Latest Health NZ study published

[Mister]

Kate, you still have not said how you get 10% from the report. You just keep saying it is there for anyone to read.

As I asked before, are you using the two numbers you keep highlighting in bold and dividing?

Or is the 10% right there without doing arithmetic? If so, where?

Or are you dividing or multiplying something else? If so please say which numbers and show the math. I thought earlier in the thread that you were using the ratio of the cig user's plasma level to the vaper's level and previously showed why that is an unuseable calculation.

 

[Thulium]

I think I have explained all that you bring back. 1) The 16mg/ml was only absorbed at 1.3ng/ml, will recheck the measurement used. That machine sucked it out in 5 minutes, close enough. Read the data that contexts the chart. 2) The Nymox people wouldn't like what you said about their test strips! They are shown to be accurate down to minuscule sampling.
And Thulium, 3) I believe I did specify ng/l reflecting plasma tests.
Sorry guys. My Theory with my nicotine consumption stands as presented.

Kate 16mg/ml = 16,000,000ng/ml or 16,000,000,000ng/l.

The problem with your theory is that 16milligrams is per milliliter of e-liquid, while the reading from the study is 1.3 nanograms per milliliter. That gives no indication of how much of the original nicotine was absorbed because we don't know how much of the e-liquid was used (although over 5 minutes I would estimate about 1/10th of a milliliter for 1.6milligrams or 1,600,000nanograms), and it is only the nicotine found in blood plasma which is presumably proportional to how much nicotine is in the rest of your body.

The report basically says that [test subject] smoking a cigarette elevates your plasma nicotine by approximately 10 times as much as [test subject] using an electronic cigarette. This comparison is valid based on the data. Although this data is arguably consistent with the 10% theory, the data cannot be used as evidence in the way you suggest.

5 minutes vaping a cartridge with 16000000 nanograms of nicotine resulting in blood plasma Cmax levels of 1.3ng/ml does not prove that e-cigarettes deliver 10% of the included nicotine.

However, the fact that the blood plasma levels after smoking a cigarette, are (very) roughly 10x higher than after using an e-cig (with approximately the same amount of nicotine) is consistent with the theory. The amount of nicotine actually used is based on an estimation, not any actual measurement, therefore there is no basis to use this data to assess the actual absorption rate. The results do lend some credence to the theory, but they cannot be said to prove it by any scientific standard.

 

[Kate51]

Again, Thulium, and Mister, contrast the three samples, nothing more, nothing less. The chart again states:
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)

You see, it works perfectly. As stated.
I just proved it two different ways:
1) by calculating my total nicotine intake, then factor it at 10% absorbed.
2) Then I did a saliva test, no factor needed if 20-cigarette allowance of 1000ng/l cotinine is known, or Level 6 on the test strip. I use 10% of that, or a low Level 3, or 100-200ng/l, using 100 as my sample.
Does that make sense now, and show how very sure I am of my numbers.

 

[Dillinger]

In the pharmacokinetic analyses, the serum nicotine Cmax for
usual cigarettes was comparable with other studies.17 The 16 mg
ENDD’s performance was consistent with findings from intensive-
mode smoking machine tests of this same make of ENDD,
which delivered 10% of the nicotine per puff delivered by
a regular Marlboro cigarette (M Laugesen, 2009, TC2009/
034355, submitted). This suggests that it is more like a NRT
product, concerning nicotine delivery, than a cigarette. The
shorter tmax of the ENDD in comparison to the inhalator may
reflect some absorption via the respiratory tract compared with
buccal absorption for the Nicorette inhalator. The ENDDs in the
study were not as consistent for puffing and nicotine delivery as
the medicinal Nicorette inhalator. About one-third of participants
showed no increase in blood nicotine when using the
ENDD. Some participants reported that the device sometimes
failed to produce mist when puffed. It is possible that technical
problems could have affected the dose received. This is not
altogether surprising given that these devices are not manufactured
to the same standards required of pharmaceutical devices,
such as the inhalator.



I believe these measurements are based on a "puff". Now I don't know about the rest of you, but 1 puff on a usual cigarette does not equal 1 puff on my PV. In fact, from the data provided I can at least guess that much.

Because of the lower bolded portion above, and the fact that this is measured on a "per puff basis", I think that it is not conclusively stated that we absorb 10x more nicotine from a cig compared to a PV.

