2nd letter to WHO in response to Glantz letter

[babs]

www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2014/168-who-letter2
interesting read

[toejam]

Thanks, never seen that website before some interesting reading on there. This for instance:-

A new study was published today in the journal “Nature: Scientific Reports”, in which Dr Farsalinos and his team evaluated the nicotine absorption potential of different types of e-cigarette devices. In particular, a first-generation cigarette-like device with a cartomizer was compared with a new generation device set at 9 watts energy delivery with a clearomizer.An 18mg/ml nicotine-containing e-liquid was used in the study, the same for both devices. A group of experienced vapers was recruited. Participants used both devices for 1 hour, in a randomized cross-over design on two separate days, after abstaining from e-cigarette use for 8 hours. They were allowed to use as much e-liquid as they wanted, and were allowed to use new batteries and cartomizers if needed during the 1-hour period.

The results of the study showed that nicotine absorption from e-cigarettes was significantly lower compared to tobacco cigarettes. In reality, 5 minutes of use led to 1/3rd to 1/4th plasma nicotine levels compared to smoking 1 tobacco cigarette. The new-generation device was much more efficient in nicotine delivery, with nicotine levels being 35-72% higher than those observed by using the first-generation device. In fact, even after 1 hour of use, users could not obtain plasma nicotine levels similar to smoking 1 cigarette in 5 minutes.

[chykensa]

Well, that's one in the mush for Glantz - it is reassuring to read a deconstruction of his fallacious letter and misleading (at best) use of some statistics which maintains an integrity and objectivity, giving the 2nd letter an added honesty. Well done to all the medical professionals and scientists who are the signatories to this letter.

[VapingBad]

[VapingBad]

Jun 30, 2014 22:52:53 GMT chykensa said:

Well, that's one in the mush for Glantz - it is reassuring to read a deconstruction of his fallacious letter and misleading (at best) use of some statistics which maintains an integrity and objectivity, giving the 2nd letter an added honesty. Well done to all the medical professionals and scientists who are the signatories to this letter.

The letter also made it clear that most of the conclusions that Glantz came to had been discredited before he wrote the letter and that he would have been aware of this.