IVAQS Project Briefing

[yvilla]

JW50, have you looked at the IVAQS study web page? It's here: IVAQS Project

I'm sorry, but I don't have a good idea of when we will have a report on the results, nor much less as to when we can hope that the study will be actually written up for publication. But the facts as I laid them out above are true - that it was always known that the data collection phase was priced separately from the analysis and publication phase, and that all the required funds for the latter were not in when the data collection phase was started. You can see that laid out right on the IVAQS page I linked to above.

But I do have personal knowledge of the first data collection run, as I was actually there at the lab for two and a half very long days and two nights. I was invited to be there as an impartial observer essentially, since I have never been a NVC member.

It was a very laborious process of running 100 puffs of 4 different liquid samples for 3 different times each through a smoking machine, and then into a collection bag, within which were numerous filters for specified toxicants and compounds. The same process (100 puffs 3 different times) was also carried out with actual cigarettes, and with plain air as a control. The various filters were then tested by more than one scientist in different labs. The raw results, which I have also seen for that first round of data collection, is expressed as quantity per filter per indivdual run of 100 puffs of all the specified compounds being tested for. Of course those numbers are pretty meaningless without context - so all the data has to be analyzed by an air quality expert, as the whole purpose of the study is to determine what and to what extent, if anything, bystanders would be exposed to in indoor spaces where ecigs are being used. Those raw numbers have to be interpolated into a meaningful amount per cubic meter in rooms of given sizes of the tested for compounds, and compared, for example, to the results from existing studies of second hand smoke and other well known sources of indoor air contaminents.

The second data collection run, that I did not witness but have no doubt did take place, was just that - a second run of all the smoke machine puffing and collecting done the first time, with the same 4 different eliquids, cigarettes and plain air.

I hope that helps.

 

[JW50]

JW50, have you looked at the IVAQS study web page? It's here: IVAQS Project

I'm sorry, but I don't have a good idea of when we will have a report on the results, nor much less as to when we can hope that the study will be actually written up for publication. But the facts as I laid them out above are true - that it was always known that the data collection phase was priced separately from the analysis and publication phase, and that all the required funds for the latter were not in when the data collection phase was started. You can see that laid out right on the IVAQS page I linked to above.

But I do have personal knowledge of the first data collection run, as I was actually there at the lab for two and a half very long days and two nights. I was invited to be there as an impartial observer essentially, since I have never been a NVC member.

It was a very laborious process of running 100 puffs of 4 different liquid samples for 3 different times each through a smoking machine, and then into a collection bag, within which were numerous filters for specified toxicants and compounds. The same process (100 puffs 3 different times) was also carried out with actual cigarettes, and with plain air as a control. The various filters were then tested by more than one scientist in different labs. The raw results, which I have also seen for that first round of data collection, is expressed as quantity per filter per indivdual run of 100 puffs of all the specified compounds being tested for. Of course those numbers are pretty meaningless without context - so all the data has to be analyzed by an air quality expert, as the whole purpose of the study is to determine what and to what extent, if anything, bystanders would be exposed to in indoor spaces where ecigs are being used. Those raw numbers have to be interpolated into a meaningful amount per cubic meter in rooms of given sizes of the tested for compounds, and compared, for example, to the results from existing studies of second hand smoke and other well known sources of indoor air contaminents.

The second data collection run, that I did not witness but have no doubt did take place, was just that - a second run of all the smoke machine puffing and collecting done the first time, with the same 4 different eliquids, cigarettes and plain air.

I hope that helps.

It helps a lot. Thanks.

 

[laurel099]

There is SO much more to this story people. There are good reasons why many of us veterans have ceased support for NVC and IVAQS. Unfortunately it is all posted on VF in the NVC sub forum, which is not allowed to be linked here. I think people should do research before deciding whether to support this project and the organization running it. End of rant!

 

[yvilla]

There is SO much more to this story people.

Unfortunately yes. That "more" is a lot of hatred and spite among and between individuals and groups - some of it going way back, even before IVAQS itself was conceived.

I was never involved in that, and am not involved now. But in my personal opinion, the opportunity to obtain and hopefully publish objective scientific data on vapor in indoor spaces is magnitudes more important than any personal issues ever could be, and it's a tragedy that such issues are interfering, and possibly sounding the death knoll, for this project.

 

[JustJulie]

Unfortunately yes. That "more" is a lot of hatred and spite among and between individuals and groups - some of it going way back, even before IVAQS itself was conceived.

I was never involved in that, and am not involved now. But in my personal opinion, the opportunity to obtain and hopefully publish objective scientific data on vapor in indoor spaces is magnitudes more important than any personal issues ever could be, and it's a tragedy that such issues are interfering, and possibly sounding the death knoll, for this project.

It's not all about personal issues, Yolanda. There are some people who have very legitimate concerns about IVAQS and NVC and much (although not all) of the criticism is justified, imo.

