What's new

E-cigs not as harmless as claimed

K

KulrMeStoopid

Guest
http://www.kentucky.com/2012/07/22/2266540/e-cigs-not-as-harmless-as-claimed.html

researchers have serious concerns
By Ellen j. Hahn — Special to the Herald-Leader
Electronic cigarettes — also called e-cigs, vaporizers, or vapor stix — are the latest thing in tobacco products. Although the e-cig companies claim they are harmless, there are major concerns about their safety. Because of misleading advertisements, users believe they can safely continue to smoke by switching from traditional cigarettes to e-cigs.
Unfortunately, scientific research doesn't back this up.
An e-cig is a metal cylinder that acts as a battery-powered atomizer of a solution made up of a highly variable mixture of chemicals and nicotine. The FDA moved to ban the import of e-cigs in 2009, classifying them as drug delivery devices after initial testing found problems with both the amount and type of chemicals in the cartridges. The variations found in the chemical composition of the e-cig cartridges raised concerns about quality standards in the manufacturing process. After the ban, e-cig makers took the FDA to court, claiming the devices were tobacco products and not drug delivery devices subject to FDA regulation. The court ruling allowed the FDA to regulate e-cigs as tobacco products (not as a way to quit smoking).
Marketing of e-cigs has gone viral. The Internet, social media and personal testimonials claim that e-cigs are a safe alternative to smoking. However, these claims are not supported by science. Many respected public health organizations and advocacy groups, such as the World Health Organization and the American Lung Association, have serious concerns about using electronic cigarettes. A recent study showed serious changes in the lungs of e-cig users after just minutes of use. E-cig users have reported injuries from the device itself. There also are concerns about toxic exposure to nicotine on the skin when opening the cartridges, which are not child safe. Cancer-causing agents and harmful chemicals have been found in the e-cig vapor.
E-cig use quadrupled from 2009 to 2010. Although some people report they were able to quit smoking by using e-cigs, there is no scientific evidence that this works.
In fact, the FDA does not permit manufacturers to make such claims.
Health organizations recommend prohibiting the use of e-cigs in public places until more is known about the cartridges and the vapor.
Ellen J. Hahn directs the Kentucky Center for Smoke-free Policy and is a professor in the University of Kentucky College of Nursing.


View attachment 202
 
A recent study showed serious changes in the lungs of e-cig users after just minutes of use

Well, I can certainly vouch for that observation. I stop wheezing and coughing within a week of switching to vaping, and haven't used an inhaler since January, and haven't had a cold or flu this year at all!



there is no scientific evidence that this works

Whereas traditional NRT is known to be such a runaway success with all of those who take it on - 90% success rate - OH! hang on...

FFS! :mad-new:
 
Last edited:
" Cancer-causing agents and harmful chemicals have been found in the e-cig vapor."

I'd like them to clarify the Cancer claim with some details! It sounds like a "What can I write a Knee Jerk story about in 10 minutes today" kind of article.
 
I have to agree that they can cause damage.... A container load of ecigs fell on the head of my mate... and yes it did hurt..:strawberry:
 
This sounds like a retreaded story. I'm sure i read something like this nearly a year ago.

Smokers start benefitting straight away from not taking in the 3,000 chemicals found in cigarettes. And as a previous poster said the wheezing quickly stops. Taste buds start to 'taste' again. Lung power increases to what it should be. Energy levels increase.

This, from a professor. I can barely believe it. Is her concern for all the people that will benefit from using e cigs instead of smoking ? Can't be. Her concern is totally misplaced

If i were a Professor and director of the 'Kentucky center for smoke free policy' i would know more about a subject, that would change peoples lives for the better, before i wrote with such apparent authority and showed how little i did actually know.
 
..she needs a nice vape on Kentucky Vermillion River range vanilla
 
Response to the article by John Connell
Dear Dr. Janek:

A recent article that appeared in the Kentucky.com site by Dr. Ellen
Hahn carries the banner of your institution and is unfortunately more
of an opinion, most of which is without foundation, presented as fact.
Her data is ancient and actually misrepresented by its complete
negative stance and the lack of complete reporting of the one article
she cited (without reference) reveals she is cherry picking lines
stating her case and neglecting the authors own speculation that these
data may have no clinical relevance at all.

She uses words that are both dramatic and unscientific, which is fine
in a letter to the editor as a citizen of the United States, but is
not appropriate for a person representing themselves as a Director of
the Kentucky Center for Smoke-free Policy and as a Professor at the UK
College of Nursing. The entirety of the article is from the stance of
a person who is not impartial, not objective and sorely unread in the
field. From perusal it seems more a campaign to put fear into the
minds of those who would attempt alternative solutions for smoking
cessation.

The addictive properties of nicotine, the behavioral aspects of
smoking and the cognitive effects of nicotine (alertness, in trials as
a dementia delaying agent) are an immense factor in smoking cessation.
The success of cessation methods to date has been very poor and the
side effect profiles for Chantix are especially egregious (black box).
The electronic cigarette she speaks of is a tobacco product by court
decision (that is the law of the land) and is perfectly legal at
present. She is correct in stating that this is not a smoking
cessation device approved by the FDA. To state that it is often
(please statistics) marketed as such in the article is here say and if
one looks at the internet or goes into a local dealer of these devices
that is plainly visible on packaging and on websites.
.
The articles claim that there are carcinogens in the exhaled vapor of
electronic cigarette users are also incorrect and this has been
clinically studied and will be soon published. There is no data that
supports her claim. The level of the nicotine alkaloid carcinogens in
the liquids used is equal to or less than that in the NRT patches and
gums

What she neglects, and omission of data that could be useful in a
patient's decision is unethical, is the mention of the numerous
carcinogenic agents in tobacco smoke that are not present in the
vaporized liquid used. Also there is a misconception that the liquid
is "a highly variable mixture of chemicals and nicotine" when it is a
fairly standard combination of Propylene Glycol, Vegetable Glycerin
and a nicotine concentration of 0-36 mg/ml. Flavorings added are FDA
approved for consumption. She would have been accurate and appear
less dramatic by stating that the liquid is made of the above material
and flavors that are all FDA approved, but not all are approved for
inhalation.

The concern that I have as a physician (now retired) who has seen the
struggling patient and family attempting to rid themselves of an
addiction only to relapse numerous times is that there is evidence
that electronic cigarettes do facilitate smoking cessation through
replacement and that people stop smoking in some of the studies our
author has apparently not read that had no intention of quitting when
the study was started.

The other concern is she is effectively equating smoking (combustion)
with vaporization by not omission of any comment that there is a
significant pharmacological difference in the process of chemically
changing an organic material and causing only a physical change
through vaporization. This is just another article in the mainstream
that is attached to your institution that is so poorly written and
filled with unscientific opinion that it effectively promotes more
myth than fact to the community. The initial FDA concerns were over
one vial of liquid that contained trace amounts of diacetyl (below FDA
limits for human consumption) and have been long since rendered as a
non-issue. At present it has the power to shut the industry down and
it has not done so, even though the information in the article has
been known for years. It is the more recent and more positive
findings that are being seen as a possible route to the significant
decline in the 400,000 lung cancer deaths each year.

I would ask that this article be peer reviewed and a retraction be
either undertaken or a person in the field that specializes in
electronic cigarette research be allowed to comment on it formally in
the same publication. I would suggest that Carl Phillips, Ph.D. or
someone from an independent harm reduction group such as CASAA
(casaa.org) be allowed to review this material, preferably before it
becomes public record.

The proliferation of half-truths and the obvious slanting of an
article is not science, do not reflect well on an institution and
certainly can only lead to a misinformed and potentially fatally
misdirected consumer.

Re: Hahn, Ellen J., E-cigs not as harmless as claimed: researchers
concerned, July 22, 2012
http://www.kentucky.com/2012/07/22/2266540/<wbr>e-cigs-not-as-harmless-as-claimed.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy


Sincerely,


John A. Connell, M.D.

Rio Rancho, N.M. 87144
 
I assume this is the same John Connell who has already commented on this on the FB group 'Totally Wacked'
 
Back
Top Bottom