New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers

[Lessifer]

Absolutely right. And I assure you that nobody here "sees him as the absolute authority on any- and everything vaping-related." Far from it. We are a skeptical and cynical bunch and we always argue--just in case.

When Dr. F decided to issue his, somewhat misguided, warning against dry burning coils because "you are basically destroying the bonds between the metal molecules," he met immediately with universal criticism from vapers; some polite, some not so polite. This is from an old thread, so quoting is disabled--click on the links to my favorite posts.

The end of microcoils?

The end of microcoils?

The end of microcoils?

The end of microcoils?

Those are the polite ones.

Sorry, @Lessifer I'm just feeling nostalgic.

Oh, I wasn't around then. That thread looked like fun!

Yeah, fun... I appreciate Dr. F's insights, I just keep in mind his perspective of what vaping is and should be. It doesn't match with mine.

It's the same way I view all of the science. Read the methods and results, see if their conclusions match or if they were biased due to who they are or where their funding came from.

Absolutely.

How many people cheering the RCP report could honestly say they know the basis of the 95% safer claim ? What study ( studies ) was it based on and what were the methodologies used ?

Well, if you've read the report you should know that, as the report actually discusses every study they examined. I get your point though, most people just take the 95% and run with it. I love that report though because it's scientists, and not just "vape friendly" scientists, reading studies and saying "your results are valid, but they don't have anything to do with the conclusions you've drawn."

 

[mikepetro]

Objectivity is tough when you are personally invested.

 

[Mazinny]

Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction
Study is here (sorry will need to copy/ paste, can't link on my phone)
Looks like it did it itself

That's not a study. That's the RCP report. They took the 95% safer claim from the PHE review published a year earlier, which in turn based it on the Nutt study from 2014 if i remember correctly. The Nutt study was roundly criticized at the time not only by the tobacco control people, but some on our side as well ( THR )

 

[Mazinny]

Well, if you've read the report you should know that, as the report actually discusses every study they examined. I get your point though, most people just take the 95% and run with it. I love that report though because it's scientists, and not just "vape friendly" scientists, reading studies and saying "your results are valid, but they don't have anything to do with the conclusions you've drawn."

The 95% estimate was based on a junk study as far as i recall. Carl Phillips especially was extremely critical of it at the time, and claimed it's no better than the ANTZ studies. Mind you, that's not to say that vaping won't ultimately be found even less harmful than that for most people.

 

[Lessifer]

The 95% estimate was based on a junk study as far as i recall. Carl Phillips especially was extremely critical of it at the time, and claimed it's no better than the ANTZ studies. Mind you, that's not to say that vaping won't ultimately be found even less harmful than that for most people.

I think "junk" is a pretty harsh term, but it's not a study like most people think of a study. It's along the lines of what Glantz usually does, it's a literature review. The "junk" part is how they came up with a specific number. The general idea of, based on the literature reviewed vaping is demonstrably safer than smoking, is sound. The 95% was kind of pulled out of thin air.

 

[Mazinny]

I think "junk" is a pretty harsh term, but it's not a study like most people think of a study. It's along the lines of what Glantz usually does, it's a literature review. The "junk" part is how they came up with a specific number. The general idea of, based on the literature reviewed vaping is demonstrably safer than smoking, is sound. The 95% was kind of pulled out of thin air.

Perhaps i wasn't clear, but that's what i meant. The study which was the basis for the 95% number was quite junky, the PHE review only as far as it's reliance on that specific number I do understand it was a strategic decision to go with a specific number though.

 

[PBody19]

I see a lot of talk about whether the e-juice is actually reaching the temperatures mentioned in this presentation.

Not to be simple-minded here, I know there is a lot going on, and a lot of time passing, etc. But have you ever felt your vapor when you exhale it, or even just blow it out of your mouth before you inhale? It's kind of cold, actually damn cold in a lot of cases. I just did it an it aint that warm in my house right now. I wouldn't say the vapor is freezing, but it's definitely cold. Makes me wonder how much of the heat I sense when I take a puff is actually the vapor I am inhaling, or just heat off of the coil. Maybe the liquid is just reaching its boiling point at the coil and then cooling down immediately after.

 

[Lessifer]

I see a lot of talk about whether the e-juice is actually reaching the temperatures mentioned in this presentation.

Not to be simple-minded here, I know there is a lot going on, and a lot of time passing, etc. But have you ever felt your vapor when you exhale it, or even just blow it out of your mouth before you inhale? It's kind of cold, actually damn cold in a lot of cases. I just did it an it aint that warm in my house right now. I wouldn't say the vapor is freezing, but it's definitely cold. Makes me wonder how much of the heat I sense when I take a puff is actually the vapor I am inhaling, or just heat off of the coil. Maybe the liquid is just reaching its boiling point at the coil and then cooling down immediately after.

Yeah, that's kind of the big question no one has an answer to.

 

[KenD]

I think we disagree on a deeper level. You, in your generosity and nobility of a scholar, assume that all studies are studies and should be treated with respect. I have no trust in our rabid ANTZ, their agenda, and their "studies." Zip, zilch, zero, nada.

No, I agree with you there, and I've experienced truly horrendous "research" even when no money is at play and far less severe political dimensions are involved (I could tell you stories, and there are good reasons why I flushed a career I'd been working on for almost all my adult life and am happily unemployed with an insecure future now). Strange as it may appear I'm actually voicing all this in concern for the vaping community (and my curiosity as a scholar/scientist, can't escape that). In short, most of us who are already vapers already view anything funded by Antz with due suspicion. There's more risk that we accept findings positive of vaping only because we wish to. I pretty much agree with most of what you've said.

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Lessifer]

Perhaps i wasn't clear, but that's what i meant. The study which was the basis for the 95% number was quite junky, the PHE review only as far as it's reliance on that specific number

IIRC the 95% was basically reached by going around a table and asking the "experts" present what they thought the number should be.

Looking at the studies reviewed though, the general theme is that anything found in vaping is usually <1%-maybe 10% of what would be found in cigarettes, and there's usually a reason for the 10% like "dry puff."

 

[KenD]

Objectivity is tough when you are personally invested.

True, but it's when personally invested while still able to hold on to objectivity that the best science is done

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Mazinny]

IIRC the 95% was basically reached by going around a table and asking the "experts" present what they thought the number should be.

Looking at the studies reviewed though, the general theme is that anything found in vaping is usually <1%-maybe 10% of what would be found in cigarettes, and there's usually a reason for the 10% like "dry puff."

Yup, and it was based on a bunch of different factors (health risk, dependence, cost, environmental impact etc... ) that were arbitrarily added up !

 

[kates]

That's not a study. That's the RCP report. They took the 95% safer claim from the PHE review published a year earlier, which in turn based it on the Nutt study from 2014 if i remember correctly. The Nutt study was roundly criticized at the time not only by the tobacco control people, but some on our side as well ( THR )

Oops sorry - meant report. Just wanted to put link so those who haven't can read for themselves. (And you're right the RCP didn't say 95% safer, they said unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco).

 

[Lessifer]

Yup, and it was based on a bunch of different factors (health risk, dependence, cost, environmental impact etc... ) that were arbitrarily added up !

I suppose that's the difference between a scientific 95% and a public health 95%

 

[Katya]

No, I agree with you there, and I've experienced truly horrendous "research" even when no money is at play and far less severe political dimensions are involved (I could tell you stories, and there are good reasons why I flushed a career I'd been working on for almost all my adult life and am happily unemployed with an insecure future now). Strange as it may appear I'm actually voicing all this in concern for the vaping community (and my curiosity as a scholar/scientist, can't escape that). In short, most of us who are already vapers already view anything funded by Antz with due suspicion. There's more risk that we accept findings positive of vaping only because we wish to. I pretty much agree with most of what you've said.

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

I see. The best compiler of data on vaping--studies, politics, taxes, legislation, junk, lobbying, you name it, is our fellow ECF member @Bill Godshall . If you're not familiar with his work, here's a link. I follow him and trust him. I look at all studies, pro and con, as much as time allows, but my favorite section is always Taxpayer Financed THR Junk Science, Propaganda and Lies.

Bill Godshall Update 2017-01-26

Ha det så bra.

Gotta run.

 

[Katya]

Carl Phillips especially was extremely critical of it at the time

I remember his blog. He was really cranky that day.

But really, everybody focuses on this one study because of the dramatic headlines that made waves all over the world (maybe that was their intention? ). But there are soooo many studies proving that vaping is much safer than smoking--just look at Bill's compilation. Mind blowing.

 

[Mazinny]

I remember his blog. He was really cranky that day.

But really, everybody focuses on this one study because of the dramatic headlines that made waves all over the world (maybe that was their intention? ). But there are soooo many studies proving that vaping is much safer than smoking--just look at Bill's compilation. Mind blowing.

Yeah, i think it helped our cause bigly ! Phillips main concern was that the tobacco control people will rip that study apart, and that would hurt the credibility of the THR people. I think his concerns were overblown in that regard.

 

[Katya]

Yeah, i think it helped our cause bigly !

And it did! Bigly. Everyone is constantly citing the Royal Physicians--sounds so respectable. If the Royal Physicians say that it's 95% safer, then it must be so.

 

[Eskie]

I see a lot of talk about whether the e-juice is actually reaching the temperatures mentioned in this presentation.

Not to be simple-minded here, I know there is a lot going on, and a lot of time passing, etc. But have you ever felt your vapor when you exhale it, or even just blow it out of your mouth before you inhale? It's kind of cold, actually damn cold in a lot of cases. I just did it an it aint that warm in my house right now. I wouldn't say the vapor is freezing, but it's definitely cold. Makes me wonder how much of the heat I sense when I take a puff is actually the vapor I am inhaling, or just heat off of the coil. Maybe the liquid is just reaching its boiling point at the coil and then cooling down immediately after.

Yes, the vapor that reaches you mouth, and inhaled into your lungs is certainly cooler than the liquid in contact with the coil. It is the temperature at which it is being vaporized/aerosolized that will result in thermal breakdown, and that cannot be determined from the temperature of the vapor. It will be governed by the heat transfer from coil to liquid. As to the temperature on exhaling, well, by then the stuff has run through your respiratory system and no longer has real relation to the temperature back at the start of the process.

I think "junk" is a pretty harsh term, but it's not a study like most people think of a study. It's along the lines of what Glantz usually does, it's a literature review. The "junk" part is how they came up with a specific number. The general idea of, based on the literature reviewed vaping is demonstrably safer than smoking, is sound. The 95% was kind of pulled out of thin air.

Huh. Went back and read that Nutt paper. I had never seen it before. It is certainly disappointing in its scientific rigor of establishing a risk strata for a variety of tobacco/nicotine products. It read as more a committee compromise presentation where the methods employed were reminiscent of behind closed door negotiations than direct experimental findings. I don't mind literature reviews. A proper literature review would tell me what finding from what study is being relied on to assign some value in the overall review. Unless I read the wrong Nutt paper, there wasn't all that much e cigarette literature used to establish "safety" (one by Saitta in 2014, and the other Farsalinos in 2014 as well). I'm assuming it's this one http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/56631/1/__...ing harms_Phillips _Estimating harms_2014.pdf and the criteria to establish risk stratification was more a checklist than pooled data (I guess that was done by the behind the closed door people). They were pretty proud of their MCDA program "1 An MCDA computer program first developed at the London School of Economics and Political Science and now available from Catalyze Ltd., www. catalyze.co.uk"
which tabulated their weighed scores (not sure how it's better than Excel, but whatever).

That little item does leave me wishing for more data like in that ANTZ Glasser presentation with pulmonary exacerbation improvement in COPD and lower nasties measured she presented. I'm really wishing for a device dependent temp control study of aldehyde production at different board settings, with a comparison to that found by Wang in their device independent study. At least they told you how they generated their numbers.

 

[Eskie]

Yeah, i think it helped our cause bigly ! Phillips main concern was that the tobacco control people will rip that study apart, and that would hurt the credibility of the THR people. I think his concerns were overblown in that regard.

Yeah, no kidding. If that was the only thing out there to tell me vaping was safe I'd be reevaluating my life choices. It's a good thing there is other objective stuff out there, because that sieve wouldn't hold spit.