Like others have stated, these were inexperienced vapers at the moment of their vaping. As we know vaping has it's learning curve.

However, this factor could, in my mind, be eliminated. I could be totally wrong, but just brainstorming...What if a test was done where, using these 3 varieties of nicotine delivery, each subject was given the exact same mg dosage in all 3 cases, instructed to inhale and exhale at the same rate for each test and then their plasma nicotine (or whatever) levels measured. Then the results must be adjusted somehow to make up for the time difference in smoking/vaping/inhaling the nic dosage.

Obviously, I have no clinical testing knowledge and am not aware of all the control issues involved or if what I propose would even be possible. Just thoughts.

EDIT:: After posting, looked back at Thulium's post. Definitely could not have said it better myself. I always feel silly after I post something.

 

[Thulium]

Again, Thulium, and Mister, contrast the three samples, nothing more, nothing less. The chart again states:
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)

You see, it works perfectly. As stated.

Like I just said...

the fact that the blood plasma levels after smoking a cigarette, are roughly 10x higher than after using an e-cig is consistent with the theory. The amount of nicotine actually used is based on an estimation, not any actual measurement, therefore there is no basis to use this data to assess the actual absorption rate. The results do lend some credence to the theory, but they cannot be said to prove it by any scientific standard.

 

[Kate51]

***********
If you say so. I rest my case.

 

[Dillinger]

To put what Thulium is saying another way (please correct me if I'm wrong), based on the results of this study you cannot say the following:

False - When smoking enough cigarette(s) which in pre-smoked form contain 20mg of nicotine, you absorb 10mg of nicotine. When vaping enough liquid which in pre-vaped form contains 20mg of nicotine, you absorb 1mg of nicotine. Observe that 1mg is 10% of 10mg.

The following, however, is OK to take from the results:

True - When smoking for 5 minutes you absorb 10x as much nicotine as vaping for 5 minutes.

See the difference? Absorption over time does not equal absorption of an amount or an absorption rate.

Please note, the above numbers are completely fudged. EDIT:: Also I am not a scientist so this is what I, as a layman, take out of the study.

 

[Kate51]

As I said, I am finished making my case. The Clinical testing (as you so aptly said you don't understand) has to stand on it's own merit.
No two people are absorbing anything at a pre-determined rate, however, if you eat three different things at different intensity, they will always metabolate for you at a fixed rate, unless you are impaired some way, by progressive disease, etc.
Every person is different, but in context of the testing.

 

[Dillinger]

Obviously, I understand everyone is different. I was speaking in generalizations. That is why there is a wonderful branch of math called statistics and why studies need to try and get a representative sample and experiments be repeated to confirm results.

 

[Mister]

Kate, I give up. You clearly do not understand what the numbers reported in the study mean nor how they can be used to derive conclusions. You act like you understand it all but you definitely do not. You haven't even been able to clearly state what number you are doing something to to get the number you want to believe in, much less show that it is a meaningful thing to do. Studies like this one do not make my eyes glaze over, I actually enjoy perusing them. If you have a loved one who is good at math and analysis perhaps they can explain some of the posts in this thread to you.

 

[Mister]

See the difference? Absorption over time does not equal absorption of an amount or an absorption rate.

Please note, the above numbers are completely fudged. EDIT:: Also I am not a scientist so this is what I, as a layman, take out of the study.

Exactly right.

And after that there are further concerns regarding naive users and ancient Ruyan V8s, but they needn't even be considered to show the fallacy, you've covered it without even adding those factors.

BTW, if you're curious, the numbers for cigarettes which you fudged are pretty much known. About 90% of the nicotine in tobacco is lost in the burning, mostly destroyed, some side stream, a bit unused. Typically cigarettes contain well over 10mg nic each before burning, deliver over 1mg to the user, and very near all of that delivered nicotine is absorbed. It would be so nice if we knew the equivalents for vaping. The work of two chemists posting on these forums (DVap and exogenesis) has shown that something over 90% of the nicotine in the liquid we vape is delivered to our bodies. So far we have little knowledge of the next stage though, i.e. how much of that is absorbed. Exogenesis made one attempt to get closer (at least determine an upper limit) by measuring the amount exhaled but the process got complicated due to differences in things like CO2 in the exhale vs. inhale and he wasn't able to get useable measurements.

Edit: Note that there is a fairly wide range in nicotine delivered from a cigarette. To have a good number (in the absence of carefully taken and interpreted blood levels) you need to know the type of cigarette and the way the user smokes. Well under 1mg or over 2mg from a cigarette is possible.

 

[Kate51]

But those samples used were all thoroughly described in the Clinical Trial, even down to the sources. There are no variables to the Published Clinical. Yes, you can vary any one or all of them for your own clinical testing which will accordingly yield different results, however I would expect that the end result will be the same if variables were all of a 5X, 2X, whatever multiplier, but in accordance, this one has to stand on it's merit. Apples and Oranges. Or Pall Mall 100 Lights and unflavored 80mg/nic, whatever. One test, one Clinical study. You could try any combination of available nicotine devices. If you were fabulously wealthy it would help.
Or, you can just accept the numbers as a given, or extremely likely, and verify your nicotine use accordingly.
I'm pretty happy with my numbers.

 

[Thulium]

I'll make an analogy: Let's say we are trying to see how quickly beer gets you drunk so you give one group of test subjects a 160oz pitcher of 3.2%ABV beer, and the other group you give a glass of some bathtub whiskey. 5 minutes after both groups take 10 sips each, the beer group has an BAC of .002 while the gin group has a BAC of .027

Does that lend credence to a theory that the beer is one-tenth the the strength of the gin? Sure, but it by no means proves it. You cannot extrapolate that to mean that the body absorbs the alcohol in beer 10 times faster than whiskey. You also cannot extrapolate that drinking 4.8%ABV beer will raise your BAC to .008.

 

[Kate51]

Not unless you had a way of testing with both substances, and then using your findings to conduct a Clinical Trial. I imagine you could apply for a Government Grant for that! Could be fun, too. But I think that testing is still ongoing, they're still working out the difference within a sampling of a few million people's metabolism.
It would still just be more Oranges and Apples.

 

[Dillinger]

BTW, if you're curious, the numbers for cigarettes which you fudged are pretty much known. About 90% of the nicotine in tobacco is lost in the burning, mostly destroyed, some side stream, a bit unused. Typically cigarettes contain well over 10mg nic each before burning, deliver over 1mg to the user, and very near all of that delivered nicotine is absorbed. It would be so nice if we knew the equivalents for vaping. The work of two chemists posting on these forums (DVap and exogenesis) has shown that something over 90% of the nicotine in the liquid we vape is delivered to our bodies. So far we have little knowledge of the next stage though, i.e. how much of that is absorbed. Exogenesis made one attempt to get closer (at least determine an upper limit) by measuring the amount exhaled but the process got complicated due to differences in things like CO2 in the exhale vs. inhale and he wasn't able to get useable measurements.

Interesting.

I'll make an analogy: Let's say we are trying to see how quickly beer gets you drunk so you give one group of test subjects a 160oz pitcher of 3.2%ABV beer, and the other group you give a glass of some bathtub whiskey. 5 minutes after both groups take 10 sips each, the beer group has an BAC of .002 while the gin group has a BAC of .027

LOL, good analogy.

 

[Kate51]

Analogies off Thread Topic:

Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross-over trial
C Bullen, H McRobbie, S Thornley, M Glover, R Lin, M Laugesen
Tob Control 2010;19:98-103 doi:10.1136/tc.2009.031567

 

[Kate51]

Kate, I give up. You clearly do not understand what the numbers reported in the study mean nor how they can be used to derive conclusions. You act like you understand it all but you definitely do not. You haven't even been able to clearly state what number you are doing something to to get the number you want to believe in, much less show that it is a meaningful thing to do. Studies like this one do not make my eyes glaze over, I actually enjoy perusing them. If you have a loved one who is good at math and analysis perhaps they can explain some of the posts in this thread to you.

The math in subject test has been completed. You need only read and understand the supporting text. Seems clear enough to me, I didn't even need a pencil, or a translator.

 

[Laz777]

I think you guys are beating a dead horse, but hey! Keep it going if that's what floats your boat!

-Laz.

 

[Tampa2]

At least the NZ study was a lot less unbiased than the Virginia study that CNN put out as "E-Cigarettes Don't Deliver". And the results are encouraging!

 

[Kate51]

Imagine conducting a test like that ~ imagine being in one?? My luck to get the 0 nic ENDD and not be able to smoke overnight. Would you go back the next day. I wonder!