From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback

[teissenb]

If you have a long memory, you may recall that in post 153 (2/10/2010), "Our House" wrote:

"Also, how did you get your hands on a 16mg njoy cartridge for the study? njoy cartridges only come in 0mg, 6mg, 12mg and 18mg."

This one took some detective work to answer. Long story short, last Friday, (2/12) we verified that there are two cartridges labeled with the letters "n" "j" "o" and "y".

One is njoy and cartridges are sold with the wording "regular"
The other is Njoy and cartridges are sold with the wording "reg", defined as "16 mg"

(I would post links but I am not sure if posting links to vendors is frowned upon here?).

We used NJOY cartridges in the study.

When writing the Tobacco Control letter I could not find the mg dose that corresponds to "regular". I searched the www and found the Njoy product where it notes "Reg - 16 mg". I did not notice the difference between NJOY and Njoy. Thus, I wrote that the cartridge strength was 16 mg.

On Friday 2/12, my staff pointed out that package labeling on the NJOY product clearly identifies the cartridges as "18 mg" as "Our House" indicated.

Obviously, the text of the letter is in error, and the error is, of course, my responsibility.

I contacted the Tobacco Control editor via e-mail the same day we verified the actual strength of the NJOY cartridges (2/12) and offered to write a correction. She agreed, I wrote and submitted it, and this morning I was notified that the correction text is on-line now:

Erratum -- -- Tobacco Control

Please believe that I thank "Our House" for the alert comment and very much regret the error and any resulting confusion.

Tom E.

PS: I hope that you agree that, whatever you may think of the results and conclusions, using an 18 rather than a 16 mg cartridge does not alter them.

 

[Belletrist]

thanks for the correction--as you say, i don't think it makes much difference in the study, but it's good of you to, 1, have taken that post into consideration, and 2, to have released the correction so promptly--and shared it here.

 

[hifistud]

PS: I hope that you agree that, whatever you may think of the results and conclusions, using an 18 rather than a 16 mg cartridge does not alter them.

No, but it does put into perspective what I wrote in my first posting on this - with the greatest respect, you had no idea what you were dealing with, and no idea how to use them.

As you have now discovered, e-cigs do, indeed, provide nicotine, and, no matter what the caveats and limits, your study does not represent actuality in any way shape or form, and its conclusions are misleading and dangerous.

Let me ask you a question. If you had a student performing the same study for his final thesis, and he presented the exact same results and conclusions to you as you yourself have presented, and knowing what you now know what would you advise him to do? How would you characterise his approach? Would you say he had done the required ground work? If he came to you later and admitted that he'd got the nicotine concentration in the cart wrong, how far would you mark him down?

Also:

Regular Flavor

The Regular flavor cartridges from NJOY are full of Traditional flavor for the NPRO electronic cigarette. They come in various strengths for enjoyment and as replacement for the samples in the starter kit. This full flavored cartridge will give you ample amounts of vapor for a satisfying replacement smoke. Try your favorite level strength and click on the picture below to review your favorite flavor and level.

That's from the period when you obtained your e-cig supplies. See anything that might worry you there??

 

[Nikhil]

First I must say thank you to Dr. Eissenberg, for doing a study and attempting to be unbiased. All of the bickering about his forays into the media is really unnecessary, he can say what he wants and of course, either PV users or those against PVs will be upset. Ignorance is part of the human condition, but he is less fallible than most since he based his comments on a study, however invalid it may be.

As an university student who recently switched to using electronic cigarettes, I've spent a good deal of time researching them, in a vain attempt to find out why they have been shunned by so many governments and kept hidden from the world when they have the potential to save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives.

Most of the studies I've seen were haphazard, small sample studies conducted by biased parties such as the FDA and/or funded by Big Tobacco and Big Pharmaceutical. I wanted to rectify this injustice by doing an impartial study, with a large sample size and proper equivalence of nicotine intake. I'm glad to see that someone else has pioneered this idea. Hopefully, I will be able to find grant funding and a Professor willing to do a quality study. I'm currently attending the University of Louisville, and if anyone has information or resources, I would greatly appreciate it!

Now I just have to get my post count up, I'm a bit of a lurker

 

[kristin]

Hopefully, I will be able to find grant funding and a Professor willing to do a quality study. I'm currently attending the University of Louisville, and if anyone has information or resources, I would greatly appreciate it!

Now I just have to get my post count up, I'm a bit of a lurker

Good luck with that. Unless you express an intent to show how ecigs are bad for people, most IRBs won't touch an ecig study with a 10 foot pole. They are all afraid of the FDA.

 

[Vocalek]

Hopefully, I will be able to find grant funding and a Professor willing to do a quality study. I'm currently attending the University of Louisville, and if anyone has information or resources, I would greatly appreciate it!

Now I just have to get my post count up, I'm a bit of a lurker

There is another group that calls itself CASAA, the Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions at the UNM in Albuquerque.

[SIZE=+1]CASAA is pleased to announce an internal "grants to get grants program."[/SIZE]

Grants of up to $25,000 are available to qualified UNM and UNM-affiliated investigators to support pilot studies and grant writing efforts for addictions-related research. You may download more information here.

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions

 

[Vocalek]

PureVapor:

Another thought just hit me. You might want to go introduce yourself to Professor Brad Rodu.

University of Louisville :: The Expert Source :: Expert Details

He is well-known as a proponent of tobacco harm reduction and writes a blog called Tobacco Truth. Tobacco Truth

This link is to an interesting article authored by Dr. Rodu. Give Facts A Chance - by Dr. Brad Rodu

 

[Bill Godshall]

On post 683 of this thread, Tom Eissenberg wrote:
"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."

Except that Tom didn't issue press releases (nor generate news headlines and stories) claiming:
"Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate Nation's Monetary Policies" or
"Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate Term Limits for Congress"

If Tom considers his views on e-cigarette regulation as unimportant as he considers his views on the Federal Reserve Band or term limits for Congress, then Tom wouldn't have entitled his press release "Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes'" at: Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes' – VCU News Center

Nor would Tom's press release have stated:
“Regulation can protect consumers from unsafe and ineffective products, but these products have somehow avoided regulation thus far."

Nor would Tom have advocated regulation of e-cigarettes to ensure that they are safe and effective (in part 2 and 3 of Tom's press video).

Nor would Tom have been quoted by the Richmond Times-Dispatch article at:
VCU researcher says electronic cigarettes don't deliver the nicotine they promise | Richmond Times-Dispatch
as saying: "These data scream out for the need for regulation of these devices,"

On posting 683, Tom also wrote:
"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."

Except that Tom surely knew/knows that "safe and effective" are code words for FDA regulation of "drugs and devices" (but not for FDA regulation of tobacco products, foods or cosmetics). Besides, nothing in the new FDA tobacco law requires that tobacco products be regulated by the FDA are "not harmful" nor "perform as advertised". If Tom truly believes that e-cigarette should be regulated so much that he issues a press release calling for such, the onus is on him to stipulate whether he wants them to be regulated as "drug devices", as "tobacco products", or by yet another law (that none of us are aware of).

But if Tom is now happy to change his previously and repeatedly stated "safe and effective" requirements for e-cigarette regulation, I'm looking forward to see Tom's "erratum" or "correction/clarification" to his press release and his subsequent comments to the news media (similar to his recent "erratum" in Tobacco Control changing 16mg to 18 mg at Erratum -- -- Tobacco Control ).

Interestingly, the last sentence of Tom's new erratum states: "The author apologizes for any confusion this error may have caused and notes that it does not alter the study results or his conclusions." So it sounds like Tom still stands by his claims in his press release and his statements to the news media that e-cigarettes emit "no nicotine" and that the products should be regulated by the FDA to ensure they are "safe and effective" (among other things).

Tom also wrote in post 683:
"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."
and
"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."

Since the subtitle of Tom's press release at: Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes' – VCU News Center
"“Electronic cigarettes” fail to deliver nicotine" and since Tom's press release generated news headlines and stories stating the same, I think Tom has an ethical duty to issue an "erratum" or "correction" revealing that he's now aware that e-cigarette products can and do emit nicotine (not just because of his personal experience, but also because of his many correspondences on this forum that have informed him about the different e-cigarette products and different usage patterns by many/most users).

In sum, I consider it inconsistent (i.e. hypocritical) for Tom to post corrections/clarifications on this forum (to appease e-cigarette users), while failing to make similar corrections/clarifications to his press release or his claims to the news media.

