- Status
recent studies in Italy have proven that Squonking is the only 100% safe way to vape.
Only if you vape while on your Vespa. The right sunglasses can even make up for blowing a smaller cloud than others. It's all about attitude.
I've been doing quite well the seven years I've been vaping, though I am still half expecting my lungs to spontaneously implode due to some unforseen side effect. On a similar note, I've been waiting for eyeballs to spontaneously implode after corrective laser surgery for...decades, I guess, but all seems well
Not my eyeballs, mind you, still sporting the lenses, but I know many who have had early Lasik surgery, like my brother in law's military-sponsored procedure.
Not my eyeballs, mind you, still sporting the lenses, but I know many who have had early Lasik surgery, like my brother in law's military-sponsored procedure.
You need the diagonal-striped shirt for full effect.
I know, which is why we get so frustrated over the nonsense they put out. It's infuriating to watch people working an agenda to fit their world view and care less about anything else, even if it harms others, in this case, us. They will cherry pick their facts. We shouldn't do the same, because at the end of it, I am confident I'm improving my health and extending rather than shortening my life.
I hope. At least when I'm in a good mood.
Yessir, and I'd love it if we had a truly private setting to hold at least some of the valuable conversations we have. I've seen instances (on many subjects, on many "forums"), where my immediate thought has been, "Does (he-or-she) realize that there are no walls here?"
Drawing a relative & analogous line, we're a veritable cherry tree. :\
This. This this this. (Thank you, Tonee.)
Those see-thru walls again, eh? When will we ever learn? When will we eeeee-ver learn.
(The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.)
Bravo, Esks.
recent studies in Italy have proven that Squonking is the only 100% safe way to vape.
Viva L' EATalia!
Look, thalidomide was bad for everyone, and caused most countries to reevaluate their testing process, including the FDA. It also made a lot of countries (including the US) much more cautious about use in pregnancy. Depakote is right up there with thalidomide as far as providing horrific birth defects (maybe worse) but it was allowed to remain on the market, with the caveat that NO ONE would recommend taking it during pregnancy. I agree that sweeping changes were made in most countries after that mess. Though, IIRC, thalidomide also has usefulness in certain cancer applications.
This is far from the first time that a drug has caused birth defects since then, look at accutane. Resonable precautions began being requested such as requiring female subjects to prove they use two methods of birth control. But, there were certainly a few cases of HORRIFIC birth defects, so how is the FDA doing any better than thalidomide makers?
That being said, if there is reasonable, long term testing of drugs from overseas, done using similar methods to the FDA, there is no reason to not accept that data, and accept reviews from reasonable, well studied overseas medications (which of course should include pregnancy data, which has to be tested using non human subjects due to ethics issues, at this point) but the FDA (and many other countries) do look at live humans who take certain "iffy" medications, in fact the FDA has a registry for ppl getting pregnant on such drugs, as they want to have up to date data. I have no problem with that but the fact that a rogue drug was handed out after being labeled so safe it could be given over the counter many decades ago, doesn't mean that most countries aren't followng a better standard now. That's just taking ONE drug study and using it to be completely overcautious and obnoxious.
Back then, I don't think pregnancy issues were well established at all, and to penalize medications from other countries that do follow a fairly rigorous testing process, and have been deemed safe, is just outdated propaganda. The FDA does no better, and sometimes worse, than testing methods in other countries, at this point. EVERYONE learned from thalidomide, and the FDA needs to get over it.
I'm not here to say that tissue cultures an completely invalid, they are certainly part of the scientific method, but I'm also here to say that tissue cultures are only that, and given the FDA's sweeping claims re: e-cigs, I'm going to want a series test of human subjects over the longest time period possible. That could have happened, it's not going to happen, and that does my head in since we have an excellent cohort of vapers, long term vapers, most of whom were former smokers. If that cohort had been tested and followed, we might have some valid data in human subjects by now.... Obviously, I can't state in any kind of *scientific* way that vaping is better for you at this point, the FDA won't test that. That raises a red flag, given the sweeping regulation they want to put in place. If they're going to base it on small, less rigorous studies and focus in on negatives when they could be doing testing that's more relevant, that's annoying. More than annoying, actually.
When you CAN use humans for data, that's preferable in most cases. What.... chokes my choad is all this stuff coming down the pike when e-cigs are PERFECT for testing in that manner, as they started out unregulated and have been used for a long time? Why are these studies not being solicited and completed by the FDA. My only conclusion remains... They don't want to. They know that e-cigs are safer than cigarettes, they don't care. Now, while you may pry my vape from my cold, dead fingers, I TOO would like to know a) how much safer b) what isn't safe and c) what the FDA can DO about that, rather than bending over backwards for BT.
That's all I want. Some reasonable, well thought out studies demonstrating ecig use in humans. If it cause me to have to reevaluate my vaping, I would, if it was a well-designed study. But we won't GET that, and that's a shame. I'm a reasonable person, and if the FDA began requesting REASONABLE studies, I would take that into account. But, it's not going to happen.
Anna
This is far from the first time that a drug has caused birth defects since then, look at accutane. Resonable precautions began being requested such as requiring female subjects to prove they use two methods of birth control. But, there were certainly a few cases of HORRIFIC birth defects, so how is the FDA doing any better than thalidomide makers?
That being said, if there is reasonable, long term testing of drugs from overseas, done using similar methods to the FDA, there is no reason to not accept that data, and accept reviews from reasonable, well studied overseas medications (which of course should include pregnancy data, which has to be tested using non human subjects due to ethics issues, at this point) but the FDA (and many other countries) do look at live humans who take certain "iffy" medications, in fact the FDA has a registry for ppl getting pregnant on such drugs, as they want to have up to date data. I have no problem with that but the fact that a rogue drug was handed out after being labeled so safe it could be given over the counter many decades ago, doesn't mean that most countries aren't followng a better standard now. That's just taking ONE drug study and using it to be completely overcautious and obnoxious.
Back then, I don't think pregnancy issues were well established at all, and to penalize medications from other countries that do follow a fairly rigorous testing process, and have been deemed safe, is just outdated propaganda. The FDA does no better, and sometimes worse, than testing methods in other countries, at this point. EVERYONE learned from thalidomide, and the FDA needs to get over it.
I'm not here to say that tissue cultures an completely invalid, they are certainly part of the scientific method, but I'm also here to say that tissue cultures are only that, and given the FDA's sweeping claims re: e-cigs, I'm going to want a series test of human subjects over the longest time period possible. That could have happened, it's not going to happen, and that does my head in since we have an excellent cohort of vapers, long term vapers, most of whom were former smokers. If that cohort had been tested and followed, we might have some valid data in human subjects by now.... Obviously, I can't state in any kind of *scientific* way that vaping is better for you at this point, the FDA won't test that. That raises a red flag, given the sweeping regulation they want to put in place. If they're going to base it on small, less rigorous studies and focus in on negatives when they could be doing testing that's more relevant, that's annoying. More than annoying, actually.
When you CAN use humans for data, that's preferable in most cases. What.... chokes my choad is all this stuff coming down the pike when e-cigs are PERFECT for testing in that manner, as they started out unregulated and have been used for a long time? Why are these studies not being solicited and completed by the FDA. My only conclusion remains... They don't want to. They know that e-cigs are safer than cigarettes, they don't care. Now, while you may pry my vape from my cold, dead fingers, I TOO would like to know a) how much safer b) what isn't safe and c) what the FDA can DO about that, rather than bending over backwards for BT.
That's all I want. Some reasonable, well thought out studies demonstrating ecig use in humans. If it cause me to have to reevaluate my vaping, I would, if it was a well-designed study. But we won't GET that, and that's a shame. I'm a reasonable person, and if the FDA began requesting REASONABLE studies, I would take that into account. But, it's not going to happen.
Anna
LOL...............................what part of Italy ?...................LOL......recent studies in Italy have proven that Squonking is the only 100% safe way to vape.
I agree. In some cases higher aldehydes for some 1st gen devices like the CE4 were observed in testing. Cigarettes however have thousands of different potentially carcinogenic substances in them and all that tar from combustion, so the evidence is not there to conclude a cigarette is healthier than a CE4. In fact having smoked for many years and then vaping a CE4+ for a few months my personal results were I quit coughing up fleme every morning and lung function improved. I consider the CE4 less harmful than smoking at least in the short term based on real life data... me.
What if everyone on this site were willing to provide (with names and other identifying information removed) lung function tests before and after vaping, doctor reports of improvement, we do a meta-analysis, and send it to the FDA and our politicians? I'd be up for that... there are many ppl statng how much improvement they had, what if we did our own study? I would TOTALLY be willing to tabulate data and then the site could review/comment and we take that and do what we CAN do ourselves? I guarantee there isn't anyone else collecting real world data and mapping out improvements? I mean, we're in advocacy mode right now, correct?
Any takers/thoughts?
Anna
LOL, we could even get the unmarried guys to go get their yearly physical done....
Any takers/thoughts?
Anna
LOL, we could even get the unmarried guys to go get their yearly physical done....
Yeah, uh-huh.......recent studies in Italy have proven that Squonking is the only 100% safe way to vape.
And then the bottom dwellers woke up!
Agree wholeheartedly. Its all about harm reduction, and no matter we slice it, or how we vape, its magnitudes better than the tobaccy was, my own body tells me so.I agree. In some cases higher aldehydes for some 1st gen devices like the CE4 were observed in testing. Cigarettes however have thousands of different potentially carcinogenic substances in them and all that tar from combustion, so the evidence is not there to conclude a cigarette is healthier than a CE4. In fact having smoked for many years and then vaping a CE4+ for a few months my personal results were I quit coughing up fleme every morning and lung function improved. I consider the CE4 less harmful than smoking at least in the short term based on real life data... me.
We're all *saying* it's better... C'mon, let's study it! And then place the results in the face of the FDA and our politicians
Yes, I joined CASA, I signed petitions.... Let's do something really fun and out of the box? It doesn't take that much to get your medical records and a big black sharpie, it's not hard to do a meta-analysis of individual vaper reports, and I, for one, would love to shove that data.... a place I can't mention here, but *really* far up there, to everyone I can think of who is involved in the new regs.... It really doesn't need to take that long, and at *least* we'd have some data that it's not only cigalikes that are safe and harm reduction oriented
Anna
Yes, I joined CASA, I signed petitions.... Let's do something really fun and out of the box? It doesn't take that much to get your medical records and a big black sharpie, it's not hard to do a meta-analysis of individual vaper reports, and I, for one, would love to shove that data.... a place I can't mention here, but *really* far up there, to everyone I can think of who is involved in the new regs.... It really doesn't need to take that long, and at *least* we'd have some data that it's not only cigalikes that are safe and harm reduction oriented
Anna
If the states' and FDA's assault had anything do to with health, that might be an excellent suggestion. Unfortunately, their concerns about our health are much more of a ruse than reality.
Know your legislators, and vote wisely (based on each of our own personal value systems). To paraphrase an old clothing store commercial, an educated consumer is their worst customer.
#abillionlives (<shameless plug)
Stuff like that is already going on. Moffitt is running a 3 year follow up study on vapers and dual users right now. I think it completes collection next year, no idea when they will finish the stats and publish. There have been studies about improvements in lung function, one recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine E-Cigarettes and Toxin Exposure | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians
Look at these findings
Pretty decent results.
The problem right now with vaping is it's only been around 10 years, not a ton of time when you're talking about long term harm reduction. In addition, the vape gear has developed rapidly over that time, and what we vape with now wasn't even around a few years ago. That means even less data for long term harm reduction. Even looking at say members here as a reporting source is anecdotal as no standard reporting system is in place.
Now, when you do have hundreds of thousands of anecdotal reports, it sure supports the need for proper study of a way to get folks off cigarettes. But those studies are really just getting started and will take time to complete. I'm continuing to vape because if I wait for all that data to come in, I'd probably be dead at a premature age. But it doesn't mean everything is all proven out.
The final problem is who will do the testing and who will foot the bills. The FDA does not do testing. Basic and clinical researchers do with grant money that may come from the government like the NIH or manufacturers.
I agree, it's more about the $, and not the health of Americans.
The FDA seems to be ignoring the studies already done by the UK physicians.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
