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

[Katya]

Form Wikipedia: "The agency was criticised by The Lancet for allegedly using weak evidence in a review of electronic cigarettes to endorse an estimate that e-cigarette use is 95% less hazardous than smoking. Lancet wrote "it is on this extraordinarily flimsy foundation that PHE based the major conclusion and message of its report". Lancet found this "raises serious questions not only about the conclusions of the PHE report, but also about the quality of the agency's peer review process.""

Was the PHE report based on information originating from the Royal College of Physicians...or vice-versa?

A cursory internet search indicates RCP - 2016...PHE - 2015. It seems the PHE report precedes the use of "95%" by the RCP.

Do you have something other? You might find the BMJ reading interesting.

The study, the findings, the commentaries, and the 95% number have been discussed and questioned and analyzed here ad nauseam for years--including the Lancet's lame criticism. I'm not sure why you keep attacking and questioning that 95% figure. What if it's 90 or 85 or even 80%? It's about harm reduction and there's no doubt in my mind that vaping is a much safer proposition than smoking. Probably as safe as Swedish snus and NRT, give or take a few percentage points.

You might find this thread interesting--please study all the links Bill Godshall provided in posts #1 and 2.

Public Health England's endorsement of vaping is International "game changer"

 

[proax9]

I do not believe an absolute "safer by x%" can or will be determined any time in the foreseeable future.
There would need to be a HUGE study of many 1000s (or 10s of thousands) of people over a very long period of time- which includes smokers converted to vapers, as well as a significant number of vapers who never smoked, as well as never smoked / never vaped people. (Who knows what new ailments which begin to show in the coming years due to environmental factors: air, water, food processing, 'FDA approved' drugs....)
Unless there are new symptoms / health issues that can be attributed solely to vaping- i.e. appears only in the ex-smokers AND never smokers group- it will be hard to assign causality (blame) especially in the ex-smokers group. In the never smokers group- even very early adapters have been vaping what, 7-10 years. Doesn't seem like a very long time- when you consider how long it takes for the effects of smoking to show it's signs of destruction in most people.
What keeps me vaping and feeling OK about it- there's no tar: a proven killer. There aren't 1000s of added chemicals to each bottle of juice I use (I DIY- maybe that helps reduce additional added ingredients?). Could there be some as yet undetermined negative physical reaction to PG, VG, flavors, ......maybe. I feel better, my endurance is better. I feel good about vaping. So I'm good with it.

I friend I worked with had a saying when it came to 'indepth' analysis: "Figures lie, and liars figure".

 

[r77r7r]

The study, the findings, the commentaries, and the 95% number have been discussed and questioned and analyzed here ad nauseam for years--including the Lancet's lame criticism. I'm not sure why you keep attacking and questioning that 95% figure. What if it's 90 or 85 or even 80%? It's about harm reduction and there's no doubt in my mind that vaping is a much safer proposition than smoking. Probably as safe as Swedish snus and NRT, give or take a few percentage points.

You might find this thread interesting--please study all the links Bill Godshall provided in posts #1 and 2.

Public Health England's endorsement of vaping is International "game changer"

I have kept from replying to this thread because it seems like the OP has perhaps a deeper concern about something that he has yet to disclose.

 

[Katya]

I have kept from replying to this thread because it seems like the OP has perhaps a deeper concern about something that he has yet to disclose.

 

[My Batt Hurts]

Looking at search results, it seems as thought it's really a marketing campaign. At the very least, this is being pushed by a government that's keen to reduce spending on a public health system.

No idea how much science is actually behind it.

 

[Rossum]

I feel 95% better than when I was smoking.

I also feel about 500% better than I did on any of those occasions when I tried to quit smoking before I "discovered" vaping.

 

[ScottP]

I don't know how you can make such a bold statement in a seemingly factual manner. Many individuals have suffered various ill health effects from using e-cigs.

Other than acute allergic reactions, his statement is correct as far as I have seen. No COPD, no heart disease, no vape related deaths (other than from explosion or the 2 cases of deliberate suicide). In fact the opposite seems to be true. Many people with COPD, heart problems and other issues from smoking have had the condition(s) clear after switching to vaping. I will admit I have not read every single vape related news article and study in existence, so if you know of one/some, please enlighten me.

95% is an educated guess by members of Royal College of Physicians. You cannot prove it with hard science. You cannot disprove it either. Not enough data.

Yes after doing some more digging, it looks like it was more of a working theory. However common sense combined with the fact the only studies that have found anything really bad in vapor was the result of overheating the juice to the point of partial combustion (even then the levels of the chemicals found were in the 2.5%-6.7% range of what is in cigarettes) the theory seems to be holding true. Even with overheating juice the chemicals produced are 5% or LESS of what you would find in real cigarettes. So at this point there are zero studies that disprove this theory and many (even those considered negative vaping studies) are upholding the theory.

As an example take a look at this graphic put together by Mike Petro related to formaldehyde and based on his own independent studies (which corroborated studies from two other researchers). The top brown line is cigarettes, and the bottom lines are vapor from different juice combinations at various temps. Even at 500F the difference is astounding. Personally, I vape at 435F so not even on the chart. I estimate my risk is only about 2% compared to smoking for Formaldehyde, even less for benzene, and 0% for Tar and CO. So 95% safer? By my math at my temps, more like 98% safer.

As always I will continue to adjust my opinion and outlook as more information comes available.

 

[dripster]

Shorthanding the RCP report to "95% safer" is inaccurate at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Shorthanding it to "the evidence in support of AT LEAST 95% safer is OVERWHELMING" is 150% accurate IMO.

 

[Nermal]

At the very least, this is being pushed by a government that's keen to reduce spending on a public health system.

Now, what could be more evil than that.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

...I'm not sure why you keep attacking and questioning that 95% figure. "

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

 

[ScottP]

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

Can we say beyond any shadow of doubt? No and I doubt we ever will. However the science to THIS POINT IN TIME does support it.

Really though people have been eating food since there have been people and we still can't even decide which diet is the best. Some studies show Apples are safe others show some dangers. Some studies show fats are bad other show fats are good, etc. If we can't even lock down food 100% with BILLIONS of test subjects and 4000 years of experience, how can we be expected to be 100% sure about vaping? All we can do is base decisions on the evidence available at the time the decision is made and for right now the vaping evidence is GOOD.

 

[My Batt Hurts]

Now, what could be more evil than that.

As marketing campaigns go, it's a good one. We have brexit to save for.

 

[dripster]

Other than acute allergic reactions, his statement is correct as far as I have seen. No COPD, no heart disease, no vape related deaths (other than from explosion or the 2 cases of deliberate suicide). In fact the opposite seems to be true. Many people with COPD, heart problem and other issues from smoking have had the condition(s) clear after switching to vaping. I will admit I have not read every single vape related news article and study in existence, so if you know of one/some, please enlighten me.



Yes after doing some more digging, it looks like it was more of a working theory. However common sense combined with the fact the only studies that have found anything really bad in vapor was the result of overheating the juice to the point of partial combustion (even then the levels of the chemicals found were in the 2.5%-6.7% range of what is in cigarettes) the theory seems to be holding true. Even with overheating juice the chemicals produced are 5% or LESS of what you would find in real cigarettes. So at this point there are zero studies that disprove this theory and many (even those considered negative vaping studies) are upholding the theory.

As an example take a look at this graphic put together by Mike Petro related to formaldehyde and based on his own independent studies (which corroborated studies from two other researchers). The top brown line is cigarettes, and the bottom lines are vapor from different juice combinations at various temps. Even at 500F the difference is astounding. Personally, I vape at 435F so not even on the chart. I estimate my risk is only about 2% compared to smoking for Formaldehyde, even less for benzene, and 0% for Tar and CO. So 95% safer? By my math at my temps, more like 98% safer.

As always I will continue to adjust my opinion and outlook as more information comes available.

More information already is available because, for starters, the graph you posted comes from an unscientific hobby experiment that was using an MTL tank setup in TC mode that has a typifying tendency to not be capable to wick syrupy 100% VG fast enough to be anywhere near representative of how I vape, i.e., DL on a mech mod with advanced coil builds and high VG (but never 100% VG) juices, at such high wattages with such high adsorption rates and such high sensitive airflow optimization levels, that the juice evaporates so fast and stable, it doesn't have time to form formaldehyde.

 

[dripster]

Can we say beyond any shadow of doubt? No and I doubt we ever will. However the science to THIS POINT IN TIME does support it.

Really though people have been eating food since there have been people and we still can't even decide which diet is the best. Some studies show Apples are safe others show some dangers. Some studies show fats are bad other show fats are good, etc. If we can't even lock down food 100% with BILLIONS of test subjects and 4000 years of experience, how can we be expected to be 100% sure about vaping? All we can do is base decisions on the evidence available at the time the decision is made and for right now the vaping evidence is GOOD.

Yes we can say several many miles beyond any shadow of doubt that, when we already know that smoking tobacco is a sinking ship, it takes to be a real fruitcake to complain (that is, by presenting two boatloads of purely manufactured evidence) about the quality of the lifeboat.

 

[OldBatty]

To muddy the waters a bit. Before the 95% became widely (mis) quoted every where, I recall a study mentioned here on ECF that stated 98% safer. With a 3% margin of error. So a range 0f 95 to 101% safer. This ring a bell with anyone?

 

[dripster]

To muddy the waters a bit. Before the 95% became widely (mis) quoted every where, I recall a study mentioned here on ECF that stated 98% safer. With a 3% margin of error. So a range 0f 95 to 101% safer. This ring a bell with anyone?

That was only one study. The RCP jumped through burning tobacco hoops to take properly into account any and all of the evidence available to them.

 

[smoked25years]

I will admit I have not read every single vape related news article and study in existence, so if you know of one/some, please enlighten me.

How many have you read? You commented about the methods of a study without reading the methods section so I thought this may be your first time reading a scientific article.

4. While they did tell us what wattage they used, they did not tell us the device types (of the two "tanks") or resistance of the coils.

They did specify the wattage, the devices and the resistance of the coils.

 

[ScottP]

More information already is available because, for starters, the graph you posted comes from an unscientific hobby experiment that was using an MTL tank setup in TC mode that has a typifying tendency to not be capable to wick syrupy 100% VG fast enough to be anywhere near representative of how I vape, i.e., DL on a mech mod with advanced coil builds and high VG (but never 100% VG) juices, at such high wattages with such high adsorption rates and such high sensitive airflow optimization levels, that the juice evaporates so fast and stable, it doesn't have time to form formaldehyde.

Yes it was a "hobby experiment" EXCEPT it was to corroborate two other studies conducted by two different Dr's/Scientists. So pick any one of three AGREEING tests. Surely you can't discount all 3. Well I guess anyone can stick their head in the sand if they really want to.

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.

I think where people get confused is in trying to equate watts to temperature and there is NOT a fixed correlation because with watts you are correct that coils, wicks, and air flow matter...because they all affect the temperature. Temperature is the catalyst. So anyone that says X watts is safe or unsafe is going to be dead wrong for anything other than the one specific test conditions for which they tested.

 

[ScottP]

How many have you read? You commented about the methods of a study without reading the methods section so I thought this may be your first time reading a scientific article.

I didn't read the whole document originally because you did not post either the whole document NOR a link to it. While a link would have been enough, you did later post the whole thing and I did read it. Insulting me for your failure to provide your source only makes you look bad though, so keep 'em coming.

 

[ScottP]

@Cool_Breeze , @smoked25years , @dripster

If you guys think vaping is so unsafe then by all means please go back to smoking.