Hold on to yer hats, here comes the BIG one...E-Cigs linked to C A N C E R !!!

[swampergene]

This has been our biggest stronghold, and now a report, or should I say new BS story, is just starting to make rounds via twitter the vaping will cause CANCER.

Biggest pile of BS I've seen, a report on an incompleted study on cells that are PREDISPOSED to cancer and showing changes "similar" to cells exposed to tobacco smoke but "not the same as" those changes. Utter BS...and I think it's gonna make the poison battle look like nothing because the gullible ANTZ public is going to buy this hook, line, and sinker. Worst nightmare time IMO.

http://gizmodo. com/bad-news-e-cigs-alter-cells-a-lot-like-tobacco-does-1561416238

 

[swampergene]

Geez my wife was reading the article's headline and intro over my shoulder and asks...."So, is it possible these things might be bad for us?"

This is just what they want. SMH.

 

[zoiDman]

I just don't have the Medical or Genetics Background to make an Evaluation something like this.

clincancerres. aacrjournals .org/content/20/2_Supplement/B16.abstract
Abstract B16: The effect of e-cigarette exposure on airway epithelial cell gene expression and transformation.

www. nature. com/news/e-cigarettes-affect-cells-1.15015
E-cigarettes affect cells : Nature News & Comment

 

[rothenbj]

Avrum Spira, M.D., M.Sc. Professor of Medicine, Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, and Bioinformatics
Chief, Division of Computational Biomedicine, Boston University School of Medicine

Director, Translational Bioinformatics Program, Clinical and Translational Science Institute

I posed the question about the study to Dr Siegel on his blog. He should be able to find something out about what this is about. I find it strange that Gizmodo is the original source on this study.

 

[Sundodger]

From Abstract B16:

"The lower nicotine concentration was selected to mimic the average plasma nicotine levels in ENDS users and did not demonstrate toxic or anti-proliferative effects on the cells. The higher concentration was chosen to represent the anticipated nicotine levels to which the epithelial cells of smokers are actually exposed."


So the lower nicotine level showed NO growth in cultures. BUT a higher concentration that mimics anticipated nicotine levels to which the cells of SMOKERS are actually exposed, was used and found to cause problems? And that concludes what? Oh ya, SMOKING is dangerous! Great research! NOT.

 

[swampergene]

I thought the same thing with the gizmodo bit, but right now - at this moment - this story is all over twitter like friggin' wildfire. I have no doubt this will be in a "big" media outlet very soon. This is gonna be like a nuclear bomb in the wrong hands. Our strongest "better than tobacco" point has been the lack of carcinogens, and this BS takes that away from us. Given that the cells used were predisposed to cancer, there's no saying that baby's breath couldn't cause "some" changes as well. Like I said, the study isn't even done, but for the media and the already gullible public, that's irrelevant. This headline is killer.

 

[VapieDan]

It has been demonstrated by statistics that statistics can be statically incorrect. No reason not to spew them out as fact!

 

[MorpheusPA]

I posed the question about the study to Dr Siegel on his blog. He should be able to find something out about what this is about. I find it strange that Gizmodo is the original source on this study.

Good, because this is of mild concern. So far, if I'm reading this right, they're only saying that genetic expression changed. That doesn't necessarily mean carcinogenic...but it's not a great sign.

 

[swampergene]

This, added to all the other crap in what appears to have been a pretty heavy media blitz against us over the last week or two, will allow all those greedy, tax grubbing politicos to confidently respond to us "Well, yes, given what we know, we think smoking IS saver than vaping." This is what they want. FDA regs are probably already printed.

 

[swampergene]

Good, because this is of mild concern. So far, if I'm reading this right, they're only saying that genetic expression changed. That doesn't necessarily mean carcinogenic...but it's not a great sign.

I agree 100%, but the bulk of the public - including many smokers AND vapers, are going to respond to the headline that will link e-cigs to cancer. People don't generally delve into the science. Hell I'm still amazed at how many people think the FDA is actually anything more that a marketing tool.

Bogus as it is, this is not good.

 

[patkin]

 

[rothenbj]

From Abstract B16:

"The lower nicotine concentration was selected to mimic the average plasma nicotine levels in ENDS users and did not demonstrate toxic or anti-proliferative effects on the cells. The higher concentration was chosen to represent the anticipated nicotine levels to which the epithelial cells of smokers are actually exposed."


So the lower nicotine level showed NO growth in cultures. BUT a higher concentration that mimics anticipated nicotine levels to which the cells of SMOKERS are actually exposed, was used and found to cause problems? And that concludes what? Oh ya, SMOKING is dangerous! Great research! NOT.

So what were the levels of nicotine concentrate that the cultures were exposed to?

 

[DrMA]

Gene expression studies with immortalized cell lines are extremely weak evidence for anything that would happen in vivo.

This type of research has become very popular in the late 90's and early 2000's because it provided an easy and cheap vehicle for generating lots of (largely meaningless) publications in high profile journals using the emerging technology of gene expression arrays (aka DNA chips). Basically, anyone could pour something on some cells, throw them on a DNA chip, take a picture and publish that in Nature/Science, guaranteeing funding for the next meaningless grant proposal. This sort of research has its utility, but is hardly conclusive for real-world effects.

Moreover, immortalized cell lines require significant mutations to become immortal, essentially transforming them in pre-cancerous cells already. These mutations also significantly alters the cells biology to the point of making them completely different in form and function compared to the original tissues from which they were harvested - this has to be taken into account in any analysis of such experiments.

The present paper reports potentially valuable information regarding possible changes in gene expression of human cells exposed to media treated with ecig vapor. The cancer claim is, however, an abusive and alarmist stretch of these results, that, at face value, are: "263 differentially expressed genes." None of these genes were investigated or characterized. Moreover, the other snippet of results buried in that abstract, strongly refutes the cancer claim: "Treatment of H3mut-P53/KRAS cells with low nicotine ECIG- and TCIG-conditioned media did not further enhance the degree of invasion observed in the untreated group" and also "did not demonstrate toxic or anti-proliferative effects on the cells".

Major limitations of the study include:
- these cells are not normal human bronchial epithelial cells
- cells were not directly exposed to vapor (but some concocted medium "treated" with ecig vapor)
- it is unclear how the ecig vapor was obtained (possibly via the Pruebot method of overheating a coil in a dry carto to the point of melting solder?)
- the authors make alarmist and unsubstantiated claims about possible links to cancer.

 

[Jake6731]

It has been demonstrated by statistics that statistics can be statically incorrect. No reason not to spew them out as fact!

Figures don't lie...but liars figure

 

[swampergene]

Gene expression studies with immortalized cell lines are extremely weak evidence for anything that would happen in vivo.

This type of research has become very popular in the late 90's and early 2000's because it provided an easy and cheap vehicle for generating lots of (largely meaningless) publications in high profile journals using the emerging technology of gene expression arrays (aka DNA chips). Basically, anyone could pour something on some cells, throw them on a DNA chip, take a picture and publish that in Nature/Science, guaranteeing funding for the next meaningless grant proposal. This sort of research has its utility, but is hardly conclusive for real-world effects.

Moreover, immortalized cell lines require significant mutations to become immortal, essentially transforming them in pre-cancerous cells already. These mutations also significantly alters the cells biology to the point of making them completely different in form and function compared to the original tissues from which they were harvested - this has to be taken into account in any analysis of such experiments.

The present paper reports potentially valuable information regarding possible changes in gene expression of human cells exposed to media treated with ecig vapor. The cancer claim is, however, an abusive and alarmist stretch of these results, that, at face value, are: "263 differentially expressed genes." None of these genes were investigated or characterized. Moreover, the other snippet of results buried in that abstract, strongly refutes the cancer claim: "Treatment of H3mut-P53/KRAS cells with low nicotine ECIG- and TCIG-conditioned media did not further enhance the degree of invasion observed in the untreated group" and also "did not demonstrate toxic or anti-proliferative effects on the cells".

Major limitations of the study include:
- these cells are not normal human bronchial epithelial cells
- cells were not directly exposed to vapor (but some concocted medium "treated" with ecig vapor)
- it is unclear how the ecig vapor was obtained (possibly via the Pruebot method of overheating a coil in a dry carto to the point of melting solder?)
- the authors make alarmist and unsubstantiated claims about possible links to cancer.

This is an excellent summation, unfortunately, the media reports it entirely opposite. From the gizmodo article, and a similar phrase found in an article on Canada .com:

Scientists exposed human bronchial cells to e-cig vapor and found that it altered the cells in a way not dissimilar to tobacco.

This is what will become the public's perception of this study. Unreal the stuff they get away with, no wonder this is such a difficult fight. And here we are, trying to use things like facts. How silly of us :/

 

[rothenbj]

Gene expression studies with immortalized cell lines are extremely weak evidence for anything that would happen in vivo.

This type of research has become very popular in the late 90's and early 2000's because it provided an easy and cheap vehicle for generating lots of (largely meaningless) publications in high profile journals using the emerging technology of gene expression arrays (aka DNA chips). Basically, anyone could pour something on some cells, throw them on a DNA chip, take a picture and publish that in Nature/Science, guaranteeing funding for the next meaningless grant proposal. This sort of research has its utility, but is hardly conclusive for real-world effects.

Moreover, immortalized cell lines require significant mutations to become immortal, essentially transforming them in pre-cancerous cells already. These mutations also significantly alters the cells biology to the point of making them completely different in form and function compared to the original tissues from which they were harvested - this has to be taken into account in any analysis of such experiments.

The present paper reports potentially valuable information regarding possible changes in gene expression of human cells exposed to media treated with ecig vapor. The cancer claim is, however, an abusive and alarmist stretch of these results, that, at face value, are: "263 differentially expressed genes." None of these genes were investigated or characterized. Moreover, the other snippet of results buried in that abstract, strongly refutes the cancer claim: "Treatment of H3mut-P53/KRAS cells with low nicotine ECIG- and TCIG-conditioned media did not further enhance the degree of invasion observed in the untreated group" and also "did not demonstrate toxic or anti-proliferative effects on the cells".

Major limitations of the study include:
- these cells are not normal human bronchial epithelial cells
- cells were not directly exposed to vapor (but some concocted medium "treated" with ecig vapor)
- it is unclear how the ecig vapor was obtained (possibly via the Pruebot method of overheating a coil in a dry carto to the point of melting solder?)
- the authors make alarmist and unsubstantiated claims about possible links to cancer.

Glad we have someone around that has a biology background. The only biology that interested me in high school was, oh never mind, most male teens had that same biological interest.

 

[Little White Cloud]

From Abstract B16:

"The lower nicotine concentration was selected to mimic the average plasma nicotine levels in ENDS users and did not demonstrate toxic or anti-proliferative effects on the cells. The higher concentration was chosen to represent the anticipated nicotine levels to which the epithelial cells of smokers are actually exposed."


So the lower nicotine level showed NO growth in cultures. BUT a higher concentration that mimics anticipated nicotine levels to which the cells of SMOKERS are actually exposed, was used and found to cause problems? And that concludes what? Oh ya, SMOKING is dangerous! Great research! NOT.

I also would like to point out that no details whatsoever are included in this study, so I call BS on them. There is no information on nic levels, types of e liquid, or method of delivery, or products tested. Obviously, if you raise nic content to a certain point, at some point it will not be good. That study shown is only as good as dumping 100%nic in a dish and saying, "results were bad".

 

[grannykimmy]

Ok so if inhaled nicotine causes cancer wouldn't that mean the nicotine inhaler that is fda approved would too? If it's just nicotine by itself then wouldn't patches and gum cause cancer too? Medical stuff always confuses me.

 

[swampergene]

Ok so if inhaled nicotine causes cancer wouldn't that mean the nicotine inhaler that is fda approved would too? If it's just nicotine by itself then wouldn't patches and gum cause cancer too? Medical stuff always confuses me.

I believe the "study" addressed that and said they wouldn't. Of course. This whole thing is a wet dream for the ANTZ, watching it unfolding all over the place. The truth is, it's so premature it should have never been made public.

 

[grannykimmy]

I believe the "study" addressed that and said they wouldn't. Of course. This whole thing is a wet dream for the ANTZ, watching it unfolding all over the place. The truth is, it's so premature it should have never been made public.

Makes no sense at all, but the so called 'fat will kill you' studies never did either and it won't stop people from going into an anti e-cig frenzy.