Vape research uk

[UCL Health Study]

If you vape or use IQOS, please consider taking part in our independent, paid* research study at UCL (London, UK) to uncover the possible health effects! Find out more using this link: https://research-study.wixsite.com/heat-not-burn

*£20 Amazon voucher + up to £5 cash for travel costs (per session).

Thank you!

 

[Sp3ckyh0td0g81]

lets be honest you cant call IQOS vaping, you are heating tobacco cigarettes, its nothing more than Phillip Morris trying to ensure they keep the £££ rolling in

do yourselves a favour, read the link below and save yourselves time and money.

I smoked for 20 years and in no way am i calling down people who are using them if they choose it is best for them.

What i will call down is tobacco companies not properly informing consumers in the dangers of the products they are using and doing so under the guise of vaping.

https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/more-evide...le-iqos-heatstick-same-extent-cigarette-smoke

 

[Mawsley]

lets be honest you cant call IQOS vaping, you are heating tobacco cigarettes, its nothing more than Phillip Morris trying to ensure they keep the £££ rolling in

do yourselves a favour, read the link below and save yourselves time and money.

I smoked for 20 years and in no way am i calling down people who are using them if they choose it is best for them.

What i will call down is tobacco companies not properly informing consumers in the dangers of the products they are using and doing so under the guise of vaping.

https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/more-evide...le-iqos-heatstick-same-extent-cigarette-smoke

All that needs to be said about that study:

1. University of California San Francisco
2. Stanton Glantz

Other than that:

• The whole point of the UCL study is to compare and contrast the impact of smoking with vaping and the use of HNB devices, not to legitimise them or advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry.
• UCL has not called the use of an IQOS "vaping".
• Companies earning money from selling products is entirely legal.
• Reduced harm is reduced harm irrespective of who manufactures the product.

It is essential that we have ongoing studies to look at the relative safety of alternative nicotine delivery systems so that smokers can make informed choices about how they would like to limit their exposure to tobacco-related harm.

 

[Sp3ckyh0td0g81]

All that needs to be said about that study:

1. University of California San Francisco
2. Stanton Glantz

Other than that:

• The whole point of the UCL study is to compare and contrast the impact of smoking with vaping and the use of HNB devices, not to legitimise them or advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry.
• UCL has not called the use of an IQOS "vaping".
• Companies earning money from selling products is entirely legal.
• Reduced harm is reduced harm irrespective of who manufactures the product.

It is essential that we have ongoing studies to look at the relative safety of alternative nicotine delivery systems so that smokers can make informed choices about how they would like to limit their exposure to tobacco-related harm.

all fair points, i misread the beginning as "if you use IQOS To vape" and not the actual "OR vape".

for me IQOS is a product that doesnt need to exist other than to keep tobacco companies making money. If they are genuine in their attempts at harm reduction, ditch tobacco altogether, invest their money in the vaping industry and work hard to get as many smokers off tobacco.

 

[Mawsley]

all fair points, i misread the beginning as "if you use IQOS To vape" and not the actual "OR vape".

for me IQOS is a product that doesnt need to exist other than to keep tobacco companies making money. If they are genuine in their attempts at harm reduction, ditch tobacco altogether, invest their money in the vaping industry and work hard to get as many smokers off tobacco.

But then there's people who don't get on with vaping and really take to HNB. Not as safe as vaping, but safer than smoking (going by the reasonable research).

HNB's primary market (Japan) has seen a dramatic drop in cigarette sales. https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-j...smokeless-war-with-new-products-idUKKCN1PB090

Yep, Big T is still profiting, but harm is reduced and that's a win for me.

 

[Andy S]

I found this interesting:
Findings PMI reported levels for only 40 of 93 harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) on FDA’s HPHC list in IQOS mainstream aerosol. All substances in PMI’s list of 58 constituents (PMI-58) were lower in IQOS emissions compared with mainstream smoke of 3R4F reference cigarettes. However, levels of 56 other constituents, which are not included in the PMI-58 list or FDA’s list of HPHCs, were higher in IQOS emissions; 22 were >200% higher and seven were >1000% higher than in 3R4F reference cigarette smoke. PMI’s studies also show significantly lower systemic exposure to some HPHCs from use of IQOS compared with smoking combustible cigarettes.

Conclusion PMI’s data appear to support PMI’s claim that IQOS reduces exposure to HPHCs. However, PMI’s data also show significantly higher levels of several substances that are not recognised as HPHCs by the FDA in IQOS emissions compared with combustible cigarette smoke. The impact of these substances on the overall toxicity or harm of IQOS is not known.
Source: British Medical Journal.

The fact that there are so many constituents in IQOS and the effect of many of them is "not known" leaves me wondering whether it really is that much safer than smoking. Can't see it appealing to me because I never really liked the taste of burnt tobacco that much anyway and tobacco flavour vapes for me taste even worse. I welcome studies like this because Big Tobacco have absolutely no reason to tell you the truth.

 

[Mawsley]

I found this interesting:
Findings PMI reported levels for only 40 of 93 harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) on FDA’s HPHC list in IQOS mainstream aerosol. All substances in PMI’s list of 58 constituents (PMI-58) were lower in IQOS emissions compared with mainstream smoke of 3R4F reference cigarettes. However, levels of 56 other constituents, which are not included in the PMI-58 list or FDA’s list of HPHCs, were higher in IQOS emissions; 22 were >200% higher and seven were >1000% higher than in 3R4F reference cigarette smoke. PMI’s studies also show significantly lower systemic exposure to some HPHCs from use of IQOS compared with smoking combustible cigarettes.

Conclusion PMI’s data appear to support PMI’s claim that IQOS reduces exposure to HPHCs. However, PMI’s data also show significantly higher levels of several substances that are not recognised as HPHCs by the FDA in IQOS emissions compared with combustible cigarette smoke. The impact of these substances on the overall toxicity or harm of IQOS is not known.
Source: British Medical Journal.

The fact that there are so many constituents in IQOS and the effect of many of them is "not known" leaves me wondering whether it really is that much safer than smoking