Is there nicotine in second hand vapor
- Thread starter GoochMan
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Just curious... Who Paid for this Study?
Having had some exposure to Research Grants, I know how Terrible Disturbing it can be to Generate Results that the Grant Provider doesn’t want to see. Disturbing to the Grant issuer and to the thought of getting Future Grant Money that is.
It was a lab test funded by Ruyan in 2008 in order to satisfy regulators. Yes, it could be skewed, but the testing was done by multiple independent laboratories according to the clip below.
Clip from the report
The Etter measurements don't match the concept of all the vaping nicotine being absorbed/metabolized. On a cig, the nominal 20 mg nicotine Marlboro pack, 1 mg/cig, is all nominally absorbed (or at least 98%, I certainly wouldn't quibble over that).
When I first started vaping, before going to VV mods, I was consistent at 3 ml/day of 24 mg/ml, coming off PAD of Marlboro reds. This was for multiple months, and pretty consistent right from the start. I doubt that I was more than tripling my nicotine intake compared to the cigarettes, going from about 20 mg/day to 72 mg/day.
(the cig nominal nicotine has varied; I've seen as high as 1.2 mg nic for a Marl red from the late 90s, and as low as 0.7)
When I first started vaping, before going to VV mods, I was consistent at 3 ml/day of 24 mg/ml, coming off PAD of Marlboro reds. This was for multiple months, and pretty consistent right from the start. I doubt that I was more than tripling my nicotine intake compared to the cigarettes, going from about 20 mg/day to 72 mg/day.
(the cig nominal nicotine has varied; I've seen as high as 1.2 mg nic for a Marl red from the late 90s, and as low as 0.7)
Robert Wood Johnson is the one that comes out with all the anti-vaping studies and they're the biggest shareholder in Johnson & Johnson.
"Johnson & Johnson - Johnson & Johnson - Under the banner of its subsidiary, McNeil Consumer Products, J&J markets the Nicotrol nicotine patch and nicotine inhaler. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the biggest single shareholder in J&J and began its massive funding of tobacco control in the U.S. in 1991, the same year the FDA approved the nicotine patch as a prescription drug. Pharmacia reacquired the rights to market the Nicotrol Inhaler in North America from J&J's McNeil in July 2000."
Not saying Anything about the results either Except that is...
Financial disclosure. This report is funded by Ruyan.
is Never a good sign.
When the people who make Money off a Product Fund the Testing of a Product, well, Sometimes Results can be Interrupted Differently Statistcally Speaking.
What a Complete Surprise.
Anti-Vaping Study Results by a Major Shareholder of a Company who makes Nicotine Patches.
So, in that first study you quoted, they had naive users take 10 puffs (or 20, not sure) and then measured cotinine and compared it to cigarette users. Naive users would not be the best for getting the most out of a puff (inhaling correctly, drawing long enough, etc...) plus it was 10 puffs. I can't remember how soon after the puffs they took the cotinine samples, but its thought that cigarettes deliver nicotine faster, like almost instantaneously, which e-cigs are thought to take longer for the nicotine uptake.
In the second study they are using experienced users and allowing them to puff ad libetum, or how we'd normally use our e-cigs in a regular day. This is going to create more variance in the data than in a more controlled setting, but it's actually useful to know whether regular experienced users, using e-cigs as they normally would, have levels of cotinine within the realm of what cigarette smokers have.
The part about cotinine being similar in saliva and blood is just showing that you can compare cotinine from two different methodologies and it should be similar, so they can look at cotinine levels from a previous paper where it was measured in blood and compare that to their saliva samples to give a relative idea (without them having to repeat all the variables in their current research). So, IOW, they can compare to cotinine levels seen in smokers or NRT users from a previously published study without having to directly test that again (assuming the times of collection were about the same and yada yada...).
Unfortunately, that's usually how it works. Who else is going to conduct a study except people that have some sort of vested interest in the outcome.
You used to get some unbiased studies done by the medical community but that's now overlapping.
You have Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Robert Wood Johnson Hospital and J&J.
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
Last time I was at the Univ of PA they were having a big smoking study and they were giving out free (wait for it--) patches to all participants.
You used to get some unbiased studies done by the medical community but that's now overlapping.
You have Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Robert Wood Johnson Hospital and J&J.
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
Last time I was at the Univ of PA they were having a big smoking study and they were giving out free (wait for it--) patches to all participants.
Last edited:
When the Ruyan report says that 98% of the nicotine in inhaled vapor is absorbed, that really doesn't say anything about how much of the nicotine in the juice makes it into the vapor. We know that the juice goes away as we vape, but does the nicotine level in the juice all make it to our lungs and mucous membranes? Is the heat from a coil boiling the liquid enough to vaporize all the nic in the juice (as opposed to a 2000 degree cigarette coal)?
