E Cigarettes May Be More Effective Than Swine Flu Vaccine?

Ok, so i'm doing a search and what do i see in the News section? "E Cigarettes May Be More Effective Than Swine Flu Vaccine". Now you know I have to read this. What? Talk about outrageous health claims. Holy Swine Flu Batman!

As I expected, this press release published in the Earth Times is referring to the study in 1942 conducted by Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson of the University of Chicago's Billings Hospital. He was studying the effects Propylene Glycol might have as a germicide. It's really a fascinating study which is being pointed at more and more lately by electronic cigarette supporters. While it's old and the FDA probably doesn't consider it valid research and anti smoking activists just roll their eyes, it is interesting to look at. I'll have to do a more in depth analysis of the entire study sometime.

I'm not sure, however, that saying E-cigs might protect you from the swine flu is going to win any points with the FDA or the medical community though. It's claims like this one that anti smoking activists use to hurt the industry the most. Ecigarettes have enough benefits that can be supported through rational argument and more recent studies, you don't need to make the claim that E-cigs might protect you from the swine flu. It's just counter productive and hurts you more in the long run than helping your cause.

But is there any truth in it? The article claims:

Propylene glycol, the primary ingredient in the electronic cigarette cartridge, may be a powerful deterrent against pneumonia, influenza, and other respiratory diseases when vaporized and inhaled according to a study by Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson. Decades before the e cigarette was invented, a study was conducted by Dr. Robertson of the University of Chicago's Billings Hospital in 1942 on inhalation of vaporized propylene glycol in laboratory mice. A more in-depth article was printed in the 1942 issue of TIME Magazine for November 16th. "Dr. Robertson placed groups of mice in a chamber and sprayed its air first with propylene glycol, then with influenza virus. All the mice lived. Then he sprayed the chamber with virus alone. All the mice died."

Now, that's true. Dr. Robertson did do a study that TIME called "a brilliant series of experiments" that ran for three years. His research did conclude that "One part of glycol in 2,000,000 parts of air would—within a few seconds—kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria numbering millions to the cubic foot."

How did it work?

Respiratory disease bacteria float about in tiny droplets of water breathed, sneezed and coughed from human beings. The germicidal glycol also floats in infinitesimally small particles. Calculations showed that if droplet had to hit droplet, it would take two to 200 hours for sterilization of sprayed air to take place. Since sterilization took place in seconds, Dr. Robertson concluded that the glycol droplets must give off gas molecules which dissolve in the water droplets and kill the germs within them.

As TIME pointed out "If the results so far obtained are confirmed, one of the age-old searches of man will finally achieve its goal", which makes me wonder why this was not studied more? Why does the FDA and anti smoking groups now claim that although Propylene Glycol is "generally recognized as safe" there are no studies showing that it does does not cause harm when inhaled over a long period of time?

Mice and men are very different creatures. Could it be that what's good for mice is not good for men? Modern research usually starts out with mice, then moves to primates to see if the effects are still the same in something closer to human anatomy. Well, so did Dr. Robertson.

According to the TIME article:

Propylene glycol is harmless to man when swallowed or injected into the veins. It is also harmless to mice who have breathed it for long periods. But medical science is cautious—there was still a remote chance that glycol might accumulate harmfully in the erect human lungs which, unlike those of mice, do not drain themselves. So last June Dr. Robertson began studying the effect of glycol vapor on monkeys imported from the University of Puerto Rico's School of Tropical Medicine. So far, after many months' exposure to the vapor, the monkeys are happy and fatter than ever.

Now, you might be asking yourself "But what about humans?" Well, there have been studies done on humans too. You just don't hear about them very often. The anti smoking groups don't want you to hear this. They just want you to hear over and over their mantra of "we just don't know how safe PG is, there have been no studies."

Quoted in a study done by Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand, one that actually was done for a "Safety Report on the Ruyan e-cigarette cartridge and inhaled aerosol" in 2008, not only was he studying Propylene Glycol's effects on humans to decide if electronic cigarettes posed a health threat, but the Children's Seashore House in Atlanta had already studied it's effects on children back in 1945 and concluded PG might be effective against airborne viruses!

Inhalational safety in children. In a series of experiments to control airborne infections, over 105 children were subjected to bactericidal concentrations of propylene glycol in the wards of a children’s convalescent home in experiments conducted over 3 years.

Method. Six wards of the Children’s Seashore House in Atlanta containing 105 bedfast children aged 3 to 15 years were divided into 3 control and 3 undergoing vaporization for3 week periods with 2 to 3 days between, before the control wards become vaporized, andthe vaporized wards became controls. This rotation continued for 7 months. The PG was heated to vaporize it, but not above 80 degrees C, and vaporization continuously maintained a concentration of 0.069 mg per liter. (0.07 ppm)

Results. No ill effects were reported. In the first year, 100 infections occurred in control wards without PG, and 5 in wards with PG vaporization, with rates of 0.18 per week and 0.09 per week respectively. Most of the upper respiratory infections in control wards were common colds, suggesting the PG is also virucidal.

Harris TN and Stokes Jnr, J. Summary of 3-year study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapour. Am. J. Med Sci. 1945; 209:152-156

So, while I'm still not sure it's a good idea for any electronic cigarette company to claim their product may be a protection against swine flu, I do have to admit there is some evidence to support that position. Yes, it seems the american studies were done in the 40s and the most recent study was in New Zealand, but there are studies that show it's plausible.

Now that's got me to thinking about how differently the US has responded to the swine flu vs smoking!