If this is true why have I seen people on here saying they are getting nicotine overdose symtoms. I have even seen people saying that did overdose. This is a bunch of BS. Another scare tactic.
From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback
- Thread starter lager
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The point is that 10 puffs is an arbitrary number that might not be reflective of a true "acute administration." Presumably Dr. Benowitz allowed his subjects to do their chewing and parking ad libitum for an entire 30 minutes, and they never removed the gum from their mouth during that entire time. Thus they contined absorbing nicotine from the gum during the entire 30 minutes.
If the absorption is mostly through buccal mucosa with an electronic cigarette, wouldn't normal salivary action wash away much of the nicotine between puffs and eventually eliminate residual nicotine after the 10 puffs were completed?
Why not allow subjects to puff ad libitum during a 30-minute period while testing blood levels? Why the arbitrary 10 puffs? What is so magical about that number?
I'm unfamiliar with the Crown 7 product. However, as an experienced njoy NPRO user, I can tell you that a fresh cartridge often requires quite a few "primer" puffs before the liquid begins to vaporize. Did you check for visible vapor after each of the 10 puffs?
Last edited:
My point was not that the study should have sought to identify the difference in absorption mechanism from pv to cig, only that differences in it would have a rather drastic effect on the analysis of the data. I'm concerned about the possibility of an apples to oranges comparison.
It is the statement's direct contradiction to current legal definition (albeit not final, legally binding definition as of yet) that concerns me. There are many, imho, seriously uninformed people in positions of power to take away the device that's given so many of us the ability to finally walk away from combusted carcinogens. Those people could, and very likely will, use your choice in wording as fodder for their fight. This concerns me ... because while studies such as yours must be based in science, the researchers performing them need to remember the politics that come after and choose their words wisely so that they are as safe as possible from the twist-and-spin that happens in news media and politics. A perfect example is the early-released CNN article.
Oh no ... your desire for proof comes from being a scientist, I would hope.
I apologize if my comments implied otherwise!Believe me, I understand very well the desire for knowledge ... I also understand that I would have been much more comfortable with the read of the pdf representing this study if the wording had been clearly constrained by the study variables so that the "sound bite" harvesting would be more difficult and much less likely to be taken out of context and "spun".
Jan
Last edited:
hifistud:
By the rules that you suggest, no "unflawed" study is possible. Once the cartridge contents are analyzed for nicotine content, they cannot be inhaled. Once the vapor is analyzed for nicotine content, it cannot be inhaled.
If I analyzed 20 cartridges labeled "16 mg" and found 16 mg nicotine in each, and then repeated my study with a 21st cartridge and found no nicotine in participants' blood, you could as easily say there was no nicotine in that 21st cartridge.
If I analyzed the first 30 puffs (or whatever number you like) taken from a cartridge and found nicotine in them, and then let particpants inhale the next 30 puffs and found no nicotine in participants' blood, you could as easily claim that we had consumed all the nicotine with the first 30 puffs (or whatever number you like) and so of course our participants got no nicotine.
The fact of the matter is, as I have said before on this thread, every study has limitations and no single study can answer all questions about a complex issue. The methods are not "flawed" but the results, of course, are a function of the methods. Would other methods lead to different results? Perhaps they would, perhaps they would not. That is why we conduct studies. Until we conduct studies, we can only act on faith/belief.
I have no objection to your choice to use an e-cigarette because you have faith/believe that it does something.
My interest is in verifying what it does.
By the rules that you suggest, no "unflawed" study is possible. Once the cartridge contents are analyzed for nicotine content, they cannot be inhaled. Once the vapor is analyzed for nicotine content, it cannot be inhaled.
If I analyzed 20 cartridges labeled "16 mg" and found 16 mg nicotine in each, and then repeated my study with a 21st cartridge and found no nicotine in participants' blood, you could as easily say there was no nicotine in that 21st cartridge.
If I analyzed the first 30 puffs (or whatever number you like) taken from a cartridge and found nicotine in them, and then let particpants inhale the next 30 puffs and found no nicotine in participants' blood, you could as easily claim that we had consumed all the nicotine with the first 30 puffs (or whatever number you like) and so of course our participants got no nicotine.
The fact of the matter is, as I have said before on this thread, every study has limitations and no single study can answer all questions about a complex issue. The methods are not "flawed" but the results, of course, are a function of the methods. Would other methods lead to different results? Perhaps they would, perhaps they would not. That is why we conduct studies. Until we conduct studies, we can only act on faith/belief.
I have no objection to your choice to use an e-cigarette because you have faith/believe that it does something.
My interest is in verifying what it does.
Typical just like trying to get your reps in Congress, or Senate.
I have a saying~~~~~~~~~~~ I believe half of what I see~~~~
and None of what I read.
I have a saying~~~~~~~~~~~ I believe half of what I see~~~~
and None of what I read.
If the differences aren't statistically significant...sometimes it has to do with the power of the research methods or the statistical test. Increasing N is frequently a good way (of course, you do have to be careful, because with enough power you can make anything signiificant). Especially if you're operating at the lower limits of detection and there is the possibility of variation in individual responses. Individual variability in nicotine and conitine clearance was reported by Benowitz et al, 1997. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2042749/pdf/bcp_0566.pdf been shown. Honestly, I'd like to see a current study with a longer duration and depth.
The results in the current paper are what they are, but if average levels are in the 8-25ng/ml range, a lower limit of 2ng/ml is pretty near the limits of detection.
In any case, i can't disagree that the under the experimental conditions, those particular devices did not provide much in the way of serum nicotine increases. I also can't be sure that the results are generalizable
The results in the current paper are what they are, but if average levels are in the 8-25ng/ml range, a lower limit of 2ng/ml is pretty near the limits of detection.
In any case, i can't disagree that the under the experimental conditions, those particular devices did not provide much in the way of serum nicotine increases. I also can't be sure that the results are generalizable
Vocalek:
Your 30 minute ad lib study is a different study and a potentially valuable one. It is also a study that I can now conduct with greater confidence that participants will be safe (and get approved that much easier) because I have evidence that suggests that 30 minutes ad lib use is very likely safe for an inexperienced user. Please recall that, in designing the study, I had NO DATA to tell me what the risks of nicotine intoxication might be. The product information from the manufacturer (the only literature I had available to me in the winter of 2008) suggested these e-cigarettes were as good or better than normal cigarettes. Suppose a 16 mg cartridge (labeled "high") delivered so much nicotine that my participants experienced nausea or vomiting? How did I know that they would not? The safest course, it seemed to me at the time, in the absence of any data, was to compare 10 puffs to 10 puffs. You may call that a flaw, I call it safe and ethical research. With the same level of information, I would do it again the same way.
Now we know more and we can move forward.
Your 30 minute ad lib study is a different study and a potentially valuable one. It is also a study that I can now conduct with greater confidence that participants will be safe (and get approved that much easier) because I have evidence that suggests that 30 minutes ad lib use is very likely safe for an inexperienced user. Please recall that, in designing the study, I had NO DATA to tell me what the risks of nicotine intoxication might be. The product information from the manufacturer (the only literature I had available to me in the winter of 2008) suggested these e-cigarettes were as good or better than normal cigarettes. Suppose a 16 mg cartridge (labeled "high") delivered so much nicotine that my participants experienced nausea or vomiting? How did I know that they would not? The safest course, it seemed to me at the time, in the absence of any data, was to compare 10 puffs to 10 puffs. You may call that a flaw, I call it safe and ethical research. With the same level of information, I would do it again the same way.
Now we know more and we can move forward.
CES:
Within-subjects designs like this one (where every participant completes every condition and thus acts as their own control) are extremely powerful/sensitive. Also, you may be interested to learn that the study was designed to have 32 participants complete it, and they have (I published the data on 16 because the results were so surprising). My students and I will be presenting the data from all 32 participants at the annual meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco in a little over 2 weeks.
Within-subjects designs like this one (where every participant completes every condition and thus acts as their own control) are extremely powerful/sensitive. Also, you may be interested to learn that the study was designed to have 32 participants complete it, and they have (I published the data on 16 because the results were so surprising). My students and I will be presenting the data from all 32 participants at the annual meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco in a little over 2 weeks.
There is nothing in the pdf about the preparation of the PVs used. Could you very briefly expound upon that ... were new atomizers used for each test? was the primer fluid removed and the bridge primed with nicotine containing liquid? was visible vapor produced (even in small quantities, don't have to have a cloud to have produced the vapor but do have to have vapor to get the nic)?
In trying to determine if a pv delivers nicotine, these are actually crucial questions, not just ECF members trying to pick apart you or this study.
Yes, I do have faith and believe that my pv is doing something for me. Not only because I no longer smoke and I don't have any of the negative effects of quiting ... but because I have a few times reached that borderline nic od that so many here have mentioned. Maybe NJoy and Crown Seven don't do it, but my manual Joye 510 with 24mg juice sure does. And for the record, I was not a heavy smoker ... ~1 pack per day. 16mg juice was too low for me from the start and did not control the crave.
Jan
Last edited:
All said and done ..after reading all of these posts, have to agree with you, that is what the Tobacco Comp's want. They are loosing business.
Hear tell Cigs are going up again, think of the money they aren't going to collect.
A 16mg cartridge was labeled as "high"? Because while some companies call that high, others call that medium or regular ... "reg" was what I found 16mg NJOY cartridges labeled in a quick google this morning.
As stated in another post, I use 24mg liquid and I was not a heavy smoker at ~1 pack per day. 16mg didn't cut the mustard for my nicotine needs.
Jan
Last edited:
This sounds snarky, only because I'm jealous- I have to have all of my data collected and analysed before I submit my papers. When i get really surprising results, I increase the n to make sure it's not a fluke, check the experimental design, and get the rest of the data. Then I submit and fight with the referees (much as you have been doing on this forum). and my research isn't controversial....
i do appreciate your willingness to be part of this forum, and will look for your next publications.
Last edited:
Jan:
We always used new cartridges and fully charged batteries. I need to take up your questions regarding new atomizers with the staff who conducted the sessions; we only had a few of each device and we would not have changed an atomizer without cause. With regard to vapor production, my recollection is that a puff had to have vapor to count as a puff (lack of vapor was an indicator of potential device malfunction) but, again, let me verify with the staff.
Good questions!
We always used new cartridges and fully charged batteries. I need to take up your questions regarding new atomizers with the staff who conducted the sessions; we only had a few of each device and we would not have changed an atomizer without cause. With regard to vapor production, my recollection is that a puff had to have vapor to count as a puff (lack of vapor was an indicator of potential device malfunction) but, again, let me verify with the staff.
Good questions!
I'd like to suggest if you do further testing to stop using prefilled cartridges and use bottles of e-liquid instead -- you can test for nicotine content on a portion from the bottle and then fill blank cartridges from the remaining. And then give those cartridges that you've filled yourself with known (tested) strength nicotine liquid to your test subjects.
Your response to hifistud failed to take into account the option of testing a portion of fluid from a bottle and then using some of the remaining for your test subjects.
It will eliminate some doubt as to what the subjects are actually being given.
teissenb--thanks for coming on the forum, and thank you for providing access to the PDF.
Ah yes - sorry was late - you ARE a Member of Globalink - an Anti-Smoking organization SUPPORTED by Pfizer and Big Pharma, as opposed to "funded by". But are unaware of Pfizer's involvement. And the institution you represent was also FUNDED by a Corp related financially to Phillip Morris that you were unaware of . . .hmmmm . . .just noticing patterns here. And you are a "tobacco control researcher", is that fair to say?
Ahh yes. I see the pattern of your work now. And who exactly has paid you for doing your current research on ecigs?
(Nice box mod
you "are associated with" by the way. Do you sell them or just have a lock on the testing methodology?) \
So Dr. Chaouachi has never taken money OR belonged to an organization supported by or funded from Tobacco or Big Pharma - yet invented a mechanism that reduced hookah carbon monoxide 90% and your work somehow interfered with his device being adopted, or ? Hmmm . . patterns . . .
He does seem to show that your hookah study also was filled with claims that were erroneous and seem overblown - Dr. C. looks pretty credible to me and cites some pretty good backup . . . .
What would you say primarily "motivates" you each day in your work with tobacco/smoking control research? Curiosity or stopping smoking, or??? Just trying to understand your background.
Something motivates each and every person -what's yours?
mahalos
m
teissenb--thanks for coming on the forum, and thank you for providing access to the PDF.
Yes, Dr. Eissenberg. Thank you for coming here and patiently answering our questions etc! It is very much appreciatiated!
Karen
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
