ELR Home   Create recipe   Resource page   My recipes/favorites

Anyone care to debunk the latest scary health test results?


#1

Just saw this on reddit, another US study trying to show that vaping really isn’t good for us…


#2

Well, I am just sort of mentally exhausted keeping up with the latest from the junk science crowd as it relates to vaping. I used to write the occasion “de-bunk” post here in the forum, but I am quickly running out of gas on that project. Now I just refer anyone to these two sites.

http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php
-and- https://antithrlies.com/about/


#3

Nah, I can’t be bothered anymore. I feel like we’re validating this kind of bullshit by trying to debunk it and I’m fed up with it.

We all know what it is about and so do they and it has nothing to do with our health.

Do you feel the need to debunk the theories of the flat earth society?


#4

I get your point, the first times you see anything like it it annoys you, might even upset you how stupid people can actually be… but indeed, the more you try to debunk, the more of this shit they throw at you.

I’m no health professional, was just curious where they made the mistakes now. Who knows, one day they may actually discover something unhealthy about vaping and I wouldn’t want to wipe it off the table with the assumption that they’re wrong again.


#5

They are not mistakes, it’s deliberate.

When those discoveries come from sources that have proven to be unbiased I will pay attention, otherwise I will disregard.


#6

More BS scare tactics. From the article:

“All of the mice were fed a diet relatively high in fat and cholesterol.”

hmmm, maybe has something to do with it?!

Also this:

“One group of mice was put in a chamber that exposed them to e-cigarette aerosol”

um, how much nic? how much exposure? flavored? so many more questions here, but yet they leave that important stuff out, ya know? cause it doesn’t fit their ‘study’

Then there’s this:

However, the long-term effects of e-cigarettes on liver disease, diabetes, heart disease or stroke are unknown.

So what is exactly the point of this ‘study’?

That they didn’t prove jack sh**t!!!


#7

Well they did say it was enough for the levels of nicotine in the mice’s blood to resemble that of a smoker or a vaper…


#8

The levels of nicotine intake vary wildly from individual to individual.


#9

Very true, but they didn’t disclose what that level would be.

Also, that can vary a lot. I mean compare a 1/2 pack ultra light smoker vs a 3 pack a day 100’s smoker. I would think it would be a completely different level?

Which is why we all vape at different NIC levels…


#10

You can only assume they’d test it rather on the high-end use in tests like these…
But yes, I do get your point.


#11

TBTH, I have actually wondered, and still do worry how our bodies (pretty much the liver) processes PG and VG, especially in heavy subohm vaping.

However, this article just proved to me a whole lot of nothing.

-“In the 12-week study, Friedman and colleagues studied mice missing the gene for apolipoprotein E, which makes them more prone to developing heart disease and fat in the liver.”

-“All of the mice were fed a diet relatively high in fat and cholesterol”

The genes were changed, but changed from what, and compared with what?

I find it hard to believe that the other mice’s genes did not change in any way, being that they were fed that diet, and missing that other gene.

What about the saline aerosol mice???

I am not a scientist and have no idea how RNA sequence analysis works. Maybe it can detect the e cig aerosol in those genes for all I know. Still, I feel that the statement is poorly presented in a way that is purposefully misleading. Like they are attempting to omit the results of analysis on the saline exposed mice.

I do not worry so much about the nic as it has been consumed by so many, and for so long, that if nicotine had those effects on the liver, we might have heard about this tobacco induced liver disease before. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

So many blame smoking for almost everything that can go wrong, in every system, from the skin to the circulatory system. However, I have my doubts about the nicotine being any more harmful than all the other bad things in tobacco smoke.


#12

PG and VG have been used for decades. PG is used in air-conditioning systems in hospitals for its antibacterial properties and is also the main carrier in asthma inhalers (including the ones for children).

VG has been used in the film and music industry for creating fog. People have been dancing around in massive clouds of VG for decades. I’ve never heard of any adverse effects occurring.

The area in which things can go wrong is flavour. There are many flavours that are excellent as a food additive but disastrous when vaped.

There are also some issues concerning the safety of the different wires that are used. By which I mean that I’ve read several posts where some people were expressing concerns about their personal health and were looking for answers.
Personally I’m not worried about any of it when I compare it to what I used to put in my body but I am not everybody else and people’s concerns should be taken seriously.

That’s why unbiased research is so important. We want facts, solutions and substitutes for the things that might be (relatively)unsafe to use.

Not the scaremongering and unfounded bullshit with only one aim in mind… :arrow_heading_down:

giphy


#13

Even though you’re right that PG and VG have been used for decades, the difference with vaping is the quantities that are used.
As with everything that is toxic or has a negative impact on us, it all depends on the volume that’s entering our bodies. I have yet to see an asthma patient consume 10ml of PG in a day. There are vapers that consume that in a day.

That being said, I’m with you on this. There have been people who’ve been vaping for 10 years and I have yet to hear that any of those had some illness that is blamed on their vaping habits. I’m sure I haven’t missed a story like it because it would be all over the media!
That tells me more than this test on mice. I don’t even know if mice react to these chemicals in the same way that humans do, so for all I know, this is more likely a scaremongering report just like all the others we’ve seen.


#14

Article? You saw all this verbiage in a peer reviewed journal article? All I saw was an advertising press release by something called “EurekAlert” with the following disclaimer: Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

If we actually had the “research paper” (and I use that term very loosely in the context of junk science) we could ‘follow the money’ and look for the funding source that paid for lab rat time in some fund grant grind mill.

I am not going to re-hash it here, but see some of my other posts about the intersection of money /grant funding / and institutional advertising. Recommended reading: https://steampoweredhuman.com/2017/02/11/10-steps-to-spotting-junk-health-science/


#15

You’ve never been in a disco with a smog machine. :smiley:
Forget 10ml and add at least a 0 to it and some people frequent these places a lot.

Filmstars are also exposed to large quantities of VG on a regular basis and OMG imagine if any of them ever had any adverse effects because of it :scream:

I think with continuous use in airconditioning you will get a fair bit in your system through inhalation.
Long term patients, staff etc are continuously exposed to it.

But I also understand why you and others are worried about it hence the need for unbiased research.


#16

I also used the word article. As in article in the newspaper. Being written and made public, as in the “press release” seems to have little to do with it actually making sense or containing any truth.

Well, I might believe that they fogged a few mice, but I didn’t see it happen.

I agree with you 100% on what you stated above.

I only wanted to express my concern and lack of knowledge about the other substances in e juice, particularly when heavily used by a subohm vaper.

Already, I am getting some feedback about the inhalation of a whole lot of VG and PG, and hope I get more. I do it every day, and with custard flavors.

It is just that I would very much like to see an actual unbiased paper about how the body processes e juice, and it’s effects, no matter how insignificant. It would not even have to contain nicotine, (that is apparently what this crap press release seems to aim at anyway). Smells like BS to me…


#17

@50YearsOfCigars thank you so much for correcting me! I usually hate being corrected about my mistakes, but in this case you are absolutely right.

I apologize to the whole community for calling this an ‘article’ because it certainly is not lol.

But it’s still all BS!!!


#18

the body doesn’t unless you drink it lol. We are inhaling the vapor created when the liquid vaporizes.

A couple of other things to add:

1-nicotine is a stimulant just like coffee. Its not the nicotine in the cigs that kills ppl. its all the other crap

2-‘most’ of us vape much lower nicotine amounts vs smoking (i know i do)

3-can’t find the study on popcorn lung right now, but it’s an interesting read, but the reality is that the few workers that got popcorn lung from working at the factory, were breathing the powder for very long hours doing heavy lifting probably breathing heavier than normal. Even then it was only a few workers that got the disease in a huge factory. The odds were something like 1 in 4500 vs smoking which kills 1 in 3.

I think I’ll take my chances vaping on some delicious custard lol


#19

Tomorrow it’s kidneys turn.
image
I wonder who’s paying for all this. Guess I should follow the money.


#20

I think someone should ask someone who knows: