I gather that his "knowledge" is based on the mentality that since "cyanide" tastes like bitter almond, hence all almond flavours are cyanide.
He stomped his feet and now "leaved" because his argument was baseless.
Mouth inhale safer for lungs?
- Thread starter BigStu81
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I gather that his "knowledge" is based on the mentality that since "cyanide" tastes like bitter almond, hence all almond flavours are cyanide.
He stomped his feet and now "leaved" because his argument was baseless.
Well, FWIW I did my first powerlifting workout since Nov last night (i.e. first since starting vaping early this year) and felt no discernible difference in breathing. And a set of heavy squats will test one's respiratory system pretty effectively, especially after such a long lay off!
Prior to starting vaping, I hadn't smoked cigs daily for something like 4-5 years, but was having a cheeky toke several times a week, sometimes having a daily one before bed every day for a week straight before having a break for another few weeks...
Prior to starting vaping, I hadn't smoked cigs daily for something like 4-5 years, but was having a cheeky toke several times a week, sometimes having a daily one before bed every day for a week straight before having a break for another few weeks...
I would almost say that vaping on the way to the gym acted as a good pre-workout. Many people have a coffee/caffeine supplement before training and there is actually some evidence of nicotine being an effective fat burner (not that this is me trying to find 'justification' mind...).
No, I didn't miss that point. I actually mentioned that in a previous reply. And that being said, some individuals have allergies, some develop sensitivity after frequent exposure to irritants. Pollution levels increases risks and incidences of respiratory problems in a given population in certain locations. So, my point is, our lungs are already dealing with a lot of substances in the air. Despite our lungs being accustomed to them, a percentage of the population still develop problems. Then add the unknown effects of flavoring to that mix gives ANTZ people another thing to scream about.
It really doesn't take extreme working conditions to produce an adverse effect. Frequency, magnitude, and time of exposure can stress the system enough to cause a reaction. We shouldn't dismiss the possibility that flavors may cause a problem. Even if a fraction of a percent of our vaping population develops sensitivity to flavorings later on those ANTZ people will blow that up out of proportions. All I'm saying is that we should discuss and not dismiss any potential issues that might arise. My main concern about vaping is the flavoring. As of now, it seems safe. But is it really? Can we find out? Are some safer than others? Can they be made to be safer? If it can't be made safer and is found to have certain risks, will we be willing to give up that flavor? We already know about the dairy and buttery flavors which have been addressed. What about the rest? It may not be the flavor itself but a component of that flavor. Shouldn't that be explored?
We actually do NOT know that dairy and buttery flavors cause actual harm to vapers. We do know that you can trap a rat in a vessel and asphyxiate it with those flavors, to the point they will get sick and even die. We also know you can kill live tissue in a Petrie dish. Whether the presence of those flavorings in that Petrie dish had anything to do with it is another matter.
I think eating green beans leads to an increased risk of Colon cancer and I defy you to devise a study that will prove me wrong.
I'm saying a couple different things that are tied together, in a somewhat subtle way.
Last edited:
There's not really anything to disagree about... It's a question that it's been over 10 years now, and aside some people being more sensitive to certain things and even this is extremely limited, there's yet to have a single true story about any bad effects from vaping. This includes the fact that the first e-liquids were probably a lot worse than those made today as the technology and knowledge has evolved.
When we know that for VG and PG, it's been used in aerosol form for decades without a single negative impact.
I've seen nasty stuff in the medical field that barely got a few years of "testing" with animals and a few humans studies (a few hundreds to a few thousands individuals maybe) for 2-3 years at the most, and with side effects are fairly bad and common, and this PASSES and becomes an "approved" product.
And here we are... a good 10 years with thousands/hundred of thousands/even millions of voluntary human subjects (every vaper in the world), side effects virtually non-existant, and a war/witch-hunt is being fully waged.
Can we say that we are 100% certain that there's not a small percentage of risk of side-effects, of course not, but, do the math of what's already happened and were we are.
There isn't a single study that shows anything negative about vaping, not one...after all the witch-hunt, the faked ones, the propaganda.. After 2-3 years of this being a huge item on everyone's radar, they would have found something by now if such something actually existed, I would believe. But they have nothing... aside burning coils and cotton and such way above and beyond what anyone would do, aside the "maybe" this is bad (or not), aside people being stupid with their batteries and not doing things right. Nothing....
At first (a good 8 years ago) I was worried for a long time myself as it was new, still untested.. but now... this is just a joke at this point. I just don't believe that if they do eventually find something, it'll be so minor that it'll be a fraction of the risk from car fumes we breathe in as we walk in the city, from pollen in the fields, etc.
Well, I've reached the conclusion that training hard, eating clean and indulging in a moderate level of vaping is likely less detrimental to my health than being a non-vaper who's inclined to sit on their @rse a lot and eat pies...
Definitely, we don't know. But that does not mean its not possible to find out. We have a large and diverse group of vapers. Those who prefer MTL, STL, ohm, subohm, drippers, tankers, tabacco, fruit, savory, beverage, etc... with enough data we can statistically find if there is or is not any certain group of vapers that are symptomatic or asymptomatic. Whether it may be minor or major, small or large incident per group or category. Isn't that worth to know? If its not the flavor, then what is causing the cells to die? Is that component exclusive for that flavor? Or is it used in other flavors as well?
Canned green beans may increase that risk.
Yes, we have legions of volunteers on any category under the sun. Our population is so large and diverse. So much data to gather to present our case and silence "them" once and for all. We really do not need negative reports to prove our point. We have a potentially HUGE data base to present the positive results. It just has to be processed, analyzed, and documented.
And, you are correct, there are a lot of drugs passed with questionable results/effects. But it is documented and assessed, and the risks justified. Thats is what I believe we need as well.
And finally, despite the good 10 years, millions of successes, fabricated lies, and having no actual proof. Despite all the good that has come from this great ground breaking device, we get slapped with the regulations. Yes, its the money but they won under the guise of "Health Concerns for the Children".
Where will you find vapers that, over the long haul, never changed their flavors or gear?
It was done with cigs but the choices were few and I doubt anyone seriously developed risk profiles of different cig brands. I certainly changed brands over the years so I couldn't be useful for that.
And it can't really be done with foods. Where do you find people that never ate a green bean in their life? And among the green bean eaters, how could they assess quantity consumed over time?
In fact there are very few products that have been truly tested for long term effects. Cigs being unique because of the desire to find evil and most people either smoke or they don't.
Foods are called GRAS for a reason... generally regarded as safe... carefully chosen words to mean "we just don't know for sure but we think it's ok".
(And the green bean lobby is so strong we really don't want to know....)
In fact the only ingested product that is demanded to be 100.0000% safe, beyond any shadow of a doubt is... eCigs and vape. It's all about propaganda folks.
Last edited:
Aside from the above... there is ZERO evidence of vaping related disease. Of any kind. So what would be the point of divying up vapers into groups to find a non-null result? Null is null.
I'll also assert that most vapers, at least older vapers, have some form of COPD. And many are being checked by their docs for lung function. Because that's what they do when you get COPD. So there is a huge body of longish term studies on those vapers. Not a peep from the medical community over concerns of worsening COPD among vapers.
A better study would start never smoker never vapers vaping and do regular lung performance tests. But since vaping is so dangerous and evil, especially if they did the tests with nic, it probably couldn't get past the ethics board. So we will never know will we?
Good questions, thats why we need data to analyze. Gather enough samples and it is possible to find or not find correlations in their vaping preference or habit. Did you experience this when you were using this and did it go away when you stopped or switch or did it get worse? I, for one, used one device and only three fruit flavors for years. Only a couple of years ago did I upgrade and explored the vast array of flavor choices. Have I experienced any difference, is it good/bad, did you have to adjust? Yes. But of course results will vary but with a larger sample correlations can be made.
People with legume allergy. A vegan may be able to answer that. Yes, it is propaganda. So what do we do? Let them perpetuate the lies or expose their deceit?
I would like to read this evidence. Where can I find it? It really does not take a disease related case to keep ANTZ going. An adverse reaction to it is all they need to swarm and cry foul. And the point would be we have definitive proof that null is null and they can't make anymore excuses. Studies like that are what we need. Documented cases to prove vaping help save lives. If they aren't concerned, then perhaps their data shows a provape result. The question is why are they keeping quiet if its good news?
I was just reading anew posting related to our discussion and it is very pleasing. Those are the very things we need the most right now.
Assume you mean this...
Study shows steady progressive improvements in exhaled breath
Are you really asking me to prove a negative? How do I prove a null result, a lack of evidence? It doesn't work that way.
Not at all, I'm asking where you found that study that concluded that there is no disease that could be associated with vaping. Its not a matter of lack of evidence. It is demonstrating that a certain act does or does not produce a particular result. Does a falling tree make a sound when no one is there to hear it? It can be either a yes or a no.
I
Dr Polosa might as well be a tree falling in the woods that no one heard and therefore never happened. As far as the FDA, CDC, NY Times, Washington Post, et al are concerned.
When Polosa's work is published in the NY Times, et al, then we will have won the war. But as long as he is classed as a non-person we are total losers.
I did not say there was a study. I am asserting that there is no reported evidence of vaping related harm actually done to vapers. I challenge you or anyone to find it.
Dr Polosa might as well be a tree falling in the woods that no one heard and therefore never happened. As far as the FDA, CDC, NY Times, Washington Post, et al are concerned.
When Polosa's work is published in the NY Times, et al, then we will have won the war. But as long as he is classed as a non-person we are total losers.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
