Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs

[AndriaD]

i haven't. Andria doesn't count.
nor anyone else with a pre-existing condition.
mike

Why don't I count? My asthma was doing fine until I vaped one particular ejuice, then it went all to hell -- I don't know what was in that ejuice to cause that, but given that the obliterans can be misdiagnosed as asthma, I thought it was a telling sign. Especially considering that even a month after I stopped vaping that particular juice, my asthma had not improved, but was still out of control.

Andria

 

[skoony]

Did you read the link I posted which says it takes time to develop? I don't think anyone really knows how long it takes. Everyone is different. As has been reported, many cases were probably just called COPD...

COPD is a distinct form of lung damage.
that's why they have biopsy's.
to find out what is affecting your lungs
in order to determine proper care
and treatment.
mike

 

[skoony]

By that rationale, if 1 smoker gets lung cancer attributed to smoking, then every smoker should get lung cancer...

when 30 % of smokers getting lung cancer all you still
have is a 30% chance. with a .003 percent of a total work force
having an issue how can diacetyl be determined to be the
sole cause.
mike

 

[stevegmu]

COPD is a distinct for of lung damage.
that's why they have biopsy's.
to find out is affecting your lungs
in order to determine proper care
and treatment.
mike

Really? Lung biopsies are common for those who have COPD? Interesting...

 

[stevegmu]

when 30 % of smokers getting lung cancer all you still
have is a 30% chance. with a .003 percent of a total work force
having an issue how can diacetyl be determined to be the
sole cause.
mike

Perhaps they didn't all get lung biopsies...

 

[skoony]

Why don't I count? My asthma was doing fine until I vaped one particular ejuice, then it went all to hell -- I don't know what was in that ejuice to cause that, but given that the obliterans can be misdiagnosed as asthma, I thought it was a telling sign. Especially considering that even a month after I stopped vaping that particular juice, my asthma had not improved, but was still out of control.

Andria

because Andria just like other pre-existing conditions
there are so many things that don't affect the healthy
population that could and apparently does affect you.
people with other conditions have problems with other things.
i a not excluding you merely pointing out that we don't
need FDA regulations to iron this out. i have said before
a simple diketone free or contains diketones disclaimer
is all that's necessary as it is for so many things on the market.
i know you have issues with your lungs but for someone to
take that and make it a reason for strict FDA regulations
is another thing.
i suspected the poster was thinking about you.
i think about you too.
vape on.

regards
mike

 

[skoony]

Really? Lung biopsies are common for those who have COPD? Interesting...

how do you think the know these things? magic?
spin a wheel? guess?
even with out a biopsy there are standard tests
an procedures in place to determine what is
causing the problem. they call the diagnosing
the problem.
it wouldn't be testing would it?
mike

 

[stevegmu]

how do you think the know these things? magic?
spin a wheel? guess?
it wouldn't be testing would it?
mike

Lung function tests. Biopsies aren't common for diagnosing COPD...

 

[caramel]

I'm still waiting for the statistics of cases with fast symptoms vs total cases of bronchiolitis obliterans. This before we could get into biopsies. Steve, how long would your counting take?

 

[DaveP]

Face it, all humans come with a life expectancy. Some things we do tend to shorten it, but none of us live forever. Most of us can attest to better health from quitting smoking and turning to vaping and that's a positive. A few more decades and there will be significant history to examine.

 

[AndriaD]

because Andria just like other pre-existing conditions
there are so many things that don't affect the healthy
population that could and apparently does affect you.
people with other conditions have problems with other things.
i a not excluding you merely pointing out that we don't
need FDA regulations to iron this out. i have said before
a simple diketone free or contains diketones disclaimer
is all that's necessary as it is for so many things on the market.
i know you have issues with your lungs but for someone to
take that and make it a reason for strict FDA regulations
is another thing.
i suspected the poster was thinking about you.
i think about you too.
vape on.

regards
mike

Ahh... and I COMPLETELY agree; it does NOT require the FDA -- as I stated earlier in the thread. I'm with whoever said that the market itself can decide this issue quite well -- if those who don't want diketones -- probably a fair percentage -- do not patronize sellers who won't tell you what's in the juice, there's going to be some market pressure on those sellers to start disclosing. If they continue to not disclose, and more people become aware of the potential issues with diketones, eventually the non-disclosing sellers will be forced to either start disclosing -- to remain in business -- or simply go out of business. Supply and Demand. Caveat Emptor. And all that jazz -- it's working great for everything else, and I strenuously object to e-cigs or e-juice being considered in special need of special regs -- or special taxes.

They key thing is, those with pre-existing conditions have to be their own "FDA" -- take some responsibility for their own health instead of looking to Big Nanny to do it all for them! Use those heads for something other than hat rests!

But that just goes to illustrate my overriding philosophy: complete freedom -- and complete responsibility. You can do whatever you like... as long as you're willing to pay the price.

Andria

 

[stevegmu]

Face it, all humans come with a life expectancy. Some things we do tend to shorten it, but none of us live forever. Most of us can attest to better health from quitting smoking and turning to vaping and that's a positive. A few more decades and there will be significant history to examine.

This is true, which is why there is no reason to knowingly or unknowingly take unnecessary risks...

 

[caramel]

This is true, which is why there is no reason to knowingly or unknowingly take unnecessary risks...

Assuming that Steve is observing his own logic, one of the following statements must be true:

- Steve does not smoke or vape
- Steve is unreasonable

Could Steve clarify which one?

 

[skoony]

Lung function tests. Biopsies aren't common for diagnosing COPD...

there very common when its necessary for
an accurate diagnoses.
most specialist would require one as a mater
of routine to determine a proper course of treatment.

 

[Jman8]

I don't (I only use tobacco flavors which have little need for the taste profile provided by diketones ), but my point is that to make an truly informed choice that's what would be needed.

The nicotine comparison is not legit as it's practically impossible to OD on nicotine by vaping, and no long term ill effects are know from consumption (all prior studies I've seen involve burning tobacco not just nicotine).

The original point is a little lost (for me) in this back and forth, but I still think to make a truly informed choice, you need to do your own testing. To make a better informed choice, as compared to zero disclosure, then it would be helpful to have vendors disclosing items. I just don't see how that can be considered truly informed.

I still think the nicotine point stands, but not seeing reason to belabor that as the truly informed choice is the point of contention at this point.

If there was a common additive, used in large enough quantities, implicated in health issues after long term consumption, then yes it might make sense to state the amount. I know of nothing in common use that meets that description other than alcohol it's self.

That answers that question, thanks. I think the 'implicated in health issues,' ought to be put in perspective of 'smear campaigns.' Vaping industry is currently under the microscope and appears to me to constantly be dealing with smear tactics that deal with every chemical component, with visible smear tactics being employed on these items, by persons who have M.D. attached to their name.

I think alcohol does have this going on, but just isn't under the same societal microscope (right now) that vaping is. Arguably, alcohol was under a far bigger microscope in its past, with far more significant history, and those that demanded it be kept on the market despite its perceived harms, won. But when I did some google searching on this, I came up with relatively recent articles noting chemical components in alcohol that are being scrutinized for degree of harm they allegedly carry with them.

I would rather see the industry do it on their own. It doesn't take 100% compliance. Consumers can choose vendors that disclose if they are concerned and avoid those that do not. In time, I expect market pressure to obtain near 100% compliance without requiring government intervention. Many will remove diketones completely due to market pressure, a small group will keep some products, and a few will "prey" on ignorance and apathy.

I disagree with this partially. I think the alternative is under explored and that a movement would inevitably arise that questions how much better off are we with diketones removed. I think there is some of that occurring now (as I'm one that asks that, and don't think I'm alone.) Thus, I don't think it is universal opinion to have it removed. If it were, I think the industry would already be in that direction and my claims for keeping it around would be seen as clearly out of step, while only those that are of the diacetyl-free crowd are able to suggest I am out of step. So, I don't think market pressure will lead to that. I think it will be around for a long time to come and that if anything science will go with a "allowable amount" which ought to say right now that if you are in the diketone-free crowd, you will be unhappy.

And as long as it will (always) be allowed, it will be something that haters can take pot shots at, toward the industry. But the more they do and the more science says it is okay up to a point, the more they just look like haters, and less like reasonably concerned people.

 

[Jman8]

Thinking of doing this type of post in its own thread, but for now, it fits here.

If we keep saying that long term testing is the answer (which we do), then all changes we make now, are skewing the data.

Truly from the non-vaper's perspective, if talking about "avoidable risks," the #1 consideration will be do not vape. If that leads vaper to say, I'll go back to smoking. The non-vaping, never smoker, is likely to say, "don't do that either."

Therefore, avoidable risk likely means something different to us than it would to someone that is (arguably) more objective. I think this point could be made clear with any number of analogies where I found new product that I enjoy, some health advocate says there is dangerous component to that product, and I ask people around me what they think. I believe most, if not all, will say stop using the new product. While there would be a few that would say, see if you can find that product without that component. But if the whole point is there is no long term testing on anything within the product (in the way I am choosing to use it), then does it really matter what component it is substituted with.

