Manuel Peitsch

@LivePippas …anyhow, happy to help advance THR!

@LivePippas Nice demonstration of the threshold for doi.org/10.1007/978-3-…. The study based on two papers from 1996 and 2010. By a simple use of arithmetics one can see that e-vapor leads to exposure below the no effect level, while cigs is above.

FORMALDEHYDE! There’s no where to hide! Will it make us all die? Take a good look at the picture below of an installation put in a science exhibit in Melbourne Australia yesterday. It’s meant to reflect what is in a vapour from a vape. For context: Today I tried vaping on my nail polish and my nail polish remains firm. Last week I vaped all over the weeds in my garden, the weeds are still alive there. I vaped all over my swimming pool but the testing kit still suggests I need to add chlorine. Seems ridiculous? You would be right! It is! There are dangerous chemicals in all of our bodies right now, they’re in the water we drink & the air that we breathe! Should we all stop drinking water? Should we all stop breathing? There are chemicals in the air and drinking water eg. Formaldehyde, that can be found at higher concentrations than what can be found in a vape. Clearly it’s about the scale or proportion. Hence we can go about our lives without getting poisoned by our own bodies, air, water or a vape! This recent scare campaign by @VicHealth & @SandroDemaio is careless and irresponsible, and distorts people’s understanding of scale and science. I recommend for proper evidence and clarity to look at some of the most extensive studies around this issue by @RobertoSussman and @FarsalinosK. They have done the work in intricate details to help us all keep issues like this proportionally accurate with real evidence and it’s accessible. ALL Australian Health Authorities really need to put an immediate freeze on this sort of disproportionate public information & indoctrination, till further proportion can be properly educated to avoid reducing people’s understanding of basic science ASAP! Because right now, it appears a lot of Public Health officials in Australia also need to be educated too!! And it’s telling the world, Australian scientists are either dumb, easily fooled or just uneducated! Let’s Improve Vaping Education! Please RT or share tweet (copy paste link) to someone who needs educating or could do with it. 😁🙏

@LivePippas That law was first formulated about 500 yrs ago, a time when concepts like “atom”, molecules, etc were to appear far in the future. Nevertheless, Paracelsus observed that “sola dosis facit venenum”. What is it that “modern” public health does not get in this universal law?

@LivePippas @VapingAlliance @RCPhysicians You are spot on! I also analyzed a lot of data, including that generated by our labs, and come to the same conclusion.

If you read ANYWHERE that the honest estimate of @RCPhysicians stating “vaping is 95% safer than smoking” has been debunked, you know you have just had your time wasted! In fact, saying vaping is 95% safer than smoking is a conservative estimate! I have crunched lots of numbers over the years. I can’t see by logic and science that it’s possible that vaping could possibly exceed 3.5% of the harms of smoking in the worst case scenarios. What’s I find interesting is, when those who say 95% safer isn’t true, you ask them for their figure and science to back it up and what happens? You get blocked &/or no reply, why? We know why! 🛑STOP LYING 🤥! VAPING SAVES LIVES!

@SimonChapman6 @JonathanFoulds All these phenomena follow the same law. Latency and dose are mostly independent variables.

@SimonChapman6 @JonathanFoulds He’d say “Sola dosis facit venenum”. As simple as that: 1) test them, 2) evaluate their tox profile, 3) regulate on the basis of scientific facts. Opinions are unimportant, only solid scientific facts rooted in excellent execution with doses relevant to human consumption matter.

"These biomarker data provide further evidence that #ecigs expose users to substantially lower levels of toxicants than combustible cigarettes, confirming their potential for harm reduction." #MOESM1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

@SimonChapman6 @JonathanFoulds Clearly societal debates are necessary to develop sound policies that maximize the net population benefits of reduced risk products, but they do not override or obscure the results of the scientific facts that flow from the 1st law of toxicology.

@SimonChapman6 @JonathanFoulds Important to remember that nature’s laws are not up for negotiations. Also worth remembering that the 1st law of Tox doesn’t care about our needs or wants, doesn’t care about our opinions and ideologies, our policies and governments, our funding sources and conflicts of interest.

@TahirTturk @NTR_Journal Let’s be accurate: the best option for a smoker to reduce the risks associated with smoking is to quit immediately. However, the risks accumulate during past smoking will only decrease following well-known decay curves. Ergo, the best option is to never start!

Many people who regularly smoke cigarettes are unaware that abrupt cessation has no harms at all with tobacco harms gone for life. Maybe you could also point that out as an option for quitting? @NTR_Journal

@jkelovuori @NTR_Journal Decades of conflating the effects of smoking with nicotine got us here. Using non-scientific and false arguments to achieve an important objective eventually backfires. The goal does not justify the means, ever.

@NTR_Journal Hmm... I wonder why that is? 🤔

Many people who regularly smoke cigarettes are unaware that Nicotine Replacement Therapy are much less harmful than cigarettes. academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-ar…

Fascinating new preprint on bioRxiv tackles a whale of a question: Whales are huge. So why don’t they get a ton of cancers? biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

@TECCnews @LungAssociation Amazing: the number of lies and scientific errors in this post. Start with solid particles: only in cigarette smoke, not in a e-cig aerosol. We are actually among the very few people who analyzed this in detail. So that is a fact, and please correct your statement.

Did you know the very fine dust and droplets in vape aerosol is air pollution that can harm people? According to @LungAssociation these particles can cause irreversible lung damage and lung disease. Learn more: hubs.la/Q01NN8CY0 #AQAW2023 #AirQuality

@GregTHR @ChaunceyGardner @jgitchell Well, same story as with cigs… combustion vs absence of combustion.

@ManuelPeitsch @ChaunceyGardner @jgitchell Did not know this! Also had not seen this paper on CYMA and marijuana smoke vs. vaping. (Reposting this tweet since I somehow managed to mangle the English language in my prior response.) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

Folks curious about the relative risks between smoking cigarettes and vaping e-cigarettes will find this paper*, analyzing biomarker data from Wave 5 of PATH, of interest. #StayCurious *supported by my client and colleagues are co-authors nature.com/articles/s4159…

@ChaunceyGardner @jgitchell We informed a few a couple of years ago and we developed a test “à la cotinine test” with a small company. Also total NNAL can be used instead/in addition to CYMA. It has a longer half life and hence adds confidence.

@ManuelPeitsch @jgitchell Huh. Someone should inform life insurance companies.

@ChaunceyGardner @jgitchell Nicotine exposure combined with the exposure to acrylonitrile (CYMA), a specific cigarette combustion marker, gives a good indication of the source of that nicotine. Nicotine with CYMA in smokers and dual users; nicotine without CYMA in « pure » e-cig, HTP, Snus or pouch users.

@jgitchell Human biomarker studies always lead with comparing nicotine levels. Seems kind of odd to test whether nicotine products deliver nicotine. But this is a great study Joe. Thank you for sharing!