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

[patkin]

Ridiculous of course but... trying to apply at least some logic.... it appears to be saying/isolating nic and/or PG/VG, not smoke..( being the whole point), as the villains due to ending with... its okay to smoke "other stuff" as that smoke is fine. So... what are the consequences to humans and other animals ingesting nic/PG/VG that goes to cells throughout the body or inhaling PG/VG as carriers for medical reasons (and what do "studies" show about that)? I imagine BP will be speaking up about this "study." It will be interesting to see how they spin it.

 

[Kent C]

A rehash of stuff first reported in January 2014....

Will Prohibitionists Start Screaming Cancer? "Pre" Study Lacking Real-World Relevance

Bill G.'s blog:

University of California's Stacy Park falsely claims e-cigs might cause lung cancer based upon inappropriate preclinical laboratory study of genetically mutated cells
http ://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-01-preclinical-e-cigarettes-lung-cancer-high-risk.html]Preclinical study suggests E-cigarettes may promote lung cancer in high-risk individuals


Electronic Cigarette Information: High Risk Lung Cancer Individuals Should Use Caution Until E-Cigarette Safety Is Fully Examined - Electronic Cigarette Information and Sales

So, E-Cigs Promote Lung Cancer, Right?

There are some important extra pieces of information added by the abstract which didn’t make it into the press reporting.

Firstly, the abstract explains that invasive behaviors occurred in the mutated genes at baseline (with no tobacco smoke or e-cig vapor) due to the specific mutations chosen. KRAS gene mutations are known risk factors for cancer, but not thought to be a direct cause, according to the National Institutes of Health’s Genetics Home Reference site. The P53 protein is a tumor suppressor, which basically means that it inhibits the growth of cancers. In this research, it was “silenced,” so it doesn’t seem too surprising that invasive behaviors occurred even in the absence of smoke or vapor. The abstract also suggests that colony growth occurred in the untreated sample, by saying that the high-nicotine sample “enhanced colony growth […] compared to the untreated and low nicotine treatment groups.”

The MIT website has some useful information about the impact of both of these mutations when used in mouse models of cancer, “Combining mutations in K-ras and p53 in the lung led to the development of more advanced tumors, which exhibited desmoplastic stroma, increased invasiveness and metastatic potential.” In other words, the mutations chosen tend to produce aggressive cancers with high potential to spread.

Research into snus (which contain the same trace carcinogens as e-cigs in larger quantities) has shown that P53 mutations are not common in users, so it seems reasonable to assume that these wouldn’t be common in vapers either.

 

[Exceller1]

The article abstract Abstract B16: The effect of e-cigarette exposure on airway epithelial cell gene expression and transformation. states: "... The higher concentration was chosen to represent the anticipated nicotine levels to which the epithelial cells of smokers are actually exposed. In anchorage independent growth assays, the in vitro correlate of malignant transformation, we found enhanced colony growth in the H3mut-P53/KRAS cells following a 10-day treatment with the high nicotine ecig- and TCIG-conditioned media compared to the untreated and low nicotine treatment groups." I interpret this to indicate that it was only the increased levels of nicotine that actual smokers are expected to be exposed to actually produced the reported "similar pattern of gene expression" to those expected for smokers. The abstract goes on to state that: "The lower nicotine concentration was selected to mimic the average plasma nicotine levels in ENDS [e-cig] users and did not demonstrate toxic or anti-proliferative effects on the cells." I suggest that it should be concluded from these initial results that e-cigs appear to reduce the risks of cancer compared to continued smoking... As I understand, it has been shown that inhalation or ingestion of many combustion by-products can have carcinogenic effects - see Going To A Barbecue? Rain Isn't The Biggest Risk. I also understand that direct exposure to chewing tobacco or inhalation of snuff (crushed or pulverized tobacco leaves) can also cause cancer. As I understand, it has not been established that the inhalation of nicotine vapor produced by e-cigs can cause cancer... Certainly, additional research is needed to determine whether inhalation of nicotine vapor is carcinogenic - and how it compares to smoking. In the meantime, biased summaries of preliminary in vitro research does little or nothing to resolve the issue!

 

[Jman8]

Seriously, it took them until 2014 to find a minuscule correlation to cancer? I'm disappointed in our opposition. I thought this sort of thing would happen in 2011.

Maybe they had it in 2011, and decided to sit on it til all these state bans were orchestrated to occur to hopefully make those a bit easier. Either way, nothing to see here folks. Move along. Don't feed the sheep.

 

[Bill Godshall]

These types of studies provide no evidence (just speculation and fear mongering claims in press releases) regarding the carcinogenicity or toxicity of e-cigs, which appears to be the only reason they are conducting these types of studies.

Anyone who is truly interested in the potential short and/or long term health risks of e-cigs would actually study vapers (but they don't want to do that because doing so would find that e-cigs save lives of smokers).

 

[rothenbj]

^^^^^ The above is good info.

I liken the study's methods to parking a car in a parking lot on a slight grade and leaving it in neutral with the emergency brake off and walking away. We all know what would happen, but someone will sue the maker for its obvious result.

Were you in the parking lot at the NFL Football Hall of Fame when I parked there about 30 years ago? For your information, the car didn't have to be in neutral, just left in drive it has the potential to be exposed to gravity's pull. That information might not be true since it hasn't been peer reviewed but I can provide anecdotal evidence.

Fortunately, it was a rental and it came to rest gently against the opposite curve.

 

[Kent C]

These types of studies provide no evidence (just speculation and fear mongering claims in press releases) regarding the carcinogenicity or toxicity of e-cigs, which appears to be the only reason they are conducting these types of studies.

Anyone who is truly interested in the potential short and/or long term health risks of e-cigs would actually study vapers (but they don't want to do that because doing so would find that e-cigs save lives of smokers).

Exactly right. This is along the same lines of the 'Roswell Lab study' (iirc) a while back where they had smokers, not vapers, try ecigs, and used the same room and furniture used in the smoking sessions, to calculate the particulates and chemicals of ecig vapor. No constants - that's too 'scientific'

 

[AndriaD]

Exactly right. This is along the same lines of the 'Roswell Lab study' (iirc) a while back where they had smokers, not vapers, try ecigs, and used the same room and furniture used in the smoking sessions, to calculate the particulates and chemicals of ecig vapor. No constants - that's too 'scientific'

They were trying to count the particulates of vapor, in a room with billions of smoke particulates??? That's not only NOT scientific, it's just plain STUPID.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

They were trying to count the particulates of vapor, in a room with billions of smoke particulates??? That's not only NOT scientific, it's just plain STUPID.

Andria

It would be Stupid, were it not intentional.

 

[DrMA]

These types of studies provide no evidence (just speculation and fear mongering claims in press releases) regarding the carcinogenicity or toxicity of e-cigs, which appears to be the only reason they are conducting these types of studies.

Anyone who is truly interested in the potential short and/or long term health risks of e-cigs would actually study vapers (but they don't want to do that because doing so would find that e-cigs save lives of smokers).

I agree to some degree that this may be intended as a fear mongering exercise. However, cell biology studies can be informative if done right.

As far as establishing carcinogenicity, the EPA has strict guidelines and protocols for testing and they all require in vivo studies in model lab organisms. Cell culture studies are not sufficient to determine whether a particular compound causes cancer.

 

[swampergene]

I too wonder about the intent here. The author of the gizmodo story, which I believe was the first to appear, takes a "just sayin'" kind of attitude. The people behind the study may be innocent, but I've yet to see any sort of "hey..uhmm...we aren't done yet" retraction anywhere. And as others have said here, this really seems kind of pointless because the way it's being done could very well lead to just about anything being deemed "cancerous" under these conditions. With all that in mind, I view it as a very intentional "mistake" because it's enough to create a headline and it's happening when this (the cancer issue) is essentially our last available counterpoint tool. They've already turned a liquid into a plant that grows in the ground, so they obviously have no problem fudging a little. ok...a lot. In that respect...this is like a sniper shot, very intentionally done and surgically executed.

Oddly, in it's current form this "study" creates an argument against prior studies regarding the menace of smoking in general and second hand smoke. There ARE plenty of very heavy smokers who live into their nineties, and there are plenty of non-smokers who die early from lung cancer. The methods of this study could lead to the understanding that simply being alive and breathing is "cancerous" to people who are genetically predisposed to getting lung cancer and that smoking may simply aggravate that but is not the "cause". 20 years ago, this is something the feds would've buried.

 

[Kent C]

I agree to some degree that this may be intended as a fear mongering exercise. However, cell biology studies can be informative if done right.

As far as establishing carcinogenicity, the EPA has strict guidelines and protocols for testing and they all require in vivo studies in model lab organisms. Cell culture studies are not sufficient to determine whether a particular compound causes cancer.

Understood, but the EPA has held a 'no threshold' standard in many of their carcinogenic studies. The 'no threshold' or LNT (linear no threshold) standard which basically says there is no safe level of carcinogens, and that level gets worse as ways to measure get better and better. At some point in time, they were unmeasurable. Then later, at one point they could only detect ppm (parts per million), then ppb (billion) and greater, so that if one part per trillion is found, under the 'no threshold' standard, something could be designated as a carcinogen, even though it wouldn't have been before the better measurement devices/procedures. See:

Down Goes One Hit Toxicology? Naw | JunkScience.com

They identify a tox based on big dose rat and mouse studies and then go out and identify it with very sensitive monitors and then regulate it arbitrarily with idea there is no safe level for toxic or carcinogenic effect. So instead of safe air or water, the EPA can regulate to create no pollutants and since that is impossible they just get to tighten standards when they need something to do.

And of course they insist they are saving lives.

This is analogous to a fascist state (not anti-Semitic, but a form of government control) where there are so many laws that almost any behavior is illegal. However, since the regime has certain goals in mind, they only subjectively enforce them. In scientific studies, certain substances are banned via the low threshold standard, and other substances (read: pharmaceuticals that they say help or treat people) are ok. And we all know by now, with certain chemical substances, it's the size of the dose, not the substance itself. In fact most medicines operate under those guidelines.

 

[Kent C]

I too wonder about the intent here. The author of the gizmodo story, which I believe was the first to appear, takes a "just sayin'" kind of attitude. The people behind the study may be innocent, but I've yet to see any sort of "hey..uhmm...we aren't done yet" retraction anywhere. And as others have said here, this really seems kind of pointless because the way it's being done could very well lead to just about anything being deemed "cancerous" under these conditions. With all that in mind, I view it as a very intentional "mistake" because it's enough to create a headline and it's happening when this (the cancer issue) is essentially our last available counterpoint tool. They've already turned a liquid into a plant that grows in the ground, so they obviously have no problem fudging a little. ok...a lot. In that respect...this is like a sniper shot, very intentionally done and surgically executed.

Oddly, in it's current form this "study" creates an argument against prior studies regarding the menace of smoking in general and second hand smoke. There ARE plenty of very heavy smokers who live into their nineties, and there are plenty of non-smokers who die early from lung cancer. The methods of this study could lead to the understanding that simply being alive and breathing is "cancerous" to people who are genetically predisposed to getting lung cancer and that smoking may simply aggravate that but is not the "cause". 20 years ago, this is something the feds would've buried.

In bold... I think you nailed it. But then, I don't doubt that they could come up with more.

 

[swampergene]

They identify a tox based on big dose rat and mouse studies and then go out and identify it with very sensitive monitors and then regulate it arbitrarily with idea there is no safe level for toxic or carcinogenic effect. So instead of safe air or water, the EPA can regulate to create no pollutants and since that is impossible they just get to tighten standards when they need something to do.

And of course they insist they are saving lives.

This could be the basis for an educational video... "The Cash Cow, from conception to birth" lol

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

It's already happening ...

