- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Podcast interview with Brad Rodu about e-cigarettes
Dr. Brad Rodu: E-Cigarettes | The Heartland Institute
Dr. Brad Rodu: E-Cigarettes | The Heartland Institute
Interview with Brad Rodu about e-cigarettes
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Very good. Short, crisp, clear.
I'm not sure that everyone would agree 100% with the comments on heart issues, but it's tough to get everything perfect when live on air. Sometimes you can say what you didn't really mean to say, it's nothing like writing text that you can re-edit.
I'm not sure that everyone would agree 100% with the comments on heart issues, but it's tough to get everything perfect when live on air. Sometimes you can say what you didn't really mean to say, it's nothing like writing text that you can re-edit.
Essentially what Neal Benowitz said about it is that if any nicotine-related risk of heart disease exists, it is very small.
I recall one Heart Association doctor making a big point of the fact that one reserach study showed that if a snus user gets a heart attack, it is more likely to be fatal. It occurred to me later that if smokers who switched to snus have the same life expectency as former smokers who quit all tobacco use, then all that tells is is that more of the ones who quit all tobacco use are dying of other causes...maybe dying of something that kills you much more slowly and painfully.
I recall one Heart Association doctor making a big point of the fact that one reserach study showed that if a snus user gets a heart attack, it is more likely to be fatal. It occurred to me later that if smokers who switched to snus have the same life expectency as former smokers who quit all tobacco use, then all that tells is is that more of the ones who quit all tobacco use are dying of other causes...maybe dying of something that kills you much more slowly and painfully.
Hah - good point.
What I meant is that apparently there is now some evidence that long-term abuse (over-consumption of the highest strengths) of NRTs can cause cardiac dysrythmia, with several cases in the literature, some serious (such as atrial fibrillation and similar conditions that may not be reversible). This is why I do not think it advisable to over-consume nicotine in the long term, especially for those in the group who have no symptoms of nicotine OD. Of course, one viewpoint is that if say 5 or 6 people have died from abuse of NRTs then this represents an extremely good safety profile for them, considering the numbers involved (pyschoactive drugs such as Chantix are not in this group - and are recognised as having significant danger). If e-cigarettes have such a profile it would be excellent.
It seems a good idea to me to find the lowest acceptable level of nicotine, instead of vaping high strength liquid in the long term and never checking to see if you can go lower.
We have to accept that if the entire smoking population of ~60 million switched to e-cigarettes, some would still die. That number might be very low, as in the case of Snus users, and thus not really be statistically significant - i.e., it is just about visible at population level but the risk to any individual is extremely low.
Anyway, assuming that some will die, the question is - from what? One answer is abuse, in other words long-term over-consumption of high-strength materials. Another, I think, will be from lung complications for a sensitive minority. Although the numbers might be very low indeed, in order to keep a hold on reality it is necessary to accept that some mortality is inevitable.
What I meant is that apparently there is now some evidence that long-term abuse (over-consumption of the highest strengths) of NRTs can cause cardiac dysrythmia, with several cases in the literature, some serious (such as atrial fibrillation and similar conditions that may not be reversible). This is why I do not think it advisable to over-consume nicotine in the long term, especially for those in the group who have no symptoms of nicotine OD. Of course, one viewpoint is that if say 5 or 6 people have died from abuse of NRTs then this represents an extremely good safety profile for them, considering the numbers involved (pyschoactive drugs such as Chantix are not in this group - and are recognised as having significant danger). If e-cigarettes have such a profile it would be excellent.
It seems a good idea to me to find the lowest acceptable level of nicotine, instead of vaping high strength liquid in the long term and never checking to see if you can go lower.
We have to accept that if the entire smoking population of ~60 million switched to e-cigarettes, some would still die. That number might be very low, as in the case of Snus users, and thus not really be statistically significant - i.e., it is just about visible at population level but the risk to any individual is extremely low.
Anyway, assuming that some will die, the question is - from what? One answer is abuse, in other words long-term over-consumption of high-strength materials. Another, I think, will be from lung complications for a sensitive minority. Although the numbers might be very low indeed, in order to keep a hold on reality it is necessary to accept that some mortality is inevitable.
I'm pretty sure that if the entire smoking population switched to e-cigarettes they would ALL still die. I'm also confident that all of the non-smokers will die too. Is that the same as accepting that "some mortality is inevitable"?
Sorry-just kidding around. I spent too many years around health freaks--some of whom are already dead.
Sorry-just kidding around. I spent too many years around health freaks--some of whom are already dead.
Yeah, OK, it's amusing.
'Smoking deaths' and 'burden of mortality' are shorthand for 'you lose a few years and the last year or two won't be fun'. It's just easier that way if you have to write about it a lot...
But I think everybody knows that, Mrs BCB
'Smoking deaths' and 'burden of mortality' are shorthand for 'you lose a few years and the last year or two won't be fun'. It's just easier that way if you have to write about it a lot...
But I think everybody knows that, Mrs BCB
Yeah, OK, it's amusing.
'Smoking deaths' and 'burden of mortality' are shorthand for 'you lose a few years and the last year or two won't be fun'. It's just easier that way if you have to write about it a lot...
But I think everybody knows that, Mrs BCB
We're being awfully hard on epidemiologists. It's a SMOKING death, no, it's a VAPING death. No he had more than 99 cigarettes in his lifetime, it's a SMOKING death. No! he stopped smoking and he had more than 30ml of e-liquid since. It's a VAPING death. Wait, forget it, we'll report it as both and make the CDC very happy. DONE.
Ah but they managed it for Snus - all we need is 30 years of population-level data for e-cigs. Then it can all be denied by the propagandists as if it just doesn't exist at all
I realise now that I should have studied Propaganda in higher education, it is far more useful than all that economics, medicine, physics, business and languages stuff. It makes the world go round.
I realise now that I should have studied Propaganda in higher education, it is far more useful than all that economics, medicine, physics, business and languages stuff. It makes the world go round.
Ah but they managed it for Snus - all we need is 30 years of population-level data for e-cigs. Then it can all be denied by the propagandists as if it just doesn't exist at all
I realise now that I should have studied Propaganda in higher education, it is far more useful than all that economics, medicine, physics, business and languages stuff. It makes the world go round.
Hence the national inquirer at every supermarket isle in the US!
- Status
Similar threads
