Latest Health NZ study published

[Mister]

You wouldn't happen to know if nicotine is dangerous would you? Not ingesting it but by vaping too frequently or actual cigarette smoking as the delivery system? Since smoking is bad in general and smoking too much can cause some physical distress it's tough to tell what effect nicotine has besides addiction.

In the amounts we consume by smoking or vaping nicotine is relatively harmless. It can cause some blood vessel constriction and heart rate elevation but not nearly as much as smoking does. (Other chemicals in smoking amplify these effects.) It is not carcinogenic.

Consuming more nicotine than your body is used to can have side effects and a large overdose can be fatal. I think it would be difficult to get a fatal overdose by vaping.

A number of types of physical distress associated with smoking/nicotine and with smoking/nicotine withdrawal are described in this article: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ing-your-symptoms-while-adjusting-vaping.html

 

[Kate51]

Whew, Mister, I don't know where to start here, you raised questions or beliefs that kind of don't mesh with the testing. Your statement:

I don't like numbers such as ten percent being presented when the truth is that we just don't know.

We do know, the testing as published has told us the number, and it stands, no matter what. If you're vaping 16mg juice, and approx 3 mls perday, you'r total is 48mg of nicotine per day, and you're absorbing or actually metabolising 1/10th of that total. Or, 4.9mg, and with an estimated 1 mg per tobacco cigarette, (which is in debate, given the fudging of some cigarette companies) the equivalent of less that 5 cigarettes per day. approx. That can be proven by plasma testing, which is contrary to your statement

plasma nicotine levels aren't the best measurement for what we'd like to know

plasma testing is the most accurate depiction of your addiction! I'm a poet! Saliva testing is approx. 25% higher than same plasma test. Urine tests yield the same data as the saliva using Nymox TobacAlert tests.
The cotinine testing which has been posted on this forum stands. Here:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/nicotine/24062-home-test-nicotine-blood-levels.html

And Here:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/subscription.php?do=addsubscription&t=82416

The cotinine is the measure of nicotine metabolised through your system. (Absorbed then excreted.) If you have a plasma (blood) test, use a urine or saliva test, that is the measure. To compare Nicotine absorbtion between your PV and a tobacco cigarette, you would have to test for one, wait 72 hours, (actually more, since cotinine can stay in tissues longer that that) then do the second test with alternate source of nicotine, testing again with the same test (saliva, urine or plasma). Then compare the two levels of cotinine measured. I will guarantee you that your absorbtion of nicotine from a combusted tobacco cigarette will be 10X the number of your vaporized nicotine level.
I hope this sort of puts your mind at rest regarding the testing. It is a little confusing, but one has to work through the data to see just how the testing applies. Of course, to do the sample testing on two different nicotine devices, you would have to measure first the number of cigarettes to smoke, then the vapor testing would involve only ingesting the amount of juice equivalent to the number of cigarettes used, @ approx 1mg nicotine per cigarette. Clear as mud, probably, but that's what would be necessary. But it would make you crazy, as you wouldn't be able to smoke or vape for a few days or weeks to not cross-contaminate the testing. Worth it? Not to me, as I am never going to smoke another cigarette, ever. So I will trust the testing and be very pleased that I no longer smoke 3 packs of cigarettes every day and be totally happy with the 10% number, which is worked out strickly by the number of ml of juice used and the mg of strength it is!!! It's a matter of mechanics and physics, not comparing the two devices but understanding the result of inhaling and measuring nicotine absorbtion.

 

[TropicalBob]

Let Mister believe what he wants. The tests state facts, not ancecdotal evidence no scientiist or regulator would accept.

I'm finished arguing opinion trying to counter testing.

 

[Kate51]

Let Mister believe what he wants. The tests state facts, not ancecdotal evidence no scientiist or regulator would accept.

I'm finished arguing opinion trying to counter testing.

Agreed, Mister and everyone else using a PV should be aware of their personal changes experienced by switching from nicotine in burning tobacco and vaporizing with a PV.......their own body is the best spokesman of all, just MHO!!
That should be above debate, I would say.

 

[Mister]

We do know, the testing as published has told us the number, and it stands, no matter what. If you're vaping 16mg juice, and approx 3 mls perday, you'r total is 48mg of nicotine per day, and you're absorbing or actually metabolising 1/10th of that total. Or, 4.9mg ...

Your calculation assumes that we're absorbing 1/10th of the total. But that 1/10th number has no factual foundation. We have no idea what quantity of 16mg juice was delivered to the test subjects as vapor in the 5 minutes they naiively used the devices. Which means we have no way to extrapolate from the subjects' nicotine levels (10%) to the absorption percentage (unknown because there's a missing required number in this.)

 

[Kate51]

Your calculation assumes that we're absorbing 1/10th of the total. But that 1/10th number has no factual foundation. We have no idea what quantity of 16mg juice was delivered to the test subjects as vapor in the 5 minutes they naiively used the devices. Which means we have no way to extrapolate from the subjects' nicotine levels (10%) to the absorption percentage (unknown because there's a missing required number in this.)

I give up.
I bolded the most important thing you have to know. The tests were done properly and scientifically, the data scrutinized and objective reached. Unless you are conducting clinical trials you would not know the entire procedure and your eyes would glaze over anyway. My own testing has resolved my quesitons. Your own testing would involve knowing the amount of nicotine you use on average. Just trust the data until further data is brought forward, it will either verify or challenge. If you suffer from some kind of metabolic dysfunction, your numbers may vary.

 

[CaptJay]

If the results are repeated and get the same conclusions that works for me - also if Im vaping less nic that works for me too - also explains why cutting nic levels is a lot easier on the PV than doing it using cigs - it all works for me in other words. Im happy, sounds like I'm healthier and getting less nic too - all wins in my book.

 

[v1John]

Cool thread, SJ, and you make so much sense Kate, thank you for your posts.

I always comapred my vaping nicotine absorption experience to be 'less' than the quit smoking lozenges which I've tried in previous years. And I found an open box from last year (they're 4mg nic.), and the box says "to increase your success... use enough-use at least 9 lozenges per day during the first six weeks", it also says "do not use more than 20 lozenges per day". My point is that I have tried patches, gum, and lozenges, and

ONLY when I switched to the wonderful vaporing was I able to gladly and most extremely comfortably able to suddenly quit smoking, and for even less daily nicotine than lozenges recommend via their delivery. (I'm using the absolute numerical method, whereby eg., it is predetermined that I cannot possibly absorb more than 18mg nicotine out of an 18mg carto holding 1ml.)

 

[Ruchamah]

The best thing about this mini-study..is that it was DONE...and done by reputable scientists. Yes, it was sponsored by a manufacturer, but that is how MOST advances in science are funded: someone, somewhere sees a big pay day down the road. Hopefully, we will be reading MUCH more about these studies iin the coming weeks. IMO, it is all a win-win for us.

 

[v1John]

I agree, Ruchamah. I'm glad to see that other nations on the planet can do wonderful things. The whole planet should switch from analogs to vaping, analog cigarettes are so anti-human.

 

[Mister]

Whew, Mister, I don't know where to start here, you raised questions or beliefs that kind of don't mesh with the testing.

Au contraire Kate, I'm just doing the math to work out the absorption rate based on the facts from the testing. Here's the math. If you don't agree show me your math or what I'm doing wrong in mine.

Assumption #1: Plasma nicotine level increases linearly in relationship to amount of nicotine absorbed. (I'm not aware of a study to demonstrate this but in the interest of having any formula at all to work with we'll have to make this assumption. Without it nothing further can be worked out at all.)

Assumption #2: The vaping test subjects absorbed as much nicotine from vaping as an experienced vapor. Again I'll take this as a given because without it nothing further can be said.

Assumption #3: The smoking test subjects absorbed 1mg of nicotine from their cigarette. I think this is on the low side, especially for overnight until-test-time deprived smokers. But what the heck, let's use this number.

Formulas:

Let's use the terms:
PAV is the percentage of nicotine absorbed from the juice into the body. (In your belief, PAV = 10%)
STR is the juice strength in mg/ml
QV is the amount of juice vaped in the study in ml
NV is the nicotine absorbed from vaping in the study
NC is the nicotine absorbed from smoking in the study

Here's the formula we need to solve to determine PAV:
(1) PAV = NV / (QV * STR)

We don't know NV. But using assumption #1, and knowing from the study that peak plasma levels were 10% for vaping vs. smoking, we have:
(2) NV = NC * 0.1

Substituting into (1) this yields:
(3) PAV = NC / (QV * STR * 10)

Substituting our known values for NC and STR we have:
(4) PAV = 1 / (QV * 16 * 10)

And that's the end. We can't determine PAV without knowing QV and no amount of insisting otherwise can change this. QV wasn't measured in the study. Finally, note that even if we knew QV, we wouldn't get a PAV value of great accuracy because of the three assumptions noted above which either must be made or must be eliminated before the math can be done at all.

Let Mister believe what he wants. The tests state facts, not ancecdotal evidence no scientiist or regulator would accept.

I'm finished arguing opinion trying to counter testing.

I don't have many beliefs about this yet. There isn't enough data to support them. I'm just pointing out that the beliefs others are expressing are simply that: beliefs. They are not a representation of the facts in the study. They are a belief which is being supported by pulling one number out of the study (10% plasma level VapeTest/SmokeTest) and treating it as an entirely different number (percentage of nicotine in juice which gets absorbed.) You have to do math to convert from the one number to the other and no one has done it.

 

[Kate51]

Mister,
Read the test as it was set to show objectives and assess effectivity.
The nicotine amounts are not controlled, merely measured and timed. Objective was not to assess absorbtion. If you read through the test data you will see that it still concluded results as previously done in other testing. Go through the data of each, links provided lead you through each test. My answers may be certainly ignored, I assume you would prefer your own conclusions. As it should be. But before reaching conclusions, assess the data in it's entirety, from all testing done to present.

Conclusion:The EC shows promise as a device that might aid cessation. Trials to assess long-term cessation outcome and safety are needed. Dr Murray Laugesen

Table 3 Pharmacokinetic properties of usual cigarette, 16 mg ENDD
and Nicorette inhalator
Product
Mean tmax (min)
(95% CI)
Mean Cmax
(ng/mL) (95% CI)*
Usual cigarette (n¼9) 14.3 (8.8 to 19.9)13.4 (6.5 to 20.3)
16 mg ENDD (n¼8) 19.6 (4.9 to 34.2) 1.3 (0.0 to 2.6)
Nicorette inhalator (n¼10) 32.0 (18.7 to 45.3) 2.1 (1.0 to 3.1)
ENDD, electronic nicotine delivery device.
*Corrected for baseline nicotine levels.

 

[Red Hot]

Very interesting, thanks for the link!!

 

[boxhead]

exo? kina, did they see this yet, along with kate and tbob talking about this, this is shows why i use three different mg e-liquids. and that has been since i started vaping, i felt cognitive changes with different mg levels, and self medicated to reach the level i felt i needed.

this new test puts the question of high mg e-liquids in a new light...not as scary as alot of people thought(by the posts), and totaly wicked must have known what 36mg was doing to people, nothing bad, but getting a e-ni to work for the changing of how nic is introduced to a users body.

i wonder if they used a higher mg nic, would it still have been that 10% or higher? the nonscientific answer is no, based on how it works on me. i mostly have a latic acid build up that might skew any answer base on my blood or co2...

i like the new ticker SJ!

 

[kai kane]

But the electronic cigarette is still the most effective alternative to cigarette smoking available.

I agree. It amazes me every day. One product making so much a difference in so many lives.

Thanks for the head's up on this report.

 

[Mister]

Read the test as it was set to show objectives and assess effectivity.

The nicotine amounts are not controlled, merely measured and timed. Objective was not to assess absorbtion. ...

Exactly. Objective was not to assess absorption. And because that wasn't an objective, not enough data was gathered to determine it. Yet you have concluded that the data does support a belief that absorption is 10%. (E.g. in one post you say "you're absorbing or actually metabolising 1/10th of that")

Kate, you just keep throwing the same numbers and assertions at me. I read them carefully every time to recheck. I've read the e-cig studies in careful detail, more than once, and I can do the math and can verify or deny the various studies' conclusions from the observed data. The conclusion you draw from the data (i.e. that we absorb 10% of the nicotine present in the fluid) is as unsubstantiated and flawed as was Dr. Eissenberg's conclusion that e-cigs deliver no nicotine. If you don't agree with me on this, show why the equation in my previous post is incorrect, OR show me an equation to derive PAV (absorption) which doesn't require a known value for CV, OR show me where in the study the value of CV was measured.

If you can do any of those things (I don't see how but I can take it when I'm wrong) I'll agree that there's reason to believe in a particular ballpark number for absorption. There will still be a fair bit of play in that number (mainly on the higher side though we wouldn't be able to rule out 10% being too high a guess either) because of the other factors I've mentioned which make this study an imperfect setup for determining absorption. (Something which as you point out it didn't set out to accomplish, and also something which unlike Dr. Eissenberg's similar study's data and conclusions this study doesn't claim to have determined.)

If you cannot show any of those things (no alternate way of calculating and no way to finish the calculation as I show it) you are out of gas on this. It isn't complicated. And it isn't "a matter of mechanics and physics" as you've previously said. It is just basic math.

If you only repeat your previous assertions instead of addressing the problem of how one can calculate absorption from the study's data, I won't be replying again. I think I've said everything I can in terms of why there isn't data here to address the question of absorption percentage.

I don't so much disagree with the 10% number you are using as I disagree with it being a known quantity. You could turn out to be right, the available data doesn't disagree any more than it agrees. My gut feel is that you are wrong and that the actual number will turn out to be somewhere in the 25% to 50% range. Although I'd bet money on the number being over 20%, I wouldn't bet my life on it. If a well designed and implemented study shows the absorption to be 5% I'll be surprised but not hugely so. What I know for sure is that I don't know yet.

 

[kai kane]

Dr. Eissenberg's conclusion that e-cigs deliver no nicotine. .

.... What I know for sure is that I don't know yet.

Nor do I. Too many variables were revealed in the test parameters - far too many in the testing of naive users. A test of experienced vapors (vaporers?) would be very interesting.

What we do know is that the quoted Kiwi Dr.s have looked at the PV in a positive light. I am so happy to hear that. Something we all can enjoy!

 

[OaklandCA]

when they get around to testing experience vapers this forum will definitely be the place to recruit their pool!

 

[DC2]

This study shows that the average person who has not leaned how to vape properly will absorb about 10% as much nicotine in 5 minutes of use of a Ruyan V8 with 18mg juice as they would from a cigarette.

It tells us nothing more than that.

 

[Kate51]

Kate, you just keep throwing the same numbers and assertions at me. I read them carefully every time to recheck.

They are the only ones I can throw. Suggest you direct your questions to Dr. Laugeson. The post from SJ is a Randomised Trial (clinical). The data used is established from previous testing. The bench testing can be found in the links of the post.