The E-Cig party is over

[randybishop]

A New Cancer Study Found E-Cigarettes Affect Cells the Same As Tobacco Smoke

Researchers studied bronchial cells in a culture medium. They found that when the cells were exposed to e-cig vapor containing nicotine they showed similar gene mutations as the cells exposed to tobacco smoke, and determined to be at risk of becoming cancerous.


Read more

 

[Skeena]

They didn't say what brand they tested, or how diluted it was. I bet it was 100% pure.

 

[max]

Sure I'll buy that nicotine alone is as bad as smoke containing thousands of chemicals. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[hoptimum]

Sadly, for many people ecigs are synonomous with vaporizers

 

[stephenpowns]

Read up on this more. They used cells that were already pre-cancerous.

 

[CentiZen]

Good god, I was hoping to at least see a decent source of information linked - but VICE? Just stop reading that ridiculous publication. Their fringe coverage used to be decent but now they are just a joke. I recommend reading the actual study abstract instead of that editorialized piece of garbage; and you'll find that this is just another example of yellow journalism on VICE's part.

To quote the study abstract (emphasis mine):

The epithelial cells were exposed to both a low and high concentration of nicotine in the ECIG vapor- or TCIG smoke-conditioned media. The lower nicotine concentration was selected to mimic the average plasma nicotine levels in ENDS users and did not demonstrate toxic or anti-proliferative effects on the cells.

It goes on to explain that a "higher concentration", which is never elaborated upon except to say that it is to represent the anticipated nicotine delivery profile of a cigarette smoker - can cause some malignant transformation when cells are exposed to it for ten days straight.

Even the NATURE article that VICE cites does not support their claims, they write clearly near the end of the article:

The work is at a very early stage and therefore cannot establish that e-cigarettes can cause cancerin vitro, let alone in vivo.

Considering that the cells they used were cultures generated from bronchial tissues that had already exhibited cancerous mutations, anyone trying to use this study to support an absolute assertion one way or the other is full of shit.

The only thing I agree with that writer on is that there is a real need for more research on this topic. Too bad all the researchers are hesitant to release their findings now because they know all these so called journalists are going to twist their work any way they please.

 

[max]

Sadly, for many people ecigs are synonomous with vaporizers

They are vaporizers. Just like the mj variety, they use heat to produce vapor and avoid smoke. Hopefully the term 'e-cig' will stick so that 'mj' doesn't have to be added to 'vaporizer' in order to convey the proper meaning.

 

[DonDizzurp]

Good god, I was hoping to at least see a decent source of information linked - but VICE? Just stop reading that ridiculous publication. Their fringe coverage used to be decent but now they are just a joke. I recommend reading the actual study abstract instead of that editorialized piece of garbage; and you'll find that this is just another example of yellow journalism on VICE's part.

To quote the study abstract (emphasis mine):



It goes on to explain that a "higher concentration", which is never elaborated upon except to say that it is to represent the anticipated nicotine delivery profile of a cigarette smoker - can cause some malignant transformation when cells are exposed to it for ten days straight.

Even the NATURE article that VICE cites does not support their claims, they write clearly near the end of the article:



Considering that the cells they used were cultures generated from bronchial tissues that had already exhibited cancerous mutations, anyone trying to use this study to support an absolute assertion one way or the other is full of shit.

The only thing I agree with that writer on is that there is a real need for more research on this topic. Too bad all the researchers are hesitant to release their findings now because they know all these so called journalists are going to twist their work any way they please.

The study isn't claiming e-cigs cause cancer. It's suggesting that e-cigs might have the potential to cause cancer. Two very different things here.

You can support e-cigs all you want but your opinion doesn't trump science. Again, this study hasn't PROVEN anything but it's definitely a strong step towards putting an end to the e-cig health debate. Even the study itself states further research is needed. Disregarding or discrediting it because it could lead to a study that might show the potential harms of e-cigs is pretty ignorant.

BTW, I didn't read the Motherboard/Vice article. I just looked through it solely to find the study and the Nature article.

 

[DonDizzurp]

They are vaporizers. Just like the mj variety, they use heat to produce vapor and avoid smoke. Hopefully the term 'e-cig' will stick so that 'mj' doesn't have to be added to 'vaporizer' in order to convey the proper meaning.

Not really.

If you use tobacco in a convection or conduction based vaporizer, it would be similar.
Using VG and PG and nicotine and flavour, soaked in a silica wick, and heated using a NiChrome coil is not the same thing.

 

[hoptimum]

They are vaporizers. Just like the mj variety, they use heat to produce vapor and avoid smoke. Hopefully the term 'e-cig' will stick so that 'mj' doesn't have to be added to 'vaporizer' in order to convey the proper meaning.

I don't disagree. However, I doubt that most people know anything about the devices we discuss daily in this forum. But they sure as hell know about ecigs.

 

[CentiZen]

The study isn't claiming e-cigs cause cancer. It's suggesting that e-cigs might have the potential to cause cancer. Two very different things here.

