It had to happen one day: one researcher commenting on another's work in the e-cigarette field.
Carl Phillips is slightly critical of Tom Eissenberg's work in this blog about electronic cigarette research. It is a fascinating glimpse into the world of researchers and how they feel about each other's work. It is probably not a good idea for us to take sides since it is not obvious at this stage who is for us and who is agin' us...
There are all sorts of reasons to regard all published research up to this date as suspect. From the findings of one that no nicotine benefit resulted from use, to others that purported to analyse the vapor but showed photos of the hardware being operated in ways that meant it could not possibly function correctly, the single thing that characterises studies is their lack of adequate oversight by persons with knowledge of the equipment being studied. A little like testing cars but without anyone who can drive.
The current study in Boston looks to be the first to be run with a nod to the fact that if you want to test cars, you need people who can drive. There is only one significant item of knowledge that a researcher needs in order to start designing a study: there are no comparable factors in e-cigarette or tobacco cigarette purchase, preparation or use. None whatsoever. The only common factor is that both are inserted in the mouth - which seems to have confused a great many people.
No doubt all the researchers mean well, but there is a worrying undercurrent to much of their work that seems to suggest that (a) e-cigarettes are not a consumer product like Snus etc, and that (b) some form of regulation, preferably medical, is required. It may have escaped their notice that the agency who would be in a position to operate any such regulations has been described as, "The most corrupt large government agency in the world" - and that is saying something, looking at the competition from Nigeria and Pakistan. The only agenda such agencies have is to obey their paymasters, the pharma industry, and shut e-cigarettes down.
Now, what would be a real sign of progress would be the medics saying that they recognise that smokeless tobacco is a lot safer, and will help by analysis of the materials and recommendations as to fitness for purpose, without bringing in regulators. All the 'regulators' round here are the .45 calibre variety as in the old West - regulation = termination.
In any case, nobody is going to fund a real study of electronic cigarettes (ie, one that studied 1,000 experienced users over three years or more) because we already know what it would find:
1. Smokers use e-cigarettes as a better alternative to inhaling burning plant material.
2. They self-dose efficiently - exactly as they do with coffee, cigarettes, and alcoholic drinks.
3. There is a significant pharmacological effect - just as for coffee, cigarettes, and alcoholic drinks.
4. There are no significant health implications, or at least any that will be encountered until millions have used them for 20 years, and even then the potential for harm probably equals that for Snus (ie, very little indeed).
5. Government health departments should switch their focus to harm reduction instead of quit or die methods that don't work, and don't work at a very high cost to everyone (but we've known that for decades).
6. They are a great idea but unfortunately will result in a massive drop in tobacco tax revenues as more smokers switch.
7. If they are banned (by being 'medicalised'), the largest black market ever seen in the history of the world will be created.
Nobody wants to hear any of that.
Look what happened to Snus: Sweden has the lowest male cancer rate in Europe, but apparently that is of no importance as there must be some other way in which Snus might be harmful...
Everybody involved in any way has some sort of financial agenda. E-cigarette users simply want to be left alone, and it must be obvious to the meanest of intellects that they are not killing themselves. Show them someone who has no agenda and they might just listen; currently, anyone who shows an interest is justifiably regarded with suspicion.
Carl Phillips is slightly critical of Tom Eissenberg's work in this blog about electronic cigarette research. It is a fascinating glimpse into the world of researchers and how they feel about each other's work. It is probably not a good idea for us to take sides since it is not obvious at this stage who is for us and who is agin' us...
There are all sorts of reasons to regard all published research up to this date as suspect. From the findings of one that no nicotine benefit resulted from use, to others that purported to analyse the vapor but showed photos of the hardware being operated in ways that meant it could not possibly function correctly, the single thing that characterises studies is their lack of adequate oversight by persons with knowledge of the equipment being studied. A little like testing cars but without anyone who can drive.
The current study in Boston looks to be the first to be run with a nod to the fact that if you want to test cars, you need people who can drive. There is only one significant item of knowledge that a researcher needs in order to start designing a study: there are no comparable factors in e-cigarette or tobacco cigarette purchase, preparation or use. None whatsoever. The only common factor is that both are inserted in the mouth - which seems to have confused a great many people.
No doubt all the researchers mean well, but there is a worrying undercurrent to much of their work that seems to suggest that (a) e-cigarettes are not a consumer product like Snus etc, and that (b) some form of regulation, preferably medical, is required. It may have escaped their notice that the agency who would be in a position to operate any such regulations has been described as, "The most corrupt large government agency in the world" - and that is saying something, looking at the competition from Nigeria and Pakistan. The only agenda such agencies have is to obey their paymasters, the pharma industry, and shut e-cigarettes down.
Now, what would be a real sign of progress would be the medics saying that they recognise that smokeless tobacco is a lot safer, and will help by analysis of the materials and recommendations as to fitness for purpose, without bringing in regulators. All the 'regulators' round here are the .45 calibre variety as in the old West - regulation = termination.
In any case, nobody is going to fund a real study of electronic cigarettes (ie, one that studied 1,000 experienced users over three years or more) because we already know what it would find:
1. Smokers use e-cigarettes as a better alternative to inhaling burning plant material.
2. They self-dose efficiently - exactly as they do with coffee, cigarettes, and alcoholic drinks.
3. There is a significant pharmacological effect - just as for coffee, cigarettes, and alcoholic drinks.
4. There are no significant health implications, or at least any that will be encountered until millions have used them for 20 years, and even then the potential for harm probably equals that for Snus (ie, very little indeed).
5. Government health departments should switch their focus to harm reduction instead of quit or die methods that don't work, and don't work at a very high cost to everyone (but we've known that for decades).
6. They are a great idea but unfortunately will result in a massive drop in tobacco tax revenues as more smokers switch.
7. If they are banned (by being 'medicalised'), the largest black market ever seen in the history of the world will be created.
Nobody wants to hear any of that.
Look what happened to Snus: Sweden has the lowest male cancer rate in Europe, but apparently that is of no importance as there must be some other way in which Snus might be harmful...
Everybody involved in any way has some sort of financial agenda. E-cigarette users simply want to be left alone, and it must be obvious to the meanest of intellects that they are not killing themselves. Show them someone who has no agenda and they might just listen; currently, anyone who shows an interest is justifiably regarded with suspicion.
