From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback

[leaford]

No of course not. You would'nt want the Media to get hold of that as it may read "Prof E admits he might have been wrong and his first Test might have been flawed."
That might damage your Career and that is much more important than the Health of a few million Smokers.
As we say in Britain Mr E "Pull the other one. It's got bells on"

Deewal, a single experience by a single subject is not a proper basis for a scientific report. It is an anecdote, nothing more.

 

[leaford]

Thank you, Dr. E for giving this matter so much consideration, for your continued participation here, and for retesting it yourself!

 

[CJsKee]

Holy Moly Dr. E...you're a true scholar and gentleman!! Thanks so much for sticking it out here, even though the going was rough for a while . I'm amazed and grateful that you yourself tested one of our beloved (Kr8) ecigs and hope your experience with it will help you in developing further tests.

Bravo to you and all the others that have contributed to such an excellent thread!

 

[justsomeguy]

Dr. E - as I've already told you once... I'll add to the list here and tell you again -

Thank you for the research you're doing, and for clearly wanting, as any good scientist should, to get to the truth. You are an asset to this community, whether all members realize it or not. Thanks for taking the time to understand the perspective here, and for taking the topic as seriously as we all do.


As a quick side note - for those who have insinuated that the Dr. may be 'naive' or 'irresponsible' in his dealings with the media - he can only be blamed so much for the sensationalist and misleading nature of the articles published. His words are his words, yes... but he most definitely cannot and should not be blamed for the headlines and spin that were used. I've worked in media most of my life, and I can tell you that the last thing anyone thinks about when coming up with a title or an angle is what the subject actually said (sad, but true). If you have issue with his quotes... so be it, but let's not blame the man for things he literally has zero control over.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Kilroy]

Thank you Dr. Eissenberg for having an open mind and thick enough skin to stick it out here and thank you also for being curious enough to try vapor yourself. It means a lot to us that you have.

Frank

 

[sherid]

I didn’t realize that the post from Bill Godshall was from last fall. My apologies.

I am not at all certain that I need to take a position on the drug device/tobacco product issue. There are many issues in today’s complex world about which I have no position. For example, I am uncertain whether the Federal Reserve Bank is a good or bad idea. The same for term limits for congress people. I am uncertain if the Swedish snus experience will generalize to the U.S., or if FDA regulation of tobacco will be the boon some folks promise, or the bust others swear to. In any case, I don’t see how having one position or another on this issue is going to help me design better studies or run them more competently. In fact, as some have suggested, having a position one way or another is likely to be seen by some folks here and elsewhere as compromising my objectivity.

That having been said, I will not apologize for wanting a product that people use to inhale a substance into their lungs to be “safe and effective” and I reject the notion that this desire puts me in the “drug delivery device” camp and that was not my intention when I used those words. Indeed, if those three words indicate that idea to some readers, then I am very happy to change the words: I would like electronic "cigarettes" to be not harmful and to perform as advertised.

Having addressed that issue to the best of my ability, I would like to acknowledge one of the many very important lessons that I have learned from this discussion. You may think me naïve, but when I have spoken to the media about my work (and I have done so regularly for several years) I have always thought that my appropriately qualified comments were an invitation for interested individuals to find the study and read it for themselves. And in that vein, I have always considered my publications, and *not my comments to the media* to be the message I am delivering. The following analogy may be poor, but think movie trailer/movie: the media reports tell you there is a story, but (in my mind) folks who want to know the story will go to the paper. So, what I’ve learned from this experience is that for many people, the media reports (well qualified or not) ARE the story. This lesson contradicts my expectation and is in opposition to my firm belief that there is very little meaningful information to be gleaned about a scientific study from a CNN report, or a Richmond Times Dispatch report, or a Time Magazine report. Science is complex, and these media outlets, by their nature, avoid complexity. I would argue that if people see a media report about a scientific study of interest, they should go and get the study to see what it says. However, regardless of my expectations, beliefs, or arguments, you have taught me that, with apologies to Marshall McLuhan, “the media report IS the message.” I’m thankful, and I’ll keep this lesson in mind when I speak to the press in the future.

I would also like to report some results from some personal experimentation. At the suggestion of some of you, I purchased a KR808D-1 with various strength cartridges (Cowboy flavor). I used it last night (18 mg cartomizer) and tested my urine with Nicalert strips this morning. Result? 5/6. Clearly, this result is consistent with recent nicotine exposure. The confusing thing is this: I used the device while hooked up to a heart rate monitor which an observer was watching and I was not. My heart rate showed negligible changes during my many puffs on the device (it was one with a manual switch, which I was pressing; I was using the USB pass through; yes I got vapor, and yes I inhaled – quite the throat hit, I can assure you). Obviously I am not going to write a paper about this single experience, and there is much to be learned, but I certainly agree with the many of you who suggested that these devices may very well behave differently than the ones that I tested.

Tom E.

EXCELLENT, Dr. It would be even more excellent if you could share that personal experience and your conclusions with the media and at the conferences where you present.

 

[rothenbj]

I join others when I say that I really appreciate the post, Dr. Eissenberg. First, you tested what many here would consider inferior electronic cigarette products with 16mg strength on virgin e-smokers - and got a result most of the veterans here could have predicted: Grossly insufficient nicotine delivery in conflict with the purpose of the devices.

Then, you personally tested a much better e-cig with a manual switch and you got results many of us feel we get now (but if you keep researching nicotine addicts using e-cigs, you might discover there is "something missing" and it's likely the MAOIs of tobacco smoke). We have entire threads on this forum devoted to that topic.

If you see this research all the way through, you might contribute to the greatest successful stop-smoking measure ever discovered, and forever change the idea that we are addicted only to nicotine (we are not and that fact quickly explains the failure rate of all NRT products and the success rate of switching to Swedish snus). I can think of nothing more important to save millions of lives.

Let's get it right. Provably right.

Thank you for posting your personal experiment -- and for undertaking it.

Excellent post and I'm casting my vote for your viewpoint. I'm just a couple hours short of two days without a single cigarette! God, I wanted one about an hour after I got up, but popped a snus packet and ten minutes later I no longer had that craving.

Forty two years of smoking, more quit attempts than I can remember including every FDA approved method except Chantrix. My last attempt was hypnosis (second time) about five years ago. That lasted less than a week.

I've been vaping for over seven months now. While I dropped from two to three packs a day, I was still smoking a half pack or so a day and then "or so" started increasing. Of all the times I tried quiting, I was never as comfortable as I feel now.

I didn't want to be locked into vaping twenty four seven and never got that contentment that I've read about here from other vapors. Now I feel I may be able to join them.

If it hadn't been for your comments, TB, I never would have found snus. I don't think it's the nic in it that made the difference since that level is really weak in Camel, but there is something. So far, four pouches a day and I'm good to go.

Next step- reduce nic level in my pv.

 

[aubergine]

We all wish that an anecdote could compensate for a misleading study that found its way into the MSM, but I do commend you for your honesty here. I do assume that you've casually passed your unofficial little caveat on to CNN?

 

[CES]

teissenb, thanks for taking the next step. I hope it informs the methods for future studies.

 

[aubergine]

We all wish that an anecdote could compensate for a misleading study that found its way into the MSM, but I do commend you for your honesty here. I do assume that you've casually passed your unofficial little caveat on to CNN?

(Didn't mean that to sound so snarky. Misinformation is frustrating. Very much appreciate your integrity.)

 

[Belletrist]

i love you, aubs.

 

[BigJimW]

Many people who try these out for the first time are not aware that the atomizers have a "break in" period. It is possible that the person doing this study simply had an atomizer that wasn't working, or Mr. Brilliant used an empty cartridge, or he didn't charge the device. Under any of these scenarios, it would feel like nothing was coming out of the unit.

That is true, however even if the atomizer was fully functional and these test subjects were not brought up to speed on how to properly use the PV, even then there would be lowered nicotine in the system. I think this is more likely the case as there were more than one person involved with the study. I made a demonstration video posted on YouTube that shows the differences between smoking an analog and vaping a PV and how the test could be flawed because of it.

Last Thanksgiving when I went over to some friends, there was an elderly lady there who bought a 510 and showing it off. She was a light smoker and I could tell she was using the PV like a normal cigarette, taking shallow puffs, producing little vapor. I showed her how to use it properly (I took my 801 with me) and by the end of 10 minuets, she was making clouds of vapor with her 510. One hellava thing to see, an old lady who could probably out-vape a seasoned veteran here.

 

[BigJimW]

I would also like to report some results from some personal experimentation. At the suggestion of some of you, I purchased a KR808D-1 with various strength cartridges (Cowboy flavor). I used it last night (18 mg cartomizer) and tested my urine with Nicalert strips this morning. Result? 5/6. Clearly, this result is consistent with recent nicotine exposure. The confusing thing is this: I used the device while hooked up to a heart rate monitor which an observer was watching and I was not. My heart rate showed negligible changes during my many puffs on the device (it was one with a manual switch, which I was pressing; I was using the USB pass through; yes I got vapor, and yes I inhaled – quite the throat hit, I can assure you). Obviously I am not going to write a paper about this single experience, and there is much to be learned, but I certainly agree with the many of you who suggested that these devices may very well behave differently than the ones that I tested.

Tom E.

You could get the same results without a USB passthrough. Use a standard 501 with either an automatic or manual battery. My video demonstration was using the 501 e-cig. It's more on the technique of use, it is far different than the technique used to smoke a real cigarette.

Maybe not write a paper based on your single experience, however may I suggest re-doing the tests and advising the test subjects just how to use the PV and let them know it is not the same as smoking a real cigarette? I've been vaping since May of last year and outside of that cigarette I lit in my demonstration, had not had one analog since.

And as a former 2 1/2 pack a day smoker, I can assure you that there was no placebo effect in that.

 

[JCUNITED]

When the Government doesnt' make money off of something they get upset!! I think there still mad over Vitamins lol

 

[aubergine]

I love you too, Belles.

 

[jamie]

I join in applauding and appreciating your openness and experimentation, Dr T. Thank you.

Question, based not on this trial but your overall knowledge:

If you had, in a lab, a long time regular smoker who is smoking their regular brand of cigarettes at their regular personal interval (whether every 30 minutes or every 90 minutes or whatever) for let's say 24 hours:

Would you expect to see a significant heart rate increase
- every single time they lit up a cigarette (first puff),
- every single time they took a puff,
- by the time they'd finished each cigarette?

And would you expect the answer to be different if it were an every-30-minutes smoker vs. an every-90-minutes smoker?

I hope to gain insight by understanding this.

 

[Drozd]

The latest clinical evidence suggests users are not getting the addictive substance they get from smoking tobacco. "These e-cigs do not deliver nicotine," Eissenberg said of the findings he expects to publish in an upcoming issue
With all of that being said, my main concern about the effects and or health risks of using electronic cigarettes are more concentrated on the possible associated risks of the repeated inhalation of the propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin based liquids. The only literature I could find regarding studies on this topic was an article reporting research performed in the 1940’s by Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson (1886-1966)

Here is a link to the related Time Magazine article about the study:
Medicine: Air Germicide - TIME
I would also like to know where I could find the results of your study. Will it be published in any peer-reviewed magazines? Will it be posted online somewhere? I would be very interested in reading the report.



Mary

Mary, there have been at least 2 more studies on the effects of PG inhalation that can be found as well as more on Dr. Robertson's study:
Rather than put all the links here I will just link the thread that I started with all those links: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-propylene-glycol-toxicity-all-one-place.html

the journal of pharmacology is more on Dr. Robertson's study..
The BMJ ...has some PG inhalation studies
and the National academies press has a study on long term PG inhalation done by NASA

As for Dr Eissenburg's findings and where they can be found the answer is actually in the part you quoted "Tobacco Control, a product of the British Medical Journal Group". BMJ and several of their publications can be found onile..one of which I linked above and you have to sign up for the BMJ (free) to access it.

 

[MaryMarcelle]

Thanks Drozd! I'm sorry I didn't see it earlier ~ but great to have this information. Much appreciated!

PS....The Beautiful and Charming Bellatrist emailed me the findings of Dr. E's study

Thank you so much to you both!

 

[Jakethesnake]

I jumped in on CNN.com and posted the following. I don't want big tobacco convincing the world that e-cigs are bad.

"Please report both sides of the story CNN. This story is obviously nothing more than big tobacco trying to get rid of personal vaporizers as a replacement for tobacco. The Phillip Morris/VCU link proves this. Please send an investigative reporter to investigate and write a story about all the people who have quit smoking tobacco, left behind the 1000's of chemicals and all of the carcinogens. Please run a story on how big tobacco is mounting a propoganda campaign against personal vaporizers. Please discuss and report both sides of the story. PLEASE DO NOT sell out to big tobacco and only run stories about big tobacco funded studies that have been proven false by the 1000's of people currently using and benefiting from personal vaporizers. Please do the right thing...."

 

[deewal]

Just a thought.
"The study's aim is to develop a clinical model that can be used to measure the nicotine delivery and tobacco/nicotine abstinence-suppressing capability of electronic devices that are marketed as a means to deliver nicotine to cigarette smokers. >>"

The E-Cig is not designed nor meant to be used as a "nicotine abstinence-suppressing device" The majority of user's of the E-cig bought their E-cig to use as an alternative way of using nicotine without the use of Deadly Tobacco. Some people have stopped using Tobacco altogether, others still smoke Tobacco and use the E-Cig as well. NRT's are what should be studied for Nicotine abstinence-suppressing capabilities.

The E-Cig is not nor has been claimed to be an NRT. It is, in the words of
Richard J. Leon, United States District Judge, a "recreational tobacco product."