Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree9Likes
  • 6 Post By sassy
  • 2 Post By tugboatofdeath
  • 1 Post By marty

Thread: E-cigarettes boost drug-resistant bacteria!!! OMG! Flee!

  1. #1
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Killara, Sydney
    Posts
    344

    E-cigarettes boost drug-resistant bacteria!!! OMG! Flee!

    So this is doing the news rounds now:
    https://in.news.yahoo.com/e-cigarett...063403600.html

    It's a re-titled and edited version of this:
    Cigarettes and e-cigarettes make MRSA harder to kill - Medical News Today

    Specifically omitting one point from the original:
    The surface charge alterations in the bacteria were 10 times greater when exposed to conventional cigarette smoke, compared with e-cigarette vapor.
    So, key takeaway: In this particular regard, e-cigs are ten times less dangerous than cigarettes.

    Media. Ten times as bad for you as no media.
    Last edited by sassy; 22-05-14 at 10:24 PM.
    essiemessy, marty, davee and 3 others like this.

  2. #2
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sydney (vaping since Nov 2011)
    Posts
    2,144
    pharma's gettin' desperate
    marty and Olfella like this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    793
    Response by Clive bates on the Conversation:

    Clive Bates
    A few questions:

    1. Could you provide a link to the published peer reviewed article?

    2. In a different report of this work (Cigarettes and e-cigarettes make MRSA harder to kill - Medical News Today), it points out that cigarette smoke is far worse:

    "Although the e-cigarette vapor increased the resistance of this pathogen, which is potentially lethal to humans, the virulence of MRSA was even greater when exposed to conventional cigarette smoke. The surface charge alterations in the bacteria were 10 times greater when exposed to conventional cigarette smoke, compared with e-cigarette vapor."

    You could have chosen to spin it differently - especially given the overwhelming majority of e-cigarette users are smokers or former smokers who have quit, and therefore the risk 'baseline' is smoking. For smokers, the elevated risk of MRSA is greatly reduced. Perhaps an alternative headline could have read: "E-cigarettes potentially reduce smokers' elevated MRSA risk by 90%".

    3. In the same article, it is reported that:

    "Putting this to the test in a mouse model, cigarette smoke-exposed MRSA killed 30% more mice with pneumonia than a control strain of MRSA. The cigarette smoke-exposed MRSA also had four-times greater survival in the lungs than the control MRSA"

    But oddly, no equivalent figures are given in the article for e-cigarette vapour exposure. From your research what were the figures for e-cigarettes, compared to cigarette smoke and to the control?

    4. In the same article you recommend using NRT, including nicotine inhalers. Was there a reason why you didn't investigate the impact on MRSA virulence of nicotine inhalers? And if you aren't recommending e-cigarettes because of these findings, shouldn't you pause on recommending NRT inhalers?

    It's not that there is anything wrong with investigating this, it's just that you seem to have been unable to put it into a coherent framework for discussing relative risk.
    Olfella likes this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    793
    Dr Carl Phillips comment in the US news paper on this;

    “This appears to be a classic case of academics who have one hammer in their toolbox and use it to hit whatever happens by,” says Carl V. Phillips, scientific director of the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, a grass-roots advocacy group of e-cigarette users.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    253
    meh
    so clean air is better than vapor, which is 90% better than smoking, what else is new.

    and what about the air next to a busy road?
    ban busy roads.
    DONT DRIP AND DRIVE!




  6. #6
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Killara, Sydney
    Posts
    344
    At this point in time it seems that the comment responses to "research results" articles like this are always more incisive and balanced than the articles themselves.

    There must be a very low bar for publication. Oh wait, it's only about hits. What bar?

  7. #7
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sydney (vaping since Nov 2011)
    Posts
    2,144
    they have well honed methods of exaggeration, misrepresentation and cherry picking, after all they cut their teeth with the whole 2nd hand smoke thing, brainwashing people that they'd get cancer from casual 2nd hand exposure to ciggie smoke and not casual exposure to toasters, frying pans, bbqs, incense sticks, wood fires and traffic pollution.

    they didn't quite get away with it with 3rd hand smoke though.

  8. #8
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Killara, Sydney
    Posts
    344
    I just noticed:
    The Conversation is funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, ACU, ANU, ASB, Canberra, CDU, Curtin, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, JCU, La Trobe, Massey, Murdoch, Newcastle, QUT, SAHMRI, Swinburne, Sydney, UNE, UniSA, USC, USQ, UTAS, UWS, VU and Wollongong.
    So this is an Australian thing. What the feck is wrong with us?

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 07:44 AM.