STUDY: E-CIGARETTES COULD CUT SMOKING-RELATED DEATHS BY 21%

[VictorC]

"WASHINGTON - E-cigarettes could lead to a 21% drop in deaths from smoking-related diseases in those born after 1997, according to a study published in Nicotine & tobacco Research."

Study: E-cigarettes could cut smoking-related deaths by 21%Study: E-cigarettes could cut smoking-related deaths by 21%

 

[Kent C]

"WASHINGTON - E-cigarettes could lead to a 21% drop in deaths from smoking-related diseases in those born after 1997, according to a study published in Nicotine & tobacco Research."

Study: E-cigarettes could cut smoking-related deaths by 21%Study: E-cigarettes could cut smoking-related deaths by 21%

Good news, but the ANTZ (CDC's) figures on 'smoking related deaths' hasn't dropped from the 400,000 to near 500,000 deaths per year since the 90's, despite a drop in 'adult smoking population rate' of @30% in the mid 90's to @15% today. I don't expect them to change that figure soon, even if it does drop. They have their own definitions and algorithms - the last of which are unavailable to anyone outside.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

Good news, but the ANTZ (CDC's) figures on 'smoking related deaths' hasn't dropped from the 400,000 to near 500,000 deaths per year since the 90's, despite a drop in 'adult smoking population rate' of @30% in the mid 90's to @15% today. I don't expect them to change that figure soon, even if it does drop. They have their own definitions and algorithms - the last of which are unavailable to anyone outside.

I'm actually waiting for those numbers to go up when they start including anyone that died and knew somebody that smoked. It'll have one of those asterisks next to it without a footnote.

 

[bobwho77]

I'm actually waiting for those numbers to go up when they start including anyone that died and knew somebody that smoked. It'll have one of those asterisks next to it without a footnote.

Question I've posted on other threads about "smoking related deaths" statistics.. If you're crossing the street, and get run over by a BEER truck, does that qualify as an alcohol related accident? Even if the driver of the truck is cold sober?

 

[Painter_]

Question I've posted on other threads about "smoking related deaths" statistics.. If you're crossing the street, and get run over by a BEER truck, does that qualify as an alcohol related accident? Even if the driver of the truck is cold sober?

But is the beer cold?

 

[somdcomputerguy]

Even if the driver of the truck is cold sober?

"Have you had anything to drink today, sir"
"No, my truck had a couple hundred cases though.."

​

 

[Nermal]

21% is probably as good as it gets. Lung cancer is a smoking related disease, even for those who've never smoked. That means smoking related deaths are here forever.

 

[skoony]

Another study that doesn't get it. What hey should be concentrating on are those that don't smoke but vape only. These mixed studies confound the results to much. IMHO
exclusive studies of only vapers adjusted for age,previous cigarette use and,any related prior related health issues would be of immense value in showing the utterly benign nature of vaping when compared to cigarette smoking. Depending on how young you are your chances of death be near zero and go up with age and additional time smoking cigarettes once you have quit smoking completely. These studies would be more helpful done on the 30-40 year old age group. Teenagers are too young and healthy.

Regards
Mike

 

[rico942]

I'm actually waiting for those numbers to go up when they start including anyone that died and knew somebody that smoked. It'll have one of those asterisks next to it without a footnote.

* Never smoked, but stayed at a Holiday Inn Express where someone did.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The study was one of the few funded by Obama's DHHS that reported some health benefits of vaping (and that didn't demonize vaping). It's at
The Application of a Decision-Theoretic Model to Estimate the Public Health Impact of Vaporized Nicotine Product Initiation in the United States

More news articles

Study finds e-cigarettes could cut smoking-related deaths by 21 percent
E-cigarettes could cut smoking-related deaths by 21 percent: study

Vaping helps public health, study finds
Vaping helps public health, study finds

E-cigarettes may help more than they hurt
E-Cigarettes May Help More Than They Hurt

Qualitative study on e-cigarettes shows more evidence of tobacco harm reduction
Qualitative Study on E-cigarettes Shows More Evidence of Tobacco Harm Reduction | Heartland Institute

 

[Semiretired]

So, why all the hoopla against vaping???

 

[bobwho77]

So, why all the hoopla against vaping???

$$$

 

[VNeil]

I'm actually waiting for those numbers to go up when they start including anyone that died and knew somebody that smoked. It'll have one of those asterisks next to it without a footnote.

They are already doing that. It's called Second Hand Smoke.

 

[BuGlen]

So, why all the hoopla against vaping???

$$$

To be more specific for those people who haven't been following along:
(in no particular order)

• Big Pharma - Losing money on NRT, and ultimately on treatment drugs for smoking related illness. If smoking rates continue to fall, they'll have to find another segment of the population to target as the lepers / unclean masses, and risk being exposed for the drug pushers they truly are.
• Big Tobacco - Losing money and customers to an alternative nicotine consumer product sector. If they can't kill the vapor industry, they will support any and all means to create a monopolistic market with their own products at the top of the pyramid.
• Big Government - Losing big tax and MSA payment dollars at the local, state, and federal levels. Many states have even leveraged future taxes and MSA payments in tobacco bonds, and the unexpected rate of smoking cessation (due to vapor products) is causing them to risk default on dividend payments to their investors.
• NGOs - Supposed "public health" organizations that get massive federal and commercial funding in the "war against tobacco". If smoking actually stopped worldwide tomorrow, they would serve no purpose and could secure no funding, so they would cease to exist.
• Public Health Researchers - There is a particular group of researchers in both educational and commercial sectors that rely on government funds (grants) to conduct research. If the "war on tobacco" fizzles out because a harm reduction product was allowed to be available as a consumer product (and not killed by taxes and regulations), they would lose a big chunk of their funding. The most recent flood of media coverage of the Berkeley "study" demonstrates how these research groups conducts studies to drive a per-determined conclusion, thereby securing future funding for other research.

 

[DC2]

To be more specific for those people who haven't been following along:

Required reading.
Should be "stickied" in the New Members forum.

 

[Shawn Hoefer]

They are already doing that. It's called Second Hand Smoke.

There have been a few studies that start to look at third hand smoke! As suggested before, not a smoker, not with a smoker, but in a room that somebody smoked in... apparently there is enough residue left behind that this can be an issue to those sensitive to smoke.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[skoony]

There have been a few studies that start to look at third hand smoke! As suggested before, not a smoker, not with a smoker, but in a room that somebody smoked in... apparently there is enough residue left behind that this can be an issue to those sensitive to smoke.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

The trouble with studies suggesting 3rd hand smoke may be an issue is
the complete lack of those suffering from said 3rd hand smoke.

Not one verified case just absurd allegations that there must be harm because,
cigarette smoke.
Seems legit.
Mike

 

[Shawn Hoefer]

The trouble with studies suggesting 3rd hand smoke may be an issue is
the complete lack of those suffering from said 3rd hand smoke.

Not one verified case just absurd allegations that there must be harm because,
cigarette smoke.
Seems legit.
Mike

And, we know how much the FDA loves not skewing verified science to meet their needs. Right? Right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk