Well then, having vaped "nothing" for over two months, I should be good to go, eh? Emmm... not sure about that.
From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback
- Thread starter lager
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Yeah, but knowing the FDA, they'll come up with some legal trick like "intended use" of e-cig = nictone delivery device.
As a healthcare professional, I would like to actually SEE the study(methodolgy, sample size, randomization, controls, actual data, etc...) before coming to any conclusions. I know the placebo effect does exist and can be quite powerful. Without seeing the actual study, it does also seem to back up the New Zealand study which showed very low levels of bioavailable nicotine in ecig vapor(although there were some problems with that study design as well)
As a vaper myself, I can't honestly believe that we are all experiencing a shared placebo effect delusion. The suspicious conflict of interest of the main study designer also may lend some credence to the study being poorly designed or carried out. But without actually seeing the clinical study in it's entirety, there is no way to be sure.
This is why I hate when news outlets report apparent results of studies before they appear in peer reviewable journals.
Just as a small correction to the OP. This study is not going to be published in the British Medical Journal rather Tobacco Control, a product of the British Medical Journal Group. Keep your eye out for it. the link is here:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/
As a vaper myself, I can't honestly believe that we are all experiencing a shared placebo effect delusion. The suspicious conflict of interest of the main study designer also may lend some credence to the study being poorly designed or carried out. But without actually seeing the clinical study in it's entirety, there is no way to be sure.
This is why I hate when news outlets report apparent results of studies before they appear in peer reviewable journals.
Just as a small correction to the OP. This study is not going to be published in the British Medical Journal rather Tobacco Control, a product of the British Medical Journal Group. Keep your eye out for it. the link is here:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/
Last edited:
As strange as it seems, there may be a bit of truth to this. When you stop and think about it, how often to you vape as compared to smoking analogs? I mean would you stick one analog after the other in your mouth as often as you vape? I know if I smoked as often as I vape, my lungs would have rotted out months ago.
And perhaps the article could help. I mean, if these things don't put out nicotine, then what business would the FDA have in regulating them? *hint hint*
And perhaps the article could help. I mean, if these things don't put out nicotine, then what business would the FDA have in regulating them? *hint hint*
You also may want to check out Dr. Siegels article on this
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Reported Results of First Clinical Trial on Electronic Cigarettes Suggest that These Devices are Much Safer than Previously Thought
Just don't shoot yourselves in the foot commenting to CNN for removing the article. No nicotine = no FDA regulating. Plenty of nicotine = a whole lot of regulating. Catch the drift?
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Reported Results of First Clinical Trial on Electronic Cigarettes Suggest that These Devices are Much Safer than Previously Thought
Just don't shoot yourselves in the foot commenting to CNN for removing the article. No nicotine = no FDA regulating. Plenty of nicotine = a whole lot of regulating. Catch the drift?
Last edited:
None of these reports or news articles worry me for this reason: if any govt or regulatory body were really serious about caring about our health they would BAN CIGARETTES. Simple as that.
If they are so bad, remove them and help smokers with the fallout.
It's not really a grey area at all. If its so bad its affecting me and that guy over there who isn't smoking then we shouldn't have them for sale.
Until someone does this, I must therefore assume, by default, that money trumps health every time and the rest is just a lot of hot air (or hot text) that changes nothing.
If they are so bad, remove them and help smokers with the fallout.
It's not really a grey area at all. If its so bad its affecting me and that guy over there who isn't smoking then we shouldn't have them for sale.
Until someone does this, I must therefore assume, by default, that money trumps health every time and the rest is just a lot of hot air (or hot text) that changes nothing.
The issue I have with the article is that the take home message breaks down to:
1. E-cigs don't work - they don't deliver nicotine
2. Not only 1. but they are wicked dangerous (aaah, antifreeze!)
3. The FDA is legally authorized to seize imports of these products that 1. and 2.
*sad face*
EDIT: oops, missed a whole page of y'all's posts when I put that up.
BigJim - the vapor analyses I've found show about 1/10th nic found in vapor vs. analog smoke. Not 0, but yeah...takes more "puffs" to get there. The shooting in the foot part is, unfortunately, moot since the FDA's already found nic in their jury-rigged study.
1. E-cigs don't work - they don't deliver nicotine
2. Not only 1. but they are wicked dangerous (aaah, antifreeze!)
3. The FDA is legally authorized to seize imports of these products that 1. and 2.
*sad face*
EDIT: oops, missed a whole page of y'all's posts when I put that up.
BigJim - the vapor analyses I've found show about 1/10th nic found in vapor vs. analog smoke. Not 0, but yeah...takes more "puffs" to get there. The shooting in the foot part is, unfortunately, moot since the FDA's already found nic in their jury-rigged study.
Last edited:
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.
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.
indeed! and my need to cut down on my nic before bed must also be a placebo effect!
i'm very skeptical of this 'study'... need more details on the experiments. did they test nicotine levels immediately after 10 puffs from a 16mg liquid? because we already know that nicotine absorption is slower with e-cigs(than smoking)...
Well anyone that thought that people that do studies, ASH, the FDA, as well as many other groups, do not read these forums should rethink their position.
Sun
wow thanks for the post doc! I never expected a response from you on the forum...
hopefully the official report will be less biased than CNN
i'm also interested in what specific PV products were used for the studies? different models/manufacturers, voltages, cartridges vs direct liquid dripping onto the atomizer? i never trust pre-filled cartridges, which is why i mix my own e-liquid to various strengths and direct drip. i wonder if all of these different variables would affect the results of the study..
slybootz, we'll see about those things when the study is published. I'd virtually guarantee it's stock equipment from vendors who are better known to the public. Cart strength, I believe, was 16mg. A number of variables can affect nicotine delivery though, besides these. Length of puff, user acquaintance with the product, time between puffs for effective wicking of fluid, etc. etc. It'll be an interesting read when it comes out, especially if the nic levels are quantified in detail...I'd like to compare both methodology and nicotine concentration in the vapor with other analyses.
Kudos, though, to the author for posting here. I appreciated that.
Kudos, though, to the author for posting here. I appreciated that.
I'd like to just thank Dr. Eissenberg for his response. Looking forward to more from him too.
If you want details on the study design, google "NCT00932295" and click on the first hit. I cannot post links or I would do it myself. It is no secret: the design has been presented and discussed on these forums in the past....
Thank you!
EDIT:
Link: NCT00932295
Actually have seen this before. N = 32. Crown Seven, NJOY, sham smoking, own brand. 10 puffs w/ 30 sec in between. Length of puff undefined as far as I can see. Outcome variables: nicotine in blood plasma, heart rate, and (noted as subjective) withdrawal suppression.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
