Vaping for nicotine advantages?
- Thread starter mosspa
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That's really interesting. Your analysis results in something being present in smoke but not in tobacco that benefits mild cognitive impairment. That is a difficult concept to take on, but not of course impossible - just unusual.
As a separate issue I'd recommend also supplementing vitamin B3 (nicotinic acid) as it has very good reports here. The daily dosage required is said to be substantial - at least 10x the recommended rda.
But we know puts in lots of stuff besides tobacco.
I've always wished the FDA would cut their recipe list. If cigarettes were just tobacco, I doubt many young people would take it up.
If you mean me, then No. I didn't know what CASAA was until I just Googled it. I see that they are promoting smokeless tobacco as well as vapor. I'm not sure I buy their hype for the smokeless tobacco products, and I don't have the time to look into this. If somebody wants to provide primary references that document lack of health effects following use of these products I'd be more than happy to evaluate the science. I'm not biased either way, I just don't have enough information to come to a conclusion.
This is about right, as:
- We are approaching 50 million user-years with ecig products now, and as Prof Rodu says, the lack of credible adverse events is of great interest.
- Ecig products are far more closely observed than any pharmaceutical product. The smallest issue becomes a global debate within the community. If someone gets a bad cough in Australia, they know about it in Canada. It is absolutely impossible that any pharmaceutical product has ever been subjected to the same degree of scrutiny, and the notion that the medically regulated process is somehow superior is farcical and ridiculous. If an ecig product even 10,000 times less harmful than Chantix had ever been brought to market, we would know about it. If that product had continued to be sold, in the UK, that person would be in jail.
- Off the record, all the experts will tell you there is 1,000 times less toxic load in ecig vapour compared to tobacco smoke, and this means that the disease burden will be significantly less than 1,000th that of smoking. Statistically, it will be invisible. Adverse events will most likely be limited to uncommon cases with identifiable co-causation (e.g. lungs already compromised by smoking).
A word to the wise: we have a lot of experience of vendors here. The best advice one could give is never believe what a vendor says - either look at the form, or inspect a current analysis of the product you have chosen. All vendors market their products on 'quality' or 'purity', and an unfortunate number of these statements have proven to be hot air. Show me. Prove it. These are the watchwords when dealing with ecig vendors, who all have a wonderful turn of phrase that is not necessarily matched by the contents of their products, when revealed.
A current good quality GC-MS / HPLC analysis of the exact retail product is required. There are a hundred ways to fudge such an analysis, all of which I've posted on before, and it takes too long to repeat that material.
The 'form' is also a good guide (in the horseracing meaning of the term: what is their recent history?) as it is a good guide to what you will find in an expensive analysis (there is no good, cheap analysis just as there is no good, cheap e-liquid). If they have a Dr or Professor of Chemistry overseeing their operation, and/or oversight is contracted out to the local university and which has a chemistry department of repute, then you can expect a reasonable standard.
ECF member Kurt is a doctor of chemistry, co-authors papers with Dr Farsalinos, and developed the HPLC-UV protocols required for ultra-high quality analysis of refill liquid. Any questions should be directed to him.
I'm sure a snusser will drop in with more details. Swedish snus (spitless in a small pouch) has become very popular here. It's regulated as a food product in Sweden and they have seen dramatic results in the reduction of smokers there. IIRC it's pasturized and has lower TSNAs than American smokeless tobacco products. There have also been some tobacco lozenges, known as Stonewalls and Ariva that were quite. popular. Nasal snuff has also made a comeback. All considered much safer than smoking.
I'll try to find the link of a researcher at U of Kentucky who has published quite a bit of research on harm reduction.
But we know puts in lots of stuff besides tobacco.
Yes, that is absolutely true. In fact we know that tobacco / smoke contains 9,600 compounds identified so far, but the total is likely to be much higher (Rodgman, Perfetti 2013).
What I am surprised about is that no one (to my knowledge) has ever suggested (much less published a study) that suggests anything other than the multiple alkaloids has any role in cognitive function. It is generally agreed that nicotine, nornicotine, anabasine, anatabine, myosmine and several more are active; but as to any other components? I've not seen anything that suggests other compounds can act on cognitive function, specifically to mitigate cognitive impairment or improve cognitive function clinically.
If course it is quite possible and also very interesting, as anyone who could demonstrate it would be creating new work. Let's look forward to such an event - as perhaps we could add whatever it is into e-liquid
Try:
Foulds et al 2003 - the earliest large scale analysis of the Snus data.
PN Lee, and also Lee, Hamling - various.
Rodu and Philips - various.
Links to all these are on the References page at ecigarette-politics.com - see 'Snus and ST'.
Prof Brad Rodu is a pathologist and the leading authority on the oral pathology of tobacco consumption. In private communications he told me: modern oral tobacco products such as Swedish Snus have too small an impact on health to be reliably identifiable.
Here is his blog site: http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/nih-funding-stifles-tobacco-harm.html
Thank you rolygate. I'm going to use that number. Is there an estimate of the number of people currently using e-cigs? That's the number I'd really like to have. And I read the blogg post about the NIH. To much money on one place to be good for science.
Question for mosspa if he cares to answer. Is the science we are discussing influencing the FDA or are they as superficial and political as the public health officials?
Last edited:
Yes, there is my estimate
Unfortunately the facts are bit hard to get hold of. Basically, we only have ecig facts for the UK, due entirely to Prof West. According to him, a little while back there were 2.1 million UK vapers.
You could probably guess at about the same each for Germany and France. The Italy vapers forum has bigger traffic than the UK ones. At a guess I'd say 8 or 10 million for Europe.
Quite recently, people were saying that there were only 2 million vapers in the US, which made me fall about laughing. Then last month they admitted to 6 million, which I still regard as a laughable underestimate - unless of course you can explain the huge difference in the US and UK market size (US $2 billion, UK £200 million) by some sort of weirdness like perhaps US vapers each spend $100,000 a year on vaping. I don't think so. I would be amazed if there were any less than 8 million US vapers. Unless of course they all spend 3 cents a year on vaping.
ROTW - who knows how many in the rest of the world. There are plenty in Russia, Japan, the Philippines, and wherever you look you'll find vapers. They even have a sizeable contingent in Costa Rica. In some places such as Singapore, where the government is frantic to protect tobacco tax revenues and executes anyone who disagrees, vapers have to risk death to avoid risking death (if you see what I mean...). Let's call it another 5 million for the ROTW.
So anywhere between 20 to 25 million for the global total seems about right. If you look at the factory turnovers in China you can see there are tens of millions of vapers out there - five years ago some China factories were turning over >$30m a year and things are just a little bigger now. And you have to multiply that ex-factory revenue by 5 as an average to get the western value at retail.
Ecigs were first sold in the west by Greg Carson, who in 2005 sold the Electro-... brand in the UK. By early 2006 there were a thousand or so vapers in the UK. In late 2006, ecigs were introduced to the USA. By 2007 the market was appreciable, and ECF was founded - SJ wanted to discuss the products and there wasn't anywhere else. By 2008 ecigs were hot, and by late 2009 even the pharmaceutical industry had heard of them. The tobacco industry figured it was a fad, until around 2012. Even in 2013 Imperial Tobacco was dismissing them as a passing fad that would soon disappear, and paying for anti-ecig propaganda just like everyone else; then in 2014 they bought anything that was ecig-related and not bolted down, including a whole bunch of patents and the guy who invented ecigs.
So as regards the total user-years we have now, 50 million may be a bit light, but it's an easily defensible number. Far higher of course than the Chantix userbase or user-year equivalent, and with about 99.999999999999999% less in the way of serious adverse events.
You are asking him something he cannot possibly be qualified to answer. He may have an opinion, but if you want to know the detail, it would be better to ask Greg Conley of CASAA or Lou Ritter of AEMSA, who deal with them almost daily. Or Prof Siegel, or Philips, or the ACSH.
Or just google 'regulatory capture fda', 'chantix fda' and see what you find.
Yes, that is absolutely true. In fact we know that tobacco / smoke contains 9,600 compounds identified so far, but the total is likely to be much higher (Rodgman, Perfetti 2013).
What I am surprised about is that no one (to my knowledge) has ever suggested (much less published a study) that suggests anything other than the multiple alkaloids has any role in cognitive function. It is generally agreed that nicotine, nornicotine, anabasine, anatabine, myosmine and several more are active; but as to any other components? I've not seen anything that suggests other compounds can act on cognitive function, specifically to mitigate cognitive impairment or improve cognitive function clinically.
If course it is quite possible and also very interesting, as anyone who could demonstrate it would be creating new work. Let's look forward to such an event - as perhaps we could add whatever it is into e-liquid
I'm wondering if it has something to do with some chemical difference between ignited chemicals and vaporized chemicals -- we know the rapid, almost-immediate delivery of nicotine and the various compounds plays a significant role in tobacco-smoking addiction -- maybe there is some chemical difference?
Andria
Good point Andria. Need to ask mosspa about the addition of ammonia by BT to facilitate faster crossing of the blood brain barrier. I thought that was for nicotine but could easily have been another component. I guess only BT knows for sure.
So let's not have so many posts accumulate that mosspa can't get through them all when he comes back. I hope he stays interested for a while. He can raise our game a lot.
I gotta agree with everyone... this thread is by far the most interesting read I've had in ages here.
Subscribed.
Subscribed.
My dealings with the FDA suggest that they are always on the side of big-pharma. There are some folks in the FDA neurotoxicology division that I know quite well and who are concerned real scientists. The FDA, though, is a fiercely political and pro-drug company organization. I wouldn't ever take anything they spout with more than a grain of salt.
Last edited:
If BT means Big Tobacco, I don't know anything about adding amonia to facilitate molecules crossing the BBB.
@ sofarsogood. It seems like I've been at this thread for more than 1/4th my awake life over the last few days. I won't loose interest if people keep showing an interest here. The more I read here and consolidate my real scientific views, the more likely I will be to try to publish something in a peer reviwed journal as a review of what has emerged to be the major topic here "Nicotine in relation to 'smoking addiction". These things take some time and diligence, though.
Well rock and roll professor, you've got a very interested and motivated audience here. We know things, you know things. Let's share. Good night.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
