# Boston University just released this in-depth article



## Alex (23/10/14)

http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/behind-the-vapor/

A must read, in-depth article that was mailed to all students this week.

Reactions: Like 5 | Winner 1


----------



## Marzuq (23/10/14)

Alex said:


> http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/behind-the-vapor/
> 
> A must read, in-depth article that was mailed to all students this week.



awesome article. very worth the read guys

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Alex (23/10/14)

Marzuq said:


> awesome article. very worth the read guys



I agree with you, a great read!


----------



## Marzuq (23/10/14)

Alex said:


> I agree with you, a great read!


i dont know how you find all these gems but big up to you.
we should design a special banner or shiny for you

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## TylerD (23/10/14)

Really good read @Alex , and I don't like reading.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Silver (23/10/14)

Great article @Alex - thanks for sharing!

Well written and looking at things from a number of angles.
I like the way it has been put together

I worry about Avrum Spira's initial findings (FDA funded) on the effects of vapour on cells in culture. Basically that it was able to cause cells to grow more quickly than it should be able to. Also many of the cell's genes were turned on and off by the vapour in the same way as with the smoke from cigarettes.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Oupa (23/10/14)

"The FDA has made a significant investment in our group" .... 

mmmmmmmm


----------



## Alex (23/10/14)

Silver said:


> Great article @Alex - thanks for sharing!
> 
> Well written and looking at things from a number of angles.
> I like the way it has been put together
> ...


I found this quote from a user called DrMA on ecf forums
source

"Gene expression studies with immortalized cell lines are extremely weak evidence for anything that would happen _in vivo_. 

This type of research has become very popular in the late 90's and early 2000's because it provided an easy and cheap vehicle for generating lots of (largely meaningless) publications in high profile journals using the emerging technology of gene expression arrays (aka DNA chips). Basically, anyone could pour something on some cells, throw them on a DNA chip, take a picture and publish that in Nature/Science, guaranteeing funding for the next meaningless grant proposal. This sort of research has its utility, but is hardly conclusive for real-world effects.

Moreover, immortalized cell lines require significant mutations to become immortal, essentially transforming them in pre-cancerous cells already. These mutations also significantly alters the cells biology to the point of making them completely different in form and function compared to the original tissues from which they were harvested - this has to be taken into account in any analysis of such experiments.

The present paper reports potentially valuable information regarding possible changes in gene expression of human cells exposed to media treated with ecig vapor. The cancer claim is, however, an abusive and alarmist stretch of these results, that, at face value, are: "263 differentially expressed genes." None of these genes were investigated or characterized. Moreover, the other snippet of results buried in that abstract, strongly refutes the cancer claim: "Treatment of H3mut-P53/KRAS cells with low nicotine ECIG- and TCIG-conditioned media did not further enhance the degree of invasion observed in the untreated group" and also "did not demonstrate toxic or anti-proliferative effects on the cells".

Major limitations of the study include:
- these cells are not normal human bronchial epithelial cells
- cells were not directly exposed to vapor (but some concocted medium "treated" with ecig vapor) 
- it is unclear how the ecig vapor was obtained (possibly via the Pruebot method of overheating a coil in a dry carto to the point of melting solder?)
- the authors make alarmist and unsubstantiated claims about possible links to cancer."

Reactions: Thanks 1 | Informative 1


----------



## kimbo (23/10/14)

Oupa said:


> "The FDA has made a significant investment in our group" ....
> 
> mmmmmmmm



Yea @Oupa i just dont know what is propaganda and what is fact, just because a well written piece is posted on a well known domain does not make it 100% fact. Sorry i am a bit skeptical like that

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Silver (23/10/14)

Thanks @Alex, I do feel a bit better now 

Just glad to see the research is starting to happen and that there are good people out there thinking about this from several angles. 

Let the debates and shenanigans continue !


----------



## Marzuq (23/10/14)

Alex said:


> I found this quote from a user called DrMA on ecf forums
> source
> 
> "Gene expression studies with immortalized cell lines are extremely weak evidence for anything that would happen _in vivo_.
> ...



again the research fundi clears the table.thanks @Alex

Reactions: Agree 1 | Thanks 1


----------



## Alex (23/10/14)

Silver said:


> Thanks @Alex, I do feel a bit better now
> 
> Just glad to see the research is starting to happen and that there are good people out there thinking about this from several angles.
> 
> Let the debates and shenanigans continue !



And some more info

"From /u/ Peoplma on reddit

"I thought I would clear up some misconceptions about the new "Nature publication" claiming ecigs are as harmful as cigarettes (which they call tcigs, for tobacco cigarettes, in an apparently deliberate attempt to blur the line between the two, but we may have done that to ourselves by calling it "ecig" in the first place).
First of all, it is not a Nature paper, it is an abstract in a journal called Clinical Cancer Research. A person who reports for Nature's scientific news team attended a scientific meeting called the Joint Conference on Molecular Origins of Lung Cancer. The "paper" causing all the hype, is not a paper, it is an abstract of a talk or poster that one of the scientists presented there, and the proceedings from it were put on Clinical Cancer Research's website. The work has not been peer reviewed or published yet, apart from in the proceedings from that conference (which is not peer reviewed).
Second, from the abstract of their work recorded in the proceedings, they used a cell model with an artificially knocked out tumor suppressor gene (p53) and an artificially activated tumor promoting gene (KRAS).
Third, the study found that high concentrations of nicotine in both smoke and vapor made cells grow faster than low or 0 concentrations of nicotine. This is a well known result, nicotine induces cell proliferation of some cell types, but it is not recognized by the CDC as a carcinogen.
Thanks for reading"


From /u/ SpOoKy_EdGaR on reddit

Reactions: Like 1 | Thanks 1


----------



## Silver (23/10/14)

Alex said:


> And some more info
> 
> "From /u/ Peoplma on reddit
> 
> ...



Thanks @Alex!

So if I am understanding this correctly, exposing cancerous cells to nicotine (vapour or smoke) makes them grow faster.
But that does not mean that nicotine from ecig vapour *causes* cancer.


----------



## Alex (23/10/14)

Silver said:


> Thanks @Alex!
> 
> So if I am understanding this correctly, exposing cancerous cells to nicotine (vapour or smoke) makes them grow faster.
> But that does not mean that nicotine from ecig vapour *causes* cancer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

and also have a look at this excellent piece..
http://www.ecigarette-politics.com/the-great-nicotine-myth.html


----------



## Wesley (23/10/14)

That ecigarette politics site is a great database of info - they have a list of of the legal status of ecigs per country and I found this one quite funny:

http://www.ecigarette-politics.com/electronic-cigarettes-global-legal-status.html

*IRELAND* - Permitted.
Import, sale and use are permitted.
Our information is that the government's position is 'on hold', because:
a. The two departments that might be involved each disclaim responsibility: Health says, in effect, "Not our concern unless the product is marketed as a medicine"; Trade says, similarly, "Not our concern as it's a Health matter". (We rather like the Irish approach, if this is the case.)
b. They may well be waiting for the result of the EU TPD re-write, being good and faithful EU members.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

