Read on Twitter
@redned59 @theGCU @simlan75 @ClovisSangrail4 @LabworksVapes @ZachEvans79 @LivePippas @ChaunceyGardner @N_Zillatron
This is the promised walkthrough of the Harvard article to which Brenda refers. https://tinyurl.com/y5jnsezd
I'm presenting as a new Tweet to properly thread it.
This is the promised walkthrough of the Harvard article to which Brenda refers. https://tinyurl.com/y5jnsezd
I'm presenting as a new Tweet to properly thread it.
I will also post a link to the thread in the comments to the post. I apologize in advance for the length.
I'm taking the time to do this in the hopes Brenda, who claims those who disagree with her need to be "objective", learns to objectively assess what she reads going forward
I'm taking the time to do this in the hopes Brenda, who claims those who disagree with her need to be "objective", learns to objectively assess what she reads going forward
Let's start with the premise of the paper: EVALI.
The intro to the article references the Feb, 2020 CDC report which in turn references this study: https://tinyurl.com/y8vadk86
It shows 48 of 51 EVALI patients had Vitamin E Acetate in their lung fluid (or 94%).
The intro to the article references the Feb, 2020 CDC report which in turn references this study: https://tinyurl.com/y8vadk86
It shows 48 of 51 EVALI patients had Vitamin E Acetate in their lung fluid (or 94%).
Two others tested positive for coconut oil & limonene. What are they? Two oil-based diluents popular in THC vaping. 50 of 51 (98%).
The CDC did another study in which it tested lung fluid from an additional 29 patients from 10 states. 100% were Vit E Acetate positive.
The CDC did another study in which it tested lung fluid from an additional 29 patients from 10 states. 100% were Vit E Acetate positive.
We know nicotine vaping didn't cause EVAIL. Why then, did the authors attempt to casually link it to with the weasel-worded: "It’s unclear whether people who used nicotine-only vapes also were exposed to vape products with THC, or whether other ingredients caused the lung injury"
How many smokers considering switching to vaping will now not because of that? How may other doctors will advise against their patients switching?
How many will contract a smoking related illness or die? We know that answer. 2 of 3. Including that one line borders on malpractice
How many will contract a smoking related illness or die? We know that answer. 2 of 3. Including that one line borders on malpractice
On to "Other Chemicals"
Brenda, I know one of your major concerns is all the other chemicals Harvard pointed to in the article. Let's see if we can't alleviate some of your fears by taking a deeper dive into each.
Brenda, I know one of your major concerns is all the other chemicals Harvard pointed to in the article. Let's see if we can't alleviate some of your fears by taking a deeper dive into each.
Humectants: In e-cigarettes there are two compounds that can be considered humectants: Propylene Glycol & Vegetable Glycerin. And while it is true when they say "Human respiratory cells exposed to humectants in lab experiments show increased inflammation and decreased survival."
It is important to note that in vitro experiments translate to animal studies (rats/mice) less than 90% of the time. More so, rat/mice studies translate to humans less than 90% of the time. 10%*(10%)=0.01 Which means, at best a 1% chance of seeing the same results in humans.
So what happens when published in Cancer Prevention Research using actual humans? "There were no significant differences in cell counts or cytokines between the control and e-cig groups, whether measured by absolute number at the end of the trial, change in level, or fold-change"
And "There were no significant changes in gene expression from lung epithelial cell brushings for either group"
And while "e-cig use induced lung inflammation correlated with change in PG exposure, albeit to a relatively low extent;"...
And while "e-cig use induced lung inflammation correlated with change in PG exposure, albeit to a relatively low extent;"...
…"inflammatory markers in the e-cig users after the intervention remained within the range of never-smokers"
Translation: Short-lived, temporary, mild inflammation. Little to none of the "concern about lung damage when people inhale humectants" they mentioned in the article.
Translation: Short-lived, temporary, mild inflammation. Little to none of the "concern about lung damage when people inhale humectants" they mentioned in the article.
That study is here: https://tinyurl.com/y2yrqeku
One last word about propylene glycol. For decades now it has been used as suspension medium for raspatory infectiions inhaled through a nebulizer. And more recently used to deliver anti-rejection drugs to lung transplant patients.
One last word about propylene glycol. For decades now it has been used as suspension medium for raspatory infectiions inhaled through a nebulizer. And more recently used to deliver anti-rejection drugs to lung transplant patients.
Not such a dangerous humectant after all.
Flavoring Products: Ah, Diacetyl the zombie myth that refuses to die. Th is has been debunked so many times I hesitate to bother, but for you I'll give it one more go.
Flavoring Products: Ah, Diacetyl the zombie myth that refuses to die. Th is has been debunked so many times I hesitate to bother, but for you I'll give it one more go.
Tobacco cigarettes contain between 100-450 times more diacetyl than the highest e-cigarette. Yet in the century + of smoking & 15 years of vaping there have been zero cases of popcorn lung combined. Don't believe me? How about Cancer Research UK & the NIOSH?
And why would they add this verifiable lie: " it is regulated in the workplace by OSHA. Yet diacetyl is used in over 60% of sweet-flavored vapes, and just three to four puffs a day far exceeds exposure limits set by OSHA."
OSHA has no such limit. https://tinyurl.com/yxrq4u
OSHA has no such limit. https://tinyurl.com/yxrq4u
Still trust your source Brenda?
Heating ingredients:
While you have claimed your reference is "recent", would you be surprised the if study mentioned here was 5 years old? Would you be more surprised if more recent study that pointed out its flaws and directly refuted it?
Heating ingredients:
While you have claimed your reference is "recent", would you be surprised the if study mentioned here was 5 years old? Would you be more surprised if more recent study that pointed out its flaws and directly refuted it?
The claim "heating propylene glycol produces aldehydes, which expose users to five to 15 times the levels of formaldehyde vapor found in tobacco cigarettes" claim comes from a 2015 paper where the author was critisized for overwatting the devices to get his results.
This paper: https://tinyurl.com/y226uvls was published in 2017. Their experiment was designed to replicate the previous with one exception; they had subjects vary the wattage to detect "dry puff" conditions.
A dry puff occurs when the heat of the coil consumes more juice than the wick can hold and the wick burns. As you never vaped, I wouldn't expect you to know just how unpleasant dry hits are, but suffice to say, no one would continue to vape under those conditions.
When the authors of the study replicated it under realistic wattages they found that consuming 3g of vape liquid produced 36% less formaldehyde than an entire pack of cigarettes (20).
3g = 3ml, about the size of the tank for a box mod or 3.75 JUUL pods, almost 4 packs of tobacco cigarettes.
Lastly, Metal
First claim: "The toxic metals manganese and zinc have been isolated from used vaping devices. These can cause illness when ingested at high levels."
Lastly, Metal
First claim: "The toxic metals manganese and zinc have been isolated from used vaping devices. These can cause illness when ingested at high levels."
So, just how high & thusly dangerous are the levels? Well this anti-vaping study ( https://tinyurl.com/y6y22b2p ) found Zinc levels in some e-cigarette vapor to be 515 ug/kg of air. SInce there is no exposure level for Zinc, we have to use Protective Action Criteria (PAC).
PAC levels are as follows:
PAC-1: Mild, transient health effects.
PAC-2: Irreversible or other serious health effects.
PAC-3: Life-threatening health effects.
Let's look at what they are for Zinc:
PAC-1: 3mg/m3
PAC-2: 20mg/m3
PAC-3: 500mg/m3
How do you think our 515ug/kg fares?
PAC-1: Mild, transient health effects.
PAC-2: Irreversible or other serious health effects.
PAC-3: Life-threatening health effects.
Let's look at what they are for Zinc:
PAC-1: 3mg/m3
PAC-2: 20mg/m3
PAC-3: 500mg/m3
How do you think our 515ug/kg fares?
Well, we know 1ug = 1000mg. And we know 1m3 of air weighs about 1.25kg Which means our e-cigarette vapor contains about 386ug/m3 of air. E-cigarette vapor would need to contain almost 8x (7.8) the zinc & every single breath you take would have contain it for it to reach PAC-1.
You see, they know if they say X exists & X can be dangerous, you'll assume if X is found in Y at any level it must be dangerous.
Don't let them do that to you. It's dishonest & you're being manipulated.
But let's move on to the last manipulation: Cobalt Lung.
Don't let them do that to you. It's dishonest & you're being manipulated.
But let's move on to the last manipulation: Cobalt Lung.
In over 15 years one instance of cobalt lung has been recorded in a "vaper". One. Read about it here: https://tinyurl.com/ycsxcyw3 (study is here but behind paywall: https://tinyurl.com/y9rcvk7e ).
And what do we see? Our old friend illegal, illicit THC cartridges again.
But take note:
And what do we see? Our old friend illegal, illicit THC cartridges again.
But take note:
The picture shows a JUUL. That's disingenuous of the author. JUULs do not come in marijuana flavor.
The authors of the Harvard article should be embarrassed to have included a reference to this. And you should be furious at them (I know I am).
The authors of the Harvard article should be embarrassed to have included a reference to this. And you should be furious at them (I know I am).
Still think the article is reputable? Still believe it proves anything about vaping other than there is a PR campaign against it?
