Toxicity Assessment of Refill Liquids for Electronic Cigarettes

[Katya]

we will be, in actuality, doing this to ourselves,

I'm sorry, Jman, but nothing annoys me more than this argument that "we are doing it to ourselves." Sorry, this kind of thinking is dangerously close to the "blame the victim" mindset so prevalent in our society as of late. Wear a long skirt and stay at home if you don't want to be raped, don't provoke, don't irritate and offend anybody, shut up and play dead lest you anger somebody, God forbid. We have a right to discuss anything, study anything, disclose anything, and draw anything without being accused of "doing it to ourselves." Sorry.

I, for one, am glad that studies are being done and warnings issued. I look forward to them. I want to know what I'm doing to my body so that I can make informed decisions. I'm happy that this forum exists and that I can have a conversation with people like Dr. Farsalinos, for example. Let chips fall where they may. This is still a free country.

And, BTW, saying that "eliquid products contains potentially toxic compounds," "seems to be of minor concern," or "requires further investigation" is science. It's good science. Science is about solving puzzles--it's a long and, really, never-ending process. There are no simple answers to complex problems and only lousy researchers are willing to provide them.

 

[Kent C]

Report the actual science, minus the 'coulds' and 'shoulds'. IOW, lets the chips fall where they may without trying to steer them. Steering is not science.

 

[Katya]

Report the actual science, minus the 'coulds' and 'shoulds'. IOW, lets the chips fall where they may without trying to steer them. Steering is not science.

Actually, it is now--well, sort of. And it's becoming more and more so. As a matter of fact, many (if not most) prestigious medical journals all over the world ask researchers to include a brief explanation of how their bench findings can be applied or what implications they may have (if any) at bedside in order to help clinicians and practitioners benefit from pure academic scientific research conducted in the lab.

Translational science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Translational science is a multidisciplinary form of science that bridges the recalcitrant gaps that sometimes exist between fundamental science and applied science, necessitating something in between to translate knowledge into applications. The term is most often used in the health sciences and refers to the translation of bench science, conducted only in a lab, to bedside clinical practice or dissemination to population-based community interventions."

Bench-to-bedside is a new(ish) term used to describe the process by which the results of research done in the laboratory are directly used to develop new ways to treat patients.

From Bench to Bedside and Beyond | Duke Today

I could go on, but you get the idea.

I can see that Dr. Farsalinos's conclusions or recommendations bother you, and a few others, more than they bother me, and I understand why. But that really wasn't the main gist of my rant. I'm sick and tired of the "we did it to ourselves" argument. We didn't do anything. The FDA tried to stop/ban/regulate e-cigs from day one--before we even had a chance to do or say anything on the subject. The courts stopped them in 2009, luckily for us, but they never gave up. FDA, CDC, and the ANTZ will never give up, no matter what we do or say. The facts, the statistics and the science are on our side. Do they care? No. vaping will be restricted, taxed and regulated not because of what we do or say but because too many hogs have no access to the trough--plain and simple. It's all about the lost revenue and nothing else. They want a slice of the vaping pie and they will get it--or they'll keep trying to ban it altogether to protect their interests. The only question is, how big a slice they will get.

In conclusion,...

 

[Kent C]

................

Actually, it is now--well, sort of. And it's becoming more and more so.

"now" is significant, esp. with the junk science we've seen in climate and ecigs by those with political intent (or to keep the money coming from political sources).... where that type of "science" would have been rejected out of hand at a point in time and the reasons are obvious.... or should be.

.............................

I can see that Dr. Farsalinos's conclusions or recommendations bother you, and a few others

Only that part that doesn't have to do with science - as I and others have stated on a few occasions. I tend to trust his science, but not his 'shoulds' as applied to vendors. For individual use, it's not so bothersome - but again, the scientific results are such that individuals can make up their own mind or do their own 'cost:benefit' analyses, as some who simply love custard have done :- )

I'm sick and tired of the "we did it to ourselves" argument. We didn't do anything. The FDA tried to stop/ban/regulate e-cigs from day one--before we even had a chance to do or say anything on the subject.

I agree with you on that. My only point is that one of the best forms of PR is to take something that your opponent says and use it as an example that even they agree with your side. This is why the 'vendors should' stuff can come into play. When those who are actually trying to stop vendors any way they can, can site 'allies' who promote the same or similar restrictions, that's a plus on their side. It's the stuff of which facepalms are made.

 

[Katya]

Orwell couldn't have said it better.

This has nothing to do with Orwell--translational science facilitates communication between basic scientists and healthcare practitioners and speeds up the process of implementing scientific discovery at bedside.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Kent.

"now" is significant, esp. with the junk science we've seen in climate and ecigs by those with political intent (or to keep the money coming from political sources)....

Junk, politically motivated and supported science is just that --junk. It's not going to go away anytime soon, but it has nothing to do with translational science.

Imo, that's close to jman's wager type comment. Y

That's not what I meant. That's not a wager or a challenge or a provocation. What I meant was that I could go on debating the merits of translational science and its value to medicine, but that's a separate conversation. And I happen to know a lot on the subject.

Sometimes a cigar....

the scientific results are such that individuals can make up their own mind or do their own 'cost:benefit' analyses, as some who simply love custard have done :- )

Again, sometimes they can, like perhaps with this study, sometimes they cannot. Trust me. A lot of basic science research is very complex and often completely inaccessible to non-scientists.

I agree with you on that. My only point is that one of the best forms of PR is to take something that your opponent says and use it as an example that even they agree with your side. This is why the 'vendors should' stuff can come into play. When those who are actually trying to stop vendors any way they can, can site 'allies' who promote the same or similar restrictions.

Perhaps. But what does it matter? They are going to do what they are going to do anyway. It's all about politics... My recent exchange with SJ:

It was very interesting, actually - I'm being somewhat unfair: It wasn't exactly a hostile crowd. The main issue, really, is that when you're explaining things to a highly educated Washington crowd, who know exactly the way things are done in DC, you feel a little naive trying to explain the reality as you see it (even if you might be one of the most knowledgable people in the room on that particular "reality")

In other words, the general attitude is: "Yeah, of course, but so what? - this is politics!".

Also - Mitch had very cleverly pre-empted discussion about the CDC data by saying: "I challenge anyone to seriously interpret the CDC data on adolescents vaping as being positive".

Naturally, a big part of my presentation was not on saying that "e-cigarettes are responsible for the decline in smoking" (even if that's ontologically true), but to say, simply: "if we believe in harm reduction - as I believe Mitch Zeller truly does, then the data the CDC has presented are exactly what we would hope to see at the population level".

I don't know - perhaps it went down fine. But it was somewhat uncomfortable.

 

[skoony]

This has nothing to do with Orwell--translational science facilitates communication between basic scientists and healthcare practitioners and speeds up the process of implementing scientific discovery at bedside.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Kent.



Junk, politically motivated and supported science is just that --junk. It's not going to go away anytime soon, but it has nothing to do with translational science.



That's not what I meant. That's not a wager or a challenge or a provocation. What I meant was that I could go on debating the merits of translational science and its value to medicine, but that's a separate conversation. And I happen to know a lot on the subject.

Sometimes a cigar....



Again, sometimes they can, like perhaps with this study, sometimes they cannot. Trust me. A lot of basic science research is very complex and often completely inaccessible to non-scientists.



Perhaps. But what does it matter? They are going to do what they are going to do anyway. It's all about politics... My recent exchange with SJ:

well show us your cigar.
mike

 

[Kent C]

.............................

 

[Katya]

Science is science. Science is good. I believe in science, I want science, I'm interested in science. And any suggestion that scientific results or researchers' conclusions should be manipulated or restricted or self-censored or withheld for political expediency is indeed baffling to me. No matter who suggests that.

I wouldn't think you, Kent, of all people, would go that direction.

Science by its very nature is apolitical and should remain so--or we're all doomed.

 

[TaketheRedPill]

I read pretty much the whole paper. Lots of it I don't understand. One of the questions I've asked is where are the reports of physicians treating people with illness caused by vaping? Dr Farsalinos is a vaper so another question could be, what precautions does he take given his more detailed knowledge of the issue. We should ask him what he vapes.

One of the difficulties is most vapers are former smokers. Even with early adopters, it would probably be hard to isolate damage just to vaping, or just to smoking. Did vaping nic contribute to cancer or was it 40 years of inhaling plunonium umnium stuff radioactive particles from analogs that remain forever lodged in the lungs slinging out radiation bullets? Did vaping contribute to COPD or is COPD just more noticeable and progressive with age ? Does flavoring cause wrinkles? It'd probably take several generations of chimps/pigs forcebreathing flavored and unflavored vape to even begin to guess, I'd think.

 

[caramel]

I'm with Kent on this one. That translational thing is nonsense.

The standard players in bringing new products to the market are the following:

- fundamental research - a substance / principle etc is discovered to have a particular, desirable effect on humans; this effect plus many side effects are identified and quantified at this stage
- design engineering - a product based on said research is designed, with objectives such as ease of use, safety, costs etc
- production engineering - mass manufacturing processes are designed and implemented
- practitioners / consumers / end users
- feedback process between users and the previously mentioned players (usually channeled via design and can end up at research, design or production depending on where the problems/possible enhancements are identified).

If you need someone to translate between research and engineering, you're doing it all wrong (i.e. your design engineer is not up to the task). If you need someone to translate in the feedback process, you're doing it really wrong.

 

[nicnik]

I'm sick and tired of the "we did it to ourselves" argument. We didn't do anything. The FDA tried to stop/ban/regulate e-cigs from day one--before we even had a chance to do or say anything on the subject. The courts stopped them in 2009, luckily for us, but they never gave up. FDA, CDC, and the ANTZ will never give up, no matter what we do or say.

We certainly did not do it to ourselves, and the idea that we might not want the results of helpful research like this to be known is the wrong reaction. Blame needs to be kept where it belongs.

Unofficial translational science is being dominated by people with an anti-THR agenda, and I can see where it can be done in a scientific way, but might be more susceptible to corruption than at any other level.

I think that disclosure of diketones is a must, but banning is premature when we know so little about the actual danger for vaping.

 

[BigEgo]

Thanks for posting this!

I only started vaping a month ago and after asking the local B&M shops what exactly is in the liquids they are selling - none could tell me - and it was surprising how little they knew other that it was "a good product". I was more interested in hardware at the time, but decided to switch focus on the liquids, though I know hardware plays a big role.

I felt, for myself, it would be best if I DIY as I could control and know the ingredients and limit anything extra getting added to make a better product down the road. I tried to find the best quality of PG, VG and Nic base with a USP label and settled on FlavourArt as a brand for flavouring for a number of reasons. It would be nice to see more studies looking at PG, VG and Nic base only as a comparator, maybe politically it would be misused though, but to understand things it would be helpful (to me).

There have been such studies that used the solvents (PG/VG) as controls when comparing them to flavored liquids. One study found that even with no flavorings there is some decomposition of the carrier liquids (PG/VG) into carbonyl compounds. The researchers found that PG seems to produce more than VG. Keep in mind, though, that they were using a cheap clearomizer at 4.5-5v which no one much does.

From the paper: "We purchased only commercial liquids, even though home-mixed liquids and random recipes can be of major toxicological concern".

Is the concerns in DIY the PG/VG/Nic base or does it more have to do with the flavourings and "other" things that could be added by someone?

Probably more of a concern about people not knowing what they are doing more than anything. I see a lot of people on DIY forums asking whether they can add all kinds of random stuff to their juice.

Assuming that you do it "right" (i.e. add reputable water soluble GRAS flavors at the right percentages) there is no difference between this and buying "premium" liquids. Both will carry the same risk (whatever that might be). Of course, it must be said that just because something is GRAS for ingestion doesn't mean it is safe for inhalation. The FEMA people have harped on that quite a lot (they regulate the flavor industry for harmful compounds).

I DIY as well. What I do is find a tasty combination made from as few flavors as possible at the lowest percentage possible. I use that as an ADV. Every now and then I will break out more complex flavors with more flavoring. I also stay away from diketones wherever possible. Nowadays most retailers will list clearly on the website which flavors contain diketones.

I suspect that there probably are flavors out there that have long term risk, but we just don't know what they are yet. We know that diketones should be avoided, but that's just the start. I suspect there will be other "problem" chemicals found. However, I will take my chances compared to my old 2 PAD habit and adjust my flavor practices as new research emerges.

 

[Kent C]

Science is science. Science is good. I believe in science, I want science, I'm interested in science. And any suggestion that scientific results or researchers' conclusions should be manipulated or restricted or self-censored or withheld for political expediency is indeed baffling to me. No matter who suggests that.

I wouldn't think you, Kent, of all people, would go that direction.

Science by its very nature is apolitical and should remain so--or we're all doomed.

I didn't go in that direction - you did, when you attempted to justify going beyond science. Scientific conclusions - basically scientific results need no further "conclusions" or "suggestions", that go from the objective facts to subjective opinions.

Science is only apolitical when devoid of 'shoulds', whether they are the current "now" 'fashion' of science or not.

 

[Katya]

We certainly did not do it to ourselves, and the idea that we might not want the results of helpful research like this to be known is the wrong reaction. Blame needs to be kept where it belongs.

Thank you.

Unofficial translational science is being dominated by people with an anti-THR agenda, and I can see where it can be done in a scientific way, but might be more susceptible to corruption than at any other level.

I'm not a spokesperson for translational science, believe me. It's a new concept and may prove to be helpful in bridging the gap between basic sciences and healthcare practitioners, or may become a bureaucratic nightmare fraught with fraud and informed by political agendas. The jury is still out. The fact is that the new drugs, treatments and discoveries do not reach dying patients on time and everybody agrees on that. What people in the field do not agree on is how to speed up and simplify that process.

I think that disclosure of diketones is a must, but banning is premature when we know so little about the actual danger for vaping.

Judging by your join date, you were not here when Dr. Farsalinos published his findings about diketones in our liquids--it shocked a lot vapers, including yours truly, even though we had early warnings about diacetyl, AP, cinnamaldehyde (and other "aldehydes") form Kurt, our resident chemist. Kurt always warned us that too much flavoring is not a good thing. I learned from Kurt that American juice makers use more flavorings and additives than Europeans do, for instance.

We had a long and very informative discussion following the diacetyl study here. Most vapers welcomed the information they gained, a few attacked Dr. F for "providing ammunition to the other side," as usual, but very few asked for an outright ban of diketones. Most were for voluntary disclosure by the manufacturers.

This post by Kurt, in case you missed it, is well worth reading:

Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study | Page 16 | E-Cigarette Forum

 

[Katya]

I suspect that there probably are flavors out there that have long term risk, but we just don't know what they are yet. We know that diketones should be avoided, but that's just the start. I suspect there will be other "problem" chemicals found. However, I will take my chances compared to my old 2 PAD habit and adjust my flavor practices as new research emerges.

I agree. Which is why I follow Dr. Farsalinos's studies and read Kurt's posts (he's a chemist and a vaper) and I always look for tips and recommendations from scientists and fellow vapers like those two. I started vaping unflavored (or highly diluted ejuices) because of Kurt's comments wrt to flavorings. It works for me--may not work for other people, though.

 

[Kent C]

We certainly did not do it to ourselves, and the idea that we might not want the results of helpful research like this to be known is the wrong reaction.

There was no such suggestion that the results of the studies shouldn't be known, just some of the conclusions as to what should be done about them. That last can be argued, but there were those, as usual, who didn't want any dissent. And that type of censoring is just as bad as the false idea that some had, that someone wanted to censor the study - which was not the case at all.

What you see now is the "appeal to authority" fallacy writ large. Don't 'trust me' on this - look it up if you're not familiar with it :- )

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nicnik]

Judging by your join date, you were not here when Dr. Farsalinos published his findings about diketones in our liquids--it shocked a lot vapers, including yours truly, even though we had early warnings about diacetyl, AP, cinnamaldehyde (and other "aldehydes") form Kurt, our resident chemist. Kurt always warned us that too much flavoring is not a good thing. I learned from Kurt that American juice makers use more flavorings and additives than Europeans do, for instance.

We had a long and very informative discussion following the diacetyl study here. Most vapers welcomed the information they gained, a few attacked Dr. F for "providing ammunition to the other side," as usual, but very few asked for an outright ban of diketones. Most were for voluntary disclosure by the manufacturers.

This post by Kurt, in case you missed it, is well worth reading:

Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study | Page 16 | E-Cigarette Forum

I only joined here recently, but have been reading lots of posts for years, including on and off for a long time before switching to vaping. I followed that thread, and I was new to vaping unflavored at the time (influenced by reading ecf). A while before that Dr. Farsalinos study I decided to avoid diketones, on account of the information I'd been reading here, and quickly began to avoid flavoring of any kind.

The reason I don't think diketones should be banned, is that there's still a chance that the tastes they can bring to vaping could make the difference between success and failure of switching to vaping for some people. If vaping eliquids with some diketones is possibly still way safer than smoking, which may or not be the case, and there are not satisfactory replacements for some people's tastes, then I think it is premature to ban them completely, at least until more is known, or better received substitutes are available.

I think information regarding possible risk should be communicated thoroughly, and labeling to inform is necessary so that consumers can balance possible risk vs personal need/desire. On the other hand, if it should be revealed that vaping diketones is dangerous enough, I could see going as far as banning, even without great substitutes.

 

[DC2]

...translational science facilitates communication between basic scientists and healthcare practitioners and speeds up the process of implementing scientific discovery at bedside.

Can you give an example of this translational science at work?

 

[nicnik]

There was no such suggestion that the results of the studies shouldn't be known, just some of the conclusions as to what should be done about them.

No, just one guy who didn't want his wife to know, but I was responding to all the worry of what the ANTZ would do with it. That may be a downside, but I think it is greatly outweighed by what we can do with it.

Edit: Now I see what you're saying. Yeah, it was some of the conclusions, and I see your point.

 

[Kent C]

No, just one guy who didn't want his wife to know, but I was responding to all the worry of what the ANTZ would do with it. That may be a downside, but I think it is greatly outweighed by what we can do with it.

[I edited so that your quote isn't mine :- ) ]

Yeah, I was agreeing with you And this part as well:

Unofficial translational science is being dominated by people with an anti-THR agenda, and I can see where it can be done in a scientific way, but might be more susceptible to corruption than at any other level

.... this is exactly where it can go (even Katya agrees with her response to you).

The ""Translational science is a multidisciplinary form of science that bridges the recalcitrant gaps that sometimes exist between fundamental science and applied science," is simply a rewording, as impressive as it sounds, of the ancient 'is/ought' question in philosophy.

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Going from what 'is' to what 'ought to be'. According to some, that "recalcitrant gap" can't be bridged, rationally. People who don't appreciate the extent of this problem, philosophically, will attempt workarounds, so that what they think 'should' happen makes sense simply by what is. lol.