If there is anything consistent about the quality of the Chinese product, it is that it is inconsistent. Its an adventure and we are the guinea pigs. So research on Doc.
From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback
- Thread starter lager
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If there is anything consistent about the quality of the Chinese product, it is that it is inconsistent. Its an adventure and we are the guinea pigs. So research on Doc.
I would welcome regulation, but regulate it as a cigarette or an over the counter nic replacement therapy device NOT as a new drug.
I think it's fair to say that most users here would welcome regulation, but nearly all are afraid that the regulatory process is going to remove access to a device that's helped them overcome a lifetime habit of inhaling tar and excessive carcinogens.
Also I'm well aware of the fact that the placebo is becoming more potent than actual drugs in many clinical trials, but I can also understand why so many here have their reservations about your findings. I think with the data you can, and have, collected here you an go forward and do more effective studies, and hopefully those studies will help to enact effective, but reasonable regulation of this new industry.
I think it's fair to say that most users here would welcome regulation, but nearly all are afraid that the regulatory process is going to remove access to a device that's helped them overcome a lifetime habit of inhaling tar and excessive carcinogens.
Also I'm well aware of the fact that the placebo is becoming more potent than actual drugs in many clinical trials, but I can also understand why so many here have their reservations about your findings. I think with the data you can, and have, collected here you an go forward and do more effective studies, and hopefully those studies will help to enact effective, but reasonable regulation of this new industry.
You're straying into the pejorative here.
While I understand you might feel some pressure, I don't think it's productive to start referring to proper use of the product as "arcane activities". Nor is it "obscure" to take some time to familiarize yourself with the proper use of a product you intend to test. Nor is it a matter of poor standardization that requires one to understand the proper use of the device -- by this logic, any device that requires any degree of specialized knowledge for routine use is suffering from a certain level of inadequate standardization.
However, I hope you can expand on your research, develop more robust and complete methodologies and continue on in a positive manner. I look forward to more findings in the future.
Best of luck.
Last edited:
I'm no expert so I'll stay out of the technical aspects of the Dr's study, but I am happy that he came on here. I think both sides can benefit from the exchange.
I'm one of the ten to twenty percent that is still smoking but I was getting close to three packs a day sometimes and always over two. I'm well over 80% down from those numbers, but I want to get all the way.
I think the study and the conversation here may help. It appears that I may not be getting the full effect with my stock 510. After reading your post I suspect that a stronger PV and a higher nic level may be in order.
Last edited:
Dude, cutting up bits of aquarium filter, stuffing in a bit of coffee straw, adding X drops of liquid, isn't arcane? Not to complain, I don't smoke tobacco cigarettes anymore, but this whole freaking experience has been a trip down a very dark alley.
That's hot-rodding, not normal usage. I do very nicely without any so-called cart mods at all. Just top off and suck... it's not hard, and it's neither brain science or rocket surgery.
Here is a link to VCU video statements by Dr. Eissenberg:
Study reveals a need to evaluate and regulate ?electronic cigarettes? – VCU News Center
Study reveals a need to evaluate and regulate ?electronic cigarettes? – VCU News Center
Hey now that's the only way my NJOY RN4081 would work, lol lol lol why am I laughling, seriously it's the only way it would work... Dr. E you should have used the straw trick and the LTB filler your test subjects would have turned green and passed out from Nicotine overdose(kidding they would have been fine) but they sure would have gotten more nicotine and vapor!
I can't fault what Dr. Eissenberg is saying. I can offer anecdotal evidence to suggest that what we do is indeed effective. I'd welcome the opportunity to sit down, over a beer perhaps, and discuss the issue. We have succeeded, where Dr. Eissenberg's study suggests that we should have failed. Nevertheless, this is all very interesting stuff.
What about the fact that atomizers will almost always deliver nicotine-free primer liquid for the first 10-20 puffs regardless of the strength of the cartridge used? That means the study results will show no nicotine every time, which renders the study pointless as structured. If you consider taking more than 10 or 20 puffs, or using a primed atomizer "obscure methods" of getting nicotine, then I don't know what to say.
It's common knowledge around here that new atomizers need to be primed. This has been mentioned several times in the thread. If you don't believe it, try sucking on a brand new ecig with no cartridge attached...and watch how you still get mouthfuls of vapor.
What was the statistical significance of deg and the other potential cancer causing agents found in the FDA study?
An interesting point: the participants in the survey were smokers, meaning they had many years experience in 'learning to properly smoke'. They had learned how to puff, how to inhale, and how long to hold it in before exhaling, to get their desired amount of nicotine. I know I'm repeating what has already been said, and defended, but these participants were naive to the process of e-smoking. As many others have said, there is a learning curve to using an e-cigarette, just like there is a learning curve to using an analog cigarette. It seems a bit unfair to compare at the same level, a nicotine product that participants had YEARS of experience with(cigarettes), to a nicotine product that participants had never used(e-cigarettes). However, it would be difficult to find participants for a future study that both smoke analog cigarettes, AND successfully use an e-cigarette...
Well said.
Very well said.
Great analogies!
Well said.
Very well said.
Great analogies!
Many of those who succeeded here with e-cigs have made e-smoking a hobby. We're like the hot rodders and custom car guys of the 50s. Yes, we can get more vapor, more nicotine, more throat hit.
But that's not the point of his reserach, or any research likely to be done.
Buyers of an alternative to a cigarette should know that an off-the-shelf product will deliver a known, safe quantity of needed nicotine to satisfy their addiction. It must be manufactured under known quality control conditions, have the same amount of nicotine as stated on the contents, and should be every bit as easy to use as a tobacco cigarette.
Pick it up, suck, inhale to lungs, exhale.
All of the fiddling and garage modifications mean nothing to anyone but hobbyists. Don't expect or even ask a university researcher to follow your modifications down a dark alley to a speakeasy with a peephole. We are getting far afield from reality in some posts here. Whatever works for you, do it. But testing will involve a stock product that either works, or doesn't work, with no learning curve or product modification needed. That's the real world of the non-hobbyist.
But that's not the point of his reserach, or any research likely to be done.
Buyers of an alternative to a cigarette should know that an off-the-shelf product will deliver a known, safe quantity of needed nicotine to satisfy their addiction. It must be manufactured under known quality control conditions, have the same amount of nicotine as stated on the contents, and should be every bit as easy to use as a tobacco cigarette.
Pick it up, suck, inhale to lungs, exhale.
All of the fiddling and garage modifications mean nothing to anyone but hobbyists. Don't expect or even ask a university researcher to follow your modifications down a dark alley to a speakeasy with a peephole. We are getting far afield from reality in some posts here. Whatever works for you, do it. But testing will involve a stock product that either works, or doesn't work, with no learning curve or product modification needed. That's the real world of the non-hobbyist.
Good points, but I have some reservations. When I got my first e-cigarette from PureSmoker.com(an m401), it came with an instruction sheet. The instructions said that cartridges are included, but they recommend the use of an e-liquid, at the very least, to drip on the atomizer to keep it moist. This didn't seem too far-fetched to me. It involved no modding with blue foam, fluval, voltages, etc. I simply followed directions and became an e-liquid 'dripper' full time, instead of using a cartridge.
I understand that products like the NJOY do not mention the use of an e-liquid, and expect users to only use pre-filled cartridges, and this is part of the reason why companies like NJOY and Crown7 are not very popular, because STOCK cartridges work poorly, at least in my experience. Some manufacturers of other PV models have already decided to do away completely with pre-filled cartridges, and only market blank carts and sell bottles of e-liquid. I don't think using a more reliable method of vaping(liquid vs pre-filled carts), can be rightfully called an 'arcane activity', or much of a 'hot-rod mod'.
I'd argue his statement re long-term inhalation of Propylene Glycol - there's an 18 month exposure trial at TESTS FOR THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF PROPYLEXE GLYCOL AND TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL ON MONKEYS AND RATS BY VAPOR INHALATION AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION ? JPET which determines "With a view to determining the safety of employing the vapors of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol in atmospheres inhabited by human beings, monkeys and rats were exposed continuously to high concentrations of these vapors for periods of 12 to 18 months. Equal numbers of control animals were maintained under physically similar conditions. Long term tests of the effects on ingesting triethylene glycol were also carried out. The doses administered represented 50 to 700 times the amount of glycol the animal could absorb by breathing air saturated with the glycol.
Comparative observations on the growth rates, blood counts, urine examinations, kidney function tests, fertility and general condition of the test and control groups, exhibited no essential differences between them with the exception that the rats in the glycol atmospheres exhibited consistently higher weight gains."
Seems conclusive enough... but there's more:
http://www................/pg.html
a valid source of reference for tiessenb to have a browse through before making any further statements like that.
I believe you meant to link this hifi:
vapers club. com/pg.html
[ please remove the spaces. this forum will not let you post links from another e-cig forum
]
The above is a collection of studies which have been conducted on propylene glycol since the 1940s.
There was also a University of Chicago(i believe) study done in the 1940s over a span of three years about inhalation of PG.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/36/4/390.pdf
vapers club. com/pg.html
[ please remove the spaces. this forum will not let you post links from another e-cig forum
]The above is a collection of studies which have been conducted on propylene glycol since the 1940s.
There was also a University of Chicago(i believe) study done in the 1940s over a span of three years about inhalation of PG.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/36/4/390.pdf
This article makes it seem like inhalation of PG can actually reduce the chance of respiratory infection...
Last edited:
I know you're right TB, but you know we're all a bunch of hopeless addicts. I'm here smoking a cigarette as I swype on my Droid, knowing full well the government is bent on forcing me into a position of no choice in the matter.
I personally would prefer tho be a vaping test case than continue on my previous two to three pack a day tobacco habit. I'm 62 and was coughing every night. I'm less than a pack a day now and would like to get totally off, but nothing the FDA or any other quit program offered worked for me. I've tried them all. I'm going to die from tobacco so why not delve into the only product that has shown some promise, for me, as an alternative.
If it doesn't deliver nic, I don't care, as long as I'm off cigarettes at the end of the journey. Of if there is something else in them that I'll die from, so be it. I want that choice.
I personally would prefer tho be a vaping test case than continue on my previous two to three pack a day tobacco habit. I'm 62 and was coughing every night. I'm less than a pack a day now and would like to get totally off, but nothing the FDA or any other quit program offered worked for me. I've tried them all. I'm going to die from tobacco so why not delve into the only product that has shown some promise, for me, as an alternative.
If it doesn't deliver nic, I don't care, as long as I'm off cigarettes at the end of the journey. Of if there is something else in them that I'll die from, so be it. I want that choice.
Last edited:
I've done zero "fiddling" or modification to my KR808d-1-based devices. Last thing I need is a new hobby, and if this involved that, I'd still be smoking.
I did start at 16mg/ml and found it to be too low to really knock down the cravings I had in the mornings, but rectified that three days later on my next order.
Anecdotal as this may be: As a competitive cyclist, I'm tested by team-hired physicians and labs for every possible performance enhancer including nicotine. A slip-up there could be incredibly detrimental to the entire team and more if the authorities should come a knocking (little chance at my level now - more twenty years ago when I was doing it for a living and tested half a dozen times a year)
My blood serum and urine levels are within 20% of what they were this time last year... I live alone, and work primarily from home. I'm rarely exposed to any smoker, and that only in the open-air occasionally. So if the device is delivering "little to none" - my body is doing one heck of a job synthesizing it. That, of course, would be a medical miracle, so I need to know how I can capitalize on that...
I did start at 16mg/ml and found it to be too low to really knock down the cravings I had in the mornings, but rectified that three days later on my next order.
Anecdotal as this may be: As a competitive cyclist, I'm tested by team-hired physicians and labs for every possible performance enhancer including nicotine. A slip-up there could be incredibly detrimental to the entire team and more if the authorities should come a knocking (little chance at my level now - more twenty years ago when I was doing it for a living and tested half a dozen times a year)
My blood serum and urine levels are within 20% of what they were this time last year... I live alone, and work primarily from home. I'm rarely exposed to any smoker, and that only in the open-air occasionally. So if the device is delivering "little to none" - my body is doing one heck of a job synthesizing it. That, of course, would be a medical miracle, so I need to know how I can capitalize on that...
Sage words, and agreed. I feel sorry for those that never got this far because that their chosen product was total crap. I don't know of any way to warn them off. They only find their way here after...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
