From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback

[DVap]

I'm with you BigJimW as far as a bias against research that casts PV's in a negative light being close-minded and unproductive. Some future research is likely to not be all roses.

With regard to this instance, specifically, however I think many of us (I did anyway) took issue with the statement that, as nicotine delivery devices, e-cigs don't work (from personal experience and a low probability that we're all under influence solely of the placebo effect).

While the study itself I'm sure properly confines its scope, the news article did not. This I took issue with as well and the blame there lies with the author of the news piece and not Dr. Eissenberg.

Agreed.. I/we in our haste, may be attributing conclusions to Dr. E that he has not made, manufactured instead by CNN, though,

"They are as effective at nicotine delivery as puffing on an unlit cigarette," said Dr. Thomas Eissenberg, at the school's Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies.

makes for quite a "soundbite".

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

Agreed.. I/we in our haste, may be attributing conclusions to Dr. E that he has not made, manufactured instead by CNN, though the "sucking on an unlit cigarette" quote makes for quite a soundbite.

Maybe we should rent exo and his vapor machine to CNN for a couple days .

 

[BuzzKill]

Dr T appears to be UNBIASED and truthful in his replies and studies for that matter ( he even said he was not sure if the puff's were equal between regular cigs and e-cigs )
Having a clinical study Dr. even TALK to us is GOOD ! whether the results are to our liking or not !

Anyhow , he answered a direct e-mail I sent to him and told me to expect the study shortly , the fact that CNN leaked it ( a suprise to him as well ) is CNN's BAD

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Sun, question.

I may get my .... flamed here, but there is a flaw. Not that I mind questioning these type of research projects, but there is a big flaw. It is the "see no evil" route.

Case in point. Several months ago I posted a video regarding a chocking hazard to certain carts. I got systematically flamed by some in the community for actually having the balls to post this video. Some even accused me of staging it.

TropicalBob made a video and in one of the parts of the video, he was addressing the same issue. This revolves around the 501 carts and the end caps that pop off under very little pressure, creating a choking hazard.

So, here is the problem. It is becoming more and more apparent that no matter what is tossed out, it will be dismissed by the community as junk science. Even if NASA came out with a study, it would be considered trash science.

Yes, I know the FDA "study" is BS, but what will the community do if a REAL study comes out that may actually point a real danger to vaping? Not likely will that happen, but how can the community keep an open mind with potential issues? If we can't conduct ourselves proper when a simple contributor issues a warning, how the hell will be conduct ourselves if something real comes down the pike?

I think the community still needs to question studies, but also with the understanding that maybe some of these studies may actually be correct. Taking a paranoid "world is out to get us" route is not the answer.

Just my thoughts.

Jim--
I remember your video of the cartridges quite well and many had an issue with, while others thought it was a reasonable report. You are very correct with the fact that it is all to easy to become very "blinding" and closed minded when it comes to vaping as there are only three other alternatives: quit, use NRT's, or go back to analogs----all of which do not work for many of us.

The real answer to your question is, if and when a study comes down showing real negative effects due to the use of e-cigs, then after reviewing it, we will all have to make up our own minds as to what course of action that is best for each and every one of us.

In my opinion, some if not many studies can and are skewed from their inception to prove a predetermined agenda. Identifying "these" studies can be difficult at best.

So if and when that day comes where we read a study that appears to conclusively state that vaping is harmful to us, we may not embrace it with open arms, but reason will follow. At that point, all of us will have to do our own "cost to benefit" analysis and decide what course of action to take on an individual bases without someone mandating it to us.

While your point about being "blinded" is well taken, for the most part all of us are in fact making more observations with e-cigs, then we have with any other product we have ever used.

Questions here fly everyday, from the polyester fiber in cartridges to the ingredients in e-liquids. I am more then confident that IF a real hazard is identified, we will be able to see the light though the smokescreens. But, like many, I have my eye out for the smokescreens as well.


Sun

 

[mpetva]

Aha ....does not deliver!
They were probably running the study on a 510 with no battery and a dead atty..
I think we should send that Eisenhower (or whatever his name is) fellow, a few chucks
At 6 volts with a heavy cigar shag....
Then he can comment on whether it delivers or not!!!!!!!!

Sorry, but your the above post bothers me, as do some others, and I do not mean to upset anyone.

I just don't see any need or cause to be disrespectful! One can disagree but still be respectful.
Dr.Eissenberg deserves common courtesy from all of us.
Always treat people the way you yourself would like to be treated!

 

[BigJimW]

Jim--
The real answer to your question is, if and when a study comes down showing real negative effects due to the use of e-cigs, then after reviewing it, we will all have to make up our own minds as to what course of action that is best for each and every one of us.

In my opinion, some if not many studies can and are skewed from their inception to prove a predetermined agenda. Identifying "these" studies can be difficult at best.

But the big problem is, when does the community start to identify the studies at face value and stop questioning every single one of them if one happens to not fall on the side of the e-cig? I feel right now that if an independant study was done financed by a manufacturer, it would be dissmissed. On the other side of the same coin, if an independant study was done NOT financrd by a manufacturer, we'd still trash it. We're screwed either way

I already noted a few negative responses to Dr. Seigels post regarding the CNN article. Up until that, Dr. Seigel was everyones hero. Now it's questioned because of it.

I just want to know when this absolute "see no evil" mentality will cease.

 

[dk2]

The issue is what was portrayed in the CNN article if Dr. E feels that he was misquoted and taken out of context by CNN, he ought to come out and state it publicly. He has not indicated that he is opposed to the content of the article only that they ran the story early.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

But the big problem is, when does the community start to identify the studies at face value and stop questioning every single one of them if one happens to not fall on the side of the e-cig? I feel right now that if an independant study was done financed by a manufacturer, it would be dissmissed. On the other side of the same coin, if an independant study was done, we'd still trash it.

I already noted a few negative responses to Dr. Seigels post regarding the CNN article. Up until that, Dr. Seigel was everyones hero. Now it's questioned because of it.

I just want to know when this absolute "see no evil" mentality will cease.

As I stated Jim, your point is well taken. I did not read where Dr. Seigel was "trashed", and that is unfortunate.
As I stated, some if not many studies can and are skewed from their inception to prove a predetermined agenda. Identifying "these" studies can be difficult at best.

I contend that the Community is very capable if seeing though the smokescreens when such a study comes. To date, I have not scene one study that would make me quit vaping. All we can do is wait and hope that day never comes. I, for one, am not buying the FDA study---that was pure rubbish IMO.


Sun

 

[Gary_S]

This is Dr. Tom Eissenberg.

I have no conflicts of interest associated with e-cigarettes. The e-cigarette study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. My work has *never* been funded by the tobacco industry: anybody who says differently is not telling the truth and should be asked to provide evidence. My pharmaceutical industry funded research has *never* involved either nicotine or tobacco and, in any case, the last such study I conducted was back in ~2001 or ~2002. VCU (the university where I worked) had an unfortunate contract with Philip Morris a few years ago that has since been terminated; I knew nothing about it, was never part of it, and protested it when I learned of it. I repeat: I have no conflicts of interest associated with this study.

As for the CNN report, CNN released their story before the study was ready for release by Tobacco Control. I was as surprised as you to see the story this morning -- CNN had agreed to wait for publication. I am trying very hard to get a final PDF copy of the study from Tobacco Control so that I can share it. Right now all I have is uncorrected galley proofs.

Finally, you should understand that one of the purposes of the study was to determine how much nicotine the products I was testing delivered to naive users under acute dosing conditions. Of course their are other studies that can be conducted and I can assure you I noted the study's limitations (these products, these cartridges, these conditions) in the discussion. Frankly, I was interested in the nicotine delivery, whatever it was, and had no preconceived notions or agenda. Indeed, that is why the two control conditions (own brand cigarettes, sham smoking) are included -- I wanted the two extremes (efficient nicotine delivery, no nicotine delivery) to see where the e-cigs ended up: more like a normal cigarette or more like sham smoking. I am sorry if the results are not agreeable to some of you: I don't control the data, I report them.

Finally, I saw another thread on here where people describe vaping and using snus at the same time, and someone else on this thread noted (as have others elsewhere) that they vape more frequently than they used to smoke. One person reported smoking normal tobacco cigarettes when stressed, but vaping at other times. All of these observations are all consistent with a product (e cig) that may not be delivering the nicotine dose to which the user has become accustomed.

Thanks for your attention. When the PDF is available, you'll hear about it.

Tom E.

Thank You for taking the time to post Dr. Eissenberg. I look forward to reading your final results. I also anxiously await other studies more closely associated with the products that most on this forum use. I am hoping that there are some ongoing or will be in the near future.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Thank You for taking the time to post Dr. Eissenberg. I look forward to reading your final results. I also anxiously await other studies more closely associated with the products that most on this forum use. I am hoping that there are some ongoing or will be in the near future.

Agreed all the way around Gary--Thanks.


Sun

 

[TheEmperorOfIceCream]

Thanks for posting, Dr E. Very much appreciated.

Emp

 

[cupko]

f the test group were given an e-cig with a manual battery I wonder if anybody bothered telling them they have to PUSH THE SWITCH ???

 

[kai kane]

"These e-cigs do not deliver nicotine," Eissenberg said

And thus the Judge should consider this NEW CLINICAL EVIDENCE when the FDA argues its case next.

No nicotine = no drug delivery device !!!!

 

[slybootz]

Why test NAIVE users, is the data really meaningful for anything?
Sort of like testing the new Titleist golf ball for distance with people that never have swung a club in their life.

Mike, brilliant analogy.

CNN: Those damned Titleists only go 50 yards sideways! 8-o

Indeed, fabulous analogy YoMike.

And thus the Judge should consider this NEW CLINICAL EVIDENCE when the FDA argues its case next.

No nicotine = no drug delivery device !!!!

I guess this is true...if there is no nicotine delivery, the FDA should recognize the study and stop fighting PVs.

 

[kai kane]

apologies to Dr. E for the association with Big Tobacco
no nicotine = no cancer = good enuf for me
i'll take your word
aloha
PEACE be with ALL.

 

[DVap]

Agreed with all who have stated that while we may not agree with the message, we shouldn't set out to stone the messenger.

In an effort to keep my criticisms from getting carried away on this thread (I can be long-winded), I've added a post to my blog titled, Ecigs as Placebos? I attempt there to be critical while not disrespectful of Dr. Eissenberg's study, spelling out why I believe his conclusion (as I understand it via the limited information provided by the CNN.com article along with the study design as posted at ClinicalTrials.Gov) to be flawed, and also offering my thoughts on how the study might have been better designed (from the perspective of members of this forum, or at least this member of this forum).

 

[kai kane]

Agreed with all who have stated that while we may not agree with the message, we shouldn't set out to stone the messenger.

In an effort to keep my criticisms from getting carried away on this thread (I can be long-winded), I've added a post to my blog titled, Ecigs as Placebos?

Excellent. And worthy of further consideration. I hope it evolves.

Placebo - is that a "medical" device?

I've just finished a consideration (of the complexity of the mass of powers involved with thier divergent points-of-view, and masters they serve, etc.) and summarized my position simply (for the thread's sake!) just above. thanks to all for your participation in this very cool process.
kai

 

[teissenb]

I was NOT misquoted in the article and I stand by my comment. Puffing on an unlit cigarette ("sham" smoking) was one of the conditions of the study, and, when looking at plasma nicotine level, neither of the e-cig brands/cartridges tested differed significantly from puffing on an unlit cigarette in terms of their ability to alter plasma nicotine level. That is the result I observed and that is the correct statement to make.

The PDF is now available. Can Tropical Bob please e-mail me at my vcu.edu address for a copy and then he can send it to others? I cannot deal with 100s of personal requests. Please respect this request as I have much work to do today on this issue. Thanks.

And thanks also for the civil replies. I appreciate it.

 

[kai kane]

I was NOT misquoted in the article and I stand by my comment..... That is the result I observed and that is the correct statement to make.

Thank you sir.

And thanks also for the civil replies. I appreciate it.

Certainly, as well.

Not questioning results, but transparency is good in this circumstance -

Would you please address this researcher's claim
that another your recent major work was funded by Pfizer, among others in Pharma?

The writer cites references, and claims peer-review.

mahalos -
be safe
kai

 

[CES]

teissenb, thank you for responding to the thread. I'd also like a copy of the pdf. Is it possible to post it on the forum? I'm particularly interested in the specific nicotine levels and how they compare to plasma nicotine concentrations measured after use of various NRTs - which are generally lower than those from smoking.