Recent study Several news outlets have reported on it, claiming that vaped CBD has shown it to be more harmful than vaped nicotine, but they all overlooked a number of flaws in their methodology. As a result of the confounding variables, there is no way to really show that any of the harm they found was due to CBD and not one of the many other chemicals found in the oil. high times To put this story in the bud and stop it before it spreads further, we spoke to a few cannabis e-cigarette experts.
See through a hazy cloud of Vaped variables
Rather than testing a range of CBD and nicotine products, Dr. Yasmin Thanavala and her colleagues looked at just one CBD and one nicotine product and aerosolized both using the same Juul device.of study It was done in groups of 10 mice, and the mice were placed in a vapor-filled chamber rather than inhaling directly. Things got off to a rocky start. (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG), indicating that the nicotine samples used medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs), while all other parts of the study reported CBD samples. PG/VG was used as the nicotine sample.
Dr. Tanavara said high times “That’s an error in Table 1,” confirmed that the CBD sample used MCT oil. Banned by 5 legal cannabis states out of concern for EVALI-like symptomsDespite being “aware that up to five states have banned MCT oil as a vape additive,” Dr. Thanavala and her colleagues used CBD samples containing MCTs. However, given the choice to use samples containing MCTs, VGs, and PGs, the investigators believe that the presence of other components, such as MCTs, VGs, PGs, and terpenes, could potentially contribute to respiratory toxicity effects of e-cigarettes. It was pointed out that there is a possibility that the
Dr. Jeff Raber is CEO, CVO, and co-founder of the Cannabis Analysis Lab. Welk shop, and experts in vape cannabis and vape additives in general. “VG/PG blends may irritate the vapor pathway”. This is one reason why it is not widely used in the cannabis industry today. “The concern with MCTs is that they can lodge in the lungs and lead to lipid pneumonitis,” said Dr. Raber. This is usually caused by “long chain fats” containing more than 40 carbons in the chain. The “magic numbers” for things that are safe to inhale. Dr. Raber advocates the use of “naturally found in plants” alternatives like terpenes and cannabinoids, which he believes are excellent alternatives to PGs, VGs, or MCTs. .
Dr. Peter Grinspoon is a primary care physician, cannabis expert at Harvard Medical School, and author of see through smokeDr. Grinspoon echoed some of Dr. Raber’s concerns. Dr. Dale Gieringer, Director of Cal NORML, vaporizer research A pioneer told High Times“It is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions about vaped CBD from this study.”
Looking next at Table 1, the CBD sample has 10 terpenes and the nicotine sample has 7 terpenes. These are all “confounding variables”. That is the potential source of the supposed harm of uncontrolled CBD. by their research. When asked about attempts to limit the myriad of confounding variables, Dr. Tanavara said, “Our goal was to test commercial pods the way users do.”
“That’s a fair point to test the pods that consumers buy,” said Dr. Lavers. Dr. Raber asked the researchers: A combination of that formula and that hardware? How consistently is the hardware made? How was it stored? Did they use new batteries or did they use old batteries?” Dr. Raber pointed out “the time and cost limitations of the study,” but that “two or three different CBD and tobacco samples were not enough.” and see if they all behave the same.
When pressed about the variables that cloud the data, Thanavala said: high times, “Our goal was not to analyze the impact of individual components.” That was their goal, so one major question remains. Why did they “analyze” CBD and blame it for all the reported harms? If consumers really want research demonstrating the actual harms of available products, They should have reported on that rather than singled out the CBD that their study was not configured to control.
design better research
Dr. Raber had a simple solution for controlling for many confounding variables. This allows us to test terpene and solvent-free samples, greatly limiting confounding variables. As a result, Dr. Raber felt “disappointed” and not performing “proper blanks and controls.” He also raised the meta-level question of risk versus reward. In what Dr. Reber called a “cost-benefit risk analysis,” potential harms must be weighed against potential benefits. Considering the benefits of cannabis is one of his ways to improve follow-up.
Another confounding variable that they did not control properly was the temperature to which the samples were heated. When asked if he knew how hot the sample got, Dr. Thanavala pointed to a supplemental section that only had information about room temperature, not device temperature.a 2021 survey Some “vape pens” have been found to heat well above their fire point (450 °F, 232 °C). coil. “Temperature is an important parameter, but it is very difficult to determine,” says Dr. Raber. This is because the temperature around the coil is higher than the steam flow. “The rate of molecular change doubles for every 10 degree Celsius increase. … suggesting that both products are sensitive to high temperatures,” alluding to these concerns. The CBD samples “may have been more susceptible to thermal decomposition compared to nicotine products.”
One final way to improve their methodology is to use more accurate puff topography. “We currently have no information on the topography of CBD users,” said Dr. Thalanavala. They noted that “users of cannabis-based vaping products may use these products in very different ways than nicotine vapers.”
Arnaud Dumas DeRauly blink group, and Chair of the ISO and CEN Vaping Standards Committees, which studies cannabis user puff topography.Dellory said high times In this study, Coresta recommended method 81This is “completely different” from what the Blinc study showed. In this study, “animals were exposed to a total of 20 puffs for 1 hour (1 puff every 3 minutes), 5 days a week.” Percentages vary, but most people only needed 20 puffs. per day not 20 puffs per hour like a mouse. Puff Beyond his topography, DeRauly was critical of the decision to use his Juul atomizer for both samples, stating that “Juul coils are not compatible with lipids like his CBD oil.” I was. Finally, DeRauly pointed out that one of his researchers, He Maciej L Goniewicz, was funded by Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson.
Mouse: nice animal, definitely not human
As mentioned, this was a study done in a small group of mice, meaning the results may not be generalizable to the broader population of rodents, let alone humans. , stated that 10 mice per group was an “appropriate group size”, but noted in the discussion section of the study that “using more mice may have further strengthened the conclusions of the study.” There is.” Dr. Raber considered the findings “not generalizable” and said that “this is a model, not an exact replica” of rodent lungs and humans. Not only are mouse lungs smaller than human lungs, but they are “significantly different in structure.” 5 lobes of right lung“Unlike humans, mice have only one left lung.” research Mouse lungs have also been shown to lack ‘peripheral pulmonary mast cells’ and ‘extensive pulmonary circulation’.
Another way this research could be improved is by actually doing it on humans, but it’s very difficult right now due to federal bans on cannabis research. positive hypothesis. If researchers tried to prove the claim that CBD with e-cigarettes is more harmful than nicotine, they might be eligible for funding, but if they want to disprove that claim, they won’t. Although there are many studies using in words Raphael Mechoulam, the recently deceased father of cannabis research, said, “Mice are wonderful animals, but they are definitely not humans.”