Vape Carts Health Crisis Megathread

[MinnBobber]

In a 1 gram cartridge, how much is product and how much is filler/carrier oil?

In researching Vitamin E acetate, it has been heavily used in cosmetics industry, on the skin
and it also acts as a preservative of the cosmetic or suntan product.

It was never meant to be vaped.

Also noteworthy is that "regular" Vitamin E would be very sticky on the lung lining
and Vitamin E acetate form would be ultra/mega sticky on the lungs.
If pic shows:
- lung's normal immune cell (macrophage) on right
- lung immune cell from ecig lung patient in Utah

Vit E acetate is a like a coating grease, like plastic wrap on the inside of your lungs, interfering with
the normal gas: gas transfer.

Vitamin E acetate was rarely used before 2019, and then exploded in useage as it was a cheap carrier agent
and some cart makers jumped all over it.

It seems pretty obvious what the main suspect is here and its use needs to stop immediately.

 

[Planck]

You do realize that the chemicals that we vaporize out of the cannabis plant and inhale are oils, right?

Yes I do, they satisfy the definition of dissolving in non polar organic solvents but not in polar solvents. But they are not in the class of lipids known as fats and oils.

So by one definition they are oils by another they are not.

Bad use of the term on my part I suppose, thing is the chemistry behind this get complex in a hurry.

So to be clear, do not vape vegetable oil, palm oil, canola oil, coconut oil, etc. any petroleum based oils or animal fat.

 

[Ramahs]

Hash oil/BHO is not an oil

Really?

I recognize that there is a huge difference between that type of oil and the type of long triglyceride oil that is the subject of these problems...but that doesn't mean that we're not still talking about types of oils in both cases, which makes the original statement in question to be complete bullshit.

 

[darbarikanada]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...nounces-criminal-probe/?wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

from the article: "Health experts have not yet isolated a single e-cigarette product or substance as the underlying culprit. But officials have said they suspect that a form of chemical exposure has made the patients ill."

 

[Tranquility]

https://mjbizdaily.com/fda-disclose...-putting-added-scrutiny-on-cannabis-industry/

...
“We know it’s not cannabis that’s dangerous,” said Nic Easley, CEO of cannabis industry consultancy 3C.

“It’s pesticides, residual solvents, vitamin E, reintroduced terpenes, viscous solutions like propylene glycol.”

Easley advised that cannabis companies now doing business in the vape market should avoid:

• Low-quality hardware.
• Viscous solutions that are known to be dangerous.
• Reintroducing terpenes even if they’re hemp-derived.
• Artificial flavors like those in e-cigarettes.

 

[Planck]

viscous solutions like propylene glycol

Seems like just another talking head?

PG is so dangerous it's used in asthma inhalers and injectable pharmaceuticals.

 

[Tranquility]

Seems like just another talking head?

PG is so dangerous it's used in asthma inhalers and injectable pharmaceuticals.

I wonder if a "CEO of cannabis industry consultancy" would want to point the finger away from the "cannabis industry"? Not that there is anything wrong with that; especially in this instance. But, an inhaler PG is different from a vaped PG at least in temperature. That causes differences in what is inhaled.
https://monq.com/science/vegetable-glycerin/

 

[Planck]

I wonder if a "CEO of cannabis industry consultancy" would want to point the finger away from the "cannabis industry"? Not that there is anything wrong with that; especially in this instance. But, an inhaler PG is different from a vaped PG at least in temperature. That causes differences in what is inhaled.
https://monq.com/science/vegetable-glycerin/

I assume you are talking about this " Propylene glycol is known to cause irritation at high doses, but has not been shown to cause damage at low doses. It has also been noted that heating of propylene glycol can result in the production of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde."

This little oyster was spawned by a study the was severely criticised in the scientific community, I think the authors eventually removed it in shame.

I the study the devices were operated in such as way as to burn the liquid. This is not how they are used. No one is ever going to inhale this it tastes horrific and causes immediate irritation and coughing. We know when we burn our weed or our e-juice.

Most combustion creates some fomaldahide and associated compounds.

Or did I swing and miss?

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

FDA just dropped its proposed rule for premarket tobacco product applications "as part of commitment to continuing strong oversight of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products"

The 339-page rule is a bit of a snoozer, IMO, but if you download it, have a look at the Health Risk Investigations section, and imagine the resources a tobacco product manufacturer (including e-cigarettes) would need to gain marketing approval. This will be required for all "new" tobacco products May 2020 at the latest. ("New" means not on the market in February 2007, includes all e-cigarettes.) They might fast-track it.

For starters:

The profile should include data and thorough literature reviews
of the following health effects known to be caused by tobacco products as applicable such as:
Genotoxicity (the ability of a chemical agent to damage DNA within a cell, causing mutations that may lead to cancer);
Carcinogenicity (the ability of a chemical agent to directly cause cancer in humans or animals after exposure);
Cardiovascular toxicity (the ability of a chemical agent to cause adverse effects on the cardiovascular system (i.e., heart and blood vessels));
Respiratory toxicity (the ability of a chemical agent to cause adverse effects on the respiratory system, which comprises the nasal passages, pharynx, trachea, bronchi, and lungs);
Reproductive toxicity (the ability of a chemical agent to cause adverse effects on the male or female reproductive systems such that normal reproduction is impaired);
Developmental toxicity (the ability of a chemical agent to interfere with the development of the embryo or fetus); and
Other diseases associated with use.

That's just the non-clinical work. Skipping over pharmacology, we come to even costlier studies:

cross sectional and longitudinal surveys (such as market analyses or publicly available
national surveys such as NYTS);
epidemiologic studies that are descriptive (which describe the occurrence of a prespecified or unknown outcome), such as case reports and case series; and
analytic studies (which describe the association between exposure and outcome) such as randomized controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, and case control studies.

And please comment, after you've thoroughly digested the tome, of course. Participate in your democracy!

 

[Hackerman]

e-cigs have been around since 1967 and used propylene glycol since 2003. Since then, no one has died from proylene glycol and 8 million people have died from cancer (USA only).

https://www.dentalcare.com/en-us/professional-education/ce-courses/ce451/the-history-of-e-cigarettes

I don't care because I don't use either one. However, I hate to see a witch hunt. Fucking e-cig witch hunt based on the media spreading misinformation. Typical.

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

e-cigs have been around since 1967 and used propylene glycol since 2003. Since then, no one has died from proylene glycol and 8 million people have died from cancer (USA only).

https://www.dentalcare.com/en-us/professional-education/ce-courses/ce451/the-history-of-e-cigarettes

Very interesting! It's a very simple technology, after all, except for the pocket-sized batteries. Unfortunately, no one's identified a substantially equivalent e-cig product that was on the US market in 2007. If there was, e-cigarettes would have a much easier path to market.

Regarding glycols, learned recently that they can be contaminated with lipids that aren't removed in processing. Every additive increases the potential for soucing problems.

 

[Planck]

Regarding glycols, learned recently that they can be contaminated with lipids that aren't removed in processing. Every additive increases the potential for soucing problems.

That is true Glycols are used in industry that are not suitable for ingestion or inhalation. Alway use USP only (or whatever the designation for food/medical where one buys PG.

Unfortunately, no one's identified a substantially equivalent e-cig product that was on the US market in 2007. If there was, e-cigarettes would have a much easier path to market.

Yeah maybe or perhaps the date would be 1887. I expect the latter.

 

[CalyxSmokr]

Seems like just another talking head?

PG is so dangerous it's used in asthma inhalers and injectable pharmaceuticals.

in an inhaler how much are you ingesting? is that the same as saturating a cotton wick on an RDA and heating it to vapor? of course not.
injectable pharmaceuticals deliver what dosage to a completely different body system? does it use a kanthal coil?
it is almost like you are twisting yourself in knots to protect a substance that is foolish to vape.

lets inhale glycols...what could go wrong? Studies have demonstrated the safety of this practice? Of course not.

 

[Planck]

a substance that is foolish to vape.

Well then please educate me with actual facts.
What does "foolish to vape" mean and why is it foolish to vape PG?

Let's not forget it is not the e-cig industry killing their clients with product additives.

Thank you your time, I am always open to learning.

 

[Tranquility]

Yeah maybe or perhaps the date would be 1887. I expect the latter.

I think @Accept was using legal jargon in his reply. If you *actually had* some "substantially equivalent" e-cig-type product being sold back that far, it would change the regulatory framework being built for those types of things here. Especially on time frames to get FDA approval in order to sell.

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

I think @Accept was using legal jargon in his reply. If you *actually had* some "substantially equivalent" e-cig-type product being sold back that far, it would change the regulatory framework being built for those types of things here. Especially on time frames to get FDA approval in order to sell.

That's right - demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate product is far from trivial. Even if there were e-cigarettes similar to some of those currently marketed in 2007, the pathway would likely benefit only that small subset of products.

IMO, FDA has wanted to essentially ban e-cigarettes since its had authority over tobacco. It can't meaningfully regulate the current market, so it needs to simplify it by getting rid of most of the available products. FDA's dream is for e-cigarettes to consist of relatively slim offerings from large manufacturers who have the resources to conduct the necessary testing. It's hoping that the recent vaping illnesses will provide the political will to achieve this.

 

[Planck]

I think @Accept was using legal jargon in his reply. If you *actually had* some "substantially equivalent" e-cig-type product being sold back that far, it would change the regulatory framework being built for those types of things here. Especially on time frames to get FDA approval in order to sell.

Absolutely, and my half joke half serious reply is that if some "substantially equivalent" existed in 2007 the grandfather date would have been set to earlier
date. Because as Accent says...

IMO, FDA has wanted to essentially ban e-cigarettes since its had authority over tobacco. It can't meaningfully regulate the current market, so it needs to simplify it by getting rid of most of the available products. FDA's dream is for e-cigarettes to consist of relatively slim offerings from large manufacturers who have the resources to conduct the necessary testing. It's hoping that the recent vaping illnesses will provide the political will to achieve this.

I think it is big pharma, big tobacco, fed and state governments, they all stand to loose if e-cig are successful. Tobacco bonds, master settlement agreement coming home to roost. FDA are the jack boot thugs on the above mentioned.

 

[CalyxSmokr]

Absolutely, and my half joke half serious reply is that if some "substantially equivalent" existed in 2007 the grandfather date would have been set to earlier
date. Because as Accent says...



I think it is big pharma, big tobacco, fed and state governments, they all stand to loose if e-cig are successful. Tobacco bonds, master settlement agreement coming home to roost. FDA are the jack boot thugs on the above mentioned.

What is e-cig successful vs. not successful? You want a market with regulations or none or exactly what? You want to take e-cigs away from big tobacco?

 

[314]

Folks, medical grade PG is only dangerous for those that are allergic to it. It's not too rare to be allergic but that's it. People have been vaping liquids with up to 70% PG for over a decade now without problems. Just get over it

 

[CalyxSmokr]

Folks, medical grade PG is only dangerous for those that are allergic to it. It's not too rare to be allergic but that's it. People have been vaping liquids with up to 70% PG for over a decade now without problems. Just get over it

what does getting over it mean?

 

[TommyDee]

It's a polite way to say "quit yer bitch'n!"

 

[CalyxSmokr]

It's a polite way to say "quit yer bitch'n!"

who is bitching?

 

[walkma666]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...5b708e-d98d-11e9-ac63-3016711543fe_story.html

 

[TommyDee]

who is bitching?

I have no idea as to who's bitchin' but that's what it means.

 

[CalyxSmokr]

I have no idea as to who's bitchin' but that's what it means.

I already knew that fwiw