Vansickel, Eissenberg study published

[rolygate]

Elaine, I think we all recognise that you would not pass the cotinine smoking test.

All I know is that the amount of B3 you mention seems enough to use in a corpse reviver.


Completely unrelated fact: on telly the other day I saw a carbon monoxide test for smoking - it is a small hand-held machine like a breathalyser. As well as being the only accurate determinant of smoking status, then, it is also the easiest to administer, the least invasive, the fastest, and probably the best by any possible measure. This should be used instead of cotinine tests.

 

[JW50]

There is one graph in the report, which shows a range of about 6ng to 22ng/ml.

It seems that 10ng/ml is obtained fairly rapidly, then it rises over time.

I believe smokers commonly measure from around 5ng to 50ng, with an average of about 25. There is all sorts of research that could be done in this area, such comparing the levels between smokers and vapers for the same levels of satisfaction; measuring what levels are needed for a range of individuals to induce symptoms of over-consumption; how the use of WTA-inclusive refills affects the measurements; and more.

There can only ever be one first, though, and Vansickel/Eissenberg achieved it.

If to the 10ng/ml level "fairly rapidly" means 5 minutes or so, then characteristics of cigarette smoking perhaps are being evidenced. And if 5 minutes, this would seem to suggest that significant qualities of nicotine are perhaps entering the blood stream via the lungs in contrast to how nicotine would be taken in with snus use. It seems possible that this research might show specific devices or methods of vaping that might produce the quick "hit" characteristic of analogs. But I don't know if such knowledge would be positive or negative for vapers. On the positive side, if a current smoker could get the "quick hit" with initial trial on the right device and/or method, that might be persuasive in quitting the analogs. But on the negative side, perhaps just more ammunition for the ANTZ to demonstrate the addictive qualities of the nicotine and vaping.

 

[JollyRogers]

This is a great discussion. I really would like to get a full copy of the report, especially since I was one of the participants. Originally I was all very happy to participate, Dr Eissenberg even came in on a Saturday to personally thank me for participating, and Dr Vansickel was great along with the nurse doing the blood work. But then afterwords I started to have some misgivings about it because I felt there was a certain bias about my chosen method of nicotine intake. Now that it is out, I would like to be the my own judge of the report, it certainly would have influence as to wether I ever participate again, as VCU is right down the road from me.

 

[JollyRogers]

I just had the pleasure of reading the actual published report. Thank you BTW to the sender! What I find interesting is if I remember right (which I do), they hooked a pulse oximeter sensor up and measured me above 98%, I am not a doctor, but the comment was made that it was very good (I just looked this up and apparently it is, especially from a smoker of 30 years). Otherwise, I think the report says exactly what I experienced. It also shows that EC can and does deliver effective levels of nicotine to the users that have "learned" how to use them (thanks ECF). I also can do the same with an eGo or a plain 510... cause I know how to use them. I had to use a cartomizer for this study though and they aren't my preferred method (it was from eliquid planet, and was actually pretty good), so that was the only thing that I wasn't that familiar with... But it worked, and I do understand why they chose to have a standard type of atomizer... I just used a 3.7 device (Super-T) that day, so nothing over the top @6v or anything

Now I am more interested in PG/VG effects from frequent use, if any. I already knew I was getting nicotine. But the point of the study was really only about "Do E-Ciggs deliver nicotine effectively or not to experienced users". It does.

BTW, I have cut my nic in half since this study. I also need to cut it some more for evenings... matter of time before I am @0.

 

[JW50]

I just had the pleasure of reading the actual published report. Thank you BTW to the sender! What I find interesting is if I remember right (which I do), they hooked a pulse oximeter sensor up and measured me above 98%, I am not a doctor, but the comment was made that it was very good (I just looked this up and apparently it is, especially from a smoker of 30 years). Otherwise, I think the report says exactly what I experienced. It also shows that EC can and does deliver effective levels of nicotine to the users that have "learned" how to use them (thanks ECF). I also can do the same with an eGo or a plain 510... cause I know how to use them. I had to use a cartomizer for this study though and they aren't my preferred method (it was from eliquid planet, and was actually pretty good), so that was the only thing that I wasn't that familiar with... But it worked, and I do understand why they chose to have a standard type of atomizer... I just used a 3.7 device (Super-T) that day, so nothing over the top @6v or anything

Now I am more interested in PG/VG effects from frequent use, if any. I already knew I was getting nicotine. But the point of the study was really only about "Do E-Ciggs deliver nicotine effectively or not to experienced users". It does.

BTW, I have cut my nic in half since this study. I also need to cut it some more for evenings... matter of time before I am @0.

Nothing rude or anything close intended, but why is your goal 0mg? May be the perfect result for you and what you need but just wonder the reasons and/or thought process involved. After 40 years of smoking and finally finding a way to quit with ecigs, I still get what is to me those irritating comments of "when are you going to give up the juice". My un-verbalized reply is when I damn feel like it, mind your own business please - or - as soon as I am absolutely sure that 40 years of the past is history and that I won't blow second hand smoke in your direction again. So - do you feel that nic is injuring you or someone nearby, and, if so, why?

 

[JollyRogers]

JW. It's because in the evenings (did you see that part?), I vape a lot, and the nic effects my sleep... meaning I need to cut it down, even @ 8-12mg it does it... so I would like to get this to ZERO for the evenings and just enjoy the flavor. OR I could stop vaping like I'm a research monkey, that might help too!

 

[JW50]

JW. It's because in the evenings (did you see that part?), I vape a lot, and the nic effects my sleep... meaning I need to cut it down, even @ 8-12mg it does it... so I would like to get this to ZERO for the evenings and just enjoy the flavor. OR I could stop vaping like I'm a research monkey, that might help too!

No - didn't see the part you mention. If nic is causing a problem it is rational to avoid it. Not second guessing just wondering the why.

 

[DVap]

It will be interesting to digest this report.

I think Rolygate correctly identifies the fundamental disconnect between vapers and researchers as ecigs being a consumer driven means to get nicotine -vs- viewing ecigs as just another cessation device.

 

[JW50]

It will be interesting to digest this report.

I think Rolygate correctly identifies the fundamental disconnect between vapers and researchers as ecigs being a consumer driven means to get nicotine -vs- viewing ecigs as just another cessation device.

On the other hand, if ecigs are no more than a consumer search for nicotine then why part with the older habit of smoking. To me it seems reasonable to view ecigs as a possibly reduced harm substitution device for smoking and also as a possible consumer decided cessation device. This comment brings to mind the possibilities of research that might demonstrate that existing FDA approved cessation devices are more effective with vapers than with smokers (i.e. That vaping is a gateway to non-smoking, non-nicotine use instead of what is suggested to be the reverse.)

 

[Vocalek]

There have been no reported cases of a non-tobacco user taking up the use of an e-cigarette and then switching to inhaling real smoke. Anything is possible, but it seems highly improbable. Very few people become smokers overnight. It's an acquired habit. You have to get used to that choked up feeling and learn how to pace yourself so you don't turn green. If someone is already getting the beneficial effects of nicotine from something that tastes fairly pleasant and that doesn't trigger coughing or make you feel ill, why would they want to switch to inhaling smoke?

Plus, there has been no government-driven dis-information campaign (yet) that misleads the public to believe that smoking is no more hazardous than using an e-cigarette the way that warning labels on smokeless tobacco do. Although some of the public thinks e-cigarettes might be dangerous, I believe that the majority uses common sense and realizes that e-cigarettes must be less hazardous than smoking.

In the Etter/Bullen study, only 0.03% of total respondents (N=3587) were never-smokers. Of 2850 users of e-cigarettes with nicotine, 0.1% were never-smokers, but we don't know whether they were using nicotine from some other source before that. It would be interesting to have a survey that explored all the possibilities. Full Text: Electronic Cigarettes

Never-smokers made up 1.8% of the 112 respondents using an e-cigarette without nicotine.

Of the 29.5% (of 3,587) who identified themselves as smokers, it would have been illuminating for Etter to ask them whether they took up smoking before or after using an e-cigarette.

Etter (in both his surveys) consistently referred to "former smokers" without differentiating whether they had quit long before taking up use of an e-cigarette or whether taking up an e-cigarette allowed them to stop smoking. The fear that former smokers would transition from long-term abstinence to e-cigarette use and then to relapsing to smoking needs to be addressed, and it would have been helpful if Etter saved the designation of "former smoker" for those who had quit smoking some time before using an e-cigarette, and used the term "abstainers" for those who totally switched away from smoking because of e-cigarettes and either "reducers" or "partial abstainers" for smokers who were smoking fewer CPD after taking up use of an e-cig.

 

[JW50]

Vocalek - There have been no reported cases of a non-tobacco user taking up the use of an e-cigarette and then switching to inhaling real smoke. Anything is possible, but it seems highly improbable. Very few people become smokers overnight. It's an acquired habit.

No disagreement from me on the matter. My comment concerning the suggestion of some that ecigs were a gateway to smoking related to what seems to me to be a ridiculous ANTZ argument that Cherry Coke, Grape, Apple, etc. flavors will cause the youth of our society to take up the with the "dark side". I too think that ecigs should be reserved for the "dark siders" but I suspect there is likely an ample number in this category that also are youthful.

 

[Vocalek]

No disagreement from me on the matter. My comment concerning the suggestion of some that ecigs were a gateway to smoking related to what seems to me to be a ridiculous ANTZ argument that Cherry Coke, Grape, Apple, etc. flavors will cause the youth of our society to take up the with the "dark side". I too think that ecigs should be reserved for the "dark siders" but I suspect there is likely an ample number in this category that also are youthful.

I understood. I was agreeing with you, and was providing additional reasons why the ANTZ "gateway" theory holds as much water as a deep fryer basket. Anyone on ECF that does believe the "gateway" theory is a troll.