Has there been any recent studies on e-cigs?

[SurfingCloud9]

Anyone know any studies or research that has been done on the effects of e-cigs?

 

[Hoosier]

The library is here CASAA Research Library. Hopefully all vapers join the CASAA or are already members.

There is a whole sub-forum of threads discussing the latest or rehashing the previous as the case may be. Medical Research

If you prefer individual stories instead of studies there is a sub-forum for that too. Health, Safety and E-Smoking

 

[tycoonflynn]

Yea I have studied my Provari and see no side effects at all!!!!! Of course, this is not official! Even if it was bad I love it so much that it probably would not matter. Keep on vapin...........

 

[Retriever]

The only thing that concerns me is cartos and wicks and the material they are made of. I have read threads on here about burning cartos and also the silica wicks some manufacturers use. I hope this is being looked into.

 

[StevieP]

While I appreciate the intent of the CASAA, their motives are often suspect, in my opinion. Many of their board members stand to gain a tremendous amount from the success of the industry, and by gain I mean financially.

This is not a bad thing, but it does undermine credibility when trying to weigh in with "evidence" that would undermine studies. Of course their research would validate the stand that they are trying to reinforce.

There ARE some issues of quality control (things like the use of nickel netting in atomizers) and flirting with the line of substance abuse in the e cigarette industry.

Yes, it is, hands down, a better alternative than traditional tobacco. But there are numerous ways that these devices can still be abused.

 

[wv2win]

While I appreciate the intent of the CASAA, their motives are often suspect, in my opinion. Many of their board members stand to gain a tremendous amount from the success of the industry, and by gain I mean financially.

This is not a bad thing, but it does undermine credibility when trying to weigh in with "evidence" that would undermine studies. Of course their research would validate the stand that they are trying to reinforce.

There ARE some issues of quality control (things like the use of nickel netting in atomizers) and flirting with the line of substance abuse in the e cigarette industry.

Yes, it is, hands down, a better alternative than traditional tobacco. But there are numerous ways that these devices can still be abused.

You are making idiotic statements you cannot prove or support. The people who run CASAA are all volunteer vapers. What little money that comes in to support CASAA goes toward expenses....it is strictly non-profit. When you have been around more than 5 days, maybe you will pay attention and learn something and have an "opinion" that has some facts to support it instead of just spouting off.

 

[YKruss]

While I appreciate the intent of the CASAA, their motives are often suspect, in my opinion. Many of their board members stand to gain a tremendous amount from the success of the industry, and by gain I mean financially.

What a statement, I am speechless

 

[Hoosier]

While I appreciate the intent of the CASAA, their motives are often suspect, in my opinion. Many of their board members stand to gain a tremendous amount from the success of the industry, and by gain I mean financially.

This is not a bad thing, but it does undermine credibility when trying to weigh in with "evidence" that would undermine studies. Of course their research would validate the stand that they are trying to reinforce.

There ARE some issues of quality control (things like the use of nickel netting in atomizers) and flirting with the line of substance abuse in the e cigarette industry.

Yes, it is, hands down, a better alternative than traditional tobacco. But there are numerous ways that these devices can still be abused.

Obvious: The link I provided is their library. There is no CASAA research as it is wholey funded by donations, so the statement that "Of course their research would..." shows exactly how much you know to everyone.

The members of the board are no secret, it is posted for all to see. It is volunteer, no fees or money exchanged for holding a board position. If you think the direction of CASAA needs improvment, then join and run for a board seat.

Also they support all forms of smoking alternatives. Your detailed list of quality control concerns to span all forms of smokeless tobacco to PV's would be an interesting read.

Everything made can be abused. Wooden spoon, automobiles, PV's, and the list is nearly endless, so your final statement, "But there are numerous ways that these devices can still be abused." applies to everything under the sun, so what purpose does it serve?

 

[rdwg]

Think of how many ways cigarette lighters are used for illicit purposes

 

[Thulium]

While I appreciate the intent of the CASAA, their motives are often suspect, in my opinion. Many of their board members stand to gain a tremendous amount from the success of the industry, and by gain I mean financially.

As one of the founding board members who has absolutely no vested interest in the industry, please trust that I share your concern. However, because vapers who have started businesses and anyone else who has vested interest in smoke-free products have the most to gain or lose (financially) from our mission, we felt it was important to include their participation on the board of directors without industry forces ever being able to have a controlling vote on any policy. That is why we included in the CASAA bylaws the requirement that no more than 33% of the board can be product vendors.

This is not a bad thing, but it does undermine credibility when trying to weigh in with "evidence" that would undermine studies. Of course their research would validate the stand that they are trying to reinforce.

Meh. Any good scientific research will speak for itself. Those with vested interest in pharmaceuticals and other treatments for smoking and related diseases may attempt to discredit the research by pointing out any funding that may have come from the tobacco industry, but there's nothing CASAA can do to change that. What we can do is collect and share any relevant data or research and speak out against unreasonable regulations on reduced harm alternatives to smoking.

There ARE some issues of quality control (things like the use of nickel netting in atomizers) and flirting with the line of substance abuse in the e cigarette industry.

Yes, it is, hands down, a better alternative than traditional tobacco. But there are numerous ways that these devices can still be abused.

As technology replaces combustion-driven systems with stored electricity, battery safety is quickly becoming a growing public health question. Is there a truly "safe" (in absolute terms) rechargeable battery? Perhaps not, but the the risks of catastrophic battery failure become rather insignificant when compared to the known and established risks of lighting tobacco (or anything else) on fire and creating smoke.

 

[Thulium]

Think of how many ways cigarette lighters are used for illicit purposes

...and spoons..and knives...and dollar bills... I've even heard of people smoking out of an apple--we might as well just regulate everything! Everything is bad that can be used to "do drugs" and drugs are bad, 'mmkay?

 

[Vocalek]

While I appreciate the intent of the CASAA, their motives are often suspect, in my opinion. Many of their board members stand to gain a tremendous amount from the success of the industry, and by gain I mean financially.

CASAA is not a trade association. It is a consumer advocacy organization. It's not working toward the "success of the industry." It is working to keep reduced risk alternatives available and affordable, and to get the truth out to smokers and non-smokers alike regarding these products. Our advocacy is not limited to electronic cigarettes.

For example, did you know that smokers in Sweden who switched to snus have the same life expectancy as someone who quit all tobacco use? Yet in the US, the warning label stated, "This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes." We'd like to see that label changed to be more truthful. When the FDA held hearings on dissolvable tobacco products, CASAA was there to advocate keeping these products available as an alternative to smoking.

CASAA Board members are all unpaid volunteers. CASAA was created right here on ECF via several discussion threads that pondered and debated: What should the organization do? What should it stand for? How should it operate? What is the mission? What should we call it?

The ECF membership who formed CASAA decided that some vendors should serve on the board to provide the organization with input regarding how the industry operates, issues, etc. But as a way to limit the power of vendors to influence organization decisions, the Bylaws call for no more than one-third of the board membership to be made up of vendors.

Currently, our board has one full-time vendor and one part-time vendor who is in the process of liquidating his business.

This is not a bad thing, but it does undermine credibility when trying to weigh in with "evidence" that would undermine studies. Of course their research would validate the stand that they are trying to reinforce.

I'm confused. What do you mean by "evidence that would undermine studies"? Undermine how? Which studies?

CASAA does not have the scientific expertise or the financial means to conduct research. We do try to keep up with what is happening in research and to provide links to abstracts (or to full texts, when these are available) of articles published in a variety of scientific journals.

If you know of a published study about reduced-risk alternatives that CASAA does not list, send an email with the citation (authors, title, journal name, publication date) to board @ casaa.org so that we can add it to the list. Here's an example:

Etter JF, Bullen C. Electronic cigarette : users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy. Addiction 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x. Electronic cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy - Etter - 2011 - Addiction - Wiley Online Library (accessed June 2011) Full Text: Electronic Cigarettes

There ARE some issues of quality control (things like the use of nickel netting in atomizers) and flirting with the line of substance abuse in the e cigarette industry.

Precisely what are you talking about when you say "flirting with the line of substance abuse"? CASAA does not discuss or defend the use of any substances other than tobacco and nicotine. Neither does ECF. ECF screens the registered vendors. Be assured that any vendor who was trying to market illegal substances with his e-cigarettes would find itself booted out so quickly it would make your head spin.

Yes, it is, hands down, a better alternative than traditional tobacco. But there are numerous ways that these devices can still be abused.

I suppose that just about anything can be abused. So far, all the published studies I have seen that involve clinical trials or surveys of users have not brought this out as an issue. Why are you worried about this?

--Elaine Keller, President
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association

 

[Tracker II]

In addition to the studies already mentioned, there is the huge, international study that showed vapers to be the coolest, most cutting-edge people on earth!

 

[jamentertainment]

...and spoons..and knives...and dollar bills... I've even heard of people smoking out of an apple--we might as well just regulate everything! Everything is bad that can be used to "do drugs" and drugs are bad, 'mmkay?

apple a day...keeps the doctors away!!