Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[muth]

If there is anything good that comes out of this story it's that those in the vaping community can now see just how dishonest the American news media is. They don't lie and mislead only on vaping stories. They lie and mislead on just about everything.

Right because a nationwide deadly, mysterious lung disease is more juicy than a handful of teens doing something they shouldn't be doing (per usual). And they seem all too happy to accept wrong information for the sake of a good story. Pathetic. That's why we have competing news media channels/websites now. And that only adds to the confusion. It didn't use to be this way (or am I only showing my age? Lol) Where's good ole' Walter Cronkite? He'd be appalled at the way his industry is today.

 

[kates]

Dr F's take on the current situation:
The witch hunt against e-cigarettes continues while people get sick from illicit THC and remain uninformed
If there are contaminants in nicotine flavoured liquid/ pods tested during this outbreak why aren't we hearing what's been found as with THC carts (e.g. fungicides, vitamin E etc)? Doesn't make sense - unless they haven't found anything?

 

[Eskie]

I had the opportunity to do an interview with Columbus Channel 10 television at the Ohio Rally. The reporter seemed to be pretty aware and sympathetic to vaper's issues. I haven't seen the interview on TV yet, but he informed me that the station was planning on an extended program on vaping in the near future.

Remember, reporters will always be nice to you when you volunteer information. It keeps you talking and they can wait for the quotes they're hoping will sound good. Then they go back and edit it any way they want. The only times you'll see reporters acting in an adversarial manner is on those news channel opinion interviews, where everyone, including the "experts", are already in on how they want the segment to play out. Not saying no one should talk to reporters, but always remember no matter how pleasant, they are not your friend.

Plus they know that hardly any of the people hearing their words will notice the logical inconsistencies, no matter how outrageous they are. They don't have to try very hard.

I guess we all have a lot on our minds and we don't have time to burden our brains with every topic that crosses our path. People here are motivated to study this issue. I wish I was sure I would have put in enough effort to see through this nonsense if I had no personal interest in vaping, maybe I would have.

It's also referred to as confirmation bias. You'll buy into information that supports your preconceived notion faster than information contradicting what you already believe. It's one of the biggest problems on the web, as a person's searches are driven by that as algorithms run to see just what you're following and will serve up more of the same. It also works on either side of any issue, including vaping. If you're pro vaping you'll be influenced by positive stories, and if your anti vaping, the opposite.

 

[muth]

Many people smoke tobacco and have no issue with their health and do not die from associated disease. However, it does increase their chances doesn't it?

Oh screw it! Pretty soon we won't have enough oxygen to breath and we'll all die. We already have respiratory epidemics due to poor air quality in certain countries (US, China....) Makes me laugh. These phony pundits and politicians will be on their pulpits extolling the dangers of vaping products when suddenly they pass out from lack of oxygen. I say keep blabbing until you're out of breath you phony civil servants

 

[Horselady154]

Poor air quality in the U.S.? That used to be the case in some cities, but to my knowledge, that's not the case anymore.

 

[Vapntime]

Oh screw it! Pretty soon we won't have enough oxygen to breath and we'll all die. We already have respiratory epidemics due to poor air quality in certain countries (US, China....) Makes me laugh. These phony pundits and politicians will be on their pulpits extolling the dangers of vaping products when suddenly they pass out from lack of oxygen. I say keep blabbing until you're out of breath you phony civil servants

Yes, that's what I want here. F#&* it, I don't care if it kills me. Not all this bullsh#$ rhetoric thats its harmless.

 

[Eskie]

Poor air quality in the U.S.? That used to be the case in some cities, but to my knowledge, that's not the case anymore.

Plenty of places still have issues with air quality. Even in NY during heat waves we get air quality alerts to limit activity especially for those with pulmonary problems, children and elderly. The types of pollution have changed, but there's still enough stuff to cause issues.
These are the US cities with the worst air pollution

 

[Iron Molly]

Poor air quality in the U.S.? That used to be the case in some cities, but to my knowledge, that's not the case anymore.

It is the case here in New England. We have high pollution alerts. I don't even live anywhere near a big city, but the prevailing winds bring it on over.

 

[muth]

Poor air quality in the U.S.? That used to be the case in some cities, but to my knowledge, that's not the case anymore.

I should be clear on where I'm coming from. I'm speaking of major cities and the increase of adult onset asthma and childhood asthma. I know you can google fu this yourself but I'll just post some recent statistics worldwide and US states.

The Global Asthma Report 2018

Top 5 worst cities for asthma sufferers

• #5: Louisville, Kentucky.
• #4: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
• #3: Dayton, Ohio.
• #2: Richmond, Virginia.
• #1: Springfield, Massachusetts.

Aug 3, 2018
https://molekule.science/the-worst-places-for-your-asthma-cities-and-states-to-avoid/

 

[muth]

Plenty of places still have issues with air quality. Even in NY during heat waves we get air quality alerts to limit activity especially for those with pulmonary problems, children and elderly. The types of pollution have changed, but there's still enough stuff to cause issues.
These are the US cities with the worst air pollution

I just read your link and wondering if mine (2018) is different because of a year or two? Doesn't matter much to me. I don't plan on moving around running from the smog cloud.

 

[Vapntime]

It's also referred to as confirmation bias. You'll buy into information that supports your preconceived notion faster than information contradicting what you already believe. It's one of the biggest problems on the web, as a person's searches are driven by that as algorithms run to see just what you're following and will serve up more of the same. It also works on either side of any issue, including vaping. If you're pro vaping you'll be influenced by positive stories, and if your anti vaping, the opposite.

And that's a great example of it as well, in context...
It's also often found with persons that don't have a tertiary education.

 

[Eskie]

I just read your link and wondering if mine (2018) is different because of a year or two? Doesn't matter much to me. I don't plan on moving around running from the smog cloud.

It also depends on the definitions used. The most common and most concerning these days are ozone and microparticulates. There's a lot of variability there based on geography, weather patterns, industry, and automobile vs. mass transit use in urban areas.

Then again, living downwind of a coal fired power plant isn't exactly a great place to be either, although they have worked at cleaning up their emissions.Still, the Clean Air Act is being worked on under executive order to loosen regulations on a variety of emissions, so that may change things.

 

[Vapntime]

'We conclude that current knowledge of these effects is insufficient to determine whether the respiratory health effects of e-cigarette are less than those of combustible tobacco products'.

'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'.

BMJ 2019;366:l5275

I was always aware of this risk, however, ECF has continued to allow downplay of virtually any information or opinion that might in anyway support this. There are also members here who have a financial interest in vaping products. So once again it comes down to the $$$ no matter which way it goes.

...

 

[AttyPops]

The challenge I have with ^^, is that there is no way to be certain without decades of study. No drug/treatment when initially tried has that much certainty behind it.

There ARE studies though, and the article in this post:

Dr F's take on the current situation:
The witch hunt against e-cigarettes continues while people get sick from illicit THC and remain uninformed
If there are contaminants in nicotine flavoured liquid/ pods tested during this outbreak why aren't we hearing what's been found as with THC carts (e.g. fungicides, vitamin E etc)? Doesn't make sense - unless they haven't found anything?

cites some of them in regard to PG/VG inhalation, and we have some data on nic due to smoking and snus/chew/etc use.

So, no, we're not CERTAIN about e-cigs and long term use. Of course not, but the current indications are relatively positive.

 

[Vapntime]

Yea you should check this one out:

https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5275

All the information is already on ECF.

 

[DarrenMG]

It's also referred to as confirmation bias. You'll buy into information that supports your preconceived notion faster than information contradicting what you already believe. It's one of the biggest problems on the web, as a person's searches are driven by that as algorithms run to see just what you're following and will serve up more of the same. It also works on either side of any issue, including vaping. If you're pro vaping you'll be influenced by positive stories, and if your anti vaping, the opposite.

The topic we should be teaching our children about. Exactly and right on.

 

[Baditude]

Poor air quality in the U.S.? That used to be the case in some cities, but to my knowledge, that's not the case anymore.

I no longer live in Cincinnati, but I know they still put out air quality alerts (smog alerts) along with the weather report. I'm pretty sure the major offenders are Proctor and Gamble, US Steel, and several of the distilleries.

 

[AttyPops]

Yea you should check this one out:

https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5275

All the information is already on ECF.

OK, well so far this quote:

Decades of chronic smoking are needed for development of lung diseases such as lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, so the population effects of e-cigarette use may not be apparent until the middle of this century. We conclude that current knowledge of these effects is insufficient to determine whether the respiratory health effects of e-cigarette are less than those of combustible tobacco products.

is basically what I just said, that you're apparently disagreeing with. But OK, let's read on:

This isn't a study, it's a review and summary of a bunch of studies to date. The authors note that vaping isn't safe AND it has potential consequences. Sure, I've said that, and so have you and most of the rest of us. It looks at Juul too, and I can't blame them since Juul represents a large fraction of the youth vaping market. And also notes e-cigs as one of the avenues for quitting smoking, if other approved methods fail.

There's multiple "paths" and "concerns" in that review. Of course, when compared to inhaling clean air for never-smokers, vaping is a problem. But when put in context to smoking cessation and THR, that review doesn't conclude that e-cigs should be ignored nor vilified. It just says they aren't harmless.

If you're pointing out that it's "more than just water vapor" and "it's probably not harmless" I think most if not all of us here will agree with you. We don't like the "it's harmless" narrative either, as it could contribute to youth use.

But here, here's another study to consider:
Health effects in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes: a retrospective-prospective 3-year follow-up

Since cigarette smoking is a direct cause of COPD, you'll find at least in that regard, that data indicates that EC's are indeed safER. That doesn't mean that they're safe for non-smokers to start using.

The real problem I wish people would be more vocal about (in a very compassionate way, of course) is the problem of dual use. I don't want to type this and make anyone here that is dual-using feel bad, we all have our paths. But the problem with dual use is that although it may reduce or slow things like COPD even if you continue to smoke to some degree when compared to smoking-only, the problem is that you get dual-dangers too. So any additional dangers from EC's are combined with dangers from smoking, and you get the sum of them. Thus I always try to encourage dual users to "make the switch" when they can, and make it a definite goal. Moving from there to nic cessation is a longer-term goal, if they think they can do it. Short of some known associations with psychological disorders (and even in those cases I suppose when meds are working and monitored) smoking cessation should be a #1 goal. Not just reduction, but cessation.


Sorry for rambling.

 

[Vapntime]

OK, well so far this quote:

is basically what I just said, that you're apparently disagreeing with. But OK, let's read on:

This isn't a study, it's a review and summary of a bunch of studies to date. The authors note that vaping isn't safe AND it has potential consequences. Sure, I've said that, and so have you and most of the rest of us. It looks at Juul too, and I can't blame them since Juul represents a large fraction of the youth vaping market. And also notes e-cigs as one of the avenues for quitting smoking, if other approved methods fail.

There's multiple "paths" and "concerns" in that review. Of course, when compared to inhaling clean air for never-smokers, vaping is a problem. But when put in context to smoking cessation and THR, that review doesn't conclude that e-cigs should be ignored nor vilified. It just says they aren't harmless.

If you're pointing out that it's "more than just water vapor" and "it's probably not harmless" I think most if not all of us here will agree with you. We don't like the "it's harmless" narrative either, as it could contribute to youth use.

But here, here's another study to consider:
Health effects in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes: a retrospective-prospective 3-year follow-up

Since cigarette smoking is a direct cause of COPD, you'll find at least in that regard, that data indicates that EC's are indeed safER. That doesn't mean that they're safe for non-smokers to start using.

The real problem I wish people would be more vocal about (in a very compassionate way, of course) is the problem of dual use. I don't want to type this and make anyone here that is dual-using feel bad, we all have our paths. But the problem with dual use is that although it may reduce or slow things like COPD even if you continue to smoke to some degree when compared to smoking-only, the problem is that you get dual-dangers too. So any additional dangers from EC's are combined with dangers from smoking, and you get the sum of them. Thus I always try to encourage dual users to "make the switch" when they can, and make it a definite goal. Moving from there to nic cessation is a longer-term goal, if they think they can do it. Short of some known associations with psychological disorders (and even in those cases I suppose when meds are working and monitored) smoking cessation should be a #1 goal. Not just reduction, but cessation.


Sorry for rambling.

I encourage everyone to read the 2019 review (all of it). It is based on 130+ peer reviewed vaping studies.

https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5275

We can all copy and paste (from the review):

'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'.

Maybe they should take it to a professional or a Dr for their assessment...

As I have said before:

'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please'.

― Mark Twain

 

[AttyPops]

I encourage everyone to read the review (all of it). It is based on 130+ peer reviewed vaping studies.

We can all copy and paste:

'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'.

Maybe they should take it to a professional or a Dr for their assessment...

As I have said before:

'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please'.

― Mark Twain

IDK what you're trying to get to. I can't follow your "logic".

I've already said that compared to just-clean-air, of course vaping is going to show a negative impact. NOBODY is disputing that. What we're saying is that COMPARED TO SMOKING there is an observed net gain from harm reduction. Long term detrimental effects are unknown simply because we haven't had the time, but so far the indications are positive when compared to continued-smoking.

Those are THE FACTS that we GOT FIRST. They've always been the facts.