From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback

[YoMike]

My puffing method is
one short primer puff not inhaled just fill mouth and exhale
two puff into mouth exhale through nose
third inhale till full mouthful than swallowed.
finally exhale
I would consider this one puffing cycle for me.
I use 48mg. with a 5V device
I'm sure this method is done by experience ecig smokers to maximize the nicotine uptake. How else would I have quit a 40 year 2 pack a day habit, easy as a walk in the park!
I actually gave away 2 cartons of cigarettes a pack here and there till they were gone from my house. I had real cigarettes around me the first 3 weeks and not once did I need to pick one up and lite it.

 

[curiousJan]

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!

Thanks ... that desire for knowledge, it produces some darn good questions sometimes!

Worthy of note, if I remember correctly from before I learned to blow that nastiness out before attempting to use the atty, the primer fluid will produce vapor.

Jan

 

[Kilroy]

Dr. Eissenberg, I can see that you are extremely interested in the electronic cigarette. I would like to suggest that you consider attending East Coast Meet Up 2010 in Frederickburg on March 13th. See East Coast Meet-up! Vape Fest 2010! I'm sure that it would be informative and interesting for all of us.

 

[kai kane]

Love your avatar Heed!


My doctor (when I was a kid) smoked analogs IN THE OFFICE, so I do question "Dr.s" (and especially PhD's! )

 

[ChipCurtis]

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?

We need to be a little more civil in our tone.

You/we are free to disagree with some aspects of Dr. Eissenberg's studies, but please keep it civil. Here we have a Licensed Clinician doing studies on the e-cigarette and actually conversing with us. That is a rare occurrence on this forum.

I do agree with the notion that mainstream media outlets simply do "sound-bite harvesting" and are more likely than scientists to do damage to the public health by skewing the results toward their political agendas. But that's the media. That's not Dr. Eissenberg's problem.

Dr. Eissenberg, I truly appreciate the work you are doing. I do believe you are doing this out of curiosity and the learning of scientific fact regarding e-cigarettes without hidden agenda. I too may not agree with every aspect of your methodology, but I do see that you are trying to get some real facts down about this technology, and for that you have my respect.

 

[curiousJan]

We need to be a little more civil in our tone.

You/we are free to disagree with some aspects of Dr. Eissenberg's studies, but please keep it civil. Here we have a Licensed Clinician doing studies on the e-cigarette and actually conversing with us. That is a rare occurrence on this forum.

I, for one, am grateful that Dr. E decided to speak up and address some of our concerns. And I do not disagree that some have been less than civil to him for his trouble ... but I disagree with your implication that the quoted post is not civil. They may be tougher questions, but they are reasonable. Tone cannot be read in the written word, so maybe I am giving a bit more benefit of the doubt than you ... dunno.

I do agree with the notion that mainstream media outlets simply do "sound-bite harvesting" and are more likely than scientists to do damage to the public health by skewing the results toward their political agendas. But that's the media. That's not Dr. Eissenberg's problem.

This is where I beg to differ. Knowing that the study regards a controversial topic, researchers must take appropriate care to ensure that their statements be as absolutely accurate as possible. The "sound-bite harvesting" can be minimized with a little care taken by those who are quoted. That is the reasearcher's "problem" and responsibility, imho.

Dr. Eissenberg, I truly appreciate the work you are doing. I do believe you are doing this out of curiosity and the learning of scientific fact regarding e-cigarettes without hidden agenda. I too may not agree with every aspect of your methodology, but I do see that you are trying to get some real facts down about this technology, and for that you have my respect.

Seconded.

Jan

 

[Vocalek]

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.

Thanks for the response. I wasn't necessarily calling the 10 puffs a flaw, but it certainly would not be an apples-to-apples comparison with the nicotine gum study.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "acute administration."

I was thinking that "acute administration" means administering a drug in higher doses than usual or more quickly than usual (e.g. by IV injection), therefore the results achieved seemed inadquate to qualify "10 puffs" as "acute administration."

Can you explain for us lay folks what "acute administration" means within the context of your study? (And thanks for your patience.)

I found it interesting that NPRO decreased cravings 5 minutes after bout 2, even though plasma nicotine levels were not significantly higher at that point.

I know I speak for many here who are glad to hear that you intend to study this further. There is a great mystery here:

If we are not getting nicotine (or very little nicotine), why are we able to replace all of our tobacco cigarettes--after everything else we tried did not work?

 

[TropicalBob]

We need to be a little more civil in our tone.

Count me with ChipCurtis on this one. What a pitiful post, filled with snide innuendoes. A few more like that and we can likely kiss goodbye to further responses from Dr. Eissenberg. Is that what we want?

Tone conveys meaning. That post was far from civil in intent. You have questions: post them. You want to hear yourself rant, find a mirror so the rest of us can learn something and perhaps help design further research.

Let's not drive this one away, too. It's happened before to learned subjects heaped with scorn and abuse here. Back off!

 

[kai kane]

We need to be a little more civil in our tone.

Nothing "uncivil" intended Chip. Simple question.

Just curious of the motivation, as has been questioned by another (I find) credible researcher with a differing motivation.

I too may not agree with every aspect of your methodology, but I do see that you are trying to get some real facts down about this technology, and for that you have my respect.

Same here, as I cited previously in the thread. Questions still stand.
aloha to all
kai

 

[kai kane]

Count me with ChipCurtis on this one. What a pitiful post, filled with snide innuendoes. A few more like that and we can likely kiss goodbye to further responses from Dr. Eissenberg. Is that what we want?

Tone conveys meaning. That post was far from civil in intent. You have questions: post them. You want to hear yourself rant, find a mirror so the rest of us can learn something and perhaps help design further research.

Let's not drive this one away, too. It's happened before to learned subjects heaped with scorn and abuse here. Back off!

Now, now - I DO find your post to be snide. Let's all take a deep PUFF and address the real issues here. And I assure you, yet again, nothing intended in my previous as negative. Simple question here that promotes transparency.

 

[kai kane]

And I assure you, yet again, nothing intended in my previous as negative.

Unless you interpret the little joke about the MOD, noted with the !

Really, let's not abandon a sense of humor here

 

[kai kane]

Ok, I'll quit as I have ruffled feathers, but I do hope an honest answer is delivered here:

1. Who exactly paid for this test
2. What is Dr. E's motivation in testing tobacco products - to stop smoking or?

aloha nui loa
(very much love)
kai
http://www.tobaccocontrolintegrity.com/id19.html
The Center for Public Accountability in Tobacco Control was founded by Dr. Michael Siegel, a physician with 21 years of experience in tobacco control who recently became disillusioned by the direction in which the anti-smoking movement is going. He has published numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers on the health effects of secondhand smoke, cigarette advertising, and evaluation of tobacco control policies, which have appeared in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, the Journal of Marketing, and the American Journal of Public Health. He has testified in 7 tobacco control cases, including the Engle case which resulted in a $145 billion verdict against the tobacco companies. He has testified in support of smoke-free workplaces at over 100 local and state hearings throughout the country.

 

[mpetva]

DR. SIEGEL:
Research: Nicotine Alone is Not Enough to Treat Smoking Addiction; Behavioral Components Must Also Be Treated

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary

 

[dk2]

We need to be a little more civil in our tone.

You/we are free to disagree with some aspects of Dr. Eissenberg's studies, but please keep it civil. Here we have a Licensed Clinician doing studies on the e-cigarette and actually conversing with us. That is a rare occurrence on this forum.

I do agree with the notion that mainstream media outlets simply do "sound-bite harvesting" and are more likely than scientists to do damage to the public health by skewing the results toward their political agendas. But that's the media. That's not Dr. Eissenberg's problem.

Dr. Eissenberg, I truly appreciate the work you are doing. I do believe you are doing this out of curiosity and the learning of scientific fact regarding e-cigarettes without hidden agenda. I too may not agree with every aspect of your methodology, but I do see that you are trying to get some real facts down about this technology, and for that you have my respect.

IMHO DR. E conversed with this forum to save his reputation. His comments still stand in the CNN article and he has not refuted them. My experience with ecigs is that they do deliver nicotine. If he would simply come out and announce that CNN took his comment out of context and that he meant the comment only in relation to his study, I would be more comfortable with accepting his research; otherwise I would have to believe contrary to what he says that he does have an agenda to discredit ecigs usage by the public.

 

[teissenb]

acute/short-term as opposed to chronic/long-term

Dr. Chaouachi is not a credible critic and I no longer address myself to him or his charges. I have no conflicts of interest with this research (or with my waterpipe research). You imply a potential conflict with Plowshare Technologies, a company that developed the cigarette puff topography measurement equipment that I use in some of my studies. I was a consultant for Plowshare and also conducted an NIH sponsored study for them. My relationships with Plowshare ended in 2002 (other than the relationship of being a customer - I still use their products). Aside from the fact that the work with Plowshare had nothing to do with e-cigarettes, I cannot imagine how a relationship that ended before e-cigarettes were invented could pose a conflict.

I am motivated by my own curiosity and that curiosity is spurred by the fact that I am a professor at a research university where I am expected to publish scientific papers and win research grants.

 

[teissenb]

The PDF says *exactly* who sponsored the work (NIH/NCI).

Under the conditions we used, the e-cigarettes we tested were no more effective at delivering nicotine than puffing on an unlit cigarette. That statement is true.

My reputation at my university and with my scientific colleagues is healthy. I can assure you that being on here does nothing to strengthen it.

 

[dk2]

The PDF says *exactly* who sponsored the work (NIH/NCI).

Under the conditions we used, the e-cigarettes we tested were no more effective at delivering nicotine than puffing on an unlit cigarette. That statement is true.

My reputation at my university and with my scientific colleagues is healthy. I can assure you that being on here does nothing to strengthen it.

Thank you, I encourage this form to shift the focus to Paul Courson, at CNN, for taking Dr. E's comments out of context and misleading the public.

 

[Lab]

here is the problem.. Fox News Gets Court OK to Lie Civilianism News

 

[slybootz]

We need to be a little more civil in our tone.

You/we are free to disagree with some aspects of Dr. Eissenberg's studies, but please keep it civil. Here we have a Licensed Clinician doing studies on the e-cigarette and actually conversing with us. That is a rare occurrence on this forum.

Very well said. I think a lot of people have made very well thought out comments, but there have been a few comments that were snide, disrespectful, and just defensive(or maybe a little offensive?).

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.

Heed makes a very good suggestion. Many USA-based suppliers of e-cigarettes and other PV devices have stopped marketing cartridges altogether. I, for one, prefer to directly drip e-liquid onto the atomizer. If you were to test this method, you could analyze the contents of the e-liquid, to confirm it's strength in mg, and still be able to use the same liquid in the test. Although there still is room for error(i.e. is there more concentration of nicotine at the bottom of the bottle than the top?), this type of study would possibly be less faulty than using pre-filled cartridges.

My reputation at my university and with my scientific colleagues is healthy. I can assure you that being on here does nothing to strengthen it.

Just to echo what others have said: we appreciate you being on the forum. You have clarified a LOT about this study, and answered a lot of questions. I'm sure, also, that our concerns and suggestions have resonated with you so that a future study can address them. Thanks for being so involved.

 

[curiousJan]

Under the conditions we used, the e-cigarettes we tested were no more effective at delivering nicotine than puffing on an unlit cigarette. That statement is true.

Yes, that statement is true. My own issue with the CNN published statement is that it isn't nearly accurate enough.

The statement above would have been much more palatable since "they" in the published statement would refer to Crown 7 and NJOY NPRO e-cigs, but that wasn't what was published ... "they" == e-cigs in the article. And that is misleading and inaccurate.

Generalizing to all e-cig manufacturers based upon the testing of only 2 isn't science, imho. And, for clarity, I'm not saying the study generalizes, but the articles certainly do and it seems more could have been done to prevent that. Just my $.02 (that's probably worth significantly less than $.02. )

My reputation at my university and with my scientific colleagues is healthy. I can assure you that being on here does nothing to strengthen it.

Maybe I'm naive, but why would conversing with us harm your reputation?

While it might not be scientifically substantiated (yet), there is a wealth of information and experience here that may help you in formulating further study methodologies ... helping everyone in the long run. Isn't that what we all want?

Jan