The tobacco manufacturers lied about their products long before ecigs existed and the continue lie after. Not surprised at all.

Articles exactly like this one have been posted hundreds of times, just this year. It's all crap.

Just curious, because your post was not clear to me.

The major Big Tobacco companies are heavily invested in e-cig companies, or are promoting their own products. They have no interest in disparaging e-cigs.

Fascinating.

That said, I think the study is sound, but it clearly shows the problem is only with SOME brands from SOME countries, not an overall danger.

Formaldehyde wasn't detected AT ALL in several of the tested units.
A fact that fully escaped the worthless author of this article.

no credibility from you.

I had hoped these would be a good alternative for smokers. They seemed less obnoxious to be around but it sounds like they may be just as bad or worse.

Cigarettes kill you, ecigs give you a dose of nicotine in vapor form.

The article is lying to you.

you haven't posted any evidence and you're asking us to take your word on faith.

that is BS.

Do you always accept what you read on the internet?

And I'm not clear if you are referring to the author of this article of the japanese scientists that did the study.

I'm asking because I don't always accept what I read on the internet and like to understand where the information is coming from.

The article is written to lead you to believe it is all products. Fact is most had none.

This article is wildly misleading. They're proclaiming just as many carcinogens based on one outlying result from a specific form of cartomiser that most vapers aren't using. It's the old FUD to try and keep people smoking.

not able to find it anywhere. Where did you get the info that this is a single outlying result from a specific form of carouser that isn't used much anymore?

says it comes from one outlying result of cartomiser. I know cartomisers are increasingly out of fashion on sheer observation. All the development is on clearomisers, they're up to mark 5 now while cartomisers are still on mark 1.

delivery devices.

Rather amusingly, in other places she quotes you and you quote her, so you are kind of feeding off each other.

So, what she says is this:

for this BS.

There are 4 ingredients in most e-juice: PG, VG, nicotine (optional), and flavoring.

You may note that they don't mention the NAMES of the e-cigs or e-juice...why is that?

I don't care how organic it is, you still consume formaldehyde, because an apple has methanol in it, which your body breaks down into formaldehyde.

that, when breathed in, can be a carcinogen.

Vapers breathe formaldehyde gas into their lungs. Of course, smokers of regular cigarettes do as well.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/22/the-real-lesson-of-formaldehyde-in-baby-shampoo/

Johnson & Johnson’s global toxicologist, Susan Nettesheim, explained that the formaldehyde in solution (as in shampoo) is not the same as the formaldehyde gas that, when breathed, is carcinogenic. “Almost all living organisms contain formaldehyde. Our cells contain formaldehyde,” she said.

then that makes you the one who misleading us.

in ONE brand they found this, they DON'T identify the brand, and don't give info about the average of all bands combined. This article reads more like someone with an agenda to push who is using the study as support than like an article written by a relatively objective journalist whose goal is to inform users about the findings of a study.

water, nicotine, propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin.
That being said, there are some e-cig liquids manufactured over seas that do contain harmful chemicals. I buy american, locally mixed liquid. I was a smoker since 1984. The e-cig changed my life in a good way, and I imagine a lot of fellow du'ers would say the same.

cool little mom and pop shop right near my house, good prices, good juice and they mix it right in front of you. I feel bad for folks who can't get the good stuff and are stuck with what I call "gas station juice"...

I'm not buying this bullshit article for a second. The tobacco companies are losing money fast. Of course they are going to start pushing the "oh this is way worse for you" meme...

and I will continue to fight back against their propaganda! I carry my juice with me and I whip it out everytime I hear someone use that ^^ line of BS! Right on the bottle is the ingredients, and a good ol' made in the USA logo!

Personal vaporizers and e-liquid are cutting into the profits of useless NRT drugs like patches, gums, and Chantix, the last which can literally drive you crazy.

No wonder they're peddling anti-vaping propaganda.

I expect we'll see more of this in the near future..

have a small shop a mile away that mixes it themselves so I tend to trust it; I'd never buy gas station juice.

that had the formaldehyde and the 10 times carcinogens... They are reaching here..

Possibly because my Vaping alone has cost the Tobacco industry $250 a month... I can only imaging how much profits are down this year..

There is an organization known as the SFATA (Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association), consisting primarily of e-juice vendors and manufacturers.

The American Vaping Association is also a good place for vapers to send in testimonials.

CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association: a one-stop shop for vapers, including calls to action and debunking of anti-vaping propaganda.

AEMSA - American E-Liquids Manufacturing Standards Organization: an association that sets appropriate e-juice manufacturing standards (I know it sounds redundant).

yet you also try to tell us that it's a conspiracy to say what you just admitted.

whatever.

don't like use science or logic or anything.

don't actually try to make sure that people who buy these things in gas stations are warned or something.

shit it's not supposed to.

toys from china weren't supposed to contain lead, or baby formula from china wasn't supposed to contain melamine, either.

and explain the difference in ingredients. The note that a higher temperature on the resistance wire is the culprit is somewhat useful - on many vapes that is a controllable setting.

Last edited Fri Nov 28, 2014, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I posted this for your input. The study itself no doubt gives more detail, but it's not linked. I did read somewhere about one E cig tested where they found traces of something from the soldiering joint in the vapor.

that 'scientists commissioned by the Japanese Ministry of Health' are being treated as if they're flunkies of the tobacco industry.

Certainly the substances they tested may not be representative of US 'e-cig' blends, but I don't see why they'd simply be accused of 'lying'.

....and the media ran with "ZOMG! E-CIGS are 10 times more carcinogenic than tobacco cigs!".

I have looked for more information from the actual report but haven't been able to find it. Apparently you have and I would love the link.

The table he posts is not the results of the study that is outlined in this OP and it is so out of context that I can't make sense out of it at all.

I would like to see the actual study, not the anecdotal report based on a telephone call. However, the author does seem to have the credentials to be taken seriously.

I truly do appreciate your taking the time to relay this.

So, they didn't do a study at all but looked at past studies.

I think the conclusion is what is interesting. I think this supports an overall positive conclusion and not the single result pulled out by the press.

I thank you very much.

they are offended if you say something about it, about what it contains.



they deserve no credibility. their posts are anti scientific, not just unscientific, anti-scientific, because they are even against the study of these things.

and judging the effects for yourself makes you "un-scientific"?

I'm sorry but I have been off cigarettes for a year now. My sense of smell has increased, my sense of taste, my lung capacity has increased, I feel better, I smell better and I annoy people less. I can run further and I don't get winded.
I can state for a fact that at least in the short term(years) Vapor is much better for you than cigarettes.

But I deserve no credibility because I just used the stuff myself, I should trust the Japanese scientist who tested shit that I don't even smoke, over what my own body is telling me because someone on the internet says I have no credibility..

The sponge type branded ones. The formaldehyde is coming from heating the poly sponge.

In most liquid systems, you have the fluid, a silica wick, and a steel wire heating element. Formaldehyde is not a vaporization product of pg/vg mixtures. There's been discussion of silica fiber inhalation or out gassing products of the heating element (and now there are ceramic systems), but other organics would seem to be incident to systems where a heating element is placed right against a poly foam sponge. I mean, the way you know they are spent is by inhaling a nasty burning plastic taste.

because it made sense and not because that is what actually happened?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think you are drawing conclusions without data. What you have is a hypothesis and the only way to test it would be to get the actual information on what they tested.

In the meantime, people are taking your hypothesis and running with it as if you actually know what they tested.

Sorry, but this is distinctly unscientific.

a trace component, well under 1% I reckon. This is further reduced by blending with nicotine free VG/distilled water in the same ratio.

This then is diluted by on average, 15% with the flavoring which is suspended in propylene glycol. At some point, I'd imagine the flavoring will also come suspended in VG or water and make my mixes even more of a harm reduction.

I'm more than happy for my juice to be analyzed but I call bullshit though I'd like my sources double checked but from direct observation the charge seems nonsensical at best.

I do not think e-cigs contain any of them.

as do nicotine patches and gum, which are FDA approved and considered safe.

The amount is about 1,300 times less than smoked tobacco.

No PAHs from combustion and no TSA's.

If I smoked (which I do not any longer) I would probably vape.

Truly though, dipping moist snuff is probably safer than all of them, but few doctors will tell you that. Hell, most do not even know.

was dry snuff used by Southern ladies who had used it for almost 50 years. Incidence of cancer was off the charts.

However, modern moist snuff is very similar to Swedish snuz, and really, has a very weak correlation to mouth cancer, throat cancer, and heart disease. It probably does increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

The largest study of its kind, 100,000 Swedish men who dipped were followed for decades. No increased risk from dipping was found. In fact, in Sweden has the highest number of men who use snuff, and it has the lowest lung cancer rate. There is no appreciable risk in oral cancer.

Modern moist snuff has low TSNA and no PAH. It certainly does not have fiberglass. The more expensive brands typically have lower TSNAs as their production process is more refined.

I am a toxicologist. I used to smoke in college. I quit and turned to chewing. Then I had a spinal fusion, and I quite entirely as nicotine is toxic to bone growth.

American moist snuff may slightly increase the risk of oral cancer, but the link is yet unproven. If it does, it is slight. IF the odds of getting oral cancer is 1 in 500,000 (hypothetically). If you use moist snuff, it may be 1 in 350,000. Compare that to a smoker whose odds would be 1 in 25,000.

swallow the spit without puking...

as far as fiberglass, I'm half joking... I've chewed some nasty shit in my youth (rooster for example, they don't make it anymore) that tears up your gums fantastically, in ways that say skoal does not.

Most moist snuff has had relatively comparable levels of TSNAs as snus since the mid 1980s. There are a few exceptions.

indulging in nicotine in any form whatsoever is evil, will kill you and you deserve to die for even thinking about nicotine.

I think everyone gets it. Some people just don't want other people to indulge in nicotine regardless of how safe, lack of second hand smoke, and the fact that a person might enjoy it.

I'm pretty sure that is the same crowd that chastises people for drinking beer off the shelf, but then brew it in the basement of their home because it is "organic".

ANTZ = Anti-Tobacco and Nicotine Zealots.

I wonder how many of these ANTZ secretly vape in the privacy of their own homes, only to rail against the imagined dangers of e-cigs.

[IMG][/IMG]

They might have found dangerous levels in one outlying brand but they don't tell us which one it was so the panic is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure I could find one outlying brand of cat food that contained arsenic, doesn't mean that a headline saying "cat food contains arsenic!" is any less irresponsible.

I know exactly what's in my juice because I buy it from the internet equivalent of a mom n' pop store who mix up their own liquid on the premises.

This is just scaremongering FUD.

taken aback at the rather OTT negative response. If someone is using these products, doesn't it behoove them to know about any potential risks?

The reason I got so addicted so young was that they were actively hiding the evidence that smoking tobacco might be a serious health problem. Would we really want to do that again? The way to prevent it is to pay attention to the studies that are coming out. This hasn't been around enough to take a definitive stance on their safety or lack of safety.

It's a curious phenomenon. I quit just over 5 months ago after 45 years of over a pack a day. I chose not to use a substitute because I wanted this noose taken off my neck.

But I understand that is not for everyone, and, in general, I support nicotine replacement. But I think blind support could be a problem. Let's critically analyze the data as it comes out and not just dismiss because that's not we want to hear.

these are new products and they aren't just being used by former cigarette smokers, but by non smokers.

and regardless of whether they are safer than a conventional cigarette or not, what is in this stuff DOES matter, NOT ONLY to the e-cig smoker, but to those exposed to their second hand vapors (?).

The actual research says that the number of people using these devices who weren't already smokers is less than 1%.

We've known what's in them from the very beginning. I was responding to your scaremongering that people who had never smoked were taking this up, not cbayers other points which I have responded to him about.

that I know when someone is puffing an ecig in my vicinity. My nicotine radar goes into high alert.

This is something else that ecig users have vehemently denied, but on multiple occasions my nicotine triggers have gone off and when I looked around, I saw them - planes, buses, restaurants, theaters. One of the things I object to is that people feel they can use them in places where you can't smoke. That really annoys me.

OTOH, anyone who can stop smoking has done themselves a great service and I do believe that they are less harmful than cigarettes. But the data just isn't all in yet.

I have the feeling you will not be convinced for a LONG time.

not a single thing I have posted that would substantiate that accusation.

What I am looking for is for people to analyze the data as it becomes available and not reject it out of hand.

Purveyors of addictive substances will go to great lengths to make sure you stay addicted and that you stay addicted to their delivery system.

I am fully supportive of anything that can deliver nicotine in a safer manner. Anything.

But they fooled us once and fooled us badly, didn't they. And those of us who were addicted rejected the data as it became available, didn't we.

I don't know about you, but I won't get fooled again.

I chose to completely rid myself of nicotine. Those that choose to use a substitute are no better or worse than I. We all quit smoking and that's good.

So don't put words in my mouth. I can read studies. The information presented here is inadequate to either embrace or reject it and I have done neither.

the evil "nicotine" which BTW doesn't cause cancer.

I have been stinky free for 8 months with my Provari Mini & have done extensive research on the subject. BTW, nicotine free for 3 months now.

I really don't have time to reply to your "concern" about e-cigs because I don't think you are really looking for the truth, but looking for confirmation of you prejudices.

Just admit that you'd be happy if vapers were demonized just like smokers..at least you would be honest.

Big-tobacco thanks you for your concern.

I am indeed prejudiced against nicotine. It is a highly addictive drug with virtually no benefit. Many made millions while millions died. It was the nicotine that was addictive but the delivery system that killed.

I just want to be sure that this delivery system is safe.

You are a hero for becoming a non-smoker and whatever it takes is good. You are particularly a hero for now being an ex-nicotine addict.

Don't tell me what I think or what I should admit and accuse me of being dishonest. You are totally off base and your accusations baseless.

Fuck big tobacco. I hate them with a passion. They kept me enslaved for 45 years.

So go back to pounding your drum that anyone who disagrees with you must be some kind of big tobacco shill. Lame. What is your agenda?

whichever way they choose. Most of my buddies have used e-cigs as a way to wean themselves off the habit & it has worked so well that I'm actually inspired by the results I've seen.

What we don't need is a bunch of pearl-clutchers telling us that they know better because of ANOTHER bullshit study. We get one of these about every 6 months and they are always very cryptic about the fluid and the e-cig delivery system used (Provari, E-go twist, etc)....I wonder why?

If you know nothing of e-cigs, why are you making proclamations about the safety of such? I told you I use a Provari Mini and I use Ikenvape cartomizers with an IBtanked 19mm tank...can you give me the stats/Japanese study on this set up?

My point, if you have no knowledge of a subject, it's probably best to stay silent.

BTW, I'm glad you are off the stinkies...good on you!!!

good idea.

I also want people to get off any way they can and I support those that get off using nicotine substitutes.

What we don't need is a bunch of deniers who don't want to look at the data concerning different delivery systems because they are afraid it might be negative. What we don want is for people to look critically at the data and make a determination as to whether it is legitimate or bullshit.

When you approach data with the attitude that it is all bullshit and "always" a certain thing, you might miss something important.

I'm not making any proclamations at all. I am challenging those that reject the data without actually looking at it.

Someone actually did supply the link to the paper. It's not a new study at all. It's a review of previous studies. It generally shows that while e-cigs do emit some known carcinogens, they do so at rates much lower that smoked tobacco. That's good, but I wanted to see the paper for myself. Those that couldn't be bothered are doomed to ignorance.

It's not best to stay silent at all. Too many good people stayed silent as the data about cigarettes came out.

Tell me, which e-cig delivery system was used in the study? Which brand of cartomizer? Which fluid was used, and at what wattage?

I'm sure you have all those answers since you are sooooo sure of yourself.

I'll ask you again: I use a Provari Mini and I use Ikenvape cartomizers with an IBtanked 19mm tank...can you give me the stats/Japanese study on this set up? Oh yeah, I use Five Pawns' Castle Long e-juice with 0mg of nicotine.

C'mon I dare you to show me that stats on that setup!!!

The actual report is posted in this thread, so you can look at it yourself. Once you do that, you might be able to answer some of your questions. I wasn't soooooooo sure of myself at all. I just asked questions and wondered where the info was coming from.

And if you looked at my other posts, you would see that once I got the link to the actual report, I noted several things.

First is that it is not a new study at all, but an analysis of many studies. Second is that the overall conclusions of the study group is that while e-cigs do contain carcinogens, they do so in rates much lower than cigarette.

Why are you acting like such a jerk? I'm just having a discussion here. Are you invested in some way, because I can't otherwise really understand the nasty attitude.

little about.

If you were to simply admit you have no answers & are putting all your faith in a suspect "study" I would be good...but you continue to double-down. Thus the "emotional attachment to being right."

I'll ask you again (since you are an expert...lol): use a Provari Mini and I use Ikenvape cartomizers with an IBtanked 19mm tank...can you give me the stats/Japanese study on this set up? Oh yeah, I use Five Pawns' Castle Long e-juice with 0mg of nicotine.

BTW, Big Tobacco makes NONE of these products...get that, NONE of these products are made by Big Tobacco.

Never mind, I know what kind of garbage response I'll get from you.

I didn't put any faith in this study at all. All I did was ask where people were getting the information that they were quoting. As it turns out, some of them were making it up. But I have now twice told you that after looking at the study, I am fully convinced that they found nothing to indicate a significant problem.

For whatever reason, you seem to be so blinded that you are not even reading my posts.

Your level of defensiveness over this is baffling. You didn't answer my question about being personally invested. Are you?

At any rate, you make discussion a really unpleasant experience. Find someone else to beat up on.

If you don't like my unpleasantness, then stop spouting off on a subject you know very-little about...AD-NAUSEUM.

I will continue to wail on your disinformation as long as you continue to mislead people.

Oh Yeah, I'll ask you one more time: I use a Provari Mini and I use Ikenvape cartomizers with an IBtanked 19mm tank...can you give me the stats/Japanese study on this set up? Oh yeah, I use Five Pawns' Castle Long e-juice with 0mg of nicotine.

I'm waiting for you to heal my blindness...lol!!!

First off, every negative story about ecigs is being given a huge media play. Even if/when it's disproven, people remember the negative story, nut the debunking.

Secondly, this study applies only to one particular kind of ecig, the kind that use a wadding material to store liquid which is then heated. But most people aren't using that kind of e-cig, they're using the clear tanks that don't have any packing and heat from the bottom. But again, what's reported is "ecigs are bad", not the more accurate "one specific type of ecig, which the majority don't use, is bad". This is roughly like saying "all alcohol is bad" because they found arsenic in one specific kind of cider.

Thirdly, ecigs HAVE been around long enough to know about their safety. The research has shown that they're vastly safer than cigarettes, that there is virtually no second-hand risk and that the number of people who take up vaping without having first been smokers is so small as to barely exist (less than 1%).

Knowing the facts above (and I can find links for you if you don't feel able to take my word for it), the relentless scaremongering in the mainstream media stinks of a propaganda tactic called FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). It's the same tactic and employs the same psychological biases (conformity, respect for authority, obedience, confirmation bias) that can be found at work in the camps of climate change deniers, of creationists and of the tobacco companies. The danger of ecigs is being massively exagerated not because there's actually anything to fear but because they represent a threat to the monied interests.

I agree that this study is not definitive and limited to only one product, but the information about that product is important. For the people that are using that kind of product, it's good information.

Of course the press is going to play this. Look at the attention it garners. Nothing like outrage to fuel the machine.

I strongly disagree with your third premise. There are many products that are on the market for a very long time before the health risks become clear. How long were cigarettes around before the data was available? And that data was hidden by the people making the money. While there is some evidence that they are safer, and it seems logical that they would be, you are grossly overstating the data when you say "vastly safer". While the studies show a significant decrease in toxicants, they have not shown that they are carcinogen free. Most importantly there is no long term data and no data on people with respiratory illness.

This is the best overview of the data I could find:

http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2014/08/new-research-e-cigs-safer-alternative-to-regular-cigarettes.

While I agree that there may be some fear mongering going on, I also think there is a very high level of resistance to those using the product to any negative information, which is not surprising.

Nicotine is a highly addictive drug. People who are using the product are using it because they are addicted. People with addictions have amazing capacity to deny anything that would threaten their addiction.

I know. I am one, too. The fact is, we just don't know yet and I think you may protest too much.

The tobacco companies are scared shitless of e-cigs because most people who switch to vaping aren't using teh shitty disposables that Big Tobacco is putting out, they're using refillable tanks and liquids off the net.

How long were cigarettes around before the data was available?

While there is some evidence that they are safer, and it seems logical that they would be, you are grossly overstating the data when you say "vastly safer".

they have not shown that they are carcinogen free

Most importantly there is no long term data

and no data on people with respiratory illness.

While I agree that there may be some fear mongering going on

All they are invested in is keeping people addicted. They recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to smoke. They've been playing this game a long time and they aren't stupid.

I'm not sure what technology you are talking about. The fact is that the health consequences of smoking tobacco were not apparent for a long time. It had nothing to do with available technology.

I have read the data and the jury is still out. It behooves those that are using this product to pay attention to any new data that comes in.

You are completely misquoting the article that I linked to, and that is one of the reasons that I find this dismissal so disturbing. The article clearly says "toxicant levels were 9 to 450 times lower than in cigarette smoke", but you quoted it as saying "9 to 450 times safer". It doesn't say that and those two things are not necessarily equivalent.

Being safer is better but it is not possible to take the position that they are harmless. The data is just not there yet.

Although e-cigs have been around for about 10 years, starting in China, I would challenge you to find me 10 years of data. It's just not there yet.

Nobody should be smoking, period. We are all victims of an industry that grabbed us by the short hairs and refused to let go. We continue to be enslaved. As a best case scenario, e-cigs should be used as a way to get off this shit, not as a long term solution.

It's not all fear mongering, but if you take that position you will certainly miss out on some good data that you should probably be aware of.

Big Tobacco are trying to move into the ecig market but so far, all they've put out is disposables that taste like crap and die after six hours. Very few people use them as more than a beginner test. I tried one, didn't like the flavour but it proved teh concept could work for me and teh next day, I brought my own kit online. That's how most people have done it, buying their kits and liquids from teh internet version of mom n' pop shops.

You are completely misquoting the article that I linked to, and that is one of the reasons that I find this dismissal so disturbing. The article clearly says "toxicant levels were 9 to 450 times lower than in cigarette smoke", but you quoted it as saying "9 to 450 times safer". It doesn't say that and those two things are not necessarily equivalent.

Being safer is better but it is not possible to take the position that they are harmless. The data is just not there yet.

Nobody should be smoking, period. We are all victims of an industry that grabbed us by the short hairs and refused to let go. We continue to be enslaved. As a best case scenario, e-cigs should be used as a way to get off this shit, not as a long term solution.

we shall see. They've got absolutely everything in place for both manufacture and distribution.

You took the position that people with respiratory problems shouldn't be smoking but you think it's ok if you do. BTW, when was the last time you had a pulmonary function test. If you are a long term smoker, it's pretty guaranteed that you have respiratory problems.

The tobacco industry has convinced people that they enjoy it, but most cigarettes are smoked and vaporizers vaped in order to delay the withdrawal another 45 minutes or so. We nicotine addicts have been enslaved by an industry that will never let go.

I never said a single word about banning anything. My objection here is to the vociferous dismissal of data by those who are dependent.

Interestingly, an astounding percentage of people with schizophrenia smoke. There is evidence that in that case nicotine probably provides something beneficial.

But other than that, I haven't seen anything that would indicate that the inhalation of nicotine is beneficial.

What is kind of funny to me is I would bet that many of the people that reject any negative press about e-cigs probably go all apoplectic about gmo's. I don't have anything to back that up, but it's my guess.

I last had a pulmonary function test about four months ago. The amount of meds I'm on (I have MDD, GAD, "visions" and voices) means the doctor runs a whole slew of tests on me every year or so.

The tobacco industry has convinced people that they enjoy it

Interestingly, an astounding percentage of people with schizophrenia smoke. There is evidence that in that case nicotine probably provides something beneficial.

But other than that, I haven't seen anything that would indicate that the inhalation of nicotine is beneficial.

What is kind of funny to me is I would bet that many of the people that reject any negative press about e-cigs probably go all apoplectic about gmo's. I don't have anything to back that up, but it's my guess.

I'm not sure what medicine you might be on that would require PFT monitoring.

If you have a psychiatric disorder that includes psychotic symptoms, then you may fall into that category of actually benefitting from nicotine.

Nicotine is not calming for most people. It is primarily a stimulant. However, as is the case for many kinds of brain dysfunction, things will work differently in different brains.

People smoke to calm down. People smoke to feel energized. What is crystal clear is that withdrawal makes people feel anxious and the only thing that will relieve that anxiety is a dose of nicotine.

I would never, ever, ever propose that you be denied access to nicotine and specifically that you be denied access in this form.

What I object to here is the rapid and overwhelming rejection of this data despite the fact that there isn't even data offered.

it is important that everyone's mind stay open. This is a relatively new way of dispensing nicotine and, as I said above, I for one will not get fooled again.

I'm supposed to believe this article with the horribly misleading headline over what my own body is telling me? Not a chance.

But having blind support is not a good alternative.

I just heard this story on NPR. They gave a very different take on it and and I think it is worth paying attention to.

I am not for a moment suggesting that people stop using e-cigs. I think it is a better alternative than smoking.

But we were tricked once by people peddling the addictive substance that is nicotine, and i think it behooves us to not let that happen again.

we get pissed off when someone posts a thread saying that e-cigs are 10 times worse than cigarettes.

If you look, most people who vape in America can get quality juice with decent ingredients. There is nothing in my juice (unless they are lying to me) that you can't find in a hundred other things we eat and drink... Except the Nicotine and the level of that is controllable.

I understand that negative information about this nicotine delivery system is going to be met with resistance, but each time it comes up it should be critically assessed and not just dismissed.

had the "10 times the cancer causing agents of cigarettes", and it was a Chinese made product (they still put lead in their paint).

It's like Fox News finding one American who doesn't like Obamacare and then headlining with "America Wants Obamacare Gone".. It's bullshit scare headlines, headlines that might make someone go "well if it's 10 times worse I might as well keep smoking"..

And while I agree that the headline is sensationalized, this is what the article says.

The researchers found that two carcinogens, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, were both present in many types of e-cigs and that formaldehyde was found at higher rates than generally found in cigarettes. In one brand, it was as much as 10 times higher.

They found that the levels increased when the wire overheated.


Unfortunately, no article that I look at seems to have a link to the actual study so it is impossible to seriously adopt or dismiss their findings. There is no information of what exactly they tested, what the data was and how it was statistically analyzed. Nothing. Anyone that either says this is conclusive or dismisses it is taking a baseless position at this point.

As for me, I won't get fooled again. I don't trust anyone that peddles nicotine and I think it's much more likely that they are going to cover up anything negative than push it out there.

actually, they kinda remind me of fanatical smokers

I have made it extremely clear that I give unwavering support to anyone that quits smoking and for whatever means they use.

But the pushback is stunning. There is a whole new vocabulary and lots of 1st person plural.

Like I said in another thread, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people aren't stridently anti-GMO, which makes it particularly ironic.

All I am asking is that people take the time to look at any new data and not just reject it outright.

Nice to see you Skittles.

I'm living my dream and hope you are as well.

We are usually MUCH more informed than a random DUer who doesn't know shit about vaping.

So since you are an expert tell me the dangerous chemicals from my setup: I use a Provari Mini and I use Ikenvape cartomizers with an IBtanked 19mm tank...can you give me the stats/study on this set up? Oh yeah, I use Five Pawns' Castle Long e-juice with 0mg of nicotine.

I don't expect an informed answer, just snark.

EXHIBIT #!

I'll wait for more credible condemnations!

with everything that is said could kill us according to science? Do you really want to live your life worrying about dying from everything they say can? Ignore what they say and just enjoy LIVING.

Hmmm