51–60 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure there exists a cost free activity as far as people are concerned.
Sex is pretty cost free. Meditation is cost free. Unless you are defining time usage as a cost which is absurd.
Considering all the negative health outcomes that are correlated with money (well, a lack thereof) that doesn't sound cost free to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems clear that e-cigs are better than smoking. It also seems clear that e-cig manufacturers are hoping to hook young non-smokers to expand their market. Both are valuable bits of info, but "e-cigs do confirmed damage" is extremely important info from a public health perspective.
It seems clear that e-cigs are better than smoking. How can this be clear without long-term usage data?
It certainly stands to reason that inhaling vaporized nicotine will be better than inhaling vaporized nicotine plus ash and tar and pesticides and whatnot.
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…
If you believe E-Cigs are harmless, there's an easy experiment you can do for yourself. Go on a run, time yourself. The next day, vape for 30 min and then go on the same run. This is what got me to personally switch away from E-Cigs. Vaping would add an additional 30-sec to 1-min per mile on my runs. I try to only use patches or gum now. Still not great but it's a lot better if you're trying to stay in shape. That be…
I'd say vaping is a very good harm reduction path for smokers that hopefully leads to quitting altogether. It is definitely not harm free though. I just hope our society and laws don't go in a direction where people are pushed back into smoking.
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…
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.
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…
The nicotine salts in Juul pods are a type of nicotine that supposedly feels more like a cigarette when inhaled, as opposed to other vapes that use freebase nicotine.
Philip Morris strategy to create confusion is obviously working. Don't buy from big tobacco if your goal is to quit smoking.
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, maybe I missed it...
If it wasn't mentioned, I would be curious how different percentages of each affect the outcome.
For that matter - I would also be curious how "vaping" something similar - say perhaps atomized distilled water in a nebulizer - what kind of results are seen there, too.
While it may be that vaping liquids are "bad" (and any metals from the heating coil, as the study noted), how they compare to other similar liquids might be important in determining their relative danger.
Also - whether this reported danger is warranted or not? That is, when compared to other things in day-to-day breathing, where does this fall in terms of "danger"? Is it worse than being around a camp fire or fireplace? Is it worse than breathing air in a working kitchen? Is it worse than breathing the air while taking a hot shower?
Sure - the numbers can be made to look scary - but what is the objective truth, beyond the idea that "yes, vaping even base liquids is worse than just breathing" - I think we can agree that breathing in something more than clean air is worse for you, no matter what it is. But for all we know, we're constantly breathing in microparticles of plastic and other pollution in greater rates and more often than even a heavy vaping device user.
Lots of questions and avenues that could be pursued in follow-up research on this topic, certainly. It was interesting to read about, especially as someone who occasionally vapes a caffeine-based (non-niccotine) liquid.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well, if you’re super careful with your contraception and have easy access to abortion...also lots of queer sex runs no risk of reproducing accidentally. STIs, on the other hand, are definitely a risk.
A man having casual sex is basically gambling that the condom works and that the woman will abort if it comes to that, something he has zero say in. I don't know how anyone can say sex is very risk-free. As I get older, "don't stick your dick in crazy" makes more and more sense. Pretty much all the STIs in my demographic can be cured with a $20 pill. And almost all of my post-nut clarity revolves around fearing becom…
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.