 

[Nikhil]

Good luck with that. Unless you express an intent to show how ecigs are bad for people, most IRBs won't touch an ecig study with a 10 foot pole. They are all afraid of the FDA.

I wonder if I can say that then change my mind later?

PureVapor:

Another thought just hit me. You might want to go introduce yourself to Professor Brad Rodu.

Wow, you're incredible! How do you do it? This should help, thanks so much.

 

[BigJimW]

YouTube - The study done by Dr Thomas Eissenberg on the e-cig is flawed. And we show you why.

 

[anim8r]

YouTube - The study done by Dr Thomas Eissenberg on the e-cig is flawed. And we show you why.

Nice


Though, personally (and yeah, I'll get flamed for this), I'D MUCH RATHER MY KID SNEAK AN E-CIG BREAK BEHIND MY BACK THAN SMOKE A REAL CIGARETTE OR A JOINT.

But, that's just me being completely honest.

Hell, I started smoking cigarettes when I was 13. But at least cigarettes are FDA approved right?

 

[Pinko Panther]

So, how do you go from telling the media that "electronic cigarettes are as effective as puffing an unlit cigarette" to "under the conditions in which we tested them".

This kind of flip flopping in one social forum to another seems very disingenous. Perhaps the second statement is an honest backtracking based on your discussions here, but to come out with the original statement to the media is extremely irresponsible. You basically made a public claim, based on the conditions of your extremely limited study, that ALL e-cigs are like puffing an unlit cigarette. Even if it was a hyperbolic statement, you presented the media with a sweeping indictment of something after only conducting shallow testing. Honestly, I am not one bit impressed with this behaviour.

 

[BigJimW]

Though, personally (and yeah, I'll get flamed for this), I'D MUCH RATHER MY KID SNEAK AN E-CIG BREAK BEHIND MY BACK THAN SMOKE A REAL CIGARETTE OR A JOINT.

HEY HEY NOW! Lets not have none of that! If your child smokes, I'd rather see him/her sneak a smoke of something fully sanctioned and with the full blessings of our wonderful Government. Our government needs more money! How DARE you be be so un-american like that!

Yeah, have your kid sneak smoke a Chinese made electronic cigarette. You pinko-commie you. I'm gonna get the ghost of Senator McCarthy after you!

 

[BigJimW]

So, how do you go from telling the media that "electronic cigarettes are as effective as puffing an unlit cigarette" to "under the conditions in which we tested them".

This kind of flip flopping in one social forum to another seems very disingenous. Perhaps the second statement is an honest backtracking based on your discussions here, but to come out with the original statement to the media is extremely irresponsible. You basically made a public claim, based on the conditions of your extremely limited study, that ALL e-cigs are like puffing an unlit cigarette. Even if it was a hyperbolic statement, you presented the media with a sweeping indictment of something after only conducting shallow testing. Honestly, I am not one bit impressed with this behaviour.

You just joined this month and only offered ONE post!

I like you already.

 

[anim8r]

HEY HEY NOW! Lets not have none of that! If your child smokes, I'd rather see him/her sneak a smoke of something fully sanctioned and with the full blessings of our wonderful Government. Our government needs more money! How DARE you be be so un-american like that!

Yeah, have your kid sneak smoke a Chinese made electronic cigarette. You pinko-commie you. I'm gonna get the ghost of Senator McCarthy after you!

LOL!!




(There's a 10-character limit, so I wrote these words too)

 

[Pinko Panther]

I once conducted a study and found that gargling beer and spitting it out will not get you drunk.

 

[JamBandPhan]

I just want to mention, how do we even know that they gave the "testers" carts with actual nicotine in them? I know you can put a 0-nic tobacco flavored cart on an e cig and get lots of vapor, but no nic. The whole thing stinks, and it's just an obvious attempt to air more bad press about e cigs.

 

[deewal]

That was Above and Beyond the Call of Duty Big Jim. I would be very afraid of lighting up a Cancer Stick again. Very well done Sir.

 

[deewal]

In sum, I consider it inconsistent (i.e. hypocritical) for Tom to post corrections/clarifications on this forum (to appease e-cigarette users), while failing to make similar corrections/clarifications to his press release or his claims to the news media.

Thank You very much Mr Godshall.

 

[BigJimW]

I once conducted a study and found that gargling beer and spitting it out will not get you drunk.

You should have seen the study of what women who were afraid to get pregnant did. 8-o