Okay, I've been reading up on some of those pesky threads stating that our tanks are heating up to a million degrees and that lung tissue pretty much dies on impact with e-juice and it kind of got me thinking....
First, that poison study is what I like to term "junk" science, in the sense that you cannot DO MUCH with inferences drawn from mice, OR lung tissue in a petri dish, exposed to vape. As background, I'm a bit of a science geek due to my family being in genetics, and have some insider info (as well as working in that field for a bit, after college).
You CANNOT extrapolate anything unless it's been tested rather thoroughly in humans, and sometimes not even then. First of all, test subjects sign non-disclosure agreements, as well as "If I fall over and die, I won't sue agreements." I can't tell you the number of drugs/treatments/studies that went well with mice and monkeys, and then eventually the time came that *everybody* decided it was time for Human Subject O, and that subject died upon first treatment, at which case everything is hushed up, and nothing more is said, and the family is paid off, if there is one. This is because technically, often, the first human test subject is selected WAY before submitting for the FDA product. So, nothing is *proven* period, until there is a fair amount of testing in human subjects, and even then, FDA testing is 12 weeks long. I defy anyone to figure out how safe something is after *12 weeks* and drugs get yanked off the market all the time.... Remember Seldane? That was such a great med for *me* but it was killing off enough people for it to get yanked. Fair enough. But that might be something to keep in mind, no one is testing what is necessary to test, in healthy human subjects, to figure out much, other than inferences and *ooh scary*.
So, a bunch of petri dishes containing lung tissue? They may have done it that way SIMPLY because they tested one human subject first and everything was fine (but no one will tell you that, will they, and it's a bit hard to justify lung biopsies for testing, though I have to say, I would DO IT, personally, (for free) just to find out MORE than that particular study accomplished.) Mice? Please. How many times have mice studies been used where they're literally O'D'd on whatever "test," remember aspartame? I'm not saying go out and eat chunks of it, but the amount any human could ingest over their entire lifetime would be less than what they were giving the mice.... I believe that particular set of testing was to get other, newer sweetners on the market. I don't loathe mice or monkey studies, but the testing ought to be proportional to the amount typically used by the average human, not the entire bodyweight of the monkey or mouse, and even then, you need to follow that up with human testing.
Testing For What you Want: This happened all the time when I was working at Hopkins.... They'd advertise testing of an illegal drug, the study was paid, many of the homeless/addicted in that area went in for testing (rapid detox, after ingesting PURE whatever, no counseling, no support, nada) had them come back later and determined relapse rates..... Are you kidding me? OF COURSE they were high, that was what the study was LOOKING for. You don't get to design testing to prove what you want to ahead of time, with any reasonableness whatsoever, and that study got published. Sigh. This is what is going on with e-cig stuff now: Studies are being designed and solicited to *prove* what the FDA wants, IMO. And, I've been aware of the science field doing this *forever*.
Additionally, I don't know if you've ever done human testing yourself, but I did read an excellent book on the subject from a guy who participated in FDA testing for a living.... His report was pretty dire. "Researchers" would run through the questions and pretty much do anything possible to minimize any side effect reports, i.e. if the guy said he had a "headache" they'd pretty much coach him into stating it wasn't severe, and this could include isolating test subjects with "severe" side effects instead of letting them play pool/watch TV, etc., so there was fairly high motivation to return to the herd, since testing is boring and stressful. Basically, I don't trust FDA testing very much at all, as you've got huge companies wanting to market a new drug that they've spent a fair amount on already, they definitely want to minimize any side effects if they can... It's quite fascinating, actually. But, it's not going to make you confident about your medications, especially the new ones. I pretty much try to use medications that are generics, and have been around forever unless I absolutely HAVE to use the newest, greatest thing.
The temp rising data is slightly better, though I have to be honest... It certainly made me more aware of the dangers of overheated e-juice BUT I'm not going to be convinced of *anything* at this point other than, under the right circumstances and testing, SOME ejuice will overheat, and POSSIBLY cause nasty stuff to happen. So, it was helpful, but until and unless I did some direct testing ON MY device, vaping THE WAY I vape it, I'm not going to freak out. It's nice the Nautilus products perform better, and I have a theory on why my N2 doesn't get hot... The glass is coated in metal, which acts as a heat sink for the juice itself (I never feel any heat from that tank, by contrast, my cleto can get hot fairly easily). That, and my wattage is lower, which seems to be the smart way to go, until I start building and use TC, which I will be *happy* to do if it's inexpensive and I can make it work for me. But, I am certainly not going to freak out over it. Nor am I going to *insist* that I *know* that it's overheating unless I ask my husband to rig up some test which I won't do now, as it seems premature and unneccesary given what else is going on in our lives. Mike P, I respect the work you are doing and I think it's great.... But, I can guarantee, you don't vape how I vape, using the exact materials I do, or juices, either. So, the results you are getting are *interesting* but they aren't *conclusive*.
I think being AWARE of new data is fine, there are certainly some well designed studies out there that are *helpful* and others that are *not*. I always try to evaluate study design prior to accepting *any* results, and often a study I might be *most* likely to consider might even be a set of *case studies* as at least then, you're looking at real world results in real live people, who are doing what they are doing, anyway. It might *seem* less scientific initially but unless you have *damn near perfect* study design and it's got a good control and a decent length, I consider it "junk" science, in the sense that with the right set of variables, you can almost *see* what researchers are looking for/going for, and it may be politiacally motivated in any case (which is really the worst scenario).
TL
R: I have nothing against science and research, but KNOW what's going on behind it. I imagine that doing a series report of vapors, tracking lung function improvement and overall health gains isn't going to gain too much political traction, but you do have real life results (and your own self and consulting your doc on lung function, should you desire) all over the place. The FDA does NOT want to pick up THAT hot potato, or they'd be HERE, asking US to participate in research (I would do that in a heartbeat). They're like, "Not what we want to find out at this juncture."
Anna
And seriously, once 6 mo go by, I'm going to get my doc to retest my lung function. PRIOR to 3 bouts of pneumonia, I had the lung function of a 77 year old woman. I'm going to see where it's at and SEND those results to my representatives, AND the FDA, not that *they* will do anything besides trash it.
First, that poison study is what I like to term "junk" science, in the sense that you cannot DO MUCH with inferences drawn from mice, OR lung tissue in a petri dish, exposed to vape. As background, I'm a bit of a science geek due to my family being in genetics, and have some insider info (as well as working in that field for a bit, after college).
You CANNOT extrapolate anything unless it's been tested rather thoroughly in humans, and sometimes not even then. First of all, test subjects sign non-disclosure agreements, as well as "If I fall over and die, I won't sue agreements." I can't tell you the number of drugs/treatments/studies that went well with mice and monkeys, and then eventually the time came that *everybody* decided it was time for Human Subject O, and that subject died upon first treatment, at which case everything is hushed up, and nothing more is said, and the family is paid off, if there is one. This is because technically, often, the first human test subject is selected WAY before submitting for the FDA product. So, nothing is *proven* period, until there is a fair amount of testing in human subjects, and even then, FDA testing is 12 weeks long. I defy anyone to figure out how safe something is after *12 weeks* and drugs get yanked off the market all the time.... Remember Seldane? That was such a great med for *me* but it was killing off enough people for it to get yanked. Fair enough. But that might be something to keep in mind, no one is testing what is necessary to test, in healthy human subjects, to figure out much, other than inferences and *ooh scary*.
So, a bunch of petri dishes containing lung tissue? They may have done it that way SIMPLY because they tested one human subject first and everything was fine (but no one will tell you that, will they, and it's a bit hard to justify lung biopsies for testing, though I have to say, I would DO IT, personally, (for free) just to find out MORE than that particular study accomplished.) Mice? Please. How many times have mice studies been used where they're literally O'D'd on whatever "test," remember aspartame? I'm not saying go out and eat chunks of it, but the amount any human could ingest over their entire lifetime would be less than what they were giving the mice.... I believe that particular set of testing was to get other, newer sweetners on the market. I don't loathe mice or monkey studies, but the testing ought to be proportional to the amount typically used by the average human, not the entire bodyweight of the monkey or mouse, and even then, you need to follow that up with human testing.
Testing For What you Want: This happened all the time when I was working at Hopkins.... They'd advertise testing of an illegal drug, the study was paid, many of the homeless/addicted in that area went in for testing (rapid detox, after ingesting PURE whatever, no counseling, no support, nada) had them come back later and determined relapse rates..... Are you kidding me? OF COURSE they were high, that was what the study was LOOKING for. You don't get to design testing to prove what you want to ahead of time, with any reasonableness whatsoever, and that study got published. Sigh. This is what is going on with e-cig stuff now: Studies are being designed and solicited to *prove* what the FDA wants, IMO. And, I've been aware of the science field doing this *forever*.
Additionally, I don't know if you've ever done human testing yourself, but I did read an excellent book on the subject from a guy who participated in FDA testing for a living.... His report was pretty dire. "Researchers" would run through the questions and pretty much do anything possible to minimize any side effect reports, i.e. if the guy said he had a "headache" they'd pretty much coach him into stating it wasn't severe, and this could include isolating test subjects with "severe" side effects instead of letting them play pool/watch TV, etc., so there was fairly high motivation to return to the herd, since testing is boring and stressful. Basically, I don't trust FDA testing very much at all, as you've got huge companies wanting to market a new drug that they've spent a fair amount on already, they definitely want to minimize any side effects if they can... It's quite fascinating, actually. But, it's not going to make you confident about your medications, especially the new ones. I pretty much try to use medications that are generics, and have been around forever unless I absolutely HAVE to use the newest, greatest thing.
The temp rising data is slightly better, though I have to be honest... It certainly made me more aware of the dangers of overheated e-juice BUT I'm not going to be convinced of *anything* at this point other than, under the right circumstances and testing, SOME ejuice will overheat, and POSSIBLY cause nasty stuff to happen. So, it was helpful, but until and unless I did some direct testing ON MY device, vaping THE WAY I vape it, I'm not going to freak out. It's nice the Nautilus products perform better, and I have a theory on why my N2 doesn't get hot... The glass is coated in metal, which acts as a heat sink for the juice itself (I never feel any heat from that tank, by contrast, my cleto can get hot fairly easily). That, and my wattage is lower, which seems to be the smart way to go, until I start building and use TC, which I will be *happy* to do if it's inexpensive and I can make it work for me. But, I am certainly not going to freak out over it. Nor am I going to *insist* that I *know* that it's overheating unless I ask my husband to rig up some test which I won't do now, as it seems premature and unneccesary given what else is going on in our lives. Mike P, I respect the work you are doing and I think it's great.... But, I can guarantee, you don't vape how I vape, using the exact materials I do, or juices, either. So, the results you are getting are *interesting* but they aren't *conclusive*.
I think being AWARE of new data is fine, there are certainly some well designed studies out there that are *helpful* and others that are *not*. I always try to evaluate study design prior to accepting *any* results, and often a study I might be *most* likely to consider might even be a set of *case studies* as at least then, you're looking at real world results in real live people, who are doing what they are doing, anyway. It might *seem* less scientific initially but unless you have *damn near perfect* study design and it's got a good control and a decent length, I consider it "junk" science, in the sense that with the right set of variables, you can almost *see* what researchers are looking for/going for, and it may be politiacally motivated in any case (which is really the worst scenario).
TL
R: I have nothing against science and research, but KNOW what's going on behind it. I imagine that doing a series report of vapors, tracking lung function improvement and overall health gains isn't going to gain too much political traction, but you do have real life results (and your own self and consulting your doc on lung function, should you desire) all over the place. The FDA does NOT want to pick up THAT hot potato, or they'd be HERE, asking US to participate in research (I would do that in a heartbeat). They're like, "Not what we want to find out at this juncture."Anna
And seriously, once 6 mo go by, I'm going to get my doc to retest my lung function. PRIOR to 3 bouts of pneumonia, I had the lung function of a 77 year old woman. I'm going to see where it's at and SEND those results to my representatives, AND the FDA, not that *they* will do anything besides trash it.
