"It only takes ONE bad chemical"

[caramel]

What you say is truthful. My problem has been the British Medical est. has stated vaping is at
least 95% safer than smoking. Bill Godshall always states vaping is 99.9% safer.
Who's right? Hard to say. If however Bills estimate is the correct one then at
99.9% safer its for all practical purposes safe,period. With an error rate of
plus or minus 3% you wind up with from 97.9% to 102.9% safety factor. i
believe there is no single product consumed by man when used normally
(what ever that is) that's any safer or at least can be proven safer. Try
eating only carrots for your dietary needs if you doubt this.
I believe the main reason for all the controversy surrounding this subject
from a political,moral and health related stand point is do to the fact that
e-cigarettes were relatively safe right out of the box. As such there is
really nothing for all the wonks to get a handle on it. Its not so much as
they want to control it per say its,the fact they are losing control over
traditional tobacco users and the money they represent.

Regards
Mike

It doesn't really matter. As long as you compare it with something non-acceptable (i.e. smoking), it doesn't matter if it's 50% 90% or 99%. It's still a percentage of something not acceptable at all.

The only way to score is to compare it with something widely accepted and show results in the same ballpark.

 

[Jman8]

That they are safer than cigarettes is about the only thing we've been able to honestly say and I think that kinda covers it.

If we can honestly say they are safer than cigarettes, then we can honestly bring in other studies that help us honestly say more than nothing, or more than "we don't have long term studies."

If we don't have long term studies, and that is only way we'll know, then we do not know that vaping right now is safer than smoking. Thus we are being dishonest to fit our world view.

If Dr F. says (via study he's conducted) that certain compounds ought to be avoided, and we elevate that conclusion to level of high importance, coming from scientist and all; then, when same scientist says (via study) that exhaled eCig vapor has less volatile compounds than human breath, we ought to be able to stay consistent with a) how we combat things based on level harm and what we "know" and b) speaking honestly about what we currently know.

Instead, it really really seems like if vaping has knocks against it (i.e. flavors are harmful, let's ban them), that this gets elevated to concern every vaper ought to have, (simply) because Dr. F. said it. But if Dr. F. says exhaled vaper is less harmful than human breath, then well, that needs more studying and we can't bank on that, and blah blah blah, we are in the camp of things Glantz might say but not really in camp that a pro vaping enthusiast might say. On a pro vaping forum.

 

[Kent C]

You mean like in "free markets"?

Exactly. Where people use their minds to produce and create, and exchange with others who do the same, without harming anyone. And where there is no third party (gov't or thugs) who are attempting to intervene, steal or regulate without having any creative production of their own, driven by emotions (jealousy/envy) rather than reason.

 

[Oliver]

What you say is truthful. My problem has been the British Medical est. has stated vaping is at
least 95% safer than smoking. Bill Godshall always states vaping is 99.9% safer.
Who's right? Hard to say. If however Bills estimate is the correct one then at
99.9% safer its for all practical purposes safe,period. With an error rate of
plus or minus 3% you wind up with from 97.9% to 102.9% safety factor. i
believe there is no single product consumed by man when used normally
(what ever that is) that's any safer or at least can be proven safer. Try
eating only carrots for your dietary needs if you doubt this.
I believe the main reason for all the controversy surrounding this subject
from a political,moral and health related stand point is do to the fact that
e-cigarettes were relatively safe right out of the box. As such there is
really nothing for all the wonks to get a handle on it. Its not so much as
they want to control it per say its,the fact they are losing control over
traditional tobacco users and the money they represent.

Regards
Mike

Yeah, it's worth laboring this point. The Public Health England (England, not Britain) report used Nutt et al's research to (in part) justify the claim that vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking.

So it's instructive to look at what Nutt et al included as "harms": From drugscience.org.uk (Nutt's blog): "carefully comparing all the harm they cause in different ways. These include income-sapping addiction, fatal lung damage and cancer, accidental poisoning, house fires, even littering."

So, actually toxicity must be considered the smaller part of this 5% which, in any case, is not estimated from real data but through a process called MCDA which "crowdsources" an estimate from the opinions of selected (and varied) experts.

YMMV on whether this is an appropriate methodology, but please let's be clear that "harm" in this context does not equal "toxicity".

 

[AndriaD]

It's interesting to me, all this stuff about vaping, loss of control over smokers and the money they represent, and the coincidence of this particular forum being a British-owned entity.

Consider: George III was willing to fight a bloody and brutal war over the loss of control of "his" colonies and the monetary resources they represented. Of course, he was completely insane, thanks to porphyria.


Andria

 

[skoony]

Have I mentioned I like Smokey Joe?
My bad.
Regards
Mike

 

[CarolT]

If we don't have long term studies, and that is only way we'll know, then we do not know that vaping right now is safer than smoking. Thus we are being dishonest to fit our world view.

It's not true that making a reasonable presumption that e-cigs are safer than smoking is "dishonest." And as for long-term studies, the vast majority of such studies truly ARE dishonest, because they ignore the role of infection.

 

[CarolT]

You very apparently and obviously didn't read my post which said that "if I was vaping diketones, and had an asthma attack, I would be SURE that I was about to expire of B. O."

I am not a doctor with diagnostic tools. I'm an asthmatic, and when you can't breathe, anxiety SKYROCKETS. Add a little hypochondria and you have a panic attack just waiting to happen.

Last I checked, there's nothing foolish about avoiding a POTENTIAL risk. I started vaping to try and improve my health (among other reasons), not make it worse.

Just because a lot of folks (non-asthmatics) are racing off the diketone cliff, does not mean that I have to, or will. They may fall 1 ft onto a mattress, or they might fall into their graves. I prefer to err, if err it is, on the side of caution.

Andria

But if you really think you're about to expire, you'd go to the ER, wouldn't you? And the docs would apply their drugs that are supposed to reverse asthma, and presumably you'd respond to them. And maybe they'd give you a tranquilizer, too, and then discharge you with instructions to see your asthma doctor about giving you medicine that controls it better. Presumably the asthma doc did those tests for FEV1 and CO2 trapping and all that jazz?

 

[zoiDman]

Yeah, it's worth laboring this point. The Public Health England (England, not Britain) report used Nutt et al's research to (in part) justify the claim that vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking.

So it's instructive to look at what Nutt et al included as "harms": From drugscience.org.uk (Nutt's blog): "carefully comparing all the harm they cause in different ways. These include income-sapping addiction, fatal lung damage and cancer, accidental poisoning, house fires, even littering."

So, actually toxicity must be considered the smaller part of this 5% which, in any case, is not estimated from real data but through a process called MCDA which "crowdsources" an estimate from the opinions of selected (and varied) experts.

YMMV on whether this is an appropriate methodology, but please let's be clear that "harm" in this context does not equal "toxicity".

It would be Interesting to see what type of Weighted Average was placed on something like Lung Damage as compared to Littering when the Less Harmful calculation was derived.

 

[Moonbogg]

If they included anything other than physical harm to health in their calculations, then their results are BS and no one cares about their results. If I am vaping because its 95% safer, I don't care if its 95% safer to my wallet, the environment blah blah blah. I want to know if its going to wreck my lungs and something tells me that blasting my lungs with a diketone loaded juice all day is NOT 95% safer than smoking a cigarette than contains the same chemicals.

 

[AndriaD]

But if you really think you're about to expire, you'd go to the ER, wouldn't you? And the docs would apply their drugs that are supposed to reverse asthma, and presumably you'd respond to them. And maybe they'd give you a tranquilizer, too, and then discharge you with instructions to see your asthma doctor about giving you medicine that controls it better. Presumably the asthma doc did those tests for FEV1 and CO2 trapping and all that jazz?

Someone without any insurance is very loathe to go to the e-room just any old time -- I only went about what turned out to be a ruptured appendix because the pain was so FREAKING HORRIBLE I couldn't even scream, it hurt too much to use that many abdominal muscles!

So, no, assorted trips to the e-room are really out of the question, unless my asthma is so bad that I'm not breathing AT ALL.

Andria

 

[caramel]

Exactly. Where people use their minds to produce and create, and exchange with others who do the same, without harming anyone. And where there is no third party (gov't or thugs) who are attempting to intervene, steal or regulate without having any creative production of their own, driven by emotions (jealousy/envy) rather than reason.

Then from your point of view, antz work is legit? I.e. publishing their concerns regarding certain products?

 

[Kent C]

Then from your point of view, antz work is legit?

I said - regarding the free market being an exchange between two individuals (like ecig buyer and ecig vendor):

"And where there is no third party (gov't or thugs) who are attempting to intervene, steal or regulate..."

And it is the ANTZ who are the third party intervening and regulating, so that part is against the free market. I think almost everyone would have understood that.

publishing their concerns regarding certain products?

"publishing" is merely communication - I fully support free expression.

And because I uphold free speech, doesn't mean the things they say, are 'legit' - only that they have the right to say it - even if it's all lies. But 'publishing' isn't the only things that ANTZ do.

This is just another one of your strawman arguments. Trying to isolate one aspect of a certain activity - antz communications - where I support free expression, then trying to tie that into their other activities - regulation - then attempt to show how 'inconsistent' I am.

Let me ask you this - do you believe in free speech?

If so, would you have agreed to allowing Hitler to speak against the Jewish population.

If you uphold free speech, you would have to say that you would.

Can someone then say "You think Hitler is 'legit'!"

Of course they can't.

You can troll all you want, but it only shows what you're really up to - not to discuss the issues, only to attempt, unsuccessfully, to find hypocrisy in someone who doesn't share your socialist viewpoint... like most of your ilk, I might add. You can't debate the issues, so you attempt to berate the person making them.

 

[caramel]

I said - regarding the free market being an exchange between two individuals (like ecig buyer and ecig vendor):

"And where there is no third party (gov't or thugs) who are attempting to intervene, steal or regulate..."

And it is the ANTZ who are the third party intervening and regulating, so that part is against the free market. I think almost everyone would have understood that.



"publishing" is merely communication - I fully support free expression.

And because I uphold free speech, doesn't mean the things they say, are 'legit' - only that they have the right to say it - even if it's all lies. But 'publishing' isn't the only things that ANTZ do. [...]

.

Dr. Antz doesn't regulate anything. He just doesn't have that power.

And no, I don't believe in unethical, immoral "free speech". If you're true to your "free market" system, then YOU have to answer the question about hate speech.

 

[DC2]

And no, I don't believe in unethical, immoral "free speech".

The problem comes when picking who decides what is unethical and immoral free speech.
But in the end, there is no such thing as unethical and immoral free speech.

 

[Kent C]

Dr. Antz doesn't regulate anything. He just doesn't have that power.

Zeller and Frieden are considered ANTZ too. Were it not for them, the other ANTZ would die of starvation.

And no, I don't believe in unethical, immoral "free speech". If you're true to your "free market" system, then YOU have to answer the question about hate speech.

Again, dodging the actual point, (and hijacking the thread)... and I don't have to answer any question about speech - only that I uphold the right, as Dershowitz did in Skokie Ill. and many before and after him. I think your attack of the free market is hate speech. I uphold your right to say so. AND I uphold the right of SJ to delete your next reply.... lol

 

[DC2]

Dr. Antz doesn't regulate anything. He just doesn't have that power.

Perhaps not the power, but definitely the influence.
And that influence spreads to the media, the public, and the politicians.

 

[AndriaD]

The problem comes when picking who decides what is unethical and immoral free speech.
But in the end, there is no such thing as unethical and immoral free speech.

True. There may be "hateful" free speech, but if there is REALLY free speech, then even the hateful has a right to be said.

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will support unto death your right to say it." Is a quote I've run into, and it's perfectly valid as to what "free speech" means.

To wit: the ANTZ idiots can SAY any stupid thing they please, but that does not give them the right to subvert the scientific and democratic process, with money.

Where we run into difficulties is with the gov't itself trying to dictate that actual truth cannot be told -- that e-cigs are a safer alternative to tobacco cigarettes. That seems like a TOTAL subversion of free speech, to tell people/entities that they can't tell the truth. "That emperor may be buck nekkid, but you can't say that, because we won't let you."

Andria

 

[caramel]

True. There may be "hateful" free speech, but if there is REALLY free speech, then even the hateful has a right to be said.

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will support unto death your right to say it." Is a quote I've run into, and it's perfectly valid as to what "free speech" means.

To wit: the ANTZ idiots can SAY any stupid thing they please, but that does not give them the right to subvert the scientific and democratic process, with money.

Where we run into difficulties is with the gov't itself trying to dictate that actual truth cannot be told -- that e-cigs are a safer alternative to tobacco cigarettes. That seems like a TOTAL subversion of free speech, to tell people/entities that they can't tell the truth. "That emperor may be buck nekkid, but you can't say that, because we won't let you."

Andria

Let's do a quick reality check, Andria. How many times did the government censor your postings on internet?

As for diketones, if I don't want them in my juice, how does "free speech" or "free markets" address the issue of someone lacing it with no warning and selling to the unsuspecting public?

How does a "95% aggregate harm reduction", were they conflated littering with fire hazard and ejuice toxicity help this either?

You eventually have to agree to having some rules (beyond honoring delivery/payment) and someone to enforce them.

 

[AndriaD]

Let's do a quick reality check, Andria. How many times did the government censor your postings on internet?

As for diketones, if I don't want them in my juice, how does "free speech" or "free markets" address the issue of someone lacing it with no warning and selling to the unsuspecting public?

How does a "95% aggregate harm reduction", were they conflated littering with fire hazard and ejuice toxicity help this either?

You eventually have to agree to having some rules (beyond honoring delivery/payment) and someone to enforce them.

How does any of that have anything to do with the current discussion? Non sequitur, anyone?

The discussion of free speech may be OT in this thread, but that was the context of my post that you quoted. Nothing whatever to do with anything you said.

Andria