BMJ: E-cig reports confllict
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
How big a study pool they want? LOL It's been sitting there waiting for them to get off their duffs, click their pens, ask questions and write.
Oops, I forgot to say thanks, neighbor Bob, for posting this.
Oops, I forgot to say thanks, neighbor Bob, for posting this.
Last edited:
Its amazing that ejuice ,that has not gotten an alarming amount of people to show symptoms is now recommended to be stabbed into "Ben The Rat" in the name of safety(tax dollars).
Doctor says" Ben do you feel wozzy should we stop for a while?"
"No doc shoot me with pure nic and cotton candy for the sake of the children(tax)" Ben floats away.
Doctor says" Ben do you feel wozzy should we stop for a while?"
"No doc shoot me with pure nic and cotton candy for the sake of the children(tax)" Ben floats away.
Yeah, I think the human trials are pretty well underway. Apes and rats tend to be slower to pick up the latest tobacco alternatives.
they're refilling carts instead of tossing butts, so it's slower getting to the masses....
sorry , no offense intended, and I promise not to moon walk to the song.
Hey thanks for putting up that link there TB !
After first reading the article through.... I found myself with a question...
I then immediately went back and carefully read through the article..again!!
But I still found myself asking the same question..
"So where's this Conflict that the title of the article refers to? " The Greek report is said to be 'broadly neutral' - To me that's a strong indicator of simply being cover-your-... cautious by avoiding any appearance of taking either side of a heated debate. - And we all know about the Kiwi report. -- So that only leaves the FDA's "report". -- Yeah... I've read that one too! --Not sure I would call that any kind of legitimate "Research"! -- More like a disgraceful piece of petty BS!
So.... what's the deal with the author's implication via the title??
hmmmm...
fisch
Last edited:
I'd like to know why they chose the British Medical Journal to send their "study" to and why the BMJ chose to publish it. There are definitely Anti's working away over here. The BBC Online article was'nt on the Television it'self. It was only on the Teletext which most of the Public don't bother reading and even then it was only the first Paragraph.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8467797.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8467797.stm
Last edited:
This is all I can find about the Greek report in the news. The information that is out there from people that have read the report claims they(Demokristos) found nothing there that they would deem dangerous. None of the stuff the FDA found and no chemicals that are known carcinogens. Maybe this is why they are taking a nuetral stance and are saying that they think more testing on the vapor and liquids need done to see if others get the same results they do.
I can't speak for anyone except myself but I would WELCOME more studies and quality controls. We all knew, as smokers, what the risks were, and our choice was to continue doing it regardless. If they find vaping is more dangerous than NOT vaping (we don't 'know' for sure if its less dangerous than smoking but anecdotal evidence would suggest that it IS), then again it will be the consumer's INFORMED choice to vape or not vape. Nictoine is not a prohibited substance, like say, a class A drug is prohibited. We can buy it legally without fear or recourse, providing we arent supplying it to minors (for whom it would be prohibited, and rightly so, same as cigarettes).
I would welcome further studies so I can be an aforementioned INFORMED consumer.
Banning it doesn't give me that choice, and remember we aren't trying to smoke ....... or pot but something which is legally available to consumers currently in the forms of patches and lozenges and nasal sprays. We just want to vaporize ours.
I would welcome further studies so I can be an aforementioned INFORMED consumer.
Banning it doesn't give me that choice, and remember we aren't trying to smoke ....... or pot but something which is legally available to consumers currently in the forms of patches and lozenges and nasal sprays. We just want to vaporize ours.
I don't think anyone here is against a little further testing into e-cigs. I think we're afraid of a ban, forcing us to another avenue.
We all know they're safer than smokes, but don't know exactly what we are exposing ourselves to. I would just like to see some more expert opinions from MD's surface explaining the changes they've seen in their patients who are now on e-cigs exclusively.
We all know they're safer than smokes, but don't know exactly what we are exposing ourselves to. I would just like to see some more expert opinions from MD's surface explaining the changes they've seen in their patients who are now on e-cigs exclusively.
That's the part that cracks me up. This device has been on the free market for years, not months or weeks, and available for scientific evaluation. Now, since it is coming to the forefront of everyday life and could possibly hurt government coffers, everyone is clamouring for studies on the effects when they already have an established test pool at their beck that has been screaming "test me, I feel and perform better than when I smoked tobacco products".
Thanks for the link TBob! Almost all studies call for more research, trials, and replication. This is standard at the end of research reports that appear almost formatted for ease of reading. In science...nothing is ever settled until a preponderance of the literature indicates "generally accepted" results. The more studies completed for the PV the better...until then, the gold standard of recommendations lies in preventing harm before any harm is ever demonstrated (precautionary principle or PP).
The PP mandates that a product must first demonstrate no harm before mass market to protect the public health. Evidently this doesn't apply to pharmaceuticals nor space flight.
I suspect since some media outlets seek sound bytes versus understanding theories thus we get black and white rhetoric instead of objective analysis. 8-o
Almost all studies call for more research, trials, and replication. This is standard at the end of research reports that appear almost formatted for ease of reading. In science...nothing is ever settled until a preponderance of the literature indicates "generally accepted" results. The more studies completed for the PV the better...until then, the gold standard of recommendations lies in preventing harm before any harm is ever demonstrated (precautionary principle or PP).The PP mandates that a product must first demonstrate no harm before mass market to protect the public health. Evidently this doesn't apply to pharmaceuticals nor space flight.
I suspect since some media outlets seek sound bytes versus understanding theories thus we get black and white rhetoric instead of objective analysis. 8-o
What I expect, from past research as already pointed to by TB, is that the PG will be shown to actually be of benefit to vape. That instead of the dangers of second hand smoke, we can talk about the benefits of 2nd hand vapor. I would love to see the non-smokers huddle next to me to try and 'get some' when someone sick is coughing in their faces. "OMG, that sick person just sneezed on me. Quick someone start vaping on me NOW!!!!!"
I hate to be the doomsayer, but as long as vaping looks like smoking, I wouldn't count on the mainstream media reporting that or most people believing it, even if it were scientifically proven. It is a nice thought though.
The article is a one-pager published in the Views & Reviews section of the British Medical Journal: Electronic cigarettes: miracle or menace? -- Flouris and Oikonomou 340: c311 -- BMJ
Murray Laugesen (Health New Zealand) and I both left "Rapid Response" comments: bmj.com Rapid Responses for Flouris and Oikonomou, 340 (jan19_1) 311
I emailed one of the authors, Andreas D. Flouis, questioning the conclusion of the article:
"More rigorous chemical analyses are needed, followed by extensive research involving animal studies and, finally, clinical trials in humans. Until these crucial implementation stages are completed, physicians and other healthcare professionals must inform consumers of the probable fallaciousness of the claims of manufacturers of e-cigarettes."
Here is an extract from my email to him:
You did recommend that healthcare professionals "inform consumers of the fallaciouness of the claims of manufacturers of e-cigarettes." Your article, however, fails to specify which of the claims are fallacious and which are true.
It is true that e-cigarettes do not expose the user or bystandters to tar, carbon monoxide, or particles of tobacco and paper ash. It is also true that there is no compelling evidence that e-cigaretes are any more likely to cause cancer than a nicotine patch. So statements to this effect would not be fallaceous.
It is not true that e-cigarettes are a "smoking cessation" product, and if manufacturers and retailers understand what is in their best interests, they will refrain from making such claims. When FDA says "smoking cessation" what it means is "treatment for nicotine addiction."
Smokers who cannot or do not want to give up nicotine are finding that e-cigarettes are an acceptable substitute for smoking tobacco cigarettes. If we are to reduce the harm caused by smoking, we need to stop insisting on classifying these products as medical treatments. Here are two reasons:
1. Turning e-cigarettes into a smoking cessation treatment will destroy their effectiveness.
2. Smokers need to quit now, today, not years down the line. People are dying!
This was the response I received:
Hello? Is it just me, or did he totally miss my points that e-cigarette manufacturers are not pharmaceutical companies, the product isn't being positioned as a medical treatment, and people are dying while we fart around jumping through his holy hoops?
Murray Laugesen (Health New Zealand) and I both left "Rapid Response" comments: bmj.com Rapid Responses for Flouris and Oikonomou, 340 (jan19_1) 311
I emailed one of the authors, Andreas D. Flouis, questioning the conclusion of the article:
"More rigorous chemical analyses are needed, followed by extensive research involving animal studies and, finally, clinical trials in humans. Until these crucial implementation stages are completed, physicians and other healthcare professionals must inform consumers of the probable fallaciousness of the claims of manufacturers of e-cigarettes."
Here is an extract from my email to him:
You did recommend that healthcare professionals "inform consumers of the fallaciouness of the claims of manufacturers of e-cigarettes." Your article, however, fails to specify which of the claims are fallacious and which are true.
It is true that e-cigarettes do not expose the user or bystandters to tar, carbon monoxide, or particles of tobacco and paper ash. It is also true that there is no compelling evidence that e-cigaretes are any more likely to cause cancer than a nicotine patch. So statements to this effect would not be fallaceous.
It is not true that e-cigarettes are a "smoking cessation" product, and if manufacturers and retailers understand what is in their best interests, they will refrain from making such claims. When FDA says "smoking cessation" what it means is "treatment for nicotine addiction."
Smokers who cannot or do not want to give up nicotine are finding that e-cigarettes are an acceptable substitute for smoking tobacco cigarettes. If we are to reduce the harm caused by smoking, we need to stop insisting on classifying these products as medical treatments. Here are two reasons:
1. Turning e-cigarettes into a smoking cessation treatment will destroy their effectiveness.
2. Smokers need to quit now, today, not years down the line. People are dying!
This was the response I received:
Hello? Is it just me, or did he totally miss my points that e-cigarette manufacturers are not pharmaceutical companies, the product isn't being positioned as a medical treatment, and people are dying while we fart around jumping through his holy hoops?
This part speaks volumes about how they will twist data to be used as a smokescreen. Statements like this use a negative language to associate the evils of analogs to vaping.
I don't need a clinical study to show that ecigs will not expose people to chemicals and substances that aren't even in the device or juice.
What I would really love to know is just how tar, tobacco particles and paper ash are supposed to be a possible problem when there is no tar, no tobacco particles and no paper involved? Especially as far as the paper issue goes, is this really something that NEEDS to be proven? (see above, you beat me to it, LOL)
Yes, do studies on effects of immediate and continued use...we'd love to see them and alot of us would jump through hoops to volunteer for them...but, honestly, focus on what needs to be focused on without clouding the issue with needing to "prove" the obvious.
You'd swear some of these folks wouldn't believe the sun existed without quantitative data, 10 years of studies and multiple peer reviews...then it would take them another 10 years to "prove" it was hot.....
Yes, do studies on effects of immediate and continued use...we'd love to see them and alot of us would jump through hoops to volunteer for them...but, honestly, focus on what needs to be focused on without clouding the issue with needing to "prove" the obvious.
You'd swear some of these folks wouldn't believe the sun existed without quantitative data, 10 years of studies and multiple peer reviews...then it would take them another 10 years to "prove" it was hot.....
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
