Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by EpicEng » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:25 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #29

EpicEng wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicotine is in the same drug class as caffiene. Want to ban coffee as well?

Plenty of drugs are in the same class with substantially differing impacts - take heroin vs. morphine vs. fentanyl vs. oxycodone as an example, or ask someone taking antipsychotic psych meds if they're all the same. Or try taking some strychnine because it's an alkaloid like nicotine and caffeine and see how well that works out. Since you picked coffee as an example, most of the studies I've seen indicate probably he…

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "class" as you're not the only person to come back with that. I mean that it's generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the FDA. I think you know that comparing heroin to nicotine is just silly and, as far as I'm aware, there's no data that shows that nicotine is any more or substantially more harmful than caffeine.

So back in reality where we're talking about banning e-cigs; why should they be subject to a prescription?

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

#102

Post by EpicEng » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:26 PM UTC

cardine wrote: post #74

EpicEng wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicotine is in the same drug class as caffiene. Want to ban coffee as well?

Cocaine is also in the same drug class as both nicotine and caffeine. Drug class is irrelevant in this situation.

Not talking about that class "stimulants". See comment below.

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

#103

Post by close04 » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:29 PM UTC

filoleg wrote: post #89

close04 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The study is about the transient effects of vaping on healthy never-smokers. The chronic effects were observed as part of other studies and just cited here.

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

#104

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:30 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #101

ceejayoz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of drugs are in the same class with substantially differing impacts - take heroin vs. morphine vs. fentanyl vs. oxycodone as an example, or ask someone taking antipsychotic psych meds if they're all the same. Or try taking some strychnine because it's an alkaloid like nicotine and caffeine and see how well that works out. Since you picked coffee as an example, most of the studies I've seen indicate probably he…

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "class" as you're not the only person to come back with that. I mean that it's generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the FDA. I think you know that comparing heroin to nicotine is just silly and, as far as I'm aware, there's no data that shows that nicotine is any more or substantially more harmful than caffeine. So back in reality where we're talking about banning e-cigs; why…

"So back in reality" GRAS does not mean what you think it means.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664775/

> Despite scientific uncertainty regarding the safety of inhaling aerosol and flavorant substances from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) relative to inhaling smoke from traditional cigarettes, some consumers and vape shop employees suggest that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) designation of constituents provides clear evidence of overall e-cigarette safety.

> Although the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) has clarified that the GRAS program only assesses product safety for ingestion in food, not inhalation, public confusion appears to continue.

Nicotine isn't even on the GRAS list at all. Some of the additives (like glycerol) and flavorants are.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=GR...

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

#105

Post by JamesBarney » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:32 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #95

JamesBarney wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on the relative harm of smoking versus vaping. Uk government estimates risks at 95% less than smoking which means we're still winning health wise by quite a bit.

Not if non-smokers are being recruited into vaping or smoking.

Well balancing non-smokers becoming vapers relative to smokers becoming vapers definitely depends on the relative risks. But if vaping is increasing the number of smokers (which is definitely not true among adults, and probably not true among teens) you're right that wouldn't depend on relative risks.

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

#106

Post by lowdose » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:37 PM UTC

slau wrote: post #73

lowdose wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quit smoking in a similar way now 3 years ago. A cigaret is almost engineered to spike a nicotine shot. By only vaping my nicotine cravings decreased over time without effort. I recommend smokers to immediately start with an expensive vapor that works. Beating a nicotine addiction is not possible with a $20 solution that requires duck tape hacks after a week. I took away from Alan Carr's book it is not possible to…

I’m in the same case as you. I switched to vaping 2 years ago (August 14th). Started out at 9mg of nicotine, and now at 1mg. Switch to 0.5mg is planned for early September. Every time I lower my dosage, I notice I vape 2-3 times more than usual, and after a week, I stabilise again (at around 15-20ml per day). I exclusively vape on an RDA. Over the weekend, I was invited to go to a shisha bar. After 3-4 tokes, I was h…

Don't worry about the negative effects of vaping. And your experience without backup and not sweating it is a clear sign of progress. I remember a time I couldn't go to sleep if I didn't have any cigarettes left for the next day. After the third vapor broke I decided not to buy a new one. Good luck!

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

#107

Post by mcguire » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:39 PM UTC

atomi wrote: post #67

JamesBarney wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smoking is one of the leading risk factors for cardiovascular disease: agreed It starts earlier than a lot of people thought: agreed The primary contributor to smoking's detrimental effects on the cardiovascular system is nicotine: disagree Mind linking to something that shows this? That doesn't agree with the results from the UK study on effects of nicotine versus smoking which puts nicotine's effects at about 5% of…

You can test this yourself. Test your blood pressure prior to vaping and then after. If you choose to ignore all else you could argue the rise in BP is transient and not concerning. I personally would not bet my life on it.

Jogging in place will also transiently raise your blood pressure.

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

#108

Post by nabnob » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:41 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #61

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…

Smoking is one of the leading risk factors for cardiovascular disease: agreed It starts earlier than a lot of people thought: agreed The primary contributor to smoking's detrimental effects on the cardiovascular system is nicotine: disagree Mind linking to something that shows this? That doesn't agree with the results from the UK study on effects of nicotine versus smoking which puts nicotine's effects at about 5% of…

Could you link the study you're talking about? I found this - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/28/vaping-is-95...

But the only "study" referenced comparing smoking and nicotine was a video experiment that didn't even use humans.

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

#109

Post by EpicEng » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:46 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #104

EpicEng wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "class" as you're not the only person to come back with that. I mean that it's generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the FDA. I think you know that comparing heroin to nicotine is just silly and, as far as I'm aware, there's no data that shows that nicotine is any more or substantially more harmful than caffeine. So back in reality where we're talking about banning e-cigs; why…

"So back in reality" GRAS does not mean what you think it means. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664775/ > Despite scientific uncertainty regarding the safety of inhaling aerosol and flavorant substances from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) relative to inhaling smoke from traditional cigarettes, some consumers and vape shop employees suggest that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “gener…

>"So back in reality" GRAS does not mean what you think it means.

I know exactly what GRAS means. Why do you assume otherwise? I never claimed that vaping is safe; you'd have to be an idiot to make that argument. That doesn't mean you ban it.

I could have sworn it was on the list... but either way, it doesn't change the fact that nicotine is, by itself, not significantly harmful. What argument are you trying to make here?

It seems like all you want to do is nitpick and completely avoid the subject at hand. Why should nicotine and/or e-cigs be more tightly controlled than coffee, cigarettes, beef, alcohol, etc?

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

#110

Post by mcguire » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 8:46 PM UTC

Duhck wrote: post #45

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…

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…

"We dont know just how bad vaping really is, it's hard to say its better than smoking, and its impossible to say its not bad for you at all."

This is absolutely true. Inhaling propylene glycol and glycerine daily for thirty years might cause you to grow three heads or have babies with 27 fingers. But the results of every reputable report I've seen until now has indicated that vaping is much, much better than smoking cigarettes.