|
inkblottime posted:To be honest, I wish I knew more about cannabis vaping. I have a friend who had what I could only describe as a wood pipe that heated pure weed but didn't burn it. I always thought that was so cool and seemed like a fairly safe option considering it didn't produce smoke. This sounds like the Vapor Genie, fyi.
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
Flavors of e-Cigarettes Used by Youths in the United States Published today in JAMA
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:It was the THC carts. loving unbelievable considering all the information out there. From that Washington Post article quote:CDC officials found vitamin E acetate, an oil derived from the vitamin, in all 29 samples of lung fluid collected from patients who had fallen ill or died of lung injuries. THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, was also found in 23 patients, including three who said they had not used THC products. What am I missing?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:The THC carts were cut with vitamin e. It's what reporters and state officials have been saying for at least a month. It's loving indefensible. But people who didn't use THC carts had vitamin E in their lungs...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
vincentpricesboner posted:Maybe they bought lovely "CBD oil" from a gas station. Or they don't remember using a weed cart. Or they took a friends by accident. Or they did but cant admit it because of XYZ. They haven't analyzed all the data from the sick people yet. I can understand the CDC's cautious stance, as the people who got sick aren't all pointing to a common source. They can take the people at face value and continue to investigate, as they are...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Over 2000 people sick, 39 deaths. They have only looked at 29 people's lung samples so far. I can understand the CDC wanting to be cautious with so little information in. It does seem interesting that the vitamin A acetate seems to be the main culprit. Can you please tell me a little more (or point me to a good source) about the chemistry/science of the oil for nicotine delivery vs THC delivery? Is a mixed THC+nicotine vape possible? If you picked up someone's THC vape by accident, would it be immediately apparent to you? vincentpricesboner posted:They are pointing to a common source. We have a history of ten years of regular nicotine vape use that has not shown these results. We have a history of 1-2 years with THC carts en masse and virtually all the cases its already confirmed they were used. This is a compelling line of reasoning. Thank you. It makes me wonder how the delivery systems for nicotine vapes have changed over the last ten years. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Nov 9, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Some more information about the November 8th release from the CDC Huh, I thought I read they didn't all test positive for THC. It's on the bottom of the first page of this paper. Last sentence. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Nov 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:It says 20 people said they used THC and then 23 went on to test positive for it. Out of how many?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 09:02
|
|
|
D-double post...CDC data: https://doh.sd.gov/news/ecigarettes.aspxquote:Among 867 patients with information on substances used in e-cigarette, or vaping, products in the 3 months prior to symptom onset** (as of October 15, 2019): I saw a graphic of this somewhere but I don't remember where. Here's a list of the nicotine e-cigarettes patients with these lung problems report using when interviewed: Juul, Smok, Suorin Drop, Naked, Solace, Mr Salt-E, Salt Nic, Air Factory, and Vuse Alto. Though it seems that where people got cartridges is more important than device, interesting regardless. I read through the marketing materials of Honey Cut, one of the vitamin E dilutants that seems likely made people ill. (After they got on the market, a bunch of copy cats followed) They were certainly marketing their product to both THC and nicotine markets. Because THC fluid is so much thicker, it's probably more practical to adulterate with more vitamin E. Perhaps the greater quantity of vitamin E adulterant leads to the greater injuries. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Nov 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 09:44
|
|
|
Thanks for the information. I'm a medical researcher but new to this space. I'll take a look at the resources you've provided and see what questions I have from a greater understanding of the context. The first question that comes to mind initially though is this - if it's physically/mechanically impossible to adulterate e-liquid with Vitamin E acetate, why was the Honey Cut company was advertising its product's use for both nicotine and cannabis products? WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Nov 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If I had to guess, probably the same reason bongs are marketed as "water pipes for tobacco smoking." I.E. bullshit. Oh for stealth?! That's interesting, I think one of these companies may have filed a patent or something, I'll reread that part of my research and see if they were forced to prove it worked.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
I work in new drug development and testing. Specifically I do longitudinal research on practices (including substance use) that people are already doing to improve their lives, isolate factors that may be causing the improvement or amelioration, and theorize mechanism of action. Then the isolated substances/alkaloids/etc go into clinical testing. It's pretty rad because I get to collaborate with people and patient groups who are actively working towards their own health. I help them set up valid and reliable tests of what they are doing, and then we can see if what they are doing should be shared with more people. It's very cool to work with so many citizen scientists and a very bottom-up way of doing pharmaceutical testing in a liberatory, anti-exploitative power model  As you can imagine, this means I need to get up to speed on new health practices and align with patient groups pretty quickly, so hopefully that will help me make sense of these various vaping technologies and communities. Thanks for the explanations.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
I can probably provide some thread assistance in better understanding those two studies tomorrow. I think we can go a bit deeper in our understanding of what is being explored and discovered.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
Alright, so let's take a deeper dive at these two studies. The first one is a study that was announced as an oral abstract ahead of presentation at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions this week. This is not the best but not a super shady way of publishing research - and is more common in some fields than others. It means the result is published as conference proceedings, and it happens this way sometimes because of publishing cycles, etc. A few articles I read suggested that they are trying to get their publication out because of some FDA timing. So what did they do? quote:the team of researchers compared healthy, young-adult smokers aged 18 to 38 who were regular users of e-cigarettes or tobacco cigarettes. The researchers then measured participants' blood flow to the heart muscle—focusing on a measure of coronary vascular function—before and after sessions of either e-cigarette use or cigarette smoking, while participants were at rest and also after they performed a handgrip exercise which simulates physiologic stress. E-cigarette users or traditional cigarette smokers at rest and after a handgrip exercise There were also controls. They looked at 30 people total, only 8 women in the study overall. This is examining how chronic e-cigarette or traditional cigarette use affects the heart at the blood flow level, not seeing how well people perform in a stress test. So we should be looking for a set of comparative numbers in the results. quote:Physiologic changes between rest and a hand-grip exercise to simulate stress showed regular tobacco cigarette and e-cigarette users had fairly similar myocardial blood volume responses to stress right after a smoking session compared with non-smoking controls (-4.3% and -0.9% vs +2.7% from baseline). quote:In smokers who used traditional cigarettes, blood flow increased modestly after traditional cigarette inhalation and then decreased with subsequent stress. However, in smokers who used e-cigarettes, blood flow decreased after both inhalation at rest and also after handgrip stress. It shouldn't surprise anyone that e-cigarette and cigarette use is associated with some kind of blood flow dysfunction, so the control group finding isn't very surprising. What is weird in this finding is that blood flow to the heart decreased after both use at rest and after stress. Like, a surprising amount so (!) that's these numbers: (-4.7% vs +34.7% for tobacco, P=0.005), (-5.8% vs +30.5%, P=0.023). The authors of the study suggest that's because there is more than just nicotine in e-cigarettes, and whatever else is causing vapor is gunking things up (for lack of a better term. Specific questions: what e-cigarettes did they use, at what temperatures, etc? Unknown, but they are taking chronic users and testing them after a night of abstinence. Downsides: this study is only about 30 individuals. I don't happen to know how this sort of tests models impairment or dysfunction in users. We could look into that. We don't know how many of the e-cigarette users switched from traditional cigarettes and how long ago (and vice versa). We don't know much second hand smoke these people are exposed to, nor cannabis use. Positives: these researchers are top of their field, and they are using equipment that provides immediate detailed information. Weird finding! The second study is about something else entirely, so we don't need to even say they disagree. The second study is about people who switch between tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes, is a much larger study (145 individuals), and here's the abstract quote:
They had people in the UK switch from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes, and some of those e-cigarettes didn't have nicotine in them. They looked at people's flow mediated dilation as well as pulse wave velocity, and let us know that for every 1% improvement in FMD, there are lower risks of cardiovascular events. People improved their heart function, but women improved it more than men, and there wasn't a difference between nicotine and non-nicotine EC use. Specific questions - what e-cigarettes were used? Vapourlites Starter Kit I can write more in explanation later (my dog demands and deserves my attention) and I can simplify the language further but I hope that adds to the discussion. The two studies don't even contradict directly - one is comparing chronic users of tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes and a certain kind of blood flow into the heart under different conditions, and the other is about people switching from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes, and use a different set of heart measures. I wonder if the e-cigarette users in the United States (the first study) were using a greater variety of e-cigarettes and getting different ingredients in their lungs. I learned that one can measure compliance with e-cigarette use as opposed to tobacco cigarette use by measuring carbon monoxide levels.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 22:02
|
|