Who is behind the "95% Safer"..?

[Maytwin]

I'll just add this from Dr Farsalino ....

 

[Cool_Breeze]

People smoke for nicotine but they die from the tar.
-Professor Michael Russell

There is no tar in vapor. vaping is safer than smoking--100% safer, if you ask me. Please note that we are talking about vaping being safer, as in harm reduction, and not about vaping being 100% or 95% safe. Just safer. And there's plenty of good science to support that assertion. Even the ANTZ agree that vaping is safer--so their last arguments are "But you're still using nicotine" and "Save the children."

ETA: So you're saying that all the research conducted and published by various institutions and investigators in several countries to date is no good? And that the Royal College of Physicians and PHE are corrupt and uninformed and lying to us because "half a dozen Swiss registered companies whose sole owner’s business activities are central to rising concerns about the credibility of Public Health England (PHE)" say so? Who is this Swiss (?) "sole owner" and why is he trying to discredit PHE? Why should we believe him and not everybody else? Never mind.

Many have tried to educate me in this thread on various aspects regarding vaping. Am I thankful..? No, rather I am quite insulted.

Carry on.

Yourself and others continue to erroneously interpret my thought that the '"95% Safer" figure is not scientifically supported and was created in a dubious manner. Many are attempting hang things on me that I didn't say.

Nowhere have I said that e-cigs are not safer than cigarettes. A few have offered that a precise degree of safety cannot (at this time) be known. I applaud them for that.

My intent in my OP was 1) to illuminate the circumstances of the origin of the "95% Safer" figure and question the scientific veracity its derivation and 2) get people to take a look at the players and situations involved in its creation. It is a rather odd collection of bedfellows in some senses.

Nowhere I have I questioned the relative safety of e-cigs, yet posters here continue to attribute all kinds of meanings other than what I said in the OP.

Diversion of the topic away and then further away from the content of the OP has created a mess of a thread. My only role in that was to respond to those diversions. I shouldn't have. If you must find me guilty of something, then it is in allowing others to propel the topic into realms and interpretations that were not explicit in the OP.

Many in this thread have tried to educate me on various aspects of vaping. Am I thankful..? No, I am rather insulted with their assumed ingnorance on my part.

 

[CMD-Ky]

I understood and understand exactly what you were doing or trying to do. Personally, I am glad that you did, it is a worthy endeavor. However, you have happened into the den of "true believers".

Yourself and others continue to erroneously interpret my thought that the '"95% Safer" figure is not scientifically supported and was created in a dubious manner. Many are attempting hang things on me that I didn't say.

Nowhere have I said that e-cigs are not safer than cigarettes. A few have offered that a precise degree of safety cannot (at this time) be known. I applaud them for that.

My intent in my OP was 1) to illuminate the circumstances of the origin of the "95% Safer" figure and question the scientific veracity its derivation and 2) get people to take a look at the players and situations involved in its creation. It is a rather odd collection of bedfellows in some senses.

Nowhere I have I questioned the relative safety of e-cigs, yet posters here continue to attribute all kinds of meanings other than what I said in the OP.

Diversion of the topic away and then further away from the content of the OP has created a mess of a thread. My only role in that was to respond to those diversions. I shouldn't have. If you must find me guilty of something, then it is in allowing others to propel the topic into realms and interpretations that were not explicit in the OP.

 

[sonicbomb]

 

[Skeebo]

Okay, I'm starting to see a pattern here with some of the poster's.
Have fun.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!!!

 

[Cool_Breeze]

It is funny how those who used to 'not like labels' are now trying to slap a lable on just about everything.

 

[Schlinky]

Yes, this thread is trolltastic but for the genuinely ignorant person who stumbles across this thread...

You can't have looked very hard for info:
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/file/3563/download?token=Mu0K_ZR0

The panel was a range of professors with conflicts of interest declared. They considered a wide range of variables and the 95% figure was derived from scientific studies based on the output from 'e-cigs' versus burning tobacco.

Btw, all the scientific studies are cited in the PDF

Not a nice tone to this thread especially when there's so much propoganda coming from the ol' Us of A. You want to look into who's funding those studies and who stands to benefit from their findings.

 

[Myk]

While the figure is often offered as if it is a established fact, it is unsubstantiated by science.

Decided not to bite on this troll thread last night, can't fight the feeling today.

So you think smoking causes every cancer under the sun while smoking rates go down but cancer rates continue to rise is substantiated by science?
If one isn't science the opposition doesn't have to be science. If one is loose correlations and assumptions the other can be loose correlations and assumptions.

Vaping is orders of crap tons safer than smoking. It doesn't take an aeronautical engineer to figure it out.

You're kidding, right? You'e quoting Stanton Glantz? Do you know who he is? He's the worst ANTZ on this planet. "

Bingo.

 

[CMD-Ky]

It is a sad day when one has to wonder who funded a study but that day is here.

Yes, this thread is trolltastic but for the genuinely ignorant person who stumbles across this thread...

You can't have looked very hard for info:
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/file/3563/download?token=Mu0K_ZR0

The panel was a range of professors with conflicts of interest declared. They considered a wide range of variables and the 95% figure was derived from scientific studies based on the output from 'e-cigs' versus burning tobacco.

Btw, all the scientific studies are cited in the PDF

Not a nice tone to this thread especially when there's so much propoganda coming from the ol' Us of A. You want to look into who's funding those studies and who stands to benefit from their findings.

 

[Katya]

Yourself and others continue to erroneously interpret my thought that the '"95% Safer" figure is not scientifically supported and was created in a dubious manner. Many are attempting hang things on me that I didn't say.

Erroneously? I asked you specifically what your problem with the 95% figure was, linked Bill's old thread with all kinds of information on the subject, because I wasn't sure what you meant. And this was your direct reply to my questions:

While the figure is often offered as if it is a established fact,figure is not scientifically supported

*sigh* I must be missing something somewhere.

 

[Katya]

I'll just add this from Dr Farsalino ....

Thank you, dear. I suspected that the good doctor would have already debunked another Glantz "study."

 

[Schlinky]

It is a sad day when one has to wonder who funded a study but that day is here.

Oh that's been happening for a looooong time, all sorts of studies, in most industries, 'prove' all sorts of things depending on who you are and what you want to sell.

That's how capitalism works unfortunately

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Yes, this thread is trolltastic but for the genuinely ignorant person who stumbles across this thread...

You can't have looked very hard for info:
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/file/3563/download?token=Mu0K_ZR0

The panel was a range of professors with conflicts of interest declared. They considered a wide range of variables and the 95% figure was derived from scientific studies based on the output from 'e-cigs' versus burning tobacco.

Btw, all the scientific studies are cited in the PDF

Not a nice tone to this thread especially when there's so much propoganda coming from the ol' Us of A. You want to look into who's funding those studies and who stands to benefit from their findings.

I don't know what you are trying to get at here. A search of that document mentions "95%" only one time and it is not in relationship to e-cig safety.

"In Britain in 2011, the most recent year for which data are accessible, 68% of male and 65% of female current smokers, respectively, reported that they started smoking
before age 18, and 95% and 93%, respectively, before age 25.9."

There is no mention of "95% safer."

 

[Alien Traveler]

As far as your vape style vs someone else's it DOES NOT MATTER. If water boils at 100C it doesn't matter if you get 1gallon of water to 100C really slow in a big pot on the stove, or 10ml to 100C really fast over a Bunsen burner, it is still going to boil when it hits that temp and not before. Same with the formation of these chemicals, they do not care if you are using a 5 gallon bucket for a tank and the suspension coil from a pickup wired to a 220V outlet or a tiny carto on a Vision Spinner, they will form when the juice hits the temp at which they form and not before.

Sorry, but you are wrong here. You cannot compare water and juice. Water does not degrade because of heating.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Post retraced and reconsidered for the moment...

 

[ScottP]

Morning, sunshine.



I feel a bit like a parent following behind their kids and picking up after them. Here is one example:

Look more condescending holier than thou bovine excrement. Can't say I am surprised.

“Daily e-cigarette use, adjusted for smoking conventional cigarettes as well as other risk factors, is associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction.”

Association Between Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction.
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Oct;55(4):455-461

Like last time, you made an exaggerated claim. And as before, you put the burden on others to do the reading for you. I have no doubt that you won’t like this article or any other article that is not saying what you want to hear. You are a good debater who can turn and twist a discussion. Are you in marketing?

While no one likes to hear something against their beliefs, I am not one to deny evidence. I do scrutinize said "evidence" before I change my mind. As a for instance, I did not originally believe Formaldehyde would be in vapor and it turns out after reading SOUND studies, I changed my mind. Now I fully recognize that it can be found in vapor that has been heated beyond specific temperatures and the amount found rises as temperature increases beyond this threshold. Knowing the real and complete truth is beneficial and is one of the primary reasons I only vape using TC now.

Now this report you are citing has been debunked by other researchers and peer reviewers. It's not that I don't like it, it's that even people that do this kind of research for a living say it's bogus as well. @Maytwin already posted the debunking from Dr. Farsalino but here is another peer review: Reviewed work: “Association Between Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction”.

I particularly like this from the above link:

Although there are low levels of particulate matter and some toxins (although at concentrations far lower than combustible cigarettes) present in e-cigarettes, there is no strong evidence to suggest that the levels present in e-cigarettes pose a risk of myocardial infarction. And further, levels actually present are below recommended safety thresholds.

It goes on to say:

Unfortunately, however, the study’s methodology poses major concerns:

1. Its basic premise—that the increased odds of MI are independent of and in addition to the risks associated with combustible use simply cannot be supported by the data presented. This is because the authors did not account for the temporality of events (e.g., that e-cigarette use preceded the MI). Since e-cigarettes only entered the U.S. market roughly 10 years ago, it is likely that many current, daily e-cigarette users became e-cigarette users after their MI rather than before—perhaps as an attempt to prevent future cardiac events. This oversight increases the potential for differential misclassification bias. If it is true that current, daily e-cigarette users had experienced MI before switching from combustibles, the study’s results will likely overestimate the true risks associated with e-cigarette use rather than underestimate them, as the authors state.
2. The authors have not provided sufficient evidence that both cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use do not interact to affect the rate of MI. Although they briefly mention that the effect of e-cigarette use did not interact with current smoking to influence the rate of MI (which would indicate that dual use has no effect), given the problems outlined above, it is entirely possible that an interaction between the two exposures exists. Although not statistically significant in this model, it is possible that the misclassification of MI occurrence based on current e-cigarette and/or combustible cigarettes eliminated the association between MI and dual use. The authors go on to describe how to estimate MI risk from combinations of behaviors using their model, which is contingent upon there being no interaction between smoking and e-cigarette use. Nevertheless, the authors emphasize this attribute.

NOTE: Notice how I gave you the link to what I quoted, I didn't expect you to know it without providing a link.

Oh really? You left out a several of these examples:

You said there weren’t any articles about benzene and vaping, and I showed you one with the title: “Benzene formation in electronic cigarettes”.

You said the study was useless because they didn’t give the ohms etc and I showed you the article did give the ohms etc.

You said benzene couldn’t be formed without additives and I said that figure 1 and table 1 showed benzene could be formed with just PG and VG.

You said the numbers were the same as benzene in air and I said that 5000 was greater than 1 etc.

I guess reading comprehension, chronology, and logic are not strengths of yours.

First I said "I mean has anyone ever seen or even heard of a report claiming Toluene or Benzine in vapor?". I did NOT say "there weren’t any articles about benzene and vaping".

Then you give me one page of some report, with NO LINK to where you got it. So yes I did make some incorrect assumptions about a report based on incomplete information since I didn't have access to the whole thing. Can I write a book, give you one page and expect you write a book report on the whole thing? I DID revise what I said once I had access to the whole thing.

I never said "the numbers were the same as benzene in air". I said they were barely above and yes under normal vape conditions it is BARELY ABOVE. They didn't get 5000 until they used abnormal settings that would have resulted in a significantly burnt taste that NO ONE would be vaping.

Who is the one twisting words again? Are you sure you aren't the one in marketing?

I am done arguing with you. Although I can't wait to see how you twist this.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Erroneously? I asked you specifically what your problem with the 95% figure was, linked Bill's old thread with all kinds of information on the subject, because I wasn't sure what you meant. And this was your direct reply to my questions:



*sigh* I must be missing something somewhere.

In all fairness, I had not reviewed all the sub-links in Bill's old thread. I have now, though I haven't reviewed all the footnotes and possible sub-sub-links.

The main basis seems to be the PHE paper where it is stated "best estimates show e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful." While most of the other links don't mention 95%, those that do seem to be echoing.

The role of entities that write papers intended to guide public policy is seemingly not the actual conduction of scientific studies.

If you will provide links to an actual scientific study or studies including methods and derivations of outcomes of 95% safer (or thereabouts), I'll review them.

95% less tar and combustable byproducts is math. Correlation is not causation.

 

[ScottP]

In all fairness, I had not reviewed all the sub-links in Bill's old thread. I have now, though I haven't reviewed all the footnotes and possible sub-sub-links.

The main basis seems to be the PHE paper where it is stated "best estimates show e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful." While most of the other links don't mention 95%, those that do seem to be echoing.

The role of entities that write papers intended to guide public policy is seemingly not the actual conduction of scientific studies.

If you will provide links to an actual scientific study or studies including methods and derivations of outcomes of 95% safer (or thereabouts), I'll review them.

95% less tar and combustable byproducts is math. Correlation is not causation.

I think a more accurate description might be "current studies show that vapor contains 5% or less of the harmful chemicals found in cigarette smoke".

 

[ScottP]

Sorry, but you are wrong here. You cannot compare water and juice. Water does not degrade because of heating.

While that is true, it doesn't change the fact that there is a specific temperature that must be reached before PG and VG break down into formaldehyde and other potential toxins. It obviously doesn't do this at room temperature otherwise by the time DIY'ers used up a large bottle of PG or VG it would contain large quantities of formaldehyde and be quite pungent. However, it does break down at 450F for sure, although at this temp the rate of decay is very low.

 

[DJ Colonel Corn]

Here, on page 6, is the 95% statement.

This is the PDF I got in Feb 2015.

Hope this helps. I know it's already been linked, but, there are new people coming to the thread that should see this.