A little scared
- Thread starter chrisb123
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Actually the so called study in question isn't new.
It is a regurgitation by sensationalist 'fake' news media sources of a opinion / anti vaping piece that was debunked years ago.
The supposed 'study' dates have been changed / manipulated but it is the same old junk when you read the body, word for word.
It is a regurgitation by sensationalist 'fake' news media sources of a opinion / anti vaping piece that was debunked years ago.
The supposed 'study' dates have been changed / manipulated but it is the same old junk when you read the body, word for word.
I read an article on the internet that said Big Foot was real.
The following is a re-post from the other thread where these exact articles were discussed:
Vaping causes cancer new study warns said:
Vaping may raise cancer and heart disease risk said:
A few points. BOTH articles acknowledge that vaping is still significantly safer than smoking, they are just saying that it isn't completely risk free. Known vaping advocates such as Dr. F and ECF's own mikepetro have done experiments proving that the PG and VG do break down at higher temps into aldehydes that are carcinogens.This is why temp control is important for risk reduction. These articles do NOT mention what ratio of PG/VG were used nor to what temp the liquid was heated, both of which are HIGHLY important pieces of information since different ratios break down at different temps. Nicotine, according to the FDA is non-carcenogenic, so what carcinogens were present? Most likely it was aldehydes caused by overheating the liquid. If they overheat the liquid and then claim it isn't safe, that is just bad science, although some vapers do overheat their liquid.
In my own research (reading, not experimentation) I have come across some evidence that adding 10% distilled water can help prevent the breakdown of e-liquid at higher temps. Mikepetro seems to have confirmed this with 90VG/10DW ratio liquid, but I have asked him to try to verify this with other liquids (such as 45PG/45VG/10DW and 90PG/10DW). He has agreed to do so when he can find the time. Hopefully in the next few months we will know more. In the meantime, if you want to be as safe as possible use TC and stay at or below 450F.
I feel much better vaping and don't have a weight in chest anymore.
Will vaping cause cancer long term? I don't believe that has been proven yet it is proven with cigarettes.
A specialist of mine recommended vaping, not saying he knows some big secret. And another doctor of mine said switching to vaping would add years to my life. I think they are weighing the evidence carefully and making an informed conclusion.
Will vaping cause cancer long term? I don't believe that has been proven yet it is proven with cigarettes.
A specialist of mine recommended vaping, not saying he knows some big secret. And another doctor of mine said switching to vaping would add years to my life. I think they are weighing the evidence carefully and making an informed conclusion.
Even IF it can cause cancer, the probability of actually getting cancer will be significantly lower than smoking. Is it as low as not doing either? Probably not, but vaping probability is probably not much higher than doing nothing either. Even smoking is not a 100% guarantee of cancer.
You forgot the word "virtually". It used more in advertising than in scientific papers but it is used there as well. They use it to make false claims all the time. "This [product] is virtually maintenance free", or "This virtually proves [claim]. Most people reading tend to gloss over that word. The word "virtually" essentially means "almost but not in fact". So that product is almost but not in fact maintenance free and the claim is almost but not in fact proved. Yet lots of people eat it up as 100% truth.
Agreed. I have grown to believe that the one word definition of "virtual" is simply "fake". What is "virtual reality"?
Adjectives and modal verbs that include "future incoherent" shouldn't really be used in science. Ever. They have plenty of other "speshul" words. Of course, it's usually the breakdown journalist going "I'll just shove may here instead of the 73 qualifiers the researchers used to not prove their point, hoping I'll be confused. I am, so I will just use a "complicated" version of "maybe."
Anna
Anna
For the curious, smoking may cause cancer and vaping may cause cancer.
They still cannot accurately explain how one smoker gets cancer and another doesn't, it's largely then turned to genetics, some people are more likely to be predisposed to developing cancer due to family traits (our genes). Now this doesn't fully fit either due to siblings both smoking yet one develops cancer and another does not (including twins).
Now don't take that as smoking is safe, it is not and while vaping is considered safer, that does not equate to safe. The best way to view it (using quality e liquids not junk) is that vaping is less toxic than smoking.
The safest thing of course is to not vape or smoke, as bringing anything other than plain air is considered harmful. This is what most doctors, scientists and even common sense tells us. There is however one thing missing.....How safe is the air you/we breathe?
Environmental conditions play a far larger role for most people being predisposed to cancer causing pollutants on a daily basis, especially in larger/over-populated areas, industrial areas, and well anywhere else on Earth.
The ugly truth is, unlike most would have you believe, there is no safe space. There are more people being diagnosed with cancer now than 50 years ago, is it because science/technology is better, cheaper, more widely available and it's being diagnosed sooner or are there more pollutants causing it?
There are studies that support both view points but studies can be made to show whatever one wishes. One has to look at who is providing the info and where they obtained it, then decide if it is trustworthy or not.
In the US, I don't trust many studies because of the contradictions. The gov. has made a push to remove smoking and/or make it less addictive, since it is dangerous (noble cause). Yet they have legalized (or ignored the legality) of other combustible substances, why? Smoke is harmful to the human body, ask any firefighter, so why expand combustibles if they are really out to save people?
Don't believe everything you read or see, especially on the internet and be very wary of studies that are politically sponsored.
They still cannot accurately explain how one smoker gets cancer and another doesn't, it's largely then turned to genetics, some people are more likely to be predisposed to developing cancer due to family traits (our genes). Now this doesn't fully fit either due to siblings both smoking yet one develops cancer and another does not (including twins).
Now don't take that as smoking is safe, it is not and while vaping is considered safer, that does not equate to safe. The best way to view it (using quality e liquids not junk) is that vaping is less toxic than smoking.
