Seriously bummed..

[Doctorvapes]

Saw on the news last night that a new e cigarette study showed that while less likely to cause cancer, long term use of an e cigarette causes you to be twice as likely for a heart attack.

I can't remember who did the study though I do believe it was a college.

I may have to give up vaping because of my family health history. This makes me really bummed as I recently got into rdas, coil building and making my own juice.

My girlfriend wants us to quit right now after seeing that but I'm not finding it easy. Just really bummed.

Does anyone have any other info related to this?

 

[Beamslider]

Not sure what study you are talking about. But so does caffeine and not getting exercise along with many other things.

I'm not quitting vaping.

 

[Marc411]

Doctor, there is a lot of misinformation that is published regarding vaping that is later debunked. I looked for something published on the story and couldn't find anything.

The American Cancer Society and the Royal Academy of Physicians have both published their position in support of vaping and that it is at least 95% safer than smoking. I normally wait to see hard studies on vaping and not speculative information (BS) with regard to health and safety.

New study comes the closest yet to proving that e-cigarettes aren’t as dangerous as smoking

Edit post, I posted American Heart Association when it was the American Cancer Society. Error corrected

 

[AzPlumber]

Cheeseburgers can also cause an early demise but I'll go out happy.

 

[Zutankhamun]

I know nothing of the American Heart Association I’m afraid.

I know that public health England reviewed a while back. Maybe 2016? That had a 95% improvement. Another has been published in jan this year which repeats pretty much the same. I haven’t read any of the latter but it would seem the argument has been strengthened.

I have no links as the first was a large study. I imagine the 2nd is the same.
Google PHE & vaping

 

[untar]

I don't know what you saw but let's talk about those risk estimates for a second. If they're not put into perspective then they're absolutely meaningless.

Let's say your chance of getting hit by a flying horse is 0.05%. Then let's assume when you wear a wristwatch your chance of getting hit by a flying horse is doubled!
Oh wait, that's still only 0.1%. Is it more likely? Yes. Does it matter? Nope.

So by just saying "that doubles the risk" in reality nothing has been said to really assess the risk.

 

[BoogaWu]

I don't know what you saw but let's talk about those risk estimates for a second. If they're not put into perspective then they're absolutely meaningless.

Let's say your chance of getting hit by a flying horse is 0.05%. Then let's assume when you wear a wristwatch your chance of getting hit by a flying horse is doubled!
Oh wait, that's still only 0.1%. Is it more likely? Yes. Does it matter? Nope.

So by just saying "that doubles the risk" in reality nothing has been said to really assess the risk.

I'd also wonder if being an exmoker also doubles your chance of a heart attack, seeing as almost all vapers are ex smokers.

 

[Topwater Elvis]

Saw on the news last night that a new e cigarette study showed that while less likely to cause cancer, long term use of an e cigarette causes you to be twice as likely for a heart attack.

I can't remember who did the study though I do believe it was a college.

I may have to give up vaping because of my family health history. This makes me really bummed as I recently got into rdas, coil building and making my own juice.

My girlfriend wants us to quit right now after seeing that but I'm not finding it easy. Just really bummed.

Does anyone have any other info related to this?

Hard to say anything one way or another without being able to read this (mis) information.

Source?

 

[Asbestos4004]

I don't know what you saw but let's talk about those risk estimates for a second. If they're not put into perspective then they're absolutely meaningless.

Let's say your chance of getting hit by a flying horse is 0.05%. Then let's assume when you wear a wristwatch your chance of getting hit by a flying horse is doubled!
Oh wait, that's still only 0.1%. Is it more likely? Yes. Does it matter? Nope.

So by just saying "that doubles the risk" in reality nothing has been said to really assess the risk.

I was once hit by a flying horse that was wearing a watch.

I'm not ready to talk about it yet.....

 

[Doctorvapes]

https://www.google.com/amp/abc7news...inks-e-cigarettes-with-heart-attacks/3145433/

 

[oldude 61]

So it goes back to Glantz enough said. I shall continue to Vape

 

[BoogaWu]

"Siegel offered an alternative explanation for the correlation Glantz found: "Not that e-cigarettes are causing heart attacks, but that people who have heart attacks are turning to e-cigarettes in an effort to quit smoking," he suggested"

 

[Just Me]

"A UCSF study released Saturday shows there could a link between e-cigarettes and the risk of having a heart attack." Operative phrase--"could be".

"The study comes from the offices of UCSF Professor Stan Glantz"...

Good ol' Stan, always chomping at the bit against e-cigs. Nothing more to say here.

 

[Just Me]

So it goes back to Glantz enough said. I shall continue to Vape

You beat me to the post!

 

[englishmick]

https://www.google.com/amp/abc7news...inks-e-cigarettes-with-heart-attacks/3145433/

From the offices of UCSF Professor Stan Glantz.

Their methodology was a joke.

The article itself was pretty skeptical of the Prof's conclusions. They included some contrary points made by Prof Michael Siegel.

 

[Eskie]

https://www.google.com/amp/abc7news...inks-e-cigarettes-with-heart-attacks/3145433/

That's the entire basis for deciding to give up vaping? Go with what you're comfortable with four your own health, but that story doesn't even make me yawn.

 

[ScottP]

https://www.google.com/amp/abc7news...inks-e-cigarettes-with-heart-attacks/3145433/

OH WOW! A Stan Glantz study showing something negative about e-cigarettes is neither shocking nor newsworthy. It was a trash study, done by one of the most anti-ecig people in the world. It was not done in a scientific or even in an honest manner and the article headline is just clickbait.

Don't waste your time reading the whole article, here is the Cliff Notes(tm) version:

It's a frightening headline that some skeptics would argue comes long before researchers have hard evidence to show there's a danger.

The study comes from the offices of UCSF Professor Stan Glantz

The study used existing data from the Centers for Disease Control.

the CDC numbers are a snapshot in time, merely asking survey participants if they vape, and if they've ever had a heart attack.

We don't even know that these people used e-cigarettes before they had the heart attack,

Siegel offered an alternative explanation for the correlation Glantz found:
"Not that e-cigarettes are causing heart attacks, but that people who have heart attacks are turning to e-cigarettes in an effort to quit smoking," he suggested.

 

[Baditude]

One misinformed study of misinformation isn't going to give me anxiety.

The overwhelming information available currently says that vaping is much safer than smoking.




Is vaping considered to be completely safe? Of course not. It's a HARM REDUCTION method.

Depending upon how you vape, e-cigarettes do contain nicotine. Nicotine is a vaso constrictor (makes smaller blood vessels smaller) the same as caffeine is. Vapers who use nicotine in their e-liquids and also have cardiovascular disease may have risks similar to those who smoke so should plan on reducing the nic content of their e-liquids.

The main advantage of vaping over smoking is it greatly reduces the effects on the pulmonary system that can result in lung cancer, COPD, emphesema, chronic bronchitis, etc. by eliminating smoke, tars, carbon monoxide, and thousands of other toxic chemicals.

 

[stols001]

I hate Glantz, he emits as many "Facts" as he can, then makes stuff up. He MADE UP and it came from NOWHERE that "dual use is 5 times more toxic than just smoking."

MADE IT UP.

I find his attempts to get smokers NOT to switch disgusting... I mean, lots of folks dual use for a while. But, this was clearly a statement along with his "proofs" which were poor, simply designed to stop smokers from switching to vaping.

I guess if you smoke ONE cigarette, you deserve to DIE rather than switch to a harm reduction method.

I'm fairly certain that nicotine raises risk a BIT, but it's absolutely nowhere near as bad as smoking, period, and there is NO WAY dual use is worse than smoking there have been many well designed studies to say that it isn't BETTER than smoking, it's about the same risk level. Which makes sense to me.

Glantz never makes any sense. That article didn't scare me away from vaping ,but Glantz is new to me, and I now understand some of the hatred ECF has leveled at him. I was like, "Can it really be that bad?" well yes, I guess it CAN.

I really... Don't stop vaping without more research, especially if it means a return to smoking, which eventually, it sometimes does, even if not right away.

Anna

 

[ScottP]

Glantz never makes any sense. That article didn't scare me away from vaping ,but Glantz is new to me, and I now understand some of the hatred ECF has leveled at him. I was like, "Can it really be that bad?" well yes, I guess it CAN.

If "Glantz the ANTZ"* is involved, yes it can be "that bad".


*For those new to ECF and unfamiliar with the term, ANTZ = Anti-Nicotine and Tobacco Zealot.