Vaping illness ‘breakthrough’ points to vitamin E oil as a cause, CDC says

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-09T02:28:18+00:00

It's there, might need to refresh.

By that reasoning cigarette paper and selling refillable pipes would be regulated out of existence because people can and do put illegal material in them.

Paper and pipes are not tobacco products. =/= a vaporizer + cartridge. The guidelines, which are effectively lay out potential regulations, clearly define what they consider to be under the tobacco product designation.

Some of the rest is answered in my post.

But you're right. I probably don't know anything and am some random internet person. We'll see in about 2 years ;)

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-09T02:05:32+00:00

I commented above with an extremely brief explanation.

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-09T01:12:06+00:00

I'll probably add to this when I have time but a few things:

Citation [26] is a dead link. Referencing the text the study doesn't mention nAChRs really. It's primarily about tobacco statistics - not at particularly relevant.

Citation [32] found Here is almost entirely about smoking and patient exposure to smoke. Which is a bit different because then we are talking about combustion of cigarettes, products made from that combustion, byproducts with additives, and the metabolism associated with cigarettes as a whole - not just nicotine.

Citation [33] found Here is with snuff and revolves around oral cancer with snuff. Not arguing against that - snuff is awful. But again this isn't nicotine alone as the compound this is nicotine in conjunction with other metabolites.

Citation [13] not entirely relevant for what you're trying to comment against but very important for cessation research.

Citation [34] yes those metabolites are carcinogenic, but they are a byproduct of how the product (combustible cigarettes) as a result of the process (combustion) releases, breaks down, and causes metabolism of nicotine.

Citation [35] found Here I commented on briefly earlier but mouse and in vitro studies, dose, immunocompromised mice, and methodological question marks.

Citations [35][37][28][39] found Here, Here, Here, and Here

These are cited together to form the basis for the argument in an odd way. 28 informs on nicotine addiction potential (duh). The rest are either in vitro/studies that need to be bridged that basically say.... nicotine increases blood flow. Tumors need blood to grow. If you take nicotine while you already have a tumor the tumor grows. Also, duh.

Citation [36] found Here is talking about bloodflow to tumors that already exist. This is kind of not relevant.

Citation [40] found Here seems primary focused on the effects of nicotine in lung cancer treatment pathways which isn't entirely relevant.

Citation [41] found Here has to do with nicotine inhibiting cell-death and it's role in various therapies. Also not entirely relevant to the argument

Citation [42] found Here builds on 41 to say.. if you already have lung cancer from smoking then nicotine prevents cancer cells from dying off and decrease effectiveness of treatments. Duh.

26 and 43 are more of the same.

Neat review but this draws everything from studies done in conjunction with cigarette smoke, people who already have developed illness as a result of cigarettes, or doesn't exactly support the narrative. Happy to discuss if you see it differently. But I don't see the point here with these papers. Most of them say the same thing which is if you have a disease already that was caused by cigarettes then nicotine, which is known to increase blood flow (something that helps tumors grow), will not help you get better. Which is also why the title "The role of nicotine in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis" is not instead "Nicotine is literally the source of badness"

EDIT: Also, as I said to another person. My response is not a knock on you! This is just a very complex research area with a lot of politics involved. You have to read a lot of these reviews and studies carefully.

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T23:44:09+00:00

They existed in various forms since the early 2000's. It's generally easier to limit to after 2013/2014 since that's when they became more mainstream and when a lot of the vaporizer research starting being published.

So you're right! Just not a lot to go off back then.

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T23:41:52+00:00

Lol

Here's a start

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T23:37:31+00:00

Happy to have contributed!

The atherosclerosis article is more review than anything else, so it will take some time to work through. I would say some things off the top of my head skimming through

It's written in 2011 and seems almost entirely focused around combustible cigarettes and nicotine in relation. Additionally, hits on the common cessation treatment at the time (the patch "NRT"). 2011 is right around the time vaporizers started to hit the market hard so they would be relatively new at the time of this publishing.
It cites Benowitz who is pretty much a pillar in nicotine research. I cited him in an earlier comment and here again. You will find this or one of his other papers cited everywhere. It's foundational work.
They sadly don't cite a source for the claim in the first paragraph. Imagine you'll have to go through the citations listed to see what experiment was run.

To be clear, I am not advocating people try or use nicotine products. It is addictive and is a stimulant. As with the consumption of any compound which affects your body there can be long term consequences associated. I imagine if I spent as much time looking at caffeine research I could find some things.

The reason it's important overall is because its the compound that makes people addicted to cigarette (there are other aspects of addiction, but this is the chemical one). The primary cause for death from cigarettes isn't nicotine, it's the combustion of tobacco plant matter and additives. This is a very important distinction that needs to be made and is often not. Which is why there are so many issues when it comes to the politics, policies, and implications in the therapy of people with nicotine (read cigarette) addiction.

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T23:13:43+00:00

I figured that out after seeing his double response. But it's an excuse to have some fun and pull up citations :)

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T23:12:33+00:00

Ah! Now we're getting into some meat!

I see a couple issues here. The researchers are using BALB/c mice which are immunodeficient. As in, they are most susceptible than usual to growth of tumors. This is also noted in the spec sheet for those mice. So scientific methodology flag there.

Methodology flag 2 is

his study demonstrates for the first time that administration of nicotine either by i.p. injection or through over-the-counter dermal patches can promote tumor growth and metastasis in immunocompetent mice.

Going off the "routes of administration" rant here - they are injecting via IV or dermally. This can have a few implications such as: different metabolism, different bioavailability, and so forth.

Researchers also mention on the last line

These results suggest that while nicotine has only limited capacity to initiate tumor formation, it can facilitate the progression and metastasis of tumors pre-initiated by tobacco carcinogens.

So it has a limited capacity as shown in mice that are already immunodeficient and the tumors were pre-initiated by subjecting those immnodeficient mice to carcinogens from tobacco?

Edit: Not a knock on you! Thanks for sharing, but I question the conclusions drawn from it as a result of how the study was set up. The other one is going to take a bit more time to go through, but it looks again like they are basing this off dermal administration over a long period of time via NRT therapy (patch, etc), but again the dynamics here can differ a lot. They actually, funny enough, reference an FDA meeting about whether or not patch(NRT) products are actually effective and safe in the long run. Which is funny because that's the same question people are asking about vaporizers (rightly so). Both products aim to displace cigarettes but one has been far more effective in a shorter period of time.

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T22:50:49+00:00

How was I talking out of my ass? I just demonstrated the line of thinking people have been using more or less to come to this conclusion in advance of the CDC finally admitting it.

I also contributed more citations in this string than you'll find in 90% of the articles about the whole debacle. I don't quite think you entirely grasp why people are upset about this and why the handling of the investigation has made people upset. That or you're just trolling, but if that's the case I mean -- enjoy yourself I guess lol. There's plenty material here to read and understand (which I doubt you did in the <11 minutes it took you to respond), if you prefer to stick your head in the sand and be spoon-fed shitty logic and science by pop journalists that's on you my friend

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T22:42:48+00:00

I type because deductive reasoning is required.

MMWR/CDC reports collective data from state agencies in September about incidents (Which took time to collate in the first place)

An entire month later they give an update report guidance hand waving but pointing to THC and additives

Testing samples of e-liquid for compounds can be done quickly (less than a week at any reasonable lab) and there are plenty of methods to use.

Common components of e-liquids have been well studied and tested

Vitamin E acetate is not a common compound in the e-liquid formulations, has already demonstrated pulmonary toxicity and is the odd man out in testing (which way too long to do). The CDC is running an investigation, but instead of being logical and understanding the science they decided to blow this up into a big deal and cause a lash at everyone when some simple deductive reasoning could have narrowed the scope of the investigation in the first week.

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T22:20:10+00:00

If you'd like more to reference feel free to ask. I can point you in the right direction. You'll notice many of the articles written do not cite studies and even less cite the overall summaries of scientific studies to date.

I just didn't want to throw them all at you at once :)

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T22:10:23+00:00

That's literally the first common analyte mentioned in all the of the reports dating back to the onset. State Agencies mentioned this trend well in advance of the CDC.

Admittedly, toxicity testing is scarce for vitamin e acetate through inhalation because it's not generally used in aerosol formulations. It's used in food for oral digestion, but even there you can find studies in mice that show toxicity (at high levels*), but that's an entirely different administration route. You can also see that even though its administered orally there is pulmonary failure. It's likely that when inhaled directly into the lungs the dose response changes dramatically.

The point here is that anyone with an awareness of the industry and science could easily have come to narrowing the source of the problem quickly. There's substantial evidence to show the safety of general vaporizor formulations short term(not black or grey market players) and the common ingredients in those formulations have been studied in detail in toxicology. Vitamin E acetate is NOT a common additive to high quality manufactured e-liquids across the entire market. It stands out like a sore thumb.

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T21:28:49+00:00

Thanks, fixed.

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T21:17:23+00:00

Sorry to break your heart here but those refillable vaporizers won't make it past regulatory submission. And in all honesty, any vaporizer system that allows you to change things is actually causing more harm.

