E-cigarettes are 95 percent less harmful than tobacco -UK study
- Thread starter Mazinny
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
no. the judge said they couldn't totally ban the entire
market by deeming them medical devices.
there is nothing to stop them from doing a 180
and proclaiming them relatively safer than
smoking and bringing them under the umbrella
of THR. of course their THR vaping products will
be deemed safe and effective but, our devices
will have to be strictly regulated as being harmful.
in other words we will have 1984.
regards
mike
As someone who has seen the arguments regarding the pros and cons of vaping develop over the years...
I will once again offer that the 95% number comes from decades of snus research in Sweden.
This is what the long-time THR advocates have been using for their numbers...
With the idea that vaping can be no worse than snus use has been.
I won't comment on the validity of that.
Just want to say that is where it came from.
Judge Leon said they can not treat electronic cigarettes as medical devices without medical claims.
However, there is a modified risk tobacco category now available to the FDA under the FSPTCA.
It remains undetermined how the FDA will use that category.
And in fact, it appears that they are doing their best to make it non-existant...
FDA draft guidance on modified risk tobacco | E-Cigarette Forum
Swedish Match submitting 100,000 page MRTP application for General Snus to FDA | E-Cigarette Forum
Associated Press: Swedish Match seeks FDA approval as 'modified risk' tobacco product | E-Cigarette Forum
This is what a MRTP application looks like | E-Cigarette Forum
FDA Panel Nixes Swedish Match Modified-Risk Request | CSPnet
I was thinking along the lines of patches and gum.
mike
Just to remind us all, stopping smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer very gradually over time and not to zero since non-smokers also get it. In fact it takes around 20 years of non-smoking to get back to a lifetime non-smoker risk baseline (which is really annoying to say the least). Good news is that other respiratory risks recover faster. Nonetheless, best to stop asap! My point here is the the 95% and the estimates of how many less people will die are just numbers plucked out of the air. In my opinion, haveing looked at a lot of the published data, I suspect the 95% is more like 99% 0or even better but, of course, no spokesman or scientist in their right mind would claim that, largely because the statistical significance of their data would never be good enough. In fact, the fact they are saying 95 itself suggest that the real numbers are even better!!
Anyway, at least this report is a welcome relief from the BS that has been circulating recently and is going to make it pretty difficult for the UK government to accept the impending EU directives (in my dreams...).
Anyway, at least this report is a welcome relief from the BS that has been circulating recently and is going to make it pretty difficult for the UK government to accept the impending EU directives (in my dreams...).
i agree its good news... like candy and party favors.
regards
mike
Condoms and eCigs for Everyone!
That could actually be the biggest boon to real public health in decades.
Yeah, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly:
"given the potential benefits as quitting aids, PHE looks forward to the arrival on the market of a choice of medicinally regulated products that can be made available to smokers by the NHS on prescription. This will provide assurance on the safety, quality and effectiveness to consumers who want to use these products as quitting aids"
"given the potential benefits as quitting aids, PHE looks forward to the arrival on the market of a choice of medicinally regulated products that can be made available to smokers by the NHS on prescription. This will provide assurance on the safety, quality and effectiveness to consumers who want to use these products as quitting aids"
I just can't wait vaping on prescription. It would render ineffective all bans. Including for those vaping non-prescription.
this is also considered dubious science by some.
most of these statistics come from a time when over 40% of the population
smoked and another 40% had smoked or tried smoking.
it was determined back then that only 30% of smokers developed a dependency
to smoking. when i say smokers i mean cigarette smokers.
this means 70% of smokers did not develop a dependency.
this explains why roughly 50% of smokers quit on their own in their 30's.
that's right on their own. no patches,no gum,no inhalers. they just quit.
its also true that smokers and ex-smokers get so called tobacco related
diseases at the same time you would expect those in the non-risk to start
having these same illnesses. right around the late forty's on through your fifties
and early sixties.so what about those that quit in there early thirties?
well the cancer risk lingers for 20 years or more. i say bull.
unless you already had permanent lung damage when you quit i can't
see smoking to have any long term effects past five years and, i am
being generous.
now as the non risk group is getting larger and the risk group is getting
smaller and the time lapse from those who smoked and quit is getting longer
(people are quitting at a younger age) something odd is happening.
lung cancer in smokers is creeping up slightly. lung cancer in supposed
non risk groups is on the rise. its also on the rise in other smoking related
illnesses in the non-risk groups. theoretically 20-30 years down the road
the percentages could intersect.
i am not saying smoking is not harmful. i believe though that smoking
is not the be all and end all of all the damage it is claimed by some
to cause.
regards
mike
This gives the FDA a great excuse to procrastinate some more and it should help if they don't want to interfere with the ecig market. I think there are also a lot of reputable voices that have been silent because there hasn't been any endorsement of vaping like this previously.
this is also considered dubious science by some.
most of these statistics come from a time when over 40% of the population
smoked and another 40% had smoked or tried smoking.
it was determined back then that only 30% of smokers developed a dependency
to smoking. when i say smokers i mean cigarette smokers.
this means 70% of smokers did not develop a dependency.
this explains why roughly 50% of smokers quit on their own in their 30's.
that's right on their own. no patches,no gum,no inhalers. they just quit.
its also true that smokers and ex-smokers get so called tobacco related
diseases at the same time you would expect those in the non-risk to start
having these same illnesses. right around the late forty's on through your fifties
and early sixties.so what about those that quit in there early thirties?
well the cancer risk lingers for 20 years or more. i say bull.
unless you already had permanent lung damage when you quit i can't
see smoking to have any long term effects past five years and, i am
being generous.
now as the non risk group is getting larger and the risk group is getting
smaller and the time lapse from those who smoked and quit is getting longer
(people are quitting at a younger age) something odd is happening.
lung cancer in smokers is creeping up slightly. lung cancer in supposed
non risk groups is on the rise. its also on the rise in other smoking related
illnesses in the non-risk groups. theoretically 20-30 years down the road
the percentages could intersect.
i am not saying smoking is not harmful. i believe though that smoking
is not the be all and end all of all the damage it is claimed by some
to cause.
regards
mike
Nope! Its actually mostly based on a longitudinal study of cancer risk following cessation in a large cohort of reliable individuals (doctors in fact). Its not hearsay or rumour. You may well be right about the
conflicting effect of other environmental causes of lung disease in smekers nd non-smokers but the statistics, in my somewhat informed opinion, are pretty clear! Anyway, still best to stop asap!!
One of the intreresting things from the PHE report is the suggestion that use of tanks is more benficial than cig-a-likes!!
it doesn't mean squat when they consider anyone who has smoked in the past as
having a risk. if you quit in your thirties and get cancer in your fifties its
considered caused by smoking.
as the non-smoking population increases the rate of lung cancer
in the non-smoking population is increasing.
regards
mike
For reference, here's the most recent SAMMEC I can find. It's for 2000-2004.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm
It claims that "The three leading specific causes of smoking-attributable death were lung cancer (128,922), ischemic heart disease (126,005), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)§ (92,915)," which total 347,842 out of 443,000 supposed smoking attributable deaths altogether. But those claims are based on falsely blaming smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection: "SAFs [smoking-attributable fractions] were derived using sex-specific relative risk (RR) estimates from the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study-II (CPS-II)," which had no data on those infections. Smokers are more likely to have been infected by the relevant pathogens, for socioeconomic reasons.
The heart disease claims are based on ignoring the role of cytomegalovirus. "[T]he most striking finding of Simanek et al.'s study is that the relatively modest OR of CVD associated with CMV infection translates into an estimate of the population attributable risk or attributable fraction of CVD of ∼ 40%... What is striking about this 40% attributable fraction estimate is the implication that eliminating CMV infection would prevent as many CVD cases as the complete removal of smoking and almost twice as many as the elimination of either hypercholesterolaemia or hypertension from the population." (Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty. FJ Nieto. Int J Epidemiol 2009 Jun;38(3):787-790.)
Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US. AM Simanek, JB Dowd, AE Aiello. Int J Epidemiol 2009 Jun;38(3):775-87.
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US
And the vitally important thing this study couldn't consider is the age at which people were infected. An earlier age at infection would account for an earlier onset of heart disease, such as the anti-smokers blame on smoking. And every Surgeon General report is fraudulent because it ignores the evidence implicating CMV.
The Surgeon General Lies That Smoking Causes Heart Disease
COPD is also a CMV-related disease. Those CD4+ CD28null T cells they've found just happen to be absolutely specific for cytomegalovirus infection. Nothing else causes them. They arise during primary infection, and are found only among the CMV-positive. Poorer people are more likely to get CMV and at younger ages, and smokers are more likely to be less wealthy, so that's why smokers have more CMV and thus more COPD.
Cytomegalovirus Is Implicated in COPD
CMV and Social Class
Which also explains this: "Never smokers represented 42% of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey population aged 30 to 80 years, with obstruction prevalence of 91 per 1000. Never smokers accounted for 4.56 million cases of obstruction, or 23% of the total burden." Airway obstruction in never smokers: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. BR Celli, RJ Halbert, RJ Nordyke, B Schau. Am J Med 2005 Dec;118(12):1364-1372.
Airway obstruction in never smokers: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. - PubMed - NCBI
The anti-smokers commit the same fraud of ignoring the role of infections in cancer.
The Percentage of Cancer Caused By Infection
The Surgeon General Lies About Cancer
And they ignore more than 50 studies implicating human papillomavirus in about a quarter of lung cancers. Non- and never- smokers are exposed to this sexually-transmitted virus, too, and surely causes a relatively large proportion among them.
HPV Causes Lung Cancer
As for electronic cigarettes, it's obviously better to be left with 5% of a lower number than a higher number. And given that many vapers are ex-smokers, that means that if the antis did population studies of the supposed health risks of vaping the same way they do with smoking, they'd be cynically exploiting those socioeconomic differences in rates of infection. Chronic infections such as CMV don't go away just because people quit smoking.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm
It claims that "The three leading specific causes of smoking-attributable death were lung cancer (128,922), ischemic heart disease (126,005), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)§ (92,915)," which total 347,842 out of 443,000 supposed smoking attributable deaths altogether. But those claims are based on falsely blaming smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection: "SAFs [smoking-attributable fractions] were derived using sex-specific relative risk (RR) estimates from the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study-II (CPS-II)," which had no data on those infections. Smokers are more likely to have been infected by the relevant pathogens, for socioeconomic reasons.
The heart disease claims are based on ignoring the role of cytomegalovirus. "[T]he most striking finding of Simanek et al.'s study is that the relatively modest OR of CVD associated with CMV infection translates into an estimate of the population attributable risk or attributable fraction of CVD of ∼ 40%... What is striking about this 40% attributable fraction estimate is the implication that eliminating CMV infection would prevent as many CVD cases as the complete removal of smoking and almost twice as many as the elimination of either hypercholesterolaemia or hypertension from the population." (Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty. FJ Nieto. Int J Epidemiol 2009 Jun;38(3):787-790.)
Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US. AM Simanek, JB Dowd, AE Aiello. Int J Epidemiol 2009 Jun;38(3):775-87.
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US
And the vitally important thing this study couldn't consider is the age at which people were infected. An earlier age at infection would account for an earlier onset of heart disease, such as the anti-smokers blame on smoking. And every Surgeon General report is fraudulent because it ignores the evidence implicating CMV.
The Surgeon General Lies That Smoking Causes Heart Disease
COPD is also a CMV-related disease. Those CD4+ CD28null T cells they've found just happen to be absolutely specific for cytomegalovirus infection. Nothing else causes them. They arise during primary infection, and are found only among the CMV-positive. Poorer people are more likely to get CMV and at younger ages, and smokers are more likely to be less wealthy, so that's why smokers have more CMV and thus more COPD.
Cytomegalovirus Is Implicated in COPD
CMV and Social Class
Which also explains this: "Never smokers represented 42% of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey population aged 30 to 80 years, with obstruction prevalence of 91 per 1000. Never smokers accounted for 4.56 million cases of obstruction, or 23% of the total burden." Airway obstruction in never smokers: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. BR Celli, RJ Halbert, RJ Nordyke, B Schau. Am J Med 2005 Dec;118(12):1364-1372.
Airway obstruction in never smokers: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. - PubMed - NCBI
The anti-smokers commit the same fraud of ignoring the role of infections in cancer.
The Percentage of Cancer Caused By Infection
The Surgeon General Lies About Cancer
And they ignore more than 50 studies implicating human papillomavirus in about a quarter of lung cancers. Non- and never- smokers are exposed to this sexually-transmitted virus, too, and surely causes a relatively large proportion among them.
HPV Causes Lung Cancer
As for electronic cigarettes, it's obviously better to be left with 5% of a lower number than a higher number. And given that many vapers are ex-smokers, that means that if the antis did population studies of the supposed health risks of vaping the same way they do with smoking, they'd be cynically exploiting those socioeconomic differences in rates of infection. Chronic infections such as CMV don't go away just because people quit smoking.
there are more cases as the population increases of course, but what are the data the fraction increases disproprtiontely in non-smokers versus smokers??? Its pretty simple it seems to me. In the doctor study, those who had never smoked still had a significantly lower rate of lung cancer development than those that had given up even a decade or more later. Environmental and other effect are, presumably, the same for both groups as far as its possible to tell. Beyond this though, DNA sequencing studies have shown unequivocally that lung ti
Anyway, lets not argue about this and hope this PHE document is the start of some common sense worldwide!
Cheers
steve
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
