Free access article discussing the cell toxicity of eliquid flavouring

General Health and advocacy
16

@50YearsOfCigars I agree, and it does have many of the tell tale signs…

The e-liquid manufacturers market these liquids with alluring names, such as Cotton Candy, Oatmeal Cookie, and Tutti Frutti that are more appealing especially to young adults (Allen et al., 2016).

Vaping exposes these flavoring chemicals to the lungs when the e-liquids are heated and inhaled with a similar mechanistic pathway as the inhalation of chemicals at microwave popcorn factories and coffee roasting plants (Bailey et al., 2015).

Just TWO that stood out to me thus far. I’m SURE vaping isn’t safer than doing nothing, but when I start to see/feel/sense a slant, I start to loose faith in the integrity.

@SuperFrog Thanks for the linkage none the less, will read it in it’s entirety.

4 Likes
17

@Iv3shf the points you and @SessionDrummer bring up are all part of the “mantra” of the anti-smoking / ant-vaping zealots. They have a well developed play book of junk science that is being used, bought and paid for, by NIH grants and well funded non-profits. I fully understand that the average man on the street, the average vaper does not understand how, and is very confused what to make of these “papers” that are presented as “scientific research”

If you are not in the world of research, if you are not a working professional in the world of academic ‘research’, then it is can be very hard to wrap ones head around. all this mis-information, and to wind up totally confused and start asking “is this real science, or is it something else?” But realize that scientists are people too, with personal points of view, personal value systems, and families that must be fed, so yes, some sellout, and all science is not “good science” There is such thing as “bad science”, and in the subject of vaping, that bad science is everywhere.

For a very good series of videos on this, to help you understand how and what bad science is, how it is created, how it takes over ‘good science’, I strongly recommend that all vapers listen to the excellent work of Brent Stafford at RegWatch(dot)com. Brent is one of those people that can bridge the gap and explain complex things that most of us never get near or touch in our lives. He does it all in very easy to listen to, very well produced short videos.

Please listen to his excellent series on Science and Vaping at:
VAPING - JUST SCIENCE
31 videos 3 Dec 19, 2017

and if I had to pick just one or two from the above excellent list, if you are short of time, but still want to understand the nuts and bolts of Junk Science and it how works: listen to:

PUBLIC PANIC - RESEARCHERS PUSH TO SKEW VAPING REGULATION (REG WATCH)
-and
DIRTY TACTICS -HOW CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE POLLUTED VAPING,

7 Likes
18

@50YearsOfCigars ^^^^^ That nails the point home, and is what “they” count on IMO.

4 Likes
19

Funny, after that article, another one came out stating that coffee could cause cancer. I’ve vaped for 4 years now and haven’t grown horns yet. These companies or people make half assed claims filled with no real facts just probability.

2 Likes
20

Edit: everything causes cancer even water

2 Likes
21

Well, unfortunately, this one has a little truth to it as it relates to vape juice that might be made form ‘artificial coffee flavoring’ We discussed this in a previous post here. However, in NET coffee extracts made form real beans the hazard is negligible.

3 Likes
22

I suppose I’ll stop when the MRI reveals cancerous growths inside my body. With today’s industry, processed food etc, we cannot get away from harmful or potentially harmful things. Many of these flavors are in hard candy which is crazy hot when poured. Too many variables. Either we can vape and enjoy or quit from health issues or just flat out being scared

2 Likes
23

It’s a good gig if you can get it. Find something new that consumers are putting in their bodies, throw out a random warning to the press, then write grant for an easy million to fund a couple of graduate assistants to write this up. Sit back in your ivory tower and tell the administrators how much money you are bringing in. Even faculty need a hustle. :smiley:

4 Likes
24

Quitter!

Actually if they found something in me that I knew that would kill me, I wouldn’t quit. I would more than likely take up a few more habits. There are several recreational drugs to take that is on my bucket list.

4 Likes
25

Like what?

2 Likes
26

Can’t tell ya. It would take this off topic.

4 Likes
27

oh yeah…and then we would get banned. excuse me. now, back to cell toxicity

1 Like
28

50YearsOfCigars. Thank you SO much for those posts.Great info.

