Heart Institute Review Confirms No Evidence of E-cigarettes Effectiveness for Cessation --- Really????
- Thread starter mekks
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It's funny how "not effective" always turns out to mean "not more effective than the patch".
Wait, that's not funny at all...
Wait, that's not funny at all...
Two problems: the Heart Institute seems to be ignorant of the fact that e-cigarettes are not intended to be a treatment for nicotine addiction. They are intended to help smokers escape from the harmful effects of ingredients in smoke. Nevertheless, all clinical trials so far have been conducted using the same protocol as is used with NRTs. But the second problem is that they grossly misrepresented the results of the Bullen, et al study.
"To date, one 6-month randomized controlled trial has investigated the efficacy of nicotine containing e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid; statistical power was insufficient to conclude e-cigarettes were superior to nicotine patches."
The abstinence rates were 7.2 for e-cigarettes that contained 16 mg/ml of nicotine, 5.5 for the patch, and 4.0 for the e-cigarette with zero nicotine. Because the difference were not statistically significant, the authors decided to average the results. That doesn't mean that there was no difference. And it doesn't mean that patches were superior, as their wording implies.
We badly need a study that tests the practice of tobacco Harm Reduction against the nicotine weaning method, which only provides "treatment" for 12 weeks and then stops.
"To date, one 6-month randomized controlled trial has investigated the efficacy of nicotine containing e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid; statistical power was insufficient to conclude e-cigarettes were superior to nicotine patches."
The abstinence rates were 7.2 for e-cigarettes that contained 16 mg/ml of nicotine, 5.5 for the patch, and 4.0 for the e-cigarette with zero nicotine. Because the difference were not statistically significant, the authors decided to average the results. That doesn't mean that there was no difference. And it doesn't mean that patches were superior, as their wording implies.
We badly need a study that tests the practice of tobacco Harm Reduction against the nicotine weaning method, which only provides "treatment" for 12 weeks and then stops.
Last edited:
I have posted the ones I could find in the forum.
Holy crap. This is all that is said concerning the headline:
The headline is a lie and doesn't match the story. And, going by the headline and the quote just referenced (which makes me think e-cigs are just as effective as patches), one must conclude that nicotine patches aren't effective either.
What horrible drivel. How can that author publish something like this? I see it doesn't take much to be the Senior Manager, Public Affairs,University of Ottawa Heart Institute. The entire institute should be embarrassed for allowing something like this to be released.
The headline is a lie and doesn't match the story. And, going by the headline and the quote just referenced (which makes me think e-cigs are just as effective as patches), one must conclude that nicotine patches aren't effective either.
What horrible drivel. How can that author publish something like this? I see it doesn't take much to be the Senior Manager, Public Affairs,University of Ottawa Heart Institute. The entire institute should be embarrassed for allowing something like this to be released.
I wonder how much of their government "funding" was on the line if they told the actual truth
Zero nicotine eCigs came in behind the patch by only 1 number. 5/4
Nicotine ecigs came in over the patch by 2 +. 7/5
Were any wearing zero nicotine patch?
Did the patch group have enough patches for the duration of the study?
Did the ecig group have enough materials for the duration of the study?
What were they trying to prove?
Is the patch dependent on individual needs?
Is the ecig dependent on individual needs?
Nicotine ecigs came in over the patch by 2 +. 7/5
Were any wearing zero nicotine patch?
Did the patch group have enough patches for the duration of the study?
Did the ecig group have enough materials for the duration of the study?
What were they trying to prove?
Is the patch dependent on individual needs?
Is the ecig dependent on individual needs?
No
Unknown. The study was only 6 months, so probably so.
Ditto
"We investigated whether e-cigarettes are more effective than nicotine patches at helping smokers to quit."
I believe that individuals have differing needs for nicotine. When I was smoking 2-1/2 packs a day, a 21 mg patch did not seem to help at all. I had (in the words of k.d. lang) Constant Craving.
Lack of scientific principles is the issue. They don't understand the variables involved in producing a study that is as scientific as possible or they don't care to understand. Most of these studies are flawed in their methodology therefore the results are flawed and useless. I would really like to know what if any hazards there are in vaping, but I have seen nothing in the way of a study that is remotely trust worthy that shows a downside.
There's also the great X factor, the subjective nature of vaping. Would I have walked away from a 20-30 cig a day habit if my only ecig was an ego-c? I don't know, probably not, is was good but didnt quite scratch that itch. But having the freedom to try different things has allowed me to find a solution where a cigarette crosses my mind a couple of times a week now but I don't want one. The point is much greater than a test or whether people think that vaping may be a cessation tool. The point is: Is there sufficient evidence that vaping is hazardous enough to society to warrant legislation. The answer is no, since its no I would oppose any legislation to touch on the issue. It simply isnt the governments concern in my book. Ahhhh mini rants feel good hahahahaha
There's also the great X factor, the subjective nature of vaping. Would I have walked away from a 20-30 cig a day habit if my only ecig was an ego-c? I don't know, probably not, is was good but didnt quite scratch that itch. But having the freedom to try different things has allowed me to find a solution where a cigarette crosses my mind a couple of times a week now but I don't want one. The point is much greater than a test or whether people think that vaping may be a cessation tool. The point is: Is there sufficient evidence that vaping is hazardous enough to society to warrant legislation. The answer is no, since its no I would oppose any legislation to touch on the issue. It simply isnt the governments concern in my book. Ahhhh mini rants feel good hahahahaha
Last edited:
There wasn't a way for me to post a comment, so here's the email I sent to the communications contact.
Salut Vincent,
Please forward my email to the researchers who believe that e-cigarettes do not aid in smoking cessation. There are literally mountains of empirical evidence that vaping has helped millions of people quit smoking – many, like myself, who had no intention of quitting smoking. I would suggest checking out the CASAA website that contains links to peer reviewed studies of e-cigs, e-liquid and vapour analysis as well as a database of user testimonials. CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
My own story in brief – smoked for almost 40 years, had built up to two packs a day, started vaping to simply cut down on the number of cigarettes I smoked and after three days of vaping (four months ago) have not smoked a single cigarette since and have no desire to go back to tobacco cigarettes.
What makes me very angry about news articles like this is that it discourages smokers from even trying to switch to vaping! I had mistakenly thought that you could not get e-liquid with nicotine in Canada. The very moment I found out you could, I ran (not walked) to the nearest vaping supply store and got set up with what I needed to save and improve the quality of my life. I could have quit over two years sooner if it wasn't for the paternalistic mis-information put out by those purporting to support good public health.
A quote from Bill Godshall (Executive Director of Smoke Free Pennsyvania)
"I'm confident that history will judge e-cigarettes to be as beneficial for public health as childhood vaccines, antibiotics, condoms, pasturization, and sewage/water treatment."
Salut Vincent,
Please forward my email to the researchers who believe that e-cigarettes do not aid in smoking cessation. There are literally mountains of empirical evidence that vaping has helped millions of people quit smoking – many, like myself, who had no intention of quitting smoking. I would suggest checking out the CASAA website that contains links to peer reviewed studies of e-cigs, e-liquid and vapour analysis as well as a database of user testimonials. CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
My own story in brief – smoked for almost 40 years, had built up to two packs a day, started vaping to simply cut down on the number of cigarettes I smoked and after three days of vaping (four months ago) have not smoked a single cigarette since and have no desire to go back to tobacco cigarettes.
What makes me very angry about news articles like this is that it discourages smokers from even trying to switch to vaping! I had mistakenly thought that you could not get e-liquid with nicotine in Canada. The very moment I found out you could, I ran (not walked) to the nearest vaping supply store and got set up with what I needed to save and improve the quality of my life. I could have quit over two years sooner if it wasn't for the paternalistic mis-information put out by those purporting to support good public health.
A quote from Bill Godshall (Executive Director of Smoke Free Pennsyvania)
"I'm confident that history will judge e-cigarettes to be as beneficial for public health as childhood vaccines, antibiotics, condoms, pasturization, and sewage/water treatment."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