The study, published in the journal Nature, found that people exposed to e-cigarette vapors suffer from "strikingly similar" negative effects as people who smoke or are around traditional cigarettes. [boldface added]

From http://www.abc15.com/
news/national/e-cig-vapor-affects-cells-similarly-to-tobacco-smoke-study-finds

The original source is a "Newsmax"-like site called "newsy.com" - right here:

http://www.newsy.com/
videos/study-e-cig-vapor-affects-cells-similarly-to-tobacco-smoke/

However the fact that an ABC affiliate (Scripps, from Phoenix AZ) is picking it up should be disturbing.

Or the Ottawa Citizen put this headline up: New cancer study says e-cigarettes are still bad for you - admittedly the Citizen's once-proud history is gone (it's more like the NY Post now).

I did a google just now with "e-cigarette" and "cancer" - restricting the search to the past 24 hours. Most of the hits were trash sites, but I'd be astonished if we didn't see this in the more borderline-respectable press by tomorrow. It's not hard to mess with a headline to get the maximum effect here, while still keeping the story accurate. And the local electronic media (TV and radio) are going to be all over this by the weekend for certain.

As we have seen with so much junk science about vaping, this is going to become established "factoid" fairly soon. The "e-" part used to be small enough. Now that the "link" with cancer has been "established," the public and policymakers will start to think of it like this:

e-cigarette

Science be damned. We are in a heap of trouble. It's amazing what Glantz can accomplish in just six weeks.

The word "genius" doesn't begin to describe him.

 

[DrMA]

Omg! Those articles are wrong on sooo many levels.

And Glantz is definitely at least as clever as Roger thinks. But he's no genius, more like a devilishly clever, resourceful, and ruthless evil mastermind of the TCI. Glantz learned early on how to work the system, and, in time, he's changed the rules such that he IS the system now. Definitely not an adversary we should underestimate.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

We're leaving one word out, evil as in evil genius. One who only worries about his ill gotten gains, not the health of others.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

http://www.wpxi.com/
videos/news/study-e-cig-vapor-affects-cells-similarly-to/vCXSYn/

Pittsburgh NBC affiliate (Cox), the video version of the Newsy story.

Newsy has some truly sophomoric prose stylists, but this video's production standards are roughly comparable to a big city local network affilaite. Not up to snuff for a national one perhaps, but close enough. The distinction between "cells" and "people" is once again largely ignored (c.f. the difference between poisonINGs and poison center CALLS). Although when you start talking "cancer," I suspect it will matter even less.

Unless something incredibly dramatic happens over the weekend, every editor and producer in the country is giong to want this story. And any jr. high kid who makes YouTube videos could produce it. It's not as if a presenter has to fly somewhere or track down an eyewitness, etc.

Cancer also goes well w/ poison, it's no accident that Newsy puts them together. The timing is masterful. By this time next week, 100 million Americans and perhaps at least that many peoplle all over the world will (think they) know that e-cigarettes cause cancer.

That will in turn create considerable pressure on elected officials to pass indoor/outdoor vaping bans (since tobacco cigarettes were first found to cause cancer in users, then allegedly in bystanders). It will also justify taxing vaping like cigarettes in order to discourage use, plus complensate society for future anticipated costs.

Some state A/Gs may even pre-emptively file suit, at least against the BT-owned vaping firms, in an effort to extract settlements (or at least political limelight).

We might also see a new round of taxes, doorway perimeter distance increases, multi-unit building usage bans, "smoke free" areas, etc.

E-cigarettes might turn out to be the Tobacco Control Industry's savior in terms of funding, prestige, and even a certain form of glamor (insofar as public health can be glamorous).

Tobacco control research and certification might have been getting a tad stale.

Now it's fresh, brand-new .... maybe "re-normalized." Adults won't feel a need to quit. And teens will want to do it.

 

[AndriaD]

Unless something incredibly dramatic happens over the weekend, every editor and producer in the country is giong to want this story. And any jr. high kid who makes YouTube videos could produce it. It's not as if a presenter has to fly somewhere or track down an eyewitness, etc.

Pray that a lawmaker goes into rehab or gets caught with a h00ker.

Andria

 

[DrMA]

Isn't it time for Siegel, Bates, Rodu, and/or Farsalinos to chime in on this?