6 Misleading Pro-Vaping Arguments We Should Stop Using

[rokyo87]

Let's be honest all the vapers, we can't say that vaping is healthier than smoking, because we don't have long-term health effects...

6 Misleading Pro-Vaping Arguments We Should Stop Using

In the link just replace "moc" with "com...

 

[Lessifer]

We can say that when you compare all of the known hazards of smoking, the presence of those hazards in vapor products is either non existent, or negligible. "Healthier" is a meaningless term.

 

[Vaslovik]

I can say that my health is vastly improved since I gave up smoking for vaping. Good enough for me. It's also not lost on me that the UK has declared vaping 95% safer than smoking. I see yours is a new account just able to post outside the beginner forum. Stick around a while and get more information. Sounds like you could use it.

 

[Kent C]

80 to 90% of what we inhale is PG or VG from the blend, the nic base and flavor base. There are long term studies on inhalation of both substances from factory workers with no harm involved. (a minor segment of the population has PG allergy which in most cases can be solved by vaping only VG based contents).

Nicotine, while mildly addictive has no long term effects - yes it is a vasoconstrictor, but so are many substances and some vasodilators can be a danger to some medical conditions. In fact nicotine has many benefits - relaxed focus, enhanced memory, anti-Alzheimer's, anti-Parkinson's, anti-dementia, anti-inflammatory.

Some flavoring may be questionable but even then the substances are in trace amounts vs. cigarettes and even inner city air! The 'we don't know what the long term holds' is a specious argument and should be attacked in every instance it is used, whether by ANTZ or by those attempting to sound "reasonable" (or politically correct) within our community.

And we can absolutely say that vaping is healthier than smoking and it may be healthier than not vaping for certain individuals who have genes or have signs of the diseases listed above.

 

[zoiDman]

Let's be honest all the vapers, we can't say that vaping is healthier than smoking, because we don't have long-term health effects...

6 Misleading Pro-Vaping Arguments We Should Stop Using

In the link just replace "moc" with "com...

Not a Bad Article. Thank you for Posting it rokyo87.

---

BTW - Did you notice AndriaD made a comment in the Comments Section?

 

[Kent C]

3 - PG used in inhalers:

WSJ Opinion Journal : Save E-Cigarettes

4 - “Nobody Has Died from Vaping”

No one has.... and this is just a rewording of the "no evidence of long term" false argument. We know what it is about cigarettes that predisposed someone to cancer and emphysema - it's the smoke - and yes it takes a while to manifest BUT Vaping doesn't involve smoke, so there's nothing to manifest later down the road.

6 – “Smokers Don’t Get Popcorn Lung from the Diacetyl in Cigarettes”

They don't. Even Dr. F said so at one point. Also see the scientific study by Pierce - also see the posts above this one that leads to this....

Diacetyl exposure graphed.

We should use every good argument available and these are good arguments. The enemy uses junk science, lies, implications and the kitchen sink against us - we shouldn't do that but we should use arguments and science that shows that the arguments in this article that the author doesn't like and still true and valid. Again, this is a bad attempt at being either politically correct, or just plain ignorance of the science.

 

[skoony]

Here is the response I posted. Please note I am not ascertaining certain
things are out of the realm of possibility,merely suggesting certain things
are more in the realm of probability.

This reads like the official why we should completely cave in to the FDA and the ANTZ bible.
Very interesting.
Point 1. Technically true. Perhaps saying hardly any compared to smoke
would be better. Saying 4 main ingredients however with flavors being plural
would be factual.
Point 2. Another technicality. Even though one can say that some elements
of e-juice are not certified or recognized as safe for inhalation none have
shown any tendency to cause harm when suspended and dispersed in a viscous
liquid as opposed to inhaled in raw form in ambient air. Even diacetyl.
Point 3.May be technically correct,modern day. It has been posted on ECF the ingredients of a nicotine inhaler that contained PG.PG was approved for use in inhalers. It may not be used now but, why would someone go through the trouble of approving it just not to use it? Asthma nebulizers do use PG. Technically different but,still your inhaling it. To a layman the difference is meaningless.
As far as increased health risks I believe the use of increasing amounts of VG
is causing some issues of a minor nature but certainly correctable by dialing back on the percentage. The we don't know is starting to lose it's luster.
Point 4.Total meaningless mumble jumble. Various studies comparing toxicity of smoke to vapor have shown smoke to be extremely toxic compared to vapor. Using the writers comparison, time smoking to actual illness, I would conjecture one
would have to heavily vape for well over 100 years And still not get lung cancer.
Point 5.Nice try.People are using more as people are opting for higher end gear
from the start completely by passing cigalikes and standard ego style batts and carto's. The problem is when you start comparing averages to averages.
Cigarettes are not,have not and, as of today still not considered a risk factor for popcorn lung. Not even for 5-6 PAD(or more) smokers. Comparing high end juice
consumption with average cigarette consumption is the problem. Compare high end juice
consumption to high end cigarette consumption.
Point 6. The old all of our Doctors and lab technicians are complete mindless
and evidently lazy automatons letting the proper diagnosis slip by because,
what the heck, COPD sounds good too. This ignores the fact that over the course of time sufficient biopsies that are normally doen to determine the type,and severity of illness to determine the proper course of treatment that someone,somewhere,somehow might have used a little personal initiative or
accidentally have stumbled on a case or two.
I am not saying that harm from vaping is totally out of the realm of possibility. My point is this FUD is all based on 'possible" unknown and unknowable
things that "might" happen not, "will happen". It's just as possible an realistic
to assume that vaping is completely safe for otherwise healthy individuals.


Regards
Mike

 

[DrMA]

We'll said @skoony.

What's the purpose of this wibble? Why bring up such hair splitting non-issues? It's not like ANTZ challenge any of these assertions.

We craft messages to reach the general public, who aren't interested in a nuanced discussion of the difference between chemicals & ingredients. We need to give them simple, catchy messages that will make them interested enough to care about the big difference between vaping & smoking.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[Lessifer]

I have a question about the whole B.O. misdiagnosed as COPD thing. If it were known that it were misdiagnosed, then we would have a diagnosis, and the numbers would be higher. Saying that it is likely misdiagnosed, how is that different from guessing, or making an otherwise unfounded assertion?

 

[rokyo87]

I think the point of saying "We don't have long-term health effects" is this that they (ANTZ, anti-ecigs) can say this as an excuse for another 30 years and we can't do anything about this, because we really don't have long-term health effects on vaping... So we are screwed for many years from now...

 

[Rossum]

What's the purpose of this wibble? Why bring up such hair splitting non-issues? It's not like ANTZ challenge any of these assertions.

Because we shouldn't sink to the level of BS and hyperbole that they do. If/when they start fact-checking us, I don't wish to be seen as having made false statements.

 

[pennysmalls]

Let's be honest all the vapers, we can't say that vaping is healthier than smoking, because we don't have long-term health effects...

6 Misleading Pro-Vaping Arguments We Should Stop Using

In the link just replace "moc" with "com...

Not healthier than smoking? Seriously? If by healthier we're talking safer/less toxic then yes, yes it is healthier than smoking.

The article itself is written by a guy who attempts to deconstruct pro vaping arguments but saturates the article with phrases like "this is technically true but...", "It’s very hard to prove it (PG) isn’t used (but we shouldn't say it is)", "no related health problems have been documented in vapers (but we shouldn't say no one has died from vaping???)", "While the general message – that cigarettes contain more diacetyl than e-liquids – is true (nitpicking the amount)". So he's trying to deconstruct arguments that are mostly based on known facts which is a heck of a lot more than the anti crowd can say and every one of those arguments he's trying to debunk tells us why vaping *is* "healthier" than smoking.

I personally don't use the inhaler or GRAS arguments but they are still true, to what degree when applied to vaping is the question but certainly not worth discounting.

 

[nicnik]

3 - PG used in inhalers:

WSJ Opinion Journal : Save E-Cigarettes

"polyethylene glycol 1000 NF" , not propylene glycol.

 

[sofarsogood]

The most common anti argument is, we don't know about the long term... May be figuring that out woulldn't be so hard and wouldn't take so long. How about a study that follows one group of people who are smokers and smoke to the bitter end and a second group of people who used to smoke but now are vapers. Keep track of their illnesses and dates of death, etc. If there is only a subtle difference it might be hard to detect an advantage or disadvantage but I have a hunch there is a significant positive difference for the vapers so it will appear sooner and be statistically significant. The people who do this kind of population study would know more than me about how to design it. You'd like to create the groups from populations that are easy to follow. How about people in the VA system? The larger the sample sizes the sooner there would be measurable results one way or another. This isn't going to tell you about someone who vapes for a lifetime and never smoked but it shouldn't take so long to find out the effects of switching late in life.

 

[pennysmalls]

"polyethylene glycol 1000 NF" , not propylene glycol.

See, that's why I don't quote that argument. It's one that seems to be forever elusive as far as having solid truth behind it. If it was approved for use in inhalers but then not used in inhalers............

 

[Kent C]

"polyethylene glycol 1000 NF" , not propylene glycol.

You're right. PG is one ingredient in Albuterol nebulizers (and albuterol sulfide tablets) sometimes used for asthma, but not the regular asthma inhalers.

 

[Kent C]

because we really don't have long-term health effects on vaping...

We have long term effects of the components of vaping as stated above.

If scientists did long term studies on say, Camels, and only Camels, one could say then, that doesn't mean Lucky Strikes are harmful. But the components of Lucky Strikes are the same as Camels. By the same token, the components of ecigs have been proven safe in other studies on factory inhalation, etc. therefore vaping is safe.

 

[pennysmalls]

Excellent rebuttal of the article posted in the OP, courtesy of Jessica.

Let's Discuss Angels On A Pin | Dick Puddlecote

 

[nicnik]

80 to 90% of what we inhale is PG or VG from the blend, the nic base and flavor base.

Feel free to think of this as nitpicking, but since it's actually not vapor we're inhaling, and it's actually an aerosol, made up of air, water, pg and/or vg, flavor base and nicotine, in descending order of %, I think your percentages are way off the mark, aside from my wondering what you're thinking might comprise the other 10 to 20%. Water and/or alcohol (other than what's in the flavor base) that's added to the liquid sometimes is all I can think of (though I don't doubt there are researchers making great strides in getting smoking machines to produce ever more massive formaldehyde contamination levels that could soon top that 80 to 90%).

One drop of e-liquid produces a cloud of vapor orders and orders of magnitude larger than that drop, and the material isn't being born from nothing. The air and water are are drawn in from the surrounding air, and the rest, which is a tiny, tiny percentage of the whole, is from the liquid.

So I think you meant something more like, "Apart from the air you'd expect from taking a nice deep breath, along with the water from it, which comprise very, very close to all of what we inhale in a puff, is a mixture of 2 or (usually) more, of the following: pg, vg, flavor base and nicotine."

 

[rokyo87]

So I think you meant something more like, "Apart from the air you'd expect from taking a nice deep breath, along with the water from it, which comprise very, very close to all of what we inhale in a puff, is a mixture of 2 or (usually) more, of the following: pg, vg, flavor base and nicotine."

So basically we inhale very high percentages of air and water and small percentages of PG/VG/flavour/nicotine and even the smallest percentages of very harmful chemicals (i.e. aldehydes, metals, other nasty stuff,...). Am I right?