Provaping verse Antivaping

[AXIOM_1]

THERE IS NO NEED TO YELL AXIOM[emoji4]
Yep. I'm the suffer the consequence person.

I don't think their will be any research pro or anti that is really going to have any impact on what mankind does. Some doctors/scientists probably don't want their name on anything that may discredit them later.
The research needs to be done not by a scientist but by a forensic account to see where and who all the money(in which direction a nd to whom)is going due to vaping research.
If their isn't someone that's going to make money in the end game then it wouldn't make a headline in the newspaper. [emoji106]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

No arguments out of me for sure ............ You don't ever want to get me started on research scientists, or the Government, either one lol ......... The USA government has been nothing but a criminal cabal for many decades and guess who funds many researchers...yes, the Government..

 

[go_player]

Well, you know, some men just want to watch the world burn. I'm not one of those men, all the time, but I have to admit I'd like to see portions of this thread set on fire, so I'll just drop this here: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False . Have fun with it. Key takeaway: "It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false"

 

[Tonee N]

Well, you know, some men just want to watch the world burn. I'm not one of those men, all the time, but I have to admit I'd like to see portions of this thread set on fire, so I'll just drop this here: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False . Have fun with it. Key takeaway: "It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false"

On the money.[emoji106]
This thread is probably being labeled by big brother as a domestic terrorist discussion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[Opinionated]

I don't like cherries.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

I'm flat out allergic.

On this note, ill take my leave.

 

[Ca Ike]

does not one person on here feel there is room for improvement with vaping? we have already improved on diketones and high temps...is that it? Do you really believe that is it we have covered all the bases? provaping research has alot more in their pocket but do we hear about it? no we just lay in the dark while they cherry pick what they want their research to reveal.

Prove this claim Anna. Hell prove any of your claims you make in this thread. Your statements like what you say here make me think you have no idea how research even works. Everything your asking is already out there but you dont seem willing to look so I guess I better help you.

Here's a study on PG claiming no discernible difference between exposed to saturation level vapor(up to 700 ppm) and normal room air exposed subjects. Oh and guess what, It is NOT a vaping study in any way shape or form so it can't be pro or anti vaping.

TESTS FOR THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF PROPYLEXE GLYCOL AND TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL ON MONKEYS AND RATS BY VAPOR INHALATION AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION | Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Eskie]

well said ..... another factor that many folks never take into account because they are too busy being only concerned with THEMSELVES is that of other people in our surrounding environment.......... I wonder how many people had to endure (and suffer) from all of the second hand smoke that I was polluting THEIR bodies with? With vaping, there is no second hand smoke, just second hand vapor. Can't prove it, but I am willing to gamble that second hand vapor is way better than second hand smoke that is loaded with chemicals, toxins, and carcinogens. Us people who vape inhale vapor into our lungs, but second hand vapor would be very small.

I can help you out on this one. A study conducted by the CA Dept. of Public Health did air sampling in a poorly ventilated cloudy vape shop and found essentially nothing of concern in the air. Even the formaldehyde level was within EPA guidelines (pretty much what you are exposed to just walking around). The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Vape Shop Air Sampling by California State Health Department Suggests that Secondhand Vape Exposure is Minimal

Sorry it's not a direct link, by Siegel is good on the reliability front.

So yes, better than exposing folks to second hand smoke.

 

[mattiem]

If one would accept anecdotal evidence in place of scientific evidence...I have no agenda

My story (and I have heard this same anecdotal evidence over and over right here on this forum)

There are those that say we feel better only because we no longer smoke. I say we feel better because we vape instead of smoking. Before I switched to vaping I had at least 3 colds and normally one case of the flu each year. Some having to have antibiotics to knock them out.

Since I started vaping almost 6 years ago I have not had one single cold or case of the flu. I have friends and family that quit smoking but do not vape. They still have the normal number of cases of flu/colds. This tells me that the antibacterial properties in the PG/VG must be protecting me from the germs that cause the sickness. Not very scientific but just my thoughts.

I would love to see a survey on this anecdotal evidence but like all other surveys that show the benefits of vaping it would make no difference to those that demonize vaping. It wouldn't make any difference to those that think there HAS to be something bad connected to vaping.

