|
How credible and valid are the studies done by the UK government, and how relevant are they to the USA?
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
Most people vape instead of smoke because vapes you can still use almost anywhere and cigarettes in most developed places you have to go walk 3 blocks in the cold rain to actually light one while still weathering death glares from the parents of the small kids your smoke is drifting over. Ironically, there's a danger in this that it makes it way easier to be a nicotine user when you can use/reinforce the habit all day long whereas for a lot of smokers the physical opportunity to smoke was extremely limited throughout the day. Personally I think nicotine ultimately should go the way of quaaludes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:That's it you got me. I'm an Altria mole planted on a comedy forum trying to win you over and trick toddlers into Juuling. Can you wait until Friday to rat me out to my boss so I can get paid again? I need to top off my Scrooge McDuck vault of blood money. Cancer Merchant!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
I'm not really interested in nicotine policy in the UK. How are other countries dealing with vaping?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
I had to go to the hospital for my asthma (viral bronchitis) and the doctors there were telling me about the staggering amount of people that are coming in for vaping-related shortness of breath and pneumonia in the last couple of months, nearly all of them young. They said they've never seen anything like it before in their time of working there. After reading a lot of literature and the results being all over the map, seeing the reports coming in and the lack of long term data over vaping, I believe it now that vaping is not as safe as others are claiming and I've stopped for the time being with my weed vaping. Really tough decision but it feels like its the same old poo poo with tobacco all over again. I just make edibles, capsules and tinctures now but yeah I'd rather save my lungs at this time and point until there is more solid research coming out. This is coming from a 4 year, weed-vaping enthusiast. And vapes are not medical devices, either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:How credible and valid are the studies done by the UK government, and how relevant are they to the USA? As credible as you can get as far as I can tell. I actually haven't seen anyone in public health challenge the conclusions of the RCP study or the one on biomarkers. The RCP review is probably as legit as you could possibly get since they're the group that broke ground on linking cigarettes to lung cancer among other things. Public Health England is doing another evidence review that should be released next year and so far they've stood firm in their "95% less harmful" figure even through all the weird THC vape cases that happened here. They're relevant because despite some changes in the designs of the devices/coils/liquids it's all essentially the same thing. You're vaporizing a solution of PG, VG, nicotine, and some type of flavoring. So the health risks they measured would be the same as what Americans would be exposed to. They have a lower nicotine cap than we do which is why Juul can sell 60mg pods here and only 20mg pods over there. Nicotine itself is addressed in all of the reports though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:How credible and valid are the studies done by the UK government, and how relevant are they to the USA? credible, but there are problems when you only cite the papers that support what you're trying to argue and ignore the ones that don't support your position. we don't know enough about them yet to say with certainty that they are good for smoking cessation or not, or if they are healthy or not. it's definitely good for sales to pretend that they are, though https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5480094 the important part is that there are medically tested and proven nicotine cessation therapies out there. and nicotine selling firms have a decades long history of claiming their product is healthier, in order to keep their captive market of addicts who would otherwise be motivated to quit because of health risks Calibanibal posted:I'm not really interested in nicotine policy in the UK. How are other countries dealing with vaping? it's a mixed bag. most countries treat them similarly to traditional tobacco cigarettes, some countries have no special regulation at this time, though some countries like japan, brazil, and india (sort of) have banned them. regulations are all across the spectrum globally, because of the relative newness of the product and lack of information about the health impacts
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
I'm not even anti vaping and I'm a weirdo who loves second hand smoke and nicotine in general, I just find on terra firma's defense of nicotine completely non-sensical and his refusal to address any point anyone brings up to him perplexing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
Entorwellian posted:I had to go to the hospital for my asthma (viral bronchitis) and the doctors there were telling me about the staggering amount of people that are coming in for vaping-related shortness of breath and pneumonia in the last couple of months, nearly all of them young. They said they've never seen anything like it before in their time of working there. After reading a lot of literature and the results being all over the map, seeing the reports coming in and the lack of long term data over vaping, I believe it now that vaping is not as safe as others are claiming and I've stopped for the time being with my weed vaping. Really tough decision but it feels like its the same old poo poo with tobacco all over again. I just make edibles, capsules and tinctures now but yeah I'd rather save my lungs at this time and point until there is more solid research coming out. This is coming from a 4 year, weed-vaping enthusiast. And vapes are not medical devices, either. Wrong thread. None of this is about THC, which is what was causing all the lung disease outbreaks the last few months. Calibanibal posted:I'm not really interested in nicotine policy in the UK. How are other countries dealing with vaping? France is approaching it the same way. Kind of letting it happen while regulating it as best they can. New Zealand allows and promotes it while Australia recently put heavy restrictions on it. I think that will change soon. India just banned everything but left smoking. They have 100 million smokers so I'm sure that will turn out great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
Entorwellian posted:I had to go to the hospital for my asthma (viral bronchitis) and the doctors there were telling me about the staggering amount of people that are coming in for vaping-related shortness of breath and pneumonia in the last couple of months, nearly all of them young. They said they've never seen anything like it before in their time of working there. After reading a lot of literature and the results being all over the map, seeing the reports coming in and the lack of long term data over vaping, I believe it now that vaping is not as safe as others are claiming all of this is probably because of some oddity in the DIY vape supply chain, which is why it's extra weird to pretend there's some distinction between the corner bob's budget vape shop and big tobacco, which is worse somehow because it doesn't respect vape culture (of ingesting unknown fluids into your lungs)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
Ah yes France, the country where a decade ago you could still legally smoke a cigarette on an elevator full of children.luxury handset posted:all of this is probably because of some oddity in the DIY vape supply chain, which is why it's extra weird to pretend there's some distinction between the corner bob's budget vape shop and big tobacco, which is worse somehow because it doesn't respect vape culture (of ingesting unknown fluids into your lungs) One concern here is that human lungs have effectively evolved to handle some amount of smoke inhalation. Not especially well, but there's 400,000 years of adaptation there (or 1.5-2million, depending on who you believe about when human ancestors started using fire). Obviously huge amounts of smoke they don't handle well, but against smaller amounts they do surprisingly well. Inhaling propylene glycol and glycerin and whatever the gently caress weird terpenes are in the flavors is absolutely completely new. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:credible, but there are problems when you only cite the papers that support what you're trying to argue and ignore the ones that don't support your position. we don't know enough about them yet to say with certainty that they are good for smoking cessation or not, or if they are healthy or not. it's definitely good for sales to pretend that they are, though This cuts both ways. I've seen papers where researchers took devices that have been off the market for years, turned everything to max power and took measurements of what chemicals were released as if that somehow replicated real world use scenarios. Those papers were used by anti-vaping researchers as a reason for banning the products. That type of research is specifically addressed in the PHE and RCP reports.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Ah yes France, the country where a decade ago you could still legally smoke a cigarette on an elevator full of children. if you have to choose, wouldn't you rather someone blow a banana scented propylene glycol cloud into your child's face? On Terra Firma posted:anti-vaping researchers are these the same people who unfairly demonize nicotine addiction?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:if you have to choose, wouldn't you rather someone blow a banana scented propylene glycol cloud into your child's face? That's somewhat of a false choice though isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:if you have to choose, wouldn't you rather someone blow a banana scented propylene glycol cloud into your child's face? Probably the smoke, at least smoke is cool and builds character, unlike vaping, which appears to do the opposite. enraged_camel posted:That's somewhat of a false choice though isn't it? won't someone think of the poor multi-billion dollar corporations right to profit off of addiction!? Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:are these the same people who unfairly demonize nicotine addiction? They're the same types of people that falsified a report a few months back about people who vape having higher rates of heart attacks than those that don't. Once the actual data was released it was discovered that those who did the study took anyone who had a heart attack ever, including before using e-cigarettes, and attributed it to ENDS usage. Once you accounted for ENDS the rate of heart attacks following switching from smoking to vaping went down significantly. The data said the opposite of what the study said. That didn't stop them from promoting it far and wide. Are you alright with that? The study I was citing was done to the point of the cotton wick being burned up in a way that would be unusable for anyone vaping on the device. When the experiment was repeated under normal conditions the levels of formaldehyde (What the original study turned up) was either not detected or was so low it was comparable to what we breath in an empty room.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Probably the smoke, at least smoke is cool and builds character, unlike vaping, which appears to do the opposite. This is true. If nothing else I would like it be known that I think vaping looks dumb and dorky as hell and that most people who vape are some of the most obnoxious inconsiderate people I know. This includes some members of my family. quote:won't someone think of the poor multi-billion dollar corporations right to profit off of addiction!? Most vaping companies aren't really worth that much unless you're Juul.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:They're the same types of people that falsified a report a few months back about people who vape having higher rates of heart attacks than those that don't. Once the actual data was released it was discovered that those who did the study took anyone who had a heart attack ever, including before using e-cigarettes, and attributed it to ENDS usage. Once you accounted for ENDS the rate of heart attacks following switching from smoking to vaping went down significantly. The data said the opposite of what the study said. That didn't stop them from promoting it far and wide. Are you alright with that? are you seriously asking me to defend a paper i haven't read and which you didn't cite based on your addict's paraphrasing of why you don't like what it had to say
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
Wait why would there even be formaldehyde, I thought it was 3 ingredients.On Terra Firma posted:Most vaping companies aren't really worth that much unless you're Juul. As if you aren't fully aware that the entire tobacco industry has completely staked their future on vaping products luxury handset posted:are you seriously asking me to defend a paper i haven't read and which you didn't cite based on your addict's paraphrasing of why you don't like what it had to say Look, one paper that no I won't show you totally might have falsified some data and so obviously all the other criticisms are rendered invalid or less credible! Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:won't someone think of the poor multi-billion dollar corporations right to profit off of addiction!? What I meant is that if I had a kid, I would choose to not have anything blown in their faces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:are you seriously asking me to defend a paper i haven't read and which you didn't cite based on your addict's paraphrasing of why you don't like what it had to say No I'm asking if you're alright with that type of behavior in the research because the way you posed it to me was that I was somehow dismissing all evidence that I didn't agree with. I can dig up the research and corresponding articles if you want. Herstory Begins Now posted:Wait why would there even be formaldehyde, I thought it was 3 ingredients. At a certain temperature cotton starts to burn. The way the devices work is by heating the liquid on the wick to the point it vaporizes. If you push the power up to the max and continue firing after everything has evaporated you'll start burning the wick. Devices now usually have a setting for temp control so you can keep it from ever coming close to that. Herstory Begins Now posted:As if you aren't fully aware that the entire tobacco industry has completely staked their future on vaping products Most of their industry is focused outside of the US. John Oliver did a good segment on this not too long ago. They are not staking their future on vaping. They also have their own heat not burn devices approved by the FDA which will probably hit the market soon. I'm sure you knew that though. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:What I meant is that if I had a kid, I would choose to not have anything blown in their faces. Yeah agreed, that wasn't directed at you, and wise rear end poo poo aside, vaping needs to have the same restrictions as cigarette use asap. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:No I'm asking if you're alright with that type of behavior in the research because the way you posed it to me was that I was somehow dismissing all evidence that I didn't agree with. yeah i've already directly said i don't find you credible itt, and i'd rather not keep repeating myself this is a weird thing to ask of someone - "do you or do you not agree with my perspective on a paper that i have not posted, for you to read?" - and i shouldn't have to explain why that is a weird thing to ask of the reasons you may be arguing like this, the most charitable reason i can think of is that you are trying to rationalize the continued use of a substance which is highly addictive
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
I feel like everything that could ever be said on this subject has already been covered long before any of us were born: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qRenpnB5WA
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:What I meant is that if I had a kid, I would choose to not have anything blown in their faces. Woah there. Look at this rebel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:of the reasons you may be arguing like this, the most charitable reason i can think of is that you are trying to rationalize the continued use of a substance which is highly addictive So you think my concern for hundreds of thousands in the US and millions worldwide dying needlessly is a front? Totally understand why you come off the way you do if that's the case. Here's an article about the back and forth on that one paper though: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/07/17/vaping-heart-attacks-false-claims-sexual-harassment-allegations/1676473001/
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:So you think my concern for hundreds of thousands in the US and millions worldwide dying needlessly is a front? i think that you are discounting more effective solutions for the one which allows you to personally continue using a highly addictive substance. this is expected behavior for an addict your concern for the health of others is likely sincere, but you are also willing to compromise on that concern for your own convenience
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i think that you are discounting more effective solutions for the one which allows you to personally continue using a highly addictive substance. this is expected behavior for an addict You keep saying "more effective" as if we don't have data on the effectiveness of ENDS as a mean to quitting. You're not saying this poo poo in a vacuum man. It's not just randomized studies anymore. Smoking rates have dropped off at higher than anticipated rates when and where these products are available and used. If we have a weapon we can add to the arsenal to combat smoking I fail to see how this is anything but a good thing. Me using or not using the product is irrelevant outside of it helping me quit smoking (and my entire family). I've tried to keep that from being part of the discussion though. I'm only looking at the evidence we have to date. You keep trying to make this personal and make it about me. Remove me from the equation if you can muster that. I don't know why this is so difficult for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:So you think my concern for hundreds of thousands in the US and millions worldwide dying needlessly is a front? I think you yourself have pointed out that the companies responsible for this new way of smoking have flat out won in court the fact that it is recreational and not a means to quit. The fact is that vaping is new enough that nobody knows the long term effects yet; because nobody has been vaping long enough to have any data on that. For all we know 50 years of vaping causes your kidneys to start dancing the two step together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:of the reasons you may be arguing like this, the most charitable reason i can think of is that you are trying to rationalize the continued use of a substance which is highly addictive Over and over you do this thing where you pull it all back to, "Well, it's still nicotine!" Do you have any evidence that nicotine, by itself, is as harmful as you're painting it to be? You understand vaping isn't the only non-cigarette form of nicotine delivery, right? Swedish snus has been around for more than a century, and the nicotine-essentialist argument you're advancing here has been being hashed out in public health research for decades before vaping became huge. Having read the derail in US News and this thread, you seem to have either a hang-up or a chip on your shoulder about substances in general. If the substance in question isn't really that harmful on its own (similar to other legal substances such as alcohol, for instance) and there are safe delivery systems then why do you care? It seems like you desperately need there to be bad health consequences from vaping, no matter that actual facts, so that you can feel better about yourself or continue on your moral crusade. It's very childish and extremely tiring. ErIog fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:I think you yourself have pointed out that the companies responsible for this new way of smoking have flat out won in court the fact that it is recreational and not a means to quit. They sued to prevent the FDA from seizing products since they didn't have the authority if they were tobacco products and not cessation aids. It was also two relatively small companies at the time. The FDA eventually agreed with the ruling then did nothing for years. Context matters. quote:The fact is that vaping is new enough that nobody knows the long term effects yet; because nobody has been vaping long enough to have any data on that. For all we know 50 years of vaping causes your kidneys to start dancing the two step together. We have around 10 years of data and thousands of papers are published every year. It isn't the 1950s. We are much better at establishing the probability of harm of something. We also don't wait for decades of data on a lot of new products especially if we can build a risk profile based on what is in them and what short term usage shows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:You keep saying "more effective" as if we don't have data on the effectiveness of ENDS as a mean to quitting. we don't. the science is inconclusive. you have to pick out the studies that support what you would choose to believe while discarding or discrediting the others as being the work of moralizing anti-vapers On Terra Firma posted:If we have a weapon we can add to the arsenal to combat smoking I fail to see how this is anything but a good thing. it is not a good thing if it is a "weapon" used to gain new markets for multinational firms that sell nicotine On Terra Firma posted:Me using or not using the product is irrelevant people who are addicted to a substance have a very good and compelling reason to make faulty arguments in favor of the continued use of that substance
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:people who are addicted to a substance have a very good and compelling reason to make faulty arguments in favor of the continued use of that substance Maybe you should just admit you're making a moral prohibitionist argument instead of trying to pretend you're engaging in any kind of actual rationalism. It would go better for you, and we could all move on with our lives instead of have to deal with you "just asking questions" and arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:we don't. the science is inconclusive. you have to pick out the studies that support what you would choose to believe while discarding or discrediting the others as being the work of moralizing anti-vapers It's weird how there is plenty of evidence to show that you are wrong, yet you're doing what you're accusing me of doing. quote:it is not a good thing if it is a "weapon" used to gain new markets for multinational firms that sell nicotine By and large this isn't what's happening so quote:people who are addicted to a substance have a very good and compelling reason to make faulty arguments in favor of the continued use of that substance Yes everything I've said in here is faulty and I have presented zero evidence to back up any of my positions. I'm just winging it right? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:They sued to prevent the FDA from seizing products since they didn't have the authority if they were tobacco products and not cessation aids. It was also two relatively small companies at the time. The FDA eventually agreed with the ruling then did nothing for years. Context matters. The context being that both the FDA and the company agreed it wasn't the thing you keep claiming it is, because if it were a cessation device it wouldn't legally meet standards and could be seized? That does not speak well for them as a cessation device. At all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Maybe you should just admit you're making a moral prohibitionist argument instead of trying to pretend you're engaging in any kind of actual rationalism. It would go better for you, and we could all move on with our lives instead of have to deal with you "just asking questions" and arguing in bad faith. i mostly just have problems with people blatantly repeating corporate marketing for addictive substances that pose real health risks to the public while framing their advocacy as being in favor of public health. that's the kind of thing that should be challenged, especially in a shill thread dedicated to that exact topic. you don't have to read my posts if you don't want to though, i can't help you if you have problems with my posts itt or in general - that is your responsibility to sort out
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:The context being that both the FDA and the company agreed it wasn't the thing you keep claiming it is, because if it were a cessation device it wouldn't legally meet standards and could be seized? Stop removing context to make the narrative fit your bias. The companies weren't interested in selling a cessation product specifically, and so weren't interested in certifying it as such or being forced to certify it as such. They were selling a nicotine product for recreational use. Do you think O'Doul's or non-alcoholic versions of beverages are all a devious plot because they're not all FDA certified as ways to quit drinking alcohol? luxury handset posted:i mostly just have problems with people blatantly repeating corporate marketing for addictive substances that pose real health risks to the public while framing their advocacy as being in favor of public health. that's the kind of thing that should be challenged, especially in a shill thread dedicated to that exact topic. you don't have to read my posts if you don't want to though, i can't help you if you have problems with my posts itt or in general - that is your responsibility to sort out Vaping wasn't corporatized until very recently, though. The tobacco companies were fighting it tooth and nail, and in a lot of ways they still are. This is why Phillip Morris and other companies put a lot of money into developing dumb cigarette-based bullshit like iQos. It's clear based on the history of their actions they would prefer to stay in the cigarette business. You saw this same pattern with snus, worldwide, when it became more popular outside Sweden. The cigarette companies develop some insanely unhealthy bullshit to try to tie into the craze while using their lobbying efforts to shut the newcomers out of the market. One the one hand you accuse On Terra Firma of being a corporate shill for big tobacco, but if you actually look at what big tobacco wants right now it's actually closer to your position. Big tobacco would very much like vaping to be more heavily regulated than cigarettes so they don't have to compete with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
ErIog posted:One the one hand you accuse On Terra Firma of being a corporate shill for big tobacco, but if you actually look at what big tobacco wants right now it's actually closer to your position. Big tobacco would very much like vaping to be more heavily regulated than cigarettes so they don't have to compete with it. big tobacco killed the obama-era attempt to ban flavored vapes https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-01/vaping-flavors-obama-white-house-fda quote:If the FDA ban had gone through, the kid-friendly vaping liquids would have been pushed off store shelves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
ErIog posted:The companies weren't interested in selling a cessation product specifically, and so weren't interested in certifying it as such or being forced to certify it as such. They were selling a nicotine product for recreational use. That was exactly my point. They are not intended to be a tool for quitting. Which is a thing terra has insisted multiple times now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
also please compare these statements by the RJ Reynolds corporation with any of the arguments made by the OP and tell me where they differ https://www.reynoldsamerican.com/Transforming-Tobacco/default.aspx quote:RAI and its subsidiaries are committed to reducing the death and disease caused by cigarettes. There has been a significant decline in the prevalence of cigarette smoking during the past 30 years, but the rate of decline has slowed. A substantial body of scientific research has shown that smokeless tobacco products present significantly less harm than cigarettes. Several of our operating companies are working to innovate and introduce new products that meet the expectations of adult smokers while offering the potential to reduce risk. In addition to smokeless products, we believe that other non-combustible smoke-free products, such as vapor products and other innovations, may reduce harm to smokers who switch to them. RAI’s U.S. operating companies have long been recognized as the innovation leaders in the tobacco industry. Emerging product categories that offer the potential to reduce tobacco harm allow us to be growth leaders in expanding markets that also offer potential for higher margins. That’s good for smokers, for our society and for the sustainability of RAI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 05:49
|
|