Hello from Houston
- Thread starter Jeff M
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The problem with the grass roots concept is that if we find out there is a problem it may well be too late for a lot of people. Having said that, people have been vaping since about 2004 I believe. Not many at first, but it has really grown since then. I consider that the grassroots data collection. When I switched in April I thought I should be safe enough for at least a few years and I would quit vaping in that time. I am almost at zero nic now and my goal is to be an occasional vaper only by the end if this year.
Considering how many people vape now and that it is not unheard of for doctors to suggest vaping to ever-weight patients for the appetite suppression benefit, good scientific testing would be nice. If that were to suggest vaping is safe, it would be great, but it still would not be conclusive until proven over time. Just think about all the drugs put on the market over the years which ended up eventually proven unsafe. It sucks, but it is what it is!
Considering how many people vape now and that it is not unheard of for doctors to suggest vaping to ever-weight patients for the appetite suppression benefit, good scientific testing would be nice. If that were to suggest vaping is safe, it would be great, but it still would not be conclusive until proven over time. Just think about all the drugs put on the market over the years which ended up eventually proven unsafe. It sucks, but it is what it is!
In one degree, you are correct that if something is dangerous, we might find out too late. On the other hand, if results continually indicate minimal adverse effects, then, it gives reassurance.
The problem with labs and case studies is that they are short-term. The only option is to either (a) drastically overdose the subject, which means nothing (you can even die from drinking too much water in a short interval), or (b) report short-term effects.
There is a publication journal, "Inhalation Toxicology," which has done such studies, and they DO in fact report some degree of adverse effect in rats, with a lesser degree, almost negligible in Beagles.
This was not an ecigarette study. It was a PG vapor study. Probably not as prone to bias for that reason.
If I had to guess, based on the limited information available, we are doing some degree of harm. The pleasure derived from smoking and vaping both relates to the irritant. If there was no irritant in this product, it would be useless as a substitute.
IMO (not scientifically), any long-term, repeated exposure to an irritant causes damage. Hand soap is safe on the skin, provided you wash it off. Try leaving Ivory soap on overnight, and it will burn the ....e out of you.
The problem with labs and case studies is that they are short-term. The only option is to either (a) drastically overdose the subject, which means nothing (you can even die from drinking too much water in a short interval), or (b) report short-term effects.
There is a publication journal, "Inhalation Toxicology," which has done such studies, and they DO in fact report some degree of adverse effect in rats, with a lesser degree, almost negligible in Beagles.
This was not an ecigarette study. It was a PG vapor study. Probably not as prone to bias for that reason.
If I had to guess, based on the limited information available, we are doing some degree of harm. The pleasure derived from smoking and vaping both relates to the irritant. If there was no irritant in this product, it would be useless as a substitute.
IMO (not scientifically), any long-term, repeated exposure to an irritant causes damage. Hand soap is safe on the skin, provided you wash it off. Try leaving Ivory soap on overnight, and it will burn the ....e out of you.
- Status
Similar threads
