We're on the same train, Kristin, riding in the same car, in fact. I agree .. but be very careful about slamming a researcher for entering a project with a preconceived bias. This man has done lots of previous testing. He knows what he's doing. He tested in a set of circumstances you find objectionable. He got what he got. And I'm not surprised, given how he tested.
Personally, I'd suggest we all drop the "bias" charges and let him proceed with further testing. He showed courage and honesty to come here and respond here. He did not back down -- and I admire him greatly for that. Some think that's a fatal flaw; I think that's a badge of courage and honor. When bullies badger, how does a person of integrity respond?
I look forward to future tests, and hope that our better suggestions are incorporated, and our ignorant utterances are forgotten.
Bob, I agree that it took courage for him to post here. Given that, he must have expected some heated discussion. Any scientist who publishes a study faces that prospect - consider peer reviews.
However, I feel that pointing out to him his bias is proactive. If he's going to do more tests and affect the future health of millions of smokers, he needs to be able to see things from various viewpoints.
The biggest objection I have is not necessarily his conslusion but how he is presenting those conclusions to the public.
This study proved that if you give no instruction to the user, improperly use the device and give only limited exposure, the devices do not effectively deliver nicotine.
However, that very narrow conlcusion is being broadly interpreted & portrayed, by both the media and Virginia Commonwealth University, as a indication that electronic cigarettes aren't delivering nicotine at all,
under any circumstances.
The following quotes are from the Virginia Commonwealth website:
Electronic cigarettes should be evaluated, regulated, labeled and packaged in a manner consistent with cartridge content and product effect – even if that effect is a total failure to deliver nicotine as demonstrated in a study supported by the National Cancer Institute and led by a
Virginia Commonwealth University researcher.
This quote does not concede that the testing was very narrow and under unrealistic conditions. It strongly suggests that ecigs, in general, not just under the conditions testing was done, have a total failure to deliver nicotine. Period. Who says they aren't affective if the user is properly instructed and given time to adjust to a new device?
Further, “electronic cigarettes” currently are unregulated in the U.S., unlike other products intended to deliver nicotine to smokers such as lozenges, gum and patches.
Taken from the same press release. Note that the study wasn't comparing them to NRTs, yet the press release adds this nice little comment to make ecigs sound dangerous. Why is this even in there other than a scare tactic?
It’s not just that they delivered less nicotine than a cigarette. Rather, they delivered no measurable nicotine at all. In terms of nicotine delivery, these products were as effective as puffing from an unlit cigarette,” said principal investigator
Thomas Eissenberg, Ph.D., professor in the
VCU Department of Psychology.
Note, he does not qualify his comments that they were tested under specific conditions that may have affected the outcome. I may as well stick 16 people in a room with a Virginia Commonwealth physics textook, test them on their knowledge 40 minutes later and declare that the University doesn't deliver on it's promise to educate students. If I don't tell people the conditions the test subjects were given, people assume I put them in a classroom with a professor and the test subjects failed.
It doesn't matter that people can go read the study and find out for themselves. 99% of people will just read what they are told in the headlines.
In Eissenberg’s study, 16 participants engaged in four different sessions – each separated by 48 hours – which included smoking their preferred brand of cigarettes, puffing an unlit cigarette, or using one of two different brands of “electronic cigarettes” loaded with “high” strength, which is 16 mg, nicotine cartridges.
They went this far to describe the testing, yet didn't find it noteworthy that the subjects were not instructed in the proper use of the devices? I think most people would find that extremely relevant.
They observed that when participants used the two brands of “electronic cigarettes,” there was no significant increase in nicotine levels or heart rate, and little reduction in craving. However, when participants smoked their own brand of cigarettes, substantial and significant increases in plasma nicotine and heart rate, and decreases in craving were observed.
This is just a shocking and disgusting statement. What does this really say to consumers looking into electronic cigarettes?? It says, "Don't waste your money on ecigs - smoking will satisfy your cravings better."
No comments about the fact that, in spite of this, hundreds of thousands of ecig users still claim that they find them satisfying.
Don't tell me there is no bias.
