Can we wait for e-cigarette trials?

[NoFumus]

Can we wait for e-cigarette trials? | Chemistry World

"It also takes four years to get the results from cancer studies and they notoriously err on the side of safety. For example, of more than 30 ingredients of coffee tested for carcinogenicity in rodents, more than 70% had a positive result. Does this mean we are regularly enjoying a brew of carcinogens? No – there is no such evidence. Some studies even show that coffee may reduce cancer risk.

In the short term, self-restricting the use of additives and using fast cell- and computer-based evaluations of safety will help clarify the safety of e-cigarettes. And in the medium term, controlled trials will be necessary. But if we wait for this evidence to emerge and prohibit or hinder the use of e-cigarettes, we would probably miss a tremendous opportunity to save lives on a large scale."

 

[skoony]

I have been wondering. Considering the apparent lack of any serious harm
from vaping so why and whom would fund such studies without a clear
indication of what to look for. There are studies released recently that show
that vaping actually may improve the health of those with serious lung conditions.
I personally believe that those opposed to vaping are getting to the point where
as the short term studies are not yielding the results they expected may very
well back off long term studies as a waste of time and just play their ace in the hole.
The chillin'.

Regards
Mike

 

[sofarsogood]

A way to get some quicker results would be to simply follow smokers and smokers who switched to vaping and see how things go differently for them. Probably the older they are the better. I suspect the differences will be so dramatic it won't take sophisticated analysis to see the differences. But the drug dealer doesn't wan to hear that. They will avoid any test that might not justify their position.

 

[Vaslovik]

If and when they do the trials they will be rigged. Count on it.

 

[Lessifer]

A way to get some quicker results would be to simply follow smokers and smokers who switched to vaping and see how things go differently for them. Probably the older they are the better. I suspect the differences will be so dramatic it won't take sophisticated analysis to see the differences. But the drug dealer doesn't wan to hear that. They will avoid any test that might not justify their position.

Well, for cancer that wouldn't be ideal. If a smoker who switched to vaping develops cancer, do you attribute that to the vaping, or the previous smoking?

 

[Vaslovik]

Well, for cancer that wouldn't be ideal. If a smoker who switched to vaping develops cancer, do you attribute that to the vaping, or the previous smoking?

ANTZ will be sure to attribute it to vaping.

 

[BuGlen]

ANTZ will be sure to attribute it to vaping.

They'll put it in both columns. That way they can run a headline that reads: "Cancer rates from vaping increase while smoking related cancer remains unchanged!!!"

 

[Lessifer]

They'll put it in both columns. That way they can run a headline that reads: "Cancer rates from vaping increase while smoking related cancer remains unchanged!!!"

Nah, they've already shown how they'll count it, they'll attribute it to vaping, which is a tobacco product. So Tobacco related cancer remains unchanged. Remember "there is no safe tobacco."

 

[Vaslovik]

Nah, they've already shown how they'll count it, they'll attribute it to vaping, which is a tobacco product. So Tobacco related cancer remains unchanged. Remember "there is no safe tobacco."

It's very dubious how vaping can be even remotely considered a tobacco product, and the only reason they can claim that is nicotine content, which does not include the thousands of poisonous chemicals BT puts into THEIR tobacco! That's what's causing the cancer! We all know it, and they just keep on with these monstrous lies! Those people really need to go to jail!

 

[sofarsogood]

Well, for cancer that wouldn't be ideal. If a smoker who switched to vaping develops cancer, do you attribute that to the vaping, or the previous smoking?

A percent of smokers get cancer. Vaping contains a trivial amount of cancer causing agents. I suspect most smokers who die early die from other things they might have not gotten or recovered from if they hadn't been smoking. My sense about my personal situation is I've been slowly, steadily healing from all the years of smoking. If I got sick today I'd have a lot more physical resources to fight back.

There are things about the medical history of the population as a whole I wish I knew. How may people live their lives, grow old and simply die of old age from something that's not treatable and how many die after a prolonged illness that involves expensive medical treatments. Years ago I read that 75% of of the cost of medical care in the US is spent on people in their last year of life. That doesn't apply to everyone.

 

[Endor]

I would love to see studies. Honest studies using proven, reviewed scientific methods. This is the only thing that can help us with over-regulation.... we can say we fell better and are healthier until we're blue in the face, but without hard science, it really means nothing to a regulator.

But, cancer studies can be problematic.

Any remember the saccharine (Sweet-n-low) scare in the 1970s? For years, saccharine products had to carry a cancer warning label, as it was found to cause bladder cancer in rats. It wasn't until 2000 that they discovered this was the result of a chemical difference in rat urine that doesn't apply to humans and finally removed the label.

People who have never smoked get lung cancer. This is often chalked up to exposure to second-hand smoke, as any human living today has been exposed to second-hand smoke at some point in their lives, and that is used to inflate the propaganda. For example, according to no-smoke.org:

We now know that 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke exposure. This number is based on the midpoint numbers for heart disease deaths (48,500), lung cancer deaths (3,000), and SIDS deaths (2,300) as calculated in the 1997 California EPA Report on Secondhand Smoke.

Clearly, 53,800 deaths is an estimate, but is often held up as fact by public health and the ANTZ.