Interesting feedback about PG

[bigeyes]

scientist faked data - Google Search

It happens.

I've even seen the exact same study interpreted with completely opposite conclusions, so all you can do is look at the as much information as possible and draw your own conclusions.

To emphatically state that people who don't trust a study you cite are paranoid or conspiracy theorists is naive at best. When a study is paid for by someone with a financial motive, I think it may be foolish to trust it blindly without taking a closer look, that's all.

I'm not saying every single study is automatically trash, but when a study has the potential to increase the public's opinion of a product or its ingredients, thereby increasing someone's profits, it deserves a closer look.

 

[TropicalBob]

Bigeyes, one of the very reasons that propylene glycol is not studied in depth is the lack of profit in finding uses for it. It's an old chemical. It's cheap to make and buy. It's highly effective as a germ-killer. It can't be patented for exclusive use and profit by any one company. So why would Big Pharma care about it? They are very busy inventing the new $100 per pill treatment for fill-in-the-blank disease/condition.

Thank goodness we have the old studies that were done at a university for use by the military and in hospitals. Those we can trust, right? I do.

 

[katink]

In fact I would tend to say: the older, the more true we can take them to be...

 

[bigeyes]

Bigeyes, one of the very reasons that propylene glycol is not studied in depth is the lack of profit in finding uses for it. It's an old chemical. It's cheap to make and buy. It's highly effective as a germ-killer. It can't be patented for exclusive use and profit by any one company. So why would Big Pharma care about it? They are very busy inventing the new $100 per pill treatment for fill-in-the-blank disease/condition.

Thank goodness we have the old studies that were done at a university for use by the military and in hospitals. Those we can trust, right? I do.

Lack of profit? Do you have any idea how many products it is in? The cosmetic industry alone uses a ton of it. I don't believe for one minute that something that can be made cheaply is not being used to replace another more expensive ingredient, which therefore makes it profitable.

I believe big pharma cares about squeezing every nickle they can out of us in any way they can.

If I'm not mistaken, it's actually being used in a lot of things that are profitable, and it's kind of stupid for the anti-e-cig folks to raise a stink about it, since perfumes, disinfectants, etc. are big business and would have to be reformulated if they decided PG was dangerous for us to inahale. That was the focus of my letter to my representative about the possible ban of e-cigs. Even though I think it isn't good for me to inhale it, I believe they can't talk out both sides of their mouths, yk?

And now that I know it's in asthma inhalers, I think someone should point that out to the FDA and the folks who are raising such a stink about e-cigs trying to get rid of them.

They can't have it both ways. Either it's safe for us to inhale it in asthma inhalers and all those sprays, which makes it ok to inhale it in e-cigs by default, or it isn't safe, in which case it needs be out of everything.

 

[Tallgirl1974]

Watching the talk about the PG and VG and side effects, etc. I was wondering how long exactly have E-cigs been around in the US and who are the pros on this forum who have smoked them the longest - seems that they would be the most informative on effects, health issues, and so forth since they started e-cigs. We really have very little information from actual studies out there yet for us to check on. Would be nice to hear from all the long-time e-cig smokers to see if they notice differences, etc. since they started - right now they seem to be our test subjects.
Darlene

Its new to us- we seem to be behind the trend on this one- people in other countries have been doing it for years. I need them to come forth!

 

[Rich]

Since I started using the e cig a few weeks back like many of you I have done as much research as possible on the health effects of these devices. I am convinced from my research and the wealth of information on this forum that these are WORLDS better than burning tobacco. I stumbled across this research article that I thought was very informative and thought you guys might like to check it out.

TESTS FOR THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF PROPYLENE GLYCOL AND TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL ON MONKEYS AND RATS BY VAPOR INHALATION AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION
O. H. ROBERTSON 1, CLAYTON G. LOOSLI 1, THEODORE T. PUCK 1, HENRY WISE 1, HENRY M. LEMON 1, and WILLIAM LESTER JR. 1
1 From the Department of Medicine, the Douglas Smith Foundation for Medical Research and the Bartlett Memorial Fund of the University of Chicago and the Commission on Air-Borne Infections, U. S. Army Epidemiological Board



With a view to determining the safety of employing the vapors of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol in atmospheres inhabited by human beings, monkeys and rats were exposed continuously to high concentrations of these vapors for periods of 12 to 18 months. Equal numbers of control animals were maintained under physically similar conditions. Long term tests of the effects on ingesting triethylene glycol were also carried out. The doses administered represented 50 to 700 times the amount of glycol the animal could absorb by breathing air saturated with the glycol.

Comparative observations on the growth rates, blood counts, urine examinations, kidney function tests, fertility and general condition of the test and control groups, exhibited no essential differences between them with the exception that the rats in the glycol atmospheres exhibited consistently higher weight gains. Some drying of the skin of the monkeys' faces occurred after several months continuous exposure to a heavy fog of triethylene glycol. However, when the vapor concentration was maintained just below saturation by means of the glycostat this effect did not occur.

Examination at autopsy likewise failed to reveal any differences between the animals kept in glycolized air and those living in the ordinary room atmosphere. Extensive histological study of the lungs was made to ascertain whether the glycol had produced any generalized or local irritation. None was found. The kidneys, liver, spleen and bone marrow also were normal.

The results of these experiments in conjunction with the absence of any observed ill effects in patients exposed to both triethylene glycol and propylene glycol vapors for months at a time, provide assurance that air containing these vapors in amounts up to the saturation point is completely harmless.

 

[paladinx]

One question I have, if studies have showed this is a germ killing vapor, and that a lot of studies seem to be saying PG is safe.. How come they never used a pg mist in hospitals or schools?

regards

 

[Nuck]

One question I have, if studies have showed this is a germ killing vapor, and that a lot of studies seem to be saying PG is safe.. How come they never used a pg mist in hospitals or schools?

regards

Some people are allergic to it.

 

[TropicalBob]

Very simple. Propylene glycol was studied at the same time ultraviolet light was. You see those UV bulbs in bakeries, groceries, etc. They are germ-killing. Very effective, with only beneficial side effects to exposed humans.

So which would be adopted? The PG device to create vapor for a room was big and somewhat complicated. It was not something that could be easily done in every room needing an anti-bacterial weapon. UV was small and simple. Its use spread.

Back when these tests were conducted, no one, not even Jules Verne, could envision a handheld personal vaporizer for PG. But that's what we have. Technology has blessed us with the perfect device those researchers couldn't even conceive of, providing us with individual benefits they discovered in their research. We call that device the e-cig.

Bigeyes: You just missed my point. Sorry. I'm not arguing with you, but PG is not some magic pill Big Pharma can charge Big Bucks for. That's all. It IS used in everything, for all the reasons I noted, and because of its GRAS status and great record of safe use.

P.S. The study on primates followed the initial study cited in the "germ-killing vapor" thread. I love that last paragraph and its conclusion. Let the doubters doubt; the science is not on their side.

 

[yvilla]

One question I have, if studies have showed this is a germ killing vapor, and that a lot of studies seem to be saying PG is safe.. How come they never used a pg mist in hospitals or schools?

regards

Did you even look at my post on page two of this thread or the link contained in it?

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/propylene_glycol_red.pdf

The answer to your question is that PG based air sanitizers are used in hospitals, and have been since the 1950s to date!

Here are some more links, this time including actual products:

Waterbury® Ozium® 3000 Air Sanitizer*|*MedicalArtsPress.com

Disinfection, sterilization, and ... - Google Book Search

PROPYLENE GLYCOL -- Pesticidal Uses

Glycol-ized Air Sanitizer | Ozium | Walgreens

Yes TBob, UV is also used in certain circumstances, but that does not mean that PG is not used.

 

[bigeyes]

.

Bigeyes: You just missed my point. Sorry. I'm not arguing with you, but PG is not some magic pill Big Pharma can charge Big Bucks for. That's all. It IS used in everything, for all the reasons I noted, and because of its GRAS status and great record of safe use.

No, I think you missed my point. Big business has a habit of using things to sub for other things that may be better or safer because they are cheap. Because they make more money by doing so. It doesn't mean it's really better or safer, and imo GRAS doesn't mean squat.

Look at corn and soy. Food producers have systematically replaced other ingredients in nearly everything on your grocery store shelves with these 2 things because they are crops subsidized by the government and they are cheap to produce, which makes their products more profitable. It doesn't matter that corn and soy are at the top of the list of things people are allergic to, or that they're in things they wouldn't be in if you made it yourself, they put it in there because it's cheaper than using the original ingredients. Look at plastic, which has been found to be not as safe as it was once thought to be. When industry has a waste product, or something they can produce cheaply, they try to find a way to make it seem like it's the best thing for everything, and it's only much later when we find out it wasn't.

Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but feel the same way about PG. When any single ingredient is used in so many manufactured items, I have to question it.

But whether or not you think it's safe, again I have to ask, why is it they are trying to say it isn't safe for us to use it in e-cigs, but they have no qualms about it being used in so many other products. That makes no sense at all to me.

 

[TropicalBob]

No one in a regulatory authority that I've ever read has ever said PG was not safe in an e-cig. Where did that come from?

Indeed, no one officially is saying e-cigs are dangerous. Some are saying safety is an unknown -- and that is not allowed for drug and drug delivery devices, which is how the FDA classifies our e-devices. Much testing will be needed to meet regulatory drug requirements.

The FDA has made no declaration of product hazard. It has said these are drug-delivery devices using a drug concoction that has never been approved by the FDA, and thus these cannot be sold or imported into the U.S. That's the basis for halting shipments.

If you've ever read anything from the FDA questioning the safety of PG in e-liquid, please cite me the source. I'd like to read that.

 

[Kate51]

PG a petroleum derivative?? That can't be right.

The oral toxicity of propylene glycol is very low, and large quantities are required to incur the dangerous effects described above. The potential for long-term toxicity is also low. In one study, rats were provided with feed containing as much as 5% PG over a period of 104 weeks and they showed no apparent ill effects.[6] Because of its low chronic oral toxicity, propylene glycol is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use as a direct food additive. Cases of propylene glycol poisoning are related to either inappropriate intravenous use or accidental ingestion of large quantities by children.[7]
Serious toxicity will occur only at plasma concentrations over 4g/L, which requires extremely high intake over a relatively short period of time.[8] It would be nearly impossible to reach toxic levels by consuming foods or supplements, which contain at most 1g/kg of PG. Propylene glycol is metabolized into pyruvic acid, which is a normal part of the glucose metabolism process and is readily converted to energy.

I don't think glucose is a derivative of Petroleum???? HELP

 

[bigeyes]

I could have sworn I'd read that was one of the reasons they were against e-cigs, that it was unsafe for us to be inhaling the ingredients in the liquid.

Let me go googling, it's entirely possible I misinterpreted, but I thought I read that somewhere in this forum.

ETA-It may just be random idiots, and not the FDA or our reps, actually. A quick google ran down quite a few 'there are nasty chemicals in there' comments, but they all seem to be from the man on the street.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11873938?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www
http://blog.bioethics.net/2008/09/put-down-that-ecigarette/

I think the true reason Senator Lautenberg is against e-cigs might be explained here:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/03/senator-and-anti-smoking-groups-want-to.html

But then, I always think there is a financial motive.

 

[paladinx]

Wait a second guys. Bigeyes and tropical bob are kind of, I wouldnt say arguing, but maybe bumping heads a little bit, but the real truth here is that both these guys are saying things that do make sense and have truth to them. What bigeyes is saying about profit is very true, and it does happen. If you do not believe it happens a lot then you are being nieve.

But thats just a general thing that can relate to ANYTHING. Not just e-smoking. I think it makes generally good sense to a point. Tropical bob is also making good points. Hes giving another view. PG could be a totally unknown chemical, but what he is saying is that at least we know it is in a lot of things, and there are studies out there that evaluated the safety of it. Sure you can be skepitical of it, or anything else in this world for that matter. Maybe the fruit we eat is gonna kill us because of the genetic altering they are doing. Or the plastics we use might be causing us cancer. The list goes on forever of things u can question. But at least there is something there we can read and get an idea of.

Now there is info about PG, so thats good. So i guess the main concerns with e-smoking might be the flavors uses, and most importantly maybe the quality control. Knowing that what they say is in the bottle really is in the bottle. So there are probably greater concerns with E-smoking then just the PG. and a lot of it has no real studies. There are no studies on health effects of 1,000 e-smokers compared to non e smokers yet.

 

[bigeyes]

But I don't think studies are necessary when all the things in e-cigs are things that have been used in other products for years. It's, pardon the pun, a smokescreen. They simply cannot call these ingredients safe for all other applications and then cry foul because they're being used in e-cigs.

I think the financial concerns of the senator who is pushing the ban are the real issue, which tends to be the real motive behind many political actions that supposedly are designed to protect the public.

 

[TropicalBob]

Now there is info about PG, so thats good. So i guess the main concerns with e-smoking might be the flavors uses, and most importantly maybe the quality control. Knowing that what they say is in the bottle really is in the bottle. So there are probably greater concerns with E-smoking then just the PG. and a lot of it has no real studies. There are no studies on health effects of 1,000 e-smokers compared to non e smokers yet.

Now you're talking. PG should be the least of your e-smoking concerns, given all the unknowns. Now you're on target. Listen, the greatest danger you will face to your life today comes when you get into your car and venture out into traffic. The next greatest danger will be the point when you step out of your morning shower.

Living has one 100% guarantee: Death.

The most intelligent way to live life is to accept the best evidence and proceed on it, knowing there are no other guarantees, only intelligent actions based on best evidence and personal desires. Cheers. Vape on.

 

[Rickbar]

From everything I have read, the FDA has concluded that PG is safe. However, they want to ban the e-cig because it is a drug delivery system since they consider nicotine to be a drug. The funny thing is that the FDA has just deemed Cheerios, because they say it lowers cholesterol, to be a drug delivery system. This gov't is INSANE!!!. What's worse is that it is becoming local also. On Long Island, they want to ban the sale of the e-cig. I love how politicians are SO concerned about our well being. I don't see them banning cigarettes and I never will.

 

[paladinx]

"But I don't think studies are necessary when all the things in e-cigs are things that have been used in other products for years. I"

Well i mean, I think it also matters how you are using those products. Something can be safe to be used on your skin, but not to be swallowed. Something can be safe to be swallowed but maybe not inhaled. I think the real question is what are the effects when you take whatever substances that are in E-cigs, all of them, heat them up to a vapor and in hale them in a concentrated stream of vapor for X amount of time.

Its really hard to say well they should outlaw cigarettes. Cigs have been around a long time, and the tobacco companies still have a lot of money, even though they are losing recent battles. The e-cigs have not been established yet, so its easier to outlaw them. Plus they have an easy reason to give to ban them whatever the real reason is. But even so. make believe the FDA was a righteous group. If they follow the law, they still cant approve them because nicotine is a drug. and the device has never been tested here at all. But if that is the case, shouldnt they be banning the nicotine, not the device? If i wanted to buy an E-cig with 0 nicotine, why would that fall under their juristicion?



.

 

[Rickbar]

Paladinx, Thanks. You brought up an excellent point about the 0 mg nicotine. It's something that I hadn't thought about. I'm going to revise my letter to the suffolk legislature to include that point. Just goes to show how much brain storming on this topic pays off.