Study finds e-cigarettes affect airways, and quick

[nicky]

Ah right, thanks for enlightening me, you must be more "with it" than me Perps

[Perpetua]

Jan 15, 2012 21:32:29 GMT tony2stix said:

Here is a follow up:

www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.3305/news_detail.asp

Tony

Incase anyone missed it, here's the follow up from Tony.

[Khromm]

Jan 16, 2012 16:32:54 GMT Perpetua said:

Jan 15, 2012 21:32:29 GMT tony2stix said:

Here is a follow up:

www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.3305/news_detail.asp

Tony

Incase anyone missed it, here's the follow up from Tony.

I particularly like the way this article paraphrases something Leftfield said near the start of this thread

My own opinion? Until they ask me to take part in one of these "studies", I'll take anything and everything I read on the subject with a pinch of salt, the size of the pinch dependant on the relevance of the data to hand. For example, the original article doesn't reference anything comparing the "inflammation" of the airways whilst vaping to the same thing while smoking the old dirtys. Bearing in mind most of us that vape seem to have acknowledged the fact that it's still not exactly as healthy as not smoking, all this article actually says to me (on the surface of things) is "Vaping isn't quite as healthy as not smoking or vaping." Nothing else.

The second "rebuttal," while it supports what I've said above, is nothing more than that - a rebuttal. It's a good one, pointing out some of the less airtight areas of the first article (alright, so there arent really any areas of the first that are airtight), and were I to find anyone quoting the first, I'd point 'em at the second, but on the other hand it doesn't actually have any real scientific backing either. Aside from the obvious "no 4000+ additional chemicals being inhaled", and no carcinogens and eliminating second and third hand smoke effects of course.

Now, do a proper study, over the course of, lets say, five years, with a group of smokers, a group of vapers, and a "control" group of non-smoke-or-vapers, and gauge the relative health of each group over that time, and maybe they'll have something worth looking at. And I'd be happy to be part of that study. Especially if it meant free juice for five years .

But until then, I'm glad I've moved over to vaping rather than smoking, I am definitely feeling better than I did on tobacco, and I'm going to continue getting my nicotine this way rather than any other.

It is still essentially only nicotine replacement, after all...

[Perpetua]

Jan 16, 2012 17:04:49 GMT Khromm said:

Now, do a proper study, over the course of, lets say, five years, with a group of smokers, a group of vapers, and a "control" group of non-smoke-or-vapers, and gauge the relative health of each group over that time, and maybe they'll have something worth looking at. And I'd be happy to be part of that study. Especially if it meant free juice for five years .

But until then, I'm glad I've moved over to vaping rather than smoking, I am definitely feeling better than I did on tobacco, and I'm going to continue getting my nicotine this way rather than any other.

It is still essentially only nicotine replacement, after all...

I'm with you all the way with those sentiments Khromm.

[foxy9212]

I've been waiting for the past two years to hear from some old 'expert' as to how many vapers have died from vaping, or even been hospitalized, when compared to the number who've died from smoking in the past, say, four years. I'm positive that the old 'expert' would say that no studies have been carried out so they can't say. The same old 'expert' would likely pontificate about the dangers of nicotine delivered by some dodgy 'plastic' device, the safety of which is doubtful; would this same person maintain that spraying nicotine up one's nose or in one's mouth be perfectly safe? Did the rabbit die?

I don't think of vaping as being 'nicotine replacement' as I'm simply taking my nicotine in a different form from that known to be lethal.

As I'm not an old 'expert' I could be quite wrong of course.

Fox

[tony2stix]

have a read www.mirror.co.uk/advice/miriam/2012/01/16/smoke-don-t-choke-115875-23701311/

tony

[Jemima]

I just read that, was a nice understandable translation of a lot of all the information. Gave both sides an airing as well I thought cos she had had experiance of the other NRT available.

I may be borrowing his scale example too lol

[Tetsab]

You're finding some awfully good stuff on this, Tony - thanks. Really nicely balanced article - so very unusual in a tabloid, too!

I did particularly like this bit from the ACSH one,
Quote: ACSH's Dr. Josh Bloom agrees. “The moment I saw that they didn’t run the same experiment using actual cigarettes," he says, "I knew this was pure (and not even especially well done) junk — an agenda-based report clumsily masquerading as science.” Unquote

Sadly, Gordy, the situation with the FDA isn't quite as clear-cut as it should be either. They ARE regarded as a government body but unfortunately they are in fact substantially funded by Big Pharma and as a result nothing like as neutral a party as they should be. I'm sure Jerry would confirm this or you could spend a few weeks in ECF confirming this for yourself if you wish. (That's shorthand for I can't find some good links without spending several weeks looking for 'em myself but I have read plenty of stuff about this - sorry!)

The FDA's 'stance' on e-cigs going back a while is wide open to challenge - they made a huge fanfare of a press release screaming "E-cigs contain carcinogens!!!" about finding miniscule trace amounts of TSNAs (Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines) in a desperately-flawed but now widely-quoted report on the analysis of 17 (yes, that's correct - seventeen) cheap supermini cartridges they tested. And FAILED of course to mention you would find exactly the same quantities of exactly the same TSNAs in FDA-approved nicotine patches and gum.

Paranoid? The question is, are we paranoid enough? Think MHRA... 'nuff said.

[domesticextremist]

Jan 16, 2012 18:28:03 GMT tony2stix said:

have a read www.mirror.co.uk/advice/miriam/2012/01/16/smoke-don-t-choke-115875-23701311/

tony

Excellent find tony - puts all into plain language that even a politician could understand.

JerryRM has a point, especially these days with much medical research
being sponsored by big pharma and other industries - they tend to get the
results the sponsor wants to hear - if they don't, the funding dries up pdq.

Added to which the revolving door between government and business
means that even publicly funded research can be less than unbiased.

[maccafan]

They should've tried pouring 10mg of tar down the "healthy" smoker's throats and studied if that had any "beneficial" effects on their airways.

[Anne (fuzzy)]

And there was me thinking there wasn't such a person as a 'healthy' smoker.

#35 Great article Tony, that's nearer the truth, best one I've seen so far.

[tony2stix]

Thanks I have someone inside his name is Paul LOL, glad you have enjoyed it
Tony

[Anne (fuzzy)]

The tomatoes article was interesting too!

[tony2stix]

see rooneys face he looks constipated

[jerryrm]

I don't have any proof, but it has been said, many times on the ECF, that the FDA receives funding from Big Pharma and is biased towards them. Considering the many commercials on our television, promoting pharmaceutical products and at the end of the commercials, the list (as required by law) of side effects from these 'wonder' drugs, it leaves me wondering why they were approved by the FDA in the first place.