Jump to content

U.S. doctors' group says just stop vaping as deaths, illnesses rise


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 9/17/2019 at 9:00 PM, stevenl said:

You asked for other reports than from the US, I gave one, there must be more.

 

I'm convinced it is less unhealthy than conventional cigarettes.

 

And yes, a hunch, but it can not be healthy to get all that in your lungs and everywhere it travels through.

Herein lies the problem.  There actually isn't that much 'all that' in vape juice.  People conflate it with the tar in smoking.  And so the myths go and on.

 

Vaping will never be accepted I guess.  In Thailand I predict it will never be legal while we are alive!  Just need to add it to one more harmless pleasure that must be sacrificed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Herein lies the problem.  There actually isn't that much 'all that' in vape juice.  People conflate it with the tar in smoking.  And so the myths go and on.

 

Vaping will never be accepted I guess.  In Thailand I predict it will never be legal while we are alive!  Just need to add it to one more harmless pleasure that must be sacrificed.

It's these crazy times that we live in.  Outlaw vaping because it "might" be dangerous.  But allow tobacco even though we KNOW it's dangerous.  Crazy indeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2019 at 10:17 AM, 55Jay said:

I see the fear mongering propoganda machine is still in high gear.  

 

image.png.975c71e3c39a26e691fdb408a6ac723e.png

 

Oh, and this guy, and his wife.  The Vaping "EPIDEMIC"!  ????

 

image.png.6d9615f4a7f19ea297db34d0e23a5c29.png

 

Epidemic, Oxford defines that as 'a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time.'.  Nope, black market tainted or bootleg cartridges containing ingredients never meant to be in e-juices doesn't match.

 

It's more like a crime wave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Herein lies the problem.  There actually isn't that much 'all that' in vape juice.  People conflate it with the tar in smoking.  And so the myths go and on.

 

Vaping will never be accepted I guess.  In Thailand I predict it will never be legal while we are alive!  Just need to add it to one more harmless pleasure that must be sacrificed.

See an earlier post what capes contain. Not healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

See an earlier post what capes contain. Not healthy.

Vape contains some trace metals and acetals in small amounts only.  As Juul points out (and there juice is robust to say the least) it would take 7-70 cartridges per day to breach even minimum safe exposure limits.

 

You would know if you'd ever tried one!  It's obvious to any vaper that they are doing something much cleaner.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

Vape contains some trace metals and acetals in small amounts only.  As Juul points out (and there juice is robust to say the least) it would take 7-70 cartridges per day to breach even minimum safe exposure limits.

 

 

And other things as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

This is the real news, and the real evidence, but nobody wants to read it because basically it confirms ecigs are safe!

 

 

https://www.ccn.com/juul-vaping-study-tobacco-regulation/

 

juul

Now, if only we could find a way to limit vaping to people stopping with smoking and not youth.

And if only we have an independent research in stead of from a manufacturer.

 

And really worrying, the article also states vaping is much more unhealthy than alternatives to quit cigarette smoking, due to amongst others build up of heavy metals. Can't quote the text here from my phone unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Now, if only we could find a way to limit vaping to people stopping with smoking and not youth.

And if only we have an independent research in stead of from a manufacturer.

 

And really worrying, the article also states vaping is much more unhealthy than alternatives to quit cigarette smoking, due to amongst others build up of heavy metals. Can't quote the text here from my phone unfortunately.

 

Real World Studies are the only thing that count!

 

Everything tested is well below minimum acceptable levels.

 

Just quackery- could, potentially, if, but

 

We're talking trace amounts that don't even threaten recognized daily safe levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Real World Studies are the only thing that count!

 

Everything tested is well below minimum acceptable levels.

 

Just quackery- could, potentially, if, but

 

We're talking trace amounts that don't even threaten recognized daily safe levels.

The article you linked mentions for vaping 'potentially unsafe levels of toxic metals and other harmful substances', greater risk of developing debilitating health effects in the lung, liver, brain and cardiovascular system' and 'nicotine linked to several major health concerns and is addictive'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article mentions previous studies and yes anyone can write things like potential.  Potentially, the world could end tomorrow couldn't it?

 

Juul commissioned the study as part of its application process for FDA approval, no doubt using FDA guidelines.  The results were as expected because vaping has been proven safe by a number of other studies, which no doubt Public Health England used to come to its landmark conclusion that vaping is 95% safer than smoking.

 

On the subject of metals see the following which is regarded as definitive:

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/684963/Evidence_review_of_e-cigarettes_and_heated_tobacco_products_2018.pdf

 

I think you are after page 161.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Now, if only we could find a way to limit vaping to people stopping with smoking and not youth.

Removing the flavors would likely make 95% quit, the others would add potentially unsafe food flavorings themselves. It's just darwinism in action so no worries.

 

Another thing, Juuls seem to be 59mg nicotine, which is utterly insane. I use 0-3mg. There should be an upper limit around 18 or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

The article mentions previous studies and yes anyone can write things like potential.  Potentially, the world could end tomorrow couldn't it?

 

Juul commissioned the study as part of its application process for FDA approval, no doubt using FDA guidelines.  The results were as expected because vaping has been proven safe by a number of other studies, which no doubt Public Health England used to come to its landmark conclusion that vaping is 95% safer than smoking.

 

On the subject of metals see the following which is regarded as definitive:

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/684963/Evidence_review_of_e-cigarettes_and_heated_tobacco_products_2018.pdf

 

I think you are after page 161.

 

 

Again, it is not about a comparison with cigarettes, unless you can prevent youth from starting.

 

Your own link states it is unhealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Removing the flavors would likely make 95% quit, the others would add potentially unsafe food flavorings themselves. It's just darwinism in action so no worries.

 

Another thing, Juuls seem to be 59mg nicotine, which is utterly insane. I use 0-3mg. There should be an upper limit around 18 or so.

Wow, I didn't realize that, never looked at/used a Juul.  

 

Mate of mine uses the Salt Nic 35mg.  Said he takes 2-3 hits on the pod in the morning before work, good all day until he gets home, doesn't even think about a cigarette.   I've never tried the high test stuff.  Tried 6mg once a few years ago, sent me into orbit.  0-3mg is just right for me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Again, it is not about a comparison with cigarettes, unless you can prevent youth from starting.

 

Your own link states it is unhealthy.

It's not my link- it's a link to a report on a Juul study, in which the journalist gives both sides of the argument.  One side proved it was safe, the other speculates it is not.

 

My point is that the biomarkers are all important.  These are the real life markers.

 

What does your own public health department say?  I'm guessing it is the Netherlands and I imagine it is not markedly different from UK, and the rest of Europe. 

 

Why is established science not to be believed in this instance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mommysboy said:

It's not my link- it's a link to a report on a Juul study, in which the journalist gives both sides of the argument.  One side proved it was safe, the other speculates it is not.

 

My point is that the biomarkers are all important.  These are the real life markers.

 

What does your own public health department say?  I'm guessing it is the Netherlands and I imagine it is not markedly different from UK, and the rest of Europe. 

 

Why is established science not to be believed in this instance?

From your link (yes, you came with it, so for this thread it is yours :)):

" small clinical study " " The study was sponsored by Juul Labs but conducted by third-party research lab Celerion Inc. " " The study's sample size is small and several health concerns remain to be answered about the flavored nicotine pods, which are wildly popular among teens. " " Juul Labs' small study does not address the most prominent concerns that regulators have about vaping. While vaporizers have proven even more effective than approved cessation aids in getting people to give up cigarettes, they are also far more unhealthy than those options. " " Previous studies have shown that potentially unsafe levels of toxic metals and other harmful substances like arsenic and manganese can become trapped within e-cigarettes' aerosol particles. " And some more negatives and positives.

 

But you say 'Why is established science not to be believed in this instance?'? Incredible.

And you say "One side proved it was safe, the other speculates it is not." Again, totally incorrect, again an incredible statement. The conclusion is " Nonetheless, there is now a small sample of clinical data proving Juul's ability to significantly reduce cancer-causing biomarkers in former cigarette smokers. ", far from your conclusion 'it is safe'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

From your link (yes, you came with it, so for this thread it is yours :)):

" small clinical study " " The study was sponsored by Juul Labs but conducted by third-party research lab Celerion Inc. " " The study's sample size is small and several health concerns remain to be answered about the flavored nicotine pods, which are wildly popular among teens. " " Juul Labs' small study does not address the most prominent concerns that regulators have about vaping. While vaporizers have proven even more effective than approved cessation aids in getting people to give up cigarettes, they are also far more unhealthy than those options. " " Previous studies have shown that potentially unsafe levels of toxic metals and other harmful substances like arsenic and manganese can become trapped within e-cigarettes' aerosol particles. " And some more negatives and positives.

 

But you say 'Why is established science not to be believed in this instance?'? Incredible.

And you say "One side proved it was safe, the other speculates it is not." Again, totally incorrect, again an incredible statement. The conclusion is " Nonetheless, there is now a small sample of clinical data proving Juul's ability to significantly reduce cancer-causing biomarkers in former cigarette smokers. ", far from your conclusion 'it is safe'.

 

Well, regarding links and evidence I don't mind genuine discourse. There is a place of course for genuine criticism.  So of course, let it be provided it is genuine. The problem is it is not genuine mostly.  Mainly it's 'party tricks', facts taken in isolation, produced in petri dishes, which do not pan out in real life conditions. Over the years there have been all kinds of flawed studies, some of which have been carried out by the John Hopkins Institute.  For example, we even had one study that blamed vaping on heart events that happened before patients even started vaping (amazing but true).  But these guys - one of whom is Riccardo Polosa- can express the problem more eloquently than I can:

 

'This review article also draws attention to the potential for misinformation from poorly designed and largely misinterpreted experimental studies. As for the majority of existing observational and epidemiological studies [164Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Niaura R, et al. Analysis of E-cigarette use in the 2014 Eurobarometer survey: calling out deficiencies in epidemiology methods. Intern Emerg Med. 2017 Sep;12(6):733735.. Epub 2017 May 5.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]], preclinical (i.e. in vitro systems and animal models) and clinical models can be also uninformative or even misleading due to problem with methodology and interpretation of these studies. It is urgent to address common mistakes and to develop robust and realistic methodological recommendations in order to adequately assess the impact of EC use on human health under normal condition of use.'

 

That snippet was taken from this authoritative peer reviewed meta analysis of available evidence: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17476348.2019.1649146 which currently informs mainstream philosophies.

 

In other words what you are taking to be absolute fact are rat tests, or human cells in a petri dish.  Such tests are just the first step in establishing whether a study is even worth doing.  For some reason it has become accepted practice to take such studies as hard evidence and clinical proof- it most definitely isn't.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Well, regarding links and evidence I don't mind genuine discourse. There is a place of course for genuine criticism.  So of course, let it be provided it is genuine. The problem is it is not genuine mostly.  Mainly it's 'party tricks', facts taken in isolation, produced in petri dishes, which do not pan out in real life conditions. Over the years there have been all kinds of flawed studies, some of which have been carried out by the John Hopkins Institute.  For example, we even had one study that blamed vaping on heart events that happened before patients even started vaping (amazing but true).  But these guys - one of whom is Riccardo Polosa- can express the problem more eloquently than I can:

 

'This review article also draws attention to the potential for misinformation from poorly designed and largely misinterpreted experimental studies. As for the majority of existing observational and epidemiological studies [164Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Niaura R, et al. Analysis of E-cigarette use in the 2014 Eurobarometer survey: calling out deficiencies in epidemiology methods. Intern Emerg Med. 2017 Sep;12(6):733735.. Epub 2017 May 5.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]], preclinical (i.e. in vitro systems and animal models) and clinical models can be also uninformative or even misleading due to problem with methodology and interpretation of these studies. It is urgent to address common mistakes and to develop robust and realistic methodological recommendations in order to adequately assess the impact of EC use on human health under normal condition of use.'

 

That snippet was taken from this authoritative peer reviewed meta analysis of available evidence: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17476348.2019.1649146 which currently informs mainstream philosophies.

 

In other words what you are taking to be absolute fact are rat tests, or human cells in a petri dish.  Such tests are just the first step in establishing whether a study is even worth doing.  For some reason it has become accepted practice to take such studies as hard evidence and clinical proof- it most definitely isn't.

 

 

 

Sorry, you have no idea what I am taking as hard evidence, not the first time you're doing that.

Your distorting facts, see your absolutely false conclusion and facts about the research you linked to. I'm out of here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA juices can actually differ in two ways from European juices:

 

1. USA juices may have incredibly high nicotine content.  Using the European scale, most juices sold will be 3, 6, 12, 18 mg- the upper band representing heavy usage as in someone who smokes 20 plus cigarettes a day.  Juul pods, on the other hand, may have 59mg, which is quite insane really, especially when young people are the primary users.  It would be quite possible to induce nausea, tremors, and even outright nicotine poisoning in new users.  And fitting may even be a possibility.

 

2. USA does not have a robust system of regulation, which has allowed a sub-culture of experimentation, and adulteration of liquids that subsequently find their way too market rather easily. THC oil may be utterly inappropriate for the vaping process, simply because people tend to vape enormous amounts of a very potent substance. That may by itself lead to the poisoning we have seen, although it is likely cutting agents also play a part. In any case oil should never be vaped.

 

Thus, yes, I would personally agree that vaping should be curbed, and temporarily even banned in the USA until the problem can be eradicated.  It's an atrocious situation to have young people the victim of what amount to contaminated street drugs, even if they have landed brought it on themselves to a major extent.  But, that's youngsters, and that's why they need protection.

 

But what should be known is that vaping per se, as it presents itself in the UK, throughout Europe, and now other first world countries, is a totally different entity, which is significantly safer than the smoking it is designed to replace, by up 95% (and now above).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, stevenl said:

From your link (yes, you came with it, so for this thread it is yours :)):

" small clinical study " " The study was sponsored by Juul Labs but conducted by third-party research lab Celerion Inc. " " The study's sample size is small and several health concerns remain to be answered about the flavored nicotine pods, which are wildly popular among teens. " " Juul Labs' small study does not address the most prominent concerns that regulators have about vaping. While vaporizers have proven even more effective than approved cessation aids in getting people to give up cigarettes, they are also far more unhealthy than those options. " " Previous studies have shown that potentially unsafe levels of toxic metals and other harmful substances like arsenic and manganese can become trapped within e-cigarettes' aerosol particles. " And some more negatives and positives.

 

But you say 'Why is established science not to be believed in this instance?'? Incredible.

And you say "One side proved it was safe, the other speculates it is not." Again, totally incorrect, again an incredible statement. The conclusion is " Nonetheless, there is now a small sample of clinical data proving Juul's ability to significantly reduce cancer-causing biomarkers in former cigarette smokers. ", far from your conclusion 'it is safe'.

'Previous studies have shown that potentially unsafe levels of toxic metals and other harmful substances like arsenic and manganese can become trapped within e-cigarettes' aerosol particles. " And some more negatives and positives.'

 

It is of course smoke and mirrors: it always is.

 

Farsalinos quickly deflated the conclusions of the Johns Hopkins study.

“The ‘significant amount’ of metals the authors reported they found were measured in μg/kg,” wrote Farsalinos. “In fact they are so low that for some cases (chromium and lead) I calculated that you need to vape more than 100 ml per day in order to exceed the FDA limits for daily intake from [inhaled] medications. The authors once again confuse themselves and everyone else by using environmental safety limits related to exposure with every single breath, and apply them to vaping. However, humans take more than 17,000 (thousand) breaths per day but only 400-600 puffs per day from an e-cigarette.”

In other words, the Johns Hopkins researchers found nothing unusual — nothing that should alarm vapers or regulators — but they translated their results into terms that would create maximum panic. There’s nothing new about scientific results being turned into anti-vaping propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The metals come from heating coils. Juuls seem to use NiChrome, which when overheated does spew out metal. Those in the know have been using SS304 or SS316 with temp control for some time now. As soon as Juuls went mainstream it reached a large section of the populace who don't bother to research anything. Bad move.

 

Regulate the equipment and juices well, please. But don't put a blanket ban on it just because some idiot puts diesel oil in their mech mod running a 5y old kanthal coil at 50kW. Amateurs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

The metals come from heating coils. Juuls seem to use NiChrome, which when overheated does spew out metal. Those in the know have been using SS304 or SS316 with temp control for some time now. As soon as Juuls went mainstream it reached a large section of the populace who don't bother to research anything. Bad move.

 

Regulate the equipment and juices well, please. But don't put a blanket ban on it just because some idiot puts diesel oil in their mech mod running a 5y old kanthal coil at 50kW. Amateurs...

And you can bet the researchers cooked it good and proper!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...