spydre Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Okay, while I still think this falls under the heading "harm reduction", this study found that after 10 minutes of use, inhaling the vapor of juice damaged healthy cells in the airway for 24 hours or more, and made them "more susceptible to respiratory infections". To me, that's a heck of a lot better than lung cancer, COPD/emphysema, cancer of the lip, mouth and surrounding areas, throat cancer, heart disease, etc. (yes, I know there are many other factors that cause heart disease and/or high blood pressure, but smoking has been linked to both). Granted, I haven't had a single respiratory infection since I got on the e-cigs (and I have a weakened immune system because of medication), and my lungs have never felt better. I also have a problem with the fact that the article and the experts in the article are continuing to push the myth that they are flavored to appeal to younger users. Frankly, I've heard that just nicotine in a vg/pg mix essentially tastes like a regular cigarette. That's NOT the taste I'm going for. Granted, when I started out, my flavors were "tobacco flavored" (sort of), but they tasted a heck of a lot better than burning cancer sticks. I TRIED the "straight" tobacco flavored (you know, the ones that supposedly taste like Marlboro or some such) and I couldn't stand it - even that first day. From the beginning, I've been a mouth to lung inhale, and I didn't like how it tasted in my mouth (yet, I never did this with analog burning cancer sticks). I wouldn't get TOO hyped up about this, but I think this is going to lead to further legislation. http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/health/2014/12/26/study-e-cigarettes-damage-healthy-cells/20919357/ Tina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aufin Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 If you read the article linked, read the comments also. Plenty of support for ecigs. My opinion .... the article (study) is biased BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bebop Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Did you notice anywhere a link to the actual study done? It's interesting that she used the term "liquid" and not "vapor". Im going to see if I can find more about this but it is no secret the major networks are pawns in this war and being used to promote propaganda in this arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rixter Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 The question I ask myself when I see this kind of "study" is, "how do I feel since making the switch from smoking to vaping?" The answer is always a resounding, "much, much better." I have regular check-ups with my family doctor, and he always tells my that my lab results are, "right between the goalposts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bebop Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 (edited) The first thing to note is that on Dr Chu's website (the doctor who did the study i have not found yet) the website actively promotes drug therapy for quitting smoking. Edited December 27, 2014 by Bebop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bebop Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 The main proponent of the anti-vaping information on the website is a PsyD. (doctor of psychology). This is a known branch of psychology that promotes drug therapy. Again, big pharma raises it's ugly head.. Tam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bebop Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 I did find one other report that said in Dr Chu's study they put put the e-liquid directly on the cells. Still looking.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bebop Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Okay I found a site, prob not the original report but exerpts from it. The purpose for the test was to show that the liquid causes a breakdown of immune functions on totally healthy cells extracted from the pathways leading to lungs in totally healthy children. Duh... Of course, introduce anything to a totally healthy cell and it could have negative impacts. But the study goes on to say it reduces the cells function for resisting infection - and they only tested it on a cold virus- there is nothing in the study that suggests any comparison to smoking or the extent of the damage beyond a reduction in immunity in totally healthy cells. Well, ok.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earthling789 Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 (edited) Exposing healthy lung cells to immersion in purified water will not only harm the cells, it will kill them... by causing the cell membranes to burst... SO, I call bias on the whole study. I need to do a study (with $5M in gov't grants) to prove that drilling holes in your head "may" lead to death.... and start with all these pseudo-scientists as lab-rats for my study [and people wonder why I got out of Medicine, health-professions, and research fields... I was tired of the bias, adjusting experiments to reinforce the conclusion they wanted, and big-pharma (or other interest groups) funding the research to provide data to back up the claim they wanted to show] Edited December 27, 2014 by Earthling789 Tam and Bebop 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tam Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Exposing healthy lung cells to immersion in purified water will not only harm the cells, it will kill them... by causing the cell membranes to burst... SO, I call bias on the whole study. I need to do a study (with $5M in gov't grants) to prove that drilling holes in your head "may" lead to death.... and start with all these pseudo-scientists as lab-rats for my study Hey, can I get in on this study of yours? I have a whole garage full of tools like power drills and such. Earthling789 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbertram Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 (edited) i have been smoke when i was 16 yrs old..since then my tongue is getting slower of tasting good food.a year after my grand mother was died in a severe of throat cancer.we need to find something to avoid cancer and to stand still our good health condition. Edited December 28, 2014 by Tam Removed reference to a no-no subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VapeBerry Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I think we still need to be receptive to findings on the negative effects of vaping/ecigs. It's just so new and everything, we don't know what they'll do long term. If and when negative effects are discovered, we should take them seriously because just shutting things down gets us, well, nowhere. I frankly don't like people that say vaping is 100% harmless or entirely healthy for you, I think that's misleading. Intaking anything other than air into your lungs is going to have some implications (luckily, they appear to be minimal with vaping). In a perfect world, vaping would be regarded as "something new that is leaps and bounds healthier than cigarettes right now, but the long term effects are still unfounded." That all being said, I have to agree with a lot of the points here. It doesn't take a medical test to find out my lungs are functioning way better, my entire quality of life has dramatically improved. When I'm at the gym, I can deadlift the same weight for more reps, and I'm not seeing stars as I'm drowning for air after a 400 pound set. And like many of you guys pointed out, even if vaping damages your cells, it still won't keep me from vaping. This is 'merica baby. Cancer sticks are legal, and they have killed millions and cost us all trillions of dollars over the decades. In my own opinion, I don't think it's great to use vaping as a medium to hook non-smokers up with a nicotine addiction. But, if you smoke, what do you really have to lose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bebop Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I think we still need to be receptive to findings on the negative effects of vaping/ecigs. It's just so new and everything, we don't know what they'll do long term. If and when negative effects are discovered, we should take them seriously because just shutting things down gets us, well, nowhere. I frankly don't like people that say vaping is 100% harmless or entirely healthy for you, ......... But, if you smoke, what do you really have to lose? I actually agree with you. But remember, we are a grass roots movement too and we are fighting to keep the right to vape as we all know it is healthier than smoking. Part of that fight is squelching the unreasonable, false representation and inflated exaggeration of studies that are designed to alarm the non vaping public and generate fear in vaping so as to destroy it. Make no mistake. This is a real battle being fought over dollars, not your health. But I whole heartedly agree with you. We can't let that blind us to the real risks of vaping. And those are real too. Tam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydre Posted December 30, 2014 Author Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) Did you notice anywhere a link to the actual study done? It's interesting that she used the term "liquid" and not "vapor". Im going to see if I can find more about this but it is no secret the major networks are pawns in this war and being used to promote propaganda in this arena. Here's one link. I could have sworn a link was imbedded in the article, one that took you to the actual online published article, but I guess not. But this link is word for word the same link that I read when I looked it up after I read the article, just a different site. http://www.nationaljewish.org/about/mediacenter/pressreleases/2014-News/Study-Links-The-Liquid-Used-In-E-cigarettes-To-An-Increased-Risk-Of-Viral The first thing to note is that on Dr Chu's website (the doctor who did the study i have not found yet) the website actively promotes drug therapy for quitting smoking. That's the official position of the hospital that funded the study, and the doctors who practice there. In reality, the doctors in my doctor's practice group advocate it. My father's doctor, who is in the same practice group, has been begging him for well over a year to make the switch, congratulated my sister on making the switch (she, at least, listened to me), and said something to my sister along the lines of, "Now I just wish your dad would do it." Saw a link to another doctor that said the same thing - drug therapy, or patches, gum, lozenges, or even the nasal inhaler. I, for one, wish I could see the full study, to find out the numbers - how many times he ran the experiment, if he also used tissues from a smoker, etc. The way I see it, he has no "control group" to compare it to. I saw another study (I'm sorry, I didn't grab the link, I was awash in a sea of matches) that compared the effects of e-cigs via spirometry to smokers, non-smokers, and COPD/emphysema patients. Of course, in non-smokers, the spirometry went down, but not by much. In current smokers, the numbers went UP a significant amount (granted, there was break between the time they had their last cigarette and the time they hit the e-cig). As you would expect, no change on the COPD patients. I'm open to finding out about possible effects the e-cigs have. Like someone said, they haven't been out long, especially compared to various versions of people inhaling some form of burning tobacco, or any other type of leaf (I can't remember if it was Columbus or the American Colonists that shipped tobacco back to Europe, but the natives were smoking it well before then). It's just that tobacco wasn't a native plant to Europe. They could been smoking other stuff. There have been, okay, my math is fuzzy here, so I'm going to use decades, studies going back into the 40's on analogs, AFAIK. But like Rixter said, I can only go by what I feel now - and I feel a butt-load better than when I did when I was smoking. I can taste better, I can breathe better, I haven't had ANY infections, not even a sinus infection (and my immune system is suppressed due to a drug I take for my MS), god, I can SMELL better - and I'm no longer nose blind to the smell of smokers and a smoked in area, and I'm beating myself up for sending my kids to school smelling like that just because they were in the same house, so god know I smell better, lol. Edited December 30, 2014 by spydre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VapeBerry Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Part of that fight is squelching the unreasonable, false representation and inflated exaggeration of studies that are designed to alarm the non vaping public and generate fear in vaping so as to destroy it. Yup, I know. I agree that for our own sake the vaping community as a whole needs to remain vigilant against attacks. Vaping is stealing tons of business, and that's the real battle here. Hell, vaping has taken all of my business I would normally give to cigarette retailers, cigar shops, hookah lounges and even other nicotine cessation products. Stuff I alone have spent about 15 grand on in less than 5 years, and many people spend far more. I think their fat cats at the top are just a tad pissed off by what's impending to happen once vaping becomes more common, which is happening more everyday. I always thought it was funny though, how said fat cats running the smoke show never smoked themselves, maybe they'll start so they can take the edge off a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serendipity Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I wish these articles would give links to the actual scientific paper. That way you could see if the study followed the scientific method to the letter, what they used, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bone Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Hey, can I get in on this study of yours? I have a whole garage full of tools like power drills and such. I have a test subject I can recommend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjbritton Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Oftentimes what is reported in the media about a scientific study doesn't accurately represent what the data truly showed. It definitely didn't talk about the details of the methodology nor give the raw data collected. Just the fact that correlation vs causation has become so muddied that the average person easily mistakes the very important difference between the two, is significant. So all scientific studies should be looked at with a skeptics eye. Having said that, it's my hope that if science does highlight risks related to calling that it may also lead to ways of mitigating that risk, making what we feel is a reasonable risk even smaller. Edited January 21, 2015 by cjbritton spydre 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VapeBerry Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydre Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 Oftentimes what is reported in the media about a scientific study doesn't accurately represent what the data truly showed. It definitely didn't talk about the details of the methodology nor give the raw data collected. Just the fact that correlation vs causation has become so muddied that the average person easily mistakes the very important difference between the two, is significant. So all scientific studies should be looked at with a skeptics eye. Having said that, it's my hope that if science does highlight risks related to calling that it may also lead to ways of mitigating that risk, making what we feel is a reasonable risk even smaller. Like someone above said, it looks like exposed healthy airway tissue to the juice itself, not to vapor. Then again, considering the ingredients that we KNOW are in juice, we could already be at risk, because we expose, at the very least, the inside of our mouth, and possibly our throats to it. I would have more, I don't know, faith in this study if it had been a larger sample, a control group, and exposing the tissue to vapor, not to the juice. We don't drink the damn juice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now