New Lab Results Conclude e-cigs to a MUCH healthier alternative to cigarettes

[its a no brainer]

Not sure anyones read this yet but I wanted to post it anyway. I will also post full test results that were done here on american soil in the next 10 days. ​

7. Conclusion
​

On balance, the Gamucci Ltd ‘Regular’ nicotine solution appears to offer a much safer alternative to
the traditional cigarette.
Using this nicotine solution, the artificial smoke generated by the Electronic Cigarette does not appear
to contain the toxic cocktail of toxic carcinogenic compounds found in traditional tobacco smoke.
Some 600+ chemicals have been identified in traditional tobacco smoke, of which many are
carcinogenic.
The primary aerosol forming solvent (Propylene Glycol) used in the preparation of the nicotine
solution is listed as a suspected respiratory toxicant. should look at changing the aerosol forming
solvent from the suspected respiratory toxicant ‘Propylene Glycol’, to an even safer solvent such as​

Glycerol.

FULL REPORT CAN BE FOUND BY CLICKING ON THE LINK BELOW.
http://www.ecigaretteschoice.com/GamucciLabStudy.pdf

 

[Kate]

"New Lab Results Conclude e-cigs to a MUCH healthier alternative to cigarettes"

That thread title is misleading, that's not what the research concludes at all.

In the opinion of that lab Gamucci brand eliquid appears to be safer than smoking.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/14265-uk-e-cig-study-lab-results.html

 

[Jim Davis]

"New Lab Results Conclude e-cigs to a MUCH healthier alternative to cigarettes"

That thread title is misleading, that's not what the research concludes at all.

In the opinion of that lab Gamucci brand eliquid appears to be safer than smoking.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/14265-uk-e-cig-study-lab-results.html

I don't think that research will fly with any government agancy

 

[Kate]

The World Health Organisation wants proper scientific peer reviewed studies -

"... WHO does not equate a manufacturer’s undocumented claims of safety or toxicity to peer-review by a science based committee."

*E-Cigtest, the ultimate electronic cigarettes review site* - Le site de la cigarette électronique - View Single Post - WHO - Marketers of electronic cigarettes should halt unproved therapy claims

 

[SlideJob Jones]

Well duh.....as long as the chinese aren't filling carts with lead, we're good!

 

[0ogier]

Just my opinion

The keyword in the conclusion is the word "Appears"


Regards

0ogier

 

[Bruceslog]

The World Health Organisation wants proper scientific peer reviewed studies -

"... WHO does not equate a manufacturer’s undocumented claims of safety or toxicity to peer-review by a science based committee."

That's too bad, since fomr what I can tell, in America the tobacco companies and big pharma conduct most of their own tests at their own expense and submit the company sponsored results to the FDA for approval, which they usually always get.

 

[Kate]

Hi Bruce. My understanding is that it's expected that the manufacturers will take responsibility for funding but the actual research is supposed to be done by independent labs/researchers/organisations. So it should be ok for the US if manufacturers there pay independents to do the work for them to submit to authorities. I think that the company sponsored results in the US still only count if the research is not biased by conflicting interests and is scientifically credible.

It's still possible for companies to sponsor scientific committees to get peer reviewed research.

Good practice is good practice anywhere in the world. If research is thorough, unbiased and credible then it should stand up to scrutiny in any country.

 

[Bruceslog]

Agreed.

The Big Tobacco and Pharma tests I was referring to are the ones rumored to be a little less unbiased.
I.E. -
Big Pharma, "We're paying you to OK this product for us, and we expect that as your customer, you will make our ( insert drug name here ) look good to the FDA."

Independant Lab, " Hell yeah, for the $5,000,000,000.00 you're paying us, we'll make it look safer than a Lollipop !"

One example of hundreds here
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rd.com%2Fyour-america-inspiring-people-and-stories%2Ffda-approves-harmful-antibiotic%2Farticle55526.html&ei=5E_4Sa6iFonwMsbP6bAP&rct=j&q=harmful+fda+approved+drugs+&usg=AFQjCNHRA_WXpSRL4fQ564gYDHR5ucbrwg
[ Readers Digest ] .

Many times the conflicting interests are well hidden or outright ignored.
But that's just politics as usual.

I think that the Gamucci study this thread refers to is honest enough to tell it like it is, that the PG part of our e-juice can cause issues and that a safer alternative should be found for it.

If Gamucci wanted to, they could have omitted that shot in their own foot, I'm sure

 

[Wildsky]

I think that the company sponsored results in the US still only count if the research is not biased by conflicting interests and is scientifically credible.
.

There are plenty of pharm companies publishing their own results and saying how safe their drugs are. Apparently the US or FDA don't give a damn if there is enough money passing between hands.

 

[Kate]

Yeah, corruption seems to be a big problem. Some people have no moral qualms about lying or deception for money unfortunately.

Few people seem to hold advisors, experts, etc responsible for declaring or eliminating conflicting interests. It surprises me how little importance we seem to put on conflicting interests and good practice.

 

[Wildsky]

Yeah, a little OT - but Merck recently published, saying how SAFE Gardasil is, they failed to mention the 32 deaths to date.
(it makes me SO mad)

 

[Bruceslog]

Those Jerks.
The crap never seems to change.

 

[Bruceslog]

btw, Welcome back, again, Kate

And Hi, Wild !!

I'm bouncing back n forth between this and DCrist http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ouch-space-temporary-work-across-country.html
And the still running contest this morning
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/minicigarette/14573-ultimate-free-giveaway-total-28-prizes-259.html#post234048

 

[Kate]

btw, Welcome back, again, Kate

And Hi, Wild !!

I'm bouncing back n forth between this and DCrist
And the still running contest this morning
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-giveaway-total-28-prizes-259.html#post234048

Thanks Bruce

I hope you win a prize. I had a quick look at bits of that thread and quietly sneaked off again

 

[Bruceslog]

DCrist link didn't take..
trying again...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-discussion/13890-im-looking-hoping-couch-space-temporary-work-across-country.html

 

[Bruceslog]

Thanks
I don't actually want to prize.. the 901 styles are too small for me. I have a half a dozen of them around that I don't use.
If I happen to win it, I'll give it to somebody
But it's fun to see what people come up with when they HAVE to say Something

 

[Wildsky]

Thanks
I don't actually want to prize.. the 901 styles are too small for me. I have a half a dozen of them around that I don't use.
If I happen to win it, I'll give it to somebody
But it's fun to see what people come up with when they HAVE to say Something

LOL if its a 901 send it to me!

 

[Bruceslog]

LOL if its a 901 send it to me!

You have a deal !

 

[ChainSmkr]

7. Conclusion
​

​

The primary aerosol forming solvent (Propylene Glycol) used in the preparation of the nicotine solution is listed as a suspected respiratory toxicant. should look at changing the aerosol forming solvent from the suspected respiratory toxicant ‘Propylene Glycol’, to an even safer solvent such as Glycerol.​

FULL REPORT CAN BE FOUND BY CLICKING ON THE LINK BELOW.
http://www.ecigaretteschoice.com/GamucciLabStudy.pdf

That's the 2nd e-liq analysis that I've read which has concluded with the recommendation to replace PG with glycerol. (The first was Totally Wicked e-liq analysis.)