• There were no safety concerns in smokers using an EVP for 2 years.

• Headache, nasopharyngitis and sore throat were the most common adverse events in smokers using an EVP, declining over time.

• The frequency of adverse events steadily decreased over time after switching to an EVP.

• EVP use was associated with a reduction in cigarette consumption and a reduced exposure to cigarette smoke constituents.

• Use of the EVP did not lead to clinically significant adverse changes in biomarkers of haematology or lipid metabolism.

Abstract

The safety profile of Puritane™, a closed system electronic vapour product (EVP), was evaluated when used by smokers of conventional cigarettes (CCs) for 24 months in a real-life setting. The study was a two-centre ambulatory clinical study with 209 healthy volunteers. Outcome measures included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, electrocardiogram, lung function tests, exposure to nicotine and selected smoke constituents, nicotine withdrawal effects and smoking desire. No serious AEs related to EVP use were observed. The most frequently reported AEs were headache, nasopharyngitis, sore throat and cough, reported by 28.7%, 28.7%, 19.6% and 16.7% of subjects, respectively, which dissipated over time. Small decreases in lung function were not considered clinically relevant. No clinically relevant findings were observed in the other safety parameters. From Month 2, nicotine withdrawal symptoms decreased. Smoking desire and CC consumption steadily decreased over time in all subjects. EVP use was associated with reduced exposure to cigarette smoke constituents, whereas urinary nicotine levels remained close to baseline. Body weight did not increase in CC subjects switching to the EVP. In conclusion, the aerosol of the EVP at study was well tolerated and not associated with any clinically relevant health concerns after usage for up to 24 months.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230017303975?via%3Dihub

A new study was published today in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health by our group, evaluating e-liquids for the presence of tobacco-derived toxins. Additionally, the accuracy of nicotine labelling was assessed. The study is novel because for the first time we assessed tobacco-flavored liquids for the presence of phenols and nitrate (known toxins in tobacco smoke), as well as nitrosamines. Moreover, we assessed a specific group of e-liquids (known as Natural Extracts of Tobacco – NETs), which are made by using cured tobacco leaves to extract the flavor. This is the first time that such liquids are specifically tested.

The study verified that tobacco-derived toxins are lower by orders of magnitude in e-liquids compared to tobacco products. Characteristically, nitrosamines were 146-1447 times lower in e-liquids compared to tobacco products (in 1 mL liquid compared to 1 gram of tobacco), while nitrate was 1360 times lower. NET liquids contained somewhat higher levels of tobacco-derived toxins compared to conventional e-liquids, but the levels were still significantly lower compared to tobacco. Deviation from labelled nicotine content was on average 5.9% for conventional e-liquids and 1.5% for NETs, with maximum deviation being 22.1%. Interestingly, no difference between conventional liquids and NETs were observed, indicating that the flavor extraction process does not lead to extraction of nicotine from the tobacco leaves.

The study adds to current evidence confirming the lower risk potential of e-cigarettes compared to tobacco. NET liquids contained more tobacco-derived toxins, but still much lower compared to tobacco.

In case you want to contact Dr Farsalinos and his team, please send email to:

drfarsalinos@ecigarette-research.org

We win, that’s what now.

Between Governor Jerry Brown signing the controversial tobacco bills into law in California – which opens vaping up to unsustainable regulation, criticism, and taxation in the most vape-active state in the country – and the FDA injecting a slow-acting but definitely fatal poison directly into the jugular of the nation’s vaping industry, it seems that we may have lost the battle to ensure longer lives and better health for millions of cigarette smokers.

If I can interrupt your wailing and gnashing of teeth for a moment, I beg you to consider a different perspective. It’ll be worth it.
What I see in the middle of this platter of steaming garbage (that has been served up on both the state and federal levels) is a big, glittering diamond. We have been given a gift.

In making no concessions to the vaping industry, and subsequently raising a tall middle finger to the citizens of this great country who have found improved health, happiness, and quality of life by moving from cigarettes to vaping, the government has guaranteed two things.

One. That the adults will now take over the vapor industry. Millennials, hobbyists, hipsters, and high school kids trying to push the 300 watt barrier just don’t have the intestinal fortitude for what’s coming. Many shops will close, convention centers will sit empty, vape trick competitions will disappear, and there will be the odd hissing sound of wringing hands coming from parents’ basements nationwide. The end of the current vaping industry is at hand. But if you read my post here – then you already know that it’s not a bad thing.

I worked for many years in the air medical industry; those brave folks who fly critically ill and injured people on helicopters. And I can tell you that the only industry more heavily regulated than healthcare is aviation. So why not mix them together and see what happens! I’ll tell you what happens – it becomes a constant (daily) struggle between governmental intrusion (usually fueled by ignorance and/or greed) and trying to make enough money to keep flying. You talk about protracted PR and lobbying battles – the e-cigarette and vaping world actually has had it easy. Well, until now.

So why do people in air medical keep getting up every day and fighting – after all, you can make significantly more money in numerous other industries? Because it’s the right thing to do. Human lives matter and fighting against bureaucracy to keep people alive and with their families is a damn compelling mission.

But it takes adults who can play the game. And I can tell you, those folks only show up when there is a compelling mission endangered by inappropriate, ignorant, and destructive resistance (sound like anything else you know?).

Truly successful people relish ‘unwinnable’ challenges, especially when the outcome is ultimately beneficial to humanity.
And two. The eighty-five plus percent of Americans fatigued by continuous governmental intrusion are now primed to come around. Start pushing the messages that I recommended here and hammer the social proof of the benefits associated with vaping over cigarette smoking, and you will find exponential traction in the critical public arena.

If you are depressed or defeated over the massive anti-vaping developments in these past couple of days, I’d suggest you either get over it quickly or get out of the way. The people who are going to win this fight for the benefit of public health worldwide are about to step up, and this is going to get ugly, frustrating, expensive, and amazing from this point on.

In conclusion I will go back to what I said in part 1:

There is good news though. Great news, in fact. Victor Hugo once wrote, On résiste à l’invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l’invasion des idées – commonly paraphrased as no one can resist an idea whose time has come. No government, no politician, and no industry.
It just got real.

https://mitbrickman.com/2016/05/05/rise-of-the-adults-in-vaping/

Tobacco harm reduction (THR) is a public health strategy to lower the health risks associated with using nicotine, as an example of the concept of harm reduction, a strategy for dealing with the abuse of other drugs. Smoking tobacco is widely acknowledged as a leading cause of illness and death.[1] However, nicotine itself is not very harmful, as inferred from the long history of use for nicotine replacement therapy products.[2] Thus, THR measures have been focused on reducing or eliminating the use of combustible tobacco by switching to other nicotine products, including:

Cutting down (either long-term or before quitting smoking)
Temporary abstinence
Switching to non-tobacco nicotine containing products, such as pharmaceutical nicotine replacement therapies or currently (generally) unlicensed products such as electronic cigarettes
Switching to smokeless tobacco products such as Swedish snus
Switching to non-combustible organic or additive-free tobacco products
It is widely acknowledged that discontinuation of all tobacco products confers the greatest lowering of risk. However, approved smoking cessation methods have a 90% failure rate, when used as directed.[1] In addition, there is a considerable population of smokers who are unable or unwilling to achieve abstinence.[3] Harm reduction is likely of substantial benefit to these smokers and public health.[1][2] Providing reduced-harm alternatives to smokers is likely to result in lower total population risk than pursuing abstinence-only policies.[4]

The strategy is controversial: proponents of tobacco harm reduction assert that lessening the health risk for the individual user is worthwhile and manifests over the population in fewer tobacco-related illnesses and deaths.[3][5] Opponents have argued that some aspects of harm reduction interfere with cessation and abstinence and might increase initiation.[6][7] However, surveys carried from 2013 to 2015 in the UK[8] and France [9] suggest that on the contrary, the availability of safer alternatives to smoking is associated with decreased smoking prevalence and increased smoking cessation.

—

Nitzkin, J (June 2014). “The Case in Favor of E-Cigarettes for Tobacco Harm Reduction”. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 11 (6): 6459–71.doi:10.3390/ijerph110606459. PMC 4078589. PMID 25003176. A carefully structured Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) initiative, with e-cigarettes as a prominent THR modality, added to current tobacco control programming, is the most feasible policy option likely to substantially reduce tobacco-attributable illness and death in the United States over the next 20 years.
Fagerström, KO, Bridgman, K (March 2014). “Tobacco harm reduction: The need for new products that can compete with cigarettes”.Addictive Behaviors. 39 (3): 507–511. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.11.002. PMID 24290207. The need for more appealing, licensed nicotine products capable of competing with cigarettes sensorially, pharmacologically and behaviourally is considered by many to be the way forward.
Rodu, Brad; Godshall, William T. (2006). “Tobacco harm reduction: An alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers”. Harm Reduction Journal. 3: 37. doi:10.1186/1477-7517-3-37. PMC 1779270. PMID 17184539.
Phillips, CV (November 2009). “Debunking the claim that abstinence is usually healthier for smokers than switching to a low-risk alternative, and other observations about anti-tobacco-harm-reduction arguments”. Harm Reduct. J. 6: 29. doi:10.1186/1477-7517-6-29. PMC 2776004.PMID 19887003. Hiding THR from smokers, waiting for them to decide to quit entirely or waiting for a new anti-smoking magic bullet, causes the deaths of more smokers every month than a lifetime using low-risk nicotine products ever could.
“Harm reduction in nicotine addiction: Helping people who can’t quit” (PDF). Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. October 2007. Retrieved 21 April 2012.
Sumner W, 2005. Permissive nicotine regulation as a complement to traditional tobacco control” BMC Public Health 5:18.
Tomar, SL; Fox, BJ; Severson, HH (2009). “Is smokeless tobacco use an appropriate public health strategy for reducing societal harm from cigarette smoking?”. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 6: 10–24. doi:10.3390/ijerph6010010.
Action on Smoking and Health, May 2016, Use of electronic cigarettes (vapourisers) among adults in Great Britain http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_891.pdf
Résultats de l’enquête cigarette électronique ETINCEL – OFDT, 2014
–

Text above provided under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License – excerpted from: Tobacco harm reduction. (2016, July 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 05:13, August 10, 2016, fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_harm_reduction&oldid=728767066