Where is the long term studies for vaping diketone-free liquids? Oh, that's right, there aren't any.

What if in year 15 of eLiquid's existence, humanity is able to reach zero percent of diketone in all existing eLiquids. Then in year 30, scientists of the day reach consensus that vaping is inherently dangerous. Would that not lead one to wonder if the outcome at that 30 year mark may have been different if diketones were still allowed?

Going forward, it would seem to make sense to have both type of eLiquids, until the long term studies are conclusive.

Even Dr. F. isn't in full agreement with other scientists on this issue. Main point of contention being how much can reasonably be allowed before it is considered harmful. Therefore, some can be allowed and it still be considered okay (by Dr. F. standards and other scientists). Yet, some vapers are chasing after zero percent and thinking that will lead to safer vaping.

Yet, to the non-vaper, the talk of avoidable risk will likely always be met with, stop vaping - at least until the long term studies are complete.

 

[AndriaD]

Even Dr. F. isn't in full agreement with other scientists on this issue. Main point of contention being how much can reasonably be allowed before it is considered harmful. Therefore, some can be allowed and it still be considered okay (by Dr. F. standards and other scientists). Yet, some vapers are chasing after zero percent and thinking that will lead to safer vaping.

Yet, to the non-vaper, the talk of avoidable risk will likely always be met with, stop vaping - at least until the long term studies are complete.

I'm fully aware that even with my utmost vigilance, there may still be some diketones in my flavors -- some of the vendors I use for some flavors don't seem to have taken any notice of the diketone debate (Inawera -- they're Polish, so likely have other things to worry about, over there in eastern Europe right next to Russia). It's my contention that keeping diketones as low as possible is a good idea, as well as being the best I can hope for.

As for "stop vaping" -- that is in NO WAY a reasonable answer; for myself, if I stopped vaping, I'd be back to smoking within a week, and I bet vast sums of imaginary money that I'm very far from the only one. Stopping something entirely is not a reasonable answer if the stopping leads one back to something far more hazardous. Non-smokers/non-vapers have no dog in that hunt, so their "reasonable" answer is very far from reasonable for those of us using vaping as a means to abstain from smoking.

Andria

 

[ST Dog]

But when I did some google searching on this, I came up with relatively recent articles noting chemical components in alcohol that are being scrutinized for degree of harm they allegedly carry with them.

See, moonshine and bathtub gin.

Eventually the government cracked down on those distilling without paying the taxes.
But if word got out that your shin was laced (like using old car radiators) you were pretty much done for. No one would but you stuff.
With the return of micro brew, home brew and homemade wines, the issues arise again, but most are honest and trying to make a safe product. It's not in their interest to harm their customers.

I think it will be around for a long time to come and that if anything science will go with a "allowable amount" which ought to say right now that if you are in the diketone-free crowd, you will be unhappy.

Sorry, I may not have been clear. I think Most vendors will go diketone free. A few will keep diketones, labeled, for the flavors that work better/best with them. And a few will not bother to say, getting most of their business from ignorant (new, don't know about it yet) or apathetic (those who don't care about diketones) users/

 

[DrMA]

Hunter S Thompson: «Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely, in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy Shi*, what a ride!"»

 

[Jman8]

As for "stop vaping" -- that is in NO WAY a reasonable answer; for myself, if I stopped vaping, I'd be back to smoking within a week, and I bet vast sums of imaginary money that I'm very far from the only one. Stopping something entirely is not a reasonable answer if the stopping leads one back to something far more hazardous. Non-smokers/non-vapers have no dog in that hunt, so their "reasonable" answer is very far from reasonable for those of us using vaping as a means to abstain from smoking.

Andria

I agree that the non-smoking/non-vaping participant is not necessarily providing reasonable answers. IMO, that point matters most.

Yet, we talk about "avoidable risk" like it is something that can be objectively quantified. We also talk like diketone-free liquids are inherently safer, without having 30+ years of studies to back that claim up. Just a hunch we have, I guess.

Hard to agree that stopping something leads back to another thing. That takes choice and desire. Take it from a dual user who is "lead back." Tis not my (former) addiction that leads me back. You have that choice right now. You choose not. I disagree that moderate use is "far more hazardous." Therefore, you must be saying you'd go back to heavy smoking / abusive smoking. Would seem more reasonable to consider other options than that if the hatred for that is so strong. And here's where we may disagree on whether or not there are other options. I think I could name 5 options at least, without thinking much about it.

Now I'm wondering if ex-smoking/BT hating persons have a reasonable dog in this hunt. I'm thinking that they think they do, but it rarely shows up to me as reasonable.