How valid are vaping health claims?

[Kate]

"... You are not comparing the dangers of E-smoking to cigarettes. You are comparing the dangers of E-smoking to overly exaggerated claims of how bad cigarettes are. And that is where all of you are falling into trouble..."

I agree with this, people didn't start dropping down dead immediately smoking became popular, it took generations to make the health links that smoking can cause health problems. That's what we should expect for vaping plus all the expected exaggerations that have been linked with anything we enjoy.

Don't shut up Paladin, I think you're spot on and are presenting a valuable viewpoint.

 

[frogbmth]

Good points here. A smoker's chances of developing lung cancer is 14%, this can be as much as halved by quitting. What we dont know is whether the reduction is better or worse for people using ecigs.

Remember, these figures also give the impression that smoking causes lung cancer in 14% of smokers. Remember, 20% of lung cancer cases are found in non-smokers so we can presume that some smokers who develop lung cancer would have done so whether they had smoked or not.

Also remember that the data has been gathered since the 1950s and cancer treatments have come a long way in this time. Many researchers now agree that gene therapy will eliminate cancer in 30 years. If this is true, we may never be able to truly compare cigarettes with vaping.

Also remember that humans are living much longer, anybody born in 1900 could expect to live 47 years on average. Somebody born today can expect to live 78 years. Cancers become more common as you age, so we are in fact living into more ill health. It is also important to remember that the majority of mature people alive today have at some time in their lives been a smoker so naturally illness in this age group occurs in ex smokers.

 

[paladinx]

Yeah, statistics are very easily played with whenever you are looking to prove something or have a bias. Now I am not a tobacco company advocate, I am not saying cigarettes are good for you.

The REAL killer in cigarettes is not the tar, nor any of the 4,000 chemicals. It is the addiction that kills. The addiction to consume ridiculous amounts of smoke each day for years and years. That is the killer. If people were not hooked on cigarettes and didnt need a steady pack or 2 packs a day, cigarettes probably would not lower your life expectancy as much as you would think. Now are these E-cigs as addicting or less? I believe thats an important part of their safety as well.

Heres one last example for the ones who probably think I am some kind of ...... Take a small cube of cheddar cheese. Compare that to a cigarette. There are no harmful chemicals in the cheese, in fact it has protein and vitamin D which are good for you. Now lets say this cheese had some kind of secret super addictive drug in it, and i start consuming a small block of cheese in place of every cigarette I would smoke if I were a heavy smoker. So lets say I ate 40 blocks of that cheese a day. How long do you think I am going to live at this rate? Thats 280 blocks a week. Probably after 10 years my cholestrol would be thru the roof cause of the saturated fat. Now I wont die from cancer, or lung disease or emphysema, but it will kill me in another way probably faster then the cigarettes would.

 

[paladinx]

6....................................................

 

[Angela]

6....................................................

 

[Spikey]

While we do not "know" that it is safer, I think most of us are willing to roll the dice that it certainly couldn't be any worse.

Just speaking for myself, after only 10 days of being analog free, I have finally gotten rid of a persistant "cold" (or whatever it was) that I have had for about 8 months. I can feel the positive effects already. WHile 10 years from now I may sprout a 2nd head or something from vaping. I'll take the 10 years of feeling great in exchange.........

Didn't read the whole thread yet.. but I will take my chances.. by the way Elendil... your avatar is very perverse

PS... I missed you most of all Kate!!!!

 

[paladinx]

We have talked about PG, flavors, nicotine etc. Has anyone here discussed the potential harms of actually inhaling on the other end of a battery, atomizer? Or is that something not worth consideration?

 

[Frankie]

Unless you do it 200 times daily for ten years, i would not worry. I think it is mostly dangerous for batteries, so you cannot repeat it long enough anyway.

 

[gashin]

4,000+ chemicals in cigarette smoke vs 3 in vapor (H20, nic, pg/vg) - isn't it obvious?!

There are several threads about users who have been monitored by their physicians - I read through many and found that substituting vaping for smoking led to lower blood pressure and even cholesterol levels..

 

[paladinx]

You guys should be a little careful comparing cigarettes to e-smoking. Something new, e-cigs, to something that has been around for a very long time, cigarettes. On top of that everything bad about cigarettes has been probed protted, explored and even exaggerated in all this time. So when you make comparisons to that, you might start to mislead yourself a little. Why not compare e-cigs to arsenic, cause thats how cigarettes are being discussed now a days.

The way I would state things if I were you guys, is that from current research or current knowledge, it appears that e-cigarettes might not pose the same specific risks associated with cigarettes because they lack some of the damage causing ingredients that cigarettes have. Like tar for example. But I would avoid making absolute claims this early on. Why? because cigarettes are long term killers. With ALLL the bad things in cigarettes it still takes a substantial amount of time and consumption to obsever the negative effects of smoking. And those risks are specific to smoking. In order to really make an absolute statement you would really need to compare a large number of e-smokers to cigarette smokers who have been heavy consumers for at least 20 years. Then look at the specific health risks of each user. Cigarettes might be causing heart disease and lung cancer, While e-smoking might be causing kidney and liver damage. Who knows.

I personally think that e-cigs are healthier then regular cigarettes, but I will def not make that a final answer, cause i could be wrong.

and iw ould be interested in a vapor that had only 3 ingredients. the ones i have or have seen have more then 3 ingredients.

 

[exogenesis]

e-cigs are a religion (still thinking about another thread),

you're either with us or against us

Or words to that effect.
Don't doubt the converted, or they'll be round to your house.

Wish there was a way to compress time, like you can with
chemical degradation effects using increased temperature.
That way we'd know in advance how safe/dangerous vaping is/was.

 

[taz3cat]

You guys should be a little careful comparing cigarettes to e-smoking. Something new, e-cigs, to something that has been around for a very long time, cigarettes. On top of that everything bad about cigarettes has been probed protted, explored and even exaggerated in all this time. So when you make comparisons to that, you might start to mislead yourself a little. Why not compare e-cigs to arsenic, cause thats how cigarettes are being discussed now a days.

The way I would state things if I were you guys, is that from current research or current knowledge, it appears that e-cigarettes might not pose the same specific risks associated with cigarettes because they lack some of the damage causing ingredients that cigarettes have. Like tar for example. But I would avoid making absolute claims this early on. Why? because cigarettes are long term killers. With ALLL the bad things in cigarettes it still takes a substantial amount of time and consumption to obsever the negative effects of smoking. And those risks are specific to smoking. In order to really make an absolute statement you would really need to compare a large number of e-smokers to cigarette smokers who have been heavy consumers for at least 20 years. Then look at the specific health risks of each user. Cigarettes might be causing heart disease and lung cancer, While e-smoking might be causing kidney and liver damage. Who knows.

I personally think that e-cigs are healthier then regular cigarettes, but I will def not make that a final answer, cause i could be wrong.

and iw ould be interested in a vapor that had only 3 ingredients. the ones i have or have seen have more then 3 ingredients.

Paladinx, you can have e-liquid with only 3 ingredients, buy Nick e-liquid tasteless and add your own flavor or no flavor and have it with only 2 ingredients.

I don't think you use e-cigs, just like to hang out and bash tham. You use to many YOU's, talking about others not your self.

I could be wrong, that is just my opinion.

 

[paladinx]

I use You's in reference to an attitude towards something. Not those who e-smoke. When I say you's I am talking about those, well, basically someone like you.
Just keep in mind, I am not saying anything bad or confrontational, What I am saying is simply common sense sh#t. If you really have a problem with the post i wrote below, seriously it has more to do with you than me. Nothing I said was bashing anyone or anything. It was a damned practical response. I def get what exo was saying about things being a religion. Its amazing how people ruin every forum with stupid friggin cult mentality.

 

[NY JETS]

Yeah, statistics are very easily played with whenever you are looking to prove something or have a bias. Now I am not a tobacco company advocate, I am not saying cigarettes are good for you.

The REAL killer in cigarettes is not the tar, nor any of the 4,000 chemicals. It is the addiction that kills. The addiction to consume ridiculous amounts of smoke each day for years and years. That is the killer. If people were not hooked on cigarettes and didnt need a steady pack or 2 packs a day, cigarettes probably would not lower your life expectancy as much as you would think. Now are these E-cigs as addicting or less? I believe thats an important part of their safety as well.

Heres one last example for the ones who probably think I am some kind of ...... Take a small cube of cheddar cheese. Compare that to a cigarette. There are no harmful chemicals in the cheese, in fact it has protein and vitamin D which are good for you. Now lets say this cheese had some kind of secret super addictive drug in it, and i start consuming a small block of cheese in place of every cigarette I would smoke if I were a heavy smoker. So lets say I ate 40 blocks of that cheese a day. How long do you think I am going to live at this rate? Thats 280 blocks a week. Probably after 10 years my cholestrol would be thru the roof cause of the saturated fat. Now I wont die from cancer, or lung disease or emphysema, but it will kill me in another way probably faster then the cigarettes would.

+1 man, I used to say the same thing all the time. I always wished I could smoke every now and then and I envy the few people I know who can do that.

Honestly though, it is the greatest feeling to no longer have an urge to light up. I really never thought it would be possible and figured that my lung capacity would just always suck.

Personally, the addictive qualities in e-cigs seem to be much less than analogs. I have heard people say that you wind up getting addicted to other chemicals they put in cigarettes...I don't know if thats true but I do find myself able to go entire days with the e-cig without having temper tantrums.

 

[Kate]

There's a good compilation on information on propylene glycol and why it's probably nothing to be concerned about here - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-we-know-pg-safer-than-analog-cigarettes.html

 

[pupuek]

Hi there! I'm from the Philippines and is currently a chain smoker. I'm thinking of trying vaping as substitute for smoking. I want to think of it as a nicotine delivery system comparable to nicotine patch/gum.

Right now I'm researching the internet for the benefits or lack off it of e-cigs. Majority of my findings indicate that e-cigs will be beneficial to a smoker mainly because of the lack of the the 4000+ harmful chemicals found in analogs.

I can see Palandin's point here regarding the comparisson of ecigs to analogs. Yes it is true that you can not fairly compare the two mainly because of time constraints - on how and what kind of illnesses you can get from each. However, given the facts on these two things (analogs and ecigs), it is obvious that the odds are for the ecigs. Maybe there is no need to compare these two in time perspective.

Actually, I'm a bit curious on Palandin's intentions here. It seems that you are so against esmoking provided the numerous claims that actual users have attested to - not to mention the plain fact that it does not have any harmful substance unlike the analogs. On your point regarding the batteries, i think this is simply a quality issue that can be easily resolved by the FDA or whatever government office by requiring the suppliers of these ecigs some certain standards.

Right now, this (the battery issue) is the only thing substantial you have running against ecigs. Your other claims regarding the unknown illnesses you may acquire with the use of ecigs are not yet factual - its pure speculation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that why don't you give esmoking a chance before you go on and say negative things about it. Given all the extensive studies on cigarette smoking (analogs) and how it severely destroys your body, why do you still think that analogs are better than ecigs? - completely ignoring beneficial claims be numerous actual users.


Your determination in writing "your" opinions regarding this subject matter and also the manner in which you argue your point is really.. how do you say it.. odd? You go on and on with things such as smoking is found to cause cancer but the statistics on non-smoking related cancer are much higher than the non-smoking cases. What your basically saying:

Given the following facts:
1. Smoking has been found to cause cancer
2. There is a higher statistics on non-smoking related cancer than in smoking-related cancer cases.

Conclusion: You are a smoker and you suddenly got cancer.You can not blame smoking because you can not be 100% sure that the tobacco was the one that caused your illness.

Seriously, are you working for Marlboro or some big tobacco company Paladin? If yes, then don't hide it.

This goes to the big tobacco companies as well: Ofcourse its in your interest to promote to usage of your products (I believe you should, this is only fair). However, you should not go on public and make these negative claims and speculations about a substitute product (ecigs). What you need to do is to conduct formal studies that will indicate what really is and what is not true about the use of ecigs - as compare to the analogs. If the studies show that E-cigs are really much healthier than the analogs, then diversify your business! Be the ones to produce, manufacture and distribute these new products. With all the profits you have made all throughout these years, this should be a walk in the park for you guys. Personally, I would buy an ecig with the Marlboro or Winston brand rather than buying from an unknown brand that is made in China.

Just my two cents. Sorry for the long post as I just can't sit and do nothing while these big companies try and hinder the development of a new product that could very well save a lot of lives.

 

[louann5840]

I smoked for 32 years, and my blood pressure now is as good as before I started smoking, and the doctor said my lungs sound wonderfull. I AM still taking blood pressure pills but that's only because the doc wants to make sure this lasts a while before taking me off of them. But to me, this is like a miracle. I never thought my BP would get this good or that I'd ever quit analogs. I'm going to live longer, and have a better quality of life.

Lou

 

[louann5840]

Well said, pupuek.