Posted on

California study claims iQOS risks – but is this good science?

California study claims iQOS risks

Im my last post I mentioned that there would be some good news about Glo being released today. What I didn’t know at the time was that some bad news about iQOS was also scheduled for release. Luckily the ever-resourceful Dick Puddlecote tipped me off that it was coming. He wasn’t the only one who knew about the paper, either; Philip Morris International have obviously got hold of an advance copy in plenty of time to have a look at it and compare its conclusions to their own science.

Actually, as a long-time advocate for vaping, this all looks very familiar to me. I mentioned in my last post that tobacco control is increasingly rejecting science, and this new paper is an excellent example of that. I was going to say it’s terrible science, but that’s too kind – it isn’t science at all. In fact PMI’s response completely demolishes it. Unfortunately the media won’t pay any attention to that. They’ll report the bad news, and ignore the response because it comes from an Evil Big Tobacco Company. So I’m going to do what I can to get the message out – and hopefully, in the process, show just how low tobacco control “science” has fallen.

The usual suspects?

The new study has been published by the University of California, Riverside – and that’s something else I’m familiar with as a vaping advocate. The UC system is excellent in many ways, and includes several world-class universities, but it also harbours a nest of virulently prejudiced anti-nicotine loons. The most notorious, of course, is Stanton Glantz, but there are others. So when I looked at the authors of the new paper and saw the name Prue Talbot, I wasn’t at all surprised. Talbot is a professor of cell biology at Riverside – so, unlike Glantz, she does at least have some actual qualifications – and she’s also a fanatical opponent of any form of tobacco harm reduction. Her obsession with the subject started with e-cigs, but now she seems to have transferred it to heated tobacco. And the quality of her science is as bad as ever.

Talbot and her team have come up with the argument that iQOS isn’t really a Heat not Burn device. They’re claiming that it burns tobacco and other parts of the Heet, creating toxic substances in the process, and that the way people use it actually increases their exposure to nicotine and harmful chemicals. The thing is, they aren’t the first people to investigate this, and their results are wildly different to what previous researchers found.

There were four main claims in Talbot’s paper, adding up to the conclusion that iQOS exposes users to serious toxins. They are:

  • Despite PMI’s claims, iQOS does burn tobacco
  • The device runs hot enough to melt part of the filter, releasing toxic fumes
  • The time limit on an iQOS session makes users puff more often, increasing their exposure to toxins
  • Not cleaning the iQOS increases the temperature when it’s heated

These are obviously worrying claims, if they’re true – but are they? The hazards identified by Talbot and her team haven’t been spotted by anyone else, and it’s not like Talbot was the first person to look. PMI did a lot of research into safety before iQOS went on the market, and while it’s easy to dismiss that as industry research, PMI have a big incentive to do rigorous research. They’ve invested a lot of money in moving to less harmful products, after all. If it turned out that those products hadn’t been properly researched, and there were risks people weren’t being told about, their whole strategy would collapse. On top of that, PMI know that if they do the research themselves a lot of people will attack it, so they’ve been using independent labs for most of the work.

For obvious reasons, that research has already looked at all the issues Talbot claims to have found. PMI have looked at each of them, and compared them with their own research. The results don’t look good for Talbot.

Does iQOS burn tobacco?

According to Talbot, the tobacco in a Heet is charred when the iQOS heats up. That, she says, leads to a process called pyrolysis, which creates toxins. Her team decided this after looking at a used Heet under a stereomicroscope – but a stereomicroscope isn’t powerful enough to detect pyrolysis. I have one at home; they’re designed for looking at insects, coins and electronic components. If the tobacco really was charred, like she claims, a stereomicroscope could detect that, but is charring possible in an iQOS?

No, it isn’t. The heating blade in an iQOS never gets hotter than 350°C, and that temperature was chosen for a reason. In a cigarette the tobacco burns at a temperature of at least 800°C, and there’s no way an iQOS will ever get anywhere close to that. PMI deliberately selected a temperature that was hot enough to create a vapour from the tobacco, but not hot enough to burn or char it.

I’ve dissected used Heets myself, and looked at them under both a stereomicroscope and a high-powered biological microscope. I didn’t see any signs of burning or charring; what I did see was some discolouration around where the blade had been. PMI say this is torrefaction, a kind of mild thermal decomposition that takes place around 300-350°C.

PMI also cited Public Health England, the UK Committee on Toxicity and the Netherlands National Institute for Health and Environment, all of which confirm from their own research that iQOS does not burn tobacco – and Talbot is wrong.

Are the filters melting?

Talbot claims that the PLA roll inside a Heet, which is there to let the vapour cool before being inhaled, gets hot enough to melt and release a highly toxic chemical called formaldehyde cyanohydrin.

PMI say that they’ve tested the aerosol from iQOS with advanced techniques, including gas and liquid chromatography, and found no trace of formaldehyde cyanohydrin. They also said that the chemical is found in conventional cigarettes.

Finally, PMI pointed out that PLA is made from corn starch, and is a very safe product. When the PLA filter in a Heet is exposed to the heated vapour it doesn’t melt; it hardens, and it doesn’t release any toxic chemicals. In fact that’s exactly why the material was chosen.

Do users puff more rapidly?

Talbot thinks – and it’s just speculation; she has no evidence for it – that because iQOS switches off after six minutes, users will puff faster and expose themselves to more toxins. What this suggests is that Talbot doesn’t understand how iQOS – or cigarettes, for that matter – works.

Firstly, a smoker who’s used to smoking a cigarette in five or six minutes isn’t going to feel rushed with an iQOS. They can puff at their usual speed, with no worries about running out of time. Secondly, iQOS shuts down after six minutes or 14 puffs. It doesn’t matter how fast you chuff away at it; you’re not going to get any more than 14 inhales. On this point Talbot isn’t even wrong; she’s just making things up.

Does not cleaning the iQOS make it run hotter?

Talbot’s final claim was that iQOS, if not properly cleaned after every session – and she said that PMI’s recommended cleaning routine doesn’t work – collects residue that makes it run hotter and generate more toxic chemicals. Again, PMI point out that she obviously doesn’t know how it works. The temperature of iQOS is electronically controlled and cannot go above 350°C. Again, Talbot seems to be making things up.

 

Nobody at PMI is pretending that there are no toxic substances in iQOS aerosol. That would be ridiculous; there are toxic substances in fresh air. However, all the research except Talbot’s has found that the levels of toxic substances are close to two orders of magnitude lower than what’s found in cigarette smoke. As the product is aimed at smokers, that’s the comparison that should be made.

Overall this looks like the same kind of sloppy, biased research vapers have been used to for a long time. It’s even by one of the same researchers who produced a lot of that sloppy, biased research. The aim of Talbot’s paper isn’t to increase the sum of scientific knowledge; it’s to give tobacco controllers ammunition to bash iQOS and the people who make it. There’s likely to be a lot more of this in the future, so all Heat not Burn enthusiasts need to start activating their bullshit detectors now.

iqos and 60 heets special offer

Posted on

HnB and vaping – We’re on the same side!

Vaping

Most readers of this blog will know that, while I’m a user and huge fan of Heat not Burn products, I’m mainly a vaper. When I quit smoking I used an early e-cig starter kit, and I’ve now been vaping for more than five years. In that time I’ve used a lot of different e-cigs, learned to make my own coils and e-liquids, and written thousands of words to advocate for vaping. I go to pro-vaping conferences and know most of the UK’s prominent vaping advocates. Vaping is a thing that I do.

It’s not the only thing I do, though. I don’t see vaping as the only acceptable alternative to smoking, the way public health nuts think nicotine patches are the only acceptable alternative. I use Swedish snus, when I can get it. I have a couple of tins of snuff around. I like HnB products. I even have a cigar a couple of times a year.

So I like vaping, but I’m open to anything else that gives the pleasure of smoking but eliminates most of the risks – and if someone is willing to accept the risks and continue smoking, I’m squarely behind their right to do that too. I am definitely not one of those born-again vapers who thinks all smokers need to switch right now, and if any smokers do want to move to something safer I’m not going to tell them they need to move to an e-cig. If they’d prefer to buy snus online, or find an old-style tobacconist and stock up on snuff, or get themselves an iQOS, I have no problem with that at all.

iqos and 60 heets special offer

The circular firing squad

That’s my philosophy, then – a tolerant one that’s mostly interested in making sure people have access to the products they want. So I wasn’t too please the other day when Dick Puddlecote sent me a link to a YouTube video from a popular UK vaping channel.

The first half of this video seems to have been provoked by an article in Vapouround, a British vaping magazine. Early this year the magazine carried a two-page feature on iQOS and how it features in PMI’s plans to phase out cigarettes from the UK market. Personally I don’t see any thing controversial about that. Yes, it’s a vaping magazine. That’s fine; iQOS is also a vapour product. It creates its vapour from heated tobacco instead of aerosolised liquid, but that’s a technical difference; the basic principle is the same.

Obviously that’s not what the star of the video thought, though. In fact he launched into a stunningly ignorant half-hour rant against iQOS, PMI, and HnB in general. And when I say stunningly ignorant, I’m not kidding. According to him, a Heet is just a cigarette that’s been coated with propylene glycol. In his opinion, using an iQOS “still qualifies as smoking” just because Heets contain tobacco. This is obviously total bollocks; by that logic using snus also counts as smoking, and do I really need to explain how ridiculous that is?

Ignorance is bad, but what really staggered me was the level of venom aimed at Philip Morris – who the culprit seems to think is an actual person involved in the sale of iQOS, by the way, rather than the long-dead proprietor of a small tobacconist in Victorian London. The video is peppered with delusional ramblings like “Phil, come to the office and have a coffee”. Frankly, it sounds unhinged.

Fake moral high ground

I’ll be blunt here: I’m fucking sick of certain vapers getting on their high horse about the tobacco industry. None of us whinged and moralised about the tobacco industry when we smoked, did we? Oh no; we all loved the tobacco industry back then, because they sold us things we liked. They’re still doing that, because millions of people like iQOS and Glo.

I don’t want to hear any crap about how the tobacco industry lied about the dangers of smoking either. That was decades ago, and the people who did it are all retired and mostly dead. Philip Morris is a company – a sign on an office and a name on a bank account. It isn’t an actual guy named Phil who wants to sell iQOS so he can buy another Bentley. The company is just a legal entity that lets people work together. It doesn’t bear any guilt for what people who worked for it in the 1970s did, so trying to smear iQOS because some guy lied about Marlboro causing cancer 50 years ago is just stupid.

The tobacco companies aren’t going to shut down tomorrow and only a moron would want them to. Apart from anything else, if Philip Morris and BAT go down, millions of ordinary people’s pension funds will go down with them. Do you seriously think it’s worth causing massive poverty just because you don’t like iQOS? No, you don’t – so why the vitriolic hatred of a business that’s just trying to give its customers what they want?

Let’s be realistic here: If reduced-risk products are going to be made widely available, the tobacco industry is going to play a role in making that happen. A lot of people simply don’t want to go into a vape shop staffed by tattooed people with hipster beards and ear gauges, and spend their money on Chinese brands they’ve never heard of. They’d much rather buy something that says Marlboro on the box, because that’s the taste they’re looking for. Yes, I get it; you hate the taste of tobacco now and think everyone should vape 3mg/ml mango sorbet. The problem is most smokers don’t agree with you. They want Marlboro, and unless you can give them an e-liquid that tastes like a burning Marlboro – which you can’t; it’s been tried often enough – they’re not interested. E-cigs work for many smokers, but not for all, and why should smokers be denied a safer alternative that does work for them just because you’re puffed up with moral indignation about the people who made it?

 

I don’t care if you don’t like Heat not Burn products. I don’t even care if you think they’re morally wrong. What I do care about is that you’re making angry, incoherent videos attacking reduced-harm products, and in the process doing public health’s work for them. If you’re ranting about how HnB is a cunning plot by the evil tobacco companies, you’re basically Stan Glantz. iQOS, and other products like it, are designed to do exactly the same thing as e-cigs are – give smokers a safer alternative. That’s something we should all be able to support. If you don’t like Heat not Burn products then just don’t buy them; there’s no need for all these tantrums.

iqos and 60 heets special offer

Posted on

Buy an iQOS with 60 HEETS for just £79.

Buy IQOS

Here at Heat Not Burn UK we are very passionate about harm reduction and that is one of the reasons that we have embraced the iQOS more than any other heated tobacco device, it is in our own humble opinion the best heated tobacco device currently on the market bar none.

Well we have now teamed up with a very good UK dealer and are able to offer up a fantastic deal on the PMI iQOS.

The deal we are able to offer is a complete iQOS 2.4 Plus starter kit in either navy or white complete with 3 packs of HEETS (60 sticks) for the fantastic price of only £79. The R.R.P of the iQOS 2.4 Plus is £89 and the cheapest you can get HEETS for is around £8 so this deal would normally be retailing at £123, but right here on this website you can get that all for just £79.

If you are fed up of smoking traditional cigarettes then this is the perfect opportunity to take advantage of a great offer. PMI (Philip Morris International) already know that the traditional cigarettes days are numbered, why not come and join the revolution?

All our iQOS 2.4 Plus starter kits are genuine, come with a one year “no quibble” guarantee, our shipping is fast and our customer service is second to none, what’s not to like?

As for the HEETS they are available in 3 different flavours: Amber is for the smoker who prefers the full strength taste, yellow is more of a smoother flavour and for any fans of menthol then our Turquoise HEETS are perfect!

Also if you are just looking for genuine HEETS on their own we sell them too and you can buy a carton of ten packs for just £70, which works out at £7 a pack.

Click here to be taken to our online store!

iqos and 60 heets special offer

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

This deal will fluctuate with whatever offer we have on. We will always offer the best deal possible at the time.

Posted on

Glo safety update – good news on DNA trials

DNA trials

Anti-nicotine zealots chose safety as their main battleground on e-cigarettes, and it didn’t work out too well for them. Now they seem to be doing the same again with Heat not Burn. Will it be more effective this time? Probably not.

We’ve already seen a lot of research from PMI on the safety of their iQOS device. Now British American Tobacco have released their own work on Glo, which is currently on sale in Japan and South Korea. Glo works on the same concept as iQOS, delivering vapour from heated tobacco that’s held in a cigarette-like stick, and the only real difference in the technology is that Glo heats its sticks to a lower temperature. That means we wouldn’t expect to see a huge difference in its vapour compared to iQOS – and, sure enough, we don’t.

Science and smoking

What BAT were interested in was the potential of Glo vapour to cause DNA changes in human cells. Damage to DNA can kill a cell – but, even worse, it can also cause cancer by making the cell grow and divide abnormally. Smoking is known to cause damage to thousands of genes; the question is, how does Glo compare?

Recently there’s been a lot of criticism of studies that use human cell cultures to measure the effects of e-cigarette vapour. This criticism is well aimed, because while the cells might be the same as the ones in a real human body, they don’t benefit from all the body’s layers of defence systems and repair capabilities. In a living body, damaged cells are quickly repaired or ejected; this doesn’t happen in a petri dish.

For their own trials BAT decided they could do better than that. Instead of a simple culture they used an actual simulation of a human airway. Known as MucilAir, it’s grown in a laboratory from cloned human cells and it replicates the body’s own defence mechanisms. The culture can produce mucus, to clear away contamination, and is covered in hair-like cilia like the ones human airways use to expel dust and particulates.

With the experimental tissues set up, BAT’s scientists then programmed a smoking machine to mimic the way people actually use Glo. This is another frequent problem with research into reduced-risk tobacco products – researchers set up their equipment to work in unrealistic ways. Several studies on e-cigs have turned out worthless because the machinery took puffs that were too long and too close together, producing dry hits and high levels of toxic substances that no real vaper would ever experience.

To carry out the actual experiment the machine produced vapour from the Glo and exposed the cells to it continuously for one hour; as a control, a second sample was exposed to smoke from a standard cigarette. Then, 24 hours after the experiment, cells were harvested and broken down to extract their DNA; which was then examined for changes. The process was repeated after another 24 hours to check for damage that took longer to show up. Then the results for Glo were compared with those for the cigarette.

Does Glo cause cancer?

The difference was dramatic. After 24 hours cigarette smoke had caused observable changes in 2,206 genes; Glo vapour had affected one. By 48 hours 2,727 genes were showing a reaction to the smoke, while all genes from the Glo sample were normal. After the researchers adjusted the figures to get a worst-case scenario Glo was still only affecting two genes, while smoke affected 2.809.

It’s obvious from this that Glo’s heated tobacco vapour has much less effect on DNA than cigarette smoke does – in fact, it would be interesting to see a comparison between Glo vapour and city air. So why are BAT insisting that “these results do not necessarily mean this product is less harmful than other tobacco products”? The reality is that’s exactly what these results mean, but heat not burn is in a complicated legal position just now. Philip Morris are still hoping their iQOS will be classed as a reduced risk product by the US FDA, which would allow them to advertise it as less harmful; Glo hasn’t reached that stage yet. Until it does we can expect BAT to be very cautious about what they say, to avoid any damaging legal challenges.

The reality, however, is that this is great news for heat not burn. The gene changes caused by cigarette smoke are known to be linked to lung cancer, as well as fibrosis and inflammation of lung tissue. The new research – which has been peer reviewed, and will be published in the medical journal Scientific Reports – shows that Glo is not causing these changes.

While the health effects of cigarettes are complicated, some things are quite simple. If Glo isn’t causing the gene changes that lead to cancer, it’s not going to give you that type of cancer. That doesn’t mean there are no health risks at all – we can’t say that about anything – but what we can say is that many of the ways cigarettes cause cancer just aren’t possible with Glo.

Earlier research into Glo shows that levels of toxic substances in the vapour are between 90% and 95% lower than in cigarette smoke. That fits together well with the new study. There isn’t a simple relationship between levels of a chemical and the effects it has. Some people make wild claims, such as “There’s no safe level of cigarette smoke!”, but the truth is there’s a safe level of anything. There’s a safe level for things like cyanide and arsenic. It might be a very low safe level, but it exists.

We’re probably fine

My guess – and it is a guess, but a reasonably informed one – is that the level of toxic chemicals in Glo vapour is low enough that it’s below the threshold where it’s going to do any harm. It seems reasonable to believe, based on the evidence we have so far, that using Glo or a similar product is going to eliminate most of the risks of smoking. Common sense backs this up; it isn’t nicotine or even tobacco that kills smokers – it’s smoke. Glo isn’t producing any smoke, so it’s sensible to assume we’re not going to see the same problems.

The last thing to say about this research is that it’s going to be attacked because of who carried it out. We’ve seen that already with research on iQOS, just because PMI paid for it – they didn’t even do the work themselves. BAT have tested Glo in their own labs, but they’ve handed over the data for peer review and it’s been approved of by experts. That won’t stop people attacking it, but they’ll attack the source because they can’t attack the data itself. So far the science is looking good for heated tobacco products, and that’s what counts.

Selling iQOS and HEETS