Interesting and fairly neutral article in Nature

[Pyxus]

http://www.nature.com/news/e-cigarettes-the-lingering-questions-1.15762

Sent from my Surface Pro 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Augmented Dog]

Thank you for making this available to us.

 

[zoiDman]

That was a Fairly Neutral article.

I applaud Nature for not taking a Side and Slanting things to Promote it.

 

[Kent C]

Not terrible but it repeats all the negatives - and Glantz, the 'uncertainty' of long term use of PG/VG when there are long term studies of inhalation by factory workers. Again, someone did a google search and didn't go past the first page, gathered some of that stuff up and wrote an article.... Anyone can do that. Actual reporters can go deeper and find stuff that is outside the first page of google. Typical short attention span reporting. And.... not entirely negative, but not that more informative that someone would have absorbed since ecigs broke the public awareness barrier.

 

[dragonpuff]

I like this article I think it did a very good job balancing out the debate, while at the same time making our side very clearly heard

I like that the frequent quotes from Dr. Siegel and others on our side are used to balance the argument, rather than quoted once and then completely undermined like in most news articles. I also liked that they pointed out that heavy criticism has been levied at Glantz for his conflicting of correlation and causation. This article puts a lot more into discrediting him than we normally see it's refreshing.

 

[dragonpuff]

Note the companion article linked at the bottom of the page on regulation:

Allow use of electronic cigarettes to assess risk : Nature News & Comment

I like this one too

Given the millions who will die from smoking in the near future, does it make sense to spend years discovering, characterizing and debating ancillary risks of vaping that are almost certainly less serious than the known risks of smoking as a precondition for responsible policy-making? This is precaution?

E-cigarettes must be regulated. Ingredients should be labelled. No responsible voices would allow them to be sold to children. Such requirements are already in force in the European Union. The more important question is whether regulation should be driven by the risks of e-cigarette use, or by the risks of not using them. The former promises endless research, uncertainty, and debate; the latter may offer a technological short-cut to solving one of the world’s most serious public-health problems.

 

[Kent C]

Note the companion article linked at the bottom of the page on regulation:

Allow use of electronic cigarettes to assess risk : Nature News & Comment

I like this one too

Good points, as well as giving Siegel a voice.....

 

[DrMA]

A very rare balanced article. I applaud Nature and the author for presenting both sides with equal weight and a neutral POV.

The companion article is very positive, a breath of fresh air and a unique proposal among all the recent FUD from WHO and AHA.

 

[Tache]

I'm actually concerned about some of the assertions.

I would like to see Dr. Farsalinos review the purported study of the effect of e-liquid on lung cells (citations 23 and 24)

 

[dragonpuff]

I'm actually concerned about some of the assertions.

I would like to see Dr. Farsalinos review the purported study of the effect of e-liquid on lung cells (citations 23 and 24)

Please clarify what you are looking for. I think I know what you're referring to, but there are only 8 references in the article.

 

[DrMA]

The reference of the cell study is in regards to this: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=550310

 

[dragonpuff]

The reference of the cell study is in regards to this: Hold on to yer hats, here comes the BIG one...E-Cigs linked to C A N C E R !!!

Ah, that's what I thought he was referring to there is nothing on Dr. Farsalino's website about it, not that I could find anyway. I'm sure he had something to say about it though

I looked at the abstract for that study, and what really jumped out at me was the fact that the cells were genetically modified to be predisposed to cancer before being exposed to vapor and smoke. Also, they created their own vapor at what they considered a "low" and a "high" nicotine dose. Both of these make the study questionable in my opinion.

 

[readeuler]

Maybe I'm just contrarian, but I do think it was a little weighted against us. It felt like the anti- crowd got to make two points, and we'd get one rebuttal. Sort of a "two steps backward, one step forward", but maybe I'm just being defensive.

The central question isn't "are they safe," in my mind, but "are they relatively safe, given their primary use as an alternative to combustible tobacco". In a hypothetical world where many never smokers pick up ecigs, the "absolute safety" question makes sense. I don't think we live in that world.

I saw two citations for negative health effects, but the only positive citations were focused on their ability to help quit tobacco use, nothing about any of the research suggesting that vaporizing is very likely to be far less harmful than smoking.


But, it really is fairly neutral. They at least called out the ANTZ for being just that, in opposition because they'd be "giving up any ground in the fight against tobacco". I'm fighting my own battle against tobacco, but I've got the sense to let ecigs help me do the fighting.

 

[DrMA]

Ah, that's what I thought he was referring to there is nothing on Dr. Farsalino's website about it, not that I could find anyway. I'm sure he had something to say about it though

I looked at the abstract for that study, and what really jumped out at me was the fact that the cells were genetically modified to be predisposed to cancer before being exposed to vapor and smoke. Also, they created their own vapor at what they considered a "low" and a "high" nicotine dose. Both of these make the study questionable in my opinion.

Browse the thread I linked. There's a comment or link to a Farsalinos commentary somewhere iirc.

 

[Kent C]

Maybe I'm just contrarian, but I do think it was a little weighted against us. It felt like the anti- crowd got to make two points, and we'd get one rebuttal. Sort of a "two steps backward, one step forward", but maybe I'm just being defensive.

The central question isn't "are they safe," in my mind, but "are they relatively safe, given their primary use as an alternative to combustible tobacco". In a hypothetical world where many never smokers pick up ecigs, the "absolute safety" question makes sense. I don't think we live in that world.

I saw two citations for negative health effects, but the only positive citations were focused on their ability to help quit tobacco use, nothing about any of the research suggesting that vaporizing is very likely to be far less harmful than smoking.


But, it really is fairly neutral. They at least called out the ANTZ for being just that, in opposition because they'd be "giving up any ground in the fight against tobacco". I'm fighting my own battle against tobacco, but I've got the sense to let ecigs help me do the fighting.

I totally agree and have mentioned this in the past:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ffer-public-health-benefits.html#post12807515

Imho... we've seen many articles like this and the thrust of many of them is just to repeat the lies. The 'positive stuff' is just the grease to lubricate the path for the lies and misinformation.

and in the post before:

Originally Posted by cbrite View Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...b08_story.html

Kind of positive, with the negative mixed in (guess they want to make everyone happy!): "E-cigarettes offer smokers a reliable nicotine-delivery mechanism that simulates the act of smoking without exposing users and bystanders to the toxin-filled cloud conventional cigarettes produce."

#1 journalistic standard - introduce conflict.

 

[dragonpuff]

Personally I think the reporter did a decent job making Glantz look like a buffoon by showing the criticism of his work right in the article as an objective reader (if I knew nothing about the subject beforehand), I would read that and afterword gloss over anything else in the article associated with Glantz, because his methods were proven untrustworthy. In my world, anyone who assumes correlation definitely means causation has an axe to grind. That's proof that you're injecting your opinion into your research, which is bad scientific protocol.

I think that alone balances the article quite nicely but then again, not everyone reading it will be as scientifically minded as I am, others may interpret it differently.

 

[Kent C]

.....but then again, not everyone reading it will be as scientifically minded as I am, others may interpret it differently.

That's my guess. Most (since they don't know who Glantz is and what he represents - same for others too) will come away with - many of the last lines in paragraphs:

"Others fear that they could perpetuate the habit, and undo decades of work."

"researchers who are attempting to catch up with the products now pouring out of Chinese factories:"

"The report will be debated at a meeting in October to decide how the products are treated under the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which commits governments to regulating tobacco and trying to reduce its impact on health."

" But researchers are also concerned with whether e-cigarette users will give up conventional smoking, or simply become ‘dual users’. Could e-cigarettes even act as a gateway, increasing tobacco use?" Here, the use of a question is effective in sticking in someone's head - a bit like "But what are the long term effects of PG?" implying a problem.... as in:

"But on the central question — are e-cigarettes safe? — there are many uncertainties."

"But nicotine is not danger-free. There have already been overdoses from people drinking the liquid from e-cigarettes, or spilling it on their skin, where it is absorbed."

On PG:

"Some evidence from the theatre — where it is used to create fogs and mists — suggests that it may irritate the respiratory system, but there are no long-term data about the effects of inhalation."

"Many e-cigarettes contain other chemicals added for flavouring, and little is known about these. There are also legitimate fears about quality standards for the products: toxic contaminants have been found, and in a very few cases batteries have exploded, leading to injury."

"Around the world, researchers are now subjecting e-cigarettes to the same kinds of tests used to shed light on how conventional cigarettes damage human health. Some have found2 genetic changes to human bronchial cells grown in vitro in a medium exposed to e-cigarette vapour (see Nature 508, 159; 2014). These looked similar to changes induced by conventional tobacco smoke. Another study found3 that e-cigarette use, like normal cigarette smoking, led to a reduction in exhaled nitric oxide, which could be a sign that e-cigarettes alter lung function. But this work is early and still inconclusive."

Sure there are somewhat positive points but they look small compared to all these 'usual suspects' we see in all the absolute negative pieces. This, imo, is just more of what I stated in April: "The 'positive stuff' is just the grease to lubricate the path for the lies and misinformation." IOW, propaganda couched in the name of 'nature' and 'science' and what appears as 'fair and balanced' to some. Not me though.