Read this! Massively important report on vaping from major British medical group

[Imfallen_Angel]

My daughter is autistic, if you knew the number of people, upon finding this out will come to me with "wonderful advice" from a TV show, movie, news article, etc. that they read, which, appears to make them experts on the subject.

Between that and the "OH, what's her magical talent!" because somehow, all autistic people is a savant/genius because of the movies, TV show, news articles, etc.

And then there's the "I have a friend whose got an autistic cousin, so I know all about it!".

I look at it with the mentality that people either just simply want to be useful and think that you might not know about something (and that's ok), or have pronounced themselves experts (and they can jump in a lake).

I will admit that I will offer "free advice" on some things, but on subjects that I actually have a LOT of experience and knowledge about it, not from TV shows, movies, news article, etc. But I usually see that the person tends to believes that they already know all about it (even though the reason why I would speak up would be exactly because they are doing something stupid). So I tend to really hold back and live and let live, say a little thing and see the reaction, or put it as a question instead. Their attitude tells me to either convey the info, or let them learn on their own.

So for those people as your comment, I'd simply go with "Ah, I see your swallowed the kool-aid... btw, all those bad things you heard, it's all made up stuff by pharmaceuticals and governments because of all the money they are losing with the people that are quitting smoking, care to learn more?".

 

[Rickb119]

So I tend to really hold back and live and let live, say a little thing and see the reaction, or put it as a question instead. Their attitude tells me to either convey the info, or let them learn on their own.

Words of wisdom.

 

[Lacit1707]

I get that, i do !.

My more fundamental point is that Hospitals experience every single ailment known to man. Their records will reflect that there are no cases of ill health caused by the use of electronic cigarettes.

It's the lack of data, statistics, which we should all be counting on.

It's simple. Hospitals and Doctors surgeries should report regularly that they have no reports of ill health from the use of electronic cigarettes from anyone.

If they did it would be on record.

But they have none !.

well, i think thats the point of the government as of now. Its too early to be seeing signs that vaping is bad for you. vaping as a whole is in its infancy and id say in 20 years then we'll know for sure if they are totally safe or if they are really bad for you. Thats the problem though, its too early to know one way or the other.

That being said, i dont see any reason to officially regulate e-ciggs but i think vendors should certainly be testing their liquids and showing results and let the consumer decide if they want to ingest or not. Absolutely no different than cigarettes, we all knew (my generation anyway) they are bad but smoked them anyway, got hooked and many could never kick the habit, until now.

 

[ST Dog]

not from TV shows, movies, news article, etc.

That's how I learn about new things.

Well, sort of. The show/movie/story get my interest so I go looking for more info. Usually learning how off base the original bit was in the process.

Send me an interesting link, and 2 hours later I'm still following links to more related info.

 

[ST Dog]

id say in 20 years then we'll know for sure if they are totally safe or

I can tell you now, they won't be totally safe. Nothing is.

But the plan is to regulate then out of existence before much is ever known.

That being said, i dont see any reason to officially regulate e-ciggs

Follow the money, first and foremost.

Beyond that, it's the nanny-state, risk averse society we have now.
No individual/personal responsibility, everything is someone else's fault.

Egged on by the lifestyle epidemiologists than rely on it for their import and livelihood. If they weren't discovering every minor risk in what we do/eat/drink to scare the public what would they do?

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

vaping as a whole is in its infancy and id say in 20 years then we'll know for sure if they are totally safe or if they are really bad for you. Thats the problem though, its too early to know one way or the other.

Vaping's been around for a good 10 years already, and yet to have a single incident (aside the batteries fiasco) to be reported from anyone in reference to their health. Nothing, not one thing, absolutely nothing.

But reports of people (ex-smokers) breathing better, feeling better, being less sick, have all been very common.

My wife with MS, who's been a smoker and nothing worked to get her to quit has done it thanks to vaping (a good 8 years ago) and aside her ailment's "regular" stuff, she's actually been better for it. If someone would be at risk, it would be someone with such an affliction.

And considering that all the liquids components are food based, and with PG used in the medical industry...

At this point, I'm not that worried.

 

[puffon]

Vaping's been around for a good 10 years already, and yet to have a single incident (aside the batteries fiasco) to be reported from anyone in reference to their health. Nothing, not one thing, absolutely nothing.

Wonder how many have died from smoking related illness, in that 10 yrs ?...too many...

 

[Woofer]

well, i think thats the point of the government as of now. Its too early to be seeing signs that vaping is bad for you. Vaping as a whole is in its infancy and id say in 20 years then we'll know for sure if they are totally safe or if they are really bad for you. Thats the problem though, its too early to know one way or the other.

We already know and have known for quite some time that e-cigs are not "really bad" for you.

 

[Oliver]

FYI, for those who are worrying about the possibility of harms being discovered from vaping in the future..

I spoke to one of the authors of the report about this. He said to me, emphatically:

"We will never detect harms from vaping through epidemiology. The kind of events that vaping will, perhaps, be responsible for will be, say, a person with serious heart disease dying a couple of weeks earlier than he otherwise would have. These "harvesting effects" will simply be too small to be detected through epidemiological methods."

I suppose the point is that in almost all cases, any health effects will be confounded by previous smoking in the study sample since, as we know, vaping is overwhelmingly dominated by previous and existing smokers (and long may that last).

 

[sofarsogood]

FYI, for those who are worrying about the possibility of harms being discovered from vaping in the future..

I spoke to one of the authors of the report about this. He said to me, emphatically:

"We will never detect harms from vaping through epidemiology. The kind of events that vaping will, perhaps, be responsible for will be, say, a person with serious heart disease dying a couple of weeks earlier than he otherwise would have. These "harvesting effects" will simply be too small to be detected through epidemiological methods."

I suppose the point is that in almost all cases, any health effects will be confounded by previous smoking in the study sample since, as we know, vaping is overwhelmingly dominated by previous and existing smokers (and long may that last).

May be the way to detect a benefit is look at the reverse situation. Find a large population of senior citizen smokers whose medical status is easy to follow. In the US that might be military verterans getting their medical help from the VA. Then identify people who switch to vaping and people who continue to smoke and see if there are detectable differences in their health issues or mortality going forward. May be the older they are the sooner there will be detectable differences. This might not detect differences in cancer rates but it probably would detect differences in cardio vascular issues.

I'm a motorcycle skills rider (my other hobby). Millions of dollars have been spent studying motorcycle accidents. That hasn't produced any insights or progress reducing fatalities. If the reverse study was done, on rider populations who have significantly lowers rates of fatal accidents, some insights would emerge that would probably help individual riders understand the risks and how to reduce them. (My conclusion is the motorcycle industry, the community, and safety institutions, don't want the insights I'm talking about because it wouldn't suit their various adgendas.)

 

[ST Dog]

I spoke to one of the authors of the report about this. He said to me, emphatically:

"We will never detect harms from vaping through epidemiology. The kind of events that vaping will, perhaps, be responsible for will be, say, a person with serious heart disease dying a couple of weeks earlier than he otherwise would have. These "harvesting effects" will simply be too small to be detected through epidemiological methods."

He's not giving the epidemiologists enough credit.

They will hack something together like always. It may not be statistically significant, but that has never stopped them from publishing fear inducing "studies" that garner big headlines before anyone can find the flaws. Once out there the lie becomes "common knowledge" and practically impossible to correct the public perception.

Pick nearly any study from the last 30 years showing increased risk from some food. Later work refutes the results or even contradicts it, but the masses remember the original headlines.

 

[devilzrox]

This is awesome news! All the kudos and karma to them for telling it how it is, and not pandering to the government's reluctance to accept that something has done more for ex-smokers trying to quit than any nicotine therapy previously offered by Big Pharma

 

[DancingHeretik]

I seen this earlier and was super excited to see something good for once in the media. I shared it on social media to some family nay sayers and those with questions on vaping.

Yes! Thanks for the idea! Off to FB I go!

OK, I'm back. Posted and shared.

Industry (self Regulation) vs. Government regulation

What follows is a brief chronological history of the use of lead-based paint in the United States:

• Use of white lead began in the Colonial times and ultimately peaked in 1922.
• In 1951, Baltimore banned the use of lead pigment in interior paint in Baltimore housing – the first such restriction in the country.
• In 1955, the industry, working with public health officials and organizations, adopted a voluntary national standard to prohibit, in effect, the use of lead pigments in interior residential paints.
• Through the 1950s and 1960s, the use of exterior lead-based paint declined significantly, and ended by the early 1970s.
• In 1971, the federal Lead Poisoning Prevention Act was passed.
• In 1978, the federal government banned consumer uses of lead paint.

The History of the Use of Lead-Based Paint - Understanding Lead Pigment Litigation

So..............we reach this day and time, where Government has decided it is best to Protect us from ourselves because Vaping Might, maybe, could POSSIBLY, under Certain conditions, If used in a specific way exceeding reasonable practice, be a Health risk to an as yet undermanned percentage of the Vaping population.

I personally believe there is little in this world that is NOT a risk if not self limited.
From devouring to much chocolates - Diabetes - a Killer disease
To Eating Led Paint Chips.

One We regulate
One we do not

So nicely expressed!

Egged on by the lifestyle epidemiologists than rely on it for their import and livelihood. If they weren't discovering every minor risk in what we do/eat/drink to scare the public what would they do?

Get a real job?

 

[Stubby]

This report therefore aims to provide a fresh update on the use of harm reduction in tobacco smoking, in relation to all non-tobacco nicotine products but particularly e-cigarettes. It concludes that, for all the potential risks involved, harm reduction has huge potential to prevent death and disability from tobacco use, and to hasten our progress to a tobacco-free society. With careful management and proportionate regulation, harm reduction provides an opportunity to improve the lives of millions of people. It is an opportunity that, with care, we should take.

Overall it moves things in a positive direction (likely more so in the USA then in the UK as the UK was already moving in that direction) but there are problems with this report that jumped out at me. This quote is one of them, "and to hasten our progress to a tobacco-free world". This plays along with the main goal of tobacco control with the utopian fantasy of a tobacco free world, and helps justifies the anti-THR stance of TC.

I'm not at all sure this could be called a harm reduction paper as it never endorses the idea of the recreational use of nicotine (much less tobacco), which is a central idea of THR. Years ago I read the original harm reduction paper that dealt with smokeless tobacco and it had a similar attitude. That one never went anywhere because snus was, and still is, illegal in the UK.

The paper goes out of its way the emphasize that non-smokers should not take up vaping (and god forbid anyone underage) though I'm not sure how you could make vaping available and attractive to smokers and not make it available and attractive to non-smokers as the paper never goes into that, but they do mention careful monitoring. So what happens when the inevitable happens and non-smokers start using nicotine?

By never endorsing the recreational use of nicotine it leaves open many opportunities for restrictions and bans in the future. I would not call this tobacco harm reduction, but more like a modified tobacco control stance.

 

[crxess]

Overall it moves things in a positive direction (likely more so in the USA then in the UK as the UK was already moving in that direction) but there are problems with this report that jumped out at me. This quote is one of them, "and to hasten our progress to a tobacco-free world". This plays along with the main goal of tobacco control with the utopian fantasy of a tobacco free world, and helps justifies the anti-THR stance of TC.

I'm not at all sure this could be called a harm reduction paper as it never endorses the idea of the recreational use of nicotine (much less tobacco), which is a central idea of THR. Years ago I read the original harm reduction paper that dealt with smokeless tobacco and it had a similar attitude. That one never went anywhere because snus was, and still is, illegal in the UK.

The paper goes out of its way the emphasize that non-smokers should not take up vaping (and god forbid anyone underage) though I'm not sure how you could make vaping available and attractive to smokers and not make it available and attractive to non-smokers as the paper never goes into that, but they do mention careful monitoring. So what happens when the inevitable happens and non-smokers start using nicotine?

By never endorsing the recreational use of nicotine it leaves open many opportunities for restrictions and bans in the future. I would not call this tobacco harm reduction, but more like a modified tobacco control stance.

With Governments it will always be about some level of control. That is a given. Continuing to hammer home real world facts in the face of Propaganda is necessary to minimize that level of control. Be it age restrictions or Tax levels/etc., we must continue the struggle to limit government involvement.

 

[Oliver]

Totally agree. There's still a huge disconnect between those who wish to see the end of the death caused by smoking, and those who wish to see the end of all tobacco usage. I'm not convinced they'll ever be reconciled.

But this is the political reality of where we're at, and it's the product of centuries of anti-tobacco sentiment, often totally unrelated to health issues. The thing right now is to win battles where we can - this report firmly entrenches the UK as a country in which nicotine can be accessed by smokers as a consumer product. Massive step change.

This is a huge step forward, and no other country in the world has adopted this attitude.

You've rightly flagged snus as the elephant in the room, and that this isn't really something government or policymakers in the UK can do anything about, since it's already illegal per EU regulations.

In fact, the TPD was the time in which the snus question should have been addressed. Sadly (as reported to me by a leading MEP at the time), no-one even lobbied for snus, and MEPs were totally unaware. Perhaps next time?

Overall it moves things in a positive direction (likely more so in the USA then in the UK as the UK was already moving in that direction) but there are problems with this report that jumped out at me. This quote is one of them, "and to hasten our progress to a tobacco-free world". This plays along with the main goal of tobacco control with the utopian fantasy of a tobacco free world, and helps justifies the anti-THR stance of TC.

I'm not at all sure this could be called a harm reduction paper as it never endorses the idea of the recreational use of nicotine (much less tobacco), which is a central idea of THR. Years ago I read the original harm reduction paper that dealt with smokeless tobacco and it had a similar attitude. That one never went anywhere because snus was, and still is, illegal in the UK.

The paper goes out of its way the emphasize that non-smokers should not take up vaping (and god forbid anyone underage) though I'm not sure how you could make vaping available and attractive to smokers and not make it available and attractive to non-smokers as the paper never goes into that, but they do mention careful monitoring. So what happens when the inevitable happens and non-smokers start using nicotine?

By never endorsing the recreational use of nicotine it leaves open many opportunities for restrictions and bans in the future. I would not call this tobacco harm reduction, but more like a modified tobacco control stance.

 

[ST Dog]

In fact, the TPD was the time in which the snus question should have been addressed. Sadly (as reported to me by a leading MEP at the time), no-one even lobbied for snus, and MEPs were totally unaware. Perhaps next time?

More of that nanny attitude. They don't known anything about them but ban them?

 

[Munk]

Did anyone else happen to notice that 95% of the nay-sayers in the comment section were from California?

And they're migrating to my beloved state of Colorado in hordes

 

[WharfRat1976]

A dandy of an article of course being refuted by those pro tobacco in the US.

This was discussed on NPR last week as well.

Get the good word out!

WE ARE THE 50%

 

[Patcrack]

Tobacco and pharmaceutical industries have obvious interests against the e-cigarette. These industries have an incredible amount of money to spend on research.

However even having ample resources and profitable aims, these industries have not been able to demonstrate any significant harm caused by electronic cigarette so far.

The E-cig is withstanding the attack of the most powerful enemies successfully, therefore common sense says that harm caused by electronic cigarette has to be really low, otherwise it would have been detected long time ago.

Does anyone need further demonstration?


It is just my opinion.