Research on Vaping Starts to Clear Smoke on Possible Health Effects

[Hydroscopic]

Research on vaping Starts to Clear Smoke on Possible Health Effects via York Dispatch

Link broken edit:
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/breaking/ci_27902921/research-vaping-starts-clear-smoke-possible-health-effects


Author did a decent job on trying to balance the article.

I have to commend the author's putting Glantz's ANTZ rhetoric in check. Anyone who has read the garbage that Glantz says knows that he can be more alarmist and less reasonable when given enough room.

Regardless of our views, agreement or not, there are unknowns and we all vape at our own risk.

 

[AndriaD]

Seems to me they included far too much of his nonsense. "Ultra-fine particles" indeed -- as best I can determine, there are no "particles" in liquid mist. He's either a total and complete idiot, or just says whatever pops into his head that supports his agenda -- and his bank balance.

Andria

 

[CarolT]

Ugh. This is standard establishment hogwash. Glantz shouldn't be in there at all, he and all of his ilk are lying fanatics.

 

[caramel]

This is a regurgitation of old ANTZ manure, from "we don't know the effects" to "it has particles".

 

[DrMA]

Looks like glANTZ let slip his "research" agenda: he'll probably pursue the "particles" nonsense and fabricates "studies" purporting to show heart and non-cancer lung risks. Keep an eye out for these...

 

[caramel]

Glanz forgot to mention his own exhale has particles too. He should be banned from government buildings and public spaces.

 

[Hydroscopic]

I just looked at if from the perspective that cigarette filters have particles. If I had a dollar for every time an ANTZ said to me that menthol filters had fiberglass in them when I smoked...

It is an easily refuted argument.

Unfiltered cigarettes also have particles. Dust has fine particulates. I find the particles on Lime Tostitos taste delicious. Etc...

 

[caramel]

He is talking about liquid droplets but disingenously calls them "particles". I'd say break the link.

 

[Hydroscopic]

He is talking about liquid droplets but disingenously calls them "particles". I'd say break the link.

He is only less than half the article which is why I haven't broken it. Unlike other articles with statements from him, he did call for more research and admit 'I don't know'. - If a moderator feels that it should be broken I'll happily [ PLAIN ] tag it.

I'm not a Glantz fan either. Trust me, I've seen the crap he has said before.

The 'particulates' they're referring to is about the exposure to various wicking materials.
Hence why I compared it to a cigarette filter.

 

[AndriaD]

It seems to me that unless the wick was burnt dry, there really wouldn't be a substantial risk of *any* "particles" from the wick. They seem to be addressing these various issues as if the absolute worst-case scenario is how we all vape all the time, and that is utterly ridiculous. Sure, dry hits are a big topic of forum discussion, as in, how to avoid them, because they taste so awful that nobody wants to do that TWICE!

Andria

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Life consists of particles.

 

[caramel]

The 'particulates' they're referring to is about the exposure to various wicking materials.
Hence why I compared it to a cigarette filter.

You may want to check the "study" referenced in this thread:

Secondhand E-Cig Vapor - new junk article | E-Cigarette Forum

 

[Hydroscopic]

Yeah, I saw that one.

Basically his junk science on the wick is here:
http://arizonansconcernedaboutsmoking.com/201312e-cig_report.pdf

This study analyzed e-cigarette models that employ Poly-fil fiber to contain the e-liquid, which is not used in some “tank” systems, where liquid surrounds a heating element or wick. It is likely that the engineering features, including the nature of the battery and the heating temperature of the liquid, the type of heating element and reservoir, will influence the nature of particles that are produced, how many and at what size. These metal nanoparticles can deposit into alveolar sacs in the lung, potentially causing local respiratory toxicity and/or becoming translocated into the circulation.

