See i think i am terrible misunderstood here, everyone gets all up in arms so easy on this forum and they don't read what is being stated or what the point is. I blame myself because i have clearly failed in conveying what i am trying to say.
Provaping verse Antivaping
- Thread starter DeAnna2112
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Like i have said before, i have learned alot from everyone on this forum about how i am seeing things. So i thank you all for attempting to help me see both sides of the coin.
does anyone doubt Kurt? he is a friend to vaping and would not lie. His findings have not been
not at all, i am being serious. See why the attitude? tell me what your issues are with me and what i have said in this thread to say i am being sarcastic
alien Traveler" data-source="post: 19814859" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">alien Traveler said:
not at all, i am being serious. See why the attitude? tell me what your issues are with me and what i have said in this thread to say i am being sarcastic
Actually I am enjoying this thread and I am very much in your support. You are 100% right, but you are afraid (because of peer pressure) openly to state it. So, let my say it: you are 100% right.
I have never given in to peer pressure once my mind is made up, just trying to keep it civil..throw a bone out there for a peace offering per say.
everybody wants to hear what they want to hear, that's what it comes down to. That's been proven with Dr. F and Dr. K
Dr. F or Dr. K is not against vaping people, they are just upfront and honest with their findings....and no one wants to hear that flip side of the coin that vapes. I want a researcher i can respect and is honest with me. I believe in vaping i do, but it still has room to improve and make it more safe. Let's not shot down the messenger, who happens to be on our side.
OK, I think I did misread you in that case. My apologies for that.
Sure- and I am old enough, started smoking young enough, regretted it soon enough, and am enough of an incorrigible addict to have quit smoking cold-turkey for significant periods... let's just say more than once. And I agree that I felt better even after just a week of not smoking, every time. After a month or two I felt a lot better. In some ways I felt better than switching to vaping made me feel, as vaping does lead to a bit irritation and some tightness in the chest for me, in a way that neither smoking nor vaping does not. So I agree that it would be a mistake to attribute feeling better after switching to vaping to vaping rather than to attribute it to not smoking, at least without some further evidence.
That's not really what I was getting at though. The reason I was talking about coffee is that two-fold. One, caffeine is a drug that people have had significant health concerns over (that have extended to the medium of delivery, coffee.) And two, coffee itself (though not so much the caffeine as far as I can tell) seems to have turned out to be be really good for you, in ways that you wouldn't be likely to notice. We should be careful about equating correlation with causation, but at this point it's getting pretty hard to ascribe all of its effect to confounding factors.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that using nicotine itself has long-term positive health benefits when compared to not using it, and I think there are at least glimmers of reasons to think that might be true out there. In addition to Alzheimers (and I borked that badly- dunno what I was thinking when I was talking about the specifics that, but I misstated them quite a bit, though no one has called me on it yet,) there are indications that nicotine might actually help with hypertension and some related conditions.
I don't think that these effects would result in an immediately improved sense of well-being though. After all, the hepato-protective effects coffee seems to have are not the sort of thing you would ever notice in a comparative sense. I think the evidence suggests that they are likely responsible for keeping many, many people alive much longer than would have otherwise been the case though.
To what degree you consider this a positive health outcome probably depends a lot on our point of view. I think it's worth noting that rates of smoking are very highly correlated with some serious psychiatric conditions. Schizophrenia is a good example. Smoking seems to me to be a very effective form of self-medication for schizophrenics, one that I'm inclined to think would be very much a net positive if it weren't for the fact that smoking is very bad for you. If using nicotine without smoking can provide the same positive effects, without the ill-effects, I'd also be inclined to think it one of the most powerful and least harmful psychiatric drugs in our arsenal.
Even for people without serious diagnosable psychiatric conditions... well, a lot of people, perhaps most people, do benefit psychically from using nicotine. I'd consider increased acuity and alertness, accompanied by greater calmness and a marked decrease in sensations of unease a positive health outcome, and I think a lot of people do get that from nicotine.
We're unlikely to see a lot of studies even investigating this aspect of nicotine use, and I think that a shame.
I have to wonder where you have been in recent years. How about the numerous studies showing formaldehyde (because of very bad protocols that abused the devises beyond anything in the real world). How about the studies showing a gateway effect where none exist, and the list goes on that shows a negative effect of vaping.
Again you have failed to give even one link to a biased pro-vaping study. At this point I have to believe that you simply do not have anything.
Last edited:
Those x% stuff is rubbish anyway. Does it mean that instead of 100 dead smokers you get 5 or 1 dead vapers instead? No, it doesnt.
Smoking kills. Vaping doesnt.
If you talk about bias, here is a riddle. I work in a BT-Lab. (Yes, booh!) We dont find s##t in vapor.
Of course, you'll never hear from, nevermind see BT research data in public.
In an indirect way it did. The formaldehyde study was so bad other studies were done like it that used more "real world " settings along with repeating the mistakes to show how they went wrong. That study also added to the 2nd hand vapor toxicity claims which led to the room air studies and also led to the idea to test temp as a factor. That first temp study's total dismissal of using vape gear led to the temp study Evolve commissioned using actual vape gear.
Those room air studies for 2nd hand exposure triggered California's DHS to do their vape shop air sample test which confirmed the lack of 2nd hand toxic exposure.
There is a chain reaction that happens in research and it usually gets triggered during the review process when another researcher notices something of interest.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And if the CDHS did the test it had to be thorough. [emoji40]
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
I believe I explained that earlier in the thread. That was of course Dr. Carl Phillips you are talking about (in case you would want to know, he is no longer a part of CASAA and hasn't been for some time. The article you are referring to was written long after he left CASAA so I have to wonder why you are trying to link it to them).
This is the original article in question
Saying e-cigarettes are “95% less harmful” is a very bad idea (part 143 of 10,000)
It is a good read with some very valid points.
I wondered about that, but mostly interpreted it as similar to smoking 5% as many cigs, for example going from a pack a day to one cig. Which in turn I'd expect to have far less than 5% the chance of causing death, but still a good chance of causing some slight effects. It's not self-explanatory for sure.
I do believe in a vapor there are no such bad things as in smoke. It's different. It's not a rocket science. I do believe putting 30+ ml/day of PG/VG in one's lungs is not healthy, and this thing is much more complicated than rocket science. It was not touched by research yet. All in dosage. Sugar can help brain to work better, can help children to grow healthy. Excess of sugar can ruin not only teeth but health overall. Dosage - that's most important thing.
I do believe that for ex-smokers vaping is much better than smoking, at any dosage.
I do believe that saying that vaping is harmless is at least irresponsible thing, and it's worst it is direct promotion of Big Vape, which needs more and more customers, and today ex-smokers are not its main target.
The only way to test the hypothesis to see if smoking schizophrenics did better in illness and/or required less medication than nonsmoking schizophrenics. To my knowledge, no such survey has been done.
To clarify, Evolv presented evidence of what temperatures vapers vape at based on statistics gathered from ECigStats. They then attempted to use the study by Wang of PG/VG related breakdown products under lab conditions showing breakdown products at vape gear independent temperatures. There have been no studies released to date looking at actual tanks and coils to measure both formaldehyde or other breakdown products while actually measuring the temps of the coil in the same tank. The tank col type studies were all conducted in wattage/power mode, so the temps achieved are unknown. That remains to be done to finally put a bow on that box.
- Status
Similar threads
