Teens being hospitalized with lung disease doctor's say it's vaping

[Baditude]

"Siblings of a 26-year-old man from Burlington also reported their brother was hospitalized in critical condition this week after vaping T.H.C. from a cartridge he bought on the street."​

"Jonathan Meiman, chief medical officer with the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, said it's unclear what exactly the teenagers admitted to Children's Hospital had inhaled. In early interviews, teens mentioned nicotine and T.H.C. he said."​

Eight Milwaukee-area teens hospitalized with severe lung damage that may have been caused by vaping

Is it a coincidence that all affected were teens from the same city? Did they have any association with one another? Did they all vape together, vaping the same gear and same "substance"?

With what little info we have from the news reports, one could come to a reasonable conclusion that the teens were vaping an illicit substance possibly purchased on the street which could have been adulterated or "laced" with who knows what. That's the risk one pays when buying illicit black market stuff off the street.

I find it highly unlikely the teens were vaping regular e-liquid to experience the symptoms they were all experiencing that required hospitalization. Such severe reactions to "vaping" are unprecedented to the best of my knowledge.

Vaping may well have been the mode of delivery, but WHAT they were actually vaping is the real question to find out.

 

[zoiDman]

I agree. But I do have to add this. The pattern of the press creating news to sell more papers, more viewers, more clicks, has existed for well before both the internet, 24 hour news cycle cable news, or even TV or radio. Look at newspapers in the 19th and first half of the 20th century. That's how they operated. The newspapers that were viewed with greater authority and validity came from a handful of sources. You also had news agencies known for impartiality that supplied stories for their subscribed papers, leaving it for the individual paper to set the political/moral tone of their publication. Sure, AP and Reuters are still around but a far less influential as authoritative sources of news.

What is different is the speed of dissemination and the lower cost of entry to the press "club". Set up a website like Drudge did and you're a news source and become credentialed press. Same with the Huff Post and many others, all with clear bias in their selection of topics and the optics provided. Editorial and news are blended together rather than clearly separated. Opinion pieces run next to news stories with almost impossible to locate designations, so someone's opinions becomes "facts". The days of an editorial page with an op ed across from it are few and far between. Now we jumble it all together, and allow the tone of what is news to be set according to policy than newsworthiness.

The press has been influential in politics for a very long time. Editorial endorsements carried weight. Now it's less so. But someone like Rupert Murdoch is cut in the same manner that Hearst was a hundred years ago, and utilizes his platforms to advance his world view. And with the need to fill a 24 hour cycle with "breaking news", well, a lot of creativity is required.

This isn't new. It's been going on since the first newspapers were published. What's different is it's no longer a print media, it's multiple media sources with very short turnaround time of getting a story out and keeping it fresh, and the cost of entry has dramatically dropped thanks to a website and enough buzz to generate those clicks.

When TV news, then live cable news came along, newspapers were threatened of always reporting the story the day after it happened, unlike the same day on video, and decreasing in relevancy. Now the websites churn out new material within moments of the event, without even much time or effort into making it understandable, just dumping it out there. Combine that with the echoing on social media, and this is where we now are. But the fundamentals of editorial bias to generate sales/ads/clicks is as old as news reporting itself.

No... This is Not a New Pandemonium by any means.

But what is Disturbing is the Level/Degree of the Hype, Bias, and the Exponential Amplification of FUD that Today's Internet has provided can provide.

If news agency "A" says something, news agency "B" has to make it Bigger and more "Clickable". And when Facts or Reason are Exhausted, news agency "C" just Invents stuff to raise the Hype Level.

It's like were in a Arms Race to see who can "Report" the Most Sensational Story. And then to Claim the Prize of More Clicks.

There just Don't seem to be any Guardrails anymore where an News Editor say's this is Going Too Far. Or that in the Quest for Clicks, that Harm can be Done.

And then as you Mentioned, there Stories are swept up in the Social Media tide. Where Anything Goes.

 

[stratus.vaping]

I agree. But I do have to add this. The pattern of the press creating news to sell more papers, more viewers, more clicks, has existed for well before both the internet, 24 hour news cycle cable news, or even TV or radio. Look at newspapers in the 19th and first half of the 20th century. That's how they operated. The newspapers that were viewed with greater authority and validity came from a handful of sources. You also had news agencies known for impartiality that supplied stories for their subscribed papers, leaving it for the individual paper to set the political/moral tone of their publication. Sure, AP and Reuters are still around but a far less influential as authoritative sources of news.

What is different is the speed of dissemination and the lower cost of entry to the press "club". Set up a website like Drudge did and you're a news source and become credentialed press. Same with the Huff Post and many others, all with clear bias in their selection of topics and the optics provided. Editorial and news are blended together rather than clearly separated. Opinion pieces run next to news stories with almost impossible to locate designations, so someone's opinions becomes "facts". The days of an editorial page with an op ed across from it are few and far between. Now we jumble it all together, and allow the tone of what is news to be set according to policy than newsworthiness.

The press has been influential in politics for a very long time. Editorial endorsements carried weight. Now it's less so. But someone like Rupert Murdoch is cut in the same manner that Hearst was a hundred years ago, and utilizes his platforms to advance his world view. And with the need to fill a 24 hour cycle with "breaking news", well, a lot of creativity is required.

This isn't new. It's been going on since the first newspapers were published. What's different is it's no longer a print media, it's multiple media sources with very short turnaround time of getting a story out and keeping it fresh, and the cost of entry has dramatically dropped thanks to a website and enough buzz to generate those clicks.

When TV news, then live cable news came along, newspapers were threatened of always reporting the story the day after it happened, unlike the same day on video, and decreasing in relevancy. Now the websites churn out new material within moments of the event, without even much time or effort into making it understandable, just dumping it out there. Combine that with the echoing on social media, and this is where we now are. But the fundamentals of editorial bias to generate sales/ads/clicks is as old as news reporting itself.

Spot on Eskie, I've been in the media for many decades, worked with journos around the world, reported and produced docs myself too, that is indeed pretty much how it works.

You don't I think, give enough emphasis on the efforts that govs worldwide take to control and influence media in order to retain the overall power, a payback for the occasional right hook that sometimes lands on some govs chin. Small point perhaps but important in the scheme of things imho.

There is very little impartiality in the media/press and never has been. such a thing does not imho exist.

I used to give my students (when I taught) a single viewing of a simple silent video of a scenario with two people interacting in a park, then they had to report on it, what did they see, what was happening and what was their reaction to it.

There were usually as many different interpretations and impressions as there were students. That's inevitable.

 

[stols001]

Look. Teens ARE the black market, a large part of it. IDK if I am alone in this but I did far more dangerous, dastardly things as a teen than as an ADULT.

We knew the bars that would let us in, and we knew why (nice fresh teen meat for the older patrons) we knew the alleys it was safe to smoke WHATEVER, I got up close and personal with RATS in that alley, including the human kind.

If you think we could not and did not procure what we wished to procure in terms of experiences, you would be wrong. Was it all the finest caviar and champagne? No. Did it change our consciousnesses in the way we desired? Yes.

We were the LUCKY side of the teen black market. The buyers. There are far UNLUCKER teen black markets, the teens that are CURRENCY.

I'm sorry we all want to think the world is nice, and innocent, but it ISN'T. Teens get trotted around for stuff because they are EASY pickings, and by that I mean a certain amount of them are going to find their suppliers.... Unscrupulous. Their product adulterated.

For adults, for most of this easier "going" stuff, there is far less risk.

Would I buy some odd pod from a skeezy looking man as a dime bag, as a teen? You bet your bottom dollar I might.

Would I engage in sexual congress with a creepy man at a bar that allowed children to enter in the alley with the rats? That might depend on my state of consciousness, and how much I had to drink.

As an adult, I have no need to do that. None.
So, of course I don't.

This is not HARD people.

Anna

 

[RayofLight62]

The computer, this sophisticated manufact capable of delivering information in most nuanced mode possible, by combining many media together.

But.

The way it has been set to communicate and share, with "likes"...

Binary, instinctual choices reminiscent of apes communicating together.

Imagine if, when automobiles become the most spread mean of transport, forced to use a clackson (horn) to communicate with other road users; imagine if all users liked it so much, and set to use an horn to speak their thoughts all times of the day, everywhere.

It didn't happen with cars, but had immediate success when social media spread on computer networks, transforming subtle and intricate emotions into a pretty brutal binary choice, which in turn polarised society as a whole.

Mankind is more than that, social media have a place into history books as a failed experiment.

 

[Baditude]

Wut?

 

[stols001]

Cublalulba is that you?

Come to my house the water may be dirty and poisonous but there are worse....

Come to my house, it's awesome.

Anna

 

[stratus.vaping]

The computer, this sophisticated manufact capable of delivering information in most nuanced mode possible, by combining many media together.

But.

The way it has been set to communicate and share, with "likes"...

Binary, instinctual choices reminiscent of apes communicating together.

Imagine if, when automobiles become the most spread mean of transport, forced to use a clackson (horn) to communicate with other road users; imagine if all users liked it so much, and set to use an horn to speak their thoughts all times of the day, everywhere.

It didn't happen with cars, but had immediate success when social media spread on computer networks, transforming subtle and intricate emotions into a pretty brutal binary choice, which in turn polarised society as a whole.

Mankind is more than that, social media have a place into history books as a failed experiment.

Uhm, the art of copying texts by hand and then Caxton had the same changing effect on the world. Not much is new other than reach.

 

[Bunnykiller]

RoL may end up with lung damage

 

[Eskie]

Spot on Eskie, I've been in the media for many decades, worked with journos around the world, reported and produced docs myself too, that is indeed pretty much how it works.

You don't I think, give enough emphasis on the efforts that govs worldwide take to control and influence media in order to retain the overall power, a payback for the occasional right hook that sometimes lands on some govs chin. Small point perhaps but important in the scheme of things imho.

There is very little impartiality in the media/press and never has been. such a thing does not imho exist.

I used to give my students (when I taught) a single viewing of a simple silent video of a scenario with two people interacting in a park, then they had to report on it, what did they see, what was happening and what was their reaction to it.

There were usually as many different interpretations and impressions as there were students. That's inevitable.

Oh, I didn't even come close to government control of the press. That's a whole different topic. The fact that the first thing any government that seeks to impose control on its citizens is the press is sadly too well known. The first thing every restrictive or authoritarian government does is take down the press first and assure only the "official" government's information is being released and heard. The first barrier to any opposition usually begins with controlling the information sources, until now the press. Control of the press remains one of the primary means of asserting control on a population.

Granted, the internet makes that a bit more difficult as information can still seep around any barriers, but it doesn't stop governments from trying. Look at China and their firewall against the spread of information.

That video experiment you describe is a classic one to demonstrate how views and interpretations f the same event can be subjective. It's also why one of the more unreliable pieces of evidence in a crime can be an eyewitness. Their perspective and bias will affect their recollection and interpretation of events. It's counterinutitive but we've seen it time and again.

Then there's also the newer problem of information bias that occurs on the web when we select and gather and our sources in a manner that reinforces our beliefs and opinions instead of challenging them. Our behavior and reactions determine what further information is served up that will draw us in deeper (thanks to more views, clicks, however you want to run the algorithms) rather than push us away. We end up with information tailored to reinforce our worldview and bury any alternate viewpoint. Social media is amplifying that as we react and are attracted to what we believe in a self reinforcing pattern. It's not a pretty picture, and is just creating an ever more polarizing effect on us.

 

[bombastinator]

The computer, this sophisticated manufact capable of delivering information in most nuanced mode possible, by combining many media together.

But.

The way it has been set to communicate and share, with "likes"...

Binary, instinctual choices reminiscent of apes communicating together.

Imagine if, when automobiles become the most spread mean of transport, forced to use a clackson (horn) to communicate with other road users; imagine if all users liked it so much, and set to use an horn to speak their thoughts all times of the day, everywhere.

It didn't happen with cars, but had immediate success when social media spread on computer networks, transforming subtle and intricate emotions into a pretty brutal binary choice, which in turn polarised society as a whole.

Mankind is more than that, social media have a place into history books as a failed experiment.

Not sure how this applies. It’s pretty oblique. Or are you referring to the standard “telephone” issue? It’s bad but that doesn’t make it a new problem.

I personally am seeing this as “a bunch of people in succession read only part of a written statement and made surmises that fit their prejudices, each magnifying the last”. So “might possibly be for all we know because we don’t know spit” turned into “must be!”

More of a “what is wrong with journalism or the lack of it today” as anything else. Electronic media does compress time though which arguably makes the problem worse.

 

[stols001]

You don't actually compress time, I don't think. You compress "data" if I understand computers at all correctly which I probably do NOT.

But, a file that is more rapidly sent, at a lower "density" is going to be missing huge chunks of the spectrum, here and there, to use an aural example.

So, you won't have "all" the nuanced spectrum of music to be heard. You will get "a poor quality" copy of the information, and it will be missing, some of it. Some ears will be able to tell, some won't but without some sort of "analytic" machine, what actually IS or IS NOT missing is impossible for most to discern.

I mean, I can tell the difference between live, record, 8 track, low density and high density music but I will not be able to tell you EXACTLY what is missing, and I've done blind listening tests, because I wanted to know what I could and could not hear.

So, yeah, okay it's moving faster (bad information) but the bad news is many, many of use cannot say what is "bad" information except among our very, very specialized fields of interest.

I can tell you just about most things about a TON of meds especially psych meds, because it is a field of interest as it were. I have also learned to discern "how to read an experiment" and how it is flawed." THAT can rule out a TON of sensationalized stories even NOT in my field of study, but it's a lot worse than that now.

When Nurse practitioner children come up and ASK me about vaping, it is deeply, deeply uncomfortable to me to have to get into the socio-economic-politico "field" of research "study" and how to tell a "good" study from a bad one. Granted my parents were scientists but I KNEW THIS STUFF IN HIGH SCHOOL.

It's not "the sensationalized" study alone we need to get ahead of, it's the lack of KNOWLEDGE of the redacted pieces, and also the TOTAL UTTER lack of critical thinking skills in our schools.

The problem begins, at root, with our educational system and if less money goes into that than even the COST of the LININGS of the lovey suits of our well LINED politicians well we have a problem the likes of which I sort of say.... Bring on the end, and perhaps the smart and angry will survive.

We can throw the cartons of cigarettes in after our "elected" officials dead bodies, and scream "No taxation without education."

I have been in some pretty scary schools. The one opposite Pimlico Raceway comes to mind. I don't know what was happening there, but it wasn't education and science.

Also our government does not want doctors to... Know stuff. They don't. They want them to toe the party line and like, DO what they (the government) want.

ALL Of my specialist docs are in their 60s to 80s. It is that way by DESIGN. They know things our new little dummies don't lovely though they may be.

Anna

 

[muth]

I wanted to get everyone's input on the stories in the news about teens being hospitalized with lung disease , doctors are saying common link is vaping. Do you think this is from vaping normal e liquid ! Or do you think something else was added? I have a sister who likes to post news stories on social media, and it irritates me because half the time it's before the truth comes out. I just find it very suspicious that this is happening with just teens, why haven't those of us that vape a lot and for years experienced this ? I could be wrong, just want everyone's input, we've got some members who are awesome at getting to the bottom of things and finding the real answers !!

Fake news (no, really, I haven't a clue) but since a lot of teens use Juuls maybe it's something in those or other vape pens/pods. Who makes the juice that comes with them, anyway?

 

[muth]

So are people actually eating laundry detergent? Serious question.

Idk if anyone answered your question but Tide laundry detergent pods look like candy. Some children have eaten them and ended up in the hospital for a rinse cycle, lol.

 

[scott58]

Fake news. Probably huffing something in a paper bag. I wanna see toxicology report.

 

[bombastinator]

You don't actually compress time, I don't think. You compress "data" if I understand computers at all correctly which I probably do NOT.

I was afraid this confusion would come up. I probably should have said “compresses the news cycle and available time. With the internet things move faster. Back in the days when the newswire was a private thing a writer would have hours or days to process an incoming article. Now that time is measured in minutes. So they don’t read it all and they don’t think hard on what they are saying. Worse, it can happen several times in a row. An article passes to a writer who writes something based on it and then another writer reads that rather than the origional. It can happen several times. Bad journalism of course but good journalism was destroyed in the 90’s.

But, a file that is more rapidly sent, at a lower "density" is going to be missing huge chunks of the spectrum, here and there, to use an aural example.

So, you won't have "all" the nuanced spectrum of music to be heard. You will get "a poor quality" copy of the information, and it will be missing, some of it. Some ears will be able to tell, some won't but without some sort of "analytic" machine, what actually IS or IS NOT missing is impossible for most to discern.

I mean, I can tell the difference between live, record, 8 track, low density and high density music but I will not be able to tell you EXACTLY what is missing, and I've done blind listening tests, because I wanted to know what I could and could not hear.

So, yeah, okay it's moving faster (bad information) but the bad news is many, many of use cannot say what is "bad" information except among our very, very specialized fields of interest.

I can tell you just about most things about a TON of meds especially psych meds, because it is a field of interest as it were. I have also learned to discern "how to read an experiment" and how it is flawed." THAT can rule out a TON of sensationalized stories even NOT in my field of study, but it's a lot worse than that now.

When Nurse practitioner children come up and ASK me about vaping, it is deeply, deeply uncomfortable to me to have to get into the socio-economic-politico "field" of research "study" and how to tell a "good" study from a bad one. Granted my parents were scientists but I KNEW THIS STUFF IN HIGH SCHOOL.

It's not "the sensationalized" study alone we need to get ahead of, it's the lack of KNOWLEDGE of the redacted pieces, and also the TOTAL UTTER lack of critical thinking skills in our schools.

The problem begins, at root, with our educational system and if less money goes into that than even the COST of the LININGS of the lovey suits of our well LINED politicians well we have a problem the likes of which I sort of say.... Bring on the end, and perhaps the smart and angry will survive.

We can throw the cartons of cigarettes in after our "elected" officials dead bodies, and scream "No taxation without education."

I have been in some pretty scary schools. The one opposite Pimlico Raceway comes to mind. I don't know what was happening there, but it wasn't education and science.

Also our government does not want doctors to... Know stuff. They don't. They want them to toe the party line and like, DO what they (the government) want.

Except the people they answer to isn’t the government. It’s the company that owns the hospital. And that company doesn’t interact much with the government either. They interact with the insurance company. So you’ve got two layers of private industry before the government could even possibly get involved.

ALL Of my specialist docs are in their 60s to 80s. It is that way by DESIGN. They know things our new little dummies don't lovely though they may be.

yup. And those old doctors were trained back when the government WAS more involved. I really think you’ve got it backwards here.

Anna[/QUOTE]

 

[bombastinator]

Fake news. Probably hugging something in a paper bag. I wanna see toxicology report.

Lot of it around. So much of it that it’s become a crutch for some. The term “Fake news” is turning into “anything the effect of which is not to my advantage”.
Fake news is not even remotely new. It used to be called “yellow journalism” it was a big problem in the 1900s when the term was coined. That phase of yellow journalism and the public disgust with it was what created the concept of journalistic ethics that existed until it was more or less murdered. Ironically by the same interests that created yellow journalism in the first place. Rich Industrialists.

 

[bombastinator]

Idk if anyone answered your question but Tide laundry detergent pods look like candy. Some children have eaten them and ended up in the hospital for a rinse cycle, lol.

It then became a meme and then a “challenge” and a whole series of young idiots put themselves in the hospital iirc.

Consumption of Tide Pods - Wikipedia

 

[stratus.vaping]

Oh, I didn't even come close to government control of the press. That's a whole different topic. The fact that the first thing any government that seeks to impose control on its citizens is the press is sadly too well known. The first thing every restrictive or authoritarian government does is take down the press first and assure only the "official" government's information is being released and heard. The first barrier to any opposition usually begins with controlling the information sources, until now the press. Control of the press remains one of the primary means of asserting control on a population.

Granted, the internet makes that a bit more difficult as information can still seep around any barriers, but it doesn't stop governments from trying. Look at China and their firewall against the spread of information.

That video experiment you describe is a classic one to demonstrate how views and interpretations f the same event can be subjective. It's also why one of the more unreliable pieces of evidence in a crime can be an eyewitness. Their perspective and bias will affect their recollection and interpretation of events. It's counterinutitive but we've seen it time and again.

Then there's also the newer problem of information bias that occurs on the web when we select and gather and our sources in a manner that reinforces our beliefs and opinions instead of challenging them. Our behavior and reactions determine what further information is served up that will draw us in deeper (thanks to more views, clicks, however you want to run the algorithms) rather than push us away. We end up with information tailored to reinforce our worldview and bury any alternate viewpoint. Social media is amplifying that as we react and are attracted to what we believe in a self reinforcing pattern. It's not a pretty picture, and is just creating an ever more polarizing effect on us.

Completely agree. The teens vaping calamity is likely a low level example of corporates/politicians manipulating the media through the old school tie (as we sometimes call it in the UK) or buddy system, rather than the stupidity of editors. That happens routinely I'm sure, I've experienced it and hear of it often still.

I would remove your words "..every restrictive or authoritarian..." and just leave "governments", they all do it without exception imho.. and I'm no conspiracy theorist. 8)

Yes the video experiment is a classic, got it from a Psych prof iirc. Somewhere I have some large flash cards with a series of images that are used in the same way. Sparked a few fierce arguments in tutor groups with it.

 

[figment_oyi]

Thanks for everyone's interesting input on this...it just frustrates the crap out of me when people like my sister copy news stories they have no idea about on social media.. I replied by saying I would probably guess it was something other than e liquid, that I'd spent many hours researching vaping and had not come across anything like that before..got no response, because she doesn't bother to research it any further than seeing a news story online !!