I going to try giving up smoking...Again

Vaping has worked for me and my wife. We tried all the other stuff but this is the only thing that has worked. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the scaremongering is from the government losing lots of tax money and the big tobacco companies putting pressure on them also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nishy said:
Looking at the last link, I went for my usual source (I find more entrusting) WHO. Page 174, they state and I quote:
'likely to be less toxic for adult established smokers.....might have a role to play in support for those who has failed other treatment.....recommend parties to regulate e-cigs'

This says it all for me. Reads like a cover our ass article.

Less toxic for established adult smokers- no mention of youngsters using it as an introduction to smoking or the harm on a new smoker.

Role to play after failed treatment- last chance saloon usually the hard hitting stuff appears here, the likes of Champix etc.

Then the age old needs to be regulated statement. So which brands are regulated? Well none, not one has been registered as a medical device to my knowledge. So vaping five years on is an unregulated system.

The link regarding stats from 11 year old and up I wouldn't IMO consider to be 'proof' I know how I would have answered at 11, ten minutes before lunch.

I used to be a Pharmacist and have had many questions come in about several pills/remedies/lotions. My question was forgetting Dr. Google's first response, what relevant sources support your comment and are they credible. In this case the comment that vaping is 5% harmful compared to a cig I cannot substantiate, as they would be regulated.
Given, I have not read every source or the whole article. But my premise is that if regulated the device may be appropriate. My guess is that anything containing benzene ring based formaldehydes, for the purpose of ingestion, will never be regulated.

Everyone to their own!
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am sure last time this came up I linked to show the one that has been not only regulated but actually licensed as a medical device? Since its licensed as a medical device how do you know doctors have not all ready prescribed it, I know plenty who actively refer patients to shops to take up vaping. Formaldehydes are only present really when used in correctly. It's like lighting a cigarette from the filter end and doing a MS on the fumes from the filter and saying look at all these chemicals in there we never knew about.



Also as of May 2017 every device and liquid on the market will be regulated by MHRA as a non medicinal product.

The WHO document you referring to. Is it there tobacco framework document? Last published report I seen was nearly 2 years ago from them on the matter.
 
pedro083 said:
I am sure last time this came up I linked to show the one that has been not only regulated but actually licensed as a medical device? Since its licensed as a medical device how do you know doctors have not all ready prescribed it, I know plenty who actively refer patients to shops to take up vaping. Formaldehydes are only present really when used in correctly. It's like lighting a cigarette from the filter end and doing a MS on the fumes from the filter and saying look at all these chemicals in there we never knew about.



Also as of May 2017 every device and liquid on the market will be regulated by MHRA as a non medicinal product.

The WHO document you referring to. Is it there tobacco framework document? Last published report I seen was nearly 2 years ago from them on the matter.
Click to expand...
Being registered as a non-medicinal product relieves any liability. That rings alarm bells to me. Doctors in my area haven't prescribed any vape sticks. I know this as I own a Pharmacy (used to be a Pharmacist), Doctors surgery and currently pursuing a nursing home. Formaldehydes are present in the mixture from the offset. I would be bewildered if you could decipher which mixture, device, and at any given specific temperature, would affect the stability and structure of the formaldehydes used. If you can and have the means to conduct gas chromatography on the given mixture I would be very interested.

I think someone best said it best above, with a similar principle to, if it ain't broken don't fix it. If it works for you great.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
Nishy said:
Being registered as a non-medicinal product relieves any liability. That rings alarm bells to me. Doctors in my area haven't prescribed any vape sticks. I know this as I own a Pharmacy (used to be a Pharmacist), Doctors surgery and currently pursuing a nursing home. Formaldehydes are present in the mixture from the offset. I would be bewildered if you could decipher which mixture, device, and at any given specific temperature, would affect the stability and structure of the formaldehydes used. If you can and have the means to conduct gas chromatography on the given mixture I would be very interested.

I think someone best said it best above, with a similar principle to, if it ain't broken don't fix it. If it works for you great.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's not a medicinal device so why would you register it as one. Though there is one registered as a medicinal device the large large large cost is why not many have chosen to go down this route.

The fact your pharmacy has not issued any does not mean rest of UK does not. You know in Scotland you don't go to your doctor for free nrt you get it from the pharmacy itself no prescription, everywhere is different and doctors are free to prescribe any medicine they see fit.

Formaldehydes are not present from the off. PG can break down to produce them MS has been done to show under normal operating conditions there is no detectable trace. http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706

MS will be done on all liquids and on the vapour produced through a device from that liquid too within next 5 month. But I suppose that is a attempt by government to relieve liability when they had none in first place.

Formaldehyde though is present from fires cars and about a 100 other things we are exposed too everyday. Unfortunately not ecigs
 
Plenty of Formaldehyde when you digest orange juice as well. Do you have a citation for the Formaldehydes in "from the offset"?

E-cigarettes: an evidence update
A report commissioned by Public Health
England

From p.79 "Two recent worldwide media headlines asserted that EC use is dangerous. These were
based on misinterpreted research findings. A high level of formaldehyde was found
when e-liquid was over-heated to levels unpalatable to EC users, but there is no
indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes; stressed mice
poisoned with very high levels of nicotine twice daily for two weeks were more likely to
lose weight and die when exposed to bacteria and viruses, but this has no relevance for
human EC users. The ongoing negative media campaigns are a plausible explanation
for the change in the perception of EC safety (see Chapter 8). "
 
pedro083 said:
It's not a medicinal device so why would you register it as one. Though there is one registered as a medicinal device the large large large cost is why not many have chosen to go down this route.

The fact your pharmacy has not issued any does not mean rest of UK does not. You know in Scotland you don't go to your doctor for free nrt you get it from the pharmacy itself no prescription, everywhere is different and doctors are free to prescribe any medicine they see fit.

Formaldehydes are not present from the off. PG can break down to produce them MS has been done to show under normal operating conditions there is no detectable trace. http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706

MS will be done on all liquids and on the vapour produced through a device from that liquid too within next 5 month. But I suppose that is a attempt by government to relieve liability when they had none in first place.

Formaldehyde though is present from fires cars and about a 100 other things we are exposed too everyday. Unfortunately not ecigs
Click to expand...
Thanks I never knew my Pharmacy was not a pioneer for the rest of the UK, learn something new everyday.

Formaldehyde and heat exposure is the key. It's a slimey argument and this article exposes it best. My worry is that if a device is unregistered as a medical device, or in other words, is not registered specific to its purpose. Then I don't personally trust the product for its health benefits.
https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-upda...use-of-medicines-prescribers-responsibilities

Anyhow once again I'm with the guys who believe it works, I just wouldn't use one.
http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2015/191-form-nejm

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
I think looking at e-cigs as potentially being medical devices with a specific health benefit is perhaps the wrong starting point. They are just a way of feeding a nicotine addiction without inhaling smoke. They therefore reduce the main cause of ill health associated with nicotine addiction. They have no inherent health benefits and indeed are, however slightly, detrimental to your health. That detriment can be reduced further by proper regulation i.e. making sure juices don't contain Diacetyl in flavourings.

Their effectiveness in helping people to stop inhaling smoke is the only, albeit indirect, 'health benefit' you can assign them. No other nicotine replacement is as effective. E-cigs have reduced my nicotine consumption - I have reduced the concentration in my juice twice now - but they haven't weaned me off nicotine. It might not be beef and gravy but at least it's beef and I like beef.
 
Nishy said:
Thanks I never knew my Pharmacy was not a pioneer for the rest of the UK, learn something new everyday.

Formaldehyde and heat exposure is the key. It's a slimey argument and this article exposes it best. My worry is that if a device is unregistered as a medical device, or in other words, is not registered specific to its purpose. Then I don't personally trust the product for its health benefits.
https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-upda...use-of-medicines-prescribers-responsibilities

Anyhow once again I'm with the guys who believe it works, I just wouldn't use one.
http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2015/191-form-nejm

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nishy I must be missing something as your first article is about prescribing unlicensed medicines and such. But the one I am talking about is a licensed medicine I don't get how it ties in?
 
Controlling your addiction to a substance using a much safer delivery system is ... well, a no brainer?
Anyone out there trying to bring an addiction under control, to reduce the harm to themselves and/or to others, has my support. Power to you. I don't care whether it's nicotine, skag, gambling, alcohol, shaving soaps or what-the chuff-ever. Do what you can do, don't feel guilty about it - addiction isn't a choice - and take whatever help you can get.
 
pjgh said:
Hitting yourself in the face with a mallet is safer than a sledgehammer.

"Less harmful" rather than "safer" ...
Click to expand...

...you state the obvious...and enjoy the semantics I think...there appears to now be more of a consensus, where there was not one before, that it is much less harmful, so much so, that my understanding is that there are no bio markers of toxiicity amongst Vape users in the study...I think this is some comfort to those who want another option to going 'cold turkey'...
 
200w.gif


Good luck and may the force be with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom