Some interesting things I learned about PG

[(So) Jersey Girl]

I went to the websites for Pfizer and Merck and did a search for propylene glycol. The results were rather surprising. Merck manufactures an inhaled, anti-rejection drug for lung transplant recipients that contains PG. Pfizer adds PG to numerous medications including Motrin, Zyrtec and an antibiotic vaginal cream. I searched for PG on GSK and J&J websites but nothing showed up. Pfizer also uses PG and shellac in the ink they use to print the dosage on Detrol LA pills! I doubt that info is listed on the patient information the pharmacy hands out. I also found PG listed as an inactive ingredient for one of the asthma/COPD inhalers but can't find the reference now and can't remember which drug - It was in a paper on the FDA's website. There is also paper on the FDA's website (dealing with the Merck anti-rejection drug) that points to the safety record of PG dating back to the 1940's in urging the FDA to approve the drug.

The FDA's website also lists some watches/alerts for PG products that are contaminated by DEG. This is apparently not an uncommon thing. My only concern is that most of the watch/alert products are manufactured in China, which probably does not enforce strict standards of quality control like the US does.

The point of all of this is that the information on PG is out there but it isn't easy to find. The only way we can decide for ourselves whether this is something we should be using is to educate ourselves.

 

[MsSki]

Thanks for the information. I might just have to do some digging myself.
Tara

 

[(So) Jersey Girl]

Thanks for the information. I might just have to do some digging myself.
Tara

I did that simply because there is so much conflicting information and opinions about PG that I needed to find out for myself. Now the next time someone tells me that PG is bad, I can ask them to explain how the FDA allows its use in an inhaled medication used by lung transplant recipients!

 

[Katmar]

I did that simply because there is so much conflicting information and opinions about PG that I needed to find out for myself. Now the next time someone tells me that PG is bad, I can ask them to explain how the FDA allows its use in an inhaled medication used by lung transplant recipients!

There are ongoing studies as it relates to long term vaping.

 

[(So) Jersey Girl]

There are ongoing studies as it relates to long term vaping.

I understand that and think it is a great idea. The only difference between vaping PG and inhaling it in a medication is the heat involved in vaping. Given the track history of PG, I doubt any negative long term consequences will be found. At least that is my hope. In the meantime, I have satisfied for myself any concerns that PG poses a hazard to my health.

 

[TropicalBob]

Anyone who tells you PG is "bad" or needs study has not done any research. Read the "germ-killing vapor" thread and you'll find links to massive research on inhaled PG, over the long term even, dating back to the early 1940s.

There should be no such thing as an "opinion" on PG. We have facts instead. Good for you for doing your own research.

 

[Katmar]

Anyone who tells you PG is "bad" or needs study has not done any research. Read the "germ-killing vapor" thread and you'll find links to massive research on inhaled PG, over the long term even, dating back to the early 1940s.

There should be no such thing as an "opinion" on PG. We have facts instead. Good for you for doing your own research.

Okay, now I am confused, Bob. On another thread you have been speaking about possible phlegm problems with both PG and VG on veteran vapors. I must be missing something here.
Someone enlighten me, please!!!!!

I, also, did a ton of research and came to the same conclusion that it is not harmful, but then you posted about another study that you can't really comment about, but that it could be serious ????

What have I missed, or misread?

 

[miss MiA]

Okay, now I am confused, Bob. On another thread you have been speaking about possible phlegm problems with both PG and VG on veteran vapors. I must be missing something here.
Someone enlighten me, please!!!!!

I, also, did a ton of research and came to the same conclusion that it is not harmful, but then you posted about another study that you can't really comment about, but that it could be serious ????

What have I missed, or misread?

I've been in a fog since reading that (linked & quoted at bottom for reference) too. I think it's reasonable to have interpreted it to be saying "We do know now that long(ish)-term vaping with the currently available carriers of PG or VG is harmful." (Then to that I presumed to append some unstated qualifiers, such as "...but we don't yet know the extent; or if it will primarily harm those with some pre-existing condition; and it's still quite possibly if not probably safer than smoking," etc.)

But still -- the message seemed to be that we do know 'for sure' now that vaping is bad for our health. (Not that it should come as a real shock that there's some kind of downside/tradeoff, etc. etc.) Would like to know if that is how it was intended, and have been surprised that thread hasn't become populated with half the vaping world by now lol. TB (hi TB, pleased to meet you! ) has made other posts that sound pro-vape as normal since then, which I take to mean that he still believes vaping, even in its current state, is likely safer than smoking... However, some perspective on whether the above accurately captures the intended meaning of this post would be great, so I join you in looking forward to some clarification.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...05-does-vaping-cause-phlegm-2.html#post925893

YES. It does. And it worsens the longer a person e-smokes. New research, not yet released, is showing phlegm might be the most significant danger of e-smoking. And it results from both PG and VG. No difference.

A film is apparently building in veteran e-smokers' lungs, causing an increased phlegm secretion. I'm experiencing it, as are others in tests lasting longer than a year. It's a serious concern and a nicotine carrier other than PG or VG is being sought.

Any cursory reading of PG's effects will show that it is an irritant. That's proving to be the case when inhaled 300 or more times a day by e-smokers. We were guinea pigs, and now some results are becoming known.

 

[miss MiA]

Another along similar lines for reference (thread/title not by TB! ):

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ng/67250-alarm-alarm-alarm-3.html#post1000632

Of all your symptoms, pay closest attention to the clear phlegm production. That is becoming a widely noted problem for e-smokers. And in clinical trials I've been somewhat privvy to, it happens with either PG or VG. Makes no difference. Both are impacting the lungs in the same humectant fashion, drawing moisture out that results in phlegm that must be cleared by coughing or repetitive clearing of the throat.

Suffice it to say this is both a short-term and, especially, long-term concern with e-smoking. Increased phlegm production would simply not be acceptable to any health regulatory agency on earth.

Ex-smokers' lungs are already damaged or compromised from years of sucking smoke into them. If PG and VG piles on more damage, COPD or worse might result.

As your other symptoms get better with a new liquid, keep close tabs on that phlegm production, which will be independent of flavor but correlated closely with the amount of vapor you inhale each day. With your pre-COPD conditions, you might find that you cannot tolerate e-smoking without further harming yourelf. You might need to find another nicotine alternative.

 

[yvilla]

I went to the websites for Pfizer and Merck and did a search for propylene glycol. The results were rather surprising. Merck manufactures an inhaled, anti-rejection drug for lung transplant recipients that contains PG.

LOL. Last June I posted a link to the 2007 study on PG as the carrier for inhaled cyclosporine for lung transplant patients, along wth a whole slew of other links about PG (including its approval and reapproval by the EPA as an airborne disinfectant, for use in hospitals and food establishments, since the 1950s).

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ant-interview-someone-today-2.html#post322961

 

[(So) Jersey Girl]

Anyone who tells you PG is "bad" or needs study has not done any research. Read the "germ-killing vapor" thread and you'll find links to massive research on inhaled PG, over the long term even, dating back to the early 1940s.

There should be no such thing as an "opinion" on PG. We have facts instead. Good for you for doing your own research.

Maybe I should have said "misinformation" instead of opinion. And there are a lot of people out there who are twisting the facts in order to promote their own narrow-minded agendas.

 

[yvilla]

And more recently (since last November http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ys-judge-leons-ruling-now-328.html#post766330), I've been trying to point people to the FDA inactive ingredients database: Inactive Ingredients in FDA Approved Drugs

If you go there and put "propylene glycol" in the search box you find at the top of the page, you will be taken to a very long list of the types of FDA approved medications in which PG is an ingredient, the type of administration (inhaled, injected, ingested, etc), and PG's percentage concentration (or amount in milligrams) in those drugs. The concentration of PG in use, for example, in some oral and gel products listed, is as high as 99%.

 

[miss MiA]

Although it may be beyond question that PG is safe to inhale, in the posts I quoted Bob seemed to be indicating that at the rate of up to hundreds of times per day, it's turned out that it isn't. But the latter is all that's relevant to most vapers (ones who do it 'long term' and more frequently than occasional drags, anyway)... As such I would have also anticipated that he'd be adding that part to all subsequent comments about PG being safe...

Note, I myself don't feel worried per se and am not considering giving up vaping by any means. (Matter of fact preferred to sweep it under the rug, brain in a knot or no lol, until I saw that I wasn't alone in my new-found confusion.) There are simply some contrasts here that are interesting, intriguing and worth seeking more focus on.

 

[Katmar]

Although it may be beyond question that PG is safe to inhale, in the posts I quoted Bob seemed to be indicating that at the rate of up to hundreds of times per day, it's turned out that it isn't. But the latter is all that's relevant to most vapers (ones who do it 'long term' and more frequently than occasional drags, anyway)... As such I would have also anticipated that he'd be adding that part to all subsequent comments about PG being safe...

Note, I myself don't feel worried per se and am not considering giving up vaping by any means. (Matter of fact preferred to sweep it under the rug, brain in a knot or no lol, until I saw that I wasn't alone in my new-found confusion.) There are simply some contrasts here that are interesting, intriguing and worth seeking more focus on.

Thank you. You folks have confirmed I am NOT crazy........YET
It looks as though Tropical Bob is saying No, it's not bad for you. Yes, it is bad for you.....Again, am I missing something??

 

[(So) Jersey Girl]

LOL. Last June I posted a link to the 2007 study on PG as the carrier for inhaled cyclosporine for lung transplant patients, along wth a whole slew of other links about PG (including its approval and reapproval by the EPA as an airborne disinfectant, for use in hospitals and food establishments, since the 1950s).

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ant-interview-someone-today-2.html#post322961

Thanks, yvilla. I must not have come across that one yet. I've only been here for a couple of weeks. Wading through the mountains of information posted here is almost as impossible as wading through the mountain of snow that's accumulated in my backyard over the last week!

 

[CaptJay]

Thank you. You folks have confirmed I am NOT crazy........YET
It looks as though Tropical Bob is saying No, it's not bad for you. Yes, it is bad for you.....Again, am I missing something??

As I interpret it I got ' No PG is not harmful if taken in the doses usually reserved for ay, for example, an inhaler for asthma. Those are not inhaled multiple times per minute (as is vaping a PV). So my conclusion from it that its the volume and repetition rather than the carrier (one alcoholic drink an hour is fine, 25 drinks is less so) alone.

 

[TropicalBob]

Sure, that's close. All of the older studies of PG have led to its acceptance as GRAS for inhalation, digestion, dermal absorption, etc.

An actual study of people using e-cigarettes for more than a year has turned up only one concern: excessive phlegm. Is that enough for us to stop vaping? Not at all. I haven't backed off one iota. Particularly bad would be anyone returning to smoking cigarettes, thinking they are somehow less dangerous than vaping. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know the dangers of iinhaling tobacco smoke.

And I continue to believe that the proven anti-bacterial action of PG might have protective benefits for my health. I would vape pure PG if I couldn't get e-liquid.

So we wait for further results on subjects continuing to use e-cigs. Of course, this forum has perhaps a few hundred members who have used e-cigarettes daily for a year or more. I've been on them two years. I have excessive phlegm production now that I did not have during my early months of e-smoking. I'm not sure what to make of that fact, but it doesn't send me into any kind of panic.

All, and I mean all, of my medical indicators are improved. My doctor says that's because I quit cigarettes going on three years ago. I think part of the improvement might be the way I quit: using e-cigs, snus and dissolvables.

 

[miss MiA]

Thanks Bob, most of all because that's a much better way of putting it all, which is so important!

 

[Katmar]

TB,
Thank you SO very much for clearing that up. Explaining it this way certainly makes better sense to me.
I appreciate your time. And I really appreciate all you have done for ALL of us.!!

 

[Vaporista]

Sure, that's close. All of the older studies of PG have led to its acceptance as GRAS for inhalation, digestion, dermal absorption, etc.

An actual study of people using e-cigarettes for more than a year has turned up only one concern: excessive phlegm. Is that enough for us to stop vaping? Not at all. I haven't backed off one iota. Particularly bad would be anyone returning to smoking cigarettes, thinking they are somehow less dangerous than vaping. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know the dangers of iinhaling tobacco smoke.

And I continue to believe that the proven anti-bacterial action of PG might have protective benefits for my health. I would vape pure PG if I couldn't get e-liquid.

So we wait for further results on subjects continuing to use e-cigs. Of course, this forum has perhaps a few hundred members who have used e-cigarettes daily for a year or more. I've been on them two years. I have excessive phlegm production now that I did not have during my early months of e-smoking. I'm not sure what to make of that fact, but it doesn't send me into any kind of panic.

All, and I mean all, of my medical indicators are improved. My doctor says that's because I quit cigarettes going on three years ago. I think part of the improvement might be the way I quit: using e-cigs, snus and dissolvables.

TB Have you had lung function tests since quitting smoking?
V.