Slashdot Mirror


E-Cigarettes With Nicotine Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease, Says Study (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Even after puffing on just one electronic cigarette with nicotine, healthy non-smokers were found to have a biological marker known to increase the risk of heart disease in tobacco users, according to a new study. The research, published in Journal of the American Heart Association, shows that nicotine is not harmless, as many people believe. It can affect a smoker's health in more than one way, and not just by triggering addiction. Another study, conducted by Middlekauff that was published earlier this year, showed that people who use e-cigs almost every day have biological markers known to increase the risk of heart disease in tobacco users. These included an increase in adrenaline levels in the heart, which can predispose smokers to bad heart rhythms, heart attacks, and sudden death, as well as increased oxidative stress, an imbalance in the body's ability to defend itself against the damaging action of free radicals. Oxidative stress can lead to changes in blood fats and lead to arteriosclerosis.

That study, however, didn't show what exactly was causing those changes. E-cigarettes can have different flavoring and solvents, as well as nicotine. So to identify the culprit, Middlekauff brought 33 healthy non-smokers and non-vapers into the lab. On three different days, one month apart, the participants were asked to puff on three different kinds of e-cigarettes for 30 minutes: one with nicotine, one without nicotine, and a sham e-cig that was empty. The researchers did blood tests and measured the subjects' heart rhythms, and found that the participants had high levels of adrenaline in their hearts after they smoked the e-cig with nicotine, but not after they puffed on the e-cigarette without nicotine or the empty e-cig.

170 comments

  1. Wow. Just WOW! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    E-Cigarettes With Nicotine Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease

    I'm shocked! SHOCKED I TELL YOU!

    But I'll bet there's a hell of a lot less tar!

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Luthair · · Score: 2

      Its just water vapor man, there is nothing in it!

    2. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Funny

      Vape only homeopathic nicotine.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Tatarize · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The important bit is that when compared they should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs or dummy e-cigs. And you will find that cigarettes kill 400k people a year. Whereas e-cigs will kill a couple people with heart attacks and stimulant linked deaths and maybe a doofus screwing up and overdosing through utter stupidity, but you will *never* get to 400k deaths in a year.

      Add to this the fact that this research will be used to attack e-cigs and this research will end up causing many thousands of deaths that otherwise would have been prevented. Any valid determination should find e-cigs are on par with vaccines and clean water. They are gutting traditional tobacco products to the life saving result of what is going to be millions of people in short order.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    4. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      thrown up a smoke screen

      I can just about make out what you did there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Tranzistors · · Score: 0, Troll

      should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs

      You might have a point if e-cigs were prescription only medical device used to treat smoking addiction. It has been hyped as being as benign as coffee.

    6. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by coastwalker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are the odds 100% that this "study" was funded by tobacco money? Do 40k Americans die in road traffic accidents every year but we never discuss them because there are no angles for profitable corporations? Does vaping save the lives of up to 400k people a year? Actually I think there is a good case for locking up the people doing the study for manslaughter.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    7. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by sjames · · Score: 2

      What is your justification for prescription only? Nicotine has been used over the counter for centuries with few if any acute deaths or injuries. e-cigs are showing that same pattern. Prescription only is supposed to be for things that cannot be used safely without a doctor's supervision.

      It has been hyped as being as benign as coffee.

      Some people advocate drinking your own urine too, what's your point? Urine as a controlled substance?

    8. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      y u so scared to die u puss

    9. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Tranzistors · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What is your justification for prescription only?

      I am not advocating for prescription only. I am saying that Tatarize (OP) made unreasonable demand that e-cigarettes should be only compared with ordinary cigarettes. The only scenario where such demand would make sense is where e-cigs are prescription only. Or at very least if the only costumers of e-cigs would be those who want to quit smoking. Since this is very unlikely, comparing them to not smoking anything at all is useful information. If the argument is “Someone at Daily Mail will twist this”, then what can we research safely?

      Some people advocate drinking your own urine too, what's your point?

      If a researcher would compare drinking urine to drinking water, and someone would criticise this study, because it didn't compare it to drinking battery acid, I would mod it “Funny”

    10. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by azrael29a · · Score: 2

      Its just water vapor man, there is nothing in it!

      There's much more than water vapour in the e-cigarettes' output: glycerine, propylene glycol. Bon appetit.

    11. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Does this article contradict the notion that it's no worse than coffee? Slashdot loves posting "Scientists find out coffee is awesome!" article from time to time, but a quick Google shows that coffee is a mixed bag, with some benefits, and some risks.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flawed study. Doesn't account for the (lack of) survival after the e-cig takes your head off when it explodes
      (1 e-cig is equivalent to 1.5 sticks of C5).

      CAP === 'smacked'

    13. Re: Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe e-cigs should be over-the-counter and cigarettes should be prescription only.

    14. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The important bit is that when compared they should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs or dummy e-cigs. And you will find that cigarettes kill 400k people a year. Whereas e-cigs will kill a couple people with heart attacks and stimulant linked deaths and maybe a doofus screwing up and overdosing through utter stupidity, but you will *never* get to 400k deaths in a year.

      Add to this the fact that this research will be used to attack e-cigs and this research will end up causing many thousands of deaths that otherwise would have been prevented. Any valid determination should find e-cigs are on par with vaccines and clean water. They are gutting traditional tobacco products to the life saving result of what is going to be millions of people in short order.

      We already know cigarettes kill. We don't know the impact of E-Cigs, so that is reason enough to study them. I would think this study is useful for the E-Cig business which can show that non-nicotine cigs have not been found to have any health impact.

    15. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      Its just water vapor man, there is nothing in it!

      There's much more than water vapour in the e-cigarettes' output: glycerine, propylene glycol. Bon appetit.

      It really is the DHMO you have to watch out for. That stuff'll fuck you up, especially if too much gets in your lungs at once!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    16. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Possibly, but not for the reasons you think.

      Tobacco companies don't want to harm ecigarettes because they cut into their profit. They produce ecigarettes and want to ladle on expensive regulations so only they can afford to produce them, and take the profits themselves.

      Don't you NPR very much?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    17. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    18. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      All posts downstream of the whoosh comment are invalid fruit of a poisoned tree 4th Amendment violation.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    19. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you will find that cigarettes kill 400k people a year. Whereas e-cigs will kill a couple people with heart attacks and stimulant linked deaths and maybe a doofus screwing up and overdosing through utter stupidity, but you will *never* get to 400k deaths in a year.

      Ok, you're talking completely out of your ass? The only way you even get away with saying something so blatantly ridiculous is because the number of ecig smokers is already far less than the number of cigarette smokers, and the number of smokers in general is going down in many developed countries.

      We absolutely don't have the data to know what the mortality rates of ecigarettes vs regular cigarettes will be like, and it could take decades to find meaningful significance in such numbers because there are just so many other ways people die, and it takes quite a long time to do enough damage to your lungs that they decide to kill you instead.

      That said, Nicotine is unfortunately one of the most harmful things in a cigarette, linked by this study to heart disease, and to many others with a large slew of side effects including much of the cancer for which cigarettes are so famous.

    20. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      E-Cigarettes With Nicotine Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease

      I'm shocked! SHOCKED I TELL YOU!

      But I'll bet there's a hell of a lot less tar!

      And Formaldehyde too

      --
      We'll make great pets
    21. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Its just water vapor man, there is nothing in it!

      There's much more than water vapour in the e-cigarettes' output: glycerine, propylene glycol. Bon appetit.

      Aspartame, mono-sodium glutamate, smog, carbon monoxide, cholesterol, sugar. In modern society, you can't avoid ingesting crap. It's really a question of pick your poison. Your body is going to break down and go back into the ground regardless anyway. No one lives forever. But I suppose if it keeps your mind off of it, keep playing the chicken little game.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    22. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here we see the semi-rare "hardcore pepe"

    23. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck yeah! YOLO bro, YOLO!

    24. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Fuck yeah! YOLO bro, YOLO!

      Are you trying to suggest I'm a millenial? That's rich. :) Here's the thing: do you remember a time before you were born? Have you ever seen an afterlife? If you believe either of these are true, can you demonstrate it? At best, we can say that we know of this only existence and that the concept of there being anything before it or after it lacks sufficient evidence to prove those claims. Therefore, you have two choices 1) Either you say "I don't know of such a thing" or 2) it is likely due to the lack of evidence that there is no such thing. *shrug* Does anyone really truly know any different and have evidence to substantiate their claim? I've not found a single person who can do this and I've done more research and investigation on the subject than I would care to admit and turned up nothing.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    25. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by drakaan · · Score: 2

      But, isn't the main purpose of vapes to provide a less-unhealthy way to deliver nicotine to addicts? Why are you making this argument, again? Your argument is proceeding from a premise that has not yet been clearly described.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    26. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, anybody who isn't completely in the dark knows that nicotine is bad for one's overall health (it is a naturally occurring pesticide, after all). We don't really need studies to know that.

      In practice, e-cigs are a cigarette replacement, hence the name. Comparing them to cigarettes is thus the most important benchmark for serious inquiry about their health effects.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    27. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Rashkae · · Score: 2

      Your comparison is apt. What does this study show? Increased adrenaline possibly leading to abnormal heart rhythms? symptoms remarkably similar to caffeine, (and probably any other chemical stimulant.) Benign as coffee is about all this research has shown. We already new nicotine was a stimulant.

    28. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      i dont know where you live, but most of the places ive been hype E-cigs and Vaping as a way to quit smoking. It is not hyped as harmless or marketed to non smokers, instead it is marketed to smokers as a quitting aid. Vaping has helped me quit smoking, quite simply on the fact that i can take one haul off a vape instead of having a whole smoke. That combined with the ability to dial back the nicotine in the juice from whatever equivalent level that you are smoking now down to 0 makes it a great way to help quit smoking.

      Yes some people will never quit and they will just keep vaping instead of smoking. that is why we need studies that actually compare the two, instead of comparing vaping to nothing. Now think to your self why dont we see studies like this? maybe because it really isnt as bad as smoking regular cigarettes? I am almost certain that if vaping was worse than smoking then the tobacco companies would be sponsoring studies to show as much. On the other hand why aren't vaping companies sponsoring such studies? quite possibly because there are no monopolies in vaping. The juice and the hardware are easy to make and due to the grass roots distribution that happens it will probably stay that way. The real question is why havent countries with single payer health care done studies comparing smoking cigarettes to vaping and the health benefits / possible health care cost reduction? id be willing to guess that it has something to do with the amount of money being thrown into lobbying. Remember, big companies don't like change because it can affect their bottom line.

    29. Re: Wow. Just WOW! by sound+vision · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People aren't going to drink battery acid in lieu of water. Comparing nicotine vapor to cigarettes is 100% relevant. We *already have* millions of nicotine addicts and if there is a way to reduce the health risks by even a few percentage points, that needs to be investigated. Should have started decades ago, honestly.

    30. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      I'm just glad they helped me quit entirely by breaking up many of the regular smoking habit patterns. Not as bad as combustion, if done right, but still not good.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    31. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Not good enough. I only use free-range tobacco.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    32. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I'is made of a secret mixture that contains one or more of the following: kerosene, propylene glycol, artificial sweeteners, sulphuric acid, rum, acetone, battery acid, red dye#2, scumm, axle grease and/or pepperoni.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    33. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Damnit, I had DHMO in my coffee this morning! Why didn't you warn us earlier!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    34. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      you will find that cigarettes kill 400k people a year

      I don't know why, though. I mean, someone once gave me a cigarette and it was really fragile, I was able to utterly destroy it simply by stepping on it.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    35. Re: Wow. Just WOW! by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem like a stretch that cutting out the majority of carcinogens in the smoke leads to less cancer. And that eliminating the tar cuts the risk for obstructive lung diseases. If it doesn't, then our whole understanding of the health risks of tobacco are deeply flawed. That could be true, but as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on the people who are claiming ecigs are *not* significantly less harmful than whole tobacco.

    36. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      THIS JUST IN: Inhaling a known POISON (nicotine) is BAD FOR YOU! Film at Eleven!

      ..yeah, nothing to see here, is there?

    37. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Read Pascal's Wager...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    38. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Well you, my friend, have had it. Best get your affairs in order.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    39. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by war4peace · · Score: 2

      They produce shitty ecigarettes

      FTFY.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    40. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      They only attack in large herds.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    41. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Actually, after looking into it quite a bit, I haven't found any evidence that nicotine itself is bad for one's overall health at all. And to say that this study supports the idea that nicotine is a significant risk factor in heart disease is... weak, at best. It is a known stimulant. It raises adrenaline. So does caffeine. And reading the comments.

      Nicotine in large doses is toxic, yes. Cigarette smoke is harmful, yes. But nicotine in controlled dosages delivered via non-toxic routes, such as gums, pills, vaping? No conclusive evidence points toward overall harm. In fact, there are a number of potential positives... none of which points to vaping as the ideal delivery form, except for people who are at risk for smoking.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    42. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people ingest nicotine all the time, most without even knowing about it. in fact, nicotine occurs naturally in tomatoes and peppers and other members of the Solanaceae flowering plant family. pretty soon, people will not be able to eat tomatoes or peppers without a prescription, and we will hear about tomatoes and peppers contributing to people's deaths at an alarming rate.

    43. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Tatarize · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. While a lot of people do switch to e-cigs then down their nicotine to zero. I'm pretty sure that the health benefits accrue when one switches to e-cigs. The tobacco products kill because of the tars in them that cause cancer and most of the other health effects. Those are eliminated and you are left with a powerful stimulant.

      The requisite comparison to smoking is because people are very typically swapping smoking for vaping. And to determine the ill-effects you need to take that into effect. There's likely some people who might take up vaping directly, who might not have taken up smoking. And the stimulants might be able to unilaterally lead to their deaths, especially if they have an underlying heart or lung defect. And those deaths would be entirely the result of vaping. The problem though is you need to take into account the lives saved by the exceptionally common happening of people giving up smoking in order to vape, and even without attenuating any nicotine, get much much healthier in very short order and can run marathons.

      There might be additional health benefits to attenuating the nicotine to zero and quitting vaping too, but they pale in comparison to swapping smoking for vaping. The deadly cancer causing tars are not habit forming, in themselves, and can be completely mitigated this way. While I'm not at all convinced it's as benign as coffee, if people took up drinking coffee because it entirely replaced alcoholism and opioid addiction, I couldn't see any moral stance other than welcoming it as a savior. And if we suppose it might be worse for you than coffee, that's okay because alcoholism and opioid addiction combined don't kill as many people as smoking does.

      There's not enough research to say how benign it is, but we can say it's more benign than smoking. And that makes vaping a certifiable lifesaver; which is why it must be compared to traditional smoking.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    44. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      E-cigs very very much do cut into the profits of tobacco companies. Their attempt to take over that market is self-preservation. But, compare the costs of a pack a day habit of cigarettes to a comparable habit of vaping the same amount of nicotine and the cost difference is massive. The vape juice and even a top-of-the-line vape cost a fraction of the price. It's less spent than even just the profit margin on the cigarettes directly.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    45. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      isn't the main purpose of vapes to provide a less-unhealthy way to deliver nicotine to addicts

      I don't know what vape inventors / manufacturers had in mind when developing this product. But advertisement is not “drop smoking addiction with vaping”, it targets non-smokers as well. I personally don't smoke and have considered vaping. I would prefer to know how it would impact my health outcomes. In this context the study is useful.

    46. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Tranzistors · · Score: 2

      nicotine occurs naturally in tomatoes and peppers and other members of the Solanaceae flowering plant family

      Public service announcement: don't eat random plants from Solanaceae family, some of them are deadly. As for the tomatoes, potatoes and such, do not eat the green bits.

    47. Re: Wow. Just WOW! by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      Comparing nicotine vapor to cigarettes is 100% relevant

      Yes. It is indeed. And many studies have done that. Why cant we also compare it with not smoking anything at all?

    48. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      All posts downstream of the whoosh comment are invalid fruit of a poisoned tree 4th Amendment violation.

      LOL!

    49. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      The important bit is that when compared they should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs or dummy e-cigs.

      EXACTLY!

      How much ya wanna bet that this research was stealth (or not stealth) funded by someone with Tobacco interests at stake...

    50. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs

      You might have a point if e-cigs were prescription only medical device used to treat smoking addiction. It has been hyped as being as benign as coffee.

      Where?

    51. Re: Wow. Just WOW! by gnick · · Score: 1

      It is not the government's job to make sure I don't hurt myself.

      I'm fine with behavior-based insurance rates.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    52. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Read Pascal's Wager... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Already know it but did you know every Theist is gambling in precisely the same way as a non-thiest? For example, a Christian apologist is not losing much sleep that they might go to hell if they don't believe in Allah and vice versa. So... whether you are a theist or non-theist you are making Pascal's wager in precisely the same manner. The proposition is the same for both. Cheers!

      --
      We'll make great pets
    53. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by gnick · · Score: 1

      in fact, nicotine occurs naturally in tomatoes...

      Who can forget the terrible tomacco riots of s5e11, "E-I-E-I-D'oh"?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    54. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      THIS JUST IN: Inhaling a known POISON (nicotine) is BAD FOR YOU! Film at Eleven!

      ..yeah, nothing to see here, is there?

      Warfarin (Rat Poison) is also, obviously, a poison.

      It is also a medicine given to help reduce the tendency to form blood clots, which also, obviously, kill.

      So, what's your point, again?

    55. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Just checked: There are NO valid medical uses for nicotine. Now, you were saying?
      Nicotine is a POISON. There is NO REASON why anyone should be voluntarily taking it into their bodies.
      Are you a smoker, defending your nicotine addiction? I think it likely, and if so then I can't take your arguments seriously anyway. So how about you stop poisoning yourself, then we'll talk mkay?

    56. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of those 400k deaths weren't from people trying cigarettes for the first time, they were the end result of people who had been smoking for decades. There is an ongoing stream of them which is why you keep seeing the same smoker death rate year after year. E-cigs haven't been around long enough for the nicotine to build up in any barely 20-something hipster faggot, but I am 100% certain that after a few decades of sucking on that pipe, they'll start dropping at the same rate as the cigarette smokers have been.

      Even nicotine PATCHES and GUM are bad for health. Never-smokers are advised never to try them and those who do start getting some of the same negative effects as smokers, and you can even overdose on them.

      It has been KNOWN as an absolute FACT for decades that nicotine is BAD. Who the fuck missed that? Oh right... the latest crop of 20-something know-it-alls. Too fucking smug to shut the fuck up and listen to people who can actually PROVE things.

      But by all means, show us how much smarter you are than webmd.

    57. Re: Wow. Just WOW! by jandersen · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem like a stretch that cutting out the majority of carcinogens in the smoke leads to less cancer. And that eliminating the tar cuts the risk for obstructive lung diseases. If it doesn't, then our whole understanding of the health risks of tobacco are deeply flawed. That could be true, but as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on the people who are claiming ecigs are *not* significantly less harmful than whole tobacco.

      I absolutely agree - as I think I already stated in my original post. And as I spend some effort on saying, medical researchers are now studying whether e-cigarettes are actually as harmless as we expect them to be. The gp seemed to suggest that it was fundamentally wrong to even research this question, and I tried to put forward the arguments for why we must research these things rather than take it on faith. We haven't studied it in depth, so we don't know yet - what is so wrong about wanting to know the truth?

      And that brings me to perhaps a more important subject, namely why are people especially here on /. so on the jump to take offence of anything they don't agree with - or maybe haven't quite understood after a first, superficial reading? Personally, I don't really mind that my comments here get modded down, but it is deeply worrying that a forum that is notionally about "news for nerds - stuff that matters" (or used to be) is now dominated by people that appear to be unable to read and understand a thoughtful and factual text, simply because they think they disagree with it. I have seen this several times - I have written something, and then people think they contradict me by putting forward the same arguments I just gave. Or the opposite: I write something that is clearly insulting and provocative, and get modded up and people "agree" with me with opinions that are clearly the opposite of what I said. So what is the point of trying to communicate on /.? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way)

    58. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Just checked: There are NO valid medical uses for nicotine. Now, you were saying?

      Nicotine is a POISON. There is NO REASON why anyone should be voluntarily taking it into their bodies.

      Are you a smoker, defending your nicotine addiction? I think it likely, and if so then I can't take your arguments seriously anyway. So how about you stop poisoning yourself, then we'll talk mkay?

      Sorry, I have only smoked a total of 4 cigarettes in my life. I kinda liked the last one, and so said to myself "This is your decision point". And never smoked again.

      But my comments were not really in defense of any one substance; just pointing out that there are lots of "poisons" that have "legitimate" uses as well.

      In fact, you must not have "checked" very well. This was the third Google entry on the first results page:

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

    59. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just checked: There are NO valid medical uses for nicotine. Now, you were saying?

      Nicotine is a POISON. There is NO REASON why anyone should be voluntarily taking it into their bodies.

      Are you a smoker, defending your nicotine addiction? I think it likely, and if so then I can't take your arguments seriously anyway. So how about you stop poisoning yourself, then we'll talk mkay?

      Nicotine has been proven to improve symptoms in people with schizophrenia.

    60. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      Tobacco companies don't want to harm ecigarettes because they cut into their profit. They produce ecigarettes and want to ladle on expensive regulations so only they can afford to produce them, and take the profits themselves.

      This

      That's the story behind all those phony commercials. Mom 'n pop e-cig people are already going out of business while the tobacco cartel just sits and waits for politicians to screw the whole biz. At which point they're the only ones left.

      And, yes, the tobacco companies DO produce the shittiest devices out there.

    61. Re: Wow. Just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicotine, alcohol and MDMA

      No medical use but I enjoy them all once every year or so

    62. Re:Wow. Just WOW! by Luthair · · Score: 1

      No shit, it was a joke.

  2. Incomplete data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lifestyle data is never included in these studies. I have been vaping for about four years, having smoked for 25. I live clean, though, and I was told I had the resting heart rate of a professional athlete (which I am not, though I am very fit) at my last checkup. Big grain of salt.

    1. Re: Incomplete data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every studied statistics ?

    2. Re:Incomplete data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Trump faggots think about this shit all day while waiting for prison lol.

    3. Re:Incomplete data by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      Why do you think dildo sales are breaking records in blue states?

      *Citation needed*

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    4. Re: Incomplete data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *ever

    5. Re:Incomplete data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did they add the political views part? I know plenty of right wingers like that

    6. Re:Incomplete data by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Here it is:

      Agreed. Russians are subsidizing dildo manufacturers to sell dildos at far below manufacturing cost for the sole purpose of flooding the American markets with many dildos. Metrosexuals are occupied putting on make-up and stuffing themselves full of dildos. The rest of the population listens to KGB-installed DONALD TRUMP telling lies about how great America is.

      Don't know why I had to cite the GP again for you but here goes :)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    7. Re:Incomplete data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a buff metrosexual gay man who owns a condo and "lifts" twice a week and then to the bars to find you younger mate for the evening? You like the "top" position but are "versatile" and willing to please your young man with a little "bottom" action?

      Hmmm.

      You appear to be very familiar with both the lifestyle and terminology used in "gay culture".

      Topic of interest for you?

  3. Newsflash by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consuming a stimulant causes stimulant effects.

    1. Re:Newsflash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real driver here is that people moving to vaping has greatly reduced the tobacco sin-tax money that has been going to anti-smoking groups.

      They are desperately trying to tie vaping to smoking, even though every legitimate study indicates that vaping reduces toxic effects by about 97%

      This is just fear mongering bullshit intended to line some buggy-whip make'rs pockets

    2. Re:Newsflash by Megol · · Score: 0

      Especially when the stimulant is a well know, well documented toxin that evolved as a toxin to defend plants (so not toxic as a side-effect).

      The blurb mentions people believing nicotine being harmless... Why mention idiots without critical thinking and knowledge? They surely are there just as there are those that thinks fluoridated water is a communist conspiracy but what do they have to do with anything connected to the real world? Just ignore them.

    3. Re:Newsflash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing is that low doses of nicotine like those in nicotine gum are considered safe... why should it suddenly be considered dangerous when vaping?

      This is just more cherry picking to expand the sin-tax, and is entirely counter productive when it has been demonstrated that vaping is both vastly safer than smoking and leads to quitting smoking

    4. Re:Newsflash by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Caffeine is also a toxin produced by plants to kill insects.

    5. Re:Newsflash by Megol · · Score: 1

      So? I hope you realize that I never claimed otherwise? The dangers are (for most people) minor to non-existent while nicotine is dangerous for everyone.

  4. A biological marker by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is an indicator of a state or situation. For example c-reactive protein (one of the substances mentioned in the paper) is a marker of inflammation. It's actual function is to signal the immune system to clear out dead cells (both our own and bacterial).

    Ischemic heart disease is an inflammatory disease; therefore if you are developing ischemic heart disease, you will find high levels of inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein.

    However it seems to me it's a bit of a logical leap to do something which transiently increases inflammatory markers and then assume that means the subject's chances of getting a specific inflammatory disease are increased. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the paper.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:A biological marker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the British officers from this Monty Python the Meaning of Life skit:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYC47DYLq2I

    2. Re:A biological marker by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      However it seems to me it's a bit of a logical leap to do something which transiently increases inflammatory markers and then assume that means the subject's chances of getting a specific inflammatory disease are increased. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the paper.

      You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?

      Niacin (Nicotinic Acid). A/K/A VITAMIN B3.

      https://articles.mercola.com/s...

      You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?

      Nitric Oxide. A/K/A "Molecule of the Year" in 1992, and responsible for a Nobel Prize in 1998, for its discovery as an essential ingredient in dozens of life-processes in the body.

      http://circ.ahajournals.org/co...

      You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?

      Orgams.

      'Nuff said!

  5. Unbiased Medical Research? by kugeln · · Score: 1

    Every time another one of these "studies" comes out, I wonder how long it will be before an actual scientific study uncovers something of consequence. Cure for cancer, third arm, vaccine for the common cold?

    I'm surprised there haven't been some new studies showing that marijuana causes a relaxed mood, reduces stress, and helps people with high blood pressure.

    1. Re:Unbiased Medical Research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, most "studies" like this are just makework to help teach college kids how (not) to do studies.

  6. Markers eh? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the markers was increased adrenaline. As in the stuff that helps athletes perform their best. So no ecigs, no exercise, got it.

    But as for the rest, some people who would otherwise keep smoking will use ecigs instead. Some who would start smoking will use ecigs instead. That's bad how?

    As for helping you quit, ecigs helped me quit. After a number of years vaping, I found that I just wasn't interested in the nicotine anymore. No drama, no nail biting, no eating the entire refrigerator, nothing. Just no more interest in nicotine.

    That's the part that really hacks them off, I sinned by smoking and they want to see some serious suffering as penance.

    1. Re:Markers eh? by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's the part that really hacks them off, I sinned by smoking and they want to see some serious suffering as penance.

      A former smoker thanks to vaping here as well.

      Not only that, but it hurts the bottom-lines of Big Tobacco and the healthcare industry, and thus the amount of money politicians receive from BT's & HCI's PACs and lobbyists, as well as reducing State and Federal tobacco-tax receipts.

      Culturally it also reduces the number of people that it's socially-acceptable to discriminate against, harass, shame, threaten, intimidate, segregate, and generally persecute.

      "The Spice^W^W^W^W^WTobacco must flow!"

      These are simply the tobacco and healthcare "Guild Navigators'" representatives telling the politicians that they'll live out their days in a pain-amplifier if the flow is threatened, and those politician's attempts to send in the cultural Harkonnens and Imperial Sardaukar.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re: Markers eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frank Herbert knew his politics.

    3. Re:Markers eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Posting Anonymously due to moderating this thread:

      Some who would start smoking will use ecigs instead. That's bad how?

      As for helping you quit, ecigs helped me quit. After a number of years vaping, I found that I just wasn't interested in the nicotine anymore. No drama, no nail biting, no eating the entire refrigerator, nothing. Just no more interest in nicotine.

      While you are one of the (rare) "success stories" of people being able to quit using e-cigs, there are much larger issues at stake. E-cigs are being promoted as a safe alternative to tobacco (quoted from article true link here) and were not designed to help people quit, just channel their addiction/dependence onto a new (probably) more profitable platform, that may be slightly more socially acceptable:

      "As tobacco usage declined over time in the United States, industries introduced an alternative known as electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) claiming they were a healthier alternative to tobacco smoking.3

      Since then, the number of e-cigarette users has increased significantly because of the perception that they serve as a healthy substitute to tobacco consumption with minimal or no harm, a lack of usage regulations (although that has now changed), and the appealing nature of these devices, among other reasons."

      And it goes on to state that the these products are increasingly used by teenagers:

      "Consequently, e-cigarettes became the most commonly used smoking products, especially among youth, with more than a 9-fold increase in usage from 2011 to 2015.5"

      The purposed of this article was to illustrate that these products are not benign as most users believe.

      That's the part that really hacks them off, I sinned by smoking and they want to see some serious suffering as penance.

      No, they are not out to punish anyone, rather they are trying to dispel incorrect claims from a formerly unregulated industry. Please be happy that someone is actually studying the effects so that we can make informed decisions instead of relying on industry propaganda.

      Link for the second article referenced here

    4. Re:Markers eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the reverse experience. I tried vaping for about a year but gave it up because the technology and hardware sucks, but came out the other end of it twice as addicted to nicotine. I now smoke about twice as many cigarettes as I did before vaping. (Went from a half pack a day to close to a pack a day, and I am really feeling the difference.)

      Hopefully cannabis will be legalised here soon. As when I have access to good weed I smoke way less cigarettes. When I have weed I can make a pack of cigarettes last 3-4 days.

    5. Re:Markers eh? by Shemmie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Another former smoker. 20 a day.

      I now vape with nicotine.

      I believe vaping to be worse than "nothing at all". We're ingesting chemicals in ways that aren't exactly natural. But I also believe it's orders of magnitude "better" than smoking. I hope there's more research done into nicotine, as I believe it's also been linked with neurological benefits; there's clearly a great deal we still don't know about the drug. I expect some of it to be good, and some of it to be bad, simply because nicotine has been used for a relatively long time now - and while we've established issues with the way people consume the drug (producing tar), the drug itself seems to have been harder to nail down.

      Personally, as a complete layman, I do believe there's a link between inflammation and nicotine. There is some kind of link between my psoriasis (inflammation), nicotine, obesity and cardiovascular disease. Some of it we know; some of it we're still piecing together. Psoriasis has been linked with inflammatory heart disease https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news... , obesity is obviously linked with heart disease - there's talk about smoking (or nicotine, the research seems to be a WIP here) impacting psoriasis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      As for the cause and effect; who knows? That's why this research is important, imho. But as others have warned - it needs cool heads. There 'are' sections determined to treat nicotine as a holy war. I can understand that; I've lost two family members to smoking related illnesses, with a third at the chronic stage of her illness.

      But if vaping helps smokers, and improves their health (relative to smoking) - great. It expect it has its own complications - but I remain confident, at this point, that there are less complications than from smoking.

    6. Re:Markers eh? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's an e-cig attack study. E-cigarettes cause increases in fatalities and negative health consequences (compared to not smoking). That's what they want you to think about: e-cigarettes hurt you.

      You should switch from smoking to e-cigarette death pumps that will increase your rate of heart disease.

      See it?

      They didn't compare to cigarettes.

    7. Re:Markers eh? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      We're ingesting chemicals in ways that aren't exactly natural.

      Actually, you're either ingesting a non-toxic natural glycerin vapor or an even-less-toxic synthetic polyethylglycol, plus a natural toxic alkaloid. It wouldn't be much more toxic if you ate it; for that matter, if the plant is wet, don't touch it.

      Nicotine will fuck you up. Also, try ingesting a ton of ephedra--you'll get chest pains and die, thanks to a toxic alkaloid called Ephedrine, which is methamphetamine with an extra oxygen atom at the beta bind site (it's got a hydroxide there instead of a hydrogen). I guess that would be n-methyl-alpha-methyl-beta-hydroxy-phenyl-ethyl-amine.

    8. Re:Markers eh? by sjames · · Score: 1

      You should read better articles. For example, you seem to be imagining some "industry" made up of humongous multi-nationals. In fact, until rj reynolds jumped in the game years late most e-cigs were made and sold by small to medium sized businesses (and very early in the game, in people's living rooms one at a time). They did so primarily on the not at all unlikely assumption that not inhaling particulates, carbon monoxide, and tar was probably better.

      Most of the youth are using non-nicotine liquids. Probably mostly to look cool. You look just as cool with 0 nic juices. Would you prefer they choose cigarettes?

      As for the study, it's conclusions are about as scientific as the witch trial in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". It's along the lines of kids who jump rope occasionally skin their knees, not unlike people who crash their motorcycles, therefor skipping rope is fully as dangerous as crashing a motorcycle. AND WE LET KIDS DO IT!

      The knee scabs are a "marker" but their significance has yet to be determined, so it's useless to talk about risk based on their presence.

    9. Re:Markers eh? by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

      More power to you per the cannabis, but I just have a very hard time imagining any smoke of any kind being "harmless" going into a set of lungs.

      --
      Caution: Contents under pressure
    10. Re:Markers eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Industry" that is pushing the anti-vaping line or anti-smoking activists who have seen their sin-tax dolalrs from tobacco sales diminish rapidly.

      They want to put a sin-tax on vaping, just to put cash in their pocksts

    11. Re:Markers eh? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      We're ingesting chemicals in ways that aren't exactly natural.

      Actually, you're either ingesting a non-toxic natural glycerin vapor or an even-less-toxic synthetic polyethylglycol, plus a natural toxic alkaloid. It wouldn't be much more toxic if you ate it; for that matter, if the plant is wet, don't touch it.

      Nicotine will fuck you up. Also, try ingesting a ton of ephedra--you'll get chest pains and die, thanks to a toxic alkaloid called Ephedrine, which is methamphetamine with an extra oxygen atom at the beta bind site (it's got a hydroxide there instead of a hydrogen). I guess that would be n-methyl-alpha-methyl-beta-hydroxy-phenyl-ethyl-amine.

      So, backing up to the top of your comment, you are saying that the scary-sounding "glycerin vapor", and even more scary-sounding polyethylglycol, which sounds like Anti-Freeze, are actually entirely innocuous when converted to vapor and inhaled. Repeatedly?

      Seriously, that's the real thing I worry about with vaping tobacco "juice". And obviously you have some knowledge of the chemistry involved; so I'd like you to weigh-in on my question, thanks!

    12. Re:Markers eh? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      So, backing up to the top of your comment, you are saying that the scary-sounding "glycerin vapor", and even more scary-sounding polyethylglycol, which sounds like Anti-Freeze, are actually entirely innocuous when converted to vapor and inhaled. Repeatedly?

      Compared to tobacco smoke, I'd say yes.

      I'd also venture it's healthier than breathing the air on a sidewalk in Manhattan.

      Would you prefer people died of smoking-related diseases and inflict second hand smoke on others, rather than risking as-yet-not totally-understood risks from vaping?

      Nothing is perfect, everything comes with trade-offs and compromises. Choose your poison.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    13. Re:Markers eh? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Glycerin and Propylene Glycol (my mistake), and yes. Glycerin is basically carbohydrate and won't damage your lungs any more than water (there's water vapor in the air; if you fill your lungs with water, you'll damage them). PG is toxic if you chug large amounts of it, I think? It's pretty tame.

      Remember people can pop 2mg of Amphetamine and be awake; they can take 2g of Amphetamine and be dead. They can take 2mcg Amphetamine and have no biological response. Similarly, Tylenol metabolizes via three different enzymes, one of which produces an extremely toxic compound--which doesn't do anything harmful until you exceed your liver's capacity to clear it out, at which point you suddenly experience liver failure.

      You don't take much PG in from vaporizers.

    14. Re:Markers eh? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's polypropylene glycol. It's also used in fog machines and sometimes atomized to help control germs. They're looking in to using it in hospitals in the U.K. so I would imagine it's pretty harmless. It's also a carrier in some inhalers.

    15. Re:Markers eh? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      So, backing up to the top of your comment, you are saying that the scary-sounding "glycerin vapor", and even more scary-sounding polyethylglycol, which sounds like Anti-Freeze, are actually entirely innocuous when converted to vapor and inhaled. Repeatedly?

      Compared to tobacco smoke, I'd say yes.

      I'd also venture it's healthier than breathing the air on a sidewalk in Manhattan.

      Would you prefer people died of smoking-related diseases and inflict second hand smoke on others, rather than risking as-yet-not totally-understood risks from vaping?

      Nothing is perfect, everything comes with trade-offs and compromises. Choose your poison.

      Strat

      I was actually directing my question to bluefoxlucid, who seemed to have the chemistry-knowledge to answer it.

      I was not intending it as a challenge as to whether vaping is safer than cigarette smoking; of COURSE it iS!

      But, I have wondered about the other stuff in the vape solution, other than the nicotine; how safe it was, period, rather than how safe it is relative to tobacco smoke.

    16. Re:Markers eh? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Glycerin and Propylene Glycol (my mistake), and yes. Glycerin is basically carbohydrate and won't damage your lungs any more than water (there's water vapor in the air; if you fill your lungs with water, you'll damage them). PG is toxic if you chug large amounts of it, I think? It's pretty tame.

      Remember people can pop 2mg of Amphetamine and be awake; they can take 2g of Amphetamine and be dead. They can take 2mcg Amphetamine and have no biological response. Similarly, Tylenol metabolizes via three different enzymes, one of which produces an extremely toxic compound--which doesn't do anything harmful until you exceed your liver's capacity to clear it out, at which point you suddenly experience liver failure.

      You don't take much PG in from vaporizers.

      Thanks muchly for the clarification!

    17. Re:Markers eh? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's polypropylene glycol. It's also used in fog machines and sometimes atomized to help control germs. They're looking in to using it in hospitals in the U.K. so I would imagine it's pretty harmless. It's also a carrier in some inhalers.

      It's probably too big of a molecule to get in through inhalation.

      Good to know, thanks!

  7. "duh" by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >" Middlekauff brought 33 healthy non-smokers and non-vapers into the lab. On three different days, one month apart, the participants [...] and found that the participants had high levels of adrenaline in their hearts after they smoked the e-cig with nicotine"

    Seriously? This is supposed to be impressive, useful science or something? So people who don't use nicotine consumed it and had typical, known, short-term heart rate changes after using that stimulant? And since none had any tolerance, the reaction was probably strong, right?

    Now repeat that experiment with people who don't use caffeine and have them consume that stimulant instead and measure heart rates and heart adrenaline levels. Wow, what a coincidence!

    1. Re:"duh" by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I think that summarizes it. A low budget sample points at trivial effects and these are equated with the effects of smoking, which is ridiculous. Smoking has very serious health effects. There is no strong indication that the nicotine bit in smoking is significantly involved in these health effects. Even if there are health effects you have to look at the 'size' of the effects. If they're an order of magnitude lower then they should be treated differently and not used as an argument to say that vaping and smoking are more or less the same thing.

    2. Re:"duh" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that if you put nicotine in your soda it becomes toxic and can kill you even from the amount in a pack or two of cigs. Or that it's cripplingly physically addictive, with withdrawal side effects lasting several orders of magnitude longer than those of caffeine.

    3. Re:"duh" by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's useful science. It identifies nicotine as the cause and shows that the flavorings and solvents did not cause it. Is nicotine the obvious choice for the culprit? Sure. That doesn't mean we should say we're done and ignore the possibility that the other ingredients are a factor as well.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    4. Re:"duh" by Megol · · Score: 1

      Science isn't about being impressive - just about doing science. And this seems to be a limited study that shows some things that perhaps seem obvious.

      But showing that those "obvious" things are real is also doing science! Because believing things without backup is being anti-scientific.

      This study does more than you imply in your post, maybe you should understand what it is about before complaining about it? But there are of course things that complain about - especially that the sample size being so small.

    5. Re:"duh" by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Don't forget that if you put nicotine in your soda it becomes toxic and can kill you even from the amount in a pack or two of cigs."

      I wasn't comparing toxicity, but if you were to consume 20-40 energy drinks at once (the equivalent of your example), you would probably also die from caffeine overdose (of course, you might also have issues with overload of liquid and also sugars, but I was ignoring that for the moment).

  8. Uhhh, living another day does that too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatyagoddado? do it! do it! do it! with stained class!

  9. perhaps by NormanHaga2580 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, just perhaps, they should do this study with heart attack patients. Why?

    My story:
    I smoked for close to fourty years, around two packs of Camel studs per day. I had tried to quit smoking for ten years prior to my first heart attack. I had been through it all, the Chantix, the Wellbutrin, smokers groups, the nicotine patches, the medically approved nicotine inhalers, you name it. They all failed.

    Five years ago I had a widow maker. the statistics for survival after one year is about 10 percent. I still smoked cigarettes. A little over a year later I had a second widow maker. The odds of surviving a year became about 5 percent.

    After the second heart attack I switched to a quality E-Cig. Prior to the first e-cig, I tried a cheap e-cig and it failed to do anything because it could not create the sensation of a cigarette. However, the quality e-cig, did create the sensation of smoking a cigarette. I completely quit using tobacco cigarettes. I am now four years past the second heart attack. Yes I have some heart damage from the heart attacks. A normal person, one that has had no heart attack and is reasonably fit has an ejection fraction of between 50 and 70 percent; mine is 47 percent. one of the interior walls of my heart has damage that can be read with ultrasound and nuclear stress tests. But I came out of both heart attacks remarkably well. two months ago, my cardiologist took me off of the critical list and only wants to see me once per year instead of every three months that had been the norm for the last three years.

    I do not exercise except in the winter when I am dormant. I run a business in Lawn care and walk about four miles per day for greater than ten miles per day on a normal day. Sometimes more.

    I do not show the markers for heart attack that this study speaks of. I know the test well, it is a blood draw. While I forget the name of the marker, or the test, it is the same test.

    Having given my story, I would like to see this study repeated on heart attack patients. That is where the pedal meet the metal, not on healthy people. My experience is that in existing smokers, the risk of using an e-cig is less than using tobacco.

    1. Re:perhaps by NormanHaga2580 · · Score: 0

      Err... I boobooed and have not found a way to edit. Where I wrote
      "walk about four miles per day for greater than ten miles per day on a normal day."
      I meant four miles per hour for greater than ten miles per day.

  10. So just nicotine research then by Titanek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the broadside to vaping? Surely this study extends to nicotine gum, nicotine patches, and nicotine sprays as well.

    1. Re:So just nicotine research then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The study studied administration of nicotine through the lungs, it can only reliably say things about that. Nicotine was previously suspected to have some effects specific to lung tissue, so generalizing the result from this study to other ways of using nicotine could lead to incorrect results.

    2. Re:So just nicotine research then by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Possibly to create the association between vaping and death, so that you don't go changing from cigarettes to vaporizers.

    3. Re:So just nicotine research then by Megol · · Score: 1

      And possibly because a study for a certain way to use nicotine can't really tell about other ways to do that.

    4. Re:So just nicotine research then by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That doesn't tell us why this was headlined this way. We also already know how toxic nicotine is; it's not less-toxic in this use.

  11. incorrect conclusion by Threni · · Score: 1

    "E-Cigarettes With Nicotine Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease, Says Study"

    later

    "It also only shows that vaping affects the markers that are known risk factors, it doesnâ(TM)t show that vaping is connected to actual heart disease"

    Seems like either the study, or just the headline, is worthless.

    1. Re:incorrect conclusion by squash_me_quickly · · Score: 1

      no... the headline probably states two true statements:
      1: Nicotine increases the risk of heart disease
      2: The vaping product, I'm assuming that there are versions without nicotine, does not increase the risk of heart disease

    2. Re:incorrect conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, this study only shows that it increases the markers associated with an increased risk of heart disease in smokers. It doesn't tell us any more than that. Given that the headline isn't true, though it could be fixed simply by adding the word "may" between "nicotine" and "increase".

      We really need a long term study to reliably inform us if they do actually increase the risk of heart disease.

  12. Anti ecig people are stupid by rossz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Compare ecigs to tobacco when looking at the health issue since the overwhelming majority of ecig users are former smokers.

    The anti-smoking people are becoming irrelevant, which worries them. So they chose ecigs as their new target. There is a push to ban ecigs in all places that tobacco smoking is banned. That would include my own apartment where smoking is banned on the entire property. If this stupid law gets passed, I'll have to walk outside and off the property to the street to vape. I might as well light up a real cigarette if I'm going through that much trouble.

    "It's the smell!" It's odorless, you moron, unless I get a flavored kind, then it will smell like vanilla or berries. That shit you cooked for dinner last night for dinner was far more offensive.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:Anti ecig people are stupid by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I think you might just have identified whose money is behind the anti-vape push...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Anti ecig people are stupid by itsdapead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Compare ecigs to tobacco when looking at the health issue since the overwhelming majority of ecig users are former smokers.

      At the moment.

      The trouble is, two different questions are getting conflated here: (1) Are e-cigs safe? and (2) Are e-cigs safer than tobacco? The latter is pretty much a no brainer - and e-cigs are clearly great for people trying to quit smoking.

      However, claims for safety in absolute terms seem to rely a lot on an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" mentality. If e-cigs are touted as "harmless fun" rather than "a good way to quit" then, increasingly, non-smokers and, ex-smokers who have successfully quit are going to take it up, and existing vapers are going to vape more freely than they used to smoke. In 20 years time we'll find what continually inhaling glycol and assorted flavourings does to lungs, let alone what ever-increasing doses of nicotine does to you if lung cancer doesn't get you first.

      That shit you cooked for dinner last night for dinner was far more offensive.

      Yes, well, the increasing number of people who turn up to work with tupperware containers full of stinky food that they proceed to microwave in the office kitchen (previously reserved for cups of tea and the occasional celebratory cake) until the whole corridor is filled with the miasma from 57 varieties of re-heated leftovers are on my shit list too :-)

      BTW - what do you think happens to all that glycol, glycerine and flavouring (which you might not use but plenty of other vapers do) after you breathe it out in a confined space (esp. in a bar with 30 other people doing the same)? The fact that the "smoke" disappears rapidly just means that the droplets have got too small to see. When you're banned from smoking in your own, freehold, detached, single-occupancy house, then maybe I'll side with you - in the meantime, if you want to vaporize chemicals, fuck off outside where others don't have to breathe the results. If you're addicted to nicotine you'll rationalise any sort of antisocial behaviour to satisfy your craving, which is why we need laws.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    3. Re:Anti ecig people are stupid by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

      I'm a cyclist and want cars banned because they produce carbon dioxide, carcinogens, and rapid acceleration of my body when they hit me.

      I'm sorry - why should I have to put up with you driving? It's offensive and serves me not. The world is all about me, and if I don't want to breath your tailpipe fumes, I shouldn't have to.

      Tell me why you should get your way, but I shouldn't get mine.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    4. Re:Anti ecig people are stupid by clonehappy · · Score: 0

      When is it ever not leftists trying to control what people put into their bodies under the guise that "it's for their own good".

      At least when religious nutjob types rail against drugs and drink, they have a belief in their heart that they're trying to save you from some kind of hell. The leftists just like to control behavior, and you'd better do what they say or they'll kill you, not the smokes.

    5. Re:Anti ecig people are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carbon monoxide is also odorless, so you won't mind if I start pumping significant amounts of it into the air that you're breathing, right?

    6. Re:Anti ecig people are stupid by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      I'm a cyclist and want cars banned because they produce carbon dioxide, carcinogens, and rapid acceleration of my body when they hit me.

      Good idea. Looking forward to the day when I can call up a self-driving electric Johnny Cab and get around without needing to grow eyes in the back of my head to spot death-wish cyclists and smartphone zombies throwing themselves under my wheels. However, governments are already intervening on that subject: running down cyclists without a really, really good excuse is already illegal where I live, and several countries have already announced the date for when they plan to ban sales of non-electric cars, so I'm not sure what your point is.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    7. Re:Anti ecig people are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no, you're the moron here. I work around PEG every day and it does have a sickly sweet stank to it. I know every time one of the teens vape at my house within minutes. Your vanilla or berries (fag) cover that up about as well as a dollar store can of air freshener over last night's taco shits. Mmmm vanilla shit, my favorite.

    8. Re:Anti ecig people are stupid by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The only ones really benefiting (for actual reasons, non-controlfreak-ish ones) from a vape-ban is the tobacco industry.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Anti ecig people are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only ones really benefiting (for actual reasons, non-controlfreak-ish ones) from a vape-ban is the tobacco industry.

      and the pharmaceutical industry, since they make money off of nicotine-replacement therapies.

    10. Re:Anti ecig people are stupid by rossz · · Score: 1

      You are in more danger from the exhaust from your own car than from second hand vaping.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
  13. The key to solution of hundreds of modern first wo by mapkinase · · Score: 0

    ...world problems is to hang all liberals.

    Liberals are the reason why thousands of people are killed in car accidents, because driving is now considered a de facto liberty instead of a privilege.

    Liberals are the reason why poison is still being sold in US after a momentary lapse of insanity in the 20s.

    Liberals are the reason why yet another poison is being "legalized".

    And liberals are the reason why tobacco megacorporations are still able to peddle the "smokes", that piece of shit poison for your lungs that makes millions of people die a horrendous slow death every year.

    American needs a hundred years of law that will prohibit the word "liberty" itself.

    The key to solution of hundreds of modern first world problems is to hang all liberals.

    I hope to live to that day.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  14. "and a sham e-cig that was empty." by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

    wowowowowow waaait a minute: are you telling me they tried to avert false positive adrenaline spikes with a placebo, "empty" e-cig? And how exactly is anyone going to feel any sort of high, even if only psychological, if no combustion, vapor or evaporation exists and no different density, temperature and humidity mixture is felt on the airways?

    Now, I'll be honest, I'm taking it out of the summary on this post, and I know the article will probably paint it much more professionally, but I doubt they can justify why that third scenario would have counted for anything relevant, and probably won't even convince me either that there is any reason a scientist would think otherwise. Unless they don't know the least thing about e-cig usage, which I have a big feeling about.

    1. Re:"and a sham e-cig that was empty." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a better idea for a placebo for this study? Given that the people who had the non-nicotine e-cigs didn't show any effects it probably wasn't necessary, but they didn't know that would be the case before starting this study.

  15. breaking news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    living increases your chance of dying 100%

  16. Non smokers .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New study shows non-smokers riding a smokers ass about smoking can increase the risk of non-smokers getting the shit beaten out of them.

  17. And E-sigs increase... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they increase your chance of being laughed at by ginormous factor.

  18. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *faggots

  19. Re:The key to solution of hundreds of modern first by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Vote trump again and you just might get the dystopian dictatorship that you seem to want so bad.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  20. Adrenaline is good by physburn · · Score: 1

    This is why smokers are thinner. No tar, and all the adrenaline of cigarette. I call it a plus.

  21. Re:The key to solution of hundreds of modern first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Might also be able to retire one day. Unemployment's down, GDP is up, the stock market is doing glorious after eight years of okiedokie.

    Bring on the utopia.

  22. Well that's useless by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    > Even after puffing on just one electronic cigarette with nicotine, healthy non-smokers were found to have a biological marker known to increase the risk of heart disease in tobacco users

    Yeah, but is it more or less than one cigarette?

  23. Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody says nicotine is harmless ffs.

  24. PEG, PPG, and others? by scubamage · · Score: 1

    So, I also wonder if any focus has been given to the health impacts of breathing in polyethylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, glycerin, etc. By volume, you're using far more of those than you are the nicotine. Likewise, the flavors can have any number of different ingredients that are ok for ingestion, but not necessarily for inhaling.

  25. Oh no!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My heart rate and adrenaline increases when I run. I am going to die from heart decease doing things I thought were healthy. Shit.

  26. The new recommendation to quir smoking: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A PACIFIER!

    1. Re:The new recommendation to quir smoking: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They act like faggots so a cock/dildo would probably be even better.

  27. Memo to smokers/vapers: by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    When are you people going to finally get the clue? Your habit is KILLING YOU, no matter how many end-runs around it you try. Just give it up already, and let's concentrate on putting tobacco and vape companies out of business once and for all.

    1. Re:Memo to smokers/vapers: by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Why would it be desirable to put vape companies out of business when they produce a product that can be used without any nicotine at all, and is therefore according to this study, not a risk factor for heart disease? I mean, I guess you might also have as your goal to put all alcohol, car, and soda companies out of business... but vape companies are way on the low end of harms here.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    2. Re:Memo to smokers/vapers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea: mind your own fucking business.

    3. Re:Memo to smokers/vapers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break it to you but overeating kills far, far, far more money and costs us, as a society, ridiculously more than does vaping. It's not even in the same league.

      Wanking off about the evils of vaping makes about as much sense as hand-wringing about the silence of the Tesla or Prius killing pedestrians. Sure, I'm sure there are a few deaths from it but who gives a shit compared to a myriad other things.

    4. Re:Memo to smokers/vapers: by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Come on, vaping is just another drug delivery device, always has been since the beginning, regardless of it being nicotine or something else.

    5. Re:Memo to smokers/vapers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea: stop being all falsely righteously indignated over the fact that you're a substance abuser and are just defending your addicition like all drug addicts do, and go get into rehab.

    6. Re:Memo to smokers/vapers: by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Wanking off about the evils of vaping

      Oh get real, it's a drug delivery device, always has been, and you can't defend it to anyone and expect to be taken seriously, and trying to compare it to other things is bullshit so you can knock that off too.

    7. Re:Memo to smokers/vapers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know people who vape without nicotine. Besides, why can't we take drugs if they don't harm anyone else? Do you want coffee banned next? That's just a drug delivery system for caffeine for most people.

      Also, get a fucking clue on how science works. This study tells us very little, basically it says there appears to be a link but more research is needed to confirm it. But it is a small study and mostly all you should expect from them is whether or not more research on the subject is needed.

    8. Re:Memo to smokers/vapers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's one for you. Don't make stupid assumptions. I hate cigarette smoke, and I'd love it to be banned from all public places, even public streets as it is quite unpleasant to walk behind someone who is smoking. Also second hand smoke is proven to be harmful.

      On the other hand, vape from e-cigarettes doesn't smell bad, in most cases it is quite pleasant, and some don't even smell at all. It also hasn't been proven harmful (this study certainly is sufficient to do that). I really don't care if every other person is vaping, it is a hell of a lot better than even every 10th person smoking.

      Lots of people are addicted to caffeine too, do you think they should also go into rehab?

    9. Re:Memo to smokers/vapers: by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I'm drinking coffee right now, and in fact had 200mg of caffeine anhydrous, in powder form, when I got up this morning.
      But caffeine doens't cause cancer, and there is no such thing as 'second hand caffeine', blowing around for other people to inhale.
      Your 'people you know' who don't use any drugs in their drug delivery device are outliers -- and probably lying to you, too.

      I know quite well how science works -- and I also know that smokers get cancer and other life-ending diseases, and DIE, and most of them are insufferable jackasses, much like you're being, who are addicts to their filthy habit. E-cigs aren't really that much better and still keep them addicted. YOU are probably a smoker of one sort or another, based on how riled up you're getting over my perfectly reasonable and LOGICAL assertion that smoking is a filthy and unhealthy habit and that nicotine is a POISON, plain and simple, and has no place being inserted into the human body (unless you're just self-destructive and suicidal, I guess).
      I suggest you get into a smoking cessation program before you become diseased and a burden to everyone around you. Kicking the habit will probably also make you less of a pain in the ass to deal with, too, not jonesing constantly for your poison fix.

    10. Re:Memo to smokers/vapers: by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the world is over populated in many areas. Why don't we stream-line the treatment processes (and related expense) for smoking-related illnesses and let people choose to remove themselves from the planet a few years early?!? Besides, if they don't die of smoking, it might be Alzheimers or all manner of other even more unpleasant ends. Non-smokers will get to enjoy their retirement a bit longer and smokers will remove themselves from being beneficiaries. Nanny-state tactics are an unpleasant form of fascism anyway.. If my latest memo from the thought police is current: smoking is bad, drinking is bad, but for some reason Marijuana is more socially acceptable.

  28. I just wish by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

    The American Heart Association and other reputable outfits would do studies on marijuana's impacts.

    I really have zero interest in relying upon Julio from the down the street's opinion on marijuana's impacts.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  29. Ignaz Semmelweis. by Tatarize · · Score: 1

    I am at times when looking at the data fully understanding why Ignaz Semmelweis became so irate and started writing angry letters to his fellow doctors basically calling them murderers. In his case they weren't washing their hands before surgery. But, he was categorically right. And seriously, goddamned murderers! I generally view people who whine about vaping, bringing up terrible studies like popcorn lung or whatnot as basically being murderers. They are saying things that will get people killed, and thousands more people than the antivaxxers and even the people who claim statins are evil and heart attacks are due to inflammation.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  30. You are embarrassingly wrong. by Tatarize · · Score: 2

    You are just wrong. It is categorically the fact that countries with single payer health care systems have done exactly that study suggested and found that they would get massive health benefits and health care cost reductions, and found absolutely that E-cigarettes are "95% less toxic". You then attribute this not existing, regardless of that fact that it totally does exist, to lobbying etc, which is moot because, you're wrong.

    https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-...
    NHS is the national health service in the UK. This study was from two years ago.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  31. Nicotine patches too then - FDA approval? by randallman · · Score: 1

    I'm not a smoker, but it seems to be there's been an illogical campaign against e-cigarettes, even in the "public service announcement" arena. I don't doubt that nicotine has negative health affects, but nicotine + water vapor has to be better than nicotine + 1000's of tar based substances, yet you would think they're more unhealthy than cigarettes from the anti-e-cig campaign. And where was this nicotine research when nicotine patches got FDA approval?

    1. Re:Nicotine patches too then - FDA approval? by Mordaximus · · Score: 1

      I'm not a smoker, but it seems to be there's been an illogical campaign against e-cigarettes, even in the "public service announcement" arena. I don't doubt that nicotine has negative health affects, but nicotine + water vapor has to be better than nicotine + 1000's of tar based substances, yet you would think they're more unhealthy than cigarettes from the anti-e-cig campaign. And where was this nicotine research when nicotine patches got FDA approval?

      It's not water vapor, and it's dangerous to assume that's all it is.

  32. meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been vaping since before the cloud chasing posers took over, probably around 10 years. Before that I smoked for about 10 years (started in college). Its a night and day difference. I'm in the best shape of my life right now, workout every day (weight lifting and light cardio). Yes, I'm still addicted to nicotine (I make my own 'juice') but it doesn't cause me any worry, unlike every time I lit up an analog for 9 of those 10 years. My blood pressure is great, my heart is great, my lungs are great.

    Is it possible that I'm causing myself SOME harm? of course, but I GUARANTEE you IF I am, its not even a fraction of what I was causing unto myself with the analogs.

    The whole heart damage thing is an extrapolation. Yes, nicotine causes elevated adrenaline, which itself can put 'extra' stress on the heart, much like analogs that have nicotine in them, and hence one can claim ecigs have "biological markers like tobacco"!. Next they're going to correlate working out (and its adrenaline boosts) with biological markers of tobacco...

    The adrenaline boost is one you'd even notice on anything other than a 'benchmark'. This is akin to saying water consumption is dangerous because drinking 10 gallons (or however many) in a sitting could kill you.

    Yes, nicotine in high concentrations will kill you, so will probably eating a bottle ibuprofen, hell, so can half the crap that a doctor can prescribe you in APPROVED dosages that has been FDA approved. Nobody's regulating water consumption, or ibuprofen consumption, or alcohol consumption (other than must be 18 to drink like a fish), fat consumption, carbohydrate consumption, etc., etc.,

    I think people are missing the trees for the forest here.

  33. Re:The key to solution of hundreds of modern first by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Why would I vote for Trump? Trump is nobody. _Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften_

    He does not have any ideology whatsoever in his orange stupid head.

    You are on the other hand, a presumptious brainless moron.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  34. Re:The key to solution of hundreds of modern first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Trump hasn't had enough time to make a real difference to any of that. So, if you like it, don't forget to thank Obama. ;)