Slashdot Mirror


Vaping Can Damage Vital Immune System Cells, Researchers Find (bbc.co.uk)

Vaping can damage vital immune system cells and may be more harmful than previously thought, a study suggests. Researchers found e-cigarette vapour disabled important immune cells in the lung and boosted inflammation. From a report: The researchers "caution against the widely held opinion that e-cigarettes are safe." However, Public Health England advises they are much less harmful than smoking and people should not hesitate to use them as an aid to giving up cigarettes. The small experimental study, led by Prof David Thickett, at the University of Birmingham, is published online in the journal Thorax. Previous studies have focused on the chemical composition of e-cigarette liquid before it is vaped. In this study, the researchers devised a mechanical procedure to mimic vaping in the laboratory, using lung tissue samples provided by eight non-smokers. They found vapour caused inflammation and impaired the activity of alveolar macrophages, cells that remove potentially damaging dust particles, bacteria and allergens.

64 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Cmon life by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

    Give us a damn break

    1. Re: Cmon life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure smoke does the same thing. It is also hot and contains contaminants.

      When will the media learn that "safer than smoking" is not saying it is completely safe and stop conflating the two?

    2. Re:Cmon life by hwihyw · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Life Rule 1) Everything good for you is unpleasurable, everything bad for you is pleasurable.
      Life Rule 2) See rule 1.

    3. Re:Cmon life by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

      Counterpoint: Cucumber and avocado salad with Italian dressing.

    4. Re:Cmon life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Crunchy water, slimy fruit and sugary vinegar. Rule 1 then?

    5. Re: Cmon life by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Informative

      A lot of vapors seem to think it's "completely safe", and the ways that it isn't completely safe are not understood.

      I never assumed it was, and tell people it's a lot safer. I assume that inhaling 400 (f) air is likely to cause subtle harm. I'm also not certain that a coating of oily solvent type stuff is good for the lungs.

      Still, I smell better, save massive amounts of money, am likely healthier, and have cut my nicotine consumption by about 90%, I assume I'll be quit in a few more months and save even more money.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re: Cmon life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The most dangerous thing about vaping is that it has destroyed the funding for anti-smoking groups by reducing their revenues from tobacco sin-taxes by Tens of Billions of Dollars.

      That is the primary reason that we are seeing those same groups going after vaping, it is all about self-preservation

    7. Re:Cmon life by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Vaping is still dramatically, dramatically better than smoking. If you have to choose between those two, then choose vaping every time. Even the summary itself says:

      Public Health England advises they are much less harmful than smoking

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Cmon life by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      If you're putting sugar in your Italian dressing, you're doing it wrong.

    9. Re: Cmon life by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      That's my plan.

      I'm not sure it will work entirely.

      Smoking definitely had a couple of components to the addiction, nicotine probably being about middle in them.

      Vaping has broken the connection of nicotine to smoking, but I still crave smokes every now and again. Vaping covers the triggered cravings, but not the social ones.

      I'm down from a pack a day to a pack a week though

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    10. Re:Cmon life by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      I can attest that since I switched back to a dry herb vaporizer, my weed supply has been lasting much longer. I think it has already saved me at least 1 $100 ounce from the nearest dispensary.

      I still enjoy smoking a bowl occasionally of course, but I mostly vape it. Just holding out until my plant I have growing out in the back yard buds...

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    11. Re: Cmon life by thepigwanker · · Score: 1

      This was my experience as well. I had to abstain from coffee and alcohol entirely for six months before I could break the routine/habit. (I was compelled to quit due to high blood pressure, so that was also a factor in my decision/approach.) Nine months nicotine-free now.

    12. Re: Cmon life by jvanber · · Score: 1

      I've heard that for a lot of long-time smokers. My mother says that even after 30 years, she has an intense craving for a cigarette when she sips her first morning-coffee.

    13. Re: Cmon life by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      There is no way I could go six months without coffee and alcohol.

      Well done!

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    14. Re: Cmon life by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Driving is my biggest.

      I consider there to be 2 types of cravings.

      Social, and triggered.

      The social ones I need to willpower (vaping does nothing for them), but the strong ones are well helped by a good vape.

      Coffee, and driving are my 2 major triggers. As is a need for a 10 minute break at work.

      I used to chain on my way to work, 2-3 on a 15 minute drive.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  2. Nicotine was prove not to damage lungs.. by snapsnap · · Score: 2

    so is this the fault of PG in the liquid?

    1. Re:Nicotine was prove not to damage lungs.. by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      so is this the fault of PG in the liquid?

      Likely from running their test vaping rig at extremes of coil temperature, wattage, and draw-times that no normal person would normally experience. I suspect that most of these types of studies look at the specs for a given device such as "coil wattage 30 to 65 watts, maximum recommended draw time 5 seconds" (which nobody would do as it would be horrible) and set their test rig for 65 watts at 5 seconds.

      Vaping is not good for anyone. I wouldn't advise anyone take it up that is not a tobacco smoker. However if you are a tobacco smoker I highly recommend switching to vaping as it helped me become tobacco free and I feel so much better that there aren't sufficient words. I thought my doctor was going to do cartwheels as well over the improvements to my overall health that switching brought.

      The biggest problem with vaping is that it hurts the cash flow of Big Tobacco, government, medical equipment, makers/sellers, the healthcare system, and medical insurance companies and all the political lobbyists that all of them employ.

      Follow the money. If the study is/was associated with or funded by anyone in that list above, the conclusions it makes are suspect before reading the first sentence

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  3. oh did they? by Kwirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What vaping devices did they test? What materials were the coils built of? What type of cotton was used? Was it a VG or PG mix? I mean I realize that they ran these tests for 48 whole hours, but really, who pays for this garbage to get published? a 48 hour research study is about as reliable as using flatulence to measure climate change.

    1. Re:oh did they? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      +1 insightful

      And what temperature? And what it temperature controlled or just "dumb." I am no expert in that field, but it seems with just preliminary researching that there are probably many, many factors involved. Coming to any conclusion will require knowing those factors and how they interplay and holding them constant for many different tests.

    2. Re:oh did they? by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      Who cares? I'd say that vaping is obviously NOT better than just breathing clean air. But as far as nicotine delivery systems go, it's certainly healthier than cigarettes and way more fun than gum or patches or whatever. But I have to say that vaping, as a nicotine delivery system, has actually been helping me lose weight by providing me with a sugar-free way to enjoy a sweet flavored treat and suppressing my appetite.

      My own health has been far more impacted by the ready availability of way too much sugar, especially soda and sugary cereal (used to work at a place that had all you can drink/eat supplies of both). Combined with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, my weight has been out of control. I'll take some chances with vaping until I see that it's no longer helping me control my weight.

      But the vaping is hardly without some negative throat/lung effects... It's been 20+ years since I smoked even occasionally and tobacco smoke disgusts me, so I can say for sure that anything I'm noticing is all vape-related, and I'm noticing it. So to me this study is basically: water is wet.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    3. Re:oh did they? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      I'd be more interested in temperature. Most studies I read that claim vaping is harmful have it cranked well past what any real human would use, along with burning the wick material.

    4. Re:oh did they? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You don't understand how these studies work.

      What makes more sense: throw a large amount of money at a full scale, long study with multiple variables just to find out if there is anything there, or do a cheaper limited study that will tell you if it's worth investigating further?

      Obviously the answer is the former, you throw resources at the problem until you are sure no armchair biochemists on random tech news sites will be able to mock the size of your study.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:oh did they? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Who cares?

      Maybe you should.

      If you had a choice between vaping that harmed you and vaping that didn't, you would pick the harm-free one, right? So research that pinpoints the thing doing the harm and leads to the development of less harmful vaping is a good thing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:oh did they? by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      That is a very good point and one that occurred to me as I was hitting the pipe this morning. If one reads the study, it's pretty clear what kind of device and juice they used. Unflavored 50/50 VG/PG with 36mg nic and the most popular device in the UK (something from Kanger) with fully charged batteries and clean atomizers. It's a pretty "clean" test of a general type vape. So while it might be worth trying variants to see if there can be safer vapes, I was responding more to the skeptical idea that this was some sort of badly designed experiment. It looks pretty well done to me in that it captures the best case scenario (fresh equipment, no flavorings) for the way real-world vaping happens.

      --
      I do not have a signature
  4. Re:Unfortunately they'll take years to die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You can always move. We'd be glad to see your bitch ass go to Mexico and prove to us how wrong we are about their "culture."

  5. Re:uhhhhh by richy+freeway · · Score: 3, Informative

    inhaling anything other than oxygen is bad for your lungs

    Air is about 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen...

  6. Re:uhhhhh by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Pure oxygen is poisonous.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Re:news flash by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Fewer hipsters? Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. Re:Just a drug delivery device by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A coffee cup could also be considered a drug delivery device, so what?

  9. Yet another tobacco industry "study"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're at it in blatantly obvious ways ever since e-cigs became popular. Somebody cut into their mass-murder profits! Oh noes! (Yes, it is deliberate and willful mass-murder.)

    Yeah, nicotine smoke is not the best thing. Neither is alcohol, caffeine, sugar/starch, saturated fat, salt, city air, all that shit in cosmetics and industry "food", etc, etc, etc.
    We use them anyway, because what's the point of having a life if you're not living any? You can live a 100 years physically, but only 10 mentally. And you can live only 33.3 years, but 100 mentally. (Or 100 years, and 300 mentally.)

    Not that I could ever follow the point of any kind of smoking. I was never one of those always-anxious Morty types.

    But e-cigs are still better than cigarettes, and actually the best way to get rid of the cigarette addiction!
    Because other than cigarettes, pure nicotine is barely addictive at all, and very easy to reduce and stop using.
    Meanwhile, cigarettes are literally as addictive as heroin. While being all but completely useless after the body got used to the dosage. And costing a shitload of money.

    So yeah, e-cigs are awesome, specifically because they are a gateway drug. Gateway to getting rid of that shit!

    1. Re:Yet another tobacco industry "study"? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Patches and gum are still better nicotine delivery systems for breaking the addiction. However, people who don't want to break the addiction because they like nicotine (or at least think they do) want a small, fast-acting dosing system that can be measured to match the situation at hand. For this niche, vaping is much better than smoking. Setting plants on fire and inhaling the smoke is always going to be a horribly impure and inefficient way to dose. Vaping doesn't have to be zero-risk to still be an improvement over burning leaves. It's also much nicer to everyone around them, and if they stick to the old "smoking zones", then there won't be an opportunity for second-hand effects.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  10. Re:uhhhhh by sjames · · Score: 2

    Actually, the researchers agreed and, in fact, recommended that all smokers should switch to vaping immediately.

    Somehow, that part didn't make it to the headline.

  11. Re:To quote Mr. Burns: Excellent! by sjames · · Score: 1

    The experts also recommended that all smokers switch to vaping immediately.

  12. Re:Just a drug delivery device by dissy · · Score: 1

    Know what's the best and most pleasant thing to inhale into your lungs? CLEAN AIR.

    Interesting idea, where might I find some of this clean air to put into my lungs?
    I never thought to search for some on Amazon but... woah, whatdya know

    Clean Air Purge III Aerosol (1 Can)
    "Pyrethrins-based Purge III insecticide is metered insecticide formulation for flying insect control. It kills insects such as flies, mosquitoes, gnats and small moths for a full 30 days. Purge III leaves no lingering insecticide odor. For the most economically-effective flying insect control, trust Purge III, formulated with 0.975% Pyrethrins."

    Sounds delish, I just ordered a can and will let you know how it goes!

  13. Re:Just a drug delivery device by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Don't quit your day job.

  14. FUD by YouGotTobeKidding · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Im sorry but this is pure FUD. From the study... they didnt use a vaporizer. They took healthy cells and BATHED it in a PG/VG + nic solution (aka ejuice). Sorry but that is not a legit way of study. Vapers dont snort ejuice. They vaporize it. Inhale the vapor and EXHALE. Usually in short 2-3 second bursts.

    Bath healthy cells in water and there will be damage too.

    All for science and finding out how to make vaping safer... but FFS study it and do legit science. Not paid for shilling.

    1. Re:FUD by YouGotTobeKidding · · Score: 2

      Oh and just for shits and giggles... they used nic concentration of 31mg (the legal levels for sale are low 20mg lelves at most and most vapers use 3-6mg. Im down to 1.5mg and thinking on going lower). The LD50 of pure nic is 50mg. Gee I wonder if you use a concentration NO ONE would vape the results may be skewed.

    2. Re:FUD by valles · · Score: 1

      With these studies, I think they're trying to keep cigarette smokers buying packs of cigarettes.

      The last paper popular paper on this subject tested using hours of continuous exposure, and this study doesn't clearly state the dosing duration.
      36 mg/ml is much higher than what is typically carried in stores. It's hard to find anyone local who sells 12mg/ml.

      Since this study seems like they're submerging the tissue in liquid, why isn't there a comparison with submersion in water?
      I know when I'm in the bathtub for more than an hour, my skin turns to putty, so I can only imagine the result if I stayed submerged for 24 hours.

    3. Re:FUD by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Can you explain precisely why their methodology is invalid? It doesn't seem unreasonable to use a higher than normal level of exposure to make some predictions about what long term lower level exposure might do.

      The prediction might not be entirely accurate, but it does suggest that further research is warranted.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can you explain precisely why their methodology is invalid? It doesn't seem unreasonable to use a higher than normal level of exposure to make some predictions about what long term lower level exposure might do.

      The prediction might not be entirely accurate, but it does suggest that further research is warranted.

      If somebody decided to study the harmfulness of alcohol solely through the administration of massive ethanol enemas, you would be equally happy with their results and just as ready to defend them via this "just asking questions" shit that's become so popular recently amongst american fucking cunts.

    5. Re:FUD by dwpro · · Score: 1
      No, it appears they did both:

      Objective: We compared the effect of unvaped ECL to e-cigarette vapour condensate (ECVC) on alveolar macrophage (AM) function.

      ...

      Conclusions: ECVC is significantly more toxic to AMs than non-vaped ECL.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    6. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem unreasonable to use a higher than normal level of exposure to make some predictions about what long term lower level exposure might do.

      Either you are being willfully ignorant, or woefully so. Blasting someone with 8Sv of radiation does not accurately simulate the same dosage spread out over 40 years. Submersion in water for 70 minutes does not reflect a lifetime spent living in humid conditions.

      The prediction might not be entirely accurate,

      The study provides no acceptable reason to extend it the courtesy of 'possibly accurate.'

      but it does suggest that further research is warranted.

      And when do we actually get this further, more accurate research, instead of yet another study using blatantly bs methods? Or are we to be content never questioning poor science, believing dishonest conclusions because more accurate studies might be done eventually?
      It would be far less maddening if you attempted to put up a decent argument for the merits of the study itself, instead of admitting the study is dubious but excusing it.

  15. Read the Paper, Cow Flatulence by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    These details are in the paper. In particular, they did not test any device but just exposure to the chemicals which they note may not provide the same levels seen by actual people who vape. I think it's unreasonable to expect this level of detail in a popular news site given that they are writing a few paragraphs for a general audience. The paper is there for those who want this level of detail.

    Also, somewhat ironically, cow flatulence actually is important for determining climate change!

  16. Re:Just a drug delivery device by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1

    True that. But just forget about clean air if you're living in most urban areas.

  17. Re:To quote Mr. Burns: Excellent! by swb · · Score: 4, Informative

    Are you really bothered by the fact that people might be doing something vaguely harmful to themselves, or is it some other stylistic aspect of "vapers" that you don't like?

    I mean, I watch people consume known toxin ethyl alcohol all the time and despite their occasionally destructive and violent behavior, I don't get quite as angry as you seem to be at vapers.

    I don't really care about vapers, it looks fairly silly in practice but I can't think of a reason to be mad at them. But boy, a lot of people seem to heap hate on vapers.

  18. They are significantly safer than cigarettes. All else is people wittingly or not in service to big tobacco trying to get the competition expensively regulated or outlawed.

    "Which would be sweet!" said B. T. "Let's get scientists who wanna make a name cluelessly working on our behalf".

    "With any luck, anyone who points this out will get downmodded by another clueless helper!"

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  19. I think that's sort of the problem by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's the wild wild west right now. You don't really know what you're getting when it comes to vaping.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  20. Re:To quote Mr. Burns: Excellent! by djinn6 · · Score: 1

    I imagine it's a due to it being associated with teenagers, and not the popular kind either. Of course, tobacco companies are entirely happy to keep promoting that image as well.

    Personally I couldn't care less about vapers unless they're blowing smoke in my face.

  21. Re:uhhhhh by CaptQuark · · Score: 2

    Pure oxygen is NOT poisonous, unless you are underwater below 40 feet. Hospitals, ambulances, and EMTs all carry oxygen masks to provide 100% oxygen (unpressurized). Scuba divers will not dive deeper than 30 feet on pure O2. Deeper dives can be done on normal air mix, Nitrox, or Trimix.

    ---

  22. Re:To quote Mr. Burns: Excellent! by mjwx · · Score: 2

    Are you really bothered by the fact that people might be doing something vaguely harmful to themselves, or is it some other stylistic aspect of "vapers" that you don't like?

    I mean, I watch people consume known toxin ethyl alcohol all the time and despite their occasionally destructive and violent behavior, I don't get quite as angry as you seem to be at vapers.

    I don't really care about vapers, it looks fairly silly in practice but I can't think of a reason to be mad at them. But boy, a lot of people seem to heap hate on vapers.

    B-B-B-B-but Big Vape or whatever nonsense they've created.

    Vape fluid MAY have some negative side effects we don't know about, lets compare that to burning tobacco. Whatever nebulous effects the fluid might have its got to be better than the confirmed highly cancerous substance it's meant to replace. I've switched two of my relatives from being life long smokers to being vapers. They can now sit inside with relatives, taste food and realise how bad other smokers smell and they now have a smaller chance of dying from a horrible cancer.

    Sure some vapers are knobs but they're not as bad as regular smokers. I'd rather walk through a sickly sweet smelling cloud than acrid tobacco smoke.

    I've read the entire thing as "we wanted to get our names in the paper".

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  23. use common sense by Tom · · Score: 1

    Inhaling smoke into your breathing apparatus.

    Of course that isn't safe. It can be various degrees of unhealthy, and some ways are faster and more damaging than others, but obviously that isn't healthy.

    The question is how unhealthy, not if.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  24. Re:Just a drug delivery device by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Oh look, the vape addicts had mod points and I pissed them off! Would someone who is NOT a vaping addict and has mod points please fix that? Thanks.

  25. Re:Just a drug delivery device by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    There's such a thing as 'decaffeinated coffee', and coffee in general has some positive health affects, and if you drink decaf then there's NO downside to it.
    So, how long have you been a vaping addict? Any other history of substance abuse? Alcoholism? Meth addiction?

  26. Re:To quote Mr. Burns: Excellent! by swb · · Score: 1

    I'm mostly inclined to think that it's some kind knee-jerk moralism. Smoking is "bad" not just because of its health effects but because it involves drug consumption for pleasure.

    Vaping is the moral equivalent, so it must be just as bad in spite of less health effects because of morality.

    I'm fairly convinced that if you invented a drug that had the same pleasurable effects of heroin but was magically free of addiction, overdose or any other measurable health side affects most of the same people enraged about opiate use would be just as enraged about this drug.

    They make out like it's the *health* effects that they're wound up about, but really it's some kind of Calvinistic moralism that opposed to pleasure without some kind of pain.

  27. Re:Just a drug delivery device by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    You looked way too hard. Here.

  28. Re:uhhhhh by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    Actually, the researchers agreed and, in fact, recommended that all smokers should switch to vaping immediately.

    Somehow, that part didn't make it to the headline.

    But it was the second sentence in the quoted part of the article. There's a limit to how long headlines can be.

  29. Re:Just a drug delivery device by sjames · · Score: 1

    Nicotine also has some health benefits once divorced from combustion products. And I'm pretty sure most of those cups aren't filled with decaf.

    So how long have you been sniffing your own farts?

  30. Re:Just a drug delivery device by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Oh wow sick burn dude.

  31. Flavored or unflavored juice? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    Were they using normal cheap gas station flavored juice or pure unflavored juice? If flavored, then what flavor(s)?

    It seems generally the worst part is the [undefined] stuff in the flavoring.

  32. Re:Just a drug delivery device by dissy · · Score: 1

    omg how could I forget that scene! Thanks for that one.

    Surprisingly (to me) the link I ran with was actually the 3rd amazon result for "clean air", right after an air cleaner machine and, for some reason, a power converter for a plasma cutter...

  33. Re: Just a drug delivery device by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    That's ok. However don't you dare put a straw in that drink. Even though straws contribute a very small fraction of plastic to oceans side of fishing nets. Let's put you in jail if you use a straw.

  34. cigarette worse! by Jessica+Trent · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see scientific research because I don't really believe anyone died from it. It seems to me that the cigarette has a worse effect on the body than VAPE. I think that all agree with this.

  35. I expected... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    I came to this Article expecting. "But the study is wrong, I blame Big Tobacco! it's a conspiracy!".
    I found it.

  36. I have been suffering from (HERPES) disease by ShareefKp · · Score: 1

    I'm James Shareef from USA, I have been suffering from (HERPES) disease for the past 13 months and had constant pain, especially in my knees. During the first month , I had faith in God that I would be healed someday.This disease started to circulate all over my body and I have been taking treatment from my doctor, a few weeks ago I came on search on the internet if I could get any information concerning the prevention of this disease, on my search I saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from (Hepatitis B and Cancer) by this Man DR JOHN and she also gave the email address of this man and advise we should contact him for any sickness that he would be of help, so I wrote to DR JOHN telling him about my (HERPES Virus) he told me not to worry that I was going to be cured!! hmm i never believed it,, well after all the procedures and remedy given to me by this man few weeks later I started experiencing changes all over me as the DR assured me that I have cured, after 2 weeks i went to my doctor to confirmed if I have been finally healed behold it was TRUE, So friends my advice is if you have such sickness or any other like HSV1,2,HPV1,2,3,CANER HIV,COLE SORES,TOOTH JOHN, ETC you can email DR JOHN on drjohnhivcurehome@gmail. com sir I am indeed grateful for the help I will forever recommend you to my friends!!! with your lovely Email Address or you can also phone/Whats App him on this number +2347064365391