You can support e-cigs all you want but your opinion doesn't trump science. Again, this study hasn't PROVEN anything but it's definitely a strong step towards putting an end to the e-cig health debate. Even the study itself states further research is needed. Disregarding or discrediting it because it could lead to a study that might show the potential harms of e-cigs is pretty ignorant.

BTW, I didn't read the Motherboard/Vice article. I just looked through it solely to find the study and the Nature article.

Please read the VICE article and reread what I wrote; I have a feeling you have fundamentally misunderstood my point. At no point did I mean to call in to question the study itself - only VICE's interpretation and embellishment of the findings. My point is that the study involved cannot support an assertion in either direction about the harm factor of electronic cigarettes, something the study authors have asserted themselves.

VICE's article oversimplifies and ignores key context points about the study that are essential if someone is to be able to form an educated opinion about the findings. They pull numerous quotes out of context to support points that are far more severe than those put forward in the study. The article also seems to have been edited since the original version that I was commenting on, to rephrase some of the more drastic conclusions that originally sparked my ire.

Keep in mind I have absolutely no issue with the other article - the one by Nature. This is a well written article that properly cites the study and gives important context to the findings. The VICE article is not. I mean, just compare the titles:

E-Cigarettes affect cells

Versus:

A New Cancer Study Found E-Cigarettes Affect Cells the Same As Tobacco Smoke

As someone who lives their life by scientific method; I almost feel offended by the insinuation that I would think my opinion should trump science. What I want to see here is more research - far more research; and for the media to allow that research to happen without using every step of it to feed fear, uncertainty and doubt. Every time we see a new study it gets thrown into the frenzy, with both sides of the issue trying to use it to push their own agendas. That's not a recipe for a proper discussion, and it causes researchers to fear the controversies that their research may be used to generate. It does not exactly get scientists chomping at the bit to pursue this much needed field of research.

 

[Radio]

Inconclusive study.. But interesting. I always believed that it was the nicotine that caused cell mutation but did not consider that it was more responsible for cancer than a lungful of carcinogenic neurotoxic smoke was..
Hopefully this unfolds more soon!

 

[hoptimum]

Please read the VICE article and reread what I wrote; I have a feeling you have fundamentally misunderstood my point. At no point did I mean to call in to question the study itself - only VICE's interpretation and embellishment of the findings. My point is that the study involved cannot support an assertion in either direction about the harm factor of electronic cigarettes, something the study authors have asserted themselves.

VICE's article oversimplifies and ignores key context points about the study that are essential if someone is to be able to form an educated opinion about the findings. They pull numerous quotes out of context to support points that are far more severe than those put forward in the study. The article also seems to have been edited since the original version that I was commenting on, to rephrase some of the more drastic conclusions that originally sparked my ire.

Keep in mind I have absolutely no issue with the other article - the one by Nature. This is a well written article that properly cites the study and gives important context to the findings. The VICE article is not. I mean, just compare the titles:



Versus:



As someone who lives their life by scientific method; I almost feel offended by the insinuation that I would think my opinion should trump science. What I want to see here is more research - far more research; and for the media to allow that research to happen without using every step of it to feed fear, uncertainty and doubt. Every time we see a new study it gets thrown into the media frenzy, with both sides of the issue trying to use it to push their own agendas. That's not a recipe for a proper discussion, and it causes researchers to fear the controversies that their research may be used to generate.

Great point about the media. How the media frame the discussion has everything to do with how it's perceived. At the moment, I can imagine editors at most (not all) publications snickering over a marijuana article the way they might if they were writing a story about stars in the porn industry. Until they grow up and treat cannabis like adults, with respect, we're in for an uphill climb for a while, IMO

 

[DonDizzurp]

Please read the VICE article and reread what I wrote; I have a feeling you have fundamentally misunderstood my point. At no point did I mean to call in to question the study itself - only VICE's interpretation and embellishment of the findings. My point is that the study involved cannot support an assertion in either direction about the harm factor of electronic cigarettes, something the study authors have asserted themselves.

VICE's article oversimplifies and ignores key context points about the study that are essential if someone is to be able to form an educated opinion about the findings. They pull numerous quotes out of context to support points that are far more severe than those put forward in the study. The article also seems to have been edited since the original version that I was commenting on, to rephrase some of the more drastic conclusions that originally sparked my ire.

Keep in mind I have absolutely no issue with the other article - the one by Nature. This is a well written article that properly cites the study and gives important context to the findings. The VICE article is not. I mean, just compare the titles:



Versus:



As someone who lives their life by scientific method; I almost feel offended by the insinuation that I would think my opinion should trump science. What I want to see here is more research - far more research; and for the media to allow that research to happen without using every step of it to feed fear, uncertainty and doubt. Every time we see a new study it gets thrown into the frenzy, with both sides of the issue trying to use it to push their own agendas. That's not a recipe for a proper discussion, and it causes researchers to fear the controversies that their research may be used to generate. It does not exactly get scientists chomping at the bit to pursue this much needed field of research.

My apologies. I completely misunderstood your first post.