Requesting study links / documents for an important project, please read.

[Technohydra]

All,

I am going to be endevoring to collect as much study information as I can in the next week. I want every study, biased or not, on e-cigs and juice. I will be taking the second half of the month off, and as a consulting analyst, I thought I should put my time and talents to good use and finally do a solid for all of us vapers out there.

To explain, I am going to be collecting data on the e-cig emmisions, cigarette emmisions, toxic chemical contents of both, comparing the two, and then publishing a free-to-all document with a summary of all the information found and notation of how e-cigs compare to cigs, both in the mainstream vapor and the sidestream emmisions.

My intent is simple; I don't want another meeting like the NYC council hearing where the wonderful efforts of a lot of our community can be negated simply because some pocket-scientist can get up and say scary words to medically ignorant council members. Saying formaldehyde and carbon monoxide over and over again will eventually scare people into doing what you want unless there is a perspective.

Please help me to help us all as I work to create the 'Technohydra' document (the name will change, I just haven't had enough caffine to know what to call it yet). This is the equivalent of taking away our enemies biggest guns before we go into a fight with them, and using them for ourselves. Studies foreign, domestic, biased as hell, not biased very much, I need data. Please everyone, the more data you can feed me, the better chance we have of kneecapping these facist ....... on the next major meeting.

 

[Thrasher]

If you feel that strongly you need to also sign up at CASAA
it is free and supports vaping more then any other body out there.
CASAA Research Library

 

[Technohydra]

If you feel that strongly you need to also sign up at CASAA
it is free and supports vaping more then any other body out there.
CASAA Research Library

Registration complete.

 

[Technohydra]

I will be browsing the library there, but I would still live to be flooded with as many studies as possible. I know there will be a lot on the sight, but I want it all. The one study you are sitting on may be the one I need to make a difference in my report.

 

[wonner]

The Elephant in the Room

The way I see it is there is one huge obstacle in the ecig debate; the fact that the entire ejuice industry is without standards, and we do not know with any certainty what is in the myriad of juices on the market. We don't even know the country of origin of the base components. This is quite different from most other products.

This makes it impossible to do any meaningful tests. Someone can do a test with some random ejuice and find carcinogens, another lab uses another ejuice and finds absolutely nothing of harm. Both are right. What does that tell us?

My biggest fear is that the FDA is going to take the easy way out and make nicotine a controlled substance. In that case, it is game over.

 

[Thrasher]

I will be browsing the library there, but I would still live to be flooded with as many studies as possible. I know there will be a lot on the sight, but I want it all. The one study you are sitting on may be the one I need to make a difference in my report.

I hear ya, since this is the most responsive group to our problems it is one of the better places to gather information, too many times reports released into the wild are highly inaccurate or misleading in their findings and using any of this to support out cause isnt going to help when news organizations still to this day refer to a flawed study from 09 as proof Ecigs are harmful.

im sure others will share as there is a lot of good info out there.

 

[Technohydra]

I agree with this being the primary issue in the juice debate. That is one thing I am attempting to work out in this report, if the results of testing are scientific or relavant to the whole. The nice thing is if something contains USP VG, it is substantially equivalent to all other USP VG, unless the product was tainted in manufacture. Whereas the contents may differ a bit from manufacutrer to manufacturer, the overall product will remain effectively the same (the variations will be almost non-existant).

My theory is that no matter how bad the data in the 'biased' studies, when put into the proper (real-world) perspective, the big bad results will still be basically meaningless. I am not trying to prove that all liquids are harmless or that vaping is harm free; we no that this cannot possibly be the case, because even breathing and drinking water are not harm free activities. Rather, I am attempting to end the demonization and scare tactics surrounding those results and knock a leg out from under the pseudo-scientific communities table.

They say carbon monoxide like it's the black ....ing plague. Carbon monoxide is used in our bodies, generated by them, in fact, as a neurotransimitter, signaling chemical, and also has the effects of dialating blood vessels and reducing inflammation. It has even been studied for controlled-dose uses as a medicine.

They say formadehyde like its Ricin. The human body naturally generates and uses small amounts of this chemical as well. Any liquid that contains VG has a chance of breaking down under heat into formaldehyde at a rate of 0.181 to 0.301 micrograms per meter (cubed), and that will get thrown in our faces over and over again...until we put it in perspective to the facts that the atmosphere we breath contains between 20 and 40 micrograms per meter (cubed). That's on the order of 115 times less than we breath already. Add to that the fact that the minimum threshold of exposure for the chance of adverse effects is generally accepted to be 50 micrograms per meter (cubed), 166 times the worse case scenario, and that big bad formadehyde label now means jack ...., and they have lost a tool to use to take us apart.

I don't ever want to seem like I am tooting my own horn, because that isn't what this is about, but this could be big, big big. Huge. If we can objectively collect all of this kind of data and use what the other side a.) will try to use against us, and b.) doesn't expect us to know, we will be that much closer to having a fighting chance in the city councils and FDA arena.

I will say it again, please contribute anything you have. I will be donating my time (about 180 hours, estimated), work (my company bills just over $75 an hour for this sort of thing, not that I get paid anywhere near that), and my effort (ever try reading 30 studies, quantifying all the data and writing up a readable and accurate doc?) for this to become a reality, all so we have the weapons to truely fight this fight. All I need is those docs and links. We need this, I think.

 

[toddrhodes]

I commend you on your efforts and look forward to whatever results you publish. I completely agree with one of your tenets; it is very easy to talk circles around someone if you toss out a few big, scary words. Words like "Propylene," "ethyline", and "glycol" are *very* easily to get twisted up by the laymen. Ethyline Glycol is a toxic component of antifreeze. Propylene glycol is a safe additive. But, if you just tune out and here "blah blah blah GLYCOL" and "ANTIFREEZE" then yes, the association takes hold and all of a sudden people are scared. Same thing with the old "dihydrogen monoxide" experiment. I'm not saying people are stupid, but a lot of people do not take a step back and dissect the words they are hearing.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but I think the above is a very easy method to use by politicians and Pharma to confuse the average consumer and push our cause back to the dark ages. It's not the only way, unfortunately.

Again, best of luck on your journey OP!

 

[Orb Skewer]

Bombarding a 'lay-person' with formulaic gibberish is off-KISS

Here's an essay on the modern view of nicotine toxicity

How much nicotine kills a human? Tracing back the generally accepted lethal dose to dubious self-experiments in the nineteenth century - Springer

Good luck

 

[Caridwen]

Lots of information
Electronic Cigarette News

Campaigning

Electronic Cigarette Research

Health and Medical Issues

The ECF Library

 

[Technohydra]

I commend you on your efforts and look forward to whatever results you publish. I completely agree with one of your tenets; it is very easy to talk circles around someone if you toss out a few big, scary words. Words like "Propylene," "ethyline", and "glycol" are *very* easily to get twisted up by the laymen. Ethyline Glycol is a toxic component of antifreeze. Propylene glycol is a safe additive. But, if you just tune out and here "blah blah blah GLYCOL" and "ANTIFREEZE" then yes, the association takes hold and all of a sudden people are scared. Same thing with the old "dihydrogen monoxide" experiment. I'm not saying people are stupid, but a lot of people do not take a step back and dissect the words they are hearing.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but I think the above is a very easy method to use by politicians and Pharma to confuse the average consumer and push our cause back to the dark ages. It's not the only way, unfortunately.

Again, best of luck on your journey OP!

Agreed, I can describe water without naming it, and the very though of it will hrrify you. It is colorless, tasteless, in large enough doses, can be lethal, its found in every home in America. Our children are exposed to is by products you never would think could contain it, sometimes intentionally by the manufacturer. It is one of the most powerful solvents known to man, with the ability to dissolve even metal and human flesh. We have been exposed to it for so long that our bodies can no longer survive without taking regular doses of it. Companies are now making a business of selling it to us by the bottle to satisfy our need, and there is little to no control over the manufacturing process and contents. We have no idea what additives are being placed in it, or even if the claims made about its purity are true.

Put in this perspective, water seems like an unholy corperate conspiracy, every bit as bad as what the crusaders are trying to make juices look like...

 

[wv2win]

Dr Michael Siegel, Professor at Boston University's Public Health Department, has been a leading anti-smoking advocate and Harm Reduction proponent for many years. I would suggest reading his web site:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/08/review-of-laboratory-studies-on.html

 

[Robino1]

The Elephant in the Room

The way I see it is there is one huge obstacle in the ecig debate; the fact that the entire ejuice industry is without standards, and we do not know with any certainty what is in the myriad of juices on the market. We don't even know the country of origin of the base components. This is quite different from most other products.

This makes it impossible to do any meaningful tests. Someone can do a test with some random ejuice and find carcinogens, another lab uses another ejuice and finds absolutely nothing of harm. Both are right. What does that tell us?

My biggest fear is that the FDA is going to take the easy way out and make nicotine a controlled substance. In that case, it is game over.

There is a group of Vendors that are setting Standards for themselves: AEMSA | American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association
You can find, in that link, the list of venders that are verified members. If having your liquids set to standards, just purchase from those listed.

There are venders that do have their products tested and are very conscious about the quality. They just don't feel the need to be a part of an industry group.

 

[Robino1]

Double post so I will use this space to address the OP.

The Drexel Study did the same exact thing you are talking about doing. CASAA is your best bet to get all the info you are looking for. I will see if I can find the link to that study. I'm pretty sure I have it saved somewhere.

Edit: Found it!

https://web.archive.org/web/2013092.../SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf

 

[Technohydra]

I will be lookingover those heavily today. I would also like a link to the 'negative' studies that were specifically quoted by the pocket doctor at the NYC hearing. If possible, I would dearly love to be able to cut these people down with their own axes.

 

[toddrhodes]

I found this:

Removed link to comply with below request.

OP, if you type in "FDA e-cigarettes 2009" into Google, it's the second link down.

I believe this is what most people cite as the negative communication from 2009. I'm at work so I can't read through everything now but I hope it helps.

 

[Caridwen]

I will be lookingover those heavily today. I would also like a link to the 'negative' studies that were specifically quoted by the pocket doctor at the NYC hearing. If possible, I would dearly love to be able to cut these people down with their own axes.

We'd really prefer for people not to post negative clickable links here, especially from less than reputable websites.

Here is this-

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...cussion/483619-anti-e-cig-propaganda-bin.html

 

[Technohydra]

Double post so I will use this space to address the OP.

The Drexel Study did the same exact thing you are talking about doing. CASAA is your best bet to get all the info you are looking for. I will see if I can find the link to that study. I'm pretty sure I have it saved somewhere.

Edit: Found it!

https://web.archive.org/web/2013092.../SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf

Well, the OP is listening, lol. I actually have had a copy of the U of D study for a long time, and intend to draw on it as a prinicipal 'pro' resource, as well as the work of DR Farselinos (I know I murdered that name...). What I am aiming to do is not so much a study or comparison, so much as a document that defines the 'toxins', explains how they are harmful, explain how they are helpful, show the atmospheric exposure levels, show the ways we are commonly exposed while unawares, list the dose in e-cigs (average, min, max), the amount in cigs (average, min, max), and the accepted minimum threashhold for negative effects.

My hope is that this way, even the most illiteral of readers can draw the straight data from this report, and there will be no way to misinterperate the data to be used as a weapon against us, because if they do that, EVERY person fighting the fight can have this report at their fingertips and immediately slap back with the full and total disclosure. What I want here is to give EVERY, SINGLE, VAPOR the knife to castrate this gutless, purchased sacks of dog.... when they try to lie and manipulate and bribe us into a cancery grave 20 years before we should have died.

These $#!+heads will kill us, just to keep power over us, and I for one am finished with it. The only way we don't have power is if we think we don't, if we think the fight is already lost, when it has really yet to begin.

 

[Technohydra]

We'd really prefer for people not to post negative clickable links here, especially from less than reputable websites.

Here is this-

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...cussion/483619-anti-e-cig-propaganda-bin.html

That being as it may, PM them to me, I guess. I really need this info, and will be surfing the bin as well. As I have time, I am also seeking these items out for myself. Just tough to do a lot of when you have a 44 hour a week job and are begining empyrical review of 5 years worth of studies, lol.

 

[wv2win]

I would also suggest you sign up for Bill Godshaw's Tobacco Harm Reduction Updates. Bill is a 20 year anti-smoking advocate who runs SmokeFree Pennsylvania. He's very knowledgeable and knows the major political players. Here is a site that catalogues his updates:

Bill Godshall - Tobacco Harm Reduction Updates