.Extracting something from practically nil particulate matter and comparing it with cigarette ash is stupid.

It is as stupid as measuring co2 or co in ecig vapor.

 

[Mossy]

I went and had a look at the University site in general...................... it has, as usual, an ANTZ faculty which it seems is very close to the WHO..............I now don't hold out much hope if this study does get published.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Every study that compares anything in e-cig vapor with anything in cigarette smoke (or secondhand smoke) is beneficial for vaping.

Those who criticize this study know nothing and/or don't give a damn about helpful scientific evidence on vaping.