I know that once in a great while I feel the buzz slightly when I catch myself vaping like a fiend while sitting at the computer. it's been a long time since I got the nicotine OD feeling. I was a 2+ pack a day smoker who never felt the buzz I felt from that first cigarette I smoked. I think we get used to the level we get and get a craving when it drops a little. I know that I can refrain from vaping for hours and never feel that "gotta have a cigarette" feeling that I used to get when I smoked.
I know that once in a great while I feel the buzz slightly when I catch myself vaping like a fiend while sitting at the computer. it's been a long time since I got the nicotine OD feeling. I was a 2+ pack a day smoker who never felt the buzz I felt from that first cigarette I smoked. I think we get used to the level we get and get a craving when it drops a little. I know that I can refrain from vaping for hours and never feel that "gotta have a cigarette" feeling that I used to get when I smoked.
Last edited:
Thanks Spazmelda for the explanation.
I'll have to find the post or link, I think it was in that looong post regarding blood work results that said cotinine levels weren't accurate to determine how much nicotine we get from vaping. I'll have to read that thread again but that's what someone said regarding the OPs levels being so low.
I'll have to find the post or link, I think it was in that looong post regarding blood work results that said cotinine levels weren't accurate to determine how much nicotine we get from vaping. I'll have to read that thread again but that's what someone said regarding the OPs levels being so low.
I suspect a lot of the transition from cigs is due to the other "gotcha" chemicals in them. Even without the purposeful additives, when we switch to vaping we lose the tobacco alkaloid MAOIs, which lengthened the feel-good phase, and no longer get the "rush" from carbon monoxide.
I do like DIY for being able to really control how I step down my mg/ml. I'm due for another mixing round this week, another 1 mg drop.
I do like DIY for being able to really control how I step down my mg/ml. I'm due for another mixing round this week, another 1 mg drop.
You can't ONLY look at who funds a study to determine if it's valid or not. If that were the case then no company could ever provide evidence that their products were safe/effective, whatever. They'd have to rely on someone else deciding they were worth defending and spending a lot of money to do the research. Not likely to happen. The company is the one with the vested interest in defending their product. If you claim that you can never trust a study funded by a particular company then you are removing all ability of that company to provide evidence to support their product.
You have to look, not only at who funded the study (which is something to take into consideration of course), but how the study was done. Does their methodology make sense, did they have controls, did they have a large enough sample size to determine what they wanted to, does their data say what they think it does? etc...
So, in the Etter paper, yes the sample size was small and it relied on self reporting. They disclose that in the report and discuss how that affects the interpretation and relevance of the data. In the absence of hordes of researchers wanting to study e-cigs this is the kind of study we are going to have.
You have to look, not only at who funded the study (which is something to take into consideration of course), but how the study was done. Does their methodology make sense, did they have controls, did they have a large enough sample size to determine what they wanted to, does their data say what they think it does? etc...
So, in the Etter paper, yes the sample size was small and it relied on self reporting. They disclose that in the report and discuss how that affects the interpretation and relevance of the data. In the absence of hordes of researchers wanting to study e-cigs this is the kind of study we are going to have.
This is the HUGE problem with “Studies” or “Trails”. There Isn’t Anyone who is Unbiased.
OEM’s want Good Result so their product are Perceived to be Safe.
Governments Might or Might not want the same Results because they are on the Fence of whether to Ban it or Tax it.
And Researcher NEVER want to Piss Off the People who Pay for the Study or Trial.
It’s a Mess.
What we need is someone like UL Laboratories who is Recognized as Being Unbiased and Extremely Trustworthy in Reporting Results both Good and Bad.
This is true, but you can still look at the data and have an idea of how good the study was. Like the FDA paper where they found TSNAs, but left out comparisons to TSNAs in other NRTs. When you look at their actual data, it didn't support their freak-out reaction.
Swedishfish- I don't know anything about that. I'd be interested in seeing it if you can find it though. I just skimmed through that thread the first time you posted it, and IIRC the OPs cotinine levels were within the range found in the Etter study. I could be misremembering though.
They did the same thing in the 70's based on flawed studies on saccharin. I think it took an act of congress to get the warnings lifted. To this day people still cite the rat studies.
And I still remember the old 'studies' on cigarettes where they showed a good 'pink' lung and a bad 'black' lung.
(and this was by our 'government')
What they forgot to tell the public was these were lungs from pigs.
And nobody explained how you got a pig to smoke a cigarette, let alone enough to turn a lung black.
(and this was by our 'government')
What they forgot to tell the public was these were lungs from pigs.
And nobody explained how you got a pig to smoke a cigarette, let alone enough to turn a lung black.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
