The E-cig Thread

Izo_sl said:

What is your rationale for saying so? Quitting smoking is great from a health perspective, sure. Replacing it with an unregulated product, market wise and in most cases content wise, with which we know very little about from a health perspective is questionable judgement. If the idea is to quit, there are existing pharma, inhalers, gum, sprays - all well documented approaches. What makes anyone think the e-cigs are safe or a miracle cure - even one such as you, nurse? There is no miracle cure for addiction afaik.

Click to expand...

When people smoke the e-cigs and then smoke a normal cigarette later on, they will finally see how awful it tastes. It's a way to curb the oral fixation and nervousness factor. Nothing's a miracle cure. Indeed.

Tarrant_sl said:

-meh, i don't have a dog in this fight.-

Click to expand...

Meh, quitter

Yeah, repost of a repost. Why do you come here anyway? No spoilers in this thread

Kuriin_sl said:

When people smoke the e-cigs and then smoke a normal cigarette later on, they will finally see how awful it tastes. It's a way to curb the oral fixation and nervousness factor. Nothing's a miracle cure. Indeed.

Click to expand...

A realization that tobacco tastes awful, smells up your stuff and is indeed bad for your health is good. Could this not be achieved with existing thoroughly documented products in contrast to cigarettes? I don't see why the e-cig is a must, lex persimoniae and such. Oral fixation is part of the addiction. Again, existing safe products could be used. Nervousness is the addiction again, up nicotine dosage for instance, or choice of administration.
I don't doubt that more options are prefereble - a tool for every need. I don't see how the vaporizers are helpful here compared to inhalers, gum, melters, sprays. It's about drug delivery - nicotine to the blood stream, and in turn the receptors in CNS and PNS. The existing products do this already and are not hazardous in themselves, or their application, and the substance given, nicotine, is in a controlled concentration and administrable dose. If the goal is to quit, these factors are important. One is in much less control with vaporizers and non-medical juice. It just seems backwards to me to focus on the experience being like smoking, when the goal is to quit smoking. It seems to me the goal with a vaporizer is to enhance the uptake of nicotine, and experience. This is not indicative of less addiction.

Tarrant_sl said:

This post made no sense.

Click to expand...

Made you post, purpose served
Was curious what you meant by same ol, same ol., t'is all.

Mkay.
Would you like to talk about what's really pressing you?
I kid, I kid

Okay, fair enough. They're banned at hospitals here, Nordics, because no one knows if they're safer to be around - secondary and tertiary smoke / vapor. Seems to me like they should be restricted like cigarettes.

I've got an EGO-T, but I don't use it. I should though.

I've stoped 4 years with the e-cig when i was in europe, then i started smoking again for another 2 years when i got back home. I've read Allen carr's book 6 months ago and i'm smoke free again, it might not work for anyone, but i recommend it if you haven't tried it yet.

e-cigs are no new tech, it's been out since a while, just harder toi find in na

Been doing the ecig thing for awhile now. I had been smoking maybe 8 years, a half pack a day / full pack if drinking. Up until about 6 months ago I would still have a few regular cigs when going out to the bar, but since i have stopped that completely i have just stuck with ecigs. I currently own a ego-c twist (variable voltage). Best one yet, i have tried regular ego's, 510's. and other non major brands. I believe the provari version someone mentioned is top notch, expensive and big. Looks like your holding a big pipe to your mouth. The ego-c twist 1000muah version its right in the medium, charge it at night and it lasts all day, about $25 online. I use it in conjunction with a 510 High resistant or low resistant atomizer and a drip tip. I tried to use carts and tanks of all kinds but never really liked them so that's why i direct drip exclusively now. I also mix my own liquids. Buying a 120ml bottle of pre-mixed nicotine PG/VG and then the flavorings have saved about 2-3x the amount than buying them premixed on top of the outrageous cost of buying regular cigs.

I definitely would not buy any convenient store ecigs or the Blu ones, waste of money. Go custom and mix and match what you want. See if there are stores in your area, most BM places in my area will let you try different batteries, tanks, atomizers, eliquid flavors.

mkopec_sl said:

http://sph.bu.edu/index.php?option=c...articleid=3366

peer reviewed....

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jph...hp201041a.html

And again, no one is claiming these are 100% totally safe. What they are, without doubt, is safer than regular cigs.

Click to expand...

Fair points, on the surface at least. Digging a bit deeper the picture shifts. You realize of course one must be critical of scientific papers published:
1) Finding an article that says what you argue is not really a problem - look here:www.pubmed.org
2) Your find is an article - not a double blinded randomized control trial (aka the gold standard).
3) Finding a respectable top 5 medical journal publishing the same article is hard.
4) Finding a meta analysis of the subject, Cochrane, non existant.
5) Your article is not published (and thus peer reviewed) in one of the world's top 5 medical journals - such as 'The Lancet' and 'New England Journal of Medicine' - serious journals. It's published in a mediocre journal. It affects its credibility etc.
6) There are good reasons to why one compares to placebo and not directly between products. Precisely to correct for placebo / perceived effects.

Basically readers of scientific papers evaluate a given publication's credibility on many levels. This is part of the scientific approach and essential to 'evidence based medicine' f.inst. For starters whom publishes the article is a basic pointer. Google 'impact factor' and 'journal citation reports' for more info. Also, if you have academic login, lookup 'journal of citation reports' and see the impact factor for the publisher - or just takewikipedia's datafor granted - I checked, it's precisely average / low end as stated:

Rank Abbreviated Journal Title
(linked to journal information) ISSN JCR Data More Information Eigenfactor? MetricsMore Information
Total Cites Impact
Factor 5-Year
Impact
Factor Immediacy
Index Articles Cited
Half-life Eigenfactor?
Score Article Influence?
Score

78 J OCCUP HEALTH 1341-9145 2065 1.550 1.638 0.214 56 8.9 0.00283 0.485

Click to expand...

TLDR; To put it bluntly: The article you posted does not have sufficient credibility on it's own to make a factual judgment call / case - it's pointing in a certain direction, but the impact and force it has is very small. More research is needed, and your statements on the 'without doubt' is seriously discredited - we do not know the long term effects. This does not prevent us from making educated guesses, sure, but it's not fact, yet.

This is not even touching on the initial subject of the thread - quitting smoking - as in the efficacy of the device as a smoking cessation aid. AFAIK there are no RCT's or cochrane's on this. Perhaps you've stumbled across them and I have not? Otherwise we're stuck at anecdotal evidence which is just that, anecdotal. Bring on the homeopathic remedies and superstition too, eh?