articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/04/10/electronic-cigarette.aspx
new article I seen on Twitter about ecigs being bad, thoughts?
- Thread starter Newff
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
So how do you feel 3 years into vaping? Better or worse than from smoking? That's your answer! I saw a study a few weeks back about ecigs having this n that in it, like metals and silica ppm, then found out nicorette inhalers actually contain the same stuff in higher numbers. And those are fda approved, so I don't worry about it. It's the internet. Uhhhhh bonjour! ( Imma French model ) lol! Hope you have a great day!
Again, they suspiciously neglect to mention just how much of these nanoparticles we are supposedly inhaling.
And again I refute that we potentially inhale that stuff latently just by living in a technological society.
And again I refute that we potentially inhale that stuff latently just by living in a technological society.
it sounds quoted off the other article that tested only a handful of carts from a vendor or two and found crud in *one* of them (if I understood them correctly).
I am going to try Astaxanthin though.
I am going to try Astaxanthin though.
And this article loses all credibility in the third sentence....
"My mom has been a smoker for over sixty years and I really don't hassle her about it because she is not taking any medications, has a really great diet and uses a device to poke holes in her cigarettes that reduces the amount of smoke she inhales by 95%. "
This is so absurd I don't even know where to start.
"My mom has been a smoker for over sixty years and I really don't hassle her about it because she is not taking any medications, has a really great diet and uses a device to poke holes in her cigarettes that reduces the amount of smoke she inhales by 95%. "
This is so absurd I don't even know where to start.
This is the exact story we were talking about in the CASAA facebook group I believe and there WAS a "rest of the story" that said more was in the nicorette inhaler per ppm. So nothing to worry about IMHO. And we don't know if those cartos were ran dry plus many other variables.
And does that just to make the author happy. My Dad used one of those in the early 80's (pre-children) to try and quit and ended up just putting his finger over the hole(s).
As my Mom told me about what I've read regarding the benefits of using e-cigs on the internet...it's the internet and you can't believe everything you read.
Dr. Mercola seems to be failing to follow the logic behind his opening paragraphs to its natural conclusions. Poking holes in the filter and living an otherwise healthy lifestyle somehow makes smoking okay? And we shouldn't use e-cigs because we don't know the dangers even though we know that smoking kills? Alright then...
He then goes on to cite reasons against vaping that have already been largely debunked. I'm really sick of hearing the argument that we shouldn't use e-cigs because we don't know the risks. In order for me to buy that the risks are greater, I'm going to need definitive proof. Proponents of this argument always bring up the same handful of iffy, extraordinarily-narrow studies while presenting the argument that we don't know the risks with the other hand. Which is it?
The conjecture being tossed around based on these limited and largely inconclusive scientific studies is nothing but pseudoscience. Any true skeptic would find this approach unacceptable. "We just don't know yet." is all that should be said by any scientist who takes his research on the matter seriously. You're supposed to wait for proof before making claims. It's your job not to jump to any conclusions before accounting for every possible variable and proving your hypotheses beyond any shadow of a doubt.
There's a common trend here, and it's cherry picking the facts that are most suitable to their cause. Notice how one-sided all of these arguments against e-cigs are. I'm all for answers regarding the safety and efficacy of e-cigs, but that's not what I'm seeing in the approaches of those poised against vaping. They're not for acquiring and distributing all of the facts. They're simply against vaping and use the facts to form speculation supporting their claims. Any article that is all negatives about anything is worthy of thorough questioning. The little section on secondhand smoke does not an objective piece of writing on vaping make.
Actually, all objectivity went out the window when speculation on the potential risks came into the picture. The sad part about this is that the expert hueristic will mislead many to take this speculation as fact and spread it to others who will then parrot it without even knowing the facts themselves. All 2nd and 3rd hand carriers will get is the speculation. As a doctor and a scholar, he should be ashamed of himself.
He then goes on to cite reasons against vaping that have already been largely debunked. I'm really sick of hearing the argument that we shouldn't use e-cigs because we don't know the risks. In order for me to buy that the risks are greater, I'm going to need definitive proof. Proponents of this argument always bring up the same handful of iffy, extraordinarily-narrow studies while presenting the argument that we don't know the risks with the other hand. Which is it?
The conjecture being tossed around based on these limited and largely inconclusive scientific studies is nothing but pseudoscience. Any true skeptic would find this approach unacceptable. "We just don't know yet." is all that should be said by any scientist who takes his research on the matter seriously. You're supposed to wait for proof before making claims. It's your job not to jump to any conclusions before accounting for every possible variable and proving your hypotheses beyond any shadow of a doubt.
There's a common trend here, and it's cherry picking the facts that are most suitable to their cause. Notice how one-sided all of these arguments against e-cigs are. I'm all for answers regarding the safety and efficacy of e-cigs, but that's not what I'm seeing in the approaches of those poised against vaping. They're not for acquiring and distributing all of the facts. They're simply against vaping and use the facts to form speculation supporting their claims. Any article that is all negatives about anything is worthy of thorough questioning. The little section on secondhand smoke does not an objective piece of writing on vaping make.
Actually, all objectivity went out the window when speculation on the potential risks came into the picture. The sad part about this is that the expert hueristic will mislead many to take this speculation as fact and spread it to others who will then parrot it without even knowing the facts themselves. All 2nd and 3rd hand carriers will get is the speculation. As a doctor and a scholar, he should be ashamed of himself.
Last edited:
Eating too much fish is probably bad for you, too, but it's better than eating red meat.
So an e-cig has more nano particles of metal than a normal cigarette which has zero metal components. WOW... I bet that was hard to figure out!
I'm just trying to wrap my head around how that might equate to dangerous levels of nano particles of metal.
Just don't drink the water .......... you know what fish do in water!
I'm just trying to wrap my head around how that might equate to dangerous levels of nano particles of metal.
Just don't drink the water .......... you know what fish do in water!
Since when does a doctor who sells pills and products called "Miracle Whey" have access to nanoparticle measuring equipment for electronic cigarette vapor?
I think he's fear-mongering so that people would run to him for products and suggestions. I see no reason to believe based on his website information that's he's qualified to state what he did in any factual manner. I don't believe he's qualified to operate any nanoparticle measuring equipment (which is mostly used by mechanical engineers for other uses) nor do I believe he's qualified to interpret the data properly in order to come to a definite conclusion based on his comments which doesn't even qualify to be a valid hypothesis even.
As a doctor he should know that in order to expect merit to his claims, he needs to provide all the data to include names, references, equipment used, times, dates, location, specific products to include manufacturer and model numbers of what's being tested and what was used to test and the processes used in those tests, etc. Anyone's who has written a thesis in college should already know this.
If you live in a big city, you're already breathing in dangerous amounts of toxic substances outdoors. When you drink bottled water, you have no definite guarantee that you're not also drinking in some of the plastic container that might already be breaking down at the molecular level without you knowing. A water bottle stored in a dark, cool place is often more stable (at the molecular level) than one exposed to sunlight (UV), even behind a glass door, refrigerated.
I think he's fear-mongering so that people would run to him for products and suggestions. I see no reason to believe based on his website information that's he's qualified to state what he did in any factual manner. I don't believe he's qualified to operate any nanoparticle measuring equipment (which is mostly used by mechanical engineers for other uses) nor do I believe he's qualified to interpret the data properly in order to come to a definite conclusion based on his comments which doesn't even qualify to be a valid hypothesis even.
As a doctor he should know that in order to expect merit to his claims, he needs to provide all the data to include names, references, equipment used, times, dates, location, specific products to include manufacturer and model numbers of what's being tested and what was used to test and the processes used in those tests, etc. Anyone's who has written a thesis in college should already know this.
If you live in a big city, you're already breathing in dangerous amounts of toxic substances outdoors. When you drink bottled water, you have no definite guarantee that you're not also drinking in some of the plastic container that might already be breaking down at the molecular level without you knowing. A water bottle stored in a dark, cool place is often more stable (at the molecular level) than one exposed to sunlight (UV), even behind a glass door, refrigerated.
I recently bought a new water filtration system for my house and a big reason was the spectacular sales pitch given. He had a DTS meter that tested the water for solid matter. It didn't tell you what those particles are but just how much solid material was in the water. Of course his water had zero particles, a sample of bottled water had like 70 ppm and the tap water had 180 ppm. Tap water around the country has been tested and shown to have most of the same metals the article said we are getting vaping.
So the EPA, FDA and all other wathdogs out there telling us what is good for us have deemed it ok to have all of this in our water how the hell is breathing a little more in going to be so bad for us IF in case what he is saying is true. I for one am not too worried about this and feel that what I am doing is making me feel much better. These articles never have quotes from an actual vaper asking what he or she feels about it. IMO
So the EPA, FDA and all other wathdogs out there telling us what is good for us have deemed it ok to have all of this in our water how the hell is breathing a little more in going to be so bad for us IF in case what he is saying is true. I for one am not too worried about this and feel that what I am doing is making me feel much better. These articles never have quotes from an actual vaper asking what he or she feels about it. IMO
A lot of the "dangers" of vaping articles I see follow the same crazy logic that they selectively apply only to what the nanny state chooses. Technically according to the same logic all current forms of motor vehicle should be considered dangerous and a high health risk.
If you lock yourself in a small poorly ventilated room with a car that's running, you eventually will die from the toxins in the emissions. You absorbe much smaller amounts of these toxins everyday just from passing traffic. Where is the call to ban all vehicles till they have zero emissions?
Yet somehow trace amounts of a small percent of what makes cancer sticks so dangerous that has been found to be safe in every other delivery system out there is all of a sudden a deadly dangerous mystery. One that must be banned or left in the caring hands of big tobacco if the regulations pass, or at least they will be about the only ones who can afford to produce e-liquid if they pass (just an unintentional side effect I'm sure).
Sounds stupid as hell, but the FDA sure likes this logic when it cuts into their kickbacks.
If you lock yourself in a small poorly ventilated room with a car that's running, you eventually will die from the toxins in the emissions. You absorbe much smaller amounts of these toxins everyday just from passing traffic. Where is the call to ban all vehicles till they have zero emissions?
Yet somehow trace amounts of a small percent of what makes cancer sticks so dangerous that has been found to be safe in every other delivery system out there is all of a sudden a deadly dangerous mystery. One that must be banned or left in the caring hands of big tobacco if the regulations pass, or at least they will be about the only ones who can afford to produce e-liquid if they pass (just an unintentional side effect I'm sure).
Sounds stupid as hell, but the FDA sure likes this logic when it cuts into their kickbacks.
I've learned to stop reading the 'e-cigs are bad' articles because:
1. they are usually BS and full of terribly bad info
2. I know for a fact that they are better than analogs because of how I feel!
the proof is in the pudding as they say
1. they are usually BS and full of terribly bad info
2. I know for a fact that they are better than analogs because of how I feel!
the proof is in the pudding as they say
This article is written for an herbal remedy site. The modern day snake oil salesman. It even recommends some sort of algae to help you quit smoking. I especially loved how the author suggested that you "get healthy and exercise" before you begin to quit. The guy obviously knows nothing about smoking. pack/day+ smokers aren't exactly gym rats. There is a reason for that. Smoking makes it very difficult for your body to do any exercise.
i view mercola as a "the sky is falling *blogger*"....just like Oz....(i don't use the proper Dr. in front of their names because...well....)
it is bad for you if he isn't selling it or has something to sell you to protect you from it....
it is bad for you if he isn't selling it or has something to sell you to protect you from it....
Yeah, I kind of laughed at that paragraph too. What a tool.
If you ate healthy, exercised, etc , you probably wouldn't be a smoker in the 1st place. I do what I can and considered myself relatively healthy aside from the exercise (until recently), but I still wasn't about to quit smoking. Doing all that other stuff was about harm reduction. I am happy to include vaping into the harm reduction category now.
If you ate healthy, exercised, etc , you probably wouldn't be a smoker in the 1st place. I do what I can and considered myself relatively healthy aside from the exercise (until recently), but I still wasn't about to quit smoking. Doing all that other stuff was about harm reduction. I am happy to include vaping into the harm reduction category now.
- Status
Similar threads
