Wow, real research! This is a pleasant change from status quo. Though small, study results are illuminating and potentially useful, though the impact seems overstated.
Study reports first evidence of biological changes related to e-cig use in never-smokers
- Thread starter LoveVanilla
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Who said e-cigarettes are supposed to be "safe"?
E cigarettes are said to possess 5% of the dangers associated with combustion cigarettes.
This is NOT 95% safer, this is THOUSANDS of times less harmful than traditional cigarettes.
Once these types of studies include combustion cigarette data, the potential risks of vaping pale by comparison.
Cheers
I
"new research data suggests that even short-term e-cig use can cause cellular inflammation in never-smoker adults."
Are you kidding? This is "real research!"? No, this is cheap fear-mongering. Even going outside in cold weather causes inflammation effects such as coughing. "This is a pleasant change from status quo"? Yes, the groundless fear-mongering about lung cancer certainly is pleasant. And, even though "Researchers did not see levels of inflammation higher than the controls," this was buried deep inside. The crucial first paragraph claimed that "new research data suggests that even short-term e-cig use can cause cellular inflammation in never-smoker adults."
You have got to be kidding. You have just GOT to be kidding. With "friends" like that, you don't need enemies.
Are you kidding? This is "real research!"? No, this is cheap fear-mongering. Even going outside in cold weather causes inflammation effects such as coughing. "This is a pleasant change from status quo"? Yes, the groundless fear-mongering about lung cancer certainly is pleasant. And, even though "Researchers did not see levels of inflammation higher than the controls," this was buried deep inside. The crucial first paragraph claimed that "new research data suggests that even short-term e-cig use can cause cellular inflammation in never-smoker adults."
You have got to be kidding. You have just GOT to be kidding. With "friends" like that, you don't need enemies.
A few more thoughts. Just because it looks 'sciency' doesn't make it science. As a useful indication of actual health risks, this kind of crap is absolutely worthless, and they are unethical and unscientific to pretend otherwise. No observed health effect(s) of vaping have been identified that are in need of an explanation, so this garbage "illuminates" absolutely nothing. Its sole purpose is to stoke groundless fears in ignorant people who can't distinguish BS from science.
Interesting, but the contents of the vapor are not mentioned in the article. There is a downloadable PDF, but there is a “cookie settings” pop up that demands I remove my cookie blockage globally and won’t release the PDF unless I do it.
I’m afraid I don’t have the ability to boot up a disposable VM with requisite protections on my phone so that’s not happening.
Guess I think your reaction is borne of seemingly endless falsehood and propaganda from those with a political agenda rather than truth. And certainly yes, even cold weather or allergies also cause cellular inflammation. I read as individuals looking for insight from their work (don't we all). And, when compared with cigarettes, this impact fades to nothingness. To me, the key findings are:
"Although the magnitude of change was small compared with a control group..."
"Researchers did not see levels of inflammation higher than the controls..."
"...found that an increase in urinary propylene glycol, a marker of inhalation-e-cig intake, was significantly correlated with increased inflammatory response in the lung..."
I understand where you are coming from, though in my reading this is actually both positive and informative. No intended offense.
'Participants were randomized to a four-week intervention with e-cigs containing only 50% propylene glycol (PG) or 50% vegetable glycerine (VG) without nicotine or flavors."
Last edited:
Remember folks, the devil's in the details. This is the only sentence that has any useful information.
Researchers did not see levels of inflammation higher than the controls, but there was an increase in inflammation among the users who inhaled more of the e-cigs.
So both the non vapers in the control (non exposed) group and the exposed group were no differently affected.
But the vaper themselves were affected! But this may well be being caused by hot gasses or a sensitivity to a component or components of liquid used, enviromental factors, and actual health status of the vapers themselves. Also what is unknown is attomizer or mods used as well.
But it would be interesting to look at vaping type, to see how TC or Power/Watts affects various studies. Including this so called one.
Researchers did not see levels of inflammation higher than the controls, but there was an increase in inflammation among the users who inhaled more of the e-cigs.
So both the non vapers in the control (non exposed) group and the exposed group were no differently affected.
But the vaper themselves were affected! But this may well be being caused by hot gasses or a sensitivity to a component or components of liquid used, enviromental factors, and actual health status of the vapers themselves. Also what is unknown is attomizer or mods used as well.
But it would be interesting to look at vaping type, to see how TC or Power/Watts affects various studies. Including this so called one.
I'm sorry a group of 30? And divided up into how many categories?
I guess those who vaped more? Did they use puff counters or what, or measure ml of liquid consumed?
IDK this looks really hastily cobbled together. I'm not trying to discredit the study or anything, I mean these studies should be done and I am also in agreement that when I have a cold or whatnot, my vapes make me cough a LOT more than when I am healthy, So I kind of figured there was a certain amount of inflammatory process happening/could happen.
But I could still vape, and not get 19 months of pneumonia. HARM REDUCTION.
That's what I wish people would talk about. I would have like to have seen a freaking CONTROL GROUP OF SMOKERS, as well as NON smokers.
We can for sure agree vaping is 100% not safe, but the devil kind of can get lost in the details.
Sigh.
Anna
I guess those who vaped more? Did they use puff counters or what, or measure ml of liquid consumed?
IDK this looks really hastily cobbled together. I'm not trying to discredit the study or anything, I mean these studies should be done and I am also in agreement that when I have a cold or whatnot, my vapes make me cough a LOT more than when I am healthy, So I kind of figured there was a certain amount of inflammatory process happening/could happen.
But I could still vape, and not get 19 months of pneumonia. HARM REDUCTION.
That's what I wish people would talk about. I would have like to have seen a freaking CONTROL GROUP OF SMOKERS, as well as NON smokers.
We can for sure agree vaping is 100% not safe, but the devil kind of can get lost in the details.
Sigh.
Anna
With a study size of 30 these tiny effect / low power studies are just random noise.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
There's exactly as much evidence that Instagram use causes lung inflammation.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
There's exactly as much evidence that Instagram use causes lung inflammation.
The bottom line is that they cannot make predictions about lung cancer or anything else, simply from piddling around in a petri dish. If you believe otherwise, then you are completely misled. It simply isn't so. And they're obviously trying to mislead the public that this is how "science" goes about discovering truths. Well, it's not. This is how cranks who hate vaping manufacture propaganda to scare the ignorant.
Eeew missed the petri dish samples.
Hey.... is it kosher to take chunks of someone's lung tissue to examine it in a petri dish? Is it 95 percent safer than smoking? How did they get the chunks?
I'm sorry, I'll admit I saw the number 30, dizzyingly broken down into 50 smaller groups and I kind of tuned out after that.
Dude. Lung tissue in petri dishes. I LIKE petri dishes (and the smell of what weird stretchy plastic they use to like seal up like little plastic containers with the snap off tops, what was it called, I could PLAY with that stuff all day, and often DID (sometimes for pay even) but like WHAT is it called and lung tissue in petri dishes remains horrendously ick though.
Anna
Hey.... is it kosher to take chunks of someone's lung tissue to examine it in a petri dish? Is it 95 percent safer than smoking? How did they get the chunks?
I'm sorry, I'll admit I saw the number 30, dizzyingly broken down into 50 smaller groups and I kind of tuned out after that.
Dude. Lung tissue in petri dishes. I LIKE petri dishes (and the smell of what weird stretchy plastic they use to like seal up like little plastic containers with the snap off tops, what was it called, I could PLAY with that stuff all day, and often DID (sometimes for pay even) but like WHAT is it called and lung tissue in petri dishes remains horrendously ick though.
Anna
My rule is I ignore research unless, or until, Dr. F critiques it. There are plenty of science whores who will find what ever you're willing to pay for.
Depends on what they are trying to predict. Cancer is a very specific kind of genetic damage. Inflammation is not genetic damage though. I agree with the conclusion but not the statement about petri dishes
Since nicotine is an anti-inflammatory, if they included it in the eliquid, (like 99% of vapers), then the results would have been even smaller OR even a positive effect over the control group, where if they were true scientists, they would have to endorse ecigs!!.
i figure it's probably true. while a lot of us probably don't want to accept it, i assume that vaping most certainly has its downside and this is perhaps part of it. all the same, i'm a former smoker and i feel six bizillion times better now that i vape instead. my end goal is to quit vaping, but if i can't, at least i'm vaping instead of smoking.
As ex-smokers we should be screened by having a CT of the lungs. Just read that somewhere. I had it 3 times to follow a couple of nodules (granulomas from previous exacerbations, allergens or chemical exposures) but I'm due again. My Mom died from lung cancer 25 years after she quit. But she did have colon cancer prior. It's a low dose CT. Plus for those of us that are older......a little radiation won't hurt our cell growth .....it's pretty much dormant. Lol
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
