Reynolds sponsoring study on e-cig vapor

[Bill Godshall]

Reynolds sponsors study of e-cig vapor
Reynolds sponsors study of e-cig vapor smoke - Winston-Salem Journal: Local Business
Evaluation of Environmental Emissions From Electronic Cigarettes and Tobacco-Burning Cigarettes - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

 

[freeatlast!]

How interesting!! I have mixed feelings.....

 

[DrMA]

Looks to me like a thinly veiled attempt to create out of nothing the preposterous and unsupported notion of second hand vapor and to conflate second hand smoke and second hand vapor into the same thing. The media article even comes up with the absurd lexical construction "second-hand vapor smoke" and regurgitates the "particulate matter" garbage originally gushed by ANTZ.

Is this study evidence of collusion between BP and BT, and possibly NIH and FDA?

 

[Kent C]

Without going into details even if available, I hope they do it right. Cleaning and testing the space before and after, not using smoking machines. Not having smokers using ecigarettes (because of residuals, etc.) or if they do point that out.

This may be part of their studies needed for applications for ecigs/possible ecig sales for the deeming doc. If so they are addressing the one thing that relates most to 'harming others' SHVapor, because it is really the only area with which gov't should be concerned. What it does to us is (should be) none of their business.

 

[Jman8]

Looks to me like a thinly veiled attempt to create out of nothing the preposterous and unsupported notion of second hand vapor and to conflate second hand smoke and second hand vapor into the same thing. The media article even comes up with the absurd lexical construction "second-hand vapor smoke" and regurgitates the "particulate matter" garbage originally gushed by ANTZ.

Is this study evidence of collusion between BP and BT, and possibly NIH and FDA?

I don't get where you are finding a collusion that involves BT in this story (wrt the claim that SHV and SHS are the same thing, or to be treated as such). Care to explain?

 

[DrMA]

BT is paying for a study to be executed by a facility which has deep association with BP, having obtained the blessing of NIH, and apparently pursues the agenda of FDA. It kinda quacks like collusion to me.

 

[Bobbilly]

The big problem who has the money to conduct a study and doesn't have a interest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jman8]

BT is paying for a study to be executed by a facility which has deep association with BP, having obtained the blessing of NIH, and apparently pursues the agenda of FDA. It kinda quacks like collusion to me.

That answers my question. Thanks.

I do disagree still, but I appreciate you answering my question.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Without going into details even if available, I hope they do it right. Cleaning and testing the space before and after, not using smoking machines. Not having smokers using ecigarettes (because of residuals, etc.) or if they do point that out.

This may be part of their studies needed for applications for ecigs/possible ecig sales for the deeming doc. If so they are addressing the one thing that relates most to 'harming others' SHVapor, because it is really the only area with which gov't should be concerned. What it does to us is (should be) none of their business.

If you look at the selection criteria, they actually require that most of the subjects be active smokers and they don't seem to require any of the subjects to be non-smokers. To make matters worse, they describe exhaled vapor as "SHS" and say they'll be testing the air "after human smoking of e-cigarette."

Primary Outcome Measures:
To assess differences in levels of selected SHS constituents in an environmental test chamber after human smoking of e-cigarette #1, #2, and #3 compared to after human smoking of tobacco-burning cigarettes. [ Time Frame: 2 weeks for participants in Cohorts 1 and 2; and approximately 4 weeks for participants in Cohorts 3, 4, and 5 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

 

[Kent C]

If you look at the selection criteria, they actually require that most of the subjects be active smokers and they don't seem to require any of the subjects to be non-smokers. To make matters worse, they describe exhaled vapor as "SHS" and say they'll be testing the air "after human smoking of e-cigarette."

Primary Outcome Measures:
To assess differences in levels of selected SHS constituents in an environmental test chamber after human smoking of e-cigarette #1, #2, and #3 compared to after human smoking of tobacco-burning cigarettes. [ Time Frame: 2 weeks for participants in Cohorts 1 and 2; and approximately 4 weeks for participants in Cohorts 3, 4, and 5 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

I saw that after going back to it 'smoking an ecigarette' Earlier 'studies' made the same mistakes. As I pointed out then if a smoker covers his nose and mouth and blows hard, (ala Dizzy Gillespie) then open their mouth, smoke will come out, even if you hadn't had a cigarette within an hour. Formaldehyde from rugs and furniture can be measured without any smoke or vapor being present and exists in the body as well.

Without before and after (constants) the study isn't scientific and shouldn't even be reported. If it is, then it's only to show a bias or agenda.

 

[Rickajho]

How interesting!! I have mixed feelings.....

Apparently they do as well if they are gonna call it "vapor smoke."

 

[Bill Godshall]

DrMa wrote

Looks to me like a thinly veiled attempt to create out of nothing the preposterous and unsupported notion of second hand vapor and to conflate second hand smoke and second hand vapor into the same thing.

No, that is totally incorrect.

Reynolds' study is appropriately comparing various chemical differences between secondhand cigarette smoke and secondhand e-cig vapor (similar to the intent of the IVACS study sponsored by the National Vapers Club several years ago, which unfortunately wasn't very helpful due to secondhand smoke contaminating their laboratory equipment).

This study by Reynolds (and dozens of others) is/are likely to be replicated by every e-cig company that submits a successful New Tobacco Product application to the FDA for an e-cig product (if/when FDA approves its proposed deeming regulation).


I don't know why the reporter of news article in the WS Journal (Richard Craver) mentioned the terms vapor and smoke together, as he knows that e-cig vapor is totally different the cigarette smoke.