Health Effects and Demographics of Ecigarette Users

[pennysmalls]

I can't leave this hidden in Jessica's thread, this is to good. I don't understand why we haven't come cross this yet, or did we and I just missed it?

Ecigs Health Effects R Cranfield Nov 24 2015.pdf

This is the kind of study that we need to see more of. Studies done on people who've been vaping for 3 or more years.

 

[zoiDman]

Maybe people should download this PDF and then e-Mail it to their State Health Agencies and their Reps?

 

[sofarsogood]

I can't leave this hidden in Jessica's thread, this is to good. I don't understand why we haven't come cross this yet, or did we and I just missed it?

Ecigs Health Effects R Cranfield Nov 24 2015.pdf

This is the kind of study that we need to see more of. Studies done on people who've been vaping for 3 or more years.

Thanks for linking to this. A point I've made before is, where are the reports of doctors treating illnesses caused by using ecigarettes? 10's of millions are vaping around the world. No doubt our dear CDC is searching relentlessly for something to crow about.

The people who did this should be encouraged to do a larger version of this study. I bet they could never get funding though. Why do I think that?

 

[skoony]

Thanks for linking to this. A point I've made before is, where are the reports of doctors treating illnesses caused by using ecigarettes? 10's of millions are vaping around the world. No doubt our dear CDC is searching relentlessly for something to crow about.

The people who did this should be encouraged to do a larger version of this study. I bet they could never get funding though. Why do I think that?

As @zoiDman and others have pointed out. These studies will start pouring out after
the onerous taxation has been set in place. Then they will have their money and take all
the credit for e-cigarettes. BT,BP and Big Government will be hailed as hero's by the
gullible public.

Regards
Mike

 

[Mazinny]

Maybe people should download this PDF and then e-Mail it to their State Health Agencies and their Reps?


View attachment 538130

Not peer reviewed, not published, based on anonymous online survey distributed on e-cig forums ... If i remember correctly the Dr. owns a vape store.

Not sure if the "study" would be taken seriously.

 

[zoiDman]

Not peer reviewed, not published, based on anonymous online survey distributed on e-cig forums ... If i remember correctly the Dr. owns a vape store.

Not sure if the "study" would be taken seriously.

Man I would Love to Send my Reps and the California Heath Department Published, Peer Reviewed, Non-Biased and Un-Skewed Study/Survey Results which yield Positive Conclusions.

But there just Aren't that many out there. And the Few that are, I have Already Sent.

That, and being this Close to the End, and with the Volumes of Negative "Anecdotal" Evidence our detractors have Presented, I'm not sure if it Matters much anyway.

 

[Micavity]

Great share!

 

[Endor]

Not peer reviewed, not published, based on anonymous online survey distributed on e-cig forums ... If i remember correctly the Dr. owns a vape store.

Not sure if the "study" would be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree. The big red flag to me is the use of online surveys. These are difficult to get behind, especially when sent to pre-biased individuals (vapers on e-cig forums).... many of us, myself included, would view it as a opportunity to show vaping very positively, over-reporting the negatives side effects of smoking and the improvement in these symptoms.

However, I do like the fact that he included long-term vapers. This is something that has been severely underrepresented in studies that I've seen, and gives debate ammunition against the "we don't know the long term effects" argument.

This study is not a whole lot different than the anti-vaping studies out there, if you really boil them down. Carl Phillips has documented frequent flaws in "peer reviewed studies" that are critical of vaping, such as these "peers" being fully entrenched in the anti-tobacco religion (and the associated bias) -or- having unrevealed ties to BT or BP.

And anybody can pay to publish a study and generate buzz, it doesn't necessarily mean it is real. Here's an excellent example (link broken, just in case): http://www.cbsnews. com/news/how-the-chocolate-diet-hoax-fooled-millions/

 

[Mazinny]

Unfortunately, I tend to agree. The big red flag to me is the use of online surveys. These are difficult to get behind, especially when sent to pre-biased individuals (vapers on e-cig forums).... many of us, myself included, would view it as a opportunity to show vaping very positively, over-reporting the negatives side effects of smoking and the improvement in these symptoms.

However, I do like the fact that he included long-term vapers. This is something that has been severely underrepresented in studies that I've seen, and gives debate ammunition against the "we don't know the long term effects" argument.

This study is not a whole lot different than the anti-vaping studies out there, if you really boil them down. Carl Phillips has documented frequent flaws in "peer reviewed studies" that are critical of vaping, such as these "peers" being fully entrenched in the anti-tobacco religion (and the associated bias) -or- having unrevealed ties to BT or BP.

And anybody can pay to publish a study and generate buzz, it doesn't necessarily mean it is real. Here's an excellent example (link broken, just in case): http://www.cbsnews. com/news/how-the-chocolate-diet-hoax-fooled-millions/

Agreed. I would also like to see studies involving long-term vapers, but proper studies with proper methodologies. There is no discussion on testing for reliability and validity in this " study ". In addition to the inherent problems with self-diagnosis and self-reporting ( especially in an anonymous on-line survey which makes sample control impossible ), there is also the clear problem of selection bias and conflict of interest etc ...

What determines if a study is a proper study or a junk study, is not whether we like the conclusion.

 

[skoony]

@Endor @Mazinny Although I tend to agree with you both that standing
alone this particular study does accurately indicate a particular trend in
the behavior of vapers if it was the only study available. If one takes
into account other available literature concerning usage one can say the
study at least if only at a superficial level tends to support what we already
know about e-cigarette usage. It isn't a ace in the hole but, it might help
fill in an inside straight.

Regards
Mike

 

[CarolT]

Not peer reviewed, not published, based on anonymous online survey distributed on e-cig forums ... If i remember correctly the Dr. owns a vape store.

Not sure if the "study" would be taken seriously.

It's as bogus as anything the antis do. Worst of all, it includes many smokers who began vaping because they experienced a health condition, and believed that vaping would be healthier. So it cannot say whether people would have gotten those conditions anyway, whether they were smokers, vapers or neither.

 

[pennysmalls]

I wasn't sure what this was when I first came across it but got excited about the fact actual vapers with experience were involved. We do need studies like this done, legit studies. But that's not going to happen. It's been possible to do this type of study for a few years now (with long term vapers) but they aren't going to do it. It should have been done many times over by now but it hasn't and I think that tells us a lot. They don't want to do this type of study.