Hello all! It’s Dawn again Before I start today I want to let everyone know that we are switching it up at A Clean Cigarette. We have been so excited by the spectacular internet support and interest from all of you we have decided that we want to be even MORE active! So we thought what better way to be active than to celebrate the amazing stories our customers share with us. So there will be less blog post on our Facebook page but more of our customers speaking and hopeful a few great videos too! No worries to the blog followers, they will not be going away, we are just going to drop it down to 3-4 post a week and only 2-3 post shared on FB each week. So with out any more chatter lets get on to the promised topic of today’s blog post!
The systematic review we will be going over today we have talked about on more than on occupation but typically as a small part of a different point. I have quoted it and sourced it for many a great post. Today though it is all about the study review. So let’s get started.
First things first, where is this review found? Some random blog? An electronic cigarette company webpage? Nope and nope, today’s study is published on the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) dot gov website. So good source…Check!
Alright next let’s link ourselves to the entire review. ⇓
“Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review”
Alright, now that we are all on the same page let’s tear into this bad boy and see what it is really all about.
Who are the authors?
What about conflict of interest and funding information? Anything we should know?
A systematic review is when scientist, doctors or other experts in a field gather up as many of the available studies, clinical trials and other documents on a subject as they can and then review them. So basically, it’s a study of the studies. The goal is to find out what all the studies seem to prove. So in this case it’s a one stop shop for all the best available information on electronic cigarettes.
Okay how many of these studies and such did they study? One? Ten? 30?
According to “figure 2” of this document which you can find HERE. All the studies that came up using key words amounted to 354 studies on electronic cigarettes. After sorting through them though them they ended up with the best 41 that met the criteria. Then they added additional documents such as studies on the chemicals found in electronic cigarettes and other health related issues. They ended up with 97 they sited and 15 they did not because they were not included in the study.
So the grand total of references:114
That’s a lot of available studies for a topic “no one is studying” like big media would like us to believe. Keep in mind this is a year+ old study. More has been researched I can assure you.
“Furthermore, nicotine delivery by ECs is unlikely to represent a significant safety issue, particularly when considering they are intended to replace tobacco cigarettes, the most efficient nicotine delivery product.” Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2014 Apr; 5(2): 67–86.
As a electronic cigarette user this is some of the best news I have heard! As a person in the electronic cigarette industry this is exactly what I though they would say.
What does this review say about their use as a possible alternative nicotine delivery system?
“The popularity of ECs may be due to their ability to deal both with the physical (i.e. nicotine) and the behavioral component of smoking addiction. In particular, sensory stimulation [Rose and Levin, 1991] and simulation of smoking behavior and cigarette manipulation [Hajek et al. 1989] are important determinants of a product’s effectiveness in reducing or completely substituting smoking. These features are generally absent in nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) and oral medications for nicotine dependence, whereas ECs are unique in that they provide rituals associated with smoking behavior (e.g. hand-to-mouth movement, visible ‘smoke’ exhaled) and sensory stimulation associated with it [Farsalinos et al. 2013b]. This explains why these products can be effective in reducing consumption of tobacco smoking [Bullen et al. 2013; Caponnettoet al. 2013b; Polosa et al. 2011] and are efficient as long-term substitutes of conventional cigarettes [Farsalinos et al. 2013b].” Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2014 Apr; 5(2): 67–86.
Exactly, you can just make the switch to an updated delivery system. That’s all. You just need to make sure it’s a brand that is quality and can match your current delivery system the best. We can do that for you here at A Clean Cigarette.
What did they say on exhaled vapor risk (second hand vapor)?
“The recent findings by Czogala and colleagues [Czogala et al. 2013] led to similar conclusions. The authors compared the emissions of electronic and conventional cigarettes generated by experienced dual users in a ventilated full-sized room and found that ECs may emit detectable amounts of nicotine (depending on the specific EC brand tested), but no carbon monoxide and volatile organic carbons. However, the average ambient levels of nicotine of ECs were 10 times lower than those of conventional cigarettes (3.32 ± 2.49versus 31.60 ± 6.91 μg/m3).
In his review and comparison with TLVs, Burstyn found that emissions from ECs to the environment are not expected to pose any measurable risk for bystanders” Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2014 Apr; 5(2): 67–86.
So okay, do not blow this is peoples faces. That’s just rude, but according to them the amounts are so low it’s a huge step up from burning tobacco and it’s tar ridden 4000-7000 chemical filled second hand smoke. That stuff will kill you.
“Regulations need to be implemented in order to maintain the current situation of minimal penetration of EC use in nonsmokers and youngsters, while manufacturers should be forced to provide proof for the quality of the ingredients used and to perform tests on the efficiency and safety of their products. However, any regulatory decisions should not compromise the variability of choices for consumers and should make sure that ECs are more easily accessible compared with their main competitor, the tobacco cigarette. Consumers deserve, and should make, informed decisions and research will definitely promote this. In particular, current data on safety evaluation and risk assessment of ECs is sufficient enough to avert restrictive regulatory measures as a consequence of an irrational application of the precautionary principle [Saitta et al. 2014].” Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2014 Apr; 5(2): 67–86.
Alright over all what did they conclude? Whats the bottom line?
Well the conclusion to the conclusion, the last few sentences of the whole review wrap it up rather nicely. They say what I wish I could but I can not. Our customers tell us this all the time though ad they can say what ever they like so if you read this and have a story to tell please share it with us on our Face book. You can speak for us and we need you too!
ECs are a revolutionary product in tobacco harm reduction. Although they emit vapor, which resembles smoke, there is literally no fire (combustion) and no ‘fire’ (suspicion or evidence that they may be the cause for disease in a similar way to tobacco cigarettes). Due to their unique characteristics, ECs represent a historical opportunity to save millions of lives and significantly reduce the burden of smoking-related diseases worldwide. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2014 Apr; 5(2): 67–86.
Wow, I do not think I could have said it better myself! Well that’s the review in a nut shell but read it over. There is a lot of information available there. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at AccAnwers@gmail.com. To get more information on how to make the switch the best place to go is acleancigarette.com. You will find links to our locations, lab analysis, and on-line store. We offer fast and free shipping to all fifty states.
Thank you for stopping in and I hope you will check back often. 🙂
***All references to the systematic review in this article sited to: Farsalinos, K. E., & Polosa, R. (2014). Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review.Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, 5(2), 67–86. http://doi.org/10.1177/2042098614524430