bates numbering machine style e

Try now

How it works

Upload & Edit
Your PDF Document
Save, Download,
Print, and Share
Sign & Make
It Legally Binding
Video instructions and help with filling out and completing bates numbering machine style e


Can vaping cause cancer?
Important Notes 1 This answer concerns vaping the consumer use of nicotine or non-nicotine containing electronic vaporisers (ecigs) for smoking avoidance or cessation; this ismonly termed THR 1. It does not address herbal vaporizing of any kind such as (a) HnB tobacco vaporizers or (b) drug delivery devices such as bongs dab pens or vaporizers for cannabis or THC liq delivery legal or illegal. 2 The recent incidence of localised italic lung disease and death in the USA has nothing to do with vaping as discussed here . It was caused by illegal use of illegal drugs in drug delivery devices. The problems caused by this illegal drug use arepletely unknown to the world 5 million vapers including America 1 million vapers (ecig consumers avoiding or ceasing smoking). Two persons have been arrested for murder in connection with the supply of illegal cannabis products contaminated with tocopherol acetate thickener (which can be ingested but not inhaled italic ) for use in drug delivery devices. Virtually every case of lung disease has been ed to contaminated cannabis oil products for use in dab pens. There have been no cases of lung disease among ecig vapers worldwide or in the USA. It is a local problem just in the US ed to cannabis oils. Once again this was nothing whatsoever to do with vaping as discussed here. italic However the usual suspects attempted to conflate the two in order to protect the $1.5 trillion a year smoking economy based on cigarette sales. Anyone suggesting that vaping as discussed here is ed to lung disease caused by illegal and contaminated cannabis products used in dab pens and other drug delivery devices is paid by connected with or has at least been duped by those working hard to keep smokers smoking. The NHS is constructing vape shops (i.e. vaping as discussed here in this article) in UK hospitals and it would be impossible to do this unless advised by the world senior tobacco control scientists such as Prof Etter of Geneva and Prof Britton of the RCP that vaping is at least italic Acceptably Safe GRAS. You can choose to believe them or the paid liars doing their best to keep people smoking. anti vaping = pro cigarettes italic and italic pro smoking italic <<<<<< horizontal-rule Summary nVaping is the consumer use of electronic aerosol mist generators often called ecigs PVs personal vaporisers or EVs to substitute for cigarettes. Vaping is a method of avoiding or ceasing smoking invented by a Chinese pharmacist Han Li (aka Hon Lik) in order to assist him to stop smoking. He usedmon inhalable medicinalponents well known to him. The vapour produced by an ecig has <15pounds present usually fewer. All are easily identifiable and many are currently used or have been widely used in inhalable and injectable medicines. Nothing in ecig vapour has been associated with morbidity in the minuscule quantities present. Studies that suggest otherwise have been shredded by the world senior independent scientists who revealed that the devices must have been almost set on fire to achieve the biased results reported. Tobacco and tobacco smoke contain 98pounds 2 with around 5 in the smoke and the research team reporting this analysis stated that there were morepounds still to be identified. One team member suggested that given accurate enough equipment in his opinion the total might reach perhaps as high as 1. The entire point of vaping is that there is no tobacco and no smoke. Thus 99.9% of cancer risks are immediately removed. italic horizontal-rule Vaping and cancer risk nDr Laugesen was the first medical professional to state directly that it is impossible for ecigs to cause lung cancer. He was the the first professional medical researcher to investigate vaping in 29 21 (that is vaping as in the use of battery-powered liq nebulisers utilising PG glycerine and water as the excipients - not vaporising of tobacco in an HnB of process). His resource site is at Dr. Murray Laugesen's Publications He is regarded as being among the most prominent public health researchers and longest-serving anti-smoking harm professionals in the southern hemisphere. Since those early days in vaping others have confirmed his opinion there is no smoke and therefore the principal risk is absent; there are no otherpounds present in vapour in sufficient quantity to pose any significant risk. Junk science nThere are enormous funds available for any researchers prepared to find ways to attack vaping in order to protect the astronomical sums the smoking economy generates - as a $1.5 trillion a year sub-economy there are many players who need to protect it by preventing smokers quitting or switching to other products. High five-figure and low six-figure sums are frequently on offer to the researchmunity for anyone who will produce studies that appear to put vaping in a poor light. The principal value of junk science of this is the media exposure that can be generated pursuant to the publication of the study and its leverage by others to attempt to create an environment in which fewer smokers will attempt to cease smoking. Junk science is highly successful for this purpose and has high value for all the players who make so much money from smoking. To illustrate this better please read this collation of financial data surrounding the loss of tax revenue and cigarette sales caused by vaping. What is equally relevant but not examined here is the loss of drug sales to treat sick smokers; in practice the pharmaceutical industry is often the biggest funder of anti-vaping junk science. n Are vapers like you paying for lost tobacco revenue? s Discredited research nRecently two research papers were published that reported large quantities of formaldehyde measurable in ecig vapour and an elevated risk for cancer was mentioned in connection with these studies. However all such studies have turned out to be fraudulent in one way or another They operated variable power hardware at excessive power levels that produced smoke as a result and no vaper would want to inhale such products or would be able to inhale such products at all and certainly not for the multiple decades of daily use that might lead to cancer initiation. nThis information was omitted from or purposely misrepresented in the associated press releases which achieved wide publicity as a result. Or they did not actually find any formaldehyde per se italic but precursors or associatedpounds such as hemiacetals that cannot honestly be described as formaldehyde. nHowever this information was omitted from or purposely misrepresented in the associated press releases which achieved wide publicity as a result. Nobody bothered to mention that formaldehyde is always present in the lungs anyway in small amounts it is a normalpound found in exhaled air; and this amount is increased for diabetics. The amount of formaldehyde diabetics exhale can be significant. It does not appear to be the case though that non-smoking diabetics are at elevated risk for lung cancer. nBut see thisment below with a good argument why lung cancer incidence is be low n The value of the subsequent media furore nNote that the press releases and especially the lurid newspaper articles that follow them often bear no relation to the data reported in the clinical study. This happens too often to be a mistake - it is tempting to consider the main reason for these studies is to produce media propaganda that is not factually related to the study data and secondly to punt for grants for more of the same. Their purpose appears to be an attempt to get more and larger grants by the means of inflammatory press releases that have value formercial actors trying hard to protect cigarette sales from any threat. This is a successful financial model because one of these junk science creators then received a grant of $3.5 million. The sums involved are not petty by any measurement - it is clearly a case of lies for cash and a great deal of cash too. Other risks nThe question of other or more esoteric cancers has not yet been addressed and cannot be until about a 3 year+ data resource is available; so it requires another 2 years before this can be answered honestly. At present it does not seem as if any disease vectors at all are visible. We have 7 years of data on PG inhalation without any significant issues; and the giant pharmaceuticalpanies are currently advising B2B customers to move into glycerol excipients for inhalable medicines as there appears to be even less potential for the minor and temporary throat irritation issues and so forth that affect PG as the base for inhalable treatments and therapies ( search Dow Optim italic ). In rare cases intolerance to PG can present in the form of skin issues and even more rarely negatively affect prior existing tinnitus. This has not been a significant issue in a medicinal base inhaled for multiple decades in asthma inhalers and the like 3 before the relatively recent change to glycerol as the most popular excipient in inhalable therapies. The two possible threats associated with vaping are the trending use of higher temperatures possibly leading to the creation of thermal degradation products; and the inhalation of food flavours. A significant amount of research is being done in these areas. In general there is a good research base from which to evaluate potential issues with ecigs several hundred studies (aprehensive PubMed search shows 4+) Q4 216 update 1+ italic and even more lab analyses leading to a possible total of over a thousand single sources in this area ( 218 update thousands italic ). A paucity of research does not exist there is a plethora. What is missing is long-term health data. It simply will not be available until 225 or later. Current indications are that ecigs are an ultra-low-risk THR consumer product (Tobacco Harm Reduction) 1 of the clean nicotine delivery system class. The best way to describe such products is the EEV or electric vaporiser rather than e-cigarette as that is just a highly-successful marketing term that has no relevance to advanced products that are medium or large-format battery-powered liq aerosol generators with no resemblance to or connection with cigarettes. Early models of EEVs were made to resemble cigarettes as this was the best way to market them to smokers. These micro devices are so inefficient they are no longer popular with vapers apart from beginners in the process of converting from smoking - a process which can take some time and is described as dual-use. It is a necessary part of the process for the majority. Dual use a Very Good Thing nSwitching can be an instant achievement or it can take months. One of the unique benefits of vapingpared to any other switching strategy cessation method or product is the involuntary switching effect a smoker may try vaping but have no plans to quit smoking. Over time they vape more and smoke less. They will probably graduate to better products than the beginner ecig . One day they find they haven smoked for some time and they are now vapers not smokers an involuntary switch took place. This unique process has converted many smokers; it does not occur overnight obviously and requires time toplete and therefore many will be dual users for an extended time italic . It is not unknown for this involuntary process to take 12 months although it is often shorter. By definition then