New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers

[stols001]

Well, I think that ex-smokers are turning to vaping at a younger age. I'm not suggesting that we recruit never-vapers to vape for 20 years. However, a reasonable (if complicated) longitudinal study could be done, taking into account years/amount of smoking, vs. switching to vaping at younger ages (which I do see, pretty commonly on the board, from time to time). If my kiddo were still vaping, he'd be an excellent recruit. He smoked for about a year, and never more than a few cigarettes a day, and then was a pretty sub0hm, chain-vaping vaper for a while. I do think that as people switch at a younger age we could get reasonable, if not perfect results.

Most doctors seem to feel that there comes a time after a person stops smoking (via vaping or not) that cancers and things down the road really aren't as connected to smoking as someone who say, quit a week ago.

I also think there IS an (albeit smaller) group who tried vaping rather than smoking, and preferred it. Whether they will be into vaping for the long haul remains to be seen.

Also, different cultures approach vaping quite differently. England is really banging away at harm reduction and switching to vaping. I wouldn't be shocked if a decent cohort study could be devised there, if not today, then fairly soon. Also, other EU places, Sweden seems to be doing quite well in studying Swedish snus and etc.

It doesn't have to happen in the US, it doesn't have to be a "perfect" "never-smoker" study, but I don't think the "artifact" of former smoking makes it impossible.... It's something that would have to be addressed and quantified, and worked around, but I don't think it would be impossible to conduct, albeit some caution would be needed in terms of results. I think dual use would have to be a completely separate category, and etc.

Just because something isn't "perfect" doesn't mean it has to be "hard" "meaningless" "impossible" etc.

Anna

 

[Eskie]

Long term studies on ex-smokers are useless though, it's near impossible to filter out the effects of smoking on health. You need a big number of never-smokers vaping for years, best with nicotine to cover that angle as well. Seeing how unpopular vaping is with never-smokers that's not going to happen anytime soon.

It is studied in multiple fields and I'm not arguing for dropping research.

I'm not arguing against healthy skepticism, I'm arguing against blanket demands for impossible studies.

Looking at ex smokers isn't really useless. There was a nice study in the Annals of Internal Medicine (sorry I'm phone only so I can't link to specifics without my PC data collection file) that showed over a 2 year study exsmokers with COPD who vaped had fewer acute exacerbations than smokers with COPD. That's useful information to have.

Yes, it will require longer observation to see if things like cancer risk decrease over time, but that's true even in exsmokers. The risk does not drop to nonsmoker risk levels for a good 10 years.

 

[CMD-Ky]

I don't care one way or the other whether studies are done. I don't care what these studies "may suggest" or "inferentially indicate". My anecdotal experience is all that I need or that I rely upon.

I understand that anecdotal date is not data. I also have learned that "anecdotal" is actually Latin for "I can't explain what is happening so I choose to ignore and disparage what you say".

 

[stols001]

Anecdotal data is perfectly useful, IMO. My lived experience tends to be rather important to me. My lived experience tells me that my body can not only stay the same, but heal itself as I vape.. That matters to me a huge amount, as how I think/believe/act also has an impact on my physical system and how IT reacts.

I never, from my very first cigarette, felt that it was "improving" my life in any way, I was just dumb enough to think I could smoke for a while and then quit with ease (I wasn't reading studies at that time in my life, nor paying attention to my dad's "anecdotal experience" with the DIFFICULTY of quitting smoking, I was in my "brain has not finished developing phase." But, even as I LOVED smoking, I do realize it was the addiction itself and the ability to satisfy it that I loved, not cigarettes per se. I mean, they are gross, your body does feel it, and etc.

With that said, I'm not a fan of poorly designed, negative studies, but I think the proof is going to be in continuing those studies and as e-cigs become more "familiar" to researchers and they can examine findings better.

With that also said, many studies are poorly designed (IMO on purpose) to feed various interest groups. They can be easy to spot if one is an informed vaper, unfortunately a new vaper and/or the general public might read it a little differently. Which is a shame, and which is why ALL studies should be continued since getting rid of "bad" science is rather impossible in this day and age. It can only be refuted with reputable science, and since we are going to get the bad stuff splattered across the media and the social media, we sort of need reasonable researchers designing well-thought out studies, and those reports need to be available as well. Including cohort studies.... When we are able to.

Anna

 

[awsum140]

The thing that is interesting about all these "studies" is how they go from one "hazard" to another as soon as the latest one is debunked by a real, scientific, documented, study using real world parameters. Kind of like throwing things at the wall to see if something will stick.

 

[untar]

@Opinionated @stols001
You're both missing the context, take a look at what I initially replied to. That was a very specific demand, very similar to what some government agencies are suggesting, that can't ever be achieved by including ex-smokers in the study. I don't deny there's useful data in ex-smoker studies, but if ones goal is to determine the health effects of vaping on humans then they are scientifically (and in countering our opponents) useless in that endevour.
You're not "thinking about the children"

The thing that is interesting about all these "studies" is how they go from one "hazard" to another as soon as the latest one is debunked by a real, scientific, documented, study using real world parameters. Kind of like throwing things at the wall to see if something will stick.

Exactly, and that will never end to be a tactic of our opponents. Let's not join them in thinking of more studies that need to be done. I could do that 24/7 for a long time and still come up with new stuff that needs to be tested.

We have emission studies, we have toxicological data and risk assessments based on those. We have no cases of harm done by inhaling liquids. In the EU there is piles of emission data added day by day due to TPD requirements and not a single alarm has gone off yet. To me, this alone should be enough to carefully regulate vaping in a proportionate and reasonable manner. We don't need more studies before vaping can be declared "ok".

I'm not saying no research should be done. The more we know the better, and I'm the type that's interested in science (if you can't tell by now), but that there's still research that can be done should not be used to spread fear and lies.

 

[PugLady]

I was responding to another members response, not to the original post. This is the quote I was responding to in reference to the fact that there is a very large number of new vapers in the community that never smoked:
QUOTE: Longterm harm done to nonsmokers would only matter if someone demonstrated there are enough such users out there to justify the effort. I really doubt, regardless of how popular vaping becomes that nonsmokers who vape as much as exsmokers would ever reach a large enough population to justify that expense. END QUOTE.

The beauty of this forum is that we can all come together with different opinions Ideas and vaping community concerns and share.
I have the utmost respect for anyone else's opinion & we aren't all going to agree and thats ok.
I would hope that unbiased scientists are testing different long term aspects of vaping. I had to personally go from 3 & 6 mg juice to zero nic due to my personal Degenerative Disc Disease. Nicotine making its way through the system even micrograms of it by any delivery system and accelerates the degeneration of the discs in a DDD spine and anyones spine that has any degree of degeneration of the spine. That fact is one that I'm very glad to know as I'm fighting for my mobility right now in my life. 6 surgeries last year and 2 more major ones this year.
I would always rather be on the side of true proven knowledge, especially when it effects my health. I do my own research homework on where published scientific info comes from as so much that comes out especially about vaping is untrue.
However it's important to get the info and get to the truth or false of it ourselves.
I wasn't calling for specific scientific research to be done on any group, I was however clarifying the fact that never smoking teens and twenty somethings are definitely vaping in growing numbers, we see them everywhere. The idea that there aren't that many of them just isn't true. So if scientific studies were to be done following the health of those never smoking vapers, especially such young ppl I say good and there are definitely plenty of them, surely more tgan enough to deem any relative study.
There's nothing wrong with health research imo, and that's all my post was, same as yours, my opinion of someone elses opinion..

 

[awsum140]

I think the driving force behind these "studies", especially the ones producing scare headlines, is that vaping looks like smoking, therefor it HAS to be inherently bad for you and we will find that "something bad" no matter ho much time, money and effort it may take. In the mean time, the semi-informed see those headlines and are convinced that vaping is bad. A win-win situation for the naysayers.

 

[stols001]

@untar I agree with you that misleading research should not be published and batted about society. 100% I agree with that.

I also agree that there may one day be enough never smokers who CHOOSE to be vapers (whatever their reasons) for a cohort study someday, although I don't have a magic crystal ball.

I also agree that smoking artefacts would have to be controlled for and dealt with, but I do not believe that at some point such a cohort study could be designed in such a way as to still yield useful information. I am not a researcher and while I have worked in the science field as a youth, I'm not going to try to get into any more specifics than I have. I do believe that a longterm vaping study (controlling for what can be controlled for, and hopefully with some never-smokers in the group (even if it is not the larger group) if well done could be useful, fruitful, and informative. I hope one is conducted eventually, EVEN IF ONLY for the fact that it would mean vaping is being accepted as a long-term harm reduction method and vaping continues to grow enough that such a study is not only possible, but relevant.

I'm not suggesting recruiting today, and I am fairly certain there are other more urgent things that could be studied. I just find longitudinal studies to be very satisfying as one is "aggregating" long term, real world results, and I hope vaping gets to that point. I think I am allowed to have that opinion and desire, and I don't consider it even slightly unreasonable.

Anna

 

[ScottP]

This debate on what should or shouldn't be in a "long term" study is moot considering the product in question hasn't been around long enough to for any collected data to be considered "long term".

 

[Opinionated]

@Opinionated @stols001
You're both missing the context, take a look at what I initially replied to. That was a very specific demand, very similar to what some government agencies are suggesting, that can't ever be achieved by including ex-smokers in the study. I don't deny there's useful data in ex-smoker studies, but if ones goal is to determine the health effects of vaping on humans then they are scientifically (and in countering our opponents) useless in that endevour.
You're not "thinking about the children"

Exactly, and that will never end to be a tactic of our opponents. Let's not join them in thinking of more studies that need to be done. I could do that 24/7 for a long time and still come up with new stuff that needs to be tested.

We have emission studies, we have toxicological data and risk assessments based on those. We have no cases of harm done by inhaling liquids. In the EU there is piles of emission data added day by day due to TPD requirements and not a single alarm has gone off yet. To me, this alone should be enough to carefully regulate vaping in a proportionate and reasonable manner. We don't need more studies before vaping can be declared "ok".

I'm not saying no research should be done. The more we know the better, and I'm the type that's interested in science (if you can't tell by now), but that there's still research that can be done should not be used to spread fear and lies.

Okay sweetie... your gonna have to refresh my memory as to exactly why I'm being tagged here...

I know i think I posted in this thread once ... but this topic as a whole I chalk up to junk science.. so you can either link me to my own post that your addressing, or I'll have to go back and figure it out later before I can figure out what is now being discussed, because quite frankly I forgot what this was even about (other than I don't believe in this BS)

 

[untar]

your gonna have to refresh my memory as to exactly why I'm being tagged here

Because...umh... your name is so similar to "Eskie"?

 

[Opinionated]

Because...umh... your name is so similar to "Eskie"?

Face it. .. you missed me..

 

[Mowgli]

Drinking water looks like drinking vodka = ban water - save the children!

Mowgli 2018 - Cosponsor of the H2O21 bill

 

[stols001]

I don't think it's moot. I think there should be researchers planning for it and looking for funding now. Longitudinal studies are devilish to plan and complete, and very expensive.

I don't think it's time for "recruitment". I just take issue with the idea that doing one in the future is pointless/worthless/etc. I don't think it will be pointless/worthless etc., not if it's done right. That would be the key.

Anna

 

[CMD-Ky]

Drinking water looks like drinking vodka = ban water - save the children!

Mowgli 2018 - Cosponsor of the H2O21 bill

Where can I sign on, finally this issue is being addressed. I drank water as a child and now I drink vodka. Water: gateway to vodka.

 

[awsum140]

Ban ginger ale, it looks like beer...save even more of those children.

 

[Eskie]

Eh, the best we'll ever see is a retrospective study of nonsmoking vapers over a 20 year period. Which is kinda late to find out oops it wasn't a great idea.

This is the type of study that needs to be in a program like the NIH data collection set they're assembling called All of UsNational Institutes of Health (NIH) — All of Us

Then you can look back and say what's actually significant and what's not.

 

[stols001]

Man, I love the NIH. Both of my parents worked for them and so did I for a while, after college. You can say what you like about Federal agencies, and I'm sure it's gone downhill, to a degree, but the stuff they come up with remains pretty revolutionary at times. What is DONE with what they do? Not always awesome, but they were one of my favorite employers in the entire world.

Looking back, I wish I would have gotten my master's in biology to move up the research ladder, but they offered it to me right after I just had my first KID, and I decided housekeeping jobs where I could bring him along was more important. Happy/sad etc..

Anna

 

[gerrymi]

I am seeing more and more teens getting involved in vaping...the new trends in vaping are definitely appealing to the current teenage generation. I hardly ever see any of them smoking cigarettes.

This is only my opinion, of course, but to me:

If a teenager decides s/he wants to inhale some "smoke", exhale some "smoke" and uses nicotine-0mg. e-juice...I think it would be much healthier for him/her to vape...rather than smoke...

On the other hand...

If a teenager decides s/he wants to inhale some "smoke", exhale some "smoke" and get a hit of nicotine...I (still) think it would be much healthier for him/her to vape...rather than smoke...



..