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

CDC says stop vaping as mystery lung condition spreads

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 310 posts

Re: CDC says stop vaping as mystery lung condition spreads

#111

Post by exDM69 »

skocznymroczny wrote: post #100
exDM69 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some groups like T1 diabetics can not have the amount of sugar in "normal" fizzy drinks. That amount of sugar can cause issues from nausea to messed up glucose levels needing hospitalization. Hamburgers and fries are not a problem (not healthy but not dangerous). "Diet Coke" is just a stupid name for sugar free drinks.

Is that actually true? Bread contains very high carbohydrate levels, I'd imagine a hamburger bun is not much worse than a glass of coke.

Drinking sugary liquid like coke causes very rapid rise in blood glucose levels and will require excessive amounts of injected insulin to maintain glucose in reasonable limits (which may lead to dangerous drop later).

Eating something with high carbs is much slower and can be managed with normal insulin doses. White bread is not the healthiest diet, but a burger and fries every now and then is not a problem for a T1 diabetic whose treatment is under control.

Re: CDC says stop vaping as mystery lung condition spreads

#112

Post by wil421 »

johngrefe wrote: post #33

I had a startup in Vaping(nicotine) and am still fairly in touch with the industry. There has been no major innovation in nicotine eliquid that would cause a sudden cluster of issues. It's stayed pretty constant since 2013 with the exception of Salt Nicotine, which Pax labs has a gras study published for. The majority of cases seems to be THC carts where it can be confirmed. One case was confirmed from a dispensary i…

My local news ran a segment about THC vapes. Some local doctors were talking about an increase in vape related hospital visits.

They interviewed the guy and he basically said he bought a random THC vial from some guy who walked up to him on the street. He said it didn’t feel right and was probably spice or something synthetic.

Be careful, YMMV.

Re: CDC says stop vaping as mystery lung condition spreads

#113

Post by entropy_ »

skocznymroczny wrote: post #100
exDM69 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some groups like T1 diabetics can not have the amount of sugar in "normal" fizzy drinks. That amount of sugar can cause issues from nausea to messed up glucose levels needing hospitalization. Hamburgers and fries are not a problem (not healthy but not dangerous). "Diet Coke" is just a stupid name for sugar free drinks.

Is that actually true? Bread contains very high carbohydrate levels, I'd imagine a hamburger bun is not much worse than a glass of coke.

Not an expert, but I would imagine the speed at which these carbohydrates get metabolized is a factor in whether or not it messes them up? Carbs from bread take a much longer time to raise blood glucose levels and do so for longer than a spike induced by drinking what is essentially liquid sugar.

Re: CDC says stop vaping as mystery lung condition spreads

#114

Post by ryloric »

johngrefe wrote: post #70
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who was in the industry, what do you think about the argument of vaping being a safer alternative? I see pretty mixed things in the health community but it's tough because some of the argument seems to be that the tobacco industry has acted nefariously in the past so we can't trust any innovation in the space. Is there any known experience similar to vaping/smoking of today that has really minimal health c…

I think it's a lot safer than smoking, there's probably a lot safer methods, but vapings efficacy vs other quit methods is just too good to discard for even slight health risks vs smoking. Only Juul/Pax has a hidden Big Tobacco interest, the rest are either overt or companies that are dedicated to vapor only. Almost all the innovation came from outside Big Tobacco, but all that is coming to an end with FDA'S regulati…

A bit off topic, but why hasn't the tech advanced too much in the RTA/RDTA area? I tried juul, but pods are just not for me, they produce too little vapour and feel awkward to use.

I've been using Creed and Zeus atomizers since I started and they are really low tech with lots of issues, they leak juice, the airflow is not ideal, sometimes they burn the coils too quickly, no one knows what the ideal wick size or thickness is and so on. I sometimes wonder, if the potential market for vaping is so huge, why are there no better products with better designs? I feel like there's a lot of simple/easy fixed to improve them.

Re: CDC says stop vaping as mystery lung condition spreads

#115

Post by PeterisP »

apexalpha wrote: post #101
slau wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the fact that other ways don’t work. It’s not possible to slowly reduce your nicotine intake with cigarettes. The only alternative is: stop all your smoking habits, and maybe one of these nicotine substitutes will help. But that only adresses one part of the issue: the nicotine addiction. Smoking is a lot more complex than just the nicotine addiction. I know a lot of smokers who managed to take a break fro…

>It’s not possible to slowly reduce your nicotine intake with cigarettes. The only alternative is: stop all your smoking habits, and maybe one of these nicotine substitutes will help. Why not? Just go from 2 packs a day to 1.9, to 1.8 etc..

It's easy to say but hard to do. Every smoker and ex-smoker I know has tried to quit multiple times, so there's a bunch of experience there. Their consensus (I don't smoke, so no firs-thand experience) seems to be that going from 2 packs a day to 0 (or a "party mode" where it's 0 most days but a pack during a festival or something) is actually easier than going from 2 packs to 1.

Habits and addiction work in ways that aren't entirely intuitive.

Re: CDC says stop vaping as mystery lung condition spreads

#116

Post by fukbezos »

johngrefe wrote: post #33

I had a startup in Vaping(nicotine) and am still fairly in touch with the industry. There has been no major innovation in nicotine eliquid that would cause a sudden cluster of issues. It's stayed pretty constant since 2013 with the exception of Salt Nicotine, which Pax labs has a gras study published for. The majority of cases seems to be THC carts where it can be confirmed. One case was confirmed from a dispensary i…

Is there any way to test carts for vitamin E? If not I think I've just identified a market ripe for the picking.

Re: CDC says stop vaping as mystery lung condition spreads

#117

Post by Reelin »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #102
Reelin wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vaping being a safer alternative A safer alternative to what? Smoking cigarettes? There's absolutely no question that it is. One is a plant product (smoke is bad to inhale) that naturally contains a number chemicals that you probably don't want to be consuming. On top of this, there are additional additives (which vary by manufacturer) that also have significant health effects. Overview ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w…

> The other is almost entirely a mixture of Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerin. What an extraordinary meaningless statement. The question is the health effects of vaporizing those and inhaling them (along with other ingredients). You are happy to provide links about health effects of cigarettes, including ingredients present in n minute amounts, but will only provide a list of major ingredients in vaping product…

> > The other is almost entirely a mixture of Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerin.

> What an extraordinary meaningless statement.

Not at all. The point being made is that we're dealing with a product composed primarily (99%) of two chemicals that are very clearly established as safe for human consumption (propylene glycol is commonly _injected_). As such, it seems unreasonable to assume absent evidence that the chemicals themselves would pose any significant threat to health.

That leaves other additives (which I noted) and the inhalation itself (which I also noted). As I stated in my previous comment, chronic inhalation of anything is likely to be bad for your health.

You really seem to have missed the context of the question I was responding to - it asked not about absolute safety, but rather safety relative to cigarette consumption.

Yes, as you note, there is always the potential for chemical reactions when mixtures are heated. Given the particular chemical composition and temperatures involved, I'm not personally concerned absent solid evidence. None of the byproducts listed in the study you linked appear particularly worrisome to me. Compared to cigarette, weed, or wood smoke, the contents of vaping such aerosols appears downright healthy. (Only in comparison, of course!)

Rereading my previous comment, something I failed to mention is the risk of inhaling things that are too hot. Depending on what temperature the aerosol is heated to, it could burn you internally (but then we're comparing this to inhaling burning plant matter, so... meh).

> I believe the current scientific consensus is that more research is needed.

To establish what, their precise negative health effects? Of course. But not to establish that they are safer than smoking cigarettes - there's absolutely no question about that.

Re: CDC says stop vaping as mystery lung condition spreads

#118

Post by cptskippy »

johngrefe wrote: post #33

I had a startup in Vaping(nicotine) and am still fairly in touch with the industry. There has been no major innovation in nicotine eliquid that would cause a sudden cluster of issues. It's stayed pretty constant since 2013 with the exception of Salt Nicotine, which Pax labs has a gras study published for. The majority of cases seems to be THC carts where it can be confirmed. One case was confirmed from a dispensary i…

In all my experience working for a non-profit that closely involves itself with the CDC and smoking related research, I would never describe the CDC's actions as over-the-top.

They do all their own research and are very measured and even handed with their messaging.

Contrast that to the FDA who have outsourced their job function to back to the companies they're supposed to be regulating.

Re: CDC says stop vaping as mystery lung condition spreads

#119

Post by tom_mellior »

wp381640 wrote: post #105
moksly wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure vaping is actually reducing potential harm? Because our national health agency isn’t[1]. As I understand it, a few brands come with a lower risk of certain tobacco induced cancers compared to smoking. Which is harm reduction, I guess, but research is suggesting that all vaping comes with greater risk to the respiratory system and heart. Of course the real issue in evaluating the safety of e-cigerates is…

> Are you sure vaping is actually reducing potential harm? Yep. I quit smoking via 3 years of vaping and tapering down on nicotine. I've referred and seen no less than a half-dozen people I know do the same - some of the hardest smokers i've known (including my own fathers 40 year+ pack a day habit) If anybody asks i'll always turn people onto vaping - even if they don't ask i'll push them towards it, nothing has got…

Congratulations on quitting! Do you feel you could explain the difference vaping made for tapering down, as opposed to trying to smoke fewer and fewer cigarettes?

Re: CDC says stop vaping as mystery lung condition spreads

#120

Post by brianpgordon »

newswasboring wrote: post #56
dieFledermaus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...was all the vaping done thus far and into the future worth even one person dying needlessly? This is a reduction to absurdity that I can't quite grasp: People die of all sorts of maladies every year and a single person dying from vaping is your apex priority because, " it could've been prevented by banning vaping "? This almost seems like a variation of the " won't someone think of the children " argument. To wh…

I am not on anyone's side here, but didn't you just answer a logical fallacy with another? Namely whataboutism?

Reductio ad absurdum is similar to whataboutism, but it's not the same. Whataboutism is more like an abrupt detour off into a different issue to try to confuse the conversation or transform the topic of discussion into a referendum on the personal morals/motivations of the involved parties. The appeal to extremes does have to ask the question "what about x" but it's relevant because it's done to demonstrate the logical consequences of the other person's line of argument. It's not trying to deflect, it's getting to the heart of the issue.
Post reply on HN