Page 50. Even got a treat as he cited part of Farsalinos studies about liquid on page 51. In traditional ANTZ fashion there is no link provided to the studies cited, only the excerpts. If someone hadn't read Farsalinos liquid study they would be under the impression that the other studies backed Glantz's findings. Page 51 into page 52 where the citation after summarizing the Farsalinos liquid study results is absent. He provides links to studies that back his findings and only makes mention of the Farsalinos studies with no link attributions.

That is why I commented that the author didn't just let him say whatever the hell he could get away with and print it. Which is the battle within the other articles where he gets carte blanche.


This was my reaction to his claims:

 

[nicnik]

Not at all balanced. Trashy journalism.

 

[caramel]

Weasel wording. "it is likely that", "can deposit", "potentially"... aka unproven.

 

[Hydroscopic]

I broke the link as requested.

I look at the positives and the neutral positions in the article as a counter to the ANTZ at the end. It is cool if you don't agree. We just see things differently. The author went as far as to talk to other doctors and get their input. While not all pro-vaping many of them were still supportive if their patient chose to take that path. Whether someone'd views are vehemently pro-vaping or even neutral, the author has to balance the pro with the con.

Unfortunately they chose Glantz as the con side.

Weasel wording. "it is likely that", "can deposit", "potentially"... aka unproven.

Oh, I agree.

My personal opinion of Glantz? He just wants his name in lights and would say anything to make that happen. I honestly don't believe that he gives a rat's {rear-side} about anything except his own publicity. If it wasn't vaping as the main topic, it'd be something else and he'd behave the exact same way.

Vaping is lacking in experts and the man is trying to make a name for himself.

If you dislike the man and really feel like a masochist: https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/blogs/sglantz

 

[AndriaD]

I broke the link as requested.

I look at the positives and the neutral positions in the article as a counter to the ANTZ at the end. It is cool if you don't agree. We just see things differently. The author went as far as to talk to other doctors and get their input. While not all pro-vaping many of them were still supportive if their patient chose to take that path. Whether someone'd views are vehemently pro-vaping or even neutral, the author has to balance the pro with the con.

Unfortunately they chose Glantz as the con side.

Oh, I agree.

My personal opinion of Glantz? He just wants his name in lights and would say anything to make that happen. I honestly don't believe that he gives a rat's {rear-side} about anything except his own publicity. If it wasn't vaping as the main topic, it'd be something else and he'd behave the exact same way.

Vaping is lacking in experts and the man is trying to make a name for himself.

If you dislike the man and really feel like a masochist: https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/blogs/sglantz

There is one other thing he cares about -- that $6 million some-odd a year he gets to say stupid things in public.

Andria

 

[Hydroscopic]

There is one other thing he cares about -- that $6 million some-odd a year he gets to say stupid things in public.

What amused me was that he really hates SFATA.

 

[BigEgo]

Marie Drawbaugh, a tobacco cessation specialist for York Hospital, said she doesn't recommend vaping as a method of quitting cigarettes; she suggests evidence-based methods for her clients.

I had to have a good morning chuckle at this gem. Excuse me, Ms., but the evidence shows that NRT doesn't work. Numerous studies done on this. You get a 15% quit rate at BEST.

 

[mcclintock]

It's an attempt to write "balanced" sounding article when the evidence isn't actually so balanced. It does show some of the standard opinions of the medical community in a clear way, which I disagree with:

' "This concept is an option to talk about with patients that are trying, are motivated to quit," she said. "That's where the usefulness of this product, in my mind, is." ' -- actually I think vaping is a better option for those not very motivated to quit.

'Nicotine is "a very serious addiction that's not given credit for how binding it is," said Pam Miller' -- gives no credit for pure nicotine being less addictive than smoked tobacco nicotine. Acts as though nicotine is bad, rather than a useful, pleasant and mild substance that suffers from poor delivery methods.

'Miller said she's hoping the FDA puts some final regulations on vaping products soon.
"The bottom line is, I want people to be able to make an informed decision for themselves," Miller said.'
-- these sentences contradict each other, as it is likely the FDA will reduce the freedom to choose more than it will increase the availability of information.