New eCig study result

[thinhdle]

I'm not if this has already been posted before but I like to share another positive study in regard to e-cigarette:

E-cigarette study hints at quit-aid potential | Reuters

 

[Choc_Addic]

thank for this...

 

[Eranda13]

Interesting... 13% of the people who got the higher nic dosage (7%) were off cigs a year later... but only 4% of the people who got the 0 nic dosage were off cigs a year later.

 

[BuGlen]

Interesting... 13% of the people who got the higher nic dosage (7%) were off cigs a year later... but only 4% of the people who got the 0 nic dosage were off cigs a year later.

What's even more interesting is that the 0 nic (placebo) e-cigs almost match the effective quit rate of FDA approved NRT products.

 

[iceman68]

Good article. Yet another study that BP surely won't like and will do anything it can to dispute the results.

From the article:

And the percentage who quit smoking entirely by the end rivals results achieved with medications

Gotta like that, but then this was stated later in the article:

Researchers said that's one reason why e-cigarettes might turn out to be a better form of nicotine replacement therapy than patches and gums, but there's no data yet to prove it.

No data? Aren't the results of this study considered data? I've seen several studies about e-cigs and the positive results. When does the "data" become recognized and accepted? How many studies have to be done? Or will anti-vaping interests never accept these studies no matter what because it cuts into their bottom line?


I particularly like the last sentence in the article:

"My advice to people is to try the traditional therapy first. But I think electronic cigarettes are for people who have tried and failed nicotine replacement therapy, which is, sadly, most people," Siegel added.

The doctor basically contradicts himself. He recommends traditional therapy, but then immediately says, it most likely won't work.

 

[wv2win]

Interesting... 13% of the people who got the higher nic dosage (7%) were off cigs a year later... .

This is more than 200% better than the results of NRT products and actually it is much better than that because these participants had no intention of quitting.

 

[Frankenmizer]

...but then this was stated later in the article:

Researchers said that's one reason why e-cigarettes might turn out to be a better form of nicotine replacement therapy than patches and gums, but there's no data yet to prove it.

No data? Aren't the results of this study considered data? I've seen several studies about e-cigs and the positive results. When does the "data" become recognized and accepted? How many studies have to be done? Or will anti-vaping interests never accept these studies no matter what because it cuts into their bottom line?

There have to be several peer-reviewed studies, accepted for publishing in major medical journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, to build a scientifically convincing case.

Also, there are procedural flaws in the Polosa study. They are:

1. From the article: It did not, however, compare the devices to traditional nicotine replacement therapies, such as gum or patches.

The full range of nicotine-replacement therapies (NRT's) have to be compared against each other. The Polosa study did not do that.

2. From the article: Since there was no control group of smokers who got no e-cigarettes at all, it's hard to know how many would have quit smoking on their own by the end of a year, experts noted.

A control group is essential to making the case for a bulletproof study. Polosa did not have a control.

I particularly like the last sentence in the article:

.."But I think electronic cigarettes are for people who have tried and failed nicotine replacement therapy, which is, sadly, most people," Siegel added.

The doctor basically contradicts himself. He recommends traditional therapy, but then immediately says, it most likely won't work.

The full context is in the last two sentences:

"My advice to people is to try the traditional therapy first. But I think electronic cigarettes are for people who have tried and failed nicotine replacement therapy, which is, sadly, most people," Siegel added.

Siegel is saying traditional NRT fails most people. He didn't contradict himself. E-Cigs are not considered traditional NRT at this stage. The Polosa study is the first at the medical science level.

Again, from the article:

"This really is the first clinical trial that's ever been reported on electronic cigarettes. There has been survey evidence and anecdotal reports, but this is the first serious study," said Dr. Michael Siegel, who studies e-cigarettes but wasn't involved in the new research.

The Polosa study has flaws, but it is a beginning. Expect more studies. Expect Big Pharma to counter with a study disputing Polosa.

 

[Spazmelda]

Good article. Yet another study that BP surely won't like and will do anything it can to dispute the results.

From the article:



Gotta like that, but then this was stated later in the article:



No data? Aren't the results of this study considered data? I've seen several studies about e-cigs and the positive results. When does the "data" become recognized and accepted? How many studies have to be done? Or will anti-vaping interests never accept these studies no matter what because it cuts into their bottom line?


I particularly like the last sentence in the article:



The doctor basically contradicts himself. He recommends traditional therapy, but then immediately says, it most likely won't work.

Dr. Siegel is an advocate of harm reduction and vocal supporter of electronic cigarettes. You can check out his blog, it's very interesting reading: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

I think he was being intentionally ironic in that statement. People who should try ecigs are people who have tried other methods, and that's pretty much everyone who's tried to quit smoking...

 

[iceman68]

Siegel is saying traditional NRT fails most people. He didn't contradict himself. E-Cigs are not considered traditional NRT at this stage. The Polosa study is the first at the medical science level.

Maybe "contradict" is the wrong word. I just thought it was strange and worth noting that he recommends traditonal therapy but admits that, for the majority of people who try traditional NRT, it's ineffective.

It seems counter-productive for medical professionals to keep recommending these traditional NRTs despite the failure rate. With my cynical outlook that just tells me BP and the medical industry will stick to the status quo regardless of results, as long as it keeps the money rolling in.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out incongruities which I found questionable. Furthermore, I think these studies are beneficial and help educate people on the subject of e-cigs. How certain people are unable to see e-cigs as a viable alternative to traditional NRTs is beyond me.

 

[Sackskin]

I'd have to say that atleast 90% of us if not more were smokers and quit, and these little electronics beauty's were the reason that majority of us will live a longer life now!

If we aren't data then I don't know what is!

Someone needs to come to ECF and collect some data from the 1000's of us.

On that note I'm gonna take a toot.

 

[Frankenmizer]

"We" are subjective, anecdotal evidence. The science that it takes to convince governments that our vaping experience is of real, reproduceable value cannot stand on subjective experience. Our collective say-so is not enough.

 

[Spazmelda]

I'd have to say that atleast 90% of us if not more were smokers and quit, and these little electronics beauty's were the reason that majority of us will live a longer life now!

If we aren't data then I don't know what is!

Someone needs to come to ECF and collect some data from the 1000's of us.

On that note I'm gonna take a toot.

Ha, somebody did that. Problem is that they only looked at the potentially negative threads. You know the ones like, "I started vaping and now I'm coughing", or "now I feel weird", and "now my farts are extra smelly". I actually don't know which ones they looked at, because I refuse to read such a shoddy example of research.

Oh, and there was also a positive survey of ecf members that was reported. You can't really give too much weight to that either though, because we have huge selection bias here. You have to assume that people who try ecigs and don't quit or cut down either don't ever find ecf, or don't hang around if they do. So, an 80% success rate among ecf posters will not translate to an 80% success rate among all people who attempt to quit with ecigs,

 

[LaurAnnHere]

I did not purchase these with the intent of quitting. I just wanted to smell better and hopefully breathe a little easier. I have found today I have dropped the mg of nicotine that I'm consuming. I plan on dropping a little more when I order more liquid. There is no use taking in more nicotine than I need.

I seriously don't understand why anyone would go back to regular cigarettes after trying e cigarettes. It completely baffles me.

 

[fido5150]

"We" are subjective, anecdotal evidence. The science that it takes to convince governments that our vaping experience is of real, reproduceable value cannot stand on subjective experience. Our collective say-so is not enough.

Individually, sure.

Together as a group, it's a 'survey', and that's usually the beginning of any sort of scientific study... observable patterns that you can test.

 

[Spazmelda]

I think fairly soon we will see studies with higher quit/switch/cut back numbers than the Polosa paper reported here. This trial only chose smokers who had no desire to quit and they were using puny little ecigs. They were not given any counseling or support, iirc.

I was wondering earlier if someone could conduct a study where they get a couple hundred smokers who want to quit, advise them to go to ecf and ask for advice on what gear and juice to buy and see how many quit that way. I don't know what the control would be for that, lol.

A New Zealand university supposedly has a study coming out later this year (September or October, I think) where they are comparing ecigs to traditional NRTs. It will be interesting to see how that comes out. Here we go: Auckland Uni conducts world's first e-cigarettes study - Technology News | TVNZ. It may have been mentioned in the Reuters article. I read it a while ago, so I don't remember.

 

[Nacon]

First time I quit I tried 4mg lozenges. Every 2 weeks doubling the time between lozenges and eventually completely weaned. It worked for about 9 months and then I had a bad stage where I started cigs again. This is my 3rd time with pvs, and when comparing reliability on budget friendly setups between now and 3 years ago, I haven't even wanted an analog this time around. Makes me wonder how a study showing how people using the higher end setups continue to remain off cigarettes would be an interesting one. I mean, I believe a good handful of us can agree that the more reliable and dependable the pv is, the better a chance it'll keep the user off analogs.