New Info on Vaping

[sofarsogood]

These studies generally miss the point. Quitting is not hard. The problem is relapse, which I did 10 YEARS after quitting. That won't happen again because vaping is a superior experience and is free for practical purposes. Typical studies aren't going to research relapses because that would take decades. If common sense can't be research they'll never know much of anything about switching to vaping.

 

[Eskie]

These studies generally miss the point. Quitting is not hard. The problem is relapse, which I did 10 YEARS after quitting. That won't happen again because vaping is a superior experience and is free for practical purposes. Typical studies aren't going to research relapses because that would take decades. If common sense can't be research they'll never know much of anything about switching to vaping.

Given that it can take 3 to 4 years to collect enough data (it isn't like you can start 800 people in a study simultaneously) for a1 year relapse rate, anything beyond is just a long term retrospective population study to ever get close to that and they'll be in another decade.

There is a very interesting database collection going on at the NIH called All of Us which is drawing data on a huge cross section of the population (aim is 1,000,000 enrollees if not more) and gather in depth health histories which can then be sliced and diced down the road to look for trends, treatment effectiveness, and even stuff like population based experience with smoking cessation, relapse rates, and health changes over time. It's a real Big Data type of study and they're recruiting more and more participants as time goes on, as well as working with researchers who have ideas to mine that database for useful information.

Better them than Google although I'm sure some of the algorithms used by Google will be emulated to help develop profiles to see if future population health trends are predictable out of the information.

 

[ScottP]

The drugs with a long history are safer IMO. Take a look at the recreational drugs.....they have been taken for 1000's of years.

Hoping this is sarcastic since it’s on a website that is literally about one of those modern drugs and how it’s unlike the ancient version which will kill you slowly and horribly.

the thing is that ancient version might be much worse like in case of cigs vs e-cigs

Actually I think smoking tobacco is WORSE NOW than it used to be. Native American's grew and smoked their own tobacco long before European settlers arrived and I don't recall any stories of them dying slow painful deaths from lung cancer. It wasn't until tobacco companies started using chemicals to grow it, chemicals to make it more addictive, and rolling it in chemical coated paper that it seemed to get really bad.

I am NOT saying it was healthy or good for you, just that it was probably a lot less bad for you back then.

 

[bombastinator]

Actually I think smoking tobacco is WORSE NOW than it used to be. Native American's grew and smoked their own tobacco long before European settlers arrived and I don't recall any stories of them dying slow painful deaths from lung cancer. It wasn't until tobacco companies started using chemicals to grow it, chemicals to make it more addictive, and rolling it in chemical coated paper that it seemed to get really bad.

I am NOT saying it was healthy or good for you, just that it was probably a lot less bad for you back then.

They also used it only for ceremonies. Total intake measured in single cigarettes per year.

 

[Katya]

These studies generally miss the point. Quitting is not hard. The problem is relapse, which I did 10 YEARS after quitting. That won't happen again because vaping is a superior experience and is free for practical purposes. Typical studies aren't going to research relapses because that would take decades. If common sense can't be research they'll never know much of anything about switching to vaping.

Which is also why their 9% success rate with NRT surprised me. I've seen other numbers in the U.S., more like 5-6%, last time I looked. Some studies have even shown lower success rate of NRT vs placebo.

 

[Eskie]

Actually I think smoking tobacco is WORSE NOW than it used to be. Native American's grew and smoked their own tobacco long before European settlers arrived and I don't recall any stories of them dying slow painful deaths from lung cancer. It wasn't until tobacco companies started using chemicals to grow it, chemicals to make it more addictive, and rolling it in chemical coated paper that it seemed to get really bad.

I am NOT saying it was healthy or good for you, just that it was probably a lot less bad for you back then.

They also had a significantly shorter lifespan and as @bombastinator pointed out less use, although I'm not sure if it was limited to only ceremonies. As to modern tobacco products the use of chemically treated paper only started in the 80's (? Don't know the exact date). As to other treatments I have no idea of the chemicsl history of the tobacco industry but tobacco related illnesses and deaths goes back quite a ways once folks didn't die of pneumonia it tuberculosis and whatnot when things like antibiotics came along.

I do not believe there has been any "safe" combustible tobacco product since folks first discovered it.

 

[bombastinator]

They also had a significantly shorter lifespan and as @bombastinator pointed out less use, although I'm not sure if it was limited to only ceremonies.

It may have depended a lot on which nation. The only one I know even a tiny bit about is the Lakota, and they didn’t generally farm (barring wild rice) plus it’s too cold in the Midwest for tobacco plants to grow well, so they would have had to trade for it.

As to modern tobacco products the use of chemically treated paper only started in the 80's (? Don't know the exact date). As to other treatments I have no idea of the chemicsl history of the tobacco industry

Iirc it’s all trade secrets but there are creepy rumors galore. A lot of them have to do with sheet tobacco, which is more or less blotting paper made out of tobacco which absorbs various coatings pretty well. It is then shredded and called tobacco again before being made into cigarettes.

but tobacco related illnesses and deaths goes back quite a ways once folks didn't die of pneumonia it tuberculosis and whatnot when things like antibiotics came along.

I do not believe there has been any "safe" combustible tobacco product since folks first discovered it.

A lot of non combustible ones are dangerous too. There’s snuff and chewing tobacco which both have their own localized cancer types. Tar is tar.

 

[ScottP]

I do not believe there has been any "safe" combustible tobacco product since folks first discovered it.

Again I specifically said it was not ever safe or healthy, but that how bad it is has gotten worse over time. I doubt the natives used insecticides, added chemicals to make it more addictive, or rolled it in chemical coated paper, and they certainly didn't add carpet glue to the paper to make it "fire safe" as the government required in the last 10 years or so. My point is simply that today's cigarettes are significantly worse for you than they were in the 1980's which were worse than the cigarettes of the 1960's and those cigarettes were probably worse for you than what the Native Americans smoked in their pipes.

No matter what has been added, tobacco combustion has always produced tar and carbon monoxide and so has always been bad for health.

 

[Eskie]

A lot of non combustible ones are dangerous too. There’s snuff and chewing tobacco which both have their own localized cancer types. Tar is tar.

I agree with you the changes over the years complicate identifying every bad choice made in tobacco processing regarding health.

The chewing tobacco thing is more interesting. We've a seen stories of horrible mouth cancers in folks who use it, but the evidence isn't as strong as you might think. It varies with the method of preparing the tobacco and apparently the type available in the US or Europe may not pose the levels of risk seen in other countries like India. And Snus is tobacco pressed up against and absorbed through your gums like chewing tobacco but is viewed as a safer alternative. I'm not advocating for chewing tobacco, it's just interesting how much unlike cigarettes the risks vary from location to
location.

Also tobacco does not contain tar. Tar is produced in the combustion process. I still wouldn't use chewing tobacco myself, but it doesn't seem to be in the same risk class as cigarettes. Yeah, I was surprised by that too, as I assumed the risk was high.

 

[bombastinator]

I agree with you the changes over the years complicate identifying every bad choice made in tobacco processing regarding health.

The chewing tobacco thing is more interesting. We've a seen stories of horrible mouth cancers in folks who use it, but the evidence isn't as strong as you might think. It varies with the method of preparing the tobacco and apparently the type available in the US or Europe may not pose the levels of risk seen in other countries like India. And Snus is tobacco pressed up against and absorbed through your gums like chewing tobacco but is viewed as a safer alternative. I'm not advocating for chewing tobacco, it's just interesting how much unlike cigarettes the risks vary from location to
location.

Also tobacco does not contain tar. Tar is produced in the combustion process. I still wouldn't use chewing tobacco myself, but it doesn't seem to be in the same risk class as cigarettes. Yeah, I was surprised by that too, as I assumed the risk was high.

I wonder if it has anything to do with growing location? Tobacco absorbs all kinds of stuff from the soil it’s grown in. It’s so good at it they use it to clean up superfund sites iirc. There’s a lot of radium in American soil in tobacco growing areas.

 

[DaveP]

It may have depended a lot on which nation. The only one I know even a tiny bit about is the Lakota, and they didn’t generally farm (barring wild rice) plus it’s too cold in the Midwest for tobacco plants to grow well, so they would have had to trade for it.

Iirc it’s all trade secrets but there are creepy rumors galore. A lot of them have to do with sheet tobacco, which is more or less blotting paper made out of tobacco which absorbs various coatings pretty well. It is then shredded and called tobacco again before being made into cigarettes.

A lot of non combustible ones are dangerous too. There’s snuff and chewing tobacco which both have their own localized cancer types. Tar is tar.

I have lots of friends who worked until retirement at Brown and Williamson Tobacco in our town. They mentioned one day that sheet tobacco included sweepings from the factory floor. Scraps, sweepings, and who knows what else was in there. They didn't waste anything. I used to service high speed computer printers and xerographic production printers in their data processing facility. The whole building was high tech and richly furnished. Tobacco (at that time) was a higher profit business. They and their employees benefited richly from the high profit margins. The employee parking lot was always full of high end new vehicles.

The only no smoking signs I ever saw were posted around tanks that fed the plant. Those obviously held gases used for heating and other needs. You could smoke everywhere else, including inside the computer room next to the data processing equipment. It was one of the only data centers I serviced that didn't scream bloody murder if they smelled cigarette smoke. Multi-platter storage devices don't get along with smoke particles! They had high tech A/C units with high end particulate filters all over in data processing.

 

[Eskie]

I wonder if it has anything to do with growing location? Tobacco absorbs all kinds of stuff from the soil it’s grown in. It’s so good at it they use it to clean up superfund sites iirc. There’s a lot of radium in American soil in tobacco growing areas.

I remember stories which might be urban legend that asbestos was added to the tobacco for chewing to help create "microcuts" in the gum tissue to allow for better absorption, and which would certainly be pretty damn carcinogenic, but in my reading of the literature could never find evidence to confirm it. Most of the stuff is in dental journals, which makes sense as most oral cancers are diagnosed by dentists, so it's a little more specialized and not as broadly read as the medical journals.

But with tobacco companies who knows what they do behind closed doors and nondisclosure agreements.

 

[bombastinator]

I remember stories which might be urban legend that asbestos was added to the tobacco for chewing to help create "microcuts" in the gum tissue to allow for better absorption, and which would certainly be pretty damn carcinogenic, but in my reading of the literature could never find evidence to confirm it. Most of the stuff is in dental journals, which makes sense as most oral cancers are diagnosed by dentists, so it's a little more specialized and not as broadly read as the medical journals.

But with tobacco companies who knows what they do behind closed doors and nondisclosure agreements.

I never heard asbestos. I did hear fiberglass though. Fiberglass more or less replaced asbestos at one point. It’s a moderately recent invention though. Newer than chewing tobacco anyway.

 

[ScottP]

I remember stories which might be urban legend that asbestos was added to the tobacco for chewing to help create "microcuts" in the gum tissue to allow for better absorption, and which would certainly be pretty damn carcinogenic, but in my reading of the literature could never find evidence to confirm it. Most of the stuff is in dental journals, which makes sense as most oral cancers are diagnosed by dentists, so it's a little more specialized and not as broadly read as the medical journals.

But with tobacco companies who knows what they do behind closed doors and nondisclosure agreements.

I heard that it was fiberglass, not asbestos. Like you, I have never found any corroborating evidence though.

 

[muth]

I've had friends in the medical field do the same thing. Last one was a friend who's a pulmonary specialist out of Harvard at one of their hospitals in Boston who was excited to have a new way to help his smokers. All of them also agreed without hesitation that nicotine wasn't their concern, cigarettes were.

Also, despite claims to the contrary about other NRT like gum and patches not being used long term, I've known more than one person who continues to use gum for more than a year. And now that it's OTC there's no medical monitoring of its use, and folks can keep buying and using it as long as they want.

There are particular people who develop terrible vascular problems from nicotine no matter how it's delivered. They also have the toughest nicotine addiction and will not stop even when they see themselves having amputations from using it. So severity of addiction varies, and it can be bad for some, not many, to use long term, but under normal circumstances I'd worry more about pollutants inhaled and chemicals in the food chain than about my nicotine use.

And the fact that we also get the satisfaction of inhale/exhale and yummy flavors, we find it easier to cut down on the nic. At least, I did. I can vape 0 nic sometimes and it doesn't even bother me. But I have to have my nic. Probably all in my head

 

[muth]

I never heard asbestos. I did hear fiberglass though. Fiberglass more or less replaced asbestos at one point. It’s a moderately recent invention though. Newer than chewing tobacco anyway.

Ugh! If true, that is just sadistic.

 

[bombastinator]

Ugh! If true, that is just sadistic.

It might very well not be. If it was still in there it would be pretty easy to find if someone wanted to look for it. I heard about it specifically when I was a kid and specifically about one brand: SKOL. Maybe it was in there for a period of time 30-40 years ago. Maybe it was an urban legend.

 

[Eskie]

Could fall into the "vaping is worse than smoking" catagory to scare folks away from it. If that's the case I'll say it was effective. And without evidence anywhere to support it I'm inclined to think that's ithe case. I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

 

[teaquer]

I found the following statements in the NY Times article...pretty amazing...for both what they convey and also what they don't.

"In their editorial, Drs. Borrelli and O’Connor pointed to other research on smoking cessation therapies: In one study nicotine-replacement therapy and the antidepressant buproprion (Wellbutrin) achieved slightly higher abstinence rates than did e-cigarettes in this latest trial. The prescription drug varenicline (Chantix) has performed even moderately better. Moreover, these products have been proven safe, they said."

Those 2 meds achieved "slightly higher abstinence rates" and "performed even moderately better" than did ecigarettes. Yeah, but with what known potential side effects to those who took them?

I'd love for 2 sets of known side effects to be shown...including behavioral, emotional, and mental ones experienced by (1) people using those medications to quit smoking and (2) people using ecigarettes to quit smoking. I don't recall hearing, nor reading about, anyone's ecigarette use contributing to them attempting to nor actually commiting suicide, becoming manic depressive, having very vivid nightmares and even such disturbing thoughts during the day, and many other side effects experienced by people taking those meds. I would think that the medical community would've reported them, and the anti-vaping zealots would've shouted from the rooftops about them...if they were experienced by ecigarette users.

 

[teaquer]

I have not had a cigarette in 8 years. I’ve spent my share of $$ over the years finding what is best for me. I make my own juice without flavoring. My response is to CHANTEX. I took Chiantex for 2 months. I am an active, type A personality. I get up and get going every morning. One day I realized I had no will to do anything. I laid in bed and thought about ending my life. That scared the heck out of me. I got off CHANTEX and never looked back. I had a doctor friend say he would never prescribe CHANTEX. He said anything that alters the “emotional” and “satisfaction” portions of the brain are dangerous. His opinion only. I know my experience with it. I have friends who have stopped smoking using CHANTEX. I commend them. It was not for me. I get tired of defending my vaping and mostly just look at dissenters and smile.