The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

Are these the facts about vaping?

Discussion in 'Health, Safety and Vaping' started by JustTryingToHelp, Oct 1, 2019.

Tags:
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. JustTryingToHelp

    JustTryingToHelp Moved On

    Oct 1, 2019
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Horselady154

    Horselady154 Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    United States
    Do you work for bmj or some other news media?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. stratus.vaping

    stratus.vaping Super Member ECF Veteran

    Much more likely to be a BT spammer. We have had a lot lately, in bursts of activity, funny ain't it.

    The linked research of research concludes that there may be respiratory issues connected with vaping, but nobody knows for sure, yet.

    The thread title then is totally inaccurate as the only fact presented about vaping is that nobody knows for sure, yet.

    Funding for the study comes from many obscured places including various USA institutions and the FDA - and they really understand vaping don't they!

    The post is spam imho.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. phill_nz

    phill_nz Senior Member

    Dec 1, 2018
    there was few facts on vaping
    other than
    there are few facts on vaping

    as an ex smoker my facts are ...

    do i wheeze when i breath ... not anymore
    do i cough every morning ... not anymore
    do i cough intermittently during the day ... not anymore
    do i run out of breath when exercising ... not so much
    do i believe vaping is 100% safe ... no
    do i belief vaping is considerably safer that smoking ... yes

    does it need more research ... yes of course
    the only thing safe to breath into your lungs is air ... and even then only in a few places left on the planet
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  5. ScottP

    ScottP Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 9, 2013
    Houston, TX
    Guy named "JustTryingToHelp" joins the forum and first and only post is a shady link. Yeah, I am not clicking on it. Best case it's propaganda, worst case it's some scam.
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
  6. somdcomputerguy

    somdcomputerguy vaper dedicato Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Welcome though to ECF, JustTryingToHelp.
     
  7. Topwater Elvis

    Topwater Elvis Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Dec 26, 2012
    Texas
    BMJ = British Medical Journal - not 'spam', 'scam', 'shady' or 'news media'.

    One of the peer reviewed science based medical journals that agree with / support PHE & RCoP statement;
    " Health professionals should tell smokers clearly that “vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking” to communicate the large difference in relative risk unambiguously and to encourage more smokers to make the switch "
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Vapntime

    Vapntime Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Aug 22, 2013
    Brisbane, Australia
    https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5275

    Conclusions

    We reiterate that, to date, no long term vaping toxicological/safety studies have been done in humans; without these data, saying with certainty that e-cigarettes are safer than combustible cigarettes is impossible. Box 1 outlines the challenges facing the field. Given the survey data showing increased symptoms of respiratory disease and the many lines of human, animal, and in vitro experimental evidence that e-cigarette aerosol can negatively affect multiple aspects of lung cellular and organ physiology and immune function, e-cigarettes will likely prove to have at least some pulmonary toxicity with chronic and possibly even short term use. Several important principles will determine how lung disease manifests and how severely: as with smokers, vapers are likely to have variable susceptibility to lung injury, influenced by many interacting genetic and environmental factors; certain variations of e-cigarette technology (atomizer construction, coil power, nicotine exposure, and flavorants) will prove more harmful than others; dual use with combustible cigarettes, the dominant adult use pattern, may potentiate toxicity; a critical factor will be the extent to which vaping alters the susceptibility to and trajectory of bacterial and viral lung infections; and the continued rapid technological evolution of these devices may mitigate or potentiate particular toxicities.

    I'm out...

    Get your facts first then you can distort them as you please - Mark Twain
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  9. Marper

    Marper Super Member

    May 20, 2019
    I'm afraid you won't help nobody by posting dodgy articles
     
  10. Vapntime

    Vapntime Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Aug 22, 2013
    Brisbane, Australia
    It's not a dodgy article mate. It is a update of the 95% safer declaration used by most here.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Marper

    Marper Super Member

    May 20, 2019
  12. Marper

    Marper Super Member

    May 20, 2019
    So why has the link been removed
     
  13. Vapntime

    Vapntime Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Aug 22, 2013
    Brisbane, Australia
    The original poster was a new member and is not able to link outside ECF.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Marper

    Marper Super Member

    May 20, 2019
    Ah,thanks, my bad,I apologise
     
  15. icepickmaker84

    icepickmaker84 Ultra Member

    Feb 7, 2019
    Indiana
    I told my doc I vape at my last appt, he said we don’t know enough about vaping in general and left it at that.
     
  16. Rossum

    Rossum Surly Curmudgeon Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Dec 14, 2013
    Deer Camp
    The term "update" would imply that it's produced by the same people. It is not. The authors here are all associated with American universities, and then there's the funding...

    Funding: This work was funded by NIH/FDA HL120100 and NIH/NHLBI R01 HL135642 (RT), U54DA036151 and R01ES029435 (SEJ), NHLBI U54 HL147127 (JG), and NIH/FDA P50CA180905 and NIH/NICHD R21HD084812 (RM). Research reported in this publication was in part supported by NIH and the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP).
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  17. Vapntime

    Vapntime Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Aug 22, 2013
    Brisbane, Australia
    If you believe the review is incorrect you are free to think that.

    I think this should mean something:
    Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    All the studies are referenced. You could do your own review of the studies will you declare all of your interests?

    This is one of the funders: Funded Research: Tobacco Regulatory Science Program

    Also as already mentioned in the thread:

    BMJ = British Medical Journal - not 'spam', 'scam', 'shady' or 'news media'.

    One of the peer reviewed science based medical journals that agree with / support PHE & RCoP statement;
    " Health professionals should tell smokers clearly that “vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking” to communicate the large difference in relative risk unambiguously and to encourage more smokers to make the switch "
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice