article -from natural news

[Edna]

http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-05-14-vaping-found-to-be-vastly-safer-than-smoking-cigarettes-yet-the-fda-ridiculously-claims-they-pose-identical-risks-to-health.html#

 

[cany]

Good read thanks for sharing

[Tam]

I would really like to see the 'deeming rules' go the way of the dodo. While I agree the vaping industry needs some oversight, they do not need the ridiculous amount the deeming rules proposed.

Thanks for the link!

[VapeMama]

Thanks Edna! Good read!

 

[Adversarious1]

I'm currently on night shift.  I have some time on my hands tonight and I needed something to keep my mind occupied in order to stay awake.  This article and the study it cites were a good way to do just that.  As a result of the digging I did, I'm going to go against the grain and play "Devil's Advocate" where this article is concerned.  It is shoddy and misleading journalism, at best.

The very first sentence of the article was inaccurate: "A recent study published in the journal of Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis revealed that e-cigarettes do not cause cancer, unlike tobacco." 

No, it didn't reveal that.  What the study revealed is that the nicotine contained in the aerosols from e-cigarettes did not appear to promote growth in tumor cells.  I could have told you that without conducting the study.  In fact, any number of people around here could have come to the same conclusion.  It has been widely known for a very long time that nicotine is not a cancer causing agent. Therefore logic tells us that nicotine will not promote growth in cancer cells.

From the study: Results from this study suggest that e-cigarettes may have reduced tumor promoter activity compared to conventional cigarettes and therefore may provide a safer alternative to cigarettes.

Suggest.  May have reduced.  May provide.  The authors/researchers were very careful not to state anything along the lines of "e-cigarettes do not cause cancer".

However; the purpose of the study wasn't to determine that the nicotine in e-cigs doesn't cause cancer, as the author apparently wants us to believe.  The actual purpose of the study was to essentially determine the usefulness of the Bhas 42 assay in further studies.  Essentially, this was a study of a study method.

Toward the end of article the author points out the FDA continues to warn about potential health risks from e-cigs.  That's true.  The FDA does warn about potential health risks.  Yet the author's own title of the article: VAPING found to be vastly safer than smoking cigarettes, yet the FDA ridiculously claims they pose identical risks to health - is grossly inaccurate and misleading.  No, the FDA does NOT claim e-cigarettes pose the identical risks posed by cigarettes.  They FDA warns (as opposed to claims) of potential health risks (as opposed to known health risks) and they openly state their concern that some of the products may contain ingredients that are toxic.  That's actually true.  Some of the ingredients found in some liquids are toxic in high enough doses.  Even water is toxic in high enough doses. 

While the FDA, in my opinion, has way over-stepped their boundaries where the deeming regulations are concerned, they are very careful not to make the claims the author asserts they make.  Yes, there needs to be some oversight.  No, that oversight should not include hardware.  That oversight should be limited to the actual items that contain the potentially - POTENTIALLY - toxic ingredients.

Sorry for my rant.  Just getting a little tired of seeing so many articles by "journalists" that either say the same thing over and over or, as is the case with this particular article, don't provide accurate details.  Do they not understand that the inaccuracies will actually do more harm than good?  Hopefully some legal beagle out there realizes that and is smart enough to separate the treasure (good articles) from the trash.

[Tam]

I like it when you're on night shift and have time on your hands, @Adversarious1