I was wondering if this thing written there is real or fake
Health Risks Of Vape Juice - 9 Flavors That May Cause Damage
Health Risks Of Vape Juice - 9 Flavors That May Cause Damage
True or false?
- Thread starter Shaftyzxdd
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- false
- Status
Study was pretty much nonconclusive in its findings. Did you read the closing comments of that article?
I don't think anyone who vapes believes that vaping is completely harmless. It is generally considered a "harm reduction" method of nicotine replacement when compared with smoking. MUCH safer than smoking, in fact 95% safer according to British researchers.
Vaping twice as likely as gum to help smokers quit, research finds
Air Sampling confirms secondhand vapor is harmless
"Worth noting: This was a short-term study done on what basically amounts to human cells in a petri dish—so more research is needed to definitively prove that e-cigs are bad for your heart (previous science on long-term effects of eg-cigs is pretty much MIA).
Also, the high concentrations used during the study are "unlikely to be achieved" in the real world, according to the study. The low levels, however, are more likely to be close to an IRL scenario, per the American Heart Association.
But that doesn't mean the findings are insignificant. And while some of the trendiest vape juice flavors—like unicorn milk, beetle juice, and lemon twist—weren't specifically tested, that doesn't mean they're safe (especially since every single flavor researchers did test were associated with some level of risk)."
Also, the high concentrations used during the study are "unlikely to be achieved" in the real world, according to the study. The low levels, however, are more likely to be close to an IRL scenario, per the American Heart Association.
But that doesn't mean the findings are insignificant. And while some of the trendiest vape juice flavors—like unicorn milk, beetle juice, and lemon twist—weren't specifically tested, that doesn't mean they're safe (especially since every single flavor researchers did test were associated with some level of risk)."
I don't think anyone who vapes believes that vaping is completely harmless. It is generally considered a "harm reduction" method of nicotine replacement when compared with smoking. MUCH safer than smoking, in fact 95% safer according to British researchers.
Vaping twice as likely as gum to help smokers quit, research finds
Air Sampling confirms secondhand vapor is harmless
Last edited:
even if vaping was as harmful as cigarettes....the main point for me... I'm only hurting myself not those around me...
This.
I frankly get annoyed when somebody or something try to say me what's good or bad for me, mainly if I didn't asked for any advise - and I never ask. I fully respect who thinks different, but I never smoked, so for me it was never a matter of replacing nicotine. I even never vape with nicotine. I vape just because I like it. And, as @Shadav said, I don't harm anybody with this. So, in this matter, what my government, my wife, my friend or my mom says to me in this regard is frankly irrelevant, since I'm older than 18 - or 21, or whatever - and pay all my bills. This campaign against vape, or questions like "is vape safe?" frankly doesn't interest me at all.
The article linked is almost a year old. There are no links to the actual study. The study was done at Boston University School of medicine and funded by the American Heart Association, but the Heart Association has this disclaimer:
"Statements and conclusions of study authors published in American Heart Association scientific journals are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the association’s policy or position. The association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability."
This, to me, means no peer review, so not a completed or accepted study. The problems are only identified at the highest levels of the flavorings administered to the cell samples... those levels not disclosed. How high were the levels that showed problems? How likely are we to reproduce those levels with normal vaping? No data and no answers from this article. Lots of fear factor (with a seemingly snide inflection to the whole article... go figure).
So junk science to me. Not that it couldn't be true, but the study was never completed and never peer reviewed for any type of accuracy, application of scientific method, or published as a completed and accepted study.
I do want to know if vaping is unhealthy. I am a skeptic when it comes to believing vaping is totally harmless. But I want real studies that give real results that are proven and demonstrable. I am very concerned that there are so very few actual scientific studies that go all the way through the process to be at least believable. We are in the "boy that cried wolf" territory with vape studies and the more pure junk science/unfinished studies I see makes finding anything that would be valuable to know too difficult to ferret out. Which helps no one.
"Statements and conclusions of study authors published in American Heart Association scientific journals are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the association’s policy or position. The association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability."
This, to me, means no peer review, so not a completed or accepted study. The problems are only identified at the highest levels of the flavorings administered to the cell samples... those levels not disclosed. How high were the levels that showed problems? How likely are we to reproduce those levels with normal vaping? No data and no answers from this article. Lots of fear factor (with a seemingly snide inflection to the whole article... go figure).
So junk science to me. Not that it couldn't be true, but the study was never completed and never peer reviewed for any type of accuracy, application of scientific method, or published as a completed and accepted study.
I do want to know if vaping is unhealthy. I am a skeptic when it comes to believing vaping is totally harmless. But I want real studies that give real results that are proven and demonstrable. I am very concerned that there are so very few actual scientific studies that go all the way through the process to be at least believable. We are in the "boy that cried wolf" territory with vape studies and the more pure junk science/unfinished studies I see makes finding anything that would be valuable to know too difficult to ferret out. Which helps no one.
What a lame scattergun piece of rubbish that was. What flavour brands were used? The worst they could find? I bet most studdies do. There are lots of flavours that dont use Diacetyl, Acetoin and Acetyl Propionyl, . Notice the butter one was just listed as Diacetyl.
Lets see this same so called test done using concentrates such as those produced by Flavour Art.
Lets see this same so called test done using concentrates such as those produced by Flavour Art.
So here we have the same magazine advising the inhalation of Eucalyptus which in the above article on vaping it advised against.
12 Eucalyptus Oil Benefits - The Best Ways to Use Eucalyptus Oil
And the same thing they advise the use of.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/epi4.12065
And
https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-700/eucalyptus
12 Eucalyptus Oil Benefits - The Best Ways to Use Eucalyptus Oil
And the same thing they advise the use of.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/epi4.12065
And
https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-700/eucalyptus
Last edited:
False. The second paragraph contains a link to the article.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/ATVBAHA.118.311156
False. The journal has a typical peer review process. Researchers that publish can express ideas with freedom. Their ideas may or may not be the same as the AHA.
Unfortunately, it is really common for people to say things like "to me, means". It takes time to look things up so people don't do it. Also, people like to hear what they want to hear.
I didn't read this part of the post. May or may not later. You should have read the study before coming to conclusions. If I have time, I'll read the article and then come back to these comments that you wrote without reading the article.
False. You fabricated this. It was peer reviewed.
Vapers should "go all the way through the process" and READ the scientific articles before coming to conclusions. Not trying to be rude to you.
Last edited:
Hmm, I wonder how fast those cells would die off if soaked in 90 proof of any thing...
- Of the nine flavors, burnt flavor, vanilla, cinnamon, clove, strawberry, banana, and spicy cooling, were dangerous even at low levels.
Yes because burnt flavor is sooooooo popular it must be true.
There have been tonnes of studies like this, and these types of studies are used to skew people's opinions one way or another. Studies like this mix fact and speculation in one article, and the end result is still speculation and opinion. Blanket statements like "this causes that, which MAY cause something else... that doesn't mean that something else is true.
My observation is Smoking DOES seriously increase the risk of cancer as well as it DOES increased risk of heart disease. Vaping MAY have a chance of increasing heart disease, and has not been proven at all to cause any cancer. I would definitely say vaping DEFINATELY IS a safer alternative to smoking.
Someone who tries to add numbers and percentages, then Vaping is not %100 safe... but neither is drinking water or anything else in life is %100. Absolutes are for someone who is trying to sway an opinion.
The representation in media gets skewed. The representation also gets skewed in forums about e-cigarettes.
Fact and speculation aren't mixed. Scientific articles have several sections. The results section contains facts. In the discussion section, authors discuss their results and may speculate and make suggestions about future studies. They are kept separate.
Scientists don't confuse facts and speculation. They get confused in the media and on forums --either do to a lack of understanding of how science works or an intentional twisting to fit their agendas.
I also think so.
Not so sure this is true, in the case of scientists whose money/grant comes from special interests who are employing them to "prove" a certain viewpoint.
The representation in media gets skewed. The representation also gets skewed in forums about e-cigarettes.
Fact and speculation aren't mixed. Scientific articles have several sections. The results section contains facts. In the discussion section, authors discuss their results and may speculate and make suggestions about future studies. They are kept separate.
Scientists don't confuse facts and speculation. They get confused in the media and on forums --either do to a lack of understanding of how science works or an intentional twisting to fit their agendas.
I also think so.
It's good to think... so think about this..
Science can be skewed just as well as media. Facts omitted are just as important as facts presented. Most science done now a days is done towards an agenda, and funded for that agenda. Take that article.. it was originally published by a non scientist (Amber Brenza) who has a masters in journalism. That in and of itself means she is skilled at writing, but it does nothing to convey the full understandings of the study. I do give her Kudos for at least noting that it's not definitive.
Now the original report she read was a short synopsis of the original lab result. A good short term explanation of their testing method, is that they tested the solution by exposing the cells for 90 minutes to the flavorings. It also mentions that the flavors heated 200-700 degrees Celsius is what made them much more toxic. For farenheit that is approx 400 to 1292 degrees fahrenheit. That fact was omitted in Ambers report, because she read the short synopsis that doesn't give that detail. Remember, Amber is a Journalist on a timeline...
Now, Last but not least, is the funding... who funded all of this. Well, the FDA and the American Heart Association provided the grant number 5P50HL120163-S1 . We all know on this forum that the FDA has been trying hard to ban Electronic cigarettes, We've all seen sketchy research by the FDA, and they have used the "obusive heat" methodology more than once before. This study is no different. but why would the FDA want to ban something that other countries have said that it is much safer? Well, Just ask yourself where the FDA gets a lot of their money.... Just look at their own PDF.... 911 million from the Prescription Drug user fee act, and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.... no wonder they're so interested in something that is not prescribed and can get people to quit smoking.. that's where all their money comes from and they're not getting any money from this new Electronic Cigarette trend.
I think, and I do research. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but when you start looking past the synopsis's and headlines, you start seeing more of what's going on.
Somethings I would like to point out about the 9 tested flavors:
diacetyl (butter) - No one uses this this any more in food flavorings or vape flavorings.
acetylpyridine (burnt flavor) - Is this really a thing? Who the hell would even use this one?
menthol (mint) - LOL this is one of the few flavor choices we will be left with if the FDA fully regulates flavors for all juice.
The rest of these are somewhat common.
vanillin (vanilla)
cinnamaldehyde (cinnamon)
eugenol (clove)
dimethylpyrazine (strawberry)
isoamyl acetate (banana)
eucalyptol (spicy cooling)
Also as the article and others have noted the problems only occurred at the highest levels of exposure and are unlikely to happen in a real world scenario.
diacetyl (butter) - No one uses this this any more in food flavorings or vape flavorings.
acetylpyridine (burnt flavor) - Is this really a thing? Who the hell would even use this one?
menthol (mint) - LOL this is one of the few flavor choices we will be left with if the FDA fully regulates flavors for all juice.
The rest of these are somewhat common.
vanillin (vanilla)
cinnamaldehyde (cinnamon)
eugenol (clove)
dimethylpyrazine (strawberry)
isoamyl acetate (banana)
eucalyptol (spicy cooling)
Also as the article and others have noted the problems only occurred at the highest levels of exposure and are unlikely to happen in a real world scenario.
I wonder why my Wasabenero ( wasabi and habenero mix) juice never got mentioned...
- Status
Similar threads