1 Like
29

I live in central London. I dread to think what I breathe in every time I leave home.

2 Likes
30

Thank you @50YearsOfCigars for making a point and for those links!

We all know that some (if not all) of the headlines are clickbaiters, unfortunately some scientists are following a path and assumptions that were wrong and/or wrongly designed in the first place (not having a strong base to start with) or are by now old, PV’s have changed, we all know about diacetyl and so forth, so information are changed and we are more aware of dangers and way to avoid them.

So, misinformation, headlines, (and ourselves with our opinions…) unfortunately leads to what you said in the first place, confusion:

the average man on the street, the average vaper does not understand how, and is very confused what to make of these “papers” that are presented as “scientific research”

I will certainly have a look at those videos! thank you!

2 Likes
31

I take your points and could discuss the fine details of academic publishing and grant hunting at length. AS well as the points of research being inproperly used by people who do not or pretend not to understand the scope of a paper.

On the other hand, this is data. The trends exposed therein are interesting.
It may or may not be applicable (my guess is probably not) to our use case. I don’t think there is a need to be defensive outside of it being used as part of broader policy. Would be a shame to go on the over-sure side of things and miss out on early warnings.

Ps: I can’t believe I find myself defending this paper, which I don’t find all that amazing.

2 Likes
32

Thank you again!
I watched those videos (and more) and liked them!
I definitely will sponsor those videos in a forum of which I’m a mod in Italy!, Especially Polosa’s interview on vaping and lungs damages.

1 Like
33

Hi there @SuperFrog ! Sounds like you have been around the world of Grant hunting. same here… those of us close that world see it for what it is.

As to “data”, I argue that the paper that the OP cited first develops no ‘relevant’ data at all. I read it and just saw a bunch of jaw flapping hot air. My position, speaking as a chemist, is that you have proven nothing by throwing a few cells into a beaker with some dissolved compounds that have a previously known level of toxicity. That is not investigative science, that just a demonstration of known phenomena.

As to early warnings that might come out of junk science, well, of course i am not too keen on the idea that such a thing is even possible, but let’s say by some incredible turn of happenstance one of these grant hunters accidentally turns up something of use, well we have a few watch dogs on our side that will pick it up and run with it. You know I like to link to stuff outside the forum, so here is a link to a competent watchdog that knows his science and is also (thank God!!!) on our side…

I see in your post above ref: Carbonyl Emissions in E-cigarette Aerosol: A Systematic Review and… there is a good deal of Dr Farsalinos work, so that is a good thing !

4 Likes
34

my thoughts exactly! Mold spores alone cause dramatic pulmonary disease!

2 Likes
35

@50YearsOfCigars You just keep posting QUALITY links here brother. I’ve not had time to read all the articles that you linked to, but color me impressed. PLEASE continue to share this type of information here with ELR.

Just a small snippet…

E-cigarettes were found to expose to about 100-times higher particulate matter-10 μg (PM10) compared to smoking. The fanatic supporters of the particulate matter theory (which is a total misinterpretation of science and should be considered gossip rather than serious scientific debate) would support that e-cigarettes will increase the cancer risk by 100-fold compared to smoking. However, the careful assessment of the aerosol composition of e-cigarettes showed that the cancer risk for vapers is about 5 orders of magnitude lower compared to smoking. To be exact, they identified a 57,000-fold (thousand) lower Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) from vaping compared to smoking. The authors expand by saying that: “… the ELCR evaluated for the mainstream aerosol of ECs results lower to the target limit reported by EPA and WHO. WHO, in fact, reports an ELCR of 1×10-5 as target value (Commission on Environmental Health, 1996), while EPA considers a target risk range of 10-6 to 10-4 to be ‘‘safe and protective of public health” but ‘‘even risks slightly greater than 1×10-4 may be considered adequately protective” under specific conditions (EPA, 1991b).”

I am certain this study will generate ZERO publicity. This is very common for studies showing anything positive on e-cigarettes. After so many studies published in the past few years, smokers still believe that e-cigarettes as similarly or more harmful than smoking. Sad for public health…

1 Like