The safest thing of course is to not vape or smoke, as bringing anything other than plain air is considered harmful. This is what most doctors, scientists and even common sense tells us. There is however one thing missing.....How safe is the air you/we breathe?
Environmental conditions play a far larger role for most people being predisposed to cancer causing pollutants on a daily basis, especially in larger/over-populated areas, industrial areas, and well anywhere else on Earth.
The ugly truth is, unlike most would have you believe, there is no safe space. There are more people being diagnosed with cancer now than 50 years ago, is it because science/technology is better, cheaper, more widely available and it's being diagnosed sooner or are there more pollutants causing it?
There are studies that support both view points but studies can be made to show whatever one wishes. One has to look at who is providing the info and where they obtained it, then decide if it is trustworthy or not.
In the US, I don't trust many studies because of the contradictions. The gov. has made a push to remove smoking and/or make it less addictive, since it is dangerous (noble cause). Yet they have legalized (or ignored the legality) of other combustible substances, why? Smoke is harmful to the human body, ask any firefighter, so why expand combustibles if they are really out to save people?
Don't believe everything you read or see, especially on the internet and be very wary of studies that are politically sponsored.
Chris, people who hate cigarettes will go to great lengths to condemn anything that looks like smoking. They just hate the idea of people using nicotine. OTOH, many of them think nothing about ingesting alcohol and other substances that might harm them.
Ejuice contains a small list of recipe components. There's propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, flavors, and nicotine. They'll tell you that PG is in antifreeze. That's true. It replaced ethylene glycol because dogs like the sweet flavor of EG. Dog used to lick it off the pavement under cars and die. Ethylene Glycol was replaced by Propylene Glycol in antifreeze because it's safe and doesn't kill dogs if they ingest it.
Propylene Glycol is in a huge list of foods and drinks, cosmetics, and many other products we eat, drink, or rub on our skin. It's safe. Vegetable Glycerin is also in many products we use and consume in foods.
Flavors in ejuice other than tobacco flavors are the same ones that are in our soft drinks, desserts, candies, and foods. They are USP certified and safe for consumption.
Then there's Nicotine. Nicotine isn't the bad part of smoking, but it's the reason we smoked and the reason we vape.
Smoking has a bad reputation and that's justified. Vaping is a safer way to consume nicotine and it's light years better than smoking. Of course, the safest way to live is to abstain from anything that doesn't contribute positively to our health. Life is more fun if we do things we enjoy. It's why people ride motorcycles and climb mountains. Vaping is a safer way to prevent smoking. It's not entirely safe, but it doesn't even register on the danger scale like smoking does. My Doctor is fine with my vaping, but he hates smoking with a passion.
Foods & Drinks With Propylene Glycol | LEAFtv
Last edited:
Nicotine is not the sole reason we smoked, nor is it the sole reason anyone vapes.
I don't think that anyone can conclude that vaping is 100% safe, although it may be safer, for most people, at most times.
It's also dose dependent and dependent on genetics as well. Anyone who thinks nicotine is 100% safe is (in my view) incorrect. Certain health conditions make nicotine less safe than others, although it does appear (so far) to be safer when NOT coupled with combustion.
With that said, if anyone can make non-combustion dangerous, I have full faith in Big Tobacco to do that with all their "proprietary pods" and the IQOS.
It is also a good day for science when someone asks, "Who paid." MORE disclosure in science (including funding sources) is a good thing, if you ask me. How long did big tobacco hide behind their safety studies because no one thought scientists lied/manufactured results/etc.
Also, to get a full view of the spectrum of science, you really also need a sense of what does, and does NOT get published and the reasons for that (failed study? Not what the funding "paid" for? Unpopular? Etc.)
I don't think it's a sad day for science that everyone asks "Who paid?" I think it's a sad day if that is the ONLY thing that is asked.
Anan
I don't think that anyone can conclude that vaping is 100% safe, although it may be safer, for most people, at most times.
It's also dose dependent and dependent on genetics as well. Anyone who thinks nicotine is 100% safe is (in my view) incorrect. Certain health conditions make nicotine less safe than others, although it does appear (so far) to be safer when NOT coupled with combustion.
With that said, if anyone can make non-combustion dangerous, I have full faith in Big Tobacco to do that with all their "proprietary pods" and the IQOS.
It is also a good day for science when someone asks, "Who paid." MORE disclosure in science (including funding sources) is a good thing, if you ask me. How long did big tobacco hide behind their safety studies because no one thought scientists lied/manufactured results/etc.
Also, to get a full view of the spectrum of science, you really also need a sense of what does, and does NOT get published and the reasons for that (failed study? Not what the funding "paid" for? Unpopular? Etc.)
I don't think it's a sad day for science that everyone asks "Who paid?" I think it's a sad day if that is the ONLY thing that is asked.
Anan
Agree wholeheartedly, however I think what was meant for sad day for science, is that many aren't using science, they are paying for a study to prove themselves right.
Technically it shouldn't matter who does the testing, science should prove or disprove a theory with factual results. What has happened (probably since the beginning of time) is that only the information wanted to prove one's side is used and the rest is hidden or destroyed (skewed results).
Same reason, factual studies/experiments use documented methodology. This way it can be repeated and tested by others, which proves or disproves accuracy. We all know there hasn't been 100% honesty in that, lol.
i remember a professor of mine many years ago ( he was a research PhD) explaining "Curve Fitting", as i remember it starts with a desired outcome and then builds the data to support the theory
Last edited:
You will most assuredly die of cancer if you vape, and nothing else kills you first. Or if you don't vape...
Sadly I would probably be more inclined to believe in man caused global warming if not for vaping. However, watching "scientists" using junk science, then purposefully skewing and manipulating results, and finally writing blatantly false reports on those doctored results all to fit some agenda, makes me wonder what else "scientists" are doing that with.
- Status
Similar threads