One wonders if the reason we are not seeing an actual downside to vaping could possibly be because there isn't a downside. If one does show up I personally think it will be connected to massive amounts of e-liquid being vaped directly into ones lungs on a daily basis. This concern has been touched upon by some that I guess could be considered pro-vaping groups but so far I've not come across a follow up.

As always...just my personal thoughts

 

[CMD-Ky]

As always...just your personal thoughts and, as always, well thought out and well stated.

If one would accept anecdotal evidence in place of scientific evidence...I have no agenda

My story (and I have heard this same anecdotal evidence over and over right here on this forum)

There are those that say we feel better only because we no longer smoke. I say we feel better because we vape instead of smoking. Before I switched to vaping I had at least 3 colds and normally one case of the flu each year. Some having to have antibiotics to knock them out.

Since I started vaping almost 6 years ago I have not had one single cold or case of the flu. I have friends and family that quit smoking but do not vape. They still have the normal number of cases of flu/colds. This tells me that the antibacterial properties in the PG/VG must be protecting me from the germs that cause the sickness. Not very scientific but just my thoughts.

I would love to see a survey on this anecdotal evidence but like all other surveys that show the benefits of vaping it would make not difference to those that demonize vaping. It wouldn't make any difference to those that think there HAS to be something bad connected to vaping.

One wonders if the reason we are not seeing an actual downside to vaping could possibly be because there isn't a downside. If one does show up I personally think it will be connected to massive amounts of e-liquid being vaped directly into ones lungs on a daily basis. This concern has been touched upon by some that I guess could be considered pro-vaping groups but so far I've not come across a follow up.

As always...just my personal thoughts

 

[mattiem]

As always...just your personal thoughts and, as always, well thought out and well stated.

Thank you

 

[stols001]

DeAnna,

Yes, funding matters. There are some researchers that are handed billions more money from BT to research a problem that may have little validity, or be poorly designed. They then research that problem to death, when it can fairly easily be debunked (and I do think some health policy researchers do a great job debunking that, including Dr. F). That said, those who may want to do a better designed study may have MORE difficulty finding funding in the current climate. So, methodology on THOSE studies may be smaller/more tightly focused, simply due to trying to find funds. I would enjoy it if ALL researchers were held to a decent methodology and standard, but there are plenty of factors that make this difficult.

That said, there are researchers concerned with the curent climate of blowing through tons of ejuice and whatnot, but I'm not sure how many have had the time to study it yet.

I'm not going to name researchers (mainly because I can't remember names from what-all I read, but I don't think we're anywhere NEAR unbiased, independent research on e-cigs and that's not something to ARGUE about, but rather to keep in mind, while evaluating risk. I do think that, however, most pro-vaping research is going to publish negative findings if they have any integrity AND they find those findings. That may be down the road.

I'd be more interested in cohort studies at this point, but I adore cohort studies, always have. They give such a phenomenal "overview" and it's a fantastic place to start (should be started now IMO, then followed for 20 years) unfortunately these types of studies are expensive.

Look at Hormne replacement for menopause. EVERYONE was saying at the start it was better, healthier, etc. Then they did a cohort study looking at women with few risk factors for heart disease, taking HRT versus not. It was quickly found that estrogen replacement INCREASES risk for the very diseases it was thought to protect against, and even smokers were told above a certain age, they couldn't use hormonal birth control, period. So a product thought to be "harmless or beneficial" can certainly turn out otherwise, down the line.

I'm glad you got a few names to help satisfy your interest, and I don't fault you at ALL for wanting these options, and I understand your desire and share it, while still knowing that for myself, right now, this is the best I can do for my health. I hope it remains that way, but if it doesn't there is always the IQfoulmarlboro product to turn to, (I kid).

Thanks for bringing up the topic I do think you raise important points.

Anna

 

[Stubby]

DeAnna,

Yes, funding matters. There are some researchers that are handed billions more money from BT to research a problem that may have little validity, or be poorly designed. They then research that problem to death, when it can fairly easily be debunked (and I do think some health policy researchers do a great job debunking that, including Dr. F). That said, those who may want to do a better designed study may have MORE difficulty finding funding in the current climate. So, methodology on THOSE studies may be smaller/more tightly focused, simply due to trying to find funds. I would enjoy it if ALL researchers were held to a decent methodology and standard, but there are plenty of factors that make this difficult.

Please point out one BT funded study (within the last few decades) where billions where thrown at a badly designed study or something with little validity.

 

[AXIOM_1]

I can help you out on this one. A study conducted by the CA Dept. of Public Health did air sampling in a poorly ventilated cloudy vape shop and found essentially nothing of concern in the air. Even the formaldehyde level was within EPA guidelines (pretty much what you are exposed to just walking around). The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Vape Shop Air Sampling by California State Health Department Suggests that Secondhand Vape Exposure is Minimal

Sorry it's not a direct link, by Siegel is good on the reliability front.

So yes, better than exposing folks to second hand smoke.

yeah sounds logical too me

 

[stols001]

Fair enough Stubby... Not billions One I get into higher numbers, I just lose my math. That said, by the time deeming is completed, it may run into the billions, and that's just... ridiculous. That's no study though, so fair enough....

Anna

 

[go_player]

There are those that say we feel better only because we no longer smoke. I say we feel better because we vape instead of smoking.

I'm a pretty dedicated coffee drinker, and old enough that people used to give me dire warnings about my actually pretty moderate 3-4 cup a day habit. "It'll rot your insides," they'd say, with a conviction almost like religious fervor. I have no idea what it would even mean for coffee to "rot my insides," so I didn't pay much attention to them.

People seem to love minding my business, for reasons I have never completely understood- in fact, the people who are most prone to minding my business tend to be the people I pay the least attention to. They could shoot ...... in front of me and I probably wouldn't notice, but they seem to monitor my coffee-consumption with Minority Report-like precision. I find that a bit creepy, tbh.

Fast-forward 20 years, and studies are coming out that indicate that coffee drinkers have _substantially_ lower all-cause mortality than non-coffee drinkers. I don't want to read too much into this, because there are a lot of possible confounding factors, but...

This actually makes some sense to me. Everyone is obsessed with anti-oxidants these days, buying up Acai berries like they're precious little gold nuggets the Dalai Lama pooped. I think the jury is still out on the subject of anti-oxidants, but... A single cup of coffee has more anti-oxidants in it than even the most fervent Acai berry consumer would get in a year of subsisting entirely on Acai berries. In fact, that cup of coffee probably has more anti-oxidants than any non-coffee drinker could feasibly consume in a year from all other available sources. And we know, pretty surely I think, that coffee is at the least hepato-protective. Given how much I like to drink... well, I'm probably still here because of coffee.

I would not be at all surprised to find that vaping is not just 95% safer than smoking, but 105% safer. Nicotine is a wonder drug, and I'm inclined to suspect that vaping is healthier than not vaping. There are some reasons to think this might be true, but... I do not think it would further a research career to publish results indicating that, to put it mildly.

As Mencken said: 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

 

[classwife]

As Mencken said: 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

^

THAT is the crux of the problem

 

[CMD-Ky]

I'm a pretty dedicated coffee drinker, and old enough that people used to give me dire warnings about my actually pretty moderate 3-4 cup a day habit. "It'll rot your insides," they'd say, with a conviction almost like religious fervor. I have no idea what it would even mean for coffee to "rot my insides," so I didn't pay much attention to them.

People seem to love minding my business, for reasons I have never completely understood- in fact, the people who are most prone to minding my business tend to be the people I pay the least attention to. They could shoot ...... in front of me and I probably wouldn't notice, but they seem to monitor my coffee-consumption with Minority Report-like precision. I find that a bit creepy, tbh.

Fast-forward 20 years, and studies are coming out that indicate that coffee drinkers have _substantially_ lower all-cause mortality than non-coffee drinkers. I don't want to read too much into this, because there are a lot of possible confounding factors, but...

This actually makes some sense to me. Everyone is obsessed with anti-oxidants these days, buying up Acai berries like they're precious little gold nuggets the Dalai Lama pooped. I think the jury is still out on the subject of anti-oxidants, but... A single cup of coffee has more anti-oxidants in it than even the most fervent Acai berry consumer would get in a year of subsisting entirely on Acai berries. In fact, that cup of coffee probably has more anti-oxidants than any non-coffee drinker could feasibly consume in a year from all other available sources. And we know, pretty surely I think, that coffee is at the least hepato-protective. Given how much I like to drink... well, I'm probably still here because of coffee.

I would not be at all surprised to find that vaping is not just 95% safer than smoking, but 105% safer. Nicotine is a wonder drug, and I'm inclined to suspect that vaping is healthier than not vaping. There are some reasons to think this might be true, but... I do not think it would further a research career to publish results indicating that, to put it mildly.

As Mencken said: 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

 

[go_player]

^

THAT is the crux of the problem

Yep. This is the problem with the "I F'ing love science" crowd. They love science when it confirms their biases, and when they can dominate a field to such a degree that findings they don't like are hard to publish. They love science when they can cherry-pick results they like, and then misinterpret them in ways they like. They love science when it is a useful weapon in a culture war that really has very little to do with science. But they do not seem very concerned with the search for truth. I F'ing love science too, but I don't go around saying that or putting it on T-shirts...

These people scare me, because they can't be reasoned with. They grab onto a bit of formaldehyde found in some juice (and ignore all the aldehydes in cigarettes, and the basic principle of toxicology) and issue statements, but... if you try to reason with them, to explain reality to them, to point out the contradictions in their position, you get a form letter back, and they do what they intended to do in the first place. I used to think they were just dumb, but I have come, more and more, to think they are malign.

 

[AXIOM_1]

On the money.[emoji106]
This thread is probably being labeled by big brother as a domestic terrorist discussion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

lol

 

[AXIOM_1]

Since I started vaping almost 6 years ago I have not had one single cold or case of the flu. I have friends and family that quit smoking but do not vape. They still have the normal number of cases of flu/colds. This tells me that the antibacterial properties in the PG/VG must be protecting me from the germs that cause the sickness. Not very scientific but just my thoughts.

It's been known for over 1/2 a century that smoking leads to frequent sore throats and colds.... Smoking interferes with the vitamin C absorption and therefor the proper functioning of the immune system. I got totally sick of getting 3 or 4 nasty colds every year and so I started taking massive, daily, amounts of vitamin C (when I was still smoking).... After that I went for almost 8 years without getting one single cold (while still smoking)...

Sorry, and not that it matters, but I do not agree that vaping improves one's health or makes them feel better.......... Years ago, b4 vaping was ever invented, I had talked with many folks who quit smoking........ In every single case, the people told me how much better they feel after quitting.... It's highly unlikely that vaping helped those people in the past since vaping did not exist at that time... A more logical conclusion would be that all of the toxins eventually left their system, their lungs started to repair themselves, and they got more oxygen to their brain and other vital organs.

As for vaping helping reduce the frequency of colds, I have no comment in those regards.... My wife makes her own concentrated herbal oils and she always carries a small bottle of lavender oil with her and she constantly sniffs it throughout the day because it eliminates contracting upper respiratory disorders such as colds/flu's ... Since she started breathing the fumes in from the lavender oil, she has not had a cold or flu in over 10 years... This is because lavender has anti-microbial properties to it.... So, there may be merit to the thought that anti-microbial properties of PG help the body to fight off respiratory infections.... But that is a long way from improving one's overall health or experiencing the vigor one has after quitting smoking.

 

[CMD-Ky]

Oh that Linus Pauling, if he said it then it is worth paying some attention.

It's been known for over 1/2 a century that smoking leads to frequent sore throats and colds.... Smoking interferes with the vitamin C absorption and therefor the proper functioning of the immune system. I got totally sick of getting 3 or 4 nasty colds every year and so I started taking massive, daily, amounts of vitamin C (when I was still smoking).... After that I went for almost 8 years without getting one single cold (while still smoking)...

Sorry, and not that it matters, but I do not agree that vaping improves one's health or makes them feel better.......... Years ago, b4 vaping was ever invented, I had talked with many folks who quit smoking........ In every single case, the people told me how much better they feel after quitting.... It's highly unlikely that vaping helped those people in the past since vaping did not exist at that time... A more logical conclusion would be that all of the toxins eventually left their system, their lungs started to repair themselves, and they got more oxygen to their brain and other vital organs.

As for vaping helping reduce the frequency of colds, I have no comment in those regards.... My wife makes her own concentrated herbal oils and she always carries a small bottle of lavender oil with her and she constantly sniffs it throughout the day because it eliminates contracting upper respiratory disorders such as colds/flu's ... Since she started breathing the fumes in from the lavender oil, she has not had a cold or flu in over 10 years... This is because lavender has anti-microbial properties to it.... So, there may be merit to the thought that anti-microbial properties of PG help the body to fight off respiratory infections.... But that is a long way from improving one's overall health or experiencing the vigor one has after quitting smoking.