Like Tree88Likes

Anyone using iQOS here ?

Reply
Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast
  1. #201

  2. #202

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    53

    Varenicline has a lot of side effects.
    Nausea and vomiting.
    Stomach pain.
    Constipation or diarrhea, gas, and indigestion.
    Dry mouth.
    Altered taste buds and changes in appetite.
    Vivid and unusual dreams.
    Sleepiness, trouble sleeping, and other sleep disorders.
    Problems breathing

    Not exactly a choice drug.

    An article by NEJM found higher rates of maintained cessation using e-cigs.

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779

    Between the stench of billowing conventional cigarettes and the vapour which doesn't stink as much, the vapour seems better.

    If the argument is about carcinogens from those vapours, then a move out of Hong Kong may be necessary. Plenty of carcinogens in the air, with or without the vapours.

    P.S I am not a vaper.


  3. #203

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,714

    The Varenicline report showed 33-37% abstinence
    The NEJM Hajek study is flawed with an intended outcome and offers no alternative interventions such as Varenicline, JUUL or another tank system Ecig using low strength nicotine. The study provided NRT patches max 21 mg strength whereas the Ecig tank system users were encouraged to use flavored juice with their choice of nicotine strength they could buy online. Hardly a fair comparison. Moreover the Hajek report made no mentions of the harms of the Ecig heavy metals, aldehydes from flavors, epithelial and endothelial cell damage, DNA strand damage and the fact that 4 million underage youths are addicted to JUUL in USA since it holds 48mg of nicotine salts.
    https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/evidence-ho...d-srnt-meeting
    https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/three-more-...s-lung-disease
    https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/another-stu...h-path-dataset
    One of the Hajek study co-authors issued this study: (Dawkins)
    Ex-smokers might be better off with high rather than low nicotine e-cigs | London South Bank University
    “Results of a new E-cig trial carried out by researchers at LSBU show that vapers using low nicotine e-cigarettes puff harder, for longer and more often, inhaling more cancer-causing chemicals”
    Yet the Hajek study shows the E-cig cohort of the study was apparently still 80% addicted to e-cigs and nicotine at one year follow-up, and ergo ’inhaling more cancer causing chemicals”

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0211083119.htm

    Last edited by dynamco; 26-02-2019 at 09:28 AM.

  4. #204

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,126

    I think I will try a Juul, much easier to travel with


  5. #205

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by dynamco:
    The Varenicline report showed 33-37% abstinence
    The NEJM Hajek study is flawed with an intended outcome and offers no alternative interventions such as Varenicline, JUUL or another tank system Ecig using low strength nicotine. The study provided NRT patches max 21 mg strength whereas the Ecig tank system users were encouraged to use flavored juice with their choice of nicotine strength they could buy online. Hardly a fair comparison. Moreover the Hajek report made no mentions of the harms of the Ecig heavy metals, aldehydes from flavors, epithelial and endothelial cell damage, DNA strand damage and the fact that 4 million underage youths are addicted to JUUL in USA since it holds 48mg of nicotine salts.
    https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/evidence-ho...d-srnt-meeting
    https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/three-more-...s-lung-disease
    https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/another-stu...h-path-dataset
    One of the Hajek study co-authors issued this study: (Dawkins)
    Ex-smokers might be better off with high rather than low nicotine e-cigs | London South Bank University
    “Results of a new E-cig trial carried out by researchers at LSBU show that vapers using low nicotine e-cigarettes puff harder, for longer and more often, inhaling more cancer-causing chemicals”
    Yet the Hajek study shows the E-cig cohort of the study was apparently still 80% addicted to e-cigs and nicotine at one year follow-up, and ergo ’inhaling more cancer causing chemicals”

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0211083119.htm
    You forgot to add the following for Dawkin's research:

    "While there can be toxic chemicals present in the vapour, they are far fewer and generally at lower concentrations than in tobacco smoke. Evidence so far still shows both high and low nicotine e-cigarettes are far less harmful than smoking"

    For the study presented using NIH dataset in 2019 :
    2 year study only.
    A quarter were former smokers. And 66% were using both e-cig and conventional cigarettes.
    They also noted that there was a 'lasting effect' for former smokers.
    Furthermore , no significant increase in Acute Myocardial Infarct in former and (sometimes) e-cig users.
    One study also note that:
    1. the risk rapidly dissipates upon stopping e-cig
    2. People briefly experiment with e-cigs and stop before any lasting damage is done.
    3. E-cigarettes have not been around long enough to cause permanent damage.

    The others are in vitro studies which require further studies in humans, not just cells. One was looking at cancer cells (too late for the individual).

    And if we look at cooking oil fumes, they have been associated with lung cancer in non-smoking women - so should we also ban deep frying or cooking oil? Then bitumen and road fumes- ban vehicular use or roads? Mining activities associated with lung cancer and diseases? Ban mining?

    The premise of e-cigs is to reduce the risks posed by conventional tobacco. Not eliminate it.

    Now if the government bans all forms of tobacco citing that all causes cancer, then that is reasonable. They can also go ahead and ban alcohol together with all the clubs in LKF while they are at it. After all, government has to discipline the youth on behalf of their parents.

    Iqos and e-cigs should be regulated - yes. Not straight out banned. The fumes from iQOS and e-cigs don't smell as crap as burning conventional tobacco cigarettes. Plus think of the cleaner environment - less butts on the floor.

  6. #206

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Morrison:
    I think I will try a Juul, much easier to travel with
    Just don't enter Singapore, Taiwan or Thailand.

  7. #207

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Fymmie:
    The premise of e-cigs is to reduce the risks posed by conventional tobacco. Not eliminate it.
    And get another generation of children hooked on a pointless activity that will harm their health but generate profits for Big Tobacco.

  8. #208

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit:
    And get another generation of children hooked on a pointless activity that will harm their health but generate profits for Big Tobacco.
    Well, government can ban all forms of tobacco, alcohol and clubs. No objection to that.

    If parents cannot guide and discipline their kids properly, blanket ban everything that is harmful to the youth. Why stop at only Big tobacco?

    While we are at it, ban macdonalds/kfc and all the fast food joints. Impose taxes on sugar and fats.

    Watch how fast everything goes underground.

  9. #209

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,198

    Fast food doesn't contain nicotine, and serves a purpose - we all need to eat.

    Vaping serves no useful purpose and is harmful to health. Excellent decision to ban it.


  10. #210

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit:
    Fast food doesn't contain nicotine, and serves a purpose - we all need to eat.

    Vaping serves no useful purpose and is harmful to health. Excellent decision to ban it.
    Alcoholic drinks serve no useful purpose and is harmful to health. Ban it.

    Conventional tobacco products serves no useful purpose and is harmful to health. Ban it.

    Deep-fried foods serves no useful purpose and is harmful to health when there are other healthier ways of cooking. Ban it. Aside from that, plenty of research papers do note the greasy food contribute to a whole host of health issues.

    Can't cherry pick and choose.

    If the premise is to protect children from the big evils, that should be a blanket ban. Not only on big tobacco. High cholesterol does benefit big pharma too.

Reply
Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast