U.S. media won't be able to hide.
BTW, we should keep an eye on Glantz' blog. Will he ignore it, or try to condemn it, or who knows...
E-cigarettes are 95 percent less harmful than tobacco -UK study
- Thread starter Mazinny
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
BTW, we should keep an eye on Glantz' blog. Will he ignore it, or try to condemn it, or who knows...
Last edited:
This is excellent news indeed, and it's a welcome turn of events. It will be interesting to watch now as part of the established medical profession pushes for prescription-only NHS products (those that go through the medical device approval process) vs those in the harm reduction camp that might support NHS only providing starter kits for low income people to help them switch. There's going to be some considerable opposition from the pharma companies that get government money for NRTs and other cessation drugs.
its not good news.
it sets the standard at 95% safer than smoking.
this allows them all sorts of reasons to regulate it out of the
consumer market.
regards
mike
1260 X 1644 and almost a half a Meg, so too big to post here. Would out myself if I host it myself so give me a few days to sign up somewhere semi anonymous...
Rough draft of the text I plan to insert in the image,
"Top chart is from page 3, figure 6 of, .pdf found at,
Ecigarettes_a_firm_foundation_for_evidence_based_policy_and_practice.pdf
E-cigarettes: an evidence update - Publications - GOV.UK
Bottom chart is from page 6 figure 2 of a (very long URL) .pdf found at,
eprints.lse.ac.uk/56631 "
Guess I should also note "I do not own the copyright to either chart! Just found it interesting to compare them"
The study pertains to the British population and is irrelevant, American lungs are different. More funding is necessary.
Dunno guys. People here smoked that PAD for some 20 years or more. At one cig per day it would take 400 years to get there.
I agree! First of all, nothing is 100% safe. Nothing. Not even taking vitamins, drinking water, exercising or low-fat diets (those can actually be very dangerous to your health).
Secondly, that 95% (or 96, or 99.9%) is really arbitrary. There are no longitudinal studies--vaping is still relatively new. This is more of a CYA number than an actual number, is you ask me.
OTOH, vaping is certainly safer than breathing, at least in LA...
Here are all the data from the USC study, including Compounds, Outdoor air, e-Cigarette, and normal cigarette.http://www.rsc.org/suppdata/em/c4/c4em00415a/c4em00415a1.pdf
For your convenience, listed below are the amounts of Cr, Ni, Pb, Zn and Al in outdoor air vs e-cigarette vapor:
Cr: 5.53 vs 4.22
Ni: 5.57 vs 6.14 (+/-2.9)
Pb: 13.28 vs 9.85
Zn: 54.31 vs 56.08 (+/- 21 [sic])
Al: 333.27 (±62.93) vs 161.43 (±71.35)
So, 95% safer than smoking is fine by me. I like the odds.
I'm with you skoony, I haven't read the whole publication at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ort_commissioned_by_Public_Health_England.pdf
but so far I'm not seeing where they actually come up with that number. With maybe a handful of cases of actual harm caused(if you have a VERY loose definition of caused) by e-cigarettes, I lean way more towards the 99.9% number.
What I just read and REALLY like is their analysis of recent studies, section 10.Safety of e-cigarettes in the light of new evidence (page 76)
Hiya KatyaSee my post above...
Hello in here, Lessifer!
Busy day!
I'm all over the place today It's not quite so arbitrary though, if you take one of their favorite numbers(which is incredibly arguable) like 400,000 smoking related deaths per year, that means there would be 20,000 vaping related deaths per year. I don't see that number being anywhere near accurate.
Of course you have to account for the difference in population sizes so let's say the number of vapers is 1/6 the number of smokers, so just by population differences the number of vapers who would die from vaping related diseases, if the health risks were the same, would be roughly 66,666 per year. Now let's take 5% of that, 3,333 vaping related deaths per year, that is not what we are seeing.
I'm with skoony on this one, 95% less harmful is a gross misrepresentation of the current data.
Of course these are just quick calculations off the top of my head and it's been a long hard day today.
Jams a spoke in the anti vape propaganda wheels but I'm with Skoony and Lessifer on their figures.
The NHS shouldn't need to be even thinking of the cost to the taxpayer for prescribing e cigs or liquids.
People should be able to freely purchase their own as a simple consumer product.
"In England in 2013-14, there were nearly 1.8 million prescription items to help patients stop smoking.
More than half were for Nicotine Replacement Therapy, including patches, gum and sprays.
The cost to the NHS in that year was just under £49m, down on the figure three years earlier.
If approved, e-cigarettes would add to that total, with the kit costing £20 or more and replacement fluid about £10-a-week for the average smoker trying to kick the habit.
Health campaigners will argue that the cost is justified by long-term savings on the treatment of smoking related diseases".
The NHS shouldn't need to be even thinking of the cost to the taxpayer for prescribing e cigs or liquids.
People should be able to freely purchase their own as a simple consumer product.
"In England in 2013-14, there were nearly 1.8 million prescription items to help patients stop smoking.
More than half were for Nicotine Replacement Therapy, including patches, gum and sprays.
The cost to the NHS in that year was just under £49m, down on the figure three years earlier.
If approved, e-cigarettes would add to that total, with the kit costing £20 or more and replacement fluid about £10-a-week for the average smoker trying to kick the habit.
Health campaigners will argue that the cost is justified by long-term savings on the treatment of smoking related diseases".
At least they admit the 95% safer to be a "broad estimate"...perhaps they are allowing for future findings with those figures just to cover their behinds!
Quote:
"At the moment, 80,000 people [in England] die every year as a result of cigarette smoking. If everybody who was smoking switched to e-cigarettes that would reduce to about 4,000 deaths a year. That's the best estimate at the moment. It may well be much, much lower than that."
I couldn't see where that 95% came from. It doesn't have to just refer to deaths anyway. 95% less harmful could mean a bit sick instead of dead.
Even with all the information and 30 years of historical data a single number wouldn't mean much. If there turns out to be some harm arising from vaping, it's unlikely to show up as 5% of the number of cancer deaths, 5% of the cases of COPD with the same outcomes, etc, on down the line. It could be different diseases, less serious diseases, no cancer, more COPD, whatever.
So I think you're right, it's an arbitrary number. The most it could possibly mean is something along the lines of a lot less harmful than cigarettes. Maybe they just felt they had to provide a number to make that point. It seemed like one of their primary goals with that paper was to counter the current popular impression of the danger level of vaping.
Even with all the information and 30 years of historical data a single number wouldn't mean much. If there turns out to be some harm arising from vaping, it's unlikely to show up as 5% of the number of cancer deaths, 5% of the cases of COPD with the same outcomes, etc, on down the line. It could be different diseases, less serious diseases, no cancer, more COPD, whatever.
So I think you're right, it's an arbitrary number. The most it could possibly mean is something along the lines of a lot less harmful than cigarettes. Maybe they just felt they had to provide a number to make that point. It seemed like one of their primary goals with that paper was to counter the current popular impression of the danger level of vaping.
That was good! I especially liked this quote...sums up my feelings perfectly.
"People shouldn’t switch to vaping to stop smoking. They should switch because it’s better than smoking."
Bill, you're more familiar with how the anti smoking groups think, so what reaction do you think we'll be seeing from them?
my basic understanding concerning statistical analysis is
as the percentage of harm decreases the actual mortality
rate decreases dramatically when the numbers pass the 80
% mark. cancer is not the only thing smoking is supposed to
cause. there are multiple respiratory,heart and circulatory
diseases and other illnesses related to smoking.
when you factor in instances of multiple smoking related
illness at the individual level that may not occur as the
relative safety increase's mortally rates drop at a faster
rate the lower the risk becomes. its not a linear equation.
anything higher than 97% is the sweat spot as the + or-
3% margin of error puts one end of the spectrum into the
+100% range. it also means the risk is almost if not entirely
indistinguishable from the non risk groups at the population level.
when that happens you have a situation where no regulation
is even possible because you can't quantify the risk.
what can they do when one is just as likely to die from
a bad cold when compared to vaping?
Seasonal Influenza kills an estimated 500 000 people annually.
Rhinovirus kills an estimated 4 500 deaths in the US.
HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE FROM THE COMMON COLD EVERY YEAR? | Infectious Diseases Zone
government estimate are 3000 to 49000 per yer.
Seasonal Influenza Q&A
| Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC
the good doctors F's estimate of harm from exposure
to diketones in e-juice is less than 1 in a 1000 for a 40
year exposure.
there comes of point where the risk is so low and
un-quantifiable as to be essentially zero.
even at 95% safer a vapor is more likely to die of
something else before anything vaping related
will even cause harm let alone death.
this will have the added benefit of making vaping
appear even safer if there is in fact any risk of
significance.
regards
mike
as the percentage of harm decreases the actual mortality
rate decreases dramatically when the numbers pass the 80
% mark. cancer is not the only thing smoking is supposed to
cause. there are multiple respiratory,heart and circulatory
diseases and other illnesses related to smoking.
when you factor in instances of multiple smoking related
illness at the individual level that may not occur as the
relative safety increase's mortally rates drop at a faster
rate the lower the risk becomes. its not a linear equation.
anything higher than 97% is the sweat spot as the + or-
3% margin of error puts one end of the spectrum into the
+100% range. it also means the risk is almost if not entirely
indistinguishable from the non risk groups at the population level.
when that happens you have a situation where no regulation
is even possible because you can't quantify the risk.
what can they do when one is just as likely to die from
a bad cold when compared to vaping?
Seasonal Influenza kills an estimated 500 000 people annually.
Rhinovirus kills an estimated 4 500 deaths in the US.
HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE FROM THE COMMON COLD EVERY YEAR? | Infectious Diseases Zone
government estimate are 3000 to 49000 per yer.
Seasonal Influenza Q&A
| Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC
the good doctors F's estimate of harm from exposure
to diketones in e-juice is less than 1 in a 1000 for a 40
year exposure.
there comes of point where the risk is so low and
un-quantifiable as to be essentially zero.
even at 95% safer a vapor is more likely to die of
something else before anything vaping related
will even cause harm let alone death.
this will have the added benefit of making vaping
appear even safer if there is in fact any risk of
significance.
regards
mike
Last edited:
I agree! First of all, nothing is 100% safe. Nothing. Not even taking vitamins, drinking water, exercising or low-fat diets (those can actually be very dangerous to your health).
Secondly, that 95% (or 96, or 99.9%) is really arbitrary. There are no longitudinal studies--vaping is still relatively new. This is more of a CYA number than an actual number, is you ask me.
OTOH, vaping is certainly safer than breathing, at least in LA...
Here are all the data from the USC study, including Compounds, Outdoor air, e-Cigarette, and normal cigarette.http://www.rsc.org/suppdata/em/c4/c4em00415a/c4em00415a1.pdf
For your convenience, listed below are the amounts of Cr, Ni, Pb, Zn and Al in outdoor air vs e-cigarette vapor:
Cr: 5.53 vs 4.22
Ni: 5.57 vs 6.14 (+/-2.9)
Pb: 13.28 vs 9.85
Zn: 54.31 vs 56.08 (+/- 21 [sic])
Al: 333.27 (±62.93) vs 161.43 (±71.35)
So, 95% safer than smoking is fine by me. I like the odds.
Absolutely agree!
i agree its good news.
even great news in the context from what one
would expect from such a organization considering
what most other similar organisations are doing.
i think this will play well in England however, on this
side of the pond if they come to the same conclusion
the results would be a little different.
if the powers that be determine that in fact e-cigarettes
can be helpful in THR they will probably hand them out.
the caveat being they will actually treat them as medical
devices and medicine as opposed to birth control and
syringes that they pass out like candy and party favors.
regards
mike
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
