Reduction of FeNO in exhalations of e-cigarette users . . .

[mostlyclassics]

Acute pulmonary effects of using an e-cigarette: impact on respiratory flow resistance, impedance and exhaled nitric oxide

The abstract, from Chest, is dated December 11, 2011.

Can someone with vastly more medical knowledge than I comment on these findings?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Devilooman]

I personally think this study is poo-poo! First of all they used non-smokers... these people have never inhaled anything like cigarette smoke and so are automatically gonna CHOKE on it (impedence.) Even here, where we love e-cigs, nobody is claiming the vaping is safer than not smoking anything. Second, notice that (at least in the abstract) they say it's similar to the affects of smoking but they don't list the appropriate data for that comparison. ANTIS... BAH!

 

[mostlyclassics]

FWIW, this article is also being discussed here.

It seems like a gigantic "so what?" to me, but I was hoping folks with much more medical knowledge than I possess to discuss the findings. (In college I satisfied the hard-science requirement with two terms of rocks, aka geology. The new hot topic back then was continental drift. Tells you how venerable I am.)

 

[vicsan]

Acute pulmonary effects of using an e-cigarette: impact on respiratory flow resistance, impedance and exhaled nitric oxide

The abstract, from Chest, is dated December 11, 2011.

Can someone with vastly more medical knowledge than I comment on these findings?

Thanks in advance!

A better test would have been involving people who have smoked for 40-50 years and evaluate whether their pulmonary functions IMPROVED. I KNOW mine have. That's just a fact.

A 5 minute test? Really? On non-smokers no less. Terrible test.

 

[rolygate]

This trial has been dismissed by several professors of medicine and other doctors, as junk science and a deliberate attack on e-cigs created by persons with some sort of an agenda.

Presumably funded by pharma or their apologists, apparently this junk is not even particularly good junk, according to the experts:

Dr G Ross, Dr R Kava, Dr J Bloom of the ACSH:
E-Cigarette study is just amateur propaganda > Facts & Fears > ACSH

Prof M Siegel
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study Shows that in Contrast to Tobacco Cigarettes, Electronic Cigarettes Do Not Impair Acute Lung Function

Prof P Bergen
Do e-cigarettes constrict airway passages?

 

[mactrekr]

Conclusions: E-cigarettes assessed in the context of this study were found to have immediate adverse physiologic effects after short term use that are similar to some of the effects seen with tobacco smoking, however the long term health effects of e-cigarette use are unknown but potentially adverse and worthy of further investigation.

If this doesn't give away their agenda, I don't know what would. I agree that a long term study should be done, but nobody will do it because the folks with the money to undertake a study of this sort stand to lose when they discover that OMG, e-cigs are actually safer than analogs, and the potential risks are minimal! Big pharma would rather sell you chemo drugs than prevent cancer!

 

[monkeykoder]

If this doesn't give away their agenda, I don't know what would. I agree that a long term study should be done, but nobody will do it because the folks with the money to undertake a study of this sort stand to lose when they discover that OMG, e-cigs are actually safer than analogs, and the potential risks are minimal! Big pharma would rather sell you chemo drugs than prevent cancer!

What this actually means is "I need to put out more papers to keep my job so I'll make room for more studies..." Publish whatever you can find (slight respitory irritant effect) PUBLISH get on to next study. The real issue here is interpretation not the paper itself.

 

[mactrekr]

What this actually means is "I need to put out more papers to keep my job so I'll make room for more studies..." Publish whatever you can find (slight respitory irritant effect) PUBLISH get on to next study. The real issue here is interpretation not the paper itself.

While I wish I could agree that this is as innocuous as being motivated by a simple desire to publish more and in turn have more published papers accredited to a name, I cannot. I believe that the folks who published this paper are truly bought and paid for and are like the smarmy defense professional witness who will say just about anything if the money is right.