MBV pulls cinnamon juices
- Thread starter theinlawjosie
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Now that you would think would be logical but the sad fact is that many people do not use common sense or logic in their day to day lives. People are going to moan and complain no matter what action is taken. I agree with you on this!
I don't care for cinnamon flavored e-liquid so I get to avoid that entire subject, thankfully. I've never bought from MBV but I would guess they use the same flavorings as many other vendors since there is aren't that many to choose from. I also mix my own and have a decent variety of flavorings to choose from, none of them are oil based. Any vendor made e-liquid that has given me the slightest lung or throat irritation went down the toilet, yet the few times this happened the flavors were not the kind one would expect this to get this reaction.
This "study" mentioned vanillin but I'm not savvy enough to understand the implication or why it was even mentioned. I use TFA vanillin in my DIY concoctions, can anyone say if there is cause for concern?
This "study" mentioned vanillin but I'm not savvy enough to understand the implication or why it was even mentioned. I use TFA vanillin in my DIY concoctions, can anyone say if there is cause for concern?
As a final followup:
Cinnamon flavours in e-cigarettes: how inappropriate research can misinform the public and the (amateur) professionals
By Dr Farsalinos
Considerable debate has been focused on the issue of cinnamon flavors after a study was published in a toxicology journal declaring that such flavored liquids are cytotoxic. Just one month ago, a study published by our group also found that a cinnamon-flavored liquid was slightly cytotoxic (although still 10 times less toxic that tobacco smoke). I have already sent a letter to the editor of Toxicology in Vitro raising concerns about the latest study they published on cinnamon, however due to significant misinformation spread throughout the social media, I decided to publish this comment.
First of all, it was surprising to see a vendor removing cinnamon flavors from his sales list. According to a well-known e-cigarette activist, When a juice maker that fills thousands of bottles a day does this - you should listen. My response to this is: If the juice maker who fills thousands of bottles a day knew what he was doing, he should have found out about it before any research was published. What I mean is that makers have no idea about the cytotoxicity of their products. They are doing no research, so how would they know? But it is even worse that they are making such moves (to remove cinnamon flavors) without even reading (or understanding) the research they quote.
Let me explain. The latest study by Talbots group discussed about the cytotoxicity of cinnamon flavors in e-cigarette. Interestingly however, IF SOMEONE READS THE PAPER, he will find that the researchers never used any e-cigarette. Moreover, they never produced vapor! They tested the liquids in liquid form, not in vapor. How can you support that the results have implications for e-cigarette users when no e-cigarette was used and no vapor was produced? However, there is a bigger mistake. The authors mentioned that they tested 8 refill liquids with cinnamon flavor. They mention the names of the liquids and the companies they got them from. After personally searching on the internet and communicating with some companies, I found out that 4 of the samples were concentrated flavors, not refills. The authors themselves found cinnamaldehyde (the substance giving the cinnamon flavor in the liquid) at levels that differed between samples by up to 100 times. This confirms what I found: some of their samples were concentrated flavors.
Finally, there is still another problem in their study. They tested the substance itself (cinnamaldehyde) to see how toxic it is. They found it toxic at levels 400 times lower than currently approved for food use. This is a very strange results and it is hard to explain how regulatory authorities have accepted cinnamaldehyde to be available at such high levels (of course, before the approval several tests were performed and it was not found toxic).The authors have to explain why their findings contradict previous research.
As I mentioned above, a letter to the editor has been sent and is currently evaluated for publication. In short, the results of this study have nothing to do with e-cigarette use and are more applicable to cinnamon use in food (since they tested the liquid in liquid form and they used several concentrated samples). Besides that, the reactions from manufacturers show that, unfortunately, they cannot accept their ignorance and instead of asking an expert so that they get informed, they react in a way that produces panic to vapers, does nothing to protect consumers and only results in a game of public relations tactics. This is even more unfortunate than the mistakes in the research protocol. As a final note, let's not forget that research has shown cinnamon to have anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and maybe anti-cancer properties...
Cinnamon flavours in e-cigarettes: how inappropriate research can misinform the public and the (amateur) professionals
By Dr Farsalinos
Considerable debate has been focused on the issue of cinnamon flavors after a study was published in a toxicology journal declaring that such flavored liquids are cytotoxic. Just one month ago, a study published by our group also found that a cinnamon-flavored liquid was slightly cytotoxic (although still 10 times less toxic that tobacco smoke). I have already sent a letter to the editor of Toxicology in Vitro raising concerns about the latest study they published on cinnamon, however due to significant misinformation spread throughout the social media, I decided to publish this comment.
First of all, it was surprising to see a vendor removing cinnamon flavors from his sales list. According to a well-known e-cigarette activist, When a juice maker that fills thousands of bottles a day does this - you should listen. My response to this is: If the juice maker who fills thousands of bottles a day knew what he was doing, he should have found out about it before any research was published. What I mean is that makers have no idea about the cytotoxicity of their products. They are doing no research, so how would they know? But it is even worse that they are making such moves (to remove cinnamon flavors) without even reading (or understanding) the research they quote.
Let me explain. The latest study by Talbots group discussed about the cytotoxicity of cinnamon flavors in e-cigarette. Interestingly however, IF SOMEONE READS THE PAPER, he will find that the researchers never used any e-cigarette. Moreover, they never produced vapor! They tested the liquids in liquid form, not in vapor. How can you support that the results have implications for e-cigarette users when no e-cigarette was used and no vapor was produced? However, there is a bigger mistake. The authors mentioned that they tested 8 refill liquids with cinnamon flavor. They mention the names of the liquids and the companies they got them from. After personally searching on the internet and communicating with some companies, I found out that 4 of the samples were concentrated flavors, not refills. The authors themselves found cinnamaldehyde (the substance giving the cinnamon flavor in the liquid) at levels that differed between samples by up to 100 times. This confirms what I found: some of their samples were concentrated flavors.
Finally, there is still another problem in their study. They tested the substance itself (cinnamaldehyde) to see how toxic it is. They found it toxic at levels 400 times lower than currently approved for food use. This is a very strange results and it is hard to explain how regulatory authorities have accepted cinnamaldehyde to be available at such high levels (of course, before the approval several tests were performed and it was not found toxic).The authors have to explain why their findings contradict previous research.
As I mentioned above, a letter to the editor has been sent and is currently evaluated for publication. In short, the results of this study have nothing to do with e-cigarette use and are more applicable to cinnamon use in food (since they tested the liquid in liquid form and they used several concentrated samples). Besides that, the reactions from manufacturers show that, unfortunately, they cannot accept their ignorance and instead of asking an expert so that they get informed, they react in a way that produces panic to vapers, does nothing to protect consumers and only results in a game of public relations tactics. This is even more unfortunate than the mistakes in the research protocol. As a final note, let's not forget that research has shown cinnamon to have anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and maybe anti-cancer properties...
uhh. Yeah, ok. I think we can say that of just about anything. Either it is accurate or it isn't. These studies are just like numbers. I can take a set of numbers and make them look good, or I can make them look bad, at my choosing. This is how the world works. Numbers don't lie? Sure they do. Just move them around a little and they'll lie all day long.
very enlightening. thank you for posting the "other side" of this ridiculous study.
Either the scientific method works, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, where do you think the pictures on your screen come from? How do you think they invented e-cigarettes?
Sorry, but it's a pretty black and white thing. Science is a repeatable, testable process. That isn't to say that gibberish doesn't get published masquerading as science, but it all gets washed away in the end...
PG irritates some. VG irritates some. I guess we should just remove all of it? Hey some people have peanut allergies. BAN PEANUT FOODS!
Any time you smell cinnamon, you are inhaling cinnamon. You realize that right? When you smell poo what do you think you are inhaling? Cherry limeade? No, you are inhaling POO.
Show me the news headlines of chef's all over the world dropping dead from cinnamon-lung and then we'll talk.
Really? it is black and white? Some studies show the planet is going into a meltdown from global warming. Some don't. They can't all be right can they....
This is EXACTLY why it takes DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of studies to prove a truth or a lie. All it takes is one wrong entity or person latching on to one flawed study and it is true forever no matter how many studies down the line prove it wrong.
Last edited:
In a sense, yes they can, because good studies only show what the data available to them shows, and some data taken in isolation can appear to contradict a general trend.
But take a less politicised example, and you can't really dispute that the scientific method allows more certainty than anything outside pure deductive reasoning like maths.
We know that the influenza virus causes flu. We didn't work that out through introspection or prayer.
But take a less politicised example, and you can't really dispute that the scientific method allows more certainty than anything outside pure deductive reasoning like maths.
We know that the influenza virus causes flu. We didn't work that out through introspection or prayer.
Last edited:
Although I work in a different field, I am a published co-author on quite a few scientific papers. When I read about this issue last night (here), I dug a little further into it. I posted a very layman comment back on page 2, with questions not to different than those raised (scientifically) by Dr. Farsalinos.
In support of the good Doctor's mention about anti-cancer properties, I give you this:
BMC Cancer | Full text | Cinnamon extract induces tumor cell death through inhibition of NFkB and AP1
There are plenty more where that came from.
I make no judgement for others, but merely hope to add clarity to an emotional argument.
In support of the good Doctor's mention about anti-cancer properties, I give you this:
BMC Cancer | Full text | Cinnamon extract induces tumor cell death through inhibition of NFkB and AP1
There are plenty more where that came from.
I make no judgement for others, but merely hope to add clarity to an emotional argument.
As a final, final update, here is Dr. Farsalinos' interview with The Vaping Greek on this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRhFEGWPIp0&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRhFEGWPIp0&feature=youtu.be
While you are right about this, it's not that simple. What is actually science, and what the general public believes is science, can be two very different things. Hypothetically (because I have no way of knowing at this point), that the science here is flawed. Certainly the fact that it is about to be published in a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal gives the flawed science a lot of power until someone disproves it.
Sorry, Spike, I'm afraid I stole your thunder over here. I was pretty excited to get the information disseminated, I probably should have PMed you first.
Personally, I'm not persuaded by this one study, and I will continue to vape cinnamon (including the Cinnamon Bun and Cinnamon Red Hots that I received from MBV earlier in the week), but where are you getting that this wasn't "vetted by peers"? Toxicology in Vitro is a peer-reviewed journal, and the article would have gone through the peer-review process before it was accepted for publication. To be clear, the fact that it is "in press" means that it has been accepted for publication.
But the results must be reproducible.
Or else it should be published here. As should most of the anti secondhand smoking studies.
- Status
