Jumping on the bandwagon of those who want meaningful data on the long-term prospects of vaping, it has been quite some time since e-cigs have been in use, and suffice it to say, I think the labs, MD's and chemists have done all they can do.
What we are after is a long-term study. You will not get that in a lab. You will not get that in a chemical analysis. These things, you will only get via surveys which have a good participation rate, ask the valid questions and gather honest responses.
There is no doubt smoking is harmful (at least that is the consensus), but did we learn that from lab experiments and chemistry? No. We learned it from observing the population (directly and indirectly) and gathering statistics.
The first thing that is in order for a meaningful review of long-term use, IMO, is to start with a statistician, who can assist in designing a good survey. Even then, this is no easy task. Just like smoking, some people can smoke for 40 years with much less adverse effect than can another person who smokes for 10 and winds up with a heart attack, emphysema or a serious smoker's cough. How do you eliminate other considerations, such as work stress, alcohol use, and so on? Not 100% possible, but the bigger sample you have, the more you stat to define the habits of the "average" person. Some people eat too much. Some drink too much and don't eat too much, etc. With a large sample, the variances come out in the wash. But as they come out in the wash, you are still trying to isolate the effects of e-cigs.
There are too many factors. Not only do you need to know about the condition of the person after using e-cigs, you have to know the person's condition before. You also have to explore many other factors, such as other habits, workplace exposures, stress, other disease, etc. And in that respect, you have to get accurate answers. Some people might not be honest. Some may have forgotten certain things over the years. Some may simply go "oops, I forgot to say...." after taking the survey.
But as the sample gets large enough, these factors are diminished. Significant combinations can also be isolated, such as, "the danger of smoking when combined with frequent alcohol use quadruples the morbidity rate." And such like that. That's why the statisticians can be helpful in designing a proper survey.
I think it would be a good idea to design a good survey and let it compile data during the years to come. It's not the sort of thing that is suited for a PhD to complete his or her dissertation. They simply compile data for a semester or a year, get their grades/degrees, and move on.
What we are after is a long-term study. You will not get that in a lab. You will not get that in a chemical analysis. These things, you will only get via surveys which have a good participation rate, ask the valid questions and gather honest responses.
There is no doubt smoking is harmful (at least that is the consensus), but did we learn that from lab experiments and chemistry? No. We learned it from observing the population (directly and indirectly) and gathering statistics.
The first thing that is in order for a meaningful review of long-term use, IMO, is to start with a statistician, who can assist in designing a good survey. Even then, this is no easy task. Just like smoking, some people can smoke for 40 years with much less adverse effect than can another person who smokes for 10 and winds up with a heart attack, emphysema or a serious smoker's cough. How do you eliminate other considerations, such as work stress, alcohol use, and so on? Not 100% possible, but the bigger sample you have, the more you stat to define the habits of the "average" person. Some people eat too much. Some drink too much and don't eat too much, etc. With a large sample, the variances come out in the wash. But as they come out in the wash, you are still trying to isolate the effects of e-cigs.
There are too many factors. Not only do you need to know about the condition of the person after using e-cigs, you have to know the person's condition before. You also have to explore many other factors, such as other habits, workplace exposures, stress, other disease, etc. And in that respect, you have to get accurate answers. Some people might not be honest. Some may have forgotten certain things over the years. Some may simply go "oops, I forgot to say...." after taking the survey.
But as the sample gets large enough, these factors are diminished. Significant combinations can also be isolated, such as, "the danger of smoking when combined with frequent alcohol use quadruples the morbidity rate." And such like that. That's why the statisticians can be helpful in designing a proper survey.
I think it would be a good idea to design a good survey and let it compile data during the years to come. It's not the sort of thing that is suited for a PhD to complete his or her dissertation. They simply compile data for a semester or a year, get their grades/degrees, and move on.
