From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback
- Thread starter lager
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
See for yourself:
Study reveals a need to evaluate and regulate ?electronic cigarettes? – VCU News Center
I'm not saying that everything has to be on our favor, I'm saying that a scientific needs to take a NEUTRAL stance and do not make assumptions, especially for the media, "sound bites" matter, remember that "sound bite" from the FDA saying e-cigarettes contain carcinogenics without saying that the amount was very low? Same thing here, the distorted truth, doing this you can affirm too that due to the finds of Dr. E. the FDA should stop trying to regulate e-cigs, because they don't deliver any nicotine, again this is a distorted truth.
I do.
After reading this whole thread, I have no idea why anyone would have expected any different results from the study, than what was obtained. I mean seriously, take 10 puffs from an e-cigarette product, vaporising and taking in a totally unknown quantity of 16mg e-juice, and then compare it with 10 puffs on a cigarette.
I don't see how anyone can fairly draw your conclusion that e-cigarettes "are as effective at nicotine delivery as puffing on an unlit cigarette" with the data the study supplied. Nothing in the study guaranteed that anyone was inhaling any measurable quantity of vaporised e-juice whatsoever. I guess "Unregulated Chinese products don't seem to do much" doesn't have the same ring for headlines though.
To be fair you have to compare the cigarette and e-cigarrette a bit more mathematically. For example:
The brand of cigarettes I smoke, which take around 10 puffs, deliver 1.2-2.5mg of nicotine (this is what the side of the pack says, which is based I assume, on years and years of smoking study by those smoking machines you have mentioned previoiusly).
Assumming a below average delivery of 1.6 mg of nicotine per cigarette I smoke, this would take 0.1 ml of 16mg e-juice to deliver an equivilent dose.
From what I have observed so far, in order to deliver and vaporise 0.1 ml of e-juice it would take around 3-4 applications to the atomizer, if you directly applied it (dripped) in order to avoid flooding. This would result in around 20-50 "puffs" depending on your e-cigarette model and usage. If you used a cartridge instead, then a large portion of your 0.1ml of liquid will not be vaporised, and will remain stuck in the cartridge, which would again make the actual amount of nicotine being vaporised completely unknowable.
Only once you have delivered an equivilent quantity of nicotine via an e-cigarette can you really compare it with a normal cigarette for efficiency of delivery, as far as time taken vs nicotine blood/plasma levels.
If you actually vaporised an equivalent quantity of nicotine via an e-cig, I would be very surprised if a person's nicotine levels did not register a statistically significant level of nicotine. That's the information we actually want studied, not this "puff-for-puff with unknown variables" comparison
Most of the blame probably lies with the manufacturers of e-cigarettes, as they have absolutely no instructions on how to dose yourself properly with these devices, and thus researchers have no baseline for guidelines to follow. In order to get any useful information we have to come to forums like this, and read a bunch of anecdotal evidence on the best liquid strength, hardware models and usage methods.
Personally, I believe that subsequent studies (which hopefully Dr Eissenberg will continue to be a part of) will bear out all these anecdotes. I find as a pack a day smoker of cigarettes with a higher end nicotine/tar strength, that I have to vape a LOT more puffs of 16mg liquid than I would puffs of tobacco smoke to believe I'm keeping my nicotine levels on parity. Another strike against many manufacturers and distributors, who like to market the 16mg strength as "high".
Also, I'm all in favour of regulation before someone gets hurt by their own stupidity and screws us all. The fact that I can order and recieve in the mail a small bottle of liquid toxic enough to kill an adult human being, with "Chocolate" and a pretty picture on the side and no warnings whatsoever, is rather disturbing.
I don't see how anyone can fairly draw your conclusion that e-cigarettes "are as effective at nicotine delivery as puffing on an unlit cigarette" with the data the study supplied. Nothing in the study guaranteed that anyone was inhaling any measurable quantity of vaporised e-juice whatsoever. I guess "Unregulated Chinese products don't seem to do much" doesn't have the same ring for headlines though.
To be fair you have to compare the cigarette and e-cigarrette a bit more mathematically. For example:
The brand of cigarettes I smoke, which take around 10 puffs, deliver 1.2-2.5mg of nicotine (this is what the side of the pack says, which is based I assume, on years and years of smoking study by those smoking machines you have mentioned previoiusly).
Assumming a below average delivery of 1.6 mg of nicotine per cigarette I smoke, this would take 0.1 ml of 16mg e-juice to deliver an equivilent dose.
From what I have observed so far, in order to deliver and vaporise 0.1 ml of e-juice it would take around 3-4 applications to the atomizer, if you directly applied it (dripped) in order to avoid flooding. This would result in around 20-50 "puffs" depending on your e-cigarette model and usage. If you used a cartridge instead, then a large portion of your 0.1ml of liquid will not be vaporised, and will remain stuck in the cartridge, which would again make the actual amount of nicotine being vaporised completely unknowable.
Only once you have delivered an equivilent quantity of nicotine via an e-cigarette can you really compare it with a normal cigarette for efficiency of delivery, as far as time taken vs nicotine blood/plasma levels.
If you actually vaporised an equivalent quantity of nicotine via an e-cig, I would be very surprised if a person's nicotine levels did not register a statistically significant level of nicotine. That's the information we actually want studied, not this "puff-for-puff with unknown variables" comparison
Most of the blame probably lies with the manufacturers of e-cigarettes, as they have absolutely no instructions on how to dose yourself properly with these devices, and thus researchers have no baseline for guidelines to follow. In order to get any useful information we have to come to forums like this, and read a bunch of anecdotal evidence on the best liquid strength, hardware models and usage methods.
Personally, I believe that subsequent studies (which hopefully Dr Eissenberg will continue to be a part of) will bear out all these anecdotes. I find as a pack a day smoker of cigarettes with a higher end nicotine/tar strength, that I have to vape a LOT more puffs of 16mg liquid than I would puffs of tobacco smoke to believe I'm keeping my nicotine levels on parity. Another strike against many manufacturers and distributors, who like to market the 16mg strength as "high".
Also, I'm all in favour of regulation before someone gets hurt by their own stupidity and screws us all. The fact that I can order and recieve in the mail a small bottle of liquid toxic enough to kill an adult human being, with "Chocolate" and a pretty picture on the side and no warnings whatsoever, is rather disturbing.
While I would like to agree with you and would like some consistancy in the hardware and juice I am totally against gov reg or the FDAs involvement in any way. The reason being, they will regulate these to a point where they are ineffective just as all the other NRTs are pretty ineffective with a whopping 3% success rate.
As for the consumers rights they should have the right to purchase these if they want. If they dont like them dont buy them. I sure dont need a clown telling me they dont deliver nic so we need to regulate them.
He seems pretty legitimately interested in searching for the truth behind e-cigs from his posting here. It's not like he had to dialog with us if he just wanted to see what users are doing and sell us all out to the big bad FDA.
I imagine it's partly the media taking his words out of context, but I find it ironic that they are reporting that people are modifying their devices to deliver many times more nicotine, and also saying that these deliver as much nicotine as an unlit cigarette. What's the point in trying to make them deliver twice as much nicotine if they're not delivering any in the first place
I imagine it's partly the media taking his words out of context, but I find it ironic that they are reporting that people are modifying their devices to deliver many times more nicotine, and also saying that these deliver as much nicotine as an unlit cigarette. What's the point in trying to make them deliver twice as much nicotine if they're not delivering any in the first place
They are not reporting it out of their sleeves, Dr. E. has stated before in this same thread that he actually said that to the media as ironically as it sounds, that is exactly the problem, first he said to the media that they don't deliver, then he said users may be (a complete assumption from a scientific) modifying the electronic devices to deliver more toxic nicotine, sound bites anyone?
And then he comes here justifying his sound bites to the media saying that they are true according to his limited study, I'm OK with that, they are, but maybe he should make sure that the media gets this last sound bite loud and clear too.
Last edited:
That's just not a reality. These days a stimulant drug that is lethal in small quantities has to be regulated to at least a certain degree. Studies like this, and media sound bites that seem to be written for their shock value will determine how it gets regulated unfortunately. Regulation isn't neccessarily a bad thing, just how it is done. For example:
Bad Regulation: Only government approved drug and tobacco companies can sell e-juice and e-cigarettes in quantities not exceeding 8mg/ml of nicotine
Good regulation: e-cigarettes hardware devices not regulated. E-juice bottles must be clearly marked as poison and sold in an appropriate child-proof container. Juice manufacturers selling to public must be registered and follow certain quality control standards.
I'm sorry to say this, but that is exactly what I'm getting as well.
I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, and assume that many of the things we've said here are being conveyed to the various media entities he encounters, and that they are just ignoring all the good and focusing on the bad. But in the end I get the feeling we are being duped by someone taking advantage of our hope and good intentions. The sounds bites seem to tell a disturbing story.
Last edited:
I cringed when I read the quote in the Richmond Times
Excuse me for not jumping right on the bandwagon here, but why am I supposed to trust an organization that...
- Purposely misleads the public about safety issues by omiting pertinent information
- Has a history of regulating nicotine-containing products down to levels that border on next-to-useless
- Has shown no signs of wanting to do anything other than prohibit e-cigarettes?
What has FDA's response been? "Those are drug-delivery devices. We must prohibit their importation."
Even if FDA should suddenly have a change of heart and agree to regulate but not prohibit e-cigarettes, what reason do we have to believe that those regulations would be reasonable? This is the same regulatory body that brought us nearly-useless 2 mg. gum in a flavor that can only be described as "disgusting." It took them years to approve a higher (but still extremely inadequate) 4 mg. dose. And it took them many years more to allow the products to be made in flavors that made them tolerable. And still, the long-term success rate for these products is a mere 10%.
Twenty years ago some medical researchers were trying to tell FDA and the tobacco control community that providing smokers with adequate doses of nicotine from smoke-free alternatives could have a huge impact on the toll of smoking related disease and death. To this day, that advice is not just ignored -- it is reviled and mocked.
At this point, the only regulation I would trust is self-regulation. We, the consumers, need to bite the bullet and insist on testing, proper labeling, and safer packaging from vendors. If nobody buys the products that don't measure up, those vendors will either change their ways or go out of business.
You could be right, but it's really hard to tell at this point, and like I said previously, he doesn't need to post here and listen to all our critisism and conspiracy theories in order order to make sounds bites disparaging e-cigs.
This seems to just be the way that modern research works. If he doesn't make sounds bites that the media will report on to generate publicity, then he's not going to get any more funding for follow up studies. Then there will be no more studies which will hopefully incorporate improved methodology to conclusively prove or disprove whether we're all just placeboing ourselves, or whether as we all believe, we are replacing tobacco smoking with a far less harmful habit.
Time will tell. For now we may as well just assume he's in it to find out real facts about these under-researched devices. Assuming otherwise won't do anything except drive him away.
It sure is, and becoming harder with each sound bite.
Very true, and the information provided in this thread, and then disseminated to the media in the form of sound bites, could be just as damning coming from anyone who randomly reads this forum.
Agreed, but I find myself unable to refrain from comment when I see a quote like this...
"And because they lack the jolt of tobacco cigarettes, users may be modifying the electronic devices to deliver more toxic nicotine, VCU researcher Thomas Eissenberg said yesterday."
Leave out the word "toxic" and I may be able to consider this a neutral statement.
It was not left out though.
I'm not going to argue with you except to say that i am a 63 year old who smoked 30+ Strong Cigarettes for at least 50 of those years. After using the E-Cig with 18mg Cartridges for 3 days i found myself able to throw away any Cigarettes i had left. If you look at the Counter you'll see how long i've been vaping and i have Not gone higher than 18mg.
Now you have written
and
You had no posts before you posted in this thread. Why bother Vaping when you are Smoking a pack a Day ? You also state
All of the E-Liquid i buy in the UK have HAZMAT Warnings and are in Glass Bottles with Child proof Lids.
There are a lot of things that can be bought over the Counter or order and receive in the Mail which are Toxic enough to kill Twenty Adults who are stupid enough to Drink them.
So. Who are you ? Are you a Smoker ( that kills millions of Adults btw) or a Vaper and what is your agenda ?
I also find your posts rather disturbing with or without "Chocolate."
Last edited:
Agreed.
My gravimetric testing of liquid consumption per vape agrees with your 20 - 50 puff figure with a vape duration range of between 2 and 5 seconds.
Ten 5 second vapes of 16 mg liquid is going to deliver, at most, 0.8 mg of nicotine from a properly primed good quality ecigarette. Drop the vape duration to 3 seconds, and the upper limit drops to 0.48 mg.
I've posted it previously that I believe that to find a puff per puff equivalence, 36 mg liquid is probably the stuff to use, experienced vaper with good equipment vs experienced full-flavor smoker.
Another way to view the doctor's study would be to factor in the "handicap" that the vaping suffered due to the study design, the assumption will be 36 mg eliquid corresponds to puff per puff smoking, and good equipment and experience each double efficacy:
16 vs 36 mg = 0.44
Equipment = 0.5
Experience = 0.5
0.44 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.11
So this rough estimate gives the ecig as used in the study around 10% of the nicotine delivery potential of tobacco... or one puff from a cigarette.
But what do I know? I'm just a chemist these past 20-some years.
Well your good regulation would be just that good regulation. The problem is I think the chances of that are slim to none. I do pretty much think If you invite the Govt to a party it wont be a party anymore. It shouldnt be that way but it is.
I only signed up to these forums because this thread interested me enough to reply. Before that I basically was just content reading everyone else's posts to help me choose which model e-cig to buy, and how to use/maintain it.
Since I bought it a couple weeks back, and started using 16 and 18mg liquids I'm down to less than a pack of smokes a week, and have gone some days completely without smokes.
Im interested in this thread because I'm keen to know the science behind how much nicotine these things deliver, and whether they can do it. Is lack of nicotine is the reason why I feel the need to vape every minute of every hour of every day right now instead of smoking, or if it's just psychological? Don't get me wrong, I feel already like it's way better for my well-being than lighting up a smoke every 45 mins, but I want to know if it's really working, or just all in my head.
In my perfect world, I'll get a e-cig that I can vape for a few minutes, then put away for an hour, just like a smoke. Nicotine craving satisfied, urge to breathe in stuff that hits the back of my throat satisfied. Right now it doesn't seem to be doing that, either because the nicotine level I'm using isn't right, or because everyone else is imagining it if the media's conclusions of Dr Eissenberg's first study is correct.
Not sure why you seem to think I have some sort of anti-vaping agenda. If anything my agenda is to replace smoking with vaping until such time as I can quit nicotine products altogether. Forgive me if I dont get evangelical about vaping as many do here - to me it's hopefully just a far less damaging way to fuel my nicotine drug addiction until such time as I can kick it. Researchers like Dr Eissenberg will conclusively prove or disprove whether these e-cigs are better at the task than other methods, but only if he gets his research methodology updated a bit imho, which is what I came here to comment on.
I'm not looking to rip on you but heres my question to you, why do you need Dr E to tell you whether ecigs work for you or not. There are many on this site that ecigs alone dont cut it for completly and suppliment with other things like stonewalls, snus, snuff, some still smoke analogs but way less of them. Their are many that the ecig alone works for.
Personally I wouldnt care if DR E proved without a doubt that ecigs were a placibo. I know that I use to smoke a pack and a half a day and now I dont smoke. I know I enjoy the feel of the vapor against my throat. I know I love the flavor of vaping.
I also know that the FDA has approved chantix even though it is largely ineffective and has serious side effects for some people. I know that nicorette has about a 3% success rate as do the rest of nrts.
To me it doesnt really matter why ecigs work the thing that matters is that they work for many that nrts did not work for.
I do have to say I am curious about DR E's theory and am going to make up some 0 nic juice and see if I feel any difference. Boy if he is right that would save me a lot of money as PG and vg are cheap only problem I have heard the the nic is what provides throat hit which is something that makes it all work for me.
Last edited:
I'm afraid I have to concur with this statement.
I've about had it with the whole, "Oh, the media has misunderstood me" angle that's been put forward several times now. If that's truly the case, issue a press release with the correct information -- stating you've been misinterpreted. If that's truly the case, contact the issuing media outlet and correct them -- get them to amend the news item.
I'm afraid I can't see this exercise as anything but about generating publicity for an upcoming paper for publication -- engagement here has been useful for the author, indeed.
I certainly won't be engaging any further with the author of this study.
Last edited:
Excellent post, as usual.
I, for one, don't understand the call for government regulation of a substance (nicotine) that I have been legally using for nearly 40 years. The fact that it is toxic (in large doses) and addictive is not news. Government subsidizes users of illegal drugs through methadone maintenance programs for ...... addicts and needle exchange programs for IV drug addicts all in the name of public health and harm reduction. They need to back off and leave us alone.
Not at all, that's a fine response. I think that your study and your posts on this thread, and those of Bill Godshall here and elsewhere on this forum over time suffice to illustrate your positions. A fruitless debate on this thread wouldn't help anyone. To me it is already clear who has a better understanding of e-cigarettes and what they can do.
I am disappointed that you are unable to engage in dialog with Bill Godshall. His 20 year history of smoke free advocacy, his knowledge of all forms of reduced harm alternatives, and his real world knowledge of their status and consequences could be invaluable to you. His understanding of which organizations and individuals have demonstrable biases and agendas could also be very helpful to a researcher who is interested only in the facts and would like to find funding for impartial studies.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