the majority of new vapers will be dual users - an excellent situation to be in since it is likely to lead to smoking avoidance or cessation (in practice the same thing of course). A person who avoids smoking by switching to a THR product can expect the same health oues as a person who ceases smoking using a medically-approved route. Scale of risk nAs with any other product of any the individual may reduce or elevate risk according to their personal scale of risk values People who vape a small amount daily (e.g. <3ml) of unflavoured base or minimally-flavoured refills in low-power hardware (with or without nicotine which is clinically irrelevant to negative health impact) clearly have an elevation of absolute risk so small that it is unlikely to be discernible even with millions of subjects. Forparison a teaspoon contains 5ml of liq. Professional risk evaluation nThe gold standard for clinical evaluation of risk is the Cochrane Review. This is a risk analysis by a cooperating andparative group of senior medics and researchers expert in the topic area chosen for impartiality. There is now sufficient research to enable such a review and it currently reports that no significant risk is apparent. A Cochrane Review is also updated if new information bes available.n n The review covers a certain style of evaluation of efficacy for a specific oue and associated risk; but its importance is better understood as an ultra-conservative method of stating that risk elevations currently appear minimal - because the research evaluated would certainly have been far wider than that cited as core to the study. 216 update italic the Cochrane Review has recently been updated and the conclusions are the same - no visible risk to health from vaping.n Conclusions about the effects of electronic cigarettes remain the same Current state of play nNow that tens of millions of smokers have switched to vaping it is clear that Vaping works extremely well as a THR product attractive to smokers. The epidemiologic resources will be significant in years toe. No significant threat to health has been identified. The THR approach is by far the most efficient way to reduce smoking once smoking prevalence falls to low levels; and is the only known way to reduce it past the 2% mark in the population due to the 2% Prevalence Rule. Much of the moneymaking propaganda about nicotine has been revealed as fatuous rubbish since it was impossible to maintain with millions demonstrating it to be 4. 218 update nNow with well over 3 million vapers worldwide 22 update 5 million italic we have reports of half a dozen individual cases of assorted morbidity - and none show any trend. All appear to be isolated and even unique cases of individual intolerance. Even if these cases were to be multiplied by a thousand it would still make vaping safer than eating a sandwich. italic Unfortunately this won stop the paid army of tobacco control and pharma shills - not to mention the zealots unintentionally working for a flag operation - and their desperate fight to protect cigarette sales in order to preserve their jobs. Even when smoking is reduced by 5% in the developed West and mortality morbidity resolves to 5% of the current rates as a result theyll still be squealing. Every year they find new arguments why stopping people smoking is a bad idea when last year argument gets torn to shreds. When smoking is reduced to 5% of the population and smoking-related mortality falls through the floor they will still be claiming it all wrong. The second home and the yacht have to be paid for. 219 updaten The matter is settled in the UK. The NHS (National Health Service) is installing vape shops in hospitals to help accelerate the switch rate from smoking to ultra low risk alternatives. . Comparative risk nSo the short answer to your question Can vaping cause cancer? is apparently not - bute back in 23; we may have discovered a trivial elevation of risk above absolute zero for unusual cancers resulting from ultra high temperature vaping that will not in any case be definable as clinically significant in number. It seems unlikely at this point but who can tell when risk is close to but not equal to zero. The inherent risk of vapingpared to smoking is around 5 orders of magnitude lower. Five orders of magnitude is 1x by 5 or 1; perhaps lower. According to the majority of senior UK tobacco control spokespersons vaping is unlikely to kill anyone. Therefore for riskparisons it must bepared with the activity it is designed to replace smoking. In the UK smoking is said to kill 1 persons per year per 1 million smokers or 1% per annum. Vaping at the same level would kill no one except for rare cases of individual intolerance or similar. Recently in the UK there was a fortnight (two week period) within which two people died from eating a sandwich (allergic reactions to unlabelled ingredients). Vaping seems likely therefore to be found to be safer than eating a sandwich. It has already been established that deaths from vaping are likely to be zero or close to it; and any related mortality is likely to include co-morbidities including previously existing conditions caused by smoking. Theparative risk of vaping versus smoking is negligible and indeed close to nonexistent as far as mortality is concerned. My viewpoint nMy evaluation of these data studied in real time since 29 based on global data reporting by consumers 5 is that the principal risk appears to be for minor elevation of risk for reversible stage 1 COPD; and some few persons will always encounter tolerance issues reversible by discontinuation of use. There is an issue of contra-indication concerning interactions for subjects receiving multi-therapy in the area of anti-depressants due to nicotine interactions. Interesting symptoms have been observed in smoking cessation and vaping initiation in thyroid patients pre- and post-diagnosis but these have not resolved into contra-indication for vaping; rather in observed smoking and smoking cessation-related effects on thyroid patients and adjustment of meds dosages unrelated to vaping. Incorrect Syntroid dosage in particular can result in alarming symptoms. Smoking cessation is one of the mostmon reasons thyroid issues may present; it seems difficult at present to state whether smoking is a cause or cessation is a trigger or if smoking masks thyroid issues and cessation then causes presentation. In any case these issues are not related to vaping. I have written the world's mostprehensive list of smoking cessation symptoms in the con of vaping together with vaping-related intolerance issues encountered to date which can be found atn A list of symptoms when quitting tobacco and changing to an ecigarette s I do not anticipate any major shocks. Who exactly promoted vaping initially? nPeople like me and the person pictured below old smokers desperate to quit smoking but unable to do so as nothing worked for them. Until vaping came along - then we quit easily almost by magic. Life-saving magic. The modern fashion for vaping is a different thing. For many years and untilparatively recently vaping was derided by the young as an old fogey thing. Suddenly it is now fashionable. My opinion is that this is a fantastic development if anything can stop young people smoking and keep them out of the tobacco-state tax-pharma blood money machine it is a wonderful and miraculous development that should be promoted to the maximum. How else would you evaluate the avoidance of one billion deaths this century? Unfortunately the money machine owns all the propaganda resources. Themunity has had to fight back with close to zero funds and zero resources. Nevertheless this hard fight for public health against the machine has been backed by the world senior independent scientists those not paid by the blood money gravy train. And so a huge thank-you to Professors Etter Britton Siegel Rodu Bauld Hajek West Polosa Kinderlerer Stimson Bullen Molimard Burstyn Foulds Dawkins McNeil Mayer; Drs Phillips Farsalinos Laugesen; Clive Bates Matt Ridley Jeff Stier Deb Arnott; and many more. A special mention for tireless public health hero Bill Godshall the man with more contributions to anti-smoking legislation than anyone else on earth and a 1% supporter of vaping. . A typical vaper italic horizontal-rule 1 THR or Tobacco Harm Reduction is the consumer choice of low-risk smoke-free alternatives to cigarettes and (to a lesser extent) the public health policies that support such choices. THR is exclusively italic a consumer process; if THR is employed medically it bes THM or Tobacco Harm Management which is the medical term for it. Because the national health statistics of Sweden are unique in the developed Western world we know that THR works spectacularly well. Sweden has the lowest tobacco-related mortality of any Western developed country by a wide margin since half of tobacco consumers there do not smoke they use a local product called Snus an oral tobacco that has no statistically-identifiable association with morbidity or mortality due to its specialised manufacture. Thus half of tobacco consumers in Sweden do not contribute to the mortality figures. Since these are mostly men and women prefer to smoke it means the male population derive the greatest benefit from this. Sweden has the lowest male lung cancer and oral cancer rates italic in the EU. (Beware the endless lies of the pharma shills trying to protect their jobs.) . Because THR has been so spectacularly successful in Sweden we can expect similar benefits in those countries where vaping has so far enabled the largest percentage of smokers to switch such as the UK - somewhere between 2 and 25% of smokers here have switched and it may be possible that the UK achieves Sweden 5% switch rate at some stage; together with its attendant fall in tobacco-related morbidity and mortality to half of the 1% smoker rate after sufficient time has elapsed. 2 Rodgman Perfetti et al italic 213. 3 PG was widely used in asthma inhalers as an excipient in the past. There are better materials for this now such as Dow's synthetic glycerol. The reason why PG is still popular in vape refills is because the astringency or throat tickle ('throat hit') it creates helps to mimic tobacco smoke and this is very useful for smokers in the process of switching. There is a strong move toward all-glycerol base ('1% VG') for vaping refills that parallels the move away from PG toward glycerol in inhalable medicines. However we should consider the very useful antibacterial and antiviral potency of PG and perhaps retain a small amount even in all-glycerine mixes - PG is one of the most powerful antimicrobial aerosols known. Vapers widely note their reduction in colds and flu- infections after switching (which are virus-borne); while some of this must be attributable to cessation of inhalation of smoke some thought should be given as to whether the PG content of the refillsmonly used by most vapers in the first year of vaping may also have some effect. Aerosolised PG is one of the most powerful bacterial and viral killers known; it is reported to kill all airborne pathogens at a strength of only .5ppm. 4 See Chris Price's answer to Nicotine does not initiate carcinogenesis but promotes tumor development so does nicotine replacement therapy help or hinder cancer development? answer aid 34468866 nscroll down to The problem with nicotine. 5 Approximately 2 million forum posts were examined by a team of moderators looking for health-related issues; I collated the resultsn A list of symptoms when quitting tobacco and changing to an ecigarette s