quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
If that's the case, then you should throw the Utah Dept of Health numbers you listed above on page 9. The reporting methodology is the same.

Are you suggesting people copped to vaping illegal THC that had not? Otherwise, I'm not certain what, in Utah's reporting, it is with which you take issue.

My point was that the CDC information would have us believe 13% of those suffering vape-related lung damage did not vape THC. I'm almost surprised the number isn't higher, as I would have expected few people would voluntarily admit to using an illegal substance.

Conversely: I find it more than a little unlikely somebody would claim to have engaged in an illegal activity when they had not.

In other news (this is kind of fascinating):

quote:

Dray Moorman: Vape Vote Could Outweigh Impeachment Damage in 2020

By Dray Moorman
Friday, 11 Oct 2019 10:26 AM

The 2020 election will be close. Much of the electorate is baked in. The Trump base is holding. The battle for independents may determine the outcome. Trump won independents by four points in 2016 winning 46% to 42%. As of October, 43% to 48% of independents now support impeachment. But 41% of independents find impeachment unacceptable.

There appears to be a base of pro-Trump independents. While impeachment may drive the independent vote down from 46% to 41%, President Trump might well overcome the five-point deficit by winning the vape vote, which may be as many as 12 million votes.

In addition, many vape votes are in battleground states. Paul Blair of "Americans For Tax Reform" researched the numbers. His results are compelling. There are at least 12 states where the number of vapers is larger than the margin of difference in 2016:

Full article: Dray Moorman: Vape Vote Could Outweigh Impeachment Damage in 2020

Seems a bit of a stretch, to me, but many gun owners are single-issue voters, so...

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Otherwise, I'm not certain what, in Utah's reporting, it is with which you take issue.

I don't have any issues with what Utah reported. You are the one taking issue with the accuracy of self-reported stats. If you question the accuracy of one source of self-reported vaping stats, you should question the accuracy of other sources of self-report vaping stats.

You are the one who stated "no information is better than bad information, in my view"

An article from the science journal Nature. Link.

--------------------------------

Until a few months ago, pulmonologist Sean Callahan didn’t typically ask his patients if they vaped. He thought that e-cigarettes might help smokers wean themselves off cigarettes, and that the risks of vaping would probably take years to become clear.

The emergence of a mysterious, sometimes lethal, lung injury associated with vaping has changed his mind. Callahan works at the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, which has treated about 20 victims of the outbreak. “It was surprising: the overwhelming number of them — and how young they were,” he says.

Researchers and physicians alike were caught unprepared by the illness, which has now sickened about 1,300 US vapers and killed 26. Scientists are scrambling to find out why, and to save other vapers from the same fate. “Everything is rapidly evolving,” says Brandon Larsen, a pulmonary pathologist at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I could tell you something today and next week it could be totally wrong.”

A paper published by Larsen and his colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine on 2 October undercut a popular theory behind the outbreak — and underscored how far researchers still have to go to pinpoint its cause.

Many of those sickened in the outbreak had vaped cartridges containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) — the active ingredient in marijuana — that was diluted with oily chemicals.

Larsen’s study is the largest analysis to date of lung tissue taken from sickened vapers. The scientists searched for evidence of lipoid pneumonia, a condition that arises when oil enters the lungs. It is marked by lipid found in lung tissue and also in cells called macrophages, which normally sweep up debris in the lungs. But Larsen and his colleagues did not find substantial lipid droplets in any of their samples from 17 patients. Instead, their findings point to general lung damage and inflammation caused by exposure to toxic chemicals.

There are reasons to be sceptical of those results, says Kevin Davidson, a pulmonologist at WakeMed, a hospital system based in Raleigh, North Carolina. He says that Larsen looked for signs of disease that would be apparent only if someone had inhaled a large amount of oil all at once, not small amounts over time.

But Larsen’s findings do align with mouse studies2 carried out by Farrah Kheradmand, a pulmonologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Her team found lipids accumulating in the lung macrophages of mice exposed to e-cigarettes. The scientists traced the build-up to the breakdown of pulmonary surfactant, a lipid-rich compound produced by the lungs. Kheradmand says this suggests that vaping damages cells that line airways and help to maintain surfactant levels.

She is now hoping to repeat her mouse studies using e-cigarette vapour that contains vitamin E acetate, an oily chemical that has been suggested as a cause of the vaping illness. Other researchers are considering similar experiments. Steven Rowe, a pulmonologist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, hopes to test suspected culprits using ferrets, to learn how vaping affects ion transport in human lung cells. And Quan Lu, a lung biologist at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, is planning an experiment to look at what genes are switched on or off in lung cells taken from vapers. He hopes to get tissue samples from those who have become ill.

But Kheradmand cautions against hoping for quick answers: her initial mouse study took three and a half years to complete.

“Science will win at some point,” says Albert Rizzo, chief medical officer at the American Lung Association in Chicago, Illinois. “But I don’t think it’s going to be as soon as people would like.”

More immediately, researchers are scrambling to categorize the chemicals contained in e-cigarettes. That is no simple task when there are thousands of products available, and a culture of users modifying e-cigarettes and their contents to change characteristics such as flavour or amount of vapour produced. “This is a tough nut to crack, to be honest,” says Larsen. “And that’s where the research really needs to go: figuring out what the contents are in all of these things.”

The range of chemicals that vapers are exposed to is dazzling, says Mignonne Guy, a biobehavioural researcher at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. Her laboratory has studied YouTube videos and other online sources to learn more about how e-cigarette users are modifying their devices. They found that vapers are altering everything from how hot their e-cigarettes get to what chemicals are included in vaping cartridges — including, in at least one instance, liquid Viagra.

Online forums have pointed computational epidemiologist Yulin Hswen towards an early-2019 spike in posts about how to make e-cigarette cartridges. This was soon followed by an increase in posts from users warning about black-market cartridges sold with branding that could mislead the purchaser into thinking they were made by a reputable company. Hswen, who works at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, plans to look more closely to see whether this spike in homebrew cartridges could have contributed to the outbreak.

Ultimately, researchers might never be able to track down a single cause for the outbreak, says David Christiani, a pulmonologist at Harvard's public-health school. But even just narrowing it down to a process — such as using oils to dilute THC — could help to squelch the current epidemic and save lives. “We have a very serious epidemic and we absolutely need to get that under control,” he says. “Then that will allow us to go back to focusing on chronic effects of vaping.”

While you can question the voracity of the 'self-reported' information, it may be a lot more accurate than you're willing to acknowledge. If we're talking about people with health issues/effects from vaping serious enough to elect a visit to the E.R. (up to/including potential lung injury that may not be reversible), I gotta think that would be enough of a wake up call to most of the patients where they'd be pretty upfront/forthcoming about their activities. Especially if it improves the speed/likelihood of the recovery and/or survival! Just Sayin'!

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Otherwise, I'm not certain what, in Utah's reporting, it is with which you take issue.

I don't have any issues with what Utah reported. You are the one taking issue with the accuracy of self-reported stats. If you question the accuracy of one source of self-reported vaping stats, you should question the accuracy of other sources of self-report vaping stats.

No, I take issue with self-reported stats based upon people claiming not to have engaged in an illegal activity. Why is that so hard to understand?

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
While you can question the voracity of the 'self-reported' information, it may be a lot more accurate than you're willing to acknowledge.

A valid proposition, IMO. (Btw: ITYM "veracity. Voracity is something else entirely. )

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Otherwise, I'm not certain what, in Utah's reporting, it is with which you take issue.

I don't have any issues with what Utah reported. You are the one taking issue with the accuracy of self-reported stats. If you question the accuracy of one source of self-reported vaping stats, you should question the accuracy of other sources of self-report vaping stats.

No, I take issue with self-reported stats based upon people claiming not to have engaged in an illegal activity. Why is that so hard to understand?

Weed/THC isn't illegal in all states. Furthermore, in many states where it remains illegal, enforcement can be quite lax for relatively small quantities. For better or worse, the number of people who think weed/THC is no big deal is increasing noticeably.

You should talk to doctors and nurses who work in ER and urgent care. The frank responses of people who are in need of medical help sometimes even astounds the medical professionals.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
No, I take issue with self-reported stats based upon people claiming not to have engaged in an illegal activity. Why is that so hard to understand?

Weed/THC isn't illegal in all states.

No, but where THC vapes are legal they may be heavily regulated. They are in Michigan. AIUI: Shops have to be licensed to sell them and they can sell only approved products. The state randomly inspects shops and tests products. They have suspended sales due to non-compliance.

As one might imagine: THC vapes from shops like this are much more expensive than THC vapes from your friendly neighbourhood black market THC vape maker.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
For better or worse, the number of people who think weed/THC is no big deal is increasing noticeably.

Fair point. (I'll forego launching into a rant about how I feel that's more our government's fault than anybody else's.)

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
You should talk to doctors and nurses who work in ER and urgent care. The frank responses of people who are in need of medical help sometimes even astounds the medical professionals.

Also a fair point.

I will concede the likelihood the 13% number is probably more accurate than I initially gave it credence.

Most vaping deaths are from vaping black market THC vape fluids, with unidentified chemicals in them. Commercially produced vape fluids are not the cause of these acute problems.

I am not claiming vaping is safe.

And the anti-smoking crusaders are seizing on this to beat the drums and mobilize the troops. Panic - panic!

https://reason.com/2019/10/14/...qrRv70PK-yFokljK9e6s

Great article, JHE. Thanks for posting it.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, just today:

State court halts Whitmer's flavored vaping ban

quote:

Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens said Tuesday that the facts of the case weigh “in favor of granting relief” and banned the state from enforcing its rules “until further order of this court.”

I fully expect Governor Granholm v2 to challenge the court's decision.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Most vaping deaths are from vaping black market THC vape fluids, with unidentified chemicals in them. Commercially produced vape fluids are not the cause of these acute problems.

I am not claiming vaping is safe.

And the anti-smoking crusaders are seizing on this to beat the drums and mobilize the troops. Panic - panic!

https://reason.com/2019/10/14/...qrRv70PK-yFokljK9e6s

Thanks, no surprise. Conspicuous anti-,reformed-smokers tend to be major pantloads. Seems like a lot of parties look to exploit vaping for self-serving aims.

Kind of unrelated, kinda not. I read some passing mention of the tobacco companies trying to develop or sell some sort of low heat, "safer" product. I'm not going to waste my time investigating this but yeah, a lot of scrambling in the nicotine delivery world these days.

I'll just leave this here and allow y'all to draw your own conclusions: The CDC is Still Misleading the Public about the Cause of the Respiratory Disease Outbreak: Why?

(Personally, I have no idea or any hypotheses as to why the CDC is [mis]handling this the way they are. But I do know this: They're not doing the American public any favours.)

^^^^^ The CDC has a history of misleading the public about various matters. They have a definite political agenda and never miss a chance to advance it by shading the truth.

flashguy

Looks like government and its big contributors may be getting what they wanted: Sales Data Show that Massachusetts Vaping Product Ban Has Already Caused Severe Harm as Vapers Migrate to Smoking in Large Numbers

Excerpt:

quote:

Sales data reported by PiperJaffray for the four weeks ending October 20 (when the Massachusetts emergency ban was in effect for 25 of the 28 days) and the four previous weeks (mostly before the ban went into effect) were compared to sales data for the previous year. The PiperJaffray analysis revealed that there has been a substantial shift from vaping to smoking in the state. This indicates that as I predicted, ex-smokers in Massachusetts who were reliant on e-cigarettes to stay smoke-free are now returning to smoking in large numbers.

(Emphasis added)

Meanwhile: There's still been little evidence to suggest vaping non-THC e-liquids using non-junk vape hardware is injurious to one's health.

It's at the point I'm afraid to open this thread. Not because of health-related vaping revelations but rather the hyperventilation of the day.

A plot to kill vaping so people get back on the cigs makes as much sense as anything else.

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:
I read some passing mention of the tobacco companies trying to develop or sell some sort of low heat, "safer" product.

"Snuff! It's baaaaack to the future, baby!"

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:
A plot to kill vaping so people get back on the cigs makes as much sense as anything else.

Many people in the vaping industry, and more than a few vapers, believe that's exactly what's going on. They may not be completely out in tin foil hat territory. Consider:

• Years ago the tobacco companies got on board with the states with the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement
  
• Much of that money, which was supposed to be used by the states to pay for smokers' health issues, smoking cessation programs, etc., got repurposed.
  
• Meanwhile, states raised the taxes on smoking materials through the roof.
  

What all this meant was states ended-up collecting a metric crapton of money from what smoking activity remained.

Then along comes vaping. And eventually it actually started accomplishing what it was originally intended to accomplish: Getting people off the cancer sticks. This, of course, not only put a dent in the tobacco companies' bottom line, but in state revenue generation.

What to do? What to do?

Then along comes not one, but two "crises" related to vaping. Both apparently blown way out-of-proportion by, tah dah: Governments and their willing propaganda arm: The dominant media.

Maybe kinda sorta makes you go "Hmmm..."?

Thanks for your work and concern for this subject, ensigmatic. I've known all along the tobacco industry didn't just disappear and its ties to D.C. are very deep. I feel stupid for not acknowledging it's a two way street and state governments are equal partners in crime, or "repurposing" if you will. Nothing comes close to explaining the two pronged attack on vaping as the scenario you line out. We do know our well-being is not what's going on here, despite the public posturing and endless drumbeat from the media.

I think it's an honest estimation to suggest that since I've started vaping, pushing $20,000 of my money hasn't been given over to those who pretend to care about my health. With X million others who have followed my path, that's a lot of bucks the bastards have lost. What a surprise, follow the money.

As suspected by many all along: It seems doctors and the FDA are slowly coming to the conclusion the 11% that got sick from vaping and claimed they hadn't been vaping THC have probably been lying.

Doctors treating deadly lung disease face a problem: Some patients lie about vaping

A Major Study That Fueled National Vape Panic Has Been Retracted

FTA --"There are serious problems with the peer-review process and the reluctance of journals to retract invalid work," Sweanor said. "This has helped feed the reduction in trust in academia, and science in general."


** After months of pressure from the scientific community, the American Heart Association's academic journal on Tuesday evening retracted a widely circulated vaping study, which claimed that using e-cigarettes increased the likelihood of having a heart attack.


Last June, the authors, Stanton Glantz and Dharma Bhatta of the University of California San Francisco, stated in the original study that vaping and smoking cigarettes posed a similar risk, while doing both at the same time was an even more dangerous option. Following its publication in the summer, the peer-reviewed research was referenced by major news organizations, including CNN, Yahoo News, and USA Today.

In a statement explaining the retraction, editors at the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) expressed worry that the study may have been based on misleading data.

"The editors are concerned that the study conclusion is unreliable," they wrote.

JAHA pulled the paper after Brad Rodu, a tobacco control expert at the University of Louisville, noted that many of the vapers Glantz and Bhatta analyzed for the study were also current or former smokers. Rodu argued that there was a possibility that the use of combustible cigarettes is what made them more likely to suffer heart attacks.

"A retraction is not a trivial matter," Rodu told VICE on Wednesday. "It's a significant action. Saying it was a mistake is too weak."

Last month, several scholars at public-health schools including New York University, Yale, and King's College London sent a letter to JAHA bringing attention to Rodu's criticisms and asking for an appropriate investigation.

David Sweanor, an adjunct professor of law at the University of Ottawa who has studied the global tobacco industry for decades, was among those who signed the letter.

"There are serious problems with the peer-review process and the reluctance of journals to retract invalid work," Sweanor said. "This has helped feed the reduction in trust in academia, and science in general."


In their statement explaining the retraction, the journal's editors said someone else had raised the same issue during the peer-review process. While the research had been published anyway, the journal gave Glantz and Bhatta a deadline to revise the findings, which they didn't meet. Explaining why, Glantz said that his access to the dataset he used for the research had been revoked, because he did not have approval to use it to begin with.

On Twitter and his blog, Glantz stood by the paper, saying that JAHA had simply relented to "pressure from e-cig interests."

In recent months, Glantz and Rodu have traded criticisms of one another. Glantz has frequently noted the fact Rodu receives some financial support from the tobacco industry. Rodu and other harm-reduction proponents have often railed against Glantz for his scientific methods and his views on tobacco control. Rodu originally voiced this criticism of Glantz in early July 2019, right after the study's publication.

JAHA's decision might turn out to be a small win for academics and advocates who are pushing vaping has a safer alternative to smoking cigarettes, but the paper's conclusions have already fed what critics have argued is a moral panic over e-cigarettes. Its publication came amid rising concern over teenage e-cigarette and fueled a continuing misconception over the lifesaving potential of switching from cigarettes to vaping.

"To me, this story simply confirms what I have been arguing for a long time: that there is a profound anti-e-cigarette bias among tobacco-control researchers, and this is precisely what caused this fiasco," said Michael Siegel, a professor of community health sciences at Boston University. **

We live in a complex world where making healthier choices is a constant battle, especially with so many temptations and habits that have been normalized over the years. Finding balance and making informed decisions is key.

It's important to look for alternatives that might reduce harm, especially if quitting altogether isn't an option right now. For those considering a switch or looking for a less harmful option, disposable vapes disposable vapes could offer a different path. They're not without their own concerns, but for some, they represent a step towards reducing their intake of harmful chemicals.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mac_220,