Dr Farsalinos comments on some junk science

[Alex]

http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/whatsnew-2015/206-indoor
Can vapers absorb 100% of the vapor but also exhale 100% of the vapor? According to a Californian researcher… YES!
Friday, 17 April 2015 21:09

By Dr Farsalinos

Today, I started reading a study which I received while still in press. The study, authored by an Indoor Environmental Engineering scientist from California and published by the journal “Building and Environment”, evaluated direct and passive emissions from e-cigarettes, and made a risk assessment on the relative risks.

The abstract states that direct exposure is exceeding the safety limit for 7 of the 9 chemicals tested, while passive exposure is exceeding the safety limit for 2 (PG and nicotine) of the 9 chemicals tested. The author concludes that e-cigarettes emit many harmful chemicals into the air and need to be regulated in the same manner as tobacco smoking.

I was eager to read the whole manuscript and find out which are the 7 chemicals exceeding safety limits of exposure, but I was “obliged” to stop reading it when I reached to the methodologies section. The study was a review of the literature, which is not anything wrong. However, for the risk assessment the author mentions (quoting to avoid any misunderstandings or mispresentation): “Direct exposure assessment… The respiratory absorption of the inhaled vapor was assumed to be 100% for all compounds”. So, basically the author assumes that 100% of what a vaper inhales is absorbed from the lungs. Obviously, this is fault. However, in the next paragraph the following “amazing” assumption is made: “Indirect (Passive) Exposure Assessment... For this assessment we assumed that 100% of the inhaled vapor by the user was exhaled into the indoor air and the respiratory absorption by occupants of the exhaled aerosol in the indoor air was 100% for all compounds”.

Many people will consider it a joke. However, it remains a puzzle how you can expect to reach any valuable conclusions by making such assumptions (which are both far from reality). There was no point in reading anything else from this manuscript; however, there is a point in preparing this comment, for everyone to understand how regulators and decision-makers are informed through science and how they make their decisions for public health.

source:
http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/whatsnew-2015/206-indoor

 

[Silver]

Thanks for sharing @Alex
Just makes me smile knowing Dr Farsalinos takes the time to read and write about other research
In this case, flawed research

 

[Alex]

Norwegian Institute of Public Health must IMMEDIATELY retract false statements about passive e-cigarette exposure
Thursday, 16 April 2015 05:42


By Dr Farsalinos

A couple of days ago, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) released a report on e-cigarettes. The report admits that e-cigarettes are used mainly by smokers and ex-smokers (using data from the SIRUS Institute and Karl Erik Lund), but makes some grossly mis-informative statements about matters related to nicotine.

First of all, they indirectly blame the large variation between different products, as well as in usage patterns. Well, I cannot understand the reason for this being repeatedly mentioned in the literature. It is more than obvious that this is normal to happen. I doubt that every carrot has the same vitamin A or every orange the same vitamin C, and I doubt that every consumer eats the same amounts of carrots and oranges every day, or chew them in the same way… Variability is there to satisfy different preferences by different consumers. But this is nothing compared to other notes in the report.

The most significant mistake in the report refers to passive exposure to e-cigarettes. In particular, the report mentions: “… nicotine levels in the environment following passive exposure to e-cigarette aerosols causes similarly high nicotine levels in the blood as that of passive smoking of regular cigarettes. This means that one can expect similar harmful nicotine-related effects of passive smoking from e-cigarettes as for regular cigarettes. This does not mean that passive exposure to aerosols from e-cigarettes causes carcinogenic effects, but that passive smoking may affect the cardiovascular system, have stimulatory effects and contribute to addiction”. Not a single word is true in this statement. First of all, nicotine levels in the environment are at least 10 times higher during smoking compared to e-cigarette use. Moreover, passive exposure to e-cigarettes does not cause “similarly high nicotine levels” in the blood as that of passive smoking, but maybe similarly minimal levels of nicotine in blood. A study by a Spanish group found salivary cotinine levels which were about 1200 times lower in passive e-cigarette exposure compared to active smoking. As I calculated in my comment for the Spanish study, the level of nicotine intake from passive exposure to e-cigarettes is not only harmless but has absolutely no biological effect, even according to the strictest regulatory criteria.

The NIPH is obliged (legally and scientifically) to retract this (and some other) false statements from their report. They should provide proper, reliable and science-based information to the public and to the regulators.

source: http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/whatsnew-2015/204-niph

 

[Silver]

Thanks @Alex
Dr Farsalinos is a hero!

 

[ET]

Does he have a fanpage yet?

 

[cfm78910]

Is it just me or are people fonally seeing through all the BS? How much longer can the so called experts and health authorities hide behind their inability to use Google? For anyone wanting to know the truth there is a wealth of research and information out there and most of it positive for us. Vaping must be the biggest health revolution of our lifetime and to try and prove the opposite must be the bigges exercise in futility we have seen in a while. So here's to a big FU to all the detractors. If you don't want to help us saving our own lifes we'll do it ourselves anyway!