It's a shame that a project that began with such widespread community support and enthusiasm has degenerated to something so fraught with controversy.

I have no doubt that the funds collected for IVAQS were spent on IVAQS. In that respect, at least, I do not believe that anyone has been "taken." However, I think that the way the project has been run is unprofessional and ultimately will make its findings less credible . . . assuming the money is raised to finish this . . . and that's a big "if."

Regarding the decision to begin IVAQS without having secured full funding, not everyone was in support of that. In fact, some of us were quite vocal in our fears that substantial funds would be put at risk if not enough money were raised to finish the project. It appears that after more than a year of fundraising, only 2/3 of the funds have been raised.

With 3 of the 5 NVC board members having resigned, I wonder what effect the lack of internal stability of the organization will have on its ability to command the trust and respect of the community from which it seeks support.

In any event, I am glad that CASAA is no longer officially supporting IVAQS.

 

[JW50]

It's not all about personal issues, Yolanda.


In any event, I am glad that CASAA is no longer officially supporting IVAQS.

Why is it that CASAA no longer officially supports IVAQS? I feel confident it is not because the research is not desired. Or is it? Bad raw data? Are the researchers not competent? Several thousand spent for the raw data - it is not worthwhile to spend a bit more to get to a meaningful report?

 

[Motivaper]

"In any event, I am glad that CASAA is no longer officially supporting IVAQS."

I can't imagine CASAA not supporting a vapor study, but suspect it's the group behind the study they can't support. I wonder how, in the spirit of cooperation and in the interest of furthering our knowledge, CASAA could take "over" the study, or find a way to discuss their differences with NVC and WORK IT OUT will ya! What a shame to have come part way with this important study.

Other than that I have no strong feelings!

 

[yvilla]

JW50, I was distressed when I saw that part of Julie's post too, but had to wait to respond, as I did not want to allow my immediate reaction to cause me to post intemperately.

CASAA was never "officially" a partner or sponsor of the IVAQS study. If Julie simply meant she is glad that CASAA is no longer collecting donations for IVAQS, well it is correct, we stopped that a while back. However, when we stopped that, we did point people directly to the IVAQS site to make donations if they wished to financially support the study.

However, if Julie meant that someone in CASAA is giving the impression that CASAA has "offically" disavowed IVAQS, or is "offically" trashing it the way some are, both here and on other forums, as opposed to the expression of individual opinions, well then it's news to me.

And perhaps my position on the CASAA board has not much time left. I will not be a party to such damaging and hateful "warring" between indivduals and groups in the ecig community.

 

[JustJulie]

CASAA is no longer collecting funds for IVAQS nor is it suggesting people donate to support it. In my mind, that means it is no longer "supporting" IVAQS. By the same token, I am not aware that CASAA has taken a position denouncing IVAQS.

To suggest that concerns associated with IVAQS are primarily driven by petty personal differences does the community a grave disservice, imo.

 

[Vocalek]

CASAA took a close look at our own organization's finances late last fall and decided that we might be trying to accomplish too much with too little. The board voted to set aside the pursuit of any research efforts at this point and focus our efforts on working to keep the sale and indoor use of e-cigarettes legal.

 

[yvilla]

To suggest that concerns associated with IVAQS are primarily driven by petty personal differences does the community a grave disservice, imo.

Sure, mistakes have been made. People do make mistakes. But to blow them up all out of proportion, mixed in with relentless character assasination and other attacks, many unwarranted, all over the ecig internet community, has long gone past "petty" personal differences.

We are at the point now where people who know nothing at all are publicly proclaiming that IVAQS donors were "taken for a ride".

Yeah, attempting to destroy any chance of the study ever being completed is real helpful to the community.

What we have here, far past "petty" personal differences, is an all out, obsessive, determined, nasty, destructive and internecine war. And I am sickened by it.

 

[JustJulie]

Sure, mistakes have been made. People do make mistakes. But to blow them up all out of proportion, mixed in with relentless character assasination and other attacks, many unwarranted, all over the ecig internet community, has long gone past "petty" personal differences.

We are at the point now where people who know nothing at all are publicly proclaiming that IVAQS donors were "taken for a ride".

Yeah, attempting to destroy any chance of the study ever being completed is real helpful to the community.

What we have here, far past "petty" personal differences, is an all out, obsessive, determined, nasty, destructive and internecine war. And I am sickened by it.

This is not a war, Yolanda. This is people expressing opinions about about IVAQS. Opinions are just that . . . opinions.

The way I see it, reasonable minds can disagree about the value of IVAQS. Reasonable minds can also disagree about whether the "mistakes" that have been made along the way are significant enough so as to substantially undermine the credibility of the project.

But suggesting that this is an "all out, obsessive, determined, nasty, destructive and internecine war" is a bit over the top, don't you think?

 

[yvilla]

The way I see it, reasonable minds can disagree about the value of IVAQS. Reasonable minds can also disagree about whether the "mistakes" that have been made along the way are significant enough so as to substantially undermine the credibility of the project.

I've never disputed that. But what I'm referring to, and reacting to, is not a matter of reasonable differences in opinion.

But suggesting that this is an "all out, obsessive, determined, nasty, destructive and internecine war" is a bit over the top, don't you think?

No Julie, I don't. I've personally and directly witnessed it for far too long. And that is what I'm finally so sickened by that I cannot keep it in any longer. And what I won't allow myself to be a silent, unwilling party to any longer.

 

[SudokuGal]

Sure, mistakes have been made. People do make mistakes. But to blow them up all out of proportion, mixed in with relentless character assasination and other attacks, many unwarranted, all over the ecig internet community, has long gone past "petty" personal differences.

We are at the point now where people who know nothing at all are publicly proclaiming that IVAQS donors were "taken for a ride".

Yeah, attempting to destroy any chance of the study ever being completed is real helpful to the community.

What we have here, far past "petty" personal differences, is an all out, obsessive, determined, nasty, destructive and internecine war. And I am sickened by it.

There certainly has been "pettiness" (in fact, down right ugliness) but the bottom line is that this thing has turned into an expensive debacle. I've followed it from the start. At some point the person at the center of the storm should have had enough common sense to step away.

 

[Motivaper]

CASAA took a close look at our own organization's finances late last fall and decided that we might be trying to accomplish too much with too little. The board voted to set aside the pursuit of any research efforts at this point and focus our efforts on working to keep the sale and indoor use of e-cigarettes legal.

Fair enough, but maybe the board could reconsider its current position given the relative importance of such a study, specifically as it relates to indoor use. With the support of CASAA, I would be very motivated develop a program to raise the necessary funding to complete, or redo the study. If CASAA were involved, even if just by association, the project could move ahead more quickly. Time seems relevant because the more time that passes without our having credible evidence of our "beliefs" about second hand vapor, the more time opponents and critics have to create their own rules.

 

[JW50]

I'm an outsider who really, probably, "doesn't understand". My interest is really in knowing some scientific facts. Is there some nic stuff in that vape that some exhale? Is it really something to worry about even if there? Do we have to rely on Phillip Morris paid for research to tell us e-cigs are a fraud and you've addicted your children and caused all your friends to have cancer. Personally, I willing to give some more money to know what the real fact are. But it seems pointless (and unproductive) to give more money with the counter winds seemingly equally determined that this research effort is a failure.

 

[laurel099]

I think most of us agree that GOOD research is needed! We get enough junk research from FDA lol.

I personally think it starts with vendors getting their liquids tested but that's just my 2 cents.

Testing on American Made Instead E-Liquid | The Electronic Cigarette & E-Cigarettes by Instead

http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/Instead-ELiquid-Report.pdf

 

[taz3cat]

CASAA took a close look at our own organization's finances late last fall and decided that we might be trying to accomplish too much with too little. The board voted to set aside the pursuit of any research efforts at this point and focus our efforts on working to keep the sale and indoor use of e-cigarettes legal.

I think CASAA made a wise decision. I have watched this since the beginning, and CASAA really don't have the experts need to support the IVAQS. Also, CASAA has done a great job of fighting the bans on e-cigarette around the country. We need CASAA to continue this work and they need all their resources to keep up with the bans.

 

[JW50]

I think CASAA made a wise decision. I have watched this since the beginning, and CASAA really don't have the experts need to support the IVAQS. Also, CASAA has done a great job of fighting the bans on e-cigarette around the country. We need CASAA to continue this work and they need all their resources to keep up with the bans.

I tend to disagree on the "wise decision". That research could have contributed to CASAA's ability to fight the bans. Many e-cig ban efforts seem to arise from misinformation or, perhaps more importantly, lack of information. There seems to be the mentality in some of the hardcore antis that if it looks like smoking, it must be smoking, and therefore it must be evil. That research seemed to me to have the real possibilities of establishing that if the "evil" existed it was an evil only to the adult who made the choice and was not an evil forced upon some bystander or onlooker, a situation that many bystanders in the past history of smoking had to endure for many, many years. And, based upon many posts I have seen on this forum, I think many e-ciggers would like the comfort of knowing, with reasonable certainty or at least with greater certainty, that what they do does not jeopardize the health of others. Hopefully the CASAA choice was not made because of belief the facts would be detrimental to their efforts. For me, I prefer knowing that I am not harming others over forcing harm upon others so that I might vape without public ban. When it is said "decided to set aside the pursuit of any research efforts" that suggests to me facts are not important - it is all politics no matter what the facts are. Pursuit of research by CASSAA is not limited to just money and donations - it might be "encouragement". "Set aside the pursuit of any research" sounds of discouragement for facts.

 

[DC2]

Nvermind... I misunderstood the context of the comment I was responding to.