Are these the facts about vaping?
- Thread starter JustTryingToHelp
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
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.
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
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
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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 "
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 "
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
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
Last edited:
The original poster was a new member and is not able to link outside ECF.
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.
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).
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 "
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
