Vaping vs Smoking

[Lessifer]

Glad you asked. Right now I am a "partial" vaper, meaning I still light up a few times a day although much less than before. I am inclined to believe vaping is the safer alternative, but coming from a scientific background, I always look for proof - regardless of my gut instincts. It seems I am only one of the few here interested in exchanging ideas, hence the "bickering" comment. Amazing when some people suggest I should just quit - as if I didn't know....

Your initial post implied that this article provided evidence that smoking and vaping are at best equal, and possibly that smoking is less harmful than vaping. I think that's where the defensive part kicks in.

This article suggests that there may be one particular area where vaping may have a more pronounced effect. However, it's an article about a presentation and there is no published study to accompany it. So, we don't know methodology, sampling, or actual results. The author of the article, and the presentation, would seem to imply that the effects of vaping in this area are more pronounced than smoking, but they have not actually provided any evidence to support that.

So, personally, I'm taking this as a "keep in mind" and I await future studies and interpretations by more researchers so that we can actually know what any of this means.

 

[Anya Kotzian]

There will always be articles that condone smoking as being healthier. Many of them do have some truth, because we don't know the long term effects of vaping yet. However, personally, I feel so much better physically than when I was smoking. I can taste and smell things much better and I can walk up stairs without getting winded. The difference is incredible. Plus my house and car don't smell like ashtrays. Just my personal opinion.

 

[Exchaner]

Along with telling them to go back to Grammar School.

That probably was not necessary. The type of political incorrectness that seems to be in vogue these days; started by Donal Trump - not that I share any of his thoughts.

 

[Exchaner]

Your initial post implied that this article provided evidence that smoking and vaping are at best equal, and possibly that smoking is less harmful than vaping. I think that's where the defensive part kicks in.

I may have done a poor job of presenting the subject, but the fact is, people do NOT want to listen to something contrary to their opinion- especially on the ECF when it seems you are questioning their habits and or addictions. And let's face it, we are all hooked on this stuff. It's just that some of us are open minded enough to listen without getting offended. This may be off topic, but I have trained myslef to listen to constructive criticism without getting offended. It's the best way I know how to improve myself.

 

[Lessifer]

I may have done a poor job of presenting the subject, but the fact is, people do NOT want to listen to something contrary to their opinion- especially on the ECF when it seems you are questioning their habits and or addictions. And let's face it, we are all hooked on this stuff. It's just that some of us are open minded enough to listen without getting offended. This may be off topic, but I have trained myslef to listen to constructive criticism without getting offended. It's the best way I know how to improve myself.

I see it more as we are tired of being lied to, so we have a stricter burden of proof.

I am open to actual scientific evidence, ignoring it would do no one good. However, I will call a spade a spade, and presenting conclusions without providing the evidence to support those conclusions, is not scientific evidence.

 

[Exchaner]

and presenting conclusions without providing the evidence to support those conclusions, is not scientific evidence.

Agree on that one.

 

[Steamix]

As the UFOlogistis say :

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Thinking in binary absolutes: vaping is not safe. Smoking is not safe.

Weighing in personal experience with both, smoking and vaping: I'm feeling better and healthier - or less unhealthier - with a mod instead of a cigarette,

So it could turn out that 50 years down the line vaping isn't that less unhealthy either.

That is of concern for the young vapers. Me ? To find that out, I'd have to make it past my 110th birthday.
Highly unlikely.

So if the worms feeding on my corpse get a hiccup or ........ - I think I'm past caring about that then

 

[bman1977]

I may have done a poor job of presenting the subject, but the fact is, people do NOT want to listen to something contrary to their opinion- especially on the ECF when it seems you are questioning their habits and or addictions. And let's face it, we are all hooked on this stuff. It's just that some of us are open minded enough to listen without getting offended. This may be off topic, but I have trained myslef to listen to constructive criticism without getting offended. It's the best way I know how to improve myself.

This is pretty much why I don't post anything on here any more. ECF does not like to hear what they don't want to hear. I'll come on just to see any new products that people are talking about but as far as the whole vaping is safer than smoking thing this is the wrong place to discuss any of this because you'll be shunned like a leper.

 

[rgerber]

If you're looking for excuses to continue smoking, you'll always find them. That particular article is about a presentation of a preliminary study presented at a conference, no actual results are known, and their suggested possible conclusions go against thousands of anecdotal accounts.

Is it possible that vaping does something that we're unaware of? Yes. Does that mean that smoking cigarettes is safer? Seriously? If you have to ask that after 2 and a half years of being a member of this forum, perhaps vaping isn't for you.

Amen Brother!

 

[Exchaner]

This is pretty much why I don't post anything on here any more. ECF does not like to hear what they don't want to hear.

Can't blame you a bit. I have reached the same conclusion. Quite possible that some of the resistance is coming from members of the vaping establishment posing here as members. They do not want to hear any comments that pose a risk to their profits.

 

[Jman8]

Glad you asked. Right now I am a "partial" vaper, meaning I still light up a few times a day although much less than before. I am inclined to believe vaping is the safer alternative, but coming from a scientific background, I always look for proof - regardless of my gut instincts. It seems I am only one of the few here interested in exchanging ideas, hence the "bickering" comment. Amazing when some people suggest I should just quit - as if I didn't know....

I still light up. Proud moderate smoker. From what I've read in this thread, I may (arguably) be more pro-smoking than what you are conveying. So, the idea of looking at the article from another angle isn't lost on me. I have no desire to be dismissive of it, though do have high desire to scutinize it for what it is actually purporting.

I like what post #58 of this thread, by @man00ver is conveying, and the notion that the results/research here are rather trivial matches where I'm at. But that's opinion, and to another, it may be huge news.

I don't see how to get around the following (quote from the article) though:

"The gene expression changes we're seeing are consistent with a modified immune response," Jaspers told ArsTechnica, but added that "we don't know" whether the changes caused by e-cigs are putting users at greater risk of disease and infection.

When any scientist has to publicly state the "we don't know" phrase, it kinda tells you something about what they are aware of from testing/observation. It then puts the article conveying the information in perspective, and one that I think leads to reasonable conclusion that says chances are very good that the article is written with inherent bias if it is signaling danger/risk, to the degree that this activity ought to be avoided.

The paragraph preceding this quote is the one that has the meat of what this article is conveying, minus the inherent bias of the article's author. It says:

"E-cig users showed the same changes in immune genes as cigarette smokers. However, e-cig users also demonstrated suppression of several additional immune genes, suggesting even broader suppressive effects on respiratory mucosal immune responses as compared to cigarette smokers," Jaspers' research found.

I find it challenging to make heads or tails of what is being conveyed. But due to the following paragraph (that I previously quoted), I realize I'm not alone in the "we don't know" aspect. It certainly appears that 'suggesting broader suppressive effects on respiratory mucosal immune responses, as compared to cigarette smokers' could be a bad thing, but I would say that this is really only perceived as a bad thing because smoking has such a strong anti bias in current culture that it raises a red flag. I would say falsely raises that flag. And the "we don't know" conclusion lends reason to support that it is a false raising of the red flag.

And like most articles (on any subject, ever), the author's intent is revealed in the concluding paragraph/statement, which in this case reads as:

So what does it all mean? E-cigs are still a relatively new product and their longterm effects aren't yet clear — so anyone who says they understand everything that vaping does to your body might be full of hot air.

Hey look! A straw man of a position that just so happens to have a degree of hypocrisy with it in what this article is 'suggesting' via everything not quoted by scientific types. Cause last time I checked, before reading this article and after it, we still do not know the long term effects of vaping. And this article does literally nothing to change that fact.

 

[skoony]

To be sure life is filled with risks, but adding new ones, or dismissing them will at some point catch up. The majority of us have no choice but eat non-organic food laced with hormones/fertalizers and harmful additives, but we do have a choice whether we smoke or vape.

You are assessing risk improperly. One's risk is a totality of what one does. No mater how little
or how much risk one has it all adds up to 100% you are going to die. Removing a risk because
it's something we choose to do does not help one either. All choices are equal when it comes to
risk. There are no special categories. Risk assessment is done at the population level. It is
impossible to predict what an individual may experience. In the end we all die.
Its interesting to note as the population of never tobacco users grows the likelihood of
getting a so called smoking related illness is also growing in that population.

Nothing in this article tells me that Vaping is the safer alternative. In fact it seems to point the other way. Am I misreading it?

It implies they are with no proof to back it up. there are many,many studies indicating otherwise.

Many of us get defensive when someone questions our addiction. You are no exception....

Now you have hit a sore point with me. The classical definition of addiction in terms of
its use in medicine and law is something that causes quantifiable harm to oneself or others.
Lacking any evidence of vaping causing harm to otherwise healthy individuals at the population
level and with virtually no chance of harming non-users vaping is not an addiction in either the medical or legal sense of the word.
One can call it a habit. Good,bad or, annoying, it's just a habit.

It took decades to realize the harmful effects of smoking - close to 50 years. We need to wait equally as long for vaping - not possible in our generation.

Harmful effects of smoking have been known for quite some time. It wasn't until the last half
of the last century they were acknowledged which only resulted in the demonization of particularly
smoking and tobacco in general followed by onerous taxation.

...as I said I will not be surprised if they find vaping has an effect on the immune system given the multitude of nicotine related studies that prove nicotine has a profound effect on the immune system, but, the unknown is still vaping a non-nicotine eliquid and it's effect on the immune system.

Profound? Inserting pumps for nicotine in rats sounds legit. Yet clinical studies testing
for medicinal purposes using nicotine have not mentioned immunosuppression.
The FDA considers patches and inhalers safe for lifetime use.
@Exchaner, what gets me is that its almost impossible to have a civil conversation without "stepping" on somebody's toes. I understand your questions and agree that questions need to be asked. We cant mindlessly just accept the "do this its better" or "do that because ITS better"[/QUOTE]
I agree it is almost impossible to have a civil conversation concerning health and risk when
some hide behind the 'we don't know yet',popcorn lung,only clean air is healthy(note:there is no such thing as clean air,never has been) and, the old they found trace amount of this or that and they are harmful without mentioning they are at such low levels they couldn't hurt a fly. I for one do not
want to know what others think in quantities so small as to be laughable it could,perhaps,we don't
know, there is no evidence,just wait, it might kill me. Tell me what is known to be a fact that it will
kill me.

You proly right, but than again, you mite be wrong!! I see such writing all the time .... It distracts people from considering your main message.

It has been my life experience that bad grammar distracts the easily distractible.

Regards
Mike

 

[Exchaner]

Lacking any evidence of vaping causing harm to otherwise healthy individuals at the population level and with virtually no chance of harming non-users vaping is not an addiction in either the medical or legal sense of the word.

You are joking, right? Regardless, I am done with this thread - too much propaganda from the vaping establishment. "Shills" I think they are called.

 

[Lessifer]

You are joking, right? Regardless, I am done with this thread - too much propaganda from the vaping establishment. "Shills" I think they are called.

The way a discussion works is, if you disagree with a statement, you offer a justification for your position.

Which part do you disagree with? Do you have a different definition of addiction? Do you have some evidence that vaping causes harm to the user and/or bystanders?

 

[YoursTruli]

Profound? Inserting pumps for nicotine in rats sounds legit. Yet clinical studies testing
for medicinal purposes using nicotine have not mentioned immunosuppression.

I would love to see those studies. Links Please?

 

[Flawedatdesign]

Can't blame you a bit. I have reached the same conclusion. Quite possible that some of the resistance is coming from members of the vaping establishment posing here as members. They do not want to hear any comments that pose a risk to their profits.

ECF Conspiracy Theory?

Everyone has Posted Good Arguments for Both Sides. I'm just glad I won't be around for the 50 Year Long Term Study .

 

[Exchaner]

Which part do you disagree with? Do you have a different definition of addiction? Do you have some evidence that vaping causes harm to the user and/or bystanders?

Thanks Lessifer, but we are getting nowhere with this discussion. All I have heard so far is skepticism about this article - and similar ones like it. One member calls it a "press release" ignoring the fact that it was presented at a science seminar. Others ignore the premise of the article instead of considering its contents. They throw everything at it but the kitchen sink hoping to dismiss its message. Only a couple of people like yourself has kept an open mind that perhaps there is something to the article. True, it is preliminary research that needs to be examined further, but to dismiss it entirely out of hand indicates either an agenda, or extreme ignorance. I have better things to do than try talking to a wall.

 

[Exchaner]

ECF Conspiracy Theory?

Not the ECF. And not a conspiracy theory either. Just propaganda coming from members of vaping establishment posing on the ECF as members - trying to advance their own agenda. It's done all the time ....

 

[skoony]

You are joking, right? Regardless, I am done with this thread - too much propaganda from the vaping establishment. "Shills" I think they are called.

I am not joking.

I would love to see those studies. Links Please?

"These models include subcutaneously implanted miniosmotic pumps, nicotine-spiked drinking water, and self-administration via jugular cannulae.'
http://cvi.asm.org/content/11/3/563.full

Others ignore the premise of the article instead of considering its contents

I considered the contents and dismissed the premise.

Regards
Mike

 

[Lessifer]

I would love to see those studies. Links Please?

This may not be the study anyone is thinking of Immunosuppressive and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Nicotine Administered by Patch in an Animal Model
I will admit that I have no background in this at all, so I'm muddling my way through it, but from what I can tell the anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects are largely dependent on dosage. Rats exposed to the equivalent of 4 PAD smoking showed much more profound effects.