Provaping verse Antivaping

[AXIOM_1]

He definitely has a timeshare here in Phoenix too.

 

[Katdarling]

I don't believe any research on either side of the isle is going to change whether or not i vape and if it's good for me or bad. My years on this big blue marble aren't long enough to really worry about it.

I do like you, Tonee.

 

[stols001]

DeAnna,

I think that there can be areas of concern that need to be looked at and refined further. That's probably true of MANY foods/water safety/hell, didn't roundup get the smackdown recently? If huge negatives come out re: vaping, I'll certainly take a look at it. I haven't read as much research as many of you.

Personally, I think there is no inherent contradiction in being willing to vape/wanting to vape compared to cigarettes, and still wonder if it's going to be safe/how safe. I think that inherent contradiction is kind of what is making this thread contentious, and "wanting to know" is both a good thing, and a nerve-wracking thing... I think that's why I'd like more research, but I also think you are getting a bit wrapped around the axle about this. You're choosing to vape, you are spreading the message so a) clearly, one can accept vaping as a harm reduction device, while b) still wishing there were more research. I do wish there was more, I also choose to vape a the present time, without worrying extensively. At this point. I hope there will be a happy medium with the new regulations as WELL as continued research.

I'm sorry you aren't getting the responses you wish. I think a lot of research has been discussed or even completed, on this site. No need to go over every pro/con, but I totally understand your desire (I think?) I'm just not the one to be able to answer your question conclusively, though I do look at negative reports/studies when I run accross them.

Anna

 

[DPLongo22]

I know it's early, but I bring a peace offering.

Phthalates, anyone?

No, Boxed Mac and Cheese Is Not “Toxic”

 

[DaveP]

Hon Lik, the inventor of the original e-cigarette was a pharmacist. He was into harm reduction for himself and developed it for his own use as well as the masses. He hoped that pharmaceutical companies would research his invention and develop a safe alternative to tobacco cigarettes.

Little did he know that big pharma is all about profit. Or, maybe he did. I'm sure he didn't realize that one day his cig-a-like would turn into a cloud machine or spew out diacetyl, formaldehyde, or other products of high temps.

Hon Lik - Wikipedia

 

[Robino1]

let me break this down into a kindergarten level..do you think provaping research has provided you with all the knowledge you need to know about vaping? do you feel if there was a concern with vaping they would tell you, regardless if it was against provaping findings? Would they tell you? or do you believe they will only report one side of the coin? would they?

At this time and with what is available today, yes. I think provaping research has provided me with all the knowledge I need to know about vaping.

If there are concerns, yes, I feel they would tell me even if it is against provaping. That has happened before and I'm sure it may happen again as it is always being questioned when new things arise.

It ALWAYS comes out if there is something questionable. There is no hiding of information in this day and age.

I have full, repeat, FULL confidence in our groups, our scientists, our members.

We are such a curious bunch. It helps to remember that we have people from all walks of life that vape. We have doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers... you name it.. we got someone from that sector.

It's not Just us regular folk that are vaping.

I do believe that if something comes up, we will know.



*putting on my Moderator hat*

Time to back off the snarky attitudes. If it continues, I will shut this thread down.

*removing Moderator hat*


DeAnna, I know what you're trying to get at. You either have to have some trust or you don't. We, as regular people, cannot give you that. That is something that only you can decide.

I feel like you do not trust anyone to tell the truth except for Dr. F. We cannot give you more than that.

I feel like I can speak for most vapers when I say vaping worked where nothing ever did. We read as much as we can when stuff comes out. We weigh what we read and try to make sense of it. At that point, we either agree or disagree with the findings

We have faith that those that are able to dissect those findings to either debunk or confirm.

It is about trust. I do trust.

It comes down to that.

You don't trust and that's ok. We even need people that don't! Keeps everyone on their toes.

 

[Robino1]

Time for my first cup of coffee.

Gawd I hope what I wrote makes sense.....

 

[DPLongo22]

Time for my first cup of coffee.

Gawd I hope what I wrote makes sense.....

Absolutely, Robin. Always.

Grabbing cup #2 ("Winning!"), putting my "Team Naive" hat back on (with you), and taking other appropriate "action" immediately. I'll see ya on the bench.

Pass my mac & cheese please too. Heckuva breakfast, I know.

To wherever this takes y'all from here...

 

[CMD-Ky]

Time for my first cup of coffee.

Gawd I hope what I wrote makes sense.....

It did make sense and it was well stated. On a purely personal note, I lack the background to evaluate what I read about vaping. I am unable to sort out truth, half-truth and fiction in these studies. As that great American philosopher, Clint Eastwood, once said, "A man has to know his limitations". So, I do what the statisticians condemn, I rely on my own anecdotal experience. Due to vaping, I am a former smoker and I feel better.

 

[classwife]

There are never going to be absolutes.
Even with water, there is no absolute - what might be just right for one will be too much for another.
Some people blister when water touches their skin : Aquagenic urticaria - Wikipedia

Is vaping Safe ? Unsafe ? There will never be a hard line drawn, it's impossible.
Even if there were just one liquid vaped in just one device you are still dealing with many different people's reactions to that liquid and that device.
Safer than cigarettes ? As of now I believe that's an obvious and make my choice to vape rather than smoke.



The disrespectful tone and snark in this thread is getting it close to being closed.
Civil conversation can be had without calling people names or insulting them or goading for reactions (trolling).

 

[Eskie]

There are never going to be absolutes.
Even with water, there is no absolute - what might be just right for will will be too much for another.
Some people blister when water touches their skin.

Is vaping Safe ? Unsafe ? There will never be a hard line drawn, it's impossible.
Even if there were just one liquid vaped in just one device you are still dealing with many different people's reactions to that liquid and that device.

Individual's reactions and sensitivities (talking comfort around stuff like irritation) will vary. But that's not really a safety issue as that's a minor side effect. The issue is what happens when you break up vapers into different cohorts.

The most common cohort around this place is ex-smoker using vaping to stay off of them. Generally an older population possibly/probably with some health issues related to their decades of smoking. In this cohort, I think there's excellent evidence that vaping is the way to go. Maybe a little fine tuning which you might individually decide is of value for an incremental increase in safety, or just happy to go along as is, unless it's discovered (and as unlikely) that it will result in a second head growing out of your shoulder.

The second cohort are nonsmokers who turn to vaping, with or without nic in it. Occasional use, like social smoking for those that remember it, is probably not going to add additional risk to their health of any significance. A subset of that cohort are nonsmokers who vape daily, and have no intention of stopping. Now there may be folks in that group who would otherwise turn to cigarettes if vaping were not available, in which case the benefits of vaping over smoking would be in their favor. But for others who would otherwise never smoke, long term safety remains unknown.

The reason we talk about it as harm reduction is because that's a different issue than safety. Safety is an absolute, harm reduction is a risk/benefit analysis. I think we all should keep that in mind, especially when discussing this with the ANTZ crowd, as their standard is safety, while ours is harm reduction. Even the "95% safer" really must presented as a 95% reduction in risk (or more or less if the evidence bears it out).That creates a different discussion than a "this is way safer" discussion. Some might feel that's just playing with semantics, but it's really being more precise in what we're addressing and why.

 

[classwife]

But if non smokers turn to vaping instead of smoking - it is still harm reduction.
And hallelujah for that !!
How many of us wish we had had that choice to make ?

 

[Eskie]

But if non smokers turn to vaping instead of smoking - it is still harm reduction.
And hallelujah for that !!
How many of us wish we had had that choice to make ?

Oh, as I said in my prior post, it's way better to pick up vaping than smoking. The reduction in risk works for them, in some ways a greater benefit than we smokers for decades who were doing terrible things to our lungs and body. That comes down to understanding relative risk and not all folks are good with that.

 

[Robino1]

Another point that hasn't been really been addressed when it comes never smokers and vaping: How many will continue for Years down the road? I would be willing to bet that a majority will lose interest (grow up) and simply put vaping away.

That is something that hard core smokers could never do or else we wouldn't have taken the chance on vaping to begin with. Most of us started long before some if these issues had even come to light.

Were we taking a chance on our health? Hell yes. It was still better than continuing to smoke. Person after person were reporting that they got rid of that smokers cough and other maladies.

If you look back at early threads, seems as though the really only bad things had to do with individual sensitivities such pg or vg irritants.

Heck those took a while to narrow down. Some flavorings causes problems. Again, has nothing to do with the safety of the liquids. It is more to do with each individual and their particular allergies or what have you.

Again the vendors watched and listened. They started creating liquids that those with sensitivities could purchase and keep vaping rather than go back to smoking.

Damn, I keep getting on this soapbox.

Sorry

 

[mattiem]

Thank you @Robino1 and @classwife for your words of wisdom and sanity. I have been following this thread from the get go and wanted to answer the original question but I really don't think it is possible. I vape instead of smoking. If not for vaping I would still be smoking. I consider it harm reduction.

As others have said...Nothing in our lives can be guaranteed 100% safe and I don't think there is an answer to the confusing question that this thread is about. Like a few of the other posters here I really don't understand what you are wanting to hear. It seems to me like you are just trying to get us to agree with you that there is a problem when to most of us, no problem exists. as always, JMHO

 

[Alien Traveler]

Interesting thread. Not because it gives any answers, but because it shows people's attitude.
I am sad, but not surprised.

 

[Opinionated]

Individual's reactions and sensitivities (talking comfort around stuff like irritation) will vary. But that's not really a safety issue as that's a minor side effect. The issue is what happens when you break up vapers into different cohorts.

The most common cohort around this place is ex-smoker using vaping to stay off of them. Generally an older population possibly/probably with some health issues related to their decades of smoking. In this cohort, I think there's excellent evidence that vaping is the way to go. Maybe a little fine tuning which you might individually decide is of value for an incremental increase in safety, or just happy to go along as is, unless it's discovered (and as unlikely) that it will result in a second head growing out of your shoulder.

The second cohort are nonsmokers who turn to vaping, with or without nic in it. Occasional use, like social smoking for those that remember it, is probably not going to add additional risk to their health of any significance. A subset of that cohort are nonsmokers who vape daily, and have no intention of stopping. Now there may be folks in that group who would otherwise turn to cigarettes if vaping were not available, in which case the benefits of vaping over smoking would be in their favor. But for others who would otherwise never smoke, long term safety remains unknown.

The reason we talk about it as harm reduction is because that's a different issue than safety. Safety is an absolute, harm reduction is a risk/benefit analysis. I think we all should keep that in mind, especially when discussing this with the ANTZ crowd, as their standard is safety, while ours is harm reduction. Even the "95% safer" really must presented as a 95% reduction in risk (or more or less if the evidence bears it out).That creates a different discussion than a "this is way safer" discussion. Some might feel that's just playing with semantics, but it's really being more precise in what we're addressing and why.

And this is why I said, when it comes to safety - absolute safety verses real harm factors, we will never medically be able to ascertain the answer using cohort #1 as our test group.

Will it cause cancer? Won't be able to answer that question with group #1, as smoking does cause cancer and that group has been steeped in cancer causing chemicals.

Will it cause lung scarring if used in long term? Can't answer that using group #1 because our lungs are already irreversibly damaged.

What kind of damage will it cause to lung tissue? Cannot answer that with group one either..

Only group #2 can answer real long term harm.

We can all answer in the acute short term, but only one group, group #2, can answer long term risks associated with vaping...

To my knowledge, acute short term affects and problems have been appropriately dealt with by the industry to date, and since I'm not in group two, and we know by the multitudes of healing bodies that it is far better than smoking, so I see most of these questions posed by the OP to be wholly irrelevant at this time.

What they are trying to ascertain, from what I'm gathering is safety as an absolute measurable quantity, no one can say that yet, as we don't have a large enough pool that has been able to be examined in long enough term to measure the absolutes. All we can do is measure short term.. and that can and is being addressed on a daily basis.

People say 10 years is plenty long, but it's not long enough to say vaping causes cancer, or causes x amount of lung damage in the long term when vaping high watt 100% vg verses x amount of damage when vaping low watt pg/vg mix or flavor groups abc cause x amount of damage verses no flavors.. those types of long term studies where an absolute can be learned can only be done using cohort group #2, and we need longer than 10 years studying them.

Now, if I'm wrong here as far as the type of studies and the type of information the OP is desirous of getting from pro-vaping studies verses anti-vaping studies then I've simply been lost this whole thread. But if your looking for a certain kind of information about harm, and your not seeing it in what you deem an appropriate manner, there is usually a reason for that and it's not because studies are biased, but rather, because the studies cannot yet be done. I've yet to see anyone say there will never be harm found, and I've never seen acute short term harm not be addressed within the vaping community when it rears its ugly head, which leaves only one type of harm left.. and that's a harm that is absolute and long term.

And, as Robin has already kindly pointed out, we dont even know if that group will vape in the long term, especially with vaping being devoid of the majority of addictive qualities/chemicals that are inherent in smoking cigarettes - therefore those questions may well be a reasonably moot point.

After 14 years of smoking i was an addict that couldn't quit. Will the same level of addiction be present for a vaper who never smoked? Most believe it's doubtful.. and I concur with that belief.

 

[Ca Ike]

I have to wonder why any provaping researcher would feel the need to change their practices, after all, look at what happened to Dr. F for reporting both sides of the coin?? he got soo much backlash and push back. Hell, look at my thread called Dear Dr. F!!!! being a honest researcher who provides both sides of the coin is clearly not supported or a way to gain points. Shakes head!! The one person who tells us like it is whether good or bad. And everything he has reported back to us of concern is easily fixable.

What got Dr F the back lash was his comments about coil wire leaching metals into the liquid and not his research. These were comments base on nothing at all and most of the backlash came from those with metallurgical experience. You really are posting a lot of false/unsubstantiated claims in this thread and making ridiculous assumptions. For example, there has been no dedicated pro-vaping research. Just non antivaping researchers testing theories put forth by the anti crowd.

 

[Ca Ike]

I guess it takes a idiot to understand what i am saying or a deep denial. Be happy with your provaping research may it serve you well and give you all the comforts YOU SEEK..... But my expectations are higher. I want a researcher that provides me with both sides of vaping. Only hearing one side is not what i want to hear. I want a side that is gonna tell me the pros and cons of vaping per their findings. I want to improve vaping based on research, not what i wanna hear....like that freaking group casaa.

Cite links to these pro-vaping reaserchers that are making false claims. In other words, substantiate your claims. (Edited out by classwife)

 

[CMD-Ky]

delete