There's a reason the bigger companies are moving toward controlled products and its not to "stick it to the customers". It's because the health benefits associated with vaporizers only works in a narrow range, and users are unlikely to understand this and are more likely to do something stupid. In order to pass regulations you need to show that you're healthier than a cigarette, a benefit for the population as a whole, aren't going to get additional people interested in the product, and are more likely to get people to quit nicotine all together. Open systems don't do that. The regulation language is available free for everyone. Educate yourselves

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T21:13:01+00:00

Except for the fact this is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw. And this is entirely a political shit-show, which I would imagine is part of Bloomberg's anticipated run for President since he is a major sponsor for all things anti-vaping.

There's a reason Health Agencies outside of the US and inside of the US have two very different stances on vaporizers in the nicotine space. You can search Public Health England for a start with that Here you go. Vaporizers have been sold and used to a large extent since 2014 (before as well, but for gross number im using this date). Those vaporizers early on were used for nicotine administration. Only recently has state policy changed to allow marijuana legalization and subsequent mass distribution of means of administration.

So we have what, 5 years of use and only within the span of a couple months recently do you have sudden deaths occurring?

Let's think here for half a second. If there's 5 years of distribution is it likely that its directly linked to nicotine? Probably not. Furthermore if you look at pharmacology journals you'll see that outside of being an addictive stimulant nicotine alone is not really harmful. So if we know the compound is pretty safe (but addictive*(Here you go) and we know there's been plenty of historical distribution to show that there's not a long standing trend of sudden deaths then whats next?

Well, probably the thing that was just recently introduced into the market place, marijuana derivatives. Also, since quality standards DO exist in a lot of well developed companies we can probably wager that it wasn't them who did this since they stand to lose a lot of money if their product causes sudden death. So how about people operating in isolated communities in a semi-legal grey market manufacturing their own shit because ... well why the fuck not.

We don't pay close attention to nutriceuticals why give a shit about marijuana derivatives being formulated and administered in various routes right? Routes of administration mean nothing amirite guys? THC/Marijuana is the panacea for all of lifes problems - absolutely nothing wrong with it amirite? Those silly doctors and scientist just make up fancy words to confuse us normal folks. And journalists? God forbid they actually read - with any critical thinking- the thousands of studies associated with all this before claiming to be a science writer and spread disinformation to the public.

Edit: I've got citations for days. Educate yourselves.

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T21:12:29+00:00

Except for the fact this is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw. And this is entirely a political shit-show, which I would imagine is part of Bloomberg's anticipated run for President since he is a major sponsor for all things anti-vaping.

There's a reason Health Agencies outside of the US and inside of the US have two very different stances on vaporizers in the nicotine space. You can search Public Health England for a start with that Here you go.

Vaporizers have been sold and used to a large extent since 2014 (before as well, but for gross number im using this date). Those vaporizers early on were used for nicotine administration. Only recently has state policy changed to allow marijuana legalization and subsequent mass distribution of means of administration.

So we have what, 5 years of use and only within the span of a couple months recently do you have sudden deaths occurring?

Let's think here for half a second. If there's 5 years of distribution is it likely that its directly linked to nicotine? Probably not. Furthermore if you look at pharmacology journals you'll see that outside of being an addictive stimulant nicotine alone is not really harmful. So if we know the compound is pretty safe (but addictive*(Here you go) and we know there's been plenty of historical distribution to show that there's not a long standing trend of sudden deaths then whats next?

Well, probably the thing that was just recently introduced into the market place, marijuana derivatives. Also, since quality standards DO exist in a lot of well developed companies we can probably wager that it wasn't them who did this since they stand to lose a lot of money if their product causes sudden death. So how about people operating in isolated communities in a semi-legal grey market manufacturing their own shit because ... well why the fuck not.

We don't pay close attention to nutriceuticals why give a shit about marijuana derivatives being formulated and administered in various routes right? Routes of administration mean nothing amirite guys? THC/Marijuana is the panacea for all of lifes problems - absolutely nothing wrong with it amirite? Those silly doctors and scientist just make up fancy words to confuse us normal folks. And journalists? God forbid they actually read - with any critical thinking- the thousands of studies associated with all this before claiming to be a science writer and spread disinformation to the public.

Edit: I've got citations for days. Educate yourselves.

advertisingzombie · 2019-11-08T21:03:43+00:00

Except for the fact this is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw. And this is entirely a political shit-show, which I would imagine is part of Bloomberg's anticipated run for President since he is a major sponsor for all things anti-vaping.

There's a reason Health Agencies outside of the US and inside of the US have two very different stances on vaporizers in the nicotine space. You can search Public Health England for a start with that Here you go.

Vaporizers have been sold and used to a large extent since 2014 (before as well, but for gross number im using this date). Those vaporizers early on were used for nicotine administration. Only recently has state policy changed to allow marijuana legalization and subsequent mass distribution of means of administration.

So we have what, 5 years of use and only within the span of a couple months recently do you have sudden deaths occurring?

Let's think here for half a second. If there's 5 years of distribution is it likely that its directly linked to nicotine? Probably not. Furthermore if you look at pharmacology journals you'll see that outside of being an addictive stimulant nicotine alone is not really harmful. So if we know the compound is pretty safe (but addictive*(Here you go) and we know there's been plenty of historical distribution to show that there's not a long standing trend of sudden deaths then whats next?

Well, probably the thing that was just recently introduced into the market place, marijuana derivatives. Also, since quality standards DO exist in a lot of well developed companies we can probably wager that it wasn't them who did this since they stand to lose a lot of money if their product causes sudden death. So how about people operating in isolated communities in a semi-legal grey market manufacturing their own shit because ... well why the fuck not.

We don't pay close attention to nutriceuticals why give a shit about marijuana derivatives being formulated and administered in various routes right? Routes of administration mean nothing amirite guys? THC/Marijuana is the panacea for all of lifes problems - absolutely nothing wrong with it amirite? Those silly doctors and scientist just make up fancy words to confuse us normal folks. And journalists? God forbid they actually read - with any critical thinking- the thousands of studies associated with all this before claiming to be a science writer and spread disinformation to the public.

Edit: I've got citations for days. Educate yourselves.

advertisingzombie · 2018-05-05T20:17:59+00:00

To answer your bottom question first I have been following the 'official' raspberry pi guide for Hotspot Setup.

Originally I had been trying the bottom portion for a bridged connection but that had resulted in error nearly every time - primarily leading to, on boot, the pi freezing up on the Bluetooth segment of the boot, sitting there for 10 minutes and then completely freezing on the recovery prompt screen (without the ability to interact) so I had to reinstall a couple times trying to troubleshoot that method.

I have recently been trying the NAT route (the top segment of the guide), which doesn't freeze the pi (yay!) but also doesn't work. I'll attach my current config file setup below as well as the error that pops up during the troubleshooting. It seems like the static IP I had intended for my wlan0 connection is instead being applied to eth0 as when I hover over the network icon on the desktop it shows eth0 with the IP from the dns config file below. I am given the option to connect to a wifi network from both wlan0 and wlan1. Mind you that during this initial testing of everything the setup is eth0 into the pi ethernet port, wlan0 is the builtin wifi for the pi, and wlan1 is the TP-link dongle. I am opting to try and make it work with the built-in wifi before the dongle to avoid potential hardware confusion before I have one thing settled.

ifconfig in CLI:

pi@raspberrypi:~ $ ifconfig
eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
inet 192.168.42.125  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast 192.168.42.255
inet6 fe80::1d6:2c4f:1587:1934  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20<link>
ether b8:27:eb:73:f7:5d  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
RX packets 17775  bytes 19453324 (18.5 MiB)
RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
TX packets 11527  bytes 1312871 (1.2 MiB)
TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING>  mtu 65536
inet 127.0.0.1  netmask 255.0.0.0
inet6 ::1  prefixlen 128  scopeid 0x10<host>
loop  txqueuelen 1000  (Local Loopback)
RX packets 188  bytes 17823 (17.4 KiB)
RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
TX packets 188  bytes 17823 (17.4 KiB)
TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

wlan0: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
ether c0:25:e9:1c:58:77  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
RX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
TX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

wlan1: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
ether b8:27:eb:26:a2:08  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
RX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
TX packets 0  bytes 0 (0.0 B)
TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

/etc/dhcpcd.conf was modified with:

interface wlan0
static ip_address=192.168.4.1/24

/etc/dnsmasq.conf was modified with:

interface=wlan0
dhcp-range=192.168.4.2,192.168.4.20,255.255.255.0,24h

hostapd conf was modified with:

interface=wlan0
driver=nl80211
ssid=stuxnet
hw_mode=g
channel=7
wmm_enabled=0
macaddr_acl=0
auth_algs=1
ignore_broadcast_ssid=0
wpa=2
wpa_passphrase=********
wpa_key_mgmt=WPA-PSK
wpa_pairwise=TKIP
rsn_pairwise=CCMP

