Chinese Study Links E-Cigarettes to Increased Risk of Asthma in Teens, Thai Health Officials Advise Caution

[The Pattaya News]

The Pattaya News
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

National— On December 25th, 2023, Dr. Thongchai Keeratihatthayakorn, the Thai Department of Medical Services acting director-general, publicly revealed academic research from China pointing out that smoking e-cigarettes causes asthma symptoms. According to research from Chinese scholars, the relationship between vaping and asthma in teenagers showed that smoking e-cigarettes has a 1.31 times higher risk of […]

Chinese Study Links E-Cigarettes to Increased Risk of Asthma in Teens, Thai Health Officials Advise Caution
-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-
The Pattaya News - Real. Unbiased. Impactful. In the moment.

Click To View The Pattaya News Website

[Jakuy7]

Tobacco lobby is powerful in China, they all smoke cigarettes: men, women, teens, grannies, etc.

Probably the true reason of why they criminalize e-vapes

Edited December 26, 2023 by Jakuy7

[Bruce Mangosteen]

Without a link to the Chinese study there's no way to evaluate the claims in the article.  Doesn't help that the writing is fairly incoherent, probably because the study is, and the politicians are using it to advance an agenda having nothing to do with "health".

[speedtoy]

43 minutes ago, Bruce Mangosteen said:

Without a link to the Chinese study there's no way to evaluate the claims in the article.  Doesn't help that the writing is fairly incoherent, probably because the study is, and the politicians are using it to advance an agenda having nothing to do with "health".

While agreed that a study to review is important....oh WAIT...not wanting to find a study doesn't mean that none exist:
https://today.tamu.edu/2023/09/18/researchers-find-association-between-vaping-and-asthma-among-us-adolescents/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8947668/
https://www.ajmc.com/view/vaping-e-cigarettes-linked-to-asthma-risk-among-us-teenagers
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-22953-z <-- A chinese one...

(and. so on)

No way you can argue that its 'safe' and that it's not unhealthy.  IMHO we're still 20yrs away from the real edge of finding out how horrible vaping is on the human body.

What is the "adgenda" supposedly at work here?

Edited December 27, 2023 by speedtoy

[Billy Shears]

I think breathing the air in Bangkok is more dangerous than any e-cig. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Billy Shears

[Bruce Mangosteen]

8 hours ago, speedtoy said:

While agreed that a study to review is important....oh WAIT...not wanting to find a study doesn't mean that none exist

I said that none was linked. 

I found some studies but without spending the time reading them there was no way to know which one was the one they're referring to.  Since the article specifies a Chinese study, I tended to skip over links to things like the US NIH. 

BTW, the Chinese study you linked does not study vaping, or at least the English variants of that word don't show up if I search it with my web browser.  So, your search got the same result that I got, and there's still no study linked from the article.

9 hours ago, speedtoy said:

No way you can argue that its 'safe' and that it's not unhealthy.

Really?  OK, how about this:  We inhale water vapor mixed with various aromatics all day long, every day, throughout our lives.  Without knowing which aromatics they're referring to in their vaping juice, I fail to see how they (or you) can claim that the simple act of vaping is unhealthy.  The article is not specific, and does dumb things like imply that nicotine is implicated with cancer risk (it's not, except as an addictive drug that causes you to expose yourself to the actual carcinogens), and talk about combustion products of tobacco which are irrelevant to vaping, which is the whole point.

9 hours ago, speedtoy said:

IMHO we're still 20yrs away from the real edge of finding out how horrible vaping is on the human body.

Vaping what exactly?  What about plain water with some eucalyptus oil?  Isn't that called "using a vaporizer" when we do it with a humidifier for a cold?

I know a number of people who have quit smoking cigs because of vaping.  How horrible was that?  

And, if we're 20 years away from finding out "how horrible" vaping is, a scale that starts at 0 by the way, then IMO we don't have enough information to justify banning it.  This article certainly doesn't provide anywhere near enough data to do that, which you also seem to be admitting by that statement.

9 hours ago, speedtoy said:

What is the "adgenda" supposedly at work here?

Governments worldwide make trillions in taxes from tobacco.  I notice that none of them has banned tobacco outright, perhaps due to the same agenda.  Is that enough, or did you need something better?  If you're a government, is there any agenda that's more persuasive?

[speedtoy]

8 hours ago, Bruce Mangosteen said:

Governments worldwide make trillions in taxes from tobacco.

This was a healthcare article.  Not a taxation one, not even remotely so.

IMHO, any nation with a public health service, absolutely has an agenda to improve the health of it's citizens...and inform them of what bad habits are.

[Bruce Mangosteen]

1 hour ago, speedtoy said:

This was a healthcare article.  Not a taxation one, not even remotely so.

You asked for an agenda.  It's not my fault that the government's agenda often has nothing to do with health care.

1 hour ago, speedtoy said:

IMHO, any nation with a public health service, absolutely has an agenda to improve the health of it's citizens...and inform them of what bad habits are.

Well, again, I don't see any countries banning tobacco products, I see them banning vape, that nobody is presenting evidence causes anywhere near the problems caused by tobacco, and unlike tobacco has benign and even positive uses.  So, I'd tend to question the commitment by any government to "the health of its citizens" based on that alone.  

Asthma is caused/aggravated by numerous environmental factors, including exercise, airbourne irritants at work, and allergies.  Heredity is also a factor.  However, due to the lack of any link to the "study" being cited, we have no idea which, if any, of the risk factors were controlled for, which vape fluids were "studied", how the study population was selected (if a population was even selected vs. doing a meta-study of data already gathered, which would be even worse), etc. 

I'd also point out that this purported "study" was conducted by the same sorts of "Chinese" "scientists" who, to put it as charitably as possible, did nothing to burnish their public health bona fides during the recent Bat Soup Flu situation.

So, based on the facts in evidence, I see no reason to proclaim vaping is a "bad habit" in any sort of blanket or general way.  I think there would be points of agreement of things to restrict or ban, such as, say, vaping cyanide, or, say, gasoline [/humor].  Banning "vaping" as a general activity with no specific conditions set?  Naah, it's just government overreach.

How about no e-cigs or vape fluid sold to any kid under 18?  No vape fluid containing nicotine sold to anyone without a doctor's prescription for use as a smoking cessation?  No vaping by kids unless under direct supervision of a parent?  These are ways to let adults assess the risks of vaping for themselves, prevent vaping from causing people to become addicted to nicotine, and allow people to make their own decisions.  

These proposals are the middle ground in this discussion.  Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but I haven't seen them being kicked around much.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Bruce Mangosteen

[speedtoy]

13 minutes ago, Bruce Mangosteen said:

Well, again, I don't see any countries banning tobacco products

Baby steps..and context:
https://www.google.com/search?q=nations+banning+tobacco&oq=nations+banning+tobacco&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yDQgCEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgDEAAYhgMYgAQYigXSAQg3MjExajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Give it a generation or two, and you will see that tobacco is pretty much either unduly expensive or outright banned in many nations.  If someone doesn's start, they dont become a problem when you cut em off cold.  That's the political reality in executing a public health strategy on tobacco.  


You can massively make smoking too expensive and too inconvenient.

 

15 minutes ago, Bruce Mangosteen said:

I see them banning vape

Yes, because these are nations not falling for the "It's safe" crap.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nations+banning+vape&oq=nations+banning+vape&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yDQgCEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgDEAAYhgMYgAQYigXSAQg0Mjk5ajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

20 minutes ago, Bruce Mangosteen said:

nobody is presenting evidence causes anywhere near the problems caused by tobacco

Nobody said they were the same...except you saying that the data is flawed because they dont equate the healthcare risks between the two as equal.   Huh?

You dont get to do that...it's not how it works.

 

21 minutes ago, Bruce Mangosteen said:

based on the facts in evidence

..which you made up.  Your 'facts' are a LACK of data equating tobacco harm with vaping harm..and since that data doen't exist (for 'are you smarter than a 5th grader' reasons) you end up here..that the "facts don't add up.

