Prue Talbot conducts study on ECF posts, grossly misrepresents facts

[eric1973]

That study has holes in it so big one could drive a Mack truck through it.

One thing does stick out, however; could we not use better quality control on some parts on the market? I won't pretend to know how this would be done or by who, other than suppliers. All suppliers, unfortunately, do not have the same concerns. Most all here know some clearos, cartos, attys, etc., are made better, more consistently (and probably safer to use, in this regard), than others. Most information we have to go on is either what's recommended from others or what we discover on our own through trial-and-error. Do we need, though, to give the FDA or any other government agencies any excuses to use?

I know I may be taking this to a stretch, but I don't imagine this zealot is the only person pushing this perspective.

 

[Petrodus]

 

[Oliver]

I can appreciate your anger here - but wouldn't a better solution be to offer to work with Prue Talbot, to get quantitive data directly from ECF members regarding health effects after commencing vaping, and do it via a well designed questionnaire looking to investigate the real state of affairs dispassionately?

If she refused, we might draw certain conclusions regarding her motives. If she agreed, she'd almost certainly have to change her tune.

I don't know, just throwing it out there.....

 

[Fiamma]

I can appreciate your anger here - but wouldn't a better solution be to offer to work with Prue Talbot, to get quantitive data directly from ECF members regarding health effects after commencing vaping, and do it via a well designed questionnaire looking to investigate the real state of affairs dispassionately?

If she refused, we might draw certain conclusions regarding her motives. If she agreed, she'd almost certainly have to change her tune.

I don't know, just throwing it out there.....

I'd sooner get up close and personal with a skunk than do anything with her. She's an out and out prohibitionist and uses junk science, lies like a rug and is self righteous overall.

 

[subversive]

I just read an article on Yahoo about a sports supplement called DMAA that has been linked to a few deaths. The FDA has sent warning letters to the manufacturer but hasn't done anything else at this point. This is what I found to be funny -

"The reports also described people being hospitalized for heart attacks, heart failure, kidney failure, and liver failure. However, the FDA emphasizes that these anecdotal reports don’t prove any cause-and-effect relationship between the supplements and these disorders."

I understand we can't have it both ways. They don't want our anecdotal evidence of e-cig success. Well, they can't have it both ways, either. Random crack pot scientists, FDA related or not, can't scan a health section of an internet forum and write a paper about it. How is taking DMAA in a supplement available at your local GNC different from vaping nicotine? Is it just the fact that we haven't had a single person drop dead immediately after vaping?

 

[Petrodus]

I'd sooner get up close and personal with a skunk than do anything with her.
She's an out and out prohibitionist and uses junk science, lies like a rug and is self righteous overall.

TRUE !!

Talbot has a long history of publishing anti-ecigarette junk science studies ... for profit.
She follows the ECF and knows the truth ... couldn't care less ... but she knows the truth.

She pulled the same anti-ecigarette junk science study "stunt" back in 2010.
Another awful Prue Talbot study

NOTE: Another awful Prue Talbot Study

 

[kristin]

Identification of Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles in Electronic Cigarette Fluid and Aerosol. M. T. Williams1, A. Villarreal1, K. Bozhilov2, S. Lin1 and P. Talbot1. 1Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA; 2Central Facility for Advanced Microscopy, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA. Electronic cigarettes (EC) deliver aerosol by heating fluid containing nicotine, flavorings, and a humectant. EC cartomizers combine the fluid chamber and heating element in a single unit. Because EC do not burn tobacco, they may be safer than conventional cigarettes. Their use is rapidly increasing worldwide with little prior testing of their aerosol. We hypothesized that EC aerosol contains metals derived from the various components. Cartomizer contents and aerosols were analyzed using microscopy, cytotoxicity testing, x-ray microanalysis, particle counting, and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry. A nickel-chromium filament was coupled to a thicker silver coated copper wire. The silver coating was sometimes missing. Four tin solder joints attached the wires to each other and coupled the copper/silver wire to the air tube and mouthpiece. All cartomizers had evidence of use before packaging (burn spots on the fibers and electrophoretic movement of fluid in the fibers). Fibers in two cartomizers had green deposits that contained copper. Centrifugation of the fibers produced large pellets containing tin. Tin particles and tin whiskers were identified in cartridge fluid and outer fibers. Cartomizer fluid with tin particles was cytotoxic in assays using human pulmonary fibroblasts. The aerosol contained particles >1μm comprised of tin, silver, iron, nickel, aluminum, and silicate and nanoparticles (< 100 nm) of tin, chromium, and nickel. Of 22 elements identified, 12 were present in concentrations higher than the minimum risk level. Many of the elements identified in EC aerosol are known to cause respiratory distress and disease. The presence of metal and silicate particles in cartomizer aerosol, often above minimal risk levels, demonstrates the need for improved quality control in EC design and manufacture and studies on how EC aerosol impacts the health of users and bystanders.

Is any further proof needed that the ANTZ have no interest in proving e-cigarette safety, since they are apparently only sitting around thinking up (ie. hypothesizing) ways that they can show e-cigs could be dangerous? And further evidence that they know perfectly well that e-cigs DO work, so their focus is on potential hazards they can cook up. Of course, creating fake health hazards they can "fix" is a skill they learned from their sugar daddy, Big Pharma.

Note that they also make no mention of the gazillion MODERN e-cig designs that don't even use bridges and filler material. My e-cig doesn't have either and I just have an EGO VV with a EVOD BCC tank (or somtimes I use a bridgeless 510 and drip) - not some complicated or expensive high-end mod. If (when) they miniaturize something like the EVOD BCC to fit a cigarette-sized model, filler and bridges will be a thing of the past (even on a blu.) Of course, if the FDA decides to regulate e-cigs and ban anything marketed after Feb. 2007, innovations in e-cig tech will come to a screeching halt.

 

[Boden]

Is any further proof needed that the ANTZ have no interest in proving e-cigarette safety, since they are apparently only sitting around thinking up (ie. hypothesizing) ways that they can show e-cigs could be dangerous? And further evidence that they know perfectly well that e-cigs DO work, so their focus is on potential hazards they can cook up. Of course, creating fake health hazards they can "fix" is a skill they learned from their sugar daddy, Big Pharma.

Note that they also make no mention of the gazillion MODERN e-cig designs that don't even use bridges and filler material. My e-cig doesn't have either and I just have an EGO VV with a EVOD BCC tank (or somtimes I use a bridgeless 510 and drip) - not some complicated or expensive high-end mod. If (when) they miniaturize something like the EVOD BCC to fit a cigarette-sized model, filler and bridges will be a thing of the past (even on a blu.) Of course, if the FDA decides to regulate e-cigs and ban anything marketed after Feb. 2007, innovations in e-cig tech will come to a screeching halt.

I did some more thinking about this little "study". This is the part for me that really sticks out

"12 were present in concentrations higher than the minimum risk level."

There is no MRL for solid metals in eliquid. I looked for a comparable for 5 months and found nothing. I had to do some very complicated extrapolation of existing data on MRL's for airborne metallic vaper cross referenced with breathing volume ranges and vapor expansion plus air dilution divided by absorption estimates divided by volume of liquid vaped per day divided by the number of days a specific device was used (concentrations needed to be divided across the number of days used because MRL's are based on daily exposure) to come up with an estimate about acceptable soluble metal levels in e-liquid. The level estimate I came up with is only applicable to a "average" person. To figure this out for a specific person I would have to run the entire equation again with their specific parameters applied. As far as I know only 2 people on earth know this equation and neither of us work for the ants. Quite the opposite actually.

I would be willing to bet my dog that if you asked them how they came up with this MRL all you would get is static or some misinformation so scientifically egregious it would border on criminal.

ATSDR - Minimal Risk Levels for Hazardous Substances (MRLs)

 

[Vocalek]

Here's a link to the full article on metals, just out.

www. plosone .org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057987
[rebuild link by removing spaces]

PLOS ONE: Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles Are Present in Electronic Cigarette Cartomizer Fluid and Aerosol

 

[rolygate]

@Boden

Ace!

 

[rolygate]

############################


Please do not post live links to lies, propaganda, and rubbish journalism on ECF

Break the links so you don't give corrupt medics, paid propagandists and assorted loonies our googlejuice

Thank you


############################​

 

[Boden]

I just finished reading and commenting on the "study" It has changed since the OP posted his version. The "finished" version is a bit better about not claiming the unknown as known. But it is still mostly rubbish. I actually wish it was done right. *Sigh*

edit: They took out any mention of MRL's and replaced it with a comparison to tobacco smoke.

This is my comment:
This is a topic I am very interested in and study on a daily basis. Unfortunately this study is missing some very important details.

1. How much of these elements are actually absorbed by a person using an EC.
2. What are the toxicity thresholds of these elements.
3. The silicates, were they Amorphous or Crystalline? The difference really matters.

You have to keep in mind: The dose makes the poison. Without knowing the dose everything is scary, even water.

 

[rothenbj]

I did some more thinking about this little "study". This is the part for me that really sticks out

"12 were present in concentrations higher than the minimum risk level."

There is no MRL for solid metals in eliquid. I looked for a comparable for 5 months and found nothing. I had to do some very complicated extrapolation of existing data on MRL's for airborne metallic vaper cross referenced with breathing volume ranges and vapor expansion plus air dilution divided by absorption estimates divided by volume of liquid vaped per day divided by the number of days a specific device was used (concentrations needed to be divided across the number of days used because MRL's are based on daily exposure) to come up with an estimate about acceptable soluble metal levels in e-liquid. The level estimate I came up with is only applicable to a "average" person. To figure this out for a specific person I would have to run the entire equation again with their specific parameters applied. As far as I know only 2 people on earth know this equation and neither of us work for the ants. Quite the opposite actually.

I would be willing to bet my dog that if you asked them how they came up with this MRL all you would get is static or some misinformation so scientifically egregious it would border on criminal.

ATSDR - Minimal Risk Levels for Hazardous Substances (MRLs)

Not sure what you said and have no clue on the subject matter since only two people in the world know the equation, however I do know I have to agree with you on principle.

 

[rolygate]

Hah. It's a shame we also provide editing and advisory services, we should charge for that

 

[CES]

Does anyone have any thoughts about the cartos having "evidence of previous use" ? that's just flat out weird.

(I wonder if the edits were more of a function of reviewer comment/questions. If so, it's a shame that the reviewers didn't catch that the authors apparently didn't have a way to accurately extrapolate the MRL for metals in e-liquid. It might be worth it to contact the journal and ask for a correction)

 

[Petrodus]

 

[Racehorse]

While there are probably several hundred postings on ECF that mention a minor adverse health effect they experienced from an e-cigarette

or "thought" was from an ecigarette.

Unless actual tests were done, nobody can say for sure.

My brother said sinuses bothering him......it could be the weather, not ecigarettes.........as an example.

But ditto going the other way. People who had base radiographs taken on their lungs a year before vaping, and get a repeat radiograph now....what does it show, if anything? Blood test monitoring, inclusing fasting for lipids, etc. and other screens placed into the blood tests for other stuff........6 month before vaping.....repeated 6 months after vaping.

These are things that are the very LEAST things that vapers should do / have done, etc. Without any real data everything anyone says on a forum is anecdotal. I keep saying this and worry some of you may think I'm dunning vaping, which I'm not. I quit analogs using ecigs and have had positive results. Anecdotal positive results.

But I do have a few skin things I have to see a dermatologist about, which may or may not be related to vaping. Will the dermatologist even know? Without giving up vaping to see if they go away, or doing some very clever experiments on my own (no flavorings, quit vaping for a few weeks, etc.) there is no way to tell.

Since most of the info reported by vapers on this forum is anecdotal, basing a study on "he says, she says" seems like terrifically bad science on the part of these researchers. It is more like doing social research on facebook LOL

 

[Petrodus]

If it wasn't for those opposed to E-smoking ...
Few if anyone would be doing scientific studies on e-cigarettes.

E-smokers are not demanding strong FDA regulations.
Those opposed to e-smoking insist e-smoking should be banned.

Personally, I don't think "Mommie FDA" needs to regulate e-cigarettes
OR e-liquid. Everything was going a long just fine without regulations.

Yeah, I know - I know
many here think "Some" regulations are needed to protect us from
someone, somewhere, sometime ... who might do something with e-liquid
that might not be good ... DO NOT Include me in that crowd.

Once the FDA starts to regulate ...
You can just Kiss the Golden Age of e-cigarettes ... Good-bye !!

 

[kristin]

Honestly, I don't think we need "regulations." We need industry standards of practice and an agency that is reactive rather than oppressive. Meaning, they have the power only to act on a specific company when bad behavior is reported. Does that mean someone could be seriously injured before anything is reported? Certainly. But isn't that pretty much what happens already - even with the burden of complicated, invasive, sometimes irrational and seemingly always expensive regulations on companies who already abide by excellent standards without anyone to tell them what is "right?"

Most of the public doesn't understand that all most government "regulations" do is impede development, slow progress and innovation and favor large corporations over small business. It doesn't really "save lives," because once all of the regulations are declared, nothing usually happens until someone reports and illness, injury or death. So what good were having all of those regulations? And arguing it keeps most companies "in line" is not true - most of the good companies that follow the regulations already cared about not harming their customers and didn't need the regulation in the first place. It's just an added burden and expense. Companies who need regulation are just going to ignore them or find a way around them. Criminal behavior does not pay attention to laws.

But, there is no way to convince the majority of the market that this is true, so we have to work the hand we are dealt.

(This is my personal opinion and does not reflect the policies of CASAA nor the opinions of other CASAA directors.)

 

[Petrodus]

Urban Myth:
If it's not regulated then its not safe

The market is full of FDA Approved poisons

For all those who believe the FDA should regulate
to one degree or another ...

Don't worry ... The FDA will soon be granting your wish.