Yet another study on over exposure
- Thread starter kakiser56
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Count me in too. My exposure rate is very high, I'm around many many kids Mon-Fri (K-12), kids that have tons of very apparent cooties. Kids that get sick on the bus and I have to clean it up and kids with crusts built up that shock me, I can't believe mom or dad let them get on the bus like that. I've had one cold in the past 2 1/2 years and that cold was just a few months after I'd begun vaping. Before this job and vaping I'd get a bad cold every winter with the last bad one turning into bronchitis.
Nobody has mentioned the testing of both PG and VG in the 1940s, again in the late 1950s, and again in the military base closing during the 1980s. I loved the last one as it also showed the state of Maine lead paint scare of the 1970s was a false one. These same public alarmist have known lead piping is dangerous, but somehow we find 19th century lead pipe in Flint, Michigan and they expect the rest of us to pay for it. Where was the CDC while this lead pipe was sitting in the ground?
Last edited:
Yeah, right, another "study". It's been my candid observation that you can cook up whatever steaming pile of "facts" you wish and call it a study anymore. That's all this tripe really is.
My mom blames my recurrent laryngitis on vaping -- which might be true, at least partly, though I also suspect needing to start using Advair since I started vaping. But being hoarse is not the same as being sick; with no fever or pain, it really means only that my vocal cords are irritated (likely by the steroids in the Advair!). It's kinda annoying, but I can live with it, since vaping means I'm not smoking, and I'm not getting a bad cold every year.
That stubborn sinus infection I got also probably had a lot to do with the steroids; it's one of the possible side effects when you first start using Advair. I'd been using it for a while, but had increased from the 250/50 to the 500/50, and high steroid dosage can play hell with your immune system.
Andria
Interesting observation indeed because Staphylococcus aureus "is still one of the five most common causes of hospital-acquired infections and is often the cause of postsurgical wound infections. Each year, around 500,000 patients in United States' hospitals contract a staphylococcal infection like S. aureus." (quote from Wikipedia).
No doubt about it being an anti hit piece. If there is any doubt, this quote from the article ought to confirm things:
What other scientific study has a quote that reads: "we don't know... but we believe... something negative." Couple that with the previous statement that does allege 'knowledge':
With all that said, I do think the article is bringing up something that I'm not really seeing addressed so far in this thread, and that I've wondered about. What I see noted in this thread is that none of us are getting common colds anymore. I think that ought to be treated as monumental news. It literally strikes me as reasonable assertion to say that vaping has actually cured the common cold. I don't know how that can't be noted as monumental news. There's about 8 of us on this thread saying the same thing. Me, I've had one cold in the past 5 years, and the one I had was me dual using at a rate far more than I currently (smoke). What was even more odd about that is during the duration of that cold, I literally couldn't vape at any point without it hurting, and yet could smoke and it was okay (not great, but far better than vaping).
I also don't see how not getting colds anymore isn't seen as enormous benefit for vaping. Can't say the same held true for when I was a smoker only. Nor when I was an ex-smoker (for many years). I got colds routinely. Every non-vaper I know seems to average at least one cold a year. To not have any or at most one every 5 years strikes me as this is a very significant benefit that is for whatever reason not brought up all that much (even by vapers).
But that's not the stuff I'm wondering about as it relates to this article. I think the article is suggesting or implying that it is not good for people to not get colds. Not even sure if that's the way I wish to state it, but it is in vein of what I'm getting from the article and which I do think has the potential to blow up into something even bigger than 'cure for the common cold.' Because this is such a new phenomenon and because everything on the planet seems to carry a double-edged sword, then the article essentially is saying, "wait until the other shoe drops." In that we are messing with the nature of human immune system in a way that over the long run may actually be very very bad. Here in the short term, it is really really great. If it were ANY other substance on the planet doing this it would be promoted beyond belief and would already be a multi-trillion dollar business, with idea of "long term consequences be dammed." With vaping, all science currently has (really) is: "we don't know" and (at best) "we need more long term data." Or (at worst) "this is going to be very bad for vapers in the long run. You just wait and see. We'll be proven right."
I do think if it were any other substance that did this, it would be vastly popular in short term, but met with lots of skepticism by a segment that may or may not be vocal on their concerns. Probably paid off handsomely to not be vocal, while perhaps secretly funded to keep an eye out / continue research so the funders are first to know what actually happens over the long term.
But as this is all speculation at this point, then I don't know what to say other than let's hope for the best, but man, if this isn't some seriously big news in the short term (vapers simply don't get colds anymore) and potentially huge news over the long term, then I don't know what is.
What other scientific study has a quote that reads: "we don't know... but we believe... something negative." Couple that with the previous statement that does allege 'knowledge':
With all that said, I do think the article is bringing up something that I'm not really seeing addressed so far in this thread, and that I've wondered about. What I see noted in this thread is that none of us are getting common colds anymore. I think that ought to be treated as monumental news. It literally strikes me as reasonable assertion to say that vaping has actually cured the common cold. I don't know how that can't be noted as monumental news. There's about 8 of us on this thread saying the same thing. Me, I've had one cold in the past 5 years, and the one I had was me dual using at a rate far more than I currently (smoke). What was even more odd about that is during the duration of that cold, I literally couldn't vape at any point without it hurting, and yet could smoke and it was okay (not great, but far better than vaping).
I also don't see how not getting colds anymore isn't seen as enormous benefit for vaping. Can't say the same held true for when I was a smoker only. Nor when I was an ex-smoker (for many years). I got colds routinely. Every non-vaper I know seems to average at least one cold a year. To not have any or at most one every 5 years strikes me as this is a very significant benefit that is for whatever reason not brought up all that much (even by vapers).
But that's not the stuff I'm wondering about as it relates to this article. I think the article is suggesting or implying that it is not good for people to not get colds. Not even sure if that's the way I wish to state it, but it is in vein of what I'm getting from the article and which I do think has the potential to blow up into something even bigger than 'cure for the common cold.' Because this is such a new phenomenon and because everything on the planet seems to carry a double-edged sword, then the article essentially is saying, "wait until the other shoe drops." In that we are messing with the nature of human immune system in a way that over the long run may actually be very very bad. Here in the short term, it is really really great. If it were ANY other substance on the planet doing this it would be promoted beyond belief and would already be a multi-trillion dollar business, with idea of "long term consequences be dammed." With vaping, all science currently has (really) is: "we don't know" and (at best) "we need more long term data." Or (at worst) "this is going to be very bad for vapers in the long run. You just wait and see. We'll be proven right."
I do think if it were any other substance that did this, it would be vastly popular in short term, but met with lots of skepticism by a segment that may or may not be vocal on their concerns. Probably paid off handsomely to not be vocal, while perhaps secretly funded to keep an eye out / continue research so the funders are first to know what actually happens over the long term.
But as this is all speculation at this point, then I don't know what to say other than let's hope for the best, but man, if this isn't some seriously big news in the short term (vapers simply don't get colds anymore) and potentially huge news over the long term, then I don't know what is.
Well I think that really says it all, doesn't it? They are casting about for vape haters to join in with them in their hue and cry against vaping, and there are plenty of those. Unfortunately in what society has devolved into this tactic works sadly all too well.
For several decades I got a cold at least once every winter. It would migrate to my lungs and linger there while I coughed and coughed. At one point I was diagnosed with "walking pneumonia" and had to take antibiotics. I haven't had a single cold or respiratory problem since I started vaping 5 years ago.
IMO, unless science gets very vocal about this, then science loses credibility. I get the counter argument that science isn't touched by bad scientists, but in layperson terms, it absolutely is. Can't downplay religion/spirituality as a whole (like many do, especially as they adhere to principles of science), but not be intellectually honest to realize it is just (some) people that do this, while doing the opposite with science. This stuff getting published is based almost foremost on belief than observation and its bias is very visible. So visible that as long as it is not completely dismissed as non-scientific, that all other versions of 'accepted science' come into question. Thank God all good adherents to science, welcome that questioning. While many seem to take questions as only attitudes of doubt and negative criticism.
The public health version of science when not doing the type of stuff that Clive Bates, Carl Phillips and the like do, truly comes off like a massive cult. Perhaps not as bad as cult bent on suicidal ideologies, but short of that, fairly identical to the traits that make up a cult. Kinda like the Climate Change people. Who needs science when you got people willing to accept data with blind faith?
Good reasoning! Steroids, among other properties, is an anti-inflammatory molecule that, as you know, is used to treat some chronic inflammatory diseases such as asthma or some systemic autoimmune diseases. Because of these anti-inflammatory properties, steroids impair a key arm of the immune system to eradicate several type of pathogens. This is well documented in the literature and just one relevant quote:
"Patients receiving chronic steroids have an increased susceptibility to many different types of infections. The risk of infection is related to the dose of steroid and the duration of therapy. Although pyogenic bacteria are the most common pathogens, chronic steroid use increases the risk of infection with intracellular pathogens such as Listeria, many fungi, the herpes viruses, and certain parasites. Clinicians should consider both common and unusual opportunistic infections in patients receiving chronic steroids."
[URL='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Klein%20NC%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=11447704']Klein NC1, Go CH, Cunha BA., Infect Dis Clin North Am.[/URL] 2001 Jun;15(2):423-32, viii.
I didn't actually start feeling sick until some weeks later; unlike a virus, it takes a while for a bacterial infection to really get a foothold -- but that evening, after leaving the hospital, I had a fainting spell -- in the truck, WHILE SITTING DOWN! Which tells me, that's when my body took note of and started fighting the microbe, several hours after leaving the hospital; I have extremely low BP, so a great many infections/situations will bring on a fainting spell. Weeks later when I realized that I actually was ill, and that it had been going on far too long to be even a bad case of flu, I realized I had probably picked up that microbe while inside the hospital.
Andria
Yes, and while I was fighting that sinus infection back in the fall, I started using the 500/50 only once a day, and using the 250/50 for the other dosage -- at night, because the 500/50 gave me a lot of insomnia too. Since then, I've been doing really well with that half-and-half dosage, and my WTA use has gone steadily down, as I wean from it, so my asthma is doing pretty well now; better than at any time since i started using the WTA in august 2014. So I'm thinking when I go for my next asthma checkup and refills (early April), just telling the doc to prescribe the 250/50 again; I've still got a little of the 500/50, so I can continue the half and half dosage for a few more months -- until I finally get completely free of the WTA. I think by then, I should be just fine to use the 250/50 twice daily, and not need the 500/50 at all. Always better to use as little steroids as makes an effective dose.
Andria
Hmmmmmmm....
Add me to the list of folks no longer getting sick much since starting to vape.
I have made many posts on the subject over the years.
But I have often wondered if that is really a good thing or not.
I believe in collecting germs, and allowing my immune system to combat them.
Maybe I AM doing my immune system a disservice.
But if I am going to say that there is something wrong with vaping BECAUSE of that...
Then I have to say there is something very wrong with using pharmaceutical products as well...
I sure hope Big Pharma wasn't behind this study.
Because that would be amazingly absurd.
Add me to the list of folks no longer getting sick much since starting to vape.
I have made many posts on the subject over the years.
But I have often wondered if that is really a good thing or not.
I believe in collecting germs, and allowing my immune system to combat them.
Maybe I AM doing my immune system a disservice.
But if I am going to say that there is something wrong with vaping BECAUSE of that...
Then I have to say there is something very wrong with using pharmaceutical products as well...
I sure hope Big Pharma wasn't behind this study.
Because that would be amazingly absurd.
So it's them superbugs now ... anything less didn't get us 
Make no mistake, so-called 'superbugs' are very serious and very dangerous. There's a couple of strains out there, that are resistant to just about any penicillin known.
That's the price tage for cheap, mass-produced meat and poultry. Animals cooped up by the thousands in small confined spaces : breeders and raisers used antiobiotics extremely liberally ( with gov't vets often turning a blind eye ) for maximised results.
Homo sapiens needs about nine months to procreate. Staphylococcus about twenty minutes. Between conception and delivery of human offspring, s.aureus had about 19000 opportunities to mutate into something that could handle the onslaught of antibiotics. And we've been at this foolery with antibiotics for decades. There were times when doc prescribed it for just about anything... We've been using that particular sword too often. Now its become blunt ...
Guess vapers make convenient scapegoats...
Let's see what they come up with next...
Before you know it, JFK got shot by a disgruntled vaper ....
Make no mistake, so-called 'superbugs' are very serious and very dangerous. There's a couple of strains out there, that are resistant to just about any penicillin known.
That's the price tage for cheap, mass-produced meat and poultry. Animals cooped up by the thousands in small confined spaces : breeders and raisers used antiobiotics extremely liberally ( with gov't vets often turning a blind eye ) for maximised results.
Homo sapiens needs about nine months to procreate. Staphylococcus about twenty minutes. Between conception and delivery of human offspring, s.aureus had about 19000 opportunities to mutate into something that could handle the onslaught of antibiotics. And we've been at this foolery with antibiotics for decades. There were times when doc prescribed it for just about anything... We've been using that particular sword too often. Now its become blunt ...
Guess vapers make convenient scapegoats...
Let's see what they come up with next...
Before you know it, JFK got shot by a disgruntled vaper ....
So it's them superbugs now ... anything less didn't get us
Make no mistake, so-called 'superbugs' are very serious and very dangerous. There's a couple of strains out there, that are resistant to just about any penicillin known.
That's the price tage for cheap, mass-produced meat and poultry. Animals cooped up by the thousands in small confined spaces : breeders and raisers used antiobiotics extremely liberally ( with gov't vets often turning a blind eye ) for maximised results.
Homo sapiens needs about nine months to procreate. Staphylococcus about twenty minutes. Between conception and delivery of human offspring, s.aureus had about 19000 opportunities to mutate into something that could handle the onslaught of antibiotics. And we've been at this foolery with antibiotics for decades. There were times when doc prescribed it for just about anything... We've been using that particular sword too often. Now its become blunt ...
Guess vapers make convenient scapegoats...
Let's see what they come up with next...
Before you know it, JFK got shot by a disgruntled vaper ....
I'll be concerned about vaping causing superbugs AFTER they get all that stupid "hand sanitizer" crap off the market! The worst consumer product EVER in the HISTORY of consumer products!
Andria
I'm glad to hear that you are doing well with lower dosage. As you may remember, my son use(d) Symbicort 160/4.5, an equivalent of Advair 2 puffs twice daily., I've been winning him off of it, and he seems to taking it well, except around the Christmas/post xmas season when he had his load of steroids, a bad cold with an extra-week of vacation but no ICU this year even after an emergency visit to the hospital... I'm still having him off of it. In the mean time, I acknowledge that this drug made wonder to prevent my son's asthma crisis especially during the early stages of managing his disease, giving me great stress relieve.
I may sound silly, but honey is a very powerful anti-bacterial naturally blessed product with effectiveness at least as great as pharmaceutical medicines. My Mum use to treat me with it as a child, and extensive studies have shown its broad-spectrum antibacterial properties and unlike conventional antibiotics, it appears to avoid inducing antimicrobial resistance. I'm wondering if honey may help you to treat sinus infection... Just a thought.
- Status
Similar threads