 

23 minutes ago, Bruce Mangosteen said:

I'd also point out that this purported "study" was conducted by the same sorts of "Chinese" "scientists" who, to put it as charitably as possible, did nothing to burnish their public health bona fides during the recent Bat Soup Flu situation.

Ya..more logical fallacies in play here..and also ignoring other available data on the same subject...but you do you, just focus on the ONE you don't like (but ONLY this one), and then play stretch-armstrong with the relationship between that and "bat flu" make it a political argument, not a scientific one.


https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies

I think you nailed at least three on these, really squarely.

 

[Bruce Mangosteen]

1 hour ago, Bruce Mangosteen said:

Well, again, I don't see any countries banning tobacco products

58 minutes ago, speedtoy said:

Give it a generation or two

So you agree none have done it yet.  Good.  Next?

1 hour ago, Bruce Mangosteen said:

...nobody is presenting evidence causes anywhere near the problems caused by tobacco...

59 minutes ago, speedtoy said:

Yes, because these are nations not falling for the "It's safe" crap.

Your statement does not disagree with mine.  Next?

1 hour ago, speedtoy said:

...except you saying that the data is flawed because they dont equate the healthcare risks between the two as equal.

That's exactly NOT what I said.  It's what you wish I had said, or possibly what appeared in your brain as filtered through your biases.

1 hour ago, speedtoy said:

Your 'facts' are a LACK of data equating tobacco harm with vaping harm.

See the response above.

1 hour ago, speedtoy said:

Ya..more logical fallacies in play here.

It's a "logical fallacy" to question the qualifications of scientists from countries that are known much more for propaganda than science?  If so, a lot of very qualified people are guilty of the same thing.

1 hour ago, speedtoy said:

and also ignoring other available data on the same subject...

We're talking about one study that was paraphrased in the article above.  Sorry you don't like the fact that it turns out not to be particularly persuasive to people who don't already have their minds made up in agreement with its "conclusions".

1 hour ago, speedtoy said:

...and then play stretch-armstrong with the relationship between that and "bat flu" make it a political argument, not a scientific one.

Well, if you uncritically believe what a Thai newspaper says that Chinese scientists say in a paper you've never read, that's certainly your prerogative.  However, my argument was not political, not that such a thing matters to you as long as you think you can walk around thinking you've scored a debate point against me.

Narrator:  He didn't, and hasn't.

Look, I guess I shouldn't have embarrassed you by demolishing your initial response to me in such an inconsiderate manner.  Your emotional shrieking moves my soul, and I apologize for the unwelcome paradigm shift I put you through.

However, now that we're here:  Not everything you agree with is true, not everyone you agree with is credible, and not everyone you disagree with is being illogical.  These are things that, while you should have learned them by the time you reached puberty, are probably worthwhile taking on board.  It's never too late.

Now, if you'd like to present another study of vaping (actually the first in this thread, since none would precede it), we certainly could discuss it.  I have no dog in the fight, and wouldn't be unhappy to find out that vaping was harmful.  I have some statistical background and some understanding of how to analyze these sorts of studies, and actually wouldn't mind looking at the topic more closely.

Otherwise, just take whatever last word will help you regain control of your emotions and sleep better at night, and we can call it a day.

Over to you.

[Fired Up Paul]

430K people a year die from smoking in the US.

Seems to me that death is the ultimate harmful effect.

I'd encourage lots of high quality studies on the effects of vaping while at the same time, making room in each of them to compare any effects found vs smoking.

Otherwise, we will probably just be fed more agenda ridden scare stories that create a false narrative.

This story is maybe a good example and is filed by me personally under "No Shit Sherlock!" and IS NOT newsworthy.

Maybe I should go into journalism and write stories like, "Public Space Pedestrians almost 1000% More Likely To Die From Vehicle Collisions". 
A new study has found that 99% of people that die in pedestrian deaths are not "Own Driveway Deaths". People that never leave the house are infinitely safer.....

[Bruce Mangosteen]

[/thread]