Just Ran Across This Junk..

[Phaseman66]

Blinding us with science.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/health&id=8230137

Thanks for the good info Tom. Lets hope the University doesn't pay this genius too much.

[Christopher]

They don't deliver nicotine...What kind of testing where they using? Give me a break.

[Brian]

Googled this guy. Seems like if you're going to make a statement like that, you should have something to proof.

http://www.psychology.vcu.edu/about/news.shtml

Dr. Tom Eissenberg wins College Distinguished Scholar award

The award is given for a product of scholarship that demonstrates significant depth and breadth of vision; creative and innovative development of theory, method or form; or extension of the frontiers of knowledge in a field that constitutes a substantial contribution to the intellectual community within or beyond the nominee’s field.

Dr. Tom Eissenberg is a faculty member in the Biopsychology Program and an affliliate member of the Health Psychology Program. His primary area of research is the behavioral pharmacology of drugs of abuse, focusing primarily on nicotine/tobacco. His current work, funded by the U.S. NIH, involves 1) developing laboratory methods to evaluate potential reduced exposure products (PREPs) for tobacco users, and 2) understanding the knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking. In addition, he tries to promote the responsible conduct of research, particularly with regard to interactions between local Investigational Review Boards (IRBs) and behavioral scientists. He has served on VCU's IRB since August, 2000. He recently chaired the American Psychological Association's Presidential Task Force on IRBs and Psychological Science, and currently chairs the American Psychological Association's Committee on Human Research and is a member of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco's Policy Committee.

[Brian]

I guess this is his research.

http://truthaboutecigs.com/science/1A.pdf

But this is interesting:

http://www.sacrednarghile.com/en/Declared_and_Non_Declared_Conflicts_of_Interest_The_case_of_Thoma_EISSENBERG_Wasim_MAZIAK_Ja.htm

[Phaseman66]

Seems his interests roam all over the globe. He even works for the US-Syrian Center for Tobacco Studies?

It says on their site that their 'vision' they have is to "Promote scientific excellence and evidence-based public health in Syria and the Arab world." Maybe he should head over there and stay permanently. They can use all the help they can get I'd bet.

The part that gets me is, even IF there was no nic coming out of that woman's e-cig and her quitting analogs was PURELY placebo...WHO CARES PROFESOR? This lady smoked for years and quit smoking with no hassle or cravings. Doesn't seem to be a reason to go all 'chicken little' and freak out because it's not as regulated as Chantix, which I heard on tonight's news is being linked to heart problems. It got that woman off smokes and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Thanks for looking into the Professor Brian, a fascinating read indeed.

[miatafrank]

Thomas EISSENBERG

He maintains close relations with the Pharmaceutical Industry.

That explains why his findings are such BS

[ancientpuffer]

This is just my personal opinion, anyone who differs with me is free to do their own research. But...

Dr. Eissenberg actually particpated in a question/answer discussion re: his study, on another forum. As best I can recall, he used untrained subjects (no previous experience with PV's), and "standard" (lol) cigarette style vaporizers (like you might get from the 7 Eleven). No information to substantiate whether any protocol was followed to ensure that the cartridges were properly filled, or filled at all. No instruction was given to the subjects whatsoever, except something along the lines of "take a few puffs, wait a few minutes, take a few more"

While he presented himself as a serious researcher, what I gleaned from the discussion was that he knew little to nothing about how PV's work, little to nothing about what constitutes a quality device, nor any of the myriad of factors (type of juice, atomizer functioning properly, batteries charged properly, etc.) that affect the "experience", and little to nothing about how to use such devices efficiently.

I don't believe there have yet been any scientifically sound and unbiased studies on PV use/function, and there probably won't be, until the industry itself commissions them. Relying on the "establishment" to fund and conduct such a study is tantamount (sp?) to having the fox guard the chickens. Let's not forget that virtually ALL of the misinformation about regular cigarettes was promulgated by the scientific/medical "establishment".

[Phaseman66]

Maybe that's why there was no nicotine, no one told the test subjects that they were using MANUAL batteries and they didn't push the button! LOL!

Thanks for the follow up!

[TroopX]

(snip) Relying on the "establishment" to fund and conduct such a study is tantamount (sp?) to having the fox guard the chickens. Let's not forget that virtually ALL of the misinformation about regular cigarettes was promulgated by the scientific/medical "establishment".

You hit the nail on the head there. His study is in the least incomplete, poorly researched, and possibly fraudulent. We know better, he should too. Schill!

[JonHitThingWithRock]

the conspiracy theorist in me says he probably got paid off by the makers of nicoderm or something to do a bogus study.. but the realist in me says.. if the only negative claim he's going to make towards the electronic cigarette is that it doesn't deliver nicotine, then i just can't see that doing too much damage. even if it is a big fat placebo, and it turns out that the lungs can't absorb nicotine from vapor the way they can from smoke..... who gives a ? the fact is that they work, i've only been smoke free for 6-ish days, but even if i'm not getting nicotine, my cravings are taken care of, and in the end, that's the whole point.

the gum and the patch have a 95% failure rate because they don't address the behavioral aspect of the addiction, which i would argue is by far the strongest part of it. so while ridiculous studies conducted in a matter that skirts the scientific process in favor of generating a desired result may be insidious, as long as they're not aimed at an outright ban, i'm not particularly worried about them. But i do agree that a real study should be done, it's just hard for such a young industry to commission one.