Provaping verse Antivaping
- Thread starter DeAnna2112
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If neither pro-vaping nor anti-vaping research can substantiate lack of harm from long term use, I'm not sure that anyone can do/claim much which is either to continue vaping until long-term studies are done (I do hope to be around for that, if I live 30 more years) that are relevant and valid, minimize harm which I do (my new e-liquid has 25 *drops* of flavoring in 30 mls and that's plenty for me.... It still tastes good, it's not super sweet, and I like it. If someone wants to put 20% flavoring in their juice, that's fine with me. If they want to vape 50 mls a day that's not my business, I am not the FDA. I keep my watts low and am getting ready to use TC, though I have to say user mode on the Tesla mod is pretty awesome for keeping my vape cool, that sucker's amazing... so far. 
I minimize my risk like I do most things (oh, except smoking, as I am unable to smoke less than 2 ppd even with the greatest effort) so I do think vaping has an advantage there.... You have a certain amount of control over what you are using as it's less addictive than cigarettes (IMO, and I've had plenty of real life examples, yesterday I sat through a 2 hour meeting happily with no issues or need to vape or use other nic devices) so I'm going to say that harm reduction is easier (for me), even when it comes to *usage time. To me, that's a win if it WERE cigs (which it could NEVER be). That said, if we weren't having these discussions, I might not even KNOW what the unknown variables are, so I don't think they're useless, I just think that there's no proof of long term use. I can certainly understand worry about that, I'm just choosing to not worry about that for now. Maybe I am in a way different thought frame just starting out than those who've vaped for a while. I think debate and information is valuable, I am just going to make what good decisions I can (for now) and hope it doesn't work out horribly.
I'm not quite sure what is worse than a heart attack, COPD, and lung cancer, and it's not like I'm not at risk for that already, so that's.... kind of that for me. If something with e-cigs decides to fell me and it's dreadful, I am a firm believer in the right to die if life becomes unlivable from some horrible mass effect down the line, but I have my doubts about that.... Sorry to throw that red herring in there.... But we all have choices, all the way down the line.
Anna
I minimize my risk like I do most things (oh, except smoking, as I am unable to smoke less than 2 ppd even with the greatest effort) so I do think vaping has an advantage there.... You have a certain amount of control over what you are using as it's less addictive than cigarettes (IMO, and I've had plenty of real life examples, yesterday I sat through a 2 hour meeting happily with no issues or need to vape or use other nic devices) so I'm going to say that harm reduction is easier (for me), even when it comes to *usage time. To me, that's a win if it WERE cigs (which it could NEVER be). That said, if we weren't having these discussions, I might not even KNOW what the unknown variables are, so I don't think they're useless, I just think that there's no proof of long term use. I can certainly understand worry about that, I'm just choosing to not worry about that for now. Maybe I am in a way different thought frame just starting out than those who've vaped for a while. I think debate and information is valuable, I am just going to make what good decisions I can (for now) and hope it doesn't work out horribly.
I'm not quite sure what is worse than a heart attack, COPD, and lung cancer, and it's not like I'm not at risk for that already, so that's.... kind of that for me. If something with e-cigs decides to fell me and it's dreadful, I am a firm believer in the right to die if life becomes unlivable from some horrible mass effect down the line, but I have my doubts about that.... Sorry to throw that red herring in there....
But we all have choices, all the way down the line. Anna
It's all going to turn into the Vapor Games along with the Hunger Games.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
The problem with e-cigarettes and long-term use is that we don't know what we don't know. I vape unflavoured e-liquids with TC so I hope that PG, VG and NIC are not a problem on the long run...
It is seriously hard to find research(ers) with no agenda. We do have two that I can think of quickly. The Royal College of Physicians and Dr Farsolinas (spelling?).
Dr. F had a few vapers angry with what he said about the diacetyl issue. It is what it is.
We can only try to figure out what is right for each of us.
Dr. F had a few vapers angry with what he said about the diacetyl issue. It is what it is.
We can only try to figure out what is right for each of us.
I view vaping as a harm reduction mechanism compared to my former 2PAD smoking habit. Is it 100% safe? 80% better than smoking? I don't know and don't really care. My lungs are clear and I don't wheeze when I exercise like I did when I smoked. If I die earlier than the actuarial charts predict, it's probably something I did to affect my lifespan. Maybe it's a result of the genetic mix in my family tree.
Fried foods and too much salt and sugar coupled with a lack of daily exercise will kill you over time. Too much alcohol will do the same.
Life is full of choices. Our time on Earth is affected by a combination of genetics, lifestyle choices, and what we put into our bodies on a daily basis. Changing habits early in life helps more than waiting until you are older. The damage we do to our bodies is cumulative over time.
Fried foods and too much salt and sugar coupled with a lack of daily exercise will kill you over time. Too much alcohol will do the same.
Life is full of choices. Our time on Earth is affected by a combination of genetics, lifestyle choices, and what we put into our bodies on a daily basis. Changing habits early in life helps more than waiting until you are older. The damage we do to our bodies is cumulative over time.
The question that I often ask myself is, would I stop vaping if it was proved that vaping was harmful and my answer is the same has when I smoked with the known health risks, no I wouldn't. I thought that I was going to die a smoker.
If there would have been a safer way to smoke, I would have tried it and that's why I enjoy these types of discussions on vaping, knowing that for now at least, I will remain vaping and hopefully find a safer way to do so.
I enjoy Mikepetro's thread. I see it has advice rather than a pro or anti vaping thread and take from it whatever I can as long as it suits my needs.
If there would have been a safer way to smoke, I would have tried it and that's why I enjoy these types of discussions on vaping, knowing that for now at least, I will remain vaping and hopefully find a safer way to do so.
I enjoy Mikepetro's thread. I see it has advice rather than a pro or anti vaping thread and take from it whatever I can as long as it suits my needs.
And this is a difference in people. The first time I tried to quit smoking I was 27. By then, I couldn't quit because I was addicted. (I began smoking at the age of 13)
Since then, I smoked because I couldn't beat the addiction, not enjoyment. I very much didn't enjoy smoking, but the addiction for me was extremely strong, and everything I did to help me quit failed. I can say by the time I was 30, I absolutely hated smoking.. yet still couldn't beat the addiction.
After a while, I smoked feeling like it was an impossibility for me to quit, and that I would die with a cigarette in my hand.
For me personally, I never vaped in order to replace smoking. I vaped to get away from the addiction. I have made two attempts to quit vaping, the last went exceedingly well and I went 5 months without a vape - without going back to cigarettes. I'm proud of that.
I had a weak moment and picked up a vape again, but quitting again and permanently is something I intend to do. I don't want to be tethered to something that has no intrinsic value to me. I have hobbies I love, and I can take breaks without sucking on something - or, what I suck on will have some intrinsic value lol... I find no value in vaping outside of getting me far enough removed from my addiction that I can eventually walk away. For that, is has tons of value but the hobby aspect has nothing for me, personally.
We ARE all different in this, as what each of us see in both smoking and vaping is different. I see a lot of people saying they loved to smoke, but honestly, I don't understand that so much. I have rather not for a very long time, LONG before it ever affected my health.
So, for me, the answer to the question would I quit vaping if I found out it was bad for me, is, I would quit even if I found out it was good for me.
I think you need to look at the method researchers go through in these studies. A researcher has to come up with an idea for experiments they'd like to perform, and explanation of why, how they'll do it, and how much it will cost (sounds simple, but believe me, grants applications can be quite large and the researcher is not getting paid to write that thing up). Then with a completed proposal they submit it someplace. For say standard medical research that will either be the NIH, which issues most granted in the US, or if pharmaceutical related, to the industry. It might also be submitted to a non profit organization like the Arthritis Foundation as a funding source as well.
That is a vast simplification of the process. One factor that drives researchers is the old "publish or perish". If you don't turn out solid work that gets published in peer reviewed journals, you won't get more grant money and the institution you're affiliated with won't be handing out more lab space for you to play in. That causes the following problems to enter the picture. First, can you set up a protocol that looks good to the grantor and state what outcome you're expecting? Second, can your findings be of value to the grantor?
It is not unusual for a researcher to do a few little trials of their idea before submission. The importance of this is to be reasonably sure that the outcome predicted for that grant comes in. If it's a submission to say industry, you would prefer to come up with a positive finding, not a negative finding. This will color a researcher's view of the matter. The stock answer with all research is negative data is as important as positive data. However when it comes to negative data, folks will consider it important if it challenges an already established theory. Positive data is a lot easier to sell. So the grant applications are prepared in a manner suitable to the funding source to increase the chances of them giving you money.
I do believe for most (not all) researchers out there any "agenda" is more a matter of what will get my work funded by the people I'm asking for the money. Right now places like the NIH are handing money out to see if vaping is really provides the harm reduction expected. So they're great with a positive finding of no harm, as well as positive studies that find bad stuff in your drip tip.
But, money gathered from industry is the bigger problem. Look at the knee jerk reaction to any data coming from BT or BP. And as to a non profit "we hate vaping" foundation, you're not going to get money from them to show vaping is be best thing since the invention of the wheel. It is only very recent that funding from an objective source like the NIH is occurring. Before, it was either the vaping industry and motivated vapers, or the "save the children" foundations which made sure to fund stuff that would cast vaping as a product of Satan.
The bottom line is, it's not the researcher (most not all) with the agenda, but the funding source. Let's face it, if a researcher does a little labwork before submitting (or even preparing) a grant, and they found Plutonium flying out, they won't be looking to Joytech for grant money.
So until now there's been lots of funding for proving vaping is worse than driving drunk wearing a blindfold, and only recently more money opening up for the confirmation of harm reduction and improvements in public health.
Last edited:
The first time I quit smoking I adopted a Lifesaver habit. When I finally went back to smoking I still had the Peppermint Lifesaver habit. I had to switch to sugarless Breath Savers because the Lifesavers were causing cavities!
Vaping was the cure for all of that, but I still carry a roll of Sugarless Breath Savers sometimes, but it's just for the purpose they are intended for instead of a quitting aid.
Vaping was the cure for all of that, but I still carry a roll of Sugarless Breath Savers sometimes, but it's just for the purpose they are intended for instead of a quitting aid.
Last edited:
You are right - Royal College of Physicians is a group of doctors, not scientists. They did not do any research, they do not have any additional data. All they did was to provide their opinion. Happens so, it mostly coincide with my opinion, and I am happy with these "5%". Of course, it could easily became 10% with developing e-cig hardware and increasing juice consumption, but for now 5% are good enough for me.
While they aren't "scientists" they do have Doctorates in the field of medicine and are trained in the application of the Scientific Method to arrive at a Hypothesis.
Well, I think Eskie's point is a good one. Researchers do have to go where the $$ is, and unless you are a shill paid directly by BT funds, most researchers aren't particularly more or less interested in e-cigs on any kind of personal level, though certainly there may be some wanting to study vaping as a harm-reduction method, without necessarily an agenda concerning the outcome, but in the USA at least, I do think the money available from certain interest groups dwarfs say, the NIH which is having to study a billion different things.... Though I'm glad to see that e-cigs are being studied, now.
I think a lot of the blogs, while super interesting (and I find many of their criticisms to have some validity) are really more activists, in the sense that they want to look at *flaws* in research funded by BT and other interest groups, and I think there's certainly a place for them but much of it is pointing out validity, not always doing research, per se (I'm sure there are exceptions).
I've found a lot of really good studies (though not necessarily e-cigs), via Australia. They may do less studies overall, but much of it is well-designed, reasonable, not overarching variables, etc. My dad worked part time as the Research Director after he retired at Adelaide University.... he would email me stuff concerning my health condition from time to time, and I have to say the methodology on those was pretty good. One of the reasons I take NAC, it's good for the brain and depression, though one of my docs told me that it's great for reducing inflammation and recommended I continue due to my smoking history. He's a smart dude, and a former smoker, so I accept many of his recommendations.
I'd say one of the hardest things to study right now IS e-cigs for a lot of reasons, including political ones. I'd have to admit that if I were a researcher seeking funding and publication to maintain tenure and were not e-cigging myself, I wouldn't want to necessarily TRY to touch that with a hot potato at the moment, given the climate in the US. It would be a lot easier to study something else to advance my career. Plus, if you vape, and study e-cigs, everyone's going to be "Oh, that researcher has no objectivity, anyway."
This is a very good point as far as research, Eskie, thank you. If you don't look at the funding source, you aren't even looking at the starting point.
Anna
I think a lot of the blogs, while super interesting (and I find many of their criticisms to have some validity) are really more activists, in the sense that they want to look at *flaws* in research funded by BT and other interest groups, and I think there's certainly a place for them but much of it is pointing out validity, not always doing research, per se (I'm sure there are exceptions).
I've found a lot of really good studies (though not necessarily e-cigs), via Australia. They may do less studies overall, but much of it is well-designed, reasonable, not overarching variables, etc. My dad worked part time as the Research Director after he retired at Adelaide University.... he would email me stuff concerning my health condition from time to time, and I have to say the methodology on those was pretty good. One of the reasons I take NAC, it's good for the brain and depression, though one of my docs told me that it's great for reducing inflammation and recommended I continue due to my smoking history.
He's a smart dude, and a former smoker, so I accept many of his recommendations. I'd say one of the hardest things to study right now IS e-cigs for a lot of reasons, including political ones. I'd have to admit that if I were a researcher seeking funding and publication to maintain tenure and were not e-cigging myself, I wouldn't want to necessarily TRY to touch that with a hot potato at the moment, given the climate in the US. It would be a lot easier to study something else to advance my career. Plus, if you vape, and study e-cigs, everyone's going to be "Oh, that researcher has no objectivity, anyway."
This is a very good point as far as research, Eskie, thank you.
If you don't look at the funding source, you aren't even looking at the starting point.Anna
Do I trust this group of doctors from UK? I Do.
But I also Understand the Limitations of their Opinion. And I also understand at what Level the are asserting their Opinion. The Population. Not the Individual.
To me, this is a Very Important sentence that is Rarely Quoted when the "95% Safe" interpretation is mis-quoted.
"With appropriate product standards to minimize exposure to the other ingredients, it should be possible to reduce risks of physical health still further."
Trust?
Not a chance.
Publish it and submit it for review.
Like a middle school math teacher, I wanna see the work, not just the answer.
There is far too much propaganda about vaping, and too much money at stake to blindly "trust".
You mean something like this...
Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/file/3563/download?token=uV0R0Twz
Blind Trust is Definitely a Dangerous thing.
I didnt download the pdf, but the first link is heavy on discussing regulation, and very light on science.
****
" This report provides an update on the use of harm reduction in tobacco smoking, in relation to all non-tobacco nicotine products but particularly e-cigarettes. It shows that, for all the potential risks involved, harm reduction has huge potential to prevent death and disability from tobacco use, and to hasten our progress to a tobacco-free society."
*********
Unless the PDF has some hard science, yes..this is exactly what Im talking about.
Circular science to fund research.
Perhaps then you should Click on the PDF Link?
Too much for my phone.
Will look later.
Did the authors do the work?
Or is it a summary of privately funded research?
My position is that there is so much propaganda from both sides, masquerading as accepted science, that I dont trust anything that hasnt been seriously vetted, published and scrutinized.
I take it all with a mountain of salt.
I take it all with a mountain of salt.
- Status
Similar threads
