Cell harm seen in lab tests of e-cigarettes...
- Thread starter guyvelella
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Bill Godshall compiled a large list of links to vaping related studies. A responsible position on vaping takes into account many if not all of the research available. Public Health England reviewd the literature and concluded vaping is far far lower risk than smoking. The anti crowd shows their colors by presenting each new study as though everything is brand new and there has been no previous work. There has been plenty of previous research. The latest papers simply get added to the list, they don't replace what's on the list. I read all of the text below 2 days ago and followed some of the links.
Whenever a "study" is prefaced by "could" or "might" be prepared that their scientific approach probably consists of using rocket fuel as the liquid, and strapping it to a car battery to make it "smoke". In other words it's junk unless it compares the normal usage of a vaping product to hmmmm…..what might we compare it with?……thinks…..Hey! How about comparing it to the normal usage of a cigarette. Gee! And these people get grants for this rubbish!
The former technique is also used to declare that you can die from bacon, coffee, vitamins, wearing too tight clothes, wearing too loose clothes, wearing no clothes, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex etc ad nauseum infinitis.
The former technique is also used to declare that you can die from bacon, coffee, vitamins, wearing too tight clothes, wearing too loose clothes, wearing no clothes, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex etc ad nauseum infinitis.
Interesting view on the bigger picture of public health
The key fact about ecig junk science: "public health" is a dishonest discipline
The key fact about ecig junk science: "public health" is a dishonest discipline
I read that long Phillips peice. A few weeks after starting to vape I was doing google searches for ecig news and reading lots of public health officials' comments and within a couple days, knowing very little about ecigs at that point, saying to myself, these people are arrogant liars, just like the Islamists I debated in voice chat after 911.
The lead author of the " study " has apparently issued a begrudging "clarification/correction " to the conclusions attributed to her in the media :
CLARIFICATION/CORRECTION: Contrary to what was stated or implied in much of the news coverage resulting from this news release, the lab experiments did not find that e-cigarette vapor was as harmful to cells as cigarette smoke. In fact, one phase of the experiments, not addressed in the news release, found that cigarette smoke did in fact kill cells at a much faster rate (emphasis mine ). However, because similar cell-damage mechanisms were observed as the result of both e-vapor and regular cigarette smoke, Dr. Wang-Rodriguez asserts, based on the evidence from the study, that e-cigarettes are not necessarily a healthier alternative to smoking regular cigarettes. As stated in the journal paper and the news release, further research is needed to better understand the actual long-term health effects of e-cigarettes in humans.
Oddly enough, she still repeats the conclusion that e-cigs are not safer than smoking, only inserting a weasely qualifier " not necessarily " !
Needless to say the " clarification/correction" issued about a week after the initial press release, did not get any mainstream media coverage.
Summary : Even at doses that do not mimic real life usage, cell damage was at a small fraction of cigarette smoke. Conclusion : E-cigs are not safer than cigarettes !
Cell harm seen in lab tests of e-cigarettes
CLARIFICATION/CORRECTION: Contrary to what was stated or implied in much of the news coverage resulting from this news release, the lab experiments did not find that e-cigarette vapor was as harmful to cells as cigarette smoke. In fact, one phase of the experiments, not addressed in the news release, found that cigarette smoke did in fact kill cells at a much faster rate (emphasis mine ). However, because similar cell-damage mechanisms were observed as the result of both e-vapor and regular cigarette smoke, Dr. Wang-Rodriguez asserts, based on the evidence from the study, that e-cigarettes are not necessarily a healthier alternative to smoking regular cigarettes. As stated in the journal paper and the news release, further research is needed to better understand the actual long-term health effects of e-cigarettes in humans.
Oddly enough, she still repeats the conclusion that e-cigs are not safer than smoking, only inserting a weasely qualifier " not necessarily " !
Needless to say the " clarification/correction" issued about a week after the initial press release, did not get any mainstream media coverage.
Summary : Even at doses that do not mimic real life usage, cell damage was at a small fraction of cigarette smoke. Conclusion : E-cigs are not safer than cigarettes !
Cell harm seen in lab tests of e-cigarettes
Last edited:
Seems kinda like saying "Being rich is not necessarily better than being poor."
Andria
Sadly, and as I've mentioned in the past, you can say whatever you please and flat out lie to the media - provided you get your oar in first. Then, no matter how outrageous the lie, that's what sticks with the public memory. Anything that refutes such grandiose porkies then sounds like nothing more than a defense tactic. It's a nasty ploy, but well within the immoral compass of bought and paid for "scientists".
We don't need to reject this in knee-jerk fashion. Look, anyone with a hint of common sense knows that this may have detrimental long-term effects. So at extreme dosage, it damages cells. It stands to reason that this happens on a spectrum.
We may not like how it's presented, but that's no reason to reject the findings. And no one should be surprised by them.
Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
We may not like how it's presented, but that's no reason to reject the findings. And no one should be surprised by them.
Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
Did you read the criticisms from the Tobacco Control professionals? Are you labelling those as knee-jerk reactions?
In this forum, there's an instant knee-jerk reaction against any suggestion that this isn't 100% safe. I'm not saying it's everyone. Just that it's a fair percentage. Some people are SO invested in this being totally safe that they'll immediately disregard anything even vaguely suggesting otherwise.
I hear what you're saying, but this thread is a poor choice of where to post your complaint. It's a good thread for seeing how incompetent, and/or dihonest research feeds the cynicism.
I don't recall anyone on ECF ever saying that vaping is 100% safe, since literally NOTHING in the universe meets that standard, a fact with which we're all familiar, and the reason why we attack so viciously all those vaping critics who preface their remarks with "It's not 100% safe..." Nothing meets that level of safety, so it's utterly ridiculous to be constantly throwing that in, as if it means anything!
Andria
That's right - no one says that - the problem is people who use that fact, to make everything "dangerous". Because no product is 100% safe - mainly because idiots find ways to harm themselves, then some think that even 1% unsafe = a cause for regulation.
And because no product is 100% safe, individuals have to weigh the risk/reward - the possibility of particles from dry hits vs. the benefits of nicotine. The need for taste in eliquids to stay away from cigarettes vs. the possibility, even though no evidence in either cigarettes or eliquid suggests it, that diacetyl may cause harm. The enjoyment of big clouds vs. the enjoyment of flavor. The need of nicotine via ecigs vs. the harm caused to conditions - asthma, COPD by continuing to smoke. There are many other personal reasons too long to list.
This 'risk/reward' assessment for ecigs, fortunately has no effect on someone else's rights, so it is a personal choice only. Those who don't like diacetyl, big clouds, don't have asthma - can choose according to their preferences without interfering with any others. Only when you have people who know what's best for others and want to push or support gov't regulation, are choices then diminished - at least with ecigs. If it's a product that can affect other people - that's a different story.
When it's not the case that it affects others - as with ecigs - then those who still want to push toward regulation and intervene in others' personal choices - then they have to make that 1 or 2% risk so dangerous, either by using the children card, or using junk science, or some other form of fear-mongering in order to pursue their fake altruistic goals that make them feel good and almost no one else.
Last edited:
Let's all remember that when studied, high levels of water are also toxic when inhaled.
....you drown.
....you drown.
Heck, water is toxic even if you drink too much of it! There is "water intoxication," and it can kill you!
Even the most important ingredient for human life: OXYGEN! Can be highly toxic when there is too much of it. All these products that are "anti-oxidants"... They exist because oxygen is toxic!
Andria
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
