Doctor Who?

 

This piece has been constructed based on Doctor Farsalinos’ recent interactions with the global vaping community in forums and online vaping media, following the release of his latest piece of research.

 

On vaping:

“In my opinion, there is no doubt that e-cigarettes are less harmful, we just do not know by how much. I think they have less than 5% the risk of smoking (which is a huge benefit for smokers).”

On conflicting interests:

“I do not own any e-cigarette company and I do not own any analytical chemistry laboratory.”

On the contents of eliquid:

“I believe that vapers are entitled to know if their liquids contain diacetyl and acetyl propionyl, or not. And they can then make informed decisions.”

On the danger posed:
“The e-cigarette is much less harmful than smoking, even if diacetyl and acetyl propionyl are present in the liquid. It is less harmful despite the fact that formaldehyde and acetaldehyde is released to the vapour.”

“Just because e-cigarette use is still safer than smoking does not mean that we can put anything in the liquids.”

On who should assess the dangers:
“We have to admit that vendors are not qualified to assess the dangers of anything. Like in every other business, it is not the businessman who makes such assessments. In every case (beverage industry, food industry, whatever) there are experts who judge or disagree about such issues.”

On diacetyl and acetyl propionyl:

They “are avoidable and removable, because they are flavour ingredients or contaminants. I think that any avoidable risk should definitely be removed.”

“The data we have about diacetyl is pretty convincing.”

“We have sufficient evidence to support that diacetyl can cause harm to the lungs when exposed long-term.”

“Vaping is better than smoking, even with diacetyl.”

On acrolein:

“It is more associated with cardiovascular disease rather than for respiratory disease. You need to heat glycerin (which is present in oils of course) to high temp levels to produce significant amounts of acrolein.”

On PG:

“We have no evidence that it is harmful because we have evidence that it is not. It may cause some irritation, but irritation does not mean disease.”

On VG:

“Studies have shown that it is not toxic, but they should be expanded (vapour testing).”

On nicotine:

“We found that toxicity in live cells (heart cells) was not dependent on nicotine concentration in the samples. We just need to expand this research (one or few studies are never enough to resolve an issue) and of course we have to wait for several years to see the real effect in the population.”

On the public’s right to know:

“Just provide to the customer (with) the information he/she deserves and let them make the choice. It is about time to stop having price and taste as the only criteria for choosing e-cigarette products.”

On juice testing in labs:

“Every supporter of e-cigarettes suggests that there must be some kind of testing and standards, to assess the quality of the products. Quality does not mean good taste or declarations by manufacturers. We fight so that any standards are proportionate, cost-effective and will provide realistic information.”

“It is unrealistic to expect that the current situation of having no obligation to test anything will continue for long. The key issue is not to have very restrictive regulations, not to stifle innovation, not to restrict variability of devices & liquids and not to ban flavours.”

On whether this is an anti-vendor stance:
“I have nothing against vendors, because their interests are similar to the interests of public health: there must be a variability of products and competition in the market so that the products improve and develop.”

On what the future holds:

“Unless the industry changes mentality, I predict that only Big Tobacco companies will remain in the market, and this is not good for public health (they will not compete, they will just share the market).”

“Research and knowledge is continuously evolving, and for every answer new questions arise. Do not expect that e-cigarettes will be cleared without any doubt at any time soon. You should be prepared for a hard battle, which is currently done by few people who are supporting e-cigarettes and their potential, and we are continuously under pressure and are battling against very strong groups who try to discredit us (but fail).”

On reasons for making the effort he makes:

“For us, supporting e-cigarettes as a public health benefit, we believe that simply telling the truth works and will eventually prevail. There is no reason to hide anything under the carpet. Our goal is not only to explain and show the benefits of e-cigarettes but also to detect potential risks and provide a solution to solve any problems.”

“It is our commitment to present everything in an unbiased, independent and purely scientific manner. We will continue in the same way, even if we find bad things for e-cigarettes. The latter should be considered not an attack against the industry but an opportunity for improvement. We are committed to present every finding of our studies, and this is good for everyone (the public health and the product).”

 

Thank you, Doctor, from all of us.