The "Well its gotta be bad for you!" Mentality

[The Dog Guy]

Your right Steve stop vaping immediately and go back to tobacco and take your arrogant assumption that if were not getting ourselves into a state about it all the time we clearly don't care what we ingest because your absolutely right . Why are you vaping with all your concerns why come onto a pro vaping forum to talk about it wouldn't you be better off on any of the thousands of medical forums?. Like many the vast majority I'd wager I'm sick and tired of people worrying on my behalf all the time always ready to educate me in how stupid or ignorant I am of my own health and assuming because they clearly didn't do over three hundred hours of reading scientific studies I didn't either even if I took a lot of time to understand much of it. Vape or dont vape choice is yours no one is forcing you to and if your as concerned as you say I honestly don't understand why you'd keep doing it but go elsewhere to get your answers rather then places that exist to help people make a healthier choice for themselves and yes I am getting angry with these threads started by supposed vapers who are enjoying or getting benefit from vaping but scaring people looking to make the same switch.

Rizzy, Steve is a nice guy, he is, however an antagonist. Argue with him if you like, but don't waste your energy getting riled over it. It can be irritating, but take it as it comes and just point out the flaws. Ask Oberon about getting sucked into an argument with Steve...LOL

 

[caramel]

Nope. A contrarian will argue with you, just for the sake of arguing, regardless of your initial position.

Praise FDA and Vuse and see if he disagrees.

 

[zoiDman]

Isn't there an Old Say' around here?

"Attack the Post. Not the Poster."

 

[The Dog Guy]

Isn't there an Old Say' around here?

"Attack the Post. Not the Poster."

no attack Zoid...none whatsoever!!

 

[VNeil]

I think alot of us like to think that vaping isnt bad for us, but we know that it is to new to really no anything.

Cigalikes have only been around for 11/12 years and cartos for 8, clearos and so on are even newer. That is a very small window to definitevly say they are bad or neutral for us. The only thing I know is that they arent GOOD for us.

In fact, there is far, far more evidence that vaping *is* good for you, then bad for you. Nicotine is known to help with certain neurological diseases, and there are some clinical tests as well as much anecdotal evidence that inhaled PG helps minimize bronchial ailments. Knowledge vs beliefs.....

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/633573-vaping-nicotine-advantages-6.html#post15316959

Propylene glycol in e cigarettes might keep us healthy, says researchers

Juggler, please explain the source of your knowledge that eCigs aren't good for you. Do you know more than the university professor of neuroscience in my first link, or the researchers in the second link? I have an open mind, and the popcorn is popped.

 

[Jman8]

I think alot of us like to think that vaping isnt bad for us, but we know that it is to new to really no anything.

Cigalikes have only been around for 11/12 years and cartos for 8, clearos and so on are even newer. That is a very small window to definitevly say they are bad or neutral for us. The only thing I know is that they arent GOOD for us.

So, knowing that everything that exists carries with it a degree of risk, then what could we say is good for us?

If I vape for 3 years and have 1 cold during that time, when in previous years I averaged 2 to 3 colds a year, could not one make the case that vaping is good for me (or you, or us)?

 

[zoiDman]

BTW - Are All e-Cigarettes the Same? And are All e-Liquids made with the Same Ingredients and to the Same Standards?

Is a Person Vaping a 25% Flavored e-Liquid @ 70 Watts incurring the Same Potential Risk as say a person Vaping Unflavored @ 7 Watts?

_______________________________________

 

[caramel]

So, knowing that everything that exists carries with it a degree of risk, then what could we say is good for us?

Taxes and regulations

 

[Lessifer]

Some people feel an assumption of harm is just being cautious. Some feel that an assumption of harm, without evidence of any harm is being overly cautious.

I personally don't care if you let an assumption guide YOUR personal choices. Where I start to take offense, is when you let your assumptions start to infringe on MY personal choices. If you are going to tell me how, when, where, or how much it's going to cost me to do something, you had better have something more than "there HAS to be something bad about it."

 

[DC2]

I'd like to point out that the statement quotes from me was taken out of context. I said that other people say that, "Well it's gotta be bad for you" -- I don't hold that same feeling.

Sorry about that...

I wasn't aware that your comment was taken out of context by the person who replied to you.
I was just responding to the response of someone else who was responding to the person that replied to you.

 

[Lessifer]

BTW - Are All e-Cigarettes the Same? And are All e-Liquids made with the Same Ingredients and to the Same Standards?

Is a Person Vaping a 25% Flavored e-Liquid @ 70 Watts incurring the Same Potential Risk as say a person Vaping Unflavored @ 7 Watts?

1. No, not all e-cigarettes are the same, they are not made with the same ingredients and to the same standards.
2. No idea, if you have some evidence that they are not incurring the same potential risk, please post it. Not an opinion piece, even if it comes from an esteemed scientist.

The point is, we don't know. I imagine even after the initial research comes in, we still won't KNOW. For some, the "potential" is enough, regardless of whether or not that potential is higher than riding a bike, or drinking tap water from an unknown source, or eating from a food truck, or any number of other "potentially" risky activities. For others, we don't know, means we don't KNOW.

 

[caramel]

Some people feel an assumption of harm is just being cautious. Some feel that an assumption of harm, without evidence of any harm is being overly cautious.

Some people feel that excessive taxes and over-regulation on the assumption of harm, without evidence of any harm, is a fraud.

 

[AndriaD]

I've had to deal with a couple of health issues over the year I've been vaping, which, if I had not been fully committed to vaping instead of smoking, would have caused me to conclude that vaping was bad for me, and go back to smoking: extreme dehydration leading to badly out of balance electrolytes, and a loss of control of my asthma, both either directly or indirectly attributable to vaping.

If a person is already somewhat, or borderline, dehydrated, and starts vaping, that problem is going to get rapidly worse. If you're in that position, you either decide that smoking didn't cause that, and go back to it, or you deal with the dehydration problem; I chose the latter course. The conclusion I reached is that vaping, while orders of magnitude safer than smoking, is NOT "free" -- anything you do to your body has SOME cost; for me, that cost is having to deal with my dehydration issues on a daily basis, by continuing to drink coconut water daily, and keeping to my 2-3 cups of tea daily rather than going back to 10 cups a day.

The asthma thing is more serious of course. Because it seemed utterly stupid to me to think of returning to smoking in order to IMPROVE my asthma, I dealt with the issue by advising my doc at my regular checkup that my asthma was out of control, and that I needed maintenance meds for it, rather than just depending on my rescue inhaler as my sole medication. Advair has brought my asthma back under control.

I *don't* think vaping is necessarily "bad for you" and I definitely think it's far safer than smoking. But as I said, there is going to be some cost involved in anything you do to your body. Depending on your situation pre-vaping, those might be minor costs -- having to drink more water, etc -- or more serious costs -- taking the steps I've had to take in order to keep my hydration levels healthy, taking more medication in order to keep my asthma under control. Those who think they can just swap vaping for smoking without making other changes in their lifestyle, may be in for a rude surprise. I actually consider those changes beneficial: I was already dehydrated before vaping, but vaping forces me to deal with it constructively; and I always should have been on maintenance drugs for my asthma instead of just relying on my rescue inhaler, but I did "ok" without the extra drugs -- until I started vaping.

It really all depends on the individual, their health, and their ability/willingness to make changes in their lifestyle. Anyone who's just LOOKING for an excuse to go back to smoking, will probably be able to find it pretty easily.

Andria

 

[OlderNDirt]

Sorry about that...

I wasn't aware that your comment was taken out of context by the person who replied to you.
I was just responding to the response of someone else who was responding to the person that replied to you.

Dang! If I wasn't already a little confused, that pushes me over the top! Now my head hurts!!

 

[Jman8]

Oh boy, I guess I asked for it so I have to give this a shot. I'm getting ready to go to work so I might have to come back later.



That's a good question. If the dangers of smoking are real then I would expect a curve of some kind. Very low chance of COPD or cancer at low levels of smoking, running up to a high chance for heavy smokers. I would expect those graphs to exist somewhere but I can't remember seeing them. So I would have to say I don't know the answer.

Thanks for responding.

Your first response is that you don't know if moderate smoking kills.

My understanding is that the mechanism by which smoking damages the lungs, if it exists, is unknown. There are too many chemicals involved that may work independently or in combinations. So statistical analysis is all we have. I don't think that's a deal breaker.

An individual's chances of getting lung cancer or COPD have a direct relationship with how long they have smoked. People on this forum often talk about the Snus effect in Sweden. Since Snus use started replacing smoking among male Swedes the rate of lung and oral cancer has dropped dramatically. Among Snus users it has dropped to the level of never-smokers. Those numbers are pretty convincing to me, even if we don't know the cell level biology behind it.

If statistical analysis is all we have (which I don't think is accurate, but is also not far off from accurate assessment), then we surely cannot know that smoking kills. At best, we can make a case, with a bunch of stipulations, that would suggest a high risk for smoking, and with stipulations for how long one must use, how often one must smoke, so on and so forth. IMO, those stipulations matter when conveying the idea of "this product kills." Cause surely someone can drink too much water in too short of a time to harm their body (possibly die). To then say, "drinking water kills" without stipulating how that was arrived at is misleading.

As there are statistics that show some smokers smoke for 80 years and do not die until age 100+, then it is plausible to also conclude through statistics and going with sound bite rhetoric that "smoking leads to a long life."

There are some complicated arguments in there. You are definitely correct that disease numbers can and will be used to pin the tail on vaping. If I'm right about smoking causing cancer and COPD I would guess that vapers are far more likely to get those diseases than people who never smoked or vaped. That could be caused by vaping, or be a consequence of the fact that most of us here smoked before we started vaping, often for decades. Those diseases often appear in ex-smokers years after they quit.

I've seen the numbers for the prevalence of those diseases in ex-smokers. They slowly drop with time after quitting.

If vaping doesn't die out those numbers will be argued about for decades to come. It was hard enough to extract numbers for smokers compared to non-smokers. It will be almost impossible to pull reliable numbers out of the mess of ex-smoking vapers compared to still smoking non-vapers and dual users and never-smoked vapers and non-vaping quitters, etc.

I don't know how to address that, other than we have to be aware of the danger and be ready to argue the case.

The arguments that may ensue will be interesting going forward, but a little less interesting to me given the inherent bias at work (i.e. smoking kills). I imagine that for as long as smoking is around and as long as majority of vapers are smokers/ex-smokers, it will be forever easy for those with the bias to say, "this is all due to smoking." While vaping surges and starts to visibly take over smoking popularity, then I think the ANTZ arguments will be that this is mostly attributable to vaping. Obviously vapers will dispute that but just as general public seemingly doesn't care to explore accuracy of "smoking kills," I'm thinking the vaper arguments will be dismissed as having inherent bias of their own, and that to general public (in world where vaping is more popular now than smoking), it will be seen that vaping is as bad, or arguably worse, for you than smoking ever was.

Without the biases in there, I'll admit that I don't know how it'll play out. I'd like to live in that world.

Someone still has to give me a convincing explanation for why certain diseases show up so frequently among smokers. other than that smoking causes them. Big Tobacco used to use the Post Hoc fallacy argument. Something causes cancer, but there is no proof smoking is that thing. Just the observation that cancer happens after smoking. There could be some other thing that causes both smoking and cancer for example.

Anyway, thanks for brining this up. It's a discussion that needs to be had. I know I'll be giving it some more thought going forward.

You giving it more thought going forward is honestly the most I could hope to accomplish in this discussion.

I'll just note that I am yet to see an argument for "smoking causes..." that has convinced me that smoking caused what was said to be caused by smoking. Admittedly, I'm stubborn on this point as cause and effect can mean different things to different people (or even different philosophy types). To me, it seems that if we dismiss the aspect of "abusive smoking appears to cause such and such" then we are being entirely misleading. Abuse of any substance is going to lead to harm of the human body. I'm yet to see an exception to this understanding.

 

[zoiDman]

1. No, not all e-cigarettes are the same, they are not made with the same ingredients and to the same standards.
2. No idea, if you have some evidence that they are not incurring the same potential risk, please post it. Not an opinion piece, even if it comes from an esteemed scientist.

The point is, we don't know. I imagine even after the initial research comes in, we still won't KNOW. For some, the "potential" is enough, regardless of whether or not that potential is higher than riding a bike, or drinking tap water from an unknown source, or eating from a food truck, or any number of other "potentially" risky activities. For others, we don't know, means we don't KNOW.

I thought Dr. F did some work regarding High Wattage/Temperature vaping?

The Point being is it seems a Tad Unusual that we can be Debating wherthere-Cigarettes/e-Liquids are "Good" or "Bad" for us when we Can't even Agree what an e-Cigarette is? Or what is in an e-Liquid?

 

[skoony]

1. No, not all e-cigarettes are the same, they are not made with the same ingredients and to the same standards.
2. No idea, if you have some evidence that they are not incurring the same potential risk, please post it. Not an opinion piece, even if it comes from an esteemed scientist.

The point is, we don't know. I imagine even after the initial research comes in, we still won't KNOW. For some, the "potential" is enough, regardless of whether or not that potential is higher than riding a bike, or drinking tap water from an unknown source, or eating from a food truck, or any number of other "potentially" risky activities. For others, we don't know, means we don't KNOW.

what standard?
you take x amount of this,y amount of that,z amount of flavor and,add desired % of nic..
mix well. there you go.
regards
mike

 

[Lessifer]

I thought Dr. F did some work regarding High Wattage/Temperature vaping?

The Point being is it seems a Tad Unusual that we can be Debating wherthere-Cigarettes/e-Liquids are "Good" or "Bad" for us when we Can't even Agree what an e-Cigarette is? Or what is in an e-Liquid?

AFAIK Dr. F's study is still underway, and I doubt it will be conclusive. Just like every other study that comes out it should be examined, it's flaws should be identified, it should be replicated, and then it should be expanded to include the wide array of devices and liquids out there. That's how science is supposed to work. Again, not saying that it won't be valuable work, just that a single study, or multiple studies from the same scientist, are not definitive.

It seems unusual to me that people can make blanket statements that something HAS to have negative effects, when we can't even agree what an e-cigarette is, or what is in e-liquid.

 

[Lessifer]

what standard?
you take x amount of this,y amount of that,z amount of flavor and,add desired % of nic..
is well. there you go.
regards
mike

I consider e-liquids pretty standard, some will argue that since there is no government body restricting what people can put in e-liquid, a vendor could potentially put ANYTHING in there.

 

[VNeil]

I'll just note that I am yet to see an argument for "smoking causes..." that has convinced me that smoking caused what was said to be caused by smoking.

I guess I can understand the idea that the higher incidence of lung cancer in smokers, for example, could, in theory, be due to some other variable, it seems to me that the cause/effect of smoking clogging up lungs with tar is a well proven fact evidenced by millions of chest x-rays. And I suspect it would be equally difficult to dissociate the tight tie in between smoking and COPD (related to those clogged up lungs). So I am curious about your take on this.

I'm a 40 year now ex smoker, thanks to vaping. I am as cynical as anyone as to statistical correlations. The old saying... liars figure and figures lie. But I have no doubt whatsoever what 40 years of admittedly very heavy smoking (2.5+ PAD) did to my lungs. And although I feel "1000% better" after 6 months smoke free, It is also obvious to me that I will never regain the lung capacity I had even 15 years ago.