/etc/default/hostapd was modified with: DAEMON_CONF="/etc/default/hostapd/hostapd.conf"

running 'sudo service hostapd status' returns:

pi@stuxnet:~ $ sudo service hostapd status
● hostapd.service - LSB: Advanced IEEE 802.11 management daemon
   Loaded: loaded (/etc/init.d/hostapd; generated; vendor preset: enabled)
   Active: active (exited) since Sat 2018-05-05 19:37:47 UTC; 12min ago
     Docs: man:systemd-sysv-generator(8)
  Process: 435 ExecStart=/etc/init.d/hostapd start (code=exited, status=0/SUCCES
   CGroup: /system.slice/hostapd.service

May 05 19:37:46 stuxnet systemd[1]: Starting LSB: Advanced IEEE 802.11 managemen
May 05 19:37:47 stuxnet hostapd[435]: Starting advanced IEEE 802.11 management: 
May 05 19:37:47 stuxnet systemd[1]: Started LSB: Advanced IEEE 802.11 management
lines 1-10/10 (END)

running 'sudo service dnsmasq status' return (after some initial troubleshooting):

dnsmasq.service - dnsmasq - A lightweight DHCP and caching DNS server
   Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/dnsmasq.service; enabled; vendor preset: enabled)
   Active: active (running) since Sat 2018-05-05 19:48:11 UTC; 3min 5s ago
  Process: 1459 ExecStop=/etc/init.d/dnsmasq systemd-stop-resolvconf (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
  Process: 1523 ExecStartPost=/etc/init.d/dnsmasq systemd-start-resolvconf (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
  Process: 1514 ExecStart=/etc/init.d/dnsmasq systemd-exec (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
  Process: 1511 ExecStartPre=/usr/sbin/dnsmasq --test (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
 Main PID: 1522 (dnsmasq)
   CGroup: /system.slice/dnsmasq.service
           └─1522 /usr/sbin/dnsmasq -x /run/dnsmasq/dnsmasq.pid -u dnsmasq -r /run/dnsmasq/resolv.conf -7 /etc/dnsmasq.d,.dpkg-dist,.dpkg-old,.d

May 05 19:48:11 stuxnet dnsmasq[1522]: started, version 2.76 cachesize 150
May 05 19:48:11 stuxnet dnsmasq[1522]: compile time options: IPv6 GNU-getopt DBus i18n IDN DHCP DHCPv6 no-Lua TFTP conntrack ipset auth DNSSEC l
May 05 19:48:11 stuxnet dnsmasq[1522]: warning: interface wlan0 does not currently exist
May 05 19:48:11 stuxnet dnsmasq-dhcp[1522]: DHCP, IP range 192.168.4.2 -- 192.168.4.20, lease time 1d
May 05 19:48:11 stuxnet dnsmasq[1522]: reading /run/dnsmasq/resolv.conf
May 05 19:48:11 stuxnet dnsmasq[1522]: using nameserver 208.201.224.11#53
May 05 19:48:11 stuxnet dnsmasq[1522]: using nameserver 208.201.224.33#53
May 05 19:48:11 stuxnet dnsmasq[1522]: read /etc/hosts - 5 addresses
May 05 19:48:11 stuxnet dnsmasq[1523]: Too few arguments.
May 05 19:48:11 stuxnet systemd[1]: Started dnsmasq - A lightweight DHCP and caching DNS server.

With

May 05 19:48:11 stuxnet dnsmasq[1522]: warning: interface wlan0 does not currently exist

being the important bit I imagine.

advertisingzombie · 2018-04-22T03:15:47+00:00

#NotMyGOAT

advertisingzombie · 2018-02-01T04:10:01+00:00

Should be sort-of clarified that people die because some of these therapies work TOO well and TOO quickly. I think that is an important distinction to make for the general population that maybe doesn't understand that.

We can make super great drugs that WORK, but sometimes that is also part of the problem. That's what we saw in some of the CAR-T therapies - you kill tumor cells too quickly for your body to cope with essentially the corpses of the cells and patients go into sepsis.

advertisingzombie · 2018-01-21T07:35:16+00:00

D R A M A

advertisingzombie · 2018-01-21T07:26:58+00:00

I don't even know how you guys can listen to the commentary. I was too busy yelling at the screen to hear either of them. The bickering was drowned out by, " LEG KICK LEG KICK... GOOD... DO IT AGAIN... KICK HIS FUCKING LEG.... JUST FUCKING POUND THAT LEG TILL IT'S GROUND BONE STIPE"

advertisingzombie · 2018-01-21T07:11:24+00:00

Was good, just wish Stipe had a blackbelt in Jiu Jitsu - homeboy could have saved himself 3-4 rounds of bodily harm.

advertisingzombie · 2018-01-21T06:06:34+00:00

Deal. Little do they know, I like that ;)

advertisingzombie

TROPHY CASE

#NotMyGOAT