Two new papers by Lorillard find no health concerns for ecig vapor

[DrMA]

IJERPH | Free Full-Text | Comparative In Vitro Toxicity Profile of Electronic and Tobacco Cigarettes, Smokeless Tobacco and Nicotine Replacement Therapy Products: E-Liquids, Extracts and Collected Aerosols

«The present findings indicate that neither the e-cig liquids and collected aerosols, nor the extracts of the SLT and NRT products produce any meaningful toxic effects in four widely-applied in vitro test systems, in which the conventional cigarette smoke preparations, at comparable exposures, are markedly cytotoxic and genotoxic»

IJERPH | Free Full-Text | Comparison of Select Analytes in Exhaled Aerosol from E-Cigarettes with Exhaled Smoke from a Conventional Cigarette and Exhaled Breaths

«The total carbonyls in exhaled e-cigarette aerosols were also not distinguishable from exhaled breaths or room air blanks.» (emphasis added)

This research adds to the substantial existing evidence that vaping warrants about as much health concern as exhaled breath, in spite of continued aberrant ANTZ propaganda about "detected chemicals" and "particles".

Of course ANTZ reject this research because it's done by BT. However, as always, they fail to see the conflict in their own publications and sources of funding. In his typical inane ad hominem fashion, glANTZ has already attacked these papers while also passing a glancing swipe at Dr. Farsalinos.
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/surprise-lorillard-tobacco-publishes-two-papers-finding-e-cigs-pose-no-hazard

 

[Rickajho]

I don't really care about what the ANTZ may have to say about the paper. I do care about how much creedence the FDA may give to it, considering BT has more leverage with the FDA than a bunch of yammering ANTZ. So this could be a very good thing.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I don't really care about what the ANTZ may have to say about the paper. I do care about how much creedence the FDA may give to it, considering BT has more leverage with the FDA than a bunch of yammering ANTZ. So this could be a very good thing.

First thing I noticed was they are not hidden behind a pay wall as most of the glANTZ papers are. Must mean they have nothing to fear on how they were conducted.

No "science" by press release which means the main stream press will essentially ignore them due to the source.

 

[Kent C]

From the first study:

In summary, this comparative in vitro toxicity study of e-cigs, SLT, NRT and tobacco cigarette products demonstrates the following:

(1) E-cigs vs. Tobacco WTPM: At doses up to approximately 100-fold higher than typical cigarette smoke exposures, blu e-cig liquids and pad-collected aerosols had no-to-extremely low in vitro activity (NRU, Ames, MN and IL-8) when compared to WTPM from tobacco burning cigarettes. WTPM activity was up to approximately 6,000 times higher than e-cigs.

(2) E-cigs vs. SLT and NRT: blu e-cig liquids demonstrated similar no-to-extremely low in vitro activity as aqueous extracts from a commercial nicotine lozenge (NRT) and commercial SLT products (snus and snuff).

(3) Effect of Nicotine: In vitro activities (NRU, Ames, MN and IL-8) measured for blu e-cig exposures, with and without nicotine, were similar for all sample types, indicating that the presence of nicotine, at the levels tested, did not contribute to any toxicological effects, confirmed by the lack of cytotoxicity and inflammation response of L-nicotine at comparative levels.

(4) Effect of Flavors: In vitro activities (NRU, Ames and MN) for the commercial blu e-cigs were indistinguishable from control (glycerol/water); indicating these flavors (CT and MM), at the levels tested, had no detectable impact on the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity endpoints utilized in this study. There was some observed IL-8 induction for some e-liquids, albeit at the highest doses tested.
----

Definitions: with help from wiki. The conclusions are from the study.

WTPM - Wet Total Particulate Matter (WTPM) and e-cig aerosols were collected on Cambridge glass fiber filter pads, which capture in excess of 99% of cigarette smoke particulate matter...

NRU - Neutral Red Uptake. This is one of the tests that would show cell toxicity and when in above (including NRU, Ames, etc.) they say "no-to-extremely low" - this particular test - which tests live cells and how many cells die. this show no death of cells with the 'red dye' used where the 'uptake' of the die shows death/loss of cells. This is for BOTH nic and no nic ecigs.

AMES - The Ames test is a widely employed method that uses bacteria to test whether a given chemical can cause mutations in the DNA of the test organism. More formally, it is a biological assay to assess the mutagenic potential of chemical compounds.

From the study:The mutagenicity of pad-collected smoke and aerosols of tobacco cigarettes and e-cigs, respectively, is shown in Figure 3B. No activity was observed for control e-cig samples in the Ames assay. The specific activity for all tobacco cigarettes was in the range of 1600–1850 and 500–750 revertants/mg WTPM for TA98 and TA100, respectively (Figure 3B). Historically, WTPM prepared under the same smoking conditions has been shown to have similar levels of specific activity (revertants/mg) [35].

No increase in Ames activity was observed for any e-cigs used in this study and the revertants/mg was extremely low and within assay background measurements (< 2 revertants/mg). It was not possible to quantify the specific activities for e-cig aerosols since no increase in revertant counts was observed with increasing doses for all tested e-cig samples

MN - micronucleus formation. A micronucleus test is a test used in toxicological screening for potential genotoxic compounds - the property of chemical agents that damages the genetic information within a cell causing mutations, which may lead to cancer.

A significant dose-dependent WTPM mediated induction in MN formation was observed with all tobacco cigarettes (3R4F, 1R5F and Marlboro Gold). No increase in the MN formation was observed for pad-collected aerosols from e-cigs at all doses tested.

IL-8 - inflammatory effect (cytokine IL-8 release: IL-8) in cells exposed to preparations.

The pad-collected aerosols from all e-cigs did not induce any IL-8 release at all doses tested (Figure 3E). In contrast, a WTPM mediated dose-dependent increase in IL-8 release was observed for all tobacco cigarettes.

Open to corrections

 

[Nate760]

Of course ANTZ reject this research because it's done by BT. However, as always, they fail to see the conflict in their own publications and sources of funding. In his typical inane ad hominem fashion, glANTZ has already attacked these papers while also passing a glancing swipe at Dr. Farsalinos.
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/surprise-lorillard-tobacco-publishes-two-papers-finding-e-cigs-pose-no-hazard

As per usual, Stan's thinking seems to be all over the map. He makes no attempt to refute the findings of the analysis (in fact he doesn't mention them at all), but instead attacks it on the basis of what wasn't measured (a fun trick you can use to summarily dismiss the results of pretty much any research on anything), with the implication being that if the analysis had been done in the way Stan thinks it should have, surely they would've found that e-cig vapor poses a dire health risk to vapers, passive vapers, and anyone who's ever met a vaper.

Then, because it's probably a reflex action he does without even thinking about it, he goes to the "tobacco companies have lied before, therefore everything a tobacco company says is automatically false" card. He evidently didn't consider that a tobacco company wouldn't really have any self-serving motivation for falsely stating that e-cigs are harmless; even with their recent forays into the vapor market, tobacco companies still make over 95% of their money selling cigarettes. Selling cigarettes is far and away their #1 goal and this will never change. If they were going to manufacture false data on e-cig vapor, it would better serve their interests to suggest it was harmful. Ideally, just as harmful or nearly as harmful as cigarette smoke. Minimize the disparity in health risks between the two products so people start thinking there isn't much point in giving up cigarettes for vaping. If I was an evil, lying tobacco company seeking to keep my loyal customers hooked on my most profitable product, isn't that exactly what I'd do?

 

[Jake6731]

Dr. Farsalinos responded to Glantz's swipe at him: Personal attacks, questionable ethics and support for censorship when the results do not fit to the agenda (?): a sad story of scientific misconduct

 

[Nate760]

Dr. Farsalinos responded to Glantz's swipe at him: Personal attacks, questionable ethics and support for censorship when the results do not fit to the agenda (?): a sad story of scientific misconduct

I was pleased to see one of the commenters on Dr. F's blog raise the possibility of filing an ethics complaint against Stan with the UC Board of Regents. I think most of us here would agree such action would be well-warranted and long overdue.

Excerpted from the UC Policy on Integrity in Research:

Integrity in research includes not just the avoidance of wrongdoing, but also the rigor, carefulness, and accountability that are hallmarks of good scholarship. All persons engaged in research at the University are responsible for adhering to the highest standards of intellectual honesty and integrity in research. Faculty and other supervisors of research activities have a responsibility to create an environment which encourages those high standards and integrity in research. Open publication and discussion, emphasis on quality of research, appropriate supervision, maintenance of accurate and detailed research procedures and results, and suitable assignment of credit and responsibility for research and publications are essential for fostering intellectual honesty and integrity in research.[...]

[...]Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scholarly and scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.

 

[DrMA]

I would love to watch glANTZ implode under the weight of his lies and misconduct in a high-profile ethics inquiry. Can you imagine all his research being publicly discredited and withdrawn as the conflicted junk that it is?

 

[Nate760]

I would love to watch glANTZ implode under the weight of his lies and misconduct in a high-profile ethics inquiry. Can you imagine all his research being publicly discredited and withdrawn as the conflicted junk that it is?

He would, I suspect, probably survive the first inquiry relatively unscathed, at least with respect to his status and standing with the university. But his media profile would almost certainly take a hit (as reporters are generally averse to soliciting "expert" quotes from people who are being investigated for ethics violations), more of his allies and collaborators would start abandoning him (or at least keeping him at arm's length), his grant might not be renewed at its previous funding level if he was the subject of negative media coverage, and there's always the possibility that one ethics investigation, even if it didn't result in censure or removal, would beget further ethics investigations. Given his long and distinguished track record of scientific malpractice, it's not like there's any shortage of material evidence to work with.

 

[DrMA]

These papers and others are part of a IJERPH Special Issue on ecigs as a tool for THR. It's worth browsing: IJERPH | Special Issue : Electronic Cigarettes as a Tool in Tobacco Harm Reduction