Absurdity at its Finest, the New War Against Vaping Goes Against Science

1

Reminiscent of the days of prohibition, special interest groups are forcing personal beliefs against science, yet again. The ability to enjoy vaping is under attack with restrictive legislation from groups that are ignorant and believe the propaganda they are being fed. How can reason be interjected into this conversation, when popular belief isn’t always accurate?

Vaping to many is a way to enjoy their nicotine without the harmful side effect of smoking for them.  Often the harmful side effects of secondhand smoke for their loved ones is a concern.  Regardless, more people are wanting to not smoke tobacco cigarettes and are turning to Vaping as a solution to help them stop. Many have argued that Vaping is no better and don’t understand the technology found in modern Vaping machines and cling to misinformation as fact.

The only avenue for defense is pushing for science-based laws and challenging the absurdity head on. One reluctant crusader is Dr. Maciej Goniewicz an Associate Professor of Oncology at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Initially, he conducted a study to identify potential health effects related to vaping and nicotine. What he discovered was completely off his radar and put his teams’ research right in the center of this heated debate. These discoveries also lead his team to further investigate these unforeseen results.

The study specifically measured the difference between tobacco cigarette smoking and vaping. This was done by collecting samples from participants for comparison. They had to only smoke and then only vape for a period of time. At different stages, their urine was measured for specific Biomarkers.

The Biomarkers that were measured between Vaping and tobacco cigarette Smoking was:

17 different carcinogenic biomarkers that are related to tobacco smoke

7 different biomarkers that are related to nicotine metabolites

13 major carcinogens that are associated with tobacco cigarette smoke

1 tobacco-specific nitrosamine

Pyrene levels

8 volatile organic compounds, including:

  • 1,3-Butadiene
  • Acrolein
  • Acrylamide
  • Acrylonitrile
  • Benzene
  • Crotonaldehyde,
  • Ethylene oxide
  • Propylene oxide

4 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, including:

  • Fluorene
  • Naphthalene
  • Phenanthrene

The results showed that while nicotine levels and some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons remained relatively unchanged, each of the carcinogens and toxins declined significantly. What is amazing is that reductions were seen even after only one week of Vaping. This supports the immediate benefit of switching for users who want to stop the harmful health effects of smoking while reducing their exposure to toxins.

Other studies have previously shown Vaping, in general, has fewer toxins then smoking, while still providing the same levels of nicotine a user prefers. Interestingly, for the first time, this study shows that by directly substituting tobacco cigarettes with Vaping results in a reduction of exposure to numerous specific toxins and carcinogens otherwise present in tobacco cigarettes. These specific numbers allow scientists to measure and compare this hard data for duplication and thus continue to prove this as fact.

How can those who claim Vaping is unhealthy still not see the benefit of less exposure to toxins?

They are simply blinded by their emotions, and often this battle will require undisputed facts from multiple sources before they will believe. When facing debates with those who hold to beliefs rather than facts is a difficult challenge. Always stick to the facts and keep providing the concrete information to further support your stance.

When such individuals are in charge of policies for the public, we start to have real problems. It is important to remember they too must answer to their constituents. Vocal opposition based in science and not rhetoric will prevail. Keeping cool and not buying into to emotions of others is not always easy. Especially when it is based on irrational or invalidated facts.

Always remember to stick to scientific facts like these results. Specifically, there is in fact reductions of tobacco-specific nitrosamine by 57 percent after Week 1 and a whopping 64 percent by Week 2 when Vaping only. The hydroxyfluorene levels fell by 46 percent, and that is certainly significant.

The second fact was that Vaping is more effective in helping people to quit smoking than the traditional nicotine replacement therapies. At the end of this study, 45 percent of the sample group had successfully remained smoke-free at the end of the study and continued to be smoke-free. Penn State and others have recently released statistics from similar studies that further support Vaping is significantly less addictive than smoking.

The hardest part of this uphill battle is facing those who refuse to believe science. Don’t get discouraged and remember the benefits of switching are worth it for your health. Keep pushing for fair rules and legislation that allows you to enjoy Vaping, whenever and wherever you wish. Keep pushing for debates based in facts and above all, keep Vaping for your health. You now have science backing your smart choice.

Jimmy, lover, blogger, vaper and ex-smoker. I’ve been blogging about and supporting Vaping since 2009. They changed my life and I think history will show them as one of the most significant public health invention of the 21st century.

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Bill Hellewell says:

    I fell off the wagon after 6 months vaping (the longest I’ve ever been cigarette free. As I began to think about climbing back on to the wagon, our politicians continued to play games to foster and create a negative public opinion. This was followed by legislating vaping into the same category as cigarettes/ tobacco by banning indoor use. My prediction is we will eventually see vaping products taxed under the same scheme as tobacco….. the real agenda being recouping all that lost tax revenue, smokers continue to be an easy target.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *