Riccardo Polosa - Electronic cigarette use and harm reversal: emerging evidence in the lung

[RCHagy74]

BMC Medicine | Full text | Electronic cigarette use and harm reversal: emerging evidence in the lung

*Conclusions and implications for policymaking
Compared to combustible cigarettes, e-vapor products are at least 96% less harmful and may substantially reduce individual risk and population harm [22]. Future research will better define and further reduce residual risks from EC use to as low as possible by establishing appropriate quality control and standards. Although large longitudinal studies are warranted to elucidate whether ECs are a less harmful alternative to tobacco cigarettes and whether significant health benefits can be expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to ECs, the emerging evidence that EC use can reverse harm from tobacco smoking should be taken into consideration by regulatory authorities seeking to adopt proportional measures for the e-vapor category [23].*

A good read overall.

 

[DrMA]

excellent find. Thanks for posting

 

[RCHagy74]

Twitter is my friend... A friend that gives me a headache most days, but, gems like this make it worth it though.

 

[TyPie]

Can you just IMAGINE..........health REVERSAL (as in the reversal of tobacco harm done to the lungs....) Can you just imagine the antzies if this turns out to be the case???!!

The implications are simply mind-boggling!! E-cigs, eventually, as part of the cure, after all??.....we shall see.

 

[BuGlen]

Can you just IMAGINE..........health REVERSAL (as in the reversal of tobacco harm done to the lungs....) Can you just imagine the antzies if this turns out to be the case???!!

The implications are simply mind-boggling!! E-cigs, eventually, as part of the cure, after all??.....we shall see.

My sis-in-law has already experienced a reversal in health issues by using vapor products. Three years ago, she was diagnosed with early symptoms of COPD, so she and my brother found e-cigs (and told me about them). About a year ago, her doctor told her that all of the symptoms previously seen have basically disappeared.

If the truth is allowed to be published, the results will show that vaping does reverse at least some of the issues caused by smoking in short order.

 

[DrMA]

This really focuses the point that dogmatic lies against vaping from TC militant extremists are literally genocidal lunacy.

 

[WharfRat1976]

Um, this is a Peer Review article. It is as far afield from science as the Earth is to Mercury. The vaping community is worse than the Antz when it comes to non science. A Peer Review article is less credible than junk science.

 

[WhiteHighlights]

Admittedly it is a Commentary and it will be interesting to see where it goes as a series 'Promise vs Perils of E-Cigarettes' but it is notable for a few things:
- the perspective of risk vs benefit which is often sadly lacking
- the links to the studies behind the conclusions which can be reviewed for scientific merit
- the author gets funding from both sides of the aisle. I don't know much about him but he could be one who searches for the truth, good or bad.

Competing interests

RP has received grant support from respiratory drug manufacturers including CV Therapeutics, NeuroSearch A/S, Sandoz, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Boehringer-Ingelheim; he has served as a speaker for CV Therapeutics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche and as a consultant for CV Therapeutics, Duska Therapeutics, Neuro-Search A/S, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Forest Laboratories. He has received payment for developing educational presentations from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Almirall. RP has also received lecture fees and research funding from manufacturers of stop smoking medications including GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer and served as a consultant for Pfizer, Global Health Alliance for treatment of tobacco dependence, Arbi Group Srl (an Italian e-cigarette distributor) and ECITA (Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association, in the UK).

 

[granolaboy]

http://www.familypracticenews.com/news/single-view/respiratory-harm-reversal-seen-in-asthmatic-smokers-on-e-cigarettes/22fae873292e5050a5c9c89a8cffb3c5.html

 

[sonicdsl]

Merging the above post - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...rsal-emerging-evidence-lung.html#post15475972

into this earlier thread on the same topic.

 

[DrMA]

Um, this is a Peer Review article. It is as far afield from science as the Earth is to Mercury. The vaping community is worse than the Antz when it comes to non science. A Peer Review article is less credible than junk science.

Science is science. Accept it or deny it, but it's not subject to your arbitrary likes or dislikes.

 

[caramel]

It's "accept it or disprove it".....

 

[TyPie]

Um, this is a Peer Review article. It is as far afield from science as the Earth is to Mercury. The vaping community is worse than the Antz when it comes to non science. A Peer Review article is less credible than junk science.

Not sure anyone here is declaring this article to be any kind of declaration of 'victory', scientific fact or proof of anything at this point. I find it very interesting, for sure.

I agree that some on both sides of the e-cig debate (assuming there are only 2 sides) are looking for ANY bits of news or 'evidence' that can easily be distorted and manipulated to suit the cause at hand. No question about that. This is currently a big problem in the 'PR war' raging over e-cigs, safety and regulation.

I DO think that ANY potential positive outcomes for ANY kind of harm-reduction, treatment of disease, disease or symptom reversal as they relate to the use of e-cigs should be further investigated and documented so that the truth, good OR bad, become widely known. More and more research, studies, and anecdotal evidence appear to be coming in.

So again, "we shall see".

 

[WharfRat1976]

Science is science. Accept it or deny it, but it's not subject to your arbitrary likes or dislikes.

You mean junk science is junk science. Or, young science is young science. The only science that will be credible has not had nearly enough time or study to have developed into anything that can be proved to any level of reasonable certainty scientific or otherwise... Early science leads to later science but is still proves nothing. It is what it is. Most ECFers and Vapors hang there hat on any hook within eye-shot. It just irks me.

 

[Kent C]

The vaping community is worse than the Antz when it comes to non science.

This statement is simply wrong. "Peering through the Mist" study focuses on the multiple junk science studies, conclusions and methodology used by the ANTZ and that isn't the only study that has showed that. So there's a few articles like the one in this thread that hints at certain benefits, but there are multiple scientific studies that shows that ecigarettes reduce harm and some on the benefits of nicotine without tobacco combustion. The validity of those are unquestioned. And yet there are 'studies' and articles from ANTZ that show ecigarettes are just as, or more harmful than cigarettes.

 

[DrMA]

There are over 1000 high-quality studies on vaping demonstrating ecigs are harmless and effective
E-cigarette research, studies and papers - 2014

While the drivel spilling from TC fundamentalists has been exposed as dogmatic stupidity and malicious incompetence
BMC Medicine | Full text | E-cigarettes: methodological and ideological issues and research priorities

Only a science denier in the ranks of flat-earthers and creationists could ignore this overwhelming amount of evidence;
and no amount of evidence will convince such a person to change their deeply held beliefs.

 

[DrMA]

Wrong thread....