Deadly vaping-related lung disease claims the lives of four Americans (updated)

James00007

Posts: 133   +23
> Vaping is commonly considered a safer, healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes.
Healthier alternative my rear end. If you're breathing in anything but regular air, it's probably not good for you.
Vaping is at least 95% less harmful than tobacco smoking according to the Royal College of Physicians. We didn't listen in 1962 when they told us smoking causes cancer. Took the US 15 years to accept that science. Making the same mistakes.

"Trying to say that vaping is as dangerous as smoking is deeply unethical & scientifically ridiculous."
- Clive Bates (policy expert)

Look forward to seeing you walking on the streets with traffic wearing your Gas Mask.


Royal College of Physcians
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/nicotine-without-smoke-tobacco-harm-reduction-0

Public Health England
https://publichealthmatters.blog.go...-patterns-and-use-in-adults-and-young-people/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vomit

James00007

Posts: 133   +23
Probably millions vaping, 4 deaths. I like the ods!
Many millions vaping around the world, 0 deaths from *responsible* use of *legal* products. All *credible* medical/scientific experts/institutions recommending vaping as means of tobacco harm reduction.

vs

480,000 American smokers dying every year.
1 billion global tobacco smoking-caused deaths this century if trends continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vomit and toooooot

James00007

Posts: 133   +23
Its millions of vapers in the world, approx 9+ millions just in US.
If this is by ordinary vaping, why havent more people got the troubles?
Why is it happening only in US?
Because people have been using contaminated & dangerous black market THC oil substances in parts of the US. Also because an anti-vaping narrative has been set by those with ideological / political / financial incentives and they will go to extraordinary lengths to disinform the public & even risk lives by blaming it on life-saving legal products to further their agendas. #KeepSmokingWeNeedTheMoney

Lung Disease Outbreak Caused by Black Market, not Vaping
https://cei.org/blog/lung-disease-outbreak-caused-black-market-not-vaping
 

James00007

Posts: 133   +23
ANYTHING taken into the lungs other than oxygen or a prescribed medication is risky, at best.
Because who would doubt Big Pharma & their peddlers who are just in it for the love?

young folks want to appear to be older or succumb to peer pressure and "just try it".
True they try it. They experiment because thats what young folk do since forever. The problem comes when you have a system that calls this normal experimentation an "epidemic" (abuse of the word) when less than 1% of underage non-smokers have taken up vaping daily.

While the majority of deaths appear to be from "bought on the street" concoctions,
It most certainly is. So what do you think is going to happen when, like is happening in Michigan this is used to launch bans & prohibitions against the life-saving, legal, regulated & quality controlled products?

Juul is clearly in the crosshairs for marketing to kids
Juul is no friend to the rest of the industry that is built up of thousands of small business & employs many thousands of people but this marketing to kids thing doesn't exist. There have been some questionable marketing but not from Juul & most of the bad practice has already been/being corrected by the FDA. Anti-vaping campaigns have fostered this false narrative and have marketed this to kids with their viral BS which causes psychological reactance.

adults often just want a THC buzz.
Vaping is a verb like eating. Just like you can eat normal good quality food & you can also eat dangerous things like Tide pods. Most vaping is nicotine solution for the use of replacing deadly combustible tobacco smoking which claims 480,000 American lives a year.


Over the years we've seen all kinds of fads from simple cigarette's, to huffing, and now vaping.
I have an older sister that was a hairdresser for 35 years, smoked because it was cool, and never bothered wearing any kind of mask while breathing in all that "harmless hairspray". Her lungs look like she has black lung and she's on her last days.

If we all knew what we knew today, so many many decades ago ..... well, we'd still swear we were indestructible and do it anyway ...... thus is human nature.

Vaping is at least 95% less harmful than tobacco smoking according to the Royal College of Physicians.
We didn't listen in 1962 when they told us smoking causes cancer.
We need to listen now.

"In the interests of public health, it is important to *promote* the use of e-cigarettes/vaping, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products *as widely as possible* as a substitute for smoking"
-Royal College of Physicians
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/nicotine-without-smoke-tobacco-harm-reduction-0
 

James00007

Posts: 133   +23
Perhaps you're more up-to-date on the situation than me, but the CDC's official announcement says they haven't pinpointed the cause yet. Some cases of this illness had nothing to do with THC, and rose from nicotine-only usage.
Perhaps your faith in the CDC is misguided. First, you say "they haven't pinpointed the cause yet" then are quick to drive home "Some cases rose from nicotine-only usage" not only is that a complete contradiction, but there is also absolutely ZERO evidence to support this. Does this not blatantly scream of an agenda from the CDC to you?

There is a vast amount of clear evidence that black market THC oils have caused the majority of recently reported health issues. Some health issues may have occured in people who also vape only regulated products but is not proven to be the cause. EG.

Black spots" are air blisters that can rupture (pneumothorax.)
Experts at Chest Medicine Clinic (CA) see 3-5 none vaping patients a week w/condition. About 50% are tall, thin, healthy young men.

Key: Vaping does not make you immune to all illness.

We really need to be very careful with hyping these headlines & pointing the accusing fingers towards vaping products. - Prof R Polosa


Dr. Christiani says there are "at least six groups" of potentially toxic compounds in normal vape liquid alone.
Dr. Christiani sounds like the typical quack that practices anti-vaping pseudoscience
""at least six groups" of potentially toxic compounds" key part missing from that: At levels too low to cause harm & levels hundreds/thousands of times lower than caused by smoking.

You have a lot of this unscientific nonsense flying around. Like the malpractice of torturing mice with human levels & even constant exposures. The nonsense about third-hand exposures. Rubbish about popcorn lung. Stanton Glantz from UCSF who linked heart attacks but neglected to mention they occurred years before the patients even started vaping. To name but a few.

According to a bibliometric analysis, Professor Polosa is considered the most productive scientist in the world in the field of electronic cigarette research.
"A plethora of poor-quality studies emerging these days. Army of researchers who need to be educated properly."
-Prof R Polosa

Resurrecting rigour in THR research:

Has there been an update? I'm looking at their site right now and I don't see any new announcements or clarifications. I'd be very happy if there was, as my girlfriend uses a Juul device herself.
Please consider looking outside of CDC who have an anti-vaping bias. Hope some of the links to information on my other posts in this thread can help.

I just saw the NYT report, visited the CDC's website, read the pieces in the NEJ, and thought it was worth discussing here.
NYT is notorious for putting out meritless anti-vaping propaganda, failing to investigate properly & omitting facts.
"Bogusky nor the Times disclosed the fact that his firm has been paid hundreds of millions of dollars to advertise on behalf of the anti-tobacco industry!"
https://cei.org/blog/new-york-times-runs-stealth-anti-vaping-ad-op-ed

CDC I covered in another post in this thread. Surfice to say they have never been welcoming to the idea of Vaping as means of tobacco harm reduction, past ethical abuses, misleading the public over NYTS data used to claim epidemic (it doesnt exist) & have made a disaster + endangered the public in the recent serious illness cases to further their agenda.


A study being in the NEJ is no guarantee of quality. If you read those study conclusions:

"features of e-cigarette use that were responsible for injury have not been identified"

"Additional work is needed to characterize the pathophysiology and to identify the definitive causes."

"tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) daily"

In other words, they have nothing. These kinds of doctors involved have been trying to find something to discredit life-saving vaping products for over a decade and all that they have come up with is flat-earth grade quackery & pseudoscience. So they resort to weasel words, buzzwords & omissions of vital information to further their causes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Polycount

trparky

Posts: 804   +759
Sounds like you're desperately trying to defend something; perhaps because you, yourself, are vaping and are trying to come up with something that will make you feel less scared.

How about this idea? Quit!!! Get the patch and quit. Not only will you save a ton of money but you'll probably be a whole lot healthier for it. It'll extend your lifetime by a good amount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley

James00007

Posts: 133   +23
Spoken like a true Vaper...
Spoken like someone who thinks they are a real expert in matters they know nothing about.

Sounds like you're desperately trying to defend something; perhaps because you, yourself, are vaping and are trying to come up with something that will make you feel less scared.

How about this idea? Quit!!! Get the patch and quit. Not only will you save a ton of money but you'll probably be a whole lot healthier for it. It'll extend your lifetime by a good amount.
Something like from the most respected & prestigious medical groups in the world? Like the RCP who was the first to speak out on the dangers of smoking in 1962?

"Promote vaping widely as substitute for smoking."
"At least 95% safer"
- Royal College of Physicians
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/nicotine-without-smoke-tobacco-harm-reduction-0

Vaping carries a fraction of the risk of smoking.
- Public Health England
https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/20/clearing-up-some-myths-around-e-cigarettes/

How about this idea? Keep your nose out mine and other peoples business when you lack the basic understanding of the activity you are objecting to. Vaping is more than twice as effective as a patch and at least 95% more effective than cold turkey and at the same risk of premature death as that of a none smoker.
 
As an avid fan of your content I’d love to have you reconsider your delivery. Nicotine Vaping has been prevalent since 2009. From 2009-2018 we’ve seen over 10.6 million smokers make the transition to Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices ENDS. Through tour that massive adoption there hasn’t been any Lung Disease hysteria as we’ve seen in the last 2 weeks. It’s critical to distinguish the difference of Nicotine vaping and Black Market THC vaping to the general public. 480,000 people die from smoking related disease in the US annually. Notable epidemiologists and respected Tobacco Control advocates note ENDS as a technology that has the greatest potential to offender the leading cause of preventable death. Companies manufacturing eliquid are required to register their products with the FDA and have been anticipating and eagerly awaiting fair and reasonable regulation yet lobbyists from the 1% corporations are trying to extinguish the grassroots ENDS industry to monopolize the market. With your honest and fact based journalism we have an opportunity to accurately portray the truth of the potential of this Harm Reduction technology. I was able to quit a 26 year tobacco habit by using this technology. If politicians truly want to protect the kids... enforce the 21 year old law. Increase penalties on retailers who sell to those under 21. There are 38 million smokers that can benefit from this tech.
 

Gypsygib

Posts: 77   +60
I want to trademark the term "death threshold".

I believe that it takes a certain number of deaths to occur before political change comes swiftly and immediately.

How many will it take to outlaw vaping?
You realize the deaths are due to people vaping THC e-liquid that requires a form of oil to dissolve the THC, some even used vitamin E which is very bad for you when vaporized. The oils caused a severe form of lipoid pneumonia. Regular legal nicotine vapes haven't had these issues at all.


I hope you're willing to ban cigarettes and alcohol along with vaping, because the former are almost guaranteed to cause cancer. Only thing they know about vapes is that it can cause greater than normal lipid accumulation in the lungs, whether to a dangerous level hasn't been determined. But cigarettes and/or alcohol definitely cause cancer, where's the outrage?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ludak021

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,363   +3,444
You realize the deaths are due to people vaping THC e-liquid that requires a form of oil to dissolve the THC, some even used vitamin E which is very bad for you when vaporized. The oils caused a severe form of lipoid pneumonia. Regular legal nicotine vapes haven't had these issues at all.


I hope you're willing to ban cigarettes and alcohol along with vaping, because the former are almost guaranteed to cause cancer. Only thing they know about vapes is that it can cause greater than normal lipid accumulation in the lungs, whether to a dangerous level hasn't been determined. But cigarettes and/or alcohol definitely cause cancer, where's the outrage?
Uh, the cause is not conclusively known.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,363   +3,444
Isn't it so amazing how people jump to defend things we absolutely know are bad for us?
It would not surprise me if everyone that has jumped to vaping's defense is, or knows, someone, perhaps someone very dear to them, trying to quit smoking.

Speaking from experience, I know how hard it is to quit. I went cold turkey, but it was at a time in my life that my ability to get around was exceptionally limited - I could not get out to buy a pack of cigarettes. I am glad that happened, and I am glad that I quit, and I never turned back. So in a way, I cannot blame them. It's the denial mentality likely because they know smoking is not good and feel trapped by the habit.

At this point, though, this is what the CDC says from this link https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html
The investigation has not identified any specific substance or e-cigarette product that is linked to all cases.
In that same paragraph, it also says
Many patients report using e-cigarette products with liquids that contain cannabinoid products, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
The whole paragraph is
The investigation has not identified any specific substance or e-cigarette product that is linked to all cases. Many patients report using e-cigarette products with liquids that contain cannabinoid products, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
@Polycount What it does not say is that the cause is the products that contain THC. It rather explicitly says that they have not identified a common cause in all cases, and perhaps that paragraph is not worded well such that it is easily understood by everyone. Honestly, even with the bad press that the CDC sometimes gets, I trust this information more than any other source.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,065   +4,868
...[ ]...What it does not say is that the cause is the products that contain THC. It rather explicitly says that they have not identified a common cause in all cases, and perhaps that paragraph is not worded well such that it is easily understood by everyone. Honestly, even with the bad press that the CDC sometimes gets, I trust this information more than any other source.
Any serious proclamation the CDC makes, is subject to more stringent standards, than a jury verdict in a felony trial. The CDC has to have proven their theory, "beyond a shadow of a doubt", before rendering a statement of a causal link between"X" substance, and "Y" disease or malady. Which is why, they're using conditional syntax in their opinion. IMO, it's simply a question of waiting for conclusive and repeatable laboratory results before going public.

This whole issue is most likely being overblown by the media, and today's moral standards whereby, "no one is responsible for their own actions, whatever goes wrong, is someone else's or some corporation's fault.

Today's marijuana is "not your granddad's reefer". As a profit based commodity in a competitive market, it's been bred and refined for maximum THC content. And smoking it is irritating to the lungs.

Granted, that I'm pretty much the "white lab rat", which is bred to be hypersensitive to any toxin or disease, simply by virtue of my age, of having smoked for 40+ years, inhaled pounds of asbestos laden brake lining dust, and all kind of automotive finishing products over the years.

That said, I can have a cigarette with a friend on occasion, with little to no presentation of symptoms. In other words, no coughing and a little bit of a buzz.

Now, today's weed is an entirely different story. I had a couple of pokes the other night, (first time in maybe 35 years out of curiosity) and it left me choking, coughing, and sucking on Hall's cough drops for the better part of two days! In fact, although I don't have asthma, it precipitated an asthma attack, where the harder I tried to breath in, the harder my lungs constricted.

Now, the person I was testing "the new breed of weed" with, was apparently unaffected.

However, I can't help but speculate that if the added THC component of today's pot is responsible for the hyper irritating effects I experienced while smoking it, the same effects might be masked or mitigated in an efliud delivery situation. However, it's fair to speculate that prolonged and excessive use could inflict long term and permanent damage, that more or less "sneaks up on you".

One set of individuals I never attach any value to their media published opinions, are parents. "My boy (or girl), is virtually always 'a good boy', and couldn't have possibly inflicted this injury on himself". The only time I've ever seen parents back off from that stance, is after their child has gunned down a couple dozen of his (or her (*)) classmates. At which point, they usually apologize for the bad behaviour.. (provisionally of course), and mitigate it by saying, "I don't know what could have gotten into him". In other words, the "near death" boy's lung problems can't possibly be of his own doing by way of abuse or excessive excess.

So, I wish all you e-adicts well, vape your brains out, and whatever happens, remember, it's not your fault, and personal injury shysters are a dime a dozen.

(*) In fairness, I can't recall there ever being a case of a mass shooting by a female. But you still have to include them in the issue, in consideration of political correctness
 
Last edited: