Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

pubs.rsna.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 233 posts

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#81

Post by Duhck »

JamesBarney wrote: post #64
Duhck wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the supporting evidence for your concern that "attacks on vaping are for the purpose of driving smokers back to cigarettes" Philip Morris (now known as Altria) put $13bn into Juul to do the exact opposite. The margins on vaping are higher, the current perception of vaping is that it's better than smoking, and it's way easier to get kids addicted to vaping than cigarettes. I see too much evidence to the contrar…

It's not hard to say it's better than smoking. Every study done to date comparing the two days it's not nearly as harmful as smoking. Smoking is one of the most harmful things you can possibly do to your body. Many people underestimate how much of a low bar being better than smoking is.

That seems like a foolish argument. The time horizon in which we discovered smoking was bad for you was decades, and over a massive population of users.

E-Cigarettes are only now becoming mainstream, and have only been in use for the better half of a decade.

We wont truly know the effects until we have a large sample size over a long period of time.

Ultimately, saying it's conclusively better for you than smoking is short sighted. We thought smoking was good for you in the 1920s...

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#82

Post by 8f2ab37a-ed6c »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #76
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty much all the STIs in my demographic can be cured with a $20 pill If only. HSV2 affects 1 out of 6 people, rarely shows its symptoms and can be latent for years, has a big stigma associated with it, and there's no amount of $$$ you can pay to make that go away, unfortunately. Also the occasional antibiotic-resistant variants of the $20 ones, if you get sufficiently unlucky.

Fair enough. I mainly was trying to elevate the fears of unwanted children rather than downplay the risk of STIs. Though among the people I know close enough to know this about them, nobody has HSV2 and almost none of them know somebody who has it. Meanwhile I know a dozen men stuck with accidental children with women they never wanted anything to do with. CDC says HSV2 has 12% penetration into the population aged 14…

Sure thing. A couple of points:

1. 90% of people with HSV2 allegedly don't know about it, because it's not a standard STD test you'll be given unless you have an outbreak 2. People with these conditions aren't parading about it, there's no upside to it, so most just keep it to themselves and their doctors. People are afraid of being "outed". Some will go so far as not to tell the people they're hooking up with about it. (not ethically recommended / legal, but that's humans for you)

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#83

Post by InvaderFizz »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #63
InvaderFizz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main concern with the way things are going is that it looks an awful lot like attacks on vaping are for the purpose of driving smokers back to cigarettes. I know of no one that things vaping is harmless. It is certainly much, much less harmful than cigarettes and is infinitely preferable to cigarettes. I quit smoking, with the help of vaping. I was a pack-a-day Newport smoker that started on a ludicrously high 36m…

> I know of no one that things vaping is harmless. To me this is up there with "I know of no one on HN who actually dislikes Javascript." You're contradicting a mantra that is so ubiquitous that it's a bit hard to take you seriously. People I know IRL and on Reddit (without even venturing into circlejerks like r/juul and r/vaping) think vaping is so harmless that health effects aren't even the tiniest part of the dis…

> Not to say you aren't having the experience that you said you have, but rather to point out that you may be surrounded by a rather unique group.

Maybe its a fast evolving community and things have changed. I haven't touched vapes since 2016, so my involvement in the online community is zero these days. When I quit, Juul wasn't even a thing and mech mods were the norm. Everyone that talked about vaping was in the context of harm reduction, not harm elimination.

Those I do know IRL that still vape just aren't even trying to give it up, but they also weren't willing to give up cigarettes until vapes came along and took away the smells. Maybe it is also a factor of my social circles being 30+ and upper middle class now and smoking/vaping/drunkenness in general being frowned upon.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#84

Post by tryitnow »

filoleg wrote: post #78
Duhck wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the supporting evidence for your concern that "attacks on vaping are for the purpose of driving smokers back to cigarettes" Philip Morris (now known as Altria) put $13bn into Juul to do the exact opposite. The margins on vaping are higher, the current perception of vaping is that it's better than smoking, and it's way easier to get kids addicted to vaping than cigarettes. I see too much evidence to the contrar…

>"attacks on vaping are for the purpose of driving smokers back to cigarettes" I don't think it is intentionally on purpose, but it sure does seem this way sometimes. A specific example that comes to mind: city of San Francisco banning sale of e-cigs completely, while keeping regular cigarettes just as legal as before [0]. 0. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/25/7357140...

Good point. I don't see any of the politicians addressing why the didn't also ban cigarettes.

My guess is that banning cigarettes would go too far. It's unrealistic to expect cigarette smokers to quit over night and start using patches and lozenges.

It's a little more realistic to expect that people who vape to do so.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#85

Post by alach11 »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #62
cr0sh wrote: post #58

So I take it, should these results be replicated and validated as scientifically sound, that smoke machines will be banned? Because it's the same kind of aerosol with virtually the same ingredients. I'm also curious - and maybe I missed it; it's a dense paper - that while they mentioned the primary ingredients in "bare" vape liquids, they didn't seem to mention the concentrations of each used in the study? Again, may…

> smoke machines will be banned Do people put smoke machines up to their mouths and inhale it many times a day over many years?

It may be common for workers in some businesses to be exposed to smoke machines on a daily basis.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#86

Post by gwbas1c »

Medicalidiot wrote: post #39

The number one controllable risk factor for stroke and heart attack is smoking. By far. Not diet, not exercise, smoking. A significant part of that is because nicotine will constrict blood vessels leading to hypertension[1], this leads to destruction of the surface of an artery, leading to atherosclerosis formation. One day the atherosclerotic plaque ruptures and then you see me. We once thought that atherosclerosis…

> The number one controllable risk factor for stroke and heart attack is smoking

Can you clarify? Do you mean smoking cigarettes? Or do you mean consuming nicotine? What about vaping? How about smoking marijuana?

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#87

Post by JanSt »

amelius wrote: post #56
LinuxBender wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have any of your patients tried reversing the plaque with k2/d3/magnesium. It works for lowering CAC scores, just curious if it also helps with any of the other buildup beyond calcium. Or perhaps serrapeptase/natto.

Look up Linus Pauling's therapy.

https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.h...

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#88

Post by 83457 »

sharadov wrote: post #36

Why don't ecigs come with the same warnings that regular cigs do?

Because nicotine doesn't kill you, the way it is delivered does. Tobacco products are the most popular delivery method and is especially harmful due to level of carcinogens and other elements. Essentially no one cared much about nicotine as a chemical specifically much more than they did about caffeine.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#89

Post by filoleg »

close04 wrote: post #49
charliesharding wrote: post #15

I'm a little confused - can someone knowledgable in the area help out? In the introduction they assert: "Once inhaled, ultrafine particles and the oxidant species located on their surface can translocate into the vascular space (13), resulting in a state of chronic vascular inflammation and oxidative stress noxious to endothelial function." However in the conclusion they state: "Inhaling nicotine-free electronic ciga…

Transient in healthy non smokers. Since most vapers do it regularly it's a fair to assume that they are in a "permanently transient" state. A permanently acute state is basically a chronic state.

Imo permanent === persisting after whatever was causing this state in the first place is gone. If those "transient" effects are gone after a chronic user is done using after a long time, then I would still consider the effect to be transient rather than permanent.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#90

Post by alluro2 »

InvaderFizz wrote: post #38
program_whiz wrote: post #11

Many people seem to believe that vaping is harmless, this is good to make the point clearly that vaping, while not as harmful as smoking cigarettes, isn't a "cost free" activity. I personally didn't realize that it could have these effects either.

My main concern with the way things are going is that it looks an awful lot like attacks on vaping are for the purpose of driving smokers back to cigarettes. I know of no one that things vaping is harmless. It is certainly much, much less harmful than cigarettes and is infinitely preferable to cigarettes. I quit smoking, with the help of vaping. I was a pack-a-day Newport smoker that started on a ludicrously high 36m…

My concern is that any pushback on attacks on vaping just allows more room for more people to continue saying / believing that it's "ok, not 100% harmless, but almost completely" - enough so for the rise in nicotin intake among younger people (as referenced by other commenters) and enough for people to spontaneously start to vape in places where smoking is strictly prohibited, acting like it shouldn't bother anyone,("it's not like it's cigarette smoke") - even offices (happened in mine), public transportation etc...That boils my blood to no end.
Post reply on HN