The Safety of Propylene Glycol

WordPress has been acting-up all evening. I could access blogger sites but not wordpress sites. And not, especially, the BSC. All is well now, but it is too late to make a substantial post. Not that I have any special thoughts anyway!


west2, in a comment, linked to a study which shows that propylene glycol has been used for extended periods of time without harm:

What is important about this is that Zealots have been saying that propylene glycol, which is the carrier of nicotine in ecigs, could have unintended consequences in the long term.

A quote:

Recently, cyclosporine inhalation solution (CIS) in solution with propylene glycol has been shown to improve overall survival and chronic rejection-free survival in lung transplant patients.

Right? Propylene glycol MUST have been used for extended periods of time in order to stop rejection of lung transplants. Therefore, there is evidence that propylene glycol is harmless in itself. Therefore, it is already well-known that the carrier of nicotine in ecigs is safe. T


Another tool to pro-actively show the ignorance of Tobacco Control ‘experts’.

Erm…… Although we smokers don’t mind helping vapers, shouldn’t vapers be discovering all this stuff, and using it to defend themselves against their tormentors?

4 Responses to “The Safety of Propylene Glycol”

  1. west2 Says:

    Thanks for highlighting.

    The Vaping community have been aware of these studies for sometime. They have pointed to them and like the smoking community the evidence is ignored and the faulty information continues.

    For example many recent articles still refer to e-cigs containing ‘anti-freeze’ and cite the flawed FDA study of 2009.

    So both the smoking community and the vaping community have the same problem. Evidence ignored and scary information propagated.

    Another study (I know you like studies)
    Non-clinical safety and pharmacokinetic evaluations of propylene glycol aerosol in Sprague-Dawley rats and Beagle dogs.

    From the abstract.
    Overall, these studies allowed us to conclude that PG aerosol generated with the capillary aerosol generator could be administered safely in man, with an adequate margin of safety needed to conduct “first-time-in-man” human exposure studies.

    I could go on about the use of PG in fog machines and in many products used everyday but you get the point.

    • junican Says:

      Apologies for my last sentence!
      The hiding of this information by the Zealots knocks on even to their own supporters, as we have seen with Dr Siegel. He seems to have been unaware of these studies until now, otherwise I am sure that he would have used the information to contest the claims of the charlatans.
      The important thing about the lung transplant use of PG is the fact that it must have been used for a reasonable length of time to combat rejection.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    And then there is this.

    About half of the transplanted lungs are the lungs of dead smokers. :0

    • junican Says:

      One of the ‘causation’ fallacies which Doll got away with was the ’30 year delay’ conjecture. It was clearly a rationalisation of the difficulty of explaining why so many smokers did not become ill until they were old. A circular argument, in other words.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: