Vaping and Cartiovascular Disease - What will my Cardiologist Say?

[CKCalmer]

Okay this is just unnecessary nit-picking. When you say no one knows, it means you have been unable to find the information and it would seem that no one knows. If someone "knows" but has not shared the info it would be the same as no one knows. Like I said unnecessary nit-picking.

It's subject is quite relevant to the thread topic. And to challenge someone making a claim associated with vaping for which evidence may not have been posted is not only relevant, but also very important if we are going to rally enough people, vapers or not, to prevent the government from writing and passing laws which would unjustly restrict or ban vaping.

For any topic not so vulnerable to a threat of restriction or banishment, colloquialisms would present no problem at all. But vaping is very vulnerable to such injustice, and is already being hit with such restrictions and bans. Even simple vernacularisms could cause a slow down to the progress of educating the public about vaping. Based on interviews, articles and commentary I've seen and read, there are people who will use anything and everything, no matter how tiny, to try to cripple the vaping argument.

If my statement seemed like a "jab", then I sincerely apologize, as that wasn't my intent. Everyone, including myself, will have to become more careful in the phraseology we use, as annoying as that will be. I know I've caught myself doing the very same thing more than a few times, having to jump back and edit a post accordingly. I doubt anyone here has been more guilty than me in that regard.

So we debate what we currently know and as new info (or more unsubstantiated claims) comes around we remain ignorant to it and therefore unprepared. That seems to be what you are trying to say. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Of course not. It means the debates will not have to get going because they've already begun. It just came across as a "snap". Again, my apologies.

See, this is what I mean. I fall into holes plenty of times, myself.

------------

Come on, everybody. We're going to need some solid unification and harmony to stand up for our principles regarding the freedom to vape. They won't have to beat us if we beat ourselves.

 

[Rickajho]

You make many statements and back none of it up, especially the comments on nicotine. I believe both my Internist and Cardiologist would have cautioned me about the level of nicotine I use if it caused cancer. (which it doesn't). And I doubt the FDA would have not stated it was OK to use NRT products indefinitely if there were a true cancer link. (although who knows with the FDA).

So yes, many of us respond negatively to comments that have a high ignorance quotient and no support, as yours do.

When I discussed vaping with my GP and my Allergist they both ran the numbers - me vaping my wacky crazy 24 mg liquids even - and neither of them saw a medical problem with my nicotine intake. I wanted to know what my blood levels indicated regarding my nic intake from vaping, but my MD refused to do the testing because he does not deem the amount of nicotine I get from vaping as being medically relevant. I still would like to know, but he will not order the tests.

 

[wv2win]

When I discussed vaping with my GP and my Allergist they both ran the numbers - me vaping my wacky crazy 24 mg liquids even - and neither of them saw a medical problem with my nicotine intake. I wanted to know what my blood levels indicated regarding my nic intake from vaping, but my MD refused to do the testing because he does not deem the amount of nicotine I get from vaping as being medically relevant. I still would like to know, but he will not order the tests.

Thank you for sharing. I'm hoping more doctors like ours, are seeing the advantages of vaping.

Unfortunately, you may be asked to reveal the names and addresses of your doctors to verify your claim.

 

[Rickajho]

Thank you for sharing. I'm hoping more doctors like ours, are seeing the advantages of vaping.

Unfortunately, you may be asked to reveal the names and addresses of your doctors to verify your claim.

Why not? After all the CDC as part of their current "we pay you to say anything" ad campaign wants your MD to sign a... Well read it for yourself:

CDC is Looking for Ex-Smokers for New TIPS campaign

"In order to qualify for this project, you must be:

*Willing to have your doctor sign a legal statement verifying that smoking caused or contributed to your health condition."

I would love to see the wording of those "legal statement"s. (It's getting to be so weird out there.)

 

[CKCalmer]

Why not? After all the CDC as part of their current "we pay you to say anything" ad campaign wants your MD to sign a... Well read it for yourself:

CDC is Looking for Ex-Smokers for New TIPS campaign

"In order to qualify for this project, you must be:

*Willing to have your doctor sign a legal statement verifying that smoking caused or contributed to your health condition."

I would love to see the wording of those "legal statement"s. (It's getting to be so weird out there.)

That's only because they intend to use the peoples testimony in TV and internet ads, and have to avoid liability issues that could occur regarding their advertising content.

Even if their ads are still big fat bald-faced lies, the doctor's notes will absolve them of criminal charges.

 

[blueGrassTubb]

I had a heart attack at the ripe old age of 33 (in 2010). The very first thing my doctor told me to do was to quit smoking. It was hard, but made manageable with ecigs.

My recommendation is that if your doctor tells you that you've somehow done something wrong or that you need also to quit ecigs to reduce your risk, you should immediately look for a new cardiologist.

Ecigs are not new, have been used by smokers for years to quit cigarettes, and any cardiologist worth a damn should know all of the relevant medical information concerning ecigs and your risk for another heart attack. If he isn't up to date about a tool that is helping smokers quit smoking, the very first thing any cardiologist will tell you in order to reduce risk, then he isn't doing his job.

You can point him to all of the materials that you want, but it's his job to know where to find the facts about a product that droves of people are using and that is directly relevant to his field. It's not your job to do his job. Find a caridologist who cares enough to have done the applicable research on ecigs.

Mine praised me for it on my first annual visit after my heart attack, and asked me for some more information on where to get them so that he could recommend them.

 

[Claviger]

Just citing the most important 3 paragraphs for people too lazy to read through it and all the technical ranting required in these types of papers:

The third study, however, suggested a correlation between the genetic variant and both smoking quantity and nicotine dependence, which may in turn increase smokers’ risk for disease, including lung cancer (Thorgeirsson et al., 2008). Nonetheless, given that the vast majority of animal studies, including long-term nicotine exposure studies, do not indicate a carcinogenic effect of nicotine, studies suggesting theoretical mechanisms by which nicotine might produce a carcinogenic effect should be considered preliminary pending further evidence.

Our basic question was whether nicotine replacement therapy causes cancer to an extent comparable to that caused by smoking cigarettes. We failed to find evidence of such an effect of nicotine replacement therapy in this study, and the sample size, close monitoring of the use of nicotine replacement therapy and cigarettes, and the well-documented outcomes of this study will be difficult for future studies to match.

A type of administration of nicotine that provides nicotine exposure more closely corresponding to that achieved from smoking is snus (Scandinavian moist snuff). While researchers have regarded snus as a low risk alternative to smoking (Foulds, Ramstrom, Burke, & Fagerström, 2003), recent studies have reported significantly increased hazards of oral and gastrointestinal cancers among never-smoking users of snus (Roosaar, Johansson, Sandborgh-Englund, Axéll, & Nyrén, 2008; Zendehdel et al., 2007). These findings present the possibility that our failure to find harm from nicotine replacement therapy may in part be due to lower nicotine exposure associated with nicotine gum.
Source:
Does nicotine replacement therapy cause cancer? Evidence from the Lung Health Study

 

[Anubuk]

It's subject is quite relevant to the thread topic. And to challenge someone making a claim associated with vaping for which evidence may not have been posted is not only relevant, but also very important if we are going to rally enough people, vapers or not, to prevent the government from writing and passing laws which would unjustly restrict or ban vaping.

I do not disagree with this at all. We need to be able to verify claims and studies that are made about e-cigs. Positive and negative. We can't have unsubstantiated claims running wild any more than they already are.

When posting about possible e-cig risks, I am unable to verify whether the possibility of lets say, silica fibers being inhaled when wet, because there has not been a study done on this (to my knowledge). We use amorphous silica and while there have been many studies done on crystalline not so many have been done on amorphous. And regarding the danger when wet (do we inhale silica particles when it is wet with juice), those studies have not been done. Hence it would seem that "no one knows".

But do you know the collective knowledge of every human being? If not, then you wouldn't know that "no one knows". Maybe no one knows, or maybe someone knows and has not yet shared that fact.

So when writing about the possibilities I say that no one knows. If it is not readily available info, it doesn't matter if some doctor over in Africa or something has done the study. Especially if he hasn't told the masses beyond his close colleagues. Yes technically some one knows (the doctor) but if we as a society aren't aware of this, I feel it is fine to assume that no one knows. This is my opinion and I feel that griping about this isn't as important as getting our facts straight. It is easier to change our stance if previously we did not know something, but it is a lot harder to change something once committed to it.

It seems now that I am nit picking. In all truth, this isn't that important. Properly verifying our facts, yes, but griping about small errors not so much as long as those errors don't lead to bigger consequences. We should all refrain from inane squabbles as to prepare ourselves as a whole to fight for our rights.

 

[Claviger]

Why the above paragraphs are important:

1: The 3rd study, which suggested nicotine might be a carcinogen or accelerator, is not definitive and directly contradicts a multitude of studies which say otherwise. While no conclusion can be made for certain, it is a significant point that prolonged inhalation of high levels of nicotine for an extended period of time did not in itself increase cancer rates.

2: This study did not find an increase in lung cancer paired with NRT. The important qualifier here is the level of nicotine used, 2-4 mg a day for most subjects. As a result, vapers should not take this as gospel that NRT does not correspond at all to increased risk of lung cancer. It is possible the low levels of nicotine do not promote lung cancer, but high levels do. That goes full circle to point one above.

3: Snus is bad. Snus is still a true tobacco product and does cause elevated risks of cancer. Again, no definite conclusion can be drawn, but based on point 1 and the inhalation hazard study, it is likely the elevated risk is from an agent besides nicotine in the snus.

Really none of this should be a surprise to anyone...

Bottom line is, until someone does a study on this scale, targeting vapers using a consistent nicotine level fluid, similar delivery device, and frequency of daily use over an extended period of time there is no concrete evidence to point one way or the other. A lose thread can be drawn, but nearly all NRT studies done by credible researches have involved lower levels of nicotine than many vapers receive.

 

[Baldr]

Junk? Hardly. One article is a scientific report by the prestigious Cancer Institute.

How much of their funding comes from tobacco taxes?

Most of the groups like that are essentially funded by tobacco tax. When they start screaming about how unsafe vaping is, while showing no actual evidence to back it up, I assume that it's all because they don't want their income drying up.

The article you linked from them is dated 2003. Back then, nicotine studies were all done with tobacco, not vaping or some other method of NRT.

 

[patkin]

It will take me some time to read the whole article. In the meantime I noticed a difference in methodology between your article and mine. One takes the empirical approach, and the other a forensic one - by examining chemical reactions in individual cells. Who knows how long it will take for cancer to develop. I actually know one person who developed lung cancer 15 years AFTER he quit smoking.

And you, no doubt, attribute THAT to having smoked just as all ideology-influenced "science" does. My middle-school grandkids, when all the ANTZ got access to schools, had to attend a mandatory anti-smoking presentation by a social-worker type. At the end of the presentation, one of the students said that her aunt got lung cancer and had never smoked nor lived with anyone who smoked. The presenter's response was that she had most likely been around someone who smoked near her when she was a baby. Is the reason a person who has never smoked nor lived with a smoker but gets lung cancer because they passed by someone smoking closer than 20 feet from an entrance/exit or were just on the other side of their smoking neighbor's fence? What's your view? Can a person who used to smoke get lung cancer for any other reason than having smoked at some time in their life?

 

[Anubuk]

You can get lung cancer from alot different things and nothing at all. As we age our bodies mutate cells which then can turn into cancer (the mutation reproduces unchecked hence a tumor grows). It is part of getting old. We are an organic machine that as it begins to wear out, makes mistakes. Lung cancer may form faster if there is an outside source having influence such as smoking. Some people will smoke and never get lung cancer. I may still get lung cancer from smoking for 20 years. Maybe I will get it 10yrs. later than I would have had I never stopped smoking.

They are still researching all this stuff as part of their ongoing mission to strange new worlds.. excuse me, their mission to find better cancer treatments.

taken from For Older Adults | Cancer.Net

The single greatest risk factor for developing cancer is aging. In fact, more than 60% of cancers in the United States occur in people age 65 and older.

taken from Why Lung Cancer Strikes Nonsmokers

Most people know that smoking causes cancer, but may not realize how many nonsmokers get lung cancer, too. Every year, about 16,000 to 24,000 Americans die of lung cancer, even though they have never smoked. In fact, if lung cancer in nonsmokers had its own separate category, it would rank among the top 10 fatal cancers in the United States.

Gene mutations. Researchers are learning more and more about what causes cells to become cancerous, and how lung cancer cells differ between nonsmokers and smokers. For example, an article published in Clinical Cancer Research explains that a particular kind of gene mutation is much more common in lung cancer in nonsmokers than smokers. This mutation activates a gene that normally helps cells grow and divide. The mutation causes the gene to be turned on constantly, so the lung cancer cells grow faster. Knowing what causes the cell changes has helped researchers develop targeted therapies, drugs that specifically target these types of mutations.

Radon gas. The leading cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is exposure to radon gas. It accounts for about 20,000 deaths from lung cancer each year. Radon occurs naturally outdoors in harmless amounts, but sometimes becomes concentrated in homes built on soil with natural uranium deposits. Studies have found that the risk of lung cancer is higher in those who have lived for many years in a radon-contaminated house. Because radon gas can’t be seen or smelled, the only way to know whether it’s a problem in your home is to test for it. A Citizen’s Guide to Radon, produced by the EPA, explains how to test your home for radon easily and inexpensively, as well as what to do if your levels are too high.

Secondhand smoke. Each year, an estimated 3,400 nonsmoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing secondhand smoke. Laws that ban smoking in public places have helped to reduce this danger. The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), the nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy affiliate of the American Cancer Society, is working to expand and strengthen these laws to further protect both smokers and nonsmokers from the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Cancer-causing agents at work. For some people, the workplace is a source of exposure to carcinogens like asbestos and diesel exhaust. Work-related exposure to such cancer-causing materials has decreased in recent years, as the government and industry have taken steps to help protect workers. But the dangers are still present, and if you work around these agents, you should be careful to limit your exposure whenever possible.

Air pollution. It’s long been known that both indoor and outdoor air pollution contribute to lung cancer. In October 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified outdoor air pollution as a cancer-causing agent. The IARC evaluated more than 1,000 studies and concluded that increased exposure to outdoor air pollution increases the risk of lung cancer.

 

[CKCalmer]

We use amorphous silica and while there have been many studies done on crystalline not so many have been done on amorphous. And regarding the danger when wet (do we inhale silica particles when it is wet with juice), those studies have not been done. Hence it would seem that "no one knows".

'I don't know of any studies on the possible risks of amorphous silica. If anyone has performed one, I haven't yet learned of it.'

So when writing about the possibilities I say that no one knows. If it is not readily available info, it doesn't matter if some doctor over in Africa or something has done the study. Especially if he hasn't told the masses beyond his close colleagues. Yes technically some one knows (the doctor) but if we as a society aren't aware of this, I feel it is fine to assume that no one knows.

When it's just between us vapers, there's no problem with that at all. It's when one of us is debating an anti-vaper who will try to trip us up every chance they get that it becomes risky. Here it's all benign compared to what's out there, where just a few lost debates in the right settings may appear in an online article, making things harder for us than they already are.

It's good to hone our skills here on safe ground so we'll be ready to shoot down the growing trend of arguments ranging from obtuse to absurd that we're already seeing against vaping.

It seems now that I am nit picking. In all truth, this isn't that important. Properly verifying our facts, yes, but griping about small errors not so much as long as those errors don't lead to bigger consequences. We should all refrain from inane squabbles as to prepare ourselves as a whole to fight for our rights.

No worries. You're not nitpicking.

And that's quite true. I know that I, for one, will rarely know which tiny inaccuracy could become a tiny piece of someone's blog content, to be grabbed up along with several others and overblown by some venomous anti-vaper or ANTZ. What seems unimportant today could be huge tomorrow.

So let's not feed the ANTZ. Before you know it, they'll be in our house eating up our pantry.

Cheers, and vape on!

 

[wv2win]

........................ (It's getting to be so weird out there.)

So true. AND it's getting so weird in here too with supposed vapers telling us how bad we are to vape respectfully in the open and that vaping is nearly as bad as smoking.

 

[Rickajho]

That's only because they intend to use the peoples testimony in TV and internet ads, and have to avoid liability issues that could occur regarding their advertising content.

Even if their ads are still big fat bald-faced lies, the doctor's notes will absolve them of criminal charges.

For much the same reason, find me a Doctor with an Attorney worth a plug nickel, or an MD working in a hospital with a legal department, that is going to actually sign a CDC "legal statement" of their own free will.

 

[patkin]

So true. AND it's getting so weird in here too with supposed vapers telling us how bad we are to vape respectfully in the open and that vaping is nearly as bad as smoking.

Someone on one of the threads was kind enough to post a link to the "concern troll" definition. I think it was wiki but there are lots of them if googled. Pretty much explains how things started getting seriously weird here this month just when the ANTZ are out enforce for their April push. I was especially amazed at their tactics and how deeply embedded they can be.

 

[wv2win]

Someone on one of the threads was kind enough to post a link to the "concern troll" definition. I think it was wiki but there are lots of them if googled. Pretty much explains how things started getting seriously weird here this month just when the ANTZ are out enforce for their April push. I was especially amazed at their tactics and how deeply embedded they can be.

I think a more "apt" title would be the "fake-concern troll".

 

[Katya]

Here is one of the studies I was referring to. It was conducted by the Cancer Institute; indicates nicotine is a cancer ACCELATOR:

NCI Statement on Nicotine Study in January JCI - National Cancer Institute

This is not a study. This is an NCI Statement on a study and it actually disputes the study's finding that nicotine is carcinogenic.

"Some news reports of Dennis' results have indicated that nicotine causes lung cancer and that nicotine used in nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is dangerous, in spite of the fact that nicotine itself is not a known carcinogen. It is not yet known how Dennis' laboratory findings relate to the human situation. Smoking, which delivers tar, carbon monoxide, and other chemicals along with nicotine, is a major risk to health. "

I suggest you read it again.

 

[Katya]

But then again you're probably one of those who deny climate change regardless of how much evidence they are given.

Sorry, just couldn't help myself!

23 Global Warming & Climate Change Stories All Americans Should Read Before Earth Day

 

[patkin]

Passive smoking – another of the Nanny State's big lies – Telegraph Blogs

Links to the backup are there.