E cigs said hazardous

Discussion in 'Law and the E-Cigarette' started by TropicalBob, Aug 25, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TropicalBob

    TropicalBob Vaping Master

  2. Nazareth

    Nazareth Ultra Member

    Yeah this was posted in another thread- not sure what's up with that- The Doc simply made hte claims that htere are 28 carcinogens without providing any findings to back the claim up evidently- I'm sure the Doc probably has looked into the ingredients and carginogentic properties of each ingredient, but as of yet, there seems ot be no confirmation abotu hte claims. Not saying his claism aren't valid, just that the newspaper provided very little evidence- nay- absolutely zilch for evidence. We need verification from the Doc as well as the medical research results for each of supposed carcinogens-

    But even still 28 is better than the 40-60 in real ciggs- not sure why they are condemning eciggs if they are abotu 1/2 the carcinogens? Less = better, no?
  3. DeviLFisH

    DeviLFisH Super Member

    :oops:8-o wow this report make me feel scare and worry :p

    cos I constant e puff more than smoking real cig .
  4. leaford

    leaford Vaping Master

    It's a dentist! NOT a cancer doctor.
  5. icemanmaz

    icemanmaz Senior Member

    What could happen

    This increases blood pressure and lipids in blood vessels. This makes the heart work harder and can lead to heart failure and sexual dysfunction.

    What could happen
    You could be crossing the road AND WHAM no 471 bus wipes you out.

    And it was wrote by a woman (boy will I be in trouble for that)
  6. Kate

    Kate Moved On

    "And it was wrote by a woman" what are you implying with that statement?
  7. jimldk

    jimldk Super Member

    Rough but no full proof yet..she's a dentist ferchrissake!!.....alkaloida...not correct and not even close....she needs to be fully interrogated for her findings...maybe the Thai's version of e-liquids are contaminated....you'll never know what they add in there and to make such statements without any clinical papers are just baseless phobic facts....I won't take even 2 cents out of it....:-x
  8. TropicalBob

    TropicalBob Vaping Master

    I don't believe any of it either, Dr. Loi. It's all unsupported allegations.

    What I think is that this begins or continues a misinformation campaign by someone in Thailand's government who doesn't want the competition of e-cigarettes, probably for tax reasons. No department wants to report that tax revenues are down, as they would be if tobacco smokers switched to e-cigs. Sooooo ... we begin a campaign to scare people. "Authorities" are quoted. Look for more scary stores yet to come.

    Then, when people have digested these "facts," we ban the product or activity that is so frightening, all in the name of protecting the people. It's for your own good, people. Government is saving your health.

    Standard government procedure against a threat or enemy.
  9. icemanmaz

    icemanmaz Senior Member

    And it was wrote by a woman (boy will I be in trouble for that) :D
    Only kidding just a pun.
  10. Nazareth

    Nazareth Ultra Member

    I agree- while hte report 'SEEMS' alarming, the Dentist needs to back up her claims with cold hard facts. The paper that reported this article shows that they aren't the least bit concerned with reporter integrity, as a good reporter would have demanded the evidence be supplied to back the claims up. As far as I'm cocnerned, until they can do that, the report is nothign but unsubstantiated alarmism- somethign the 'new media' seems to thrive on these days.
  11. Nazareth

    Nazareth Ultra Member

    I think we need to take a neutral approach here- neither belief nor disbelief. The Dentist may be able to back ht4e claims up, and she may not- we just don't know, but I don't htink we can just wave the claim away, but also don't htink we can believe it either- not until the doc backs up her claims with clinical reports.
  12. syntaxterror

    syntaxterror Full Member

    sadly i find this to be true. a few days using the e cig my blood pressure was sky high and i went into a panic attack after a few days.... my body still is not quite right.
  13. dc2k08

    dc2k08 Ultra Member

    i tried yesterday to contact the faculty (in paticular the research unit) where the tests were alleged to have been carried out but have yet to recieve a reply. they do post various reports on health issues but have none mentioning this.

    the doctor's name is not searchable and it is certainly not mentioned anywhere at the university's site. this article was ran as a headline on yahoo which is strange in itself for such a minor publication to attract this kind of mainstream attention.

    the columbo inside me feels it might be connected do big pharm, but I cant proove anything. i am also awaiting feed back from the publication that ran the article.
  14. icemanmaz

    icemanmaz Senior Member

    Had you also not had a normal fag for 2 days :confused:
  15. TropicalBob

    TropicalBob Vaping Master

    Keep us posted, DC. Wanna bet there is no "report," never was any "study"? This is a setup for a ban.

    ONLY Dr. Loi and Dr. Laugesen have known studies underway. This is the government of Thailand speaking. Bet on it.
  16. TropicalBob

    TropicalBob Vaping Master

    Naz, I said I don't believe it. I'm not neutral on that story and its purported conclusions. You're free to believe or not, as you like. That whole story is poppycock of the worst kind. And not only Yahoo, but Google picked up on it. That's just GREAT publicity for e-smoking, eh?
  17. 20ADAY

    20ADAY Senior Member

    Seems a rather short article, doesntt seem to back up any of its soundbites...

    Also Im wondering why a dentist was looking into e-cigarettes, rather than a respiratory or cancer doctor/researcher..

    Having said that I would like to here some proper research regarding theses devices.. I feel healthier using my c-cig compared to real smokes, but if there are potentially negative effects I would like to know them as well.
  18. dc2k08

    dc2k08 Ultra Member

    didnt originally think of this. it is a possibility.
    I do think the last sentence in the report is odd and led me to big pharm theory:

    a couple of sentences up the gum is also given preference.
    The thai government actively seeks to curb smoking by also enforcing various anti-smoking laws as this article reports.

    and listen to this....
    it is clear that thailand hates tobacco products, but why is a dentist faculty castigating the use of e-cigarettes, a practical and pleasing means to quit the weed while also praising the virtues of gum? well researching this issue, i stumbled apon this qoute from an article relating to the use of gum in asia.

    the article refers to practice in singapore, but from a quick search, im fairly certain it is also the case in thailand...so could the hokey study be simply the case of the dental assoc not wanting to loose revenue? and was their "conclusion" supported by the gum manacturers?

    this colombo is still emming and ahhhing.
  19. CaSHMeRe

    CaSHMeRe Vaping Master

    holy crap dc2k08 ... VERY nice investigative work ... It all makes sense now ...

    esmoking = loss of money for dentist selling nic gum
    esmoking = loss of tax revenue for the government

    that about sums up the article ...
  20. Nazareth

    Nazareth Ultra Member

    I wasn't advocating beliving it or not believing it, just mentioning I don't think we can just write it off as false if we don't have any proof that it's false, and can't say it is true if we don't have anythign to prove it's true.

    It could very well be a preemptive set-up to sway public opinion with accusations and claims that can't be produced because htey don't exist, but I'd just hate to htink that the evidence does exist that htere are 28 carcinogens, and we just waved it away because hte report came out in Bankok.

    If there is evidence such as the dentist claims, then I think we need to confront it head on, and perhaps create juices that contain many less carcinogens to counter the dentist's evidence if indeed it does exist. If it does, we can bet that they will be com9ng out with an anti-esmoking campaign based on these evidences

    If it's all crap- then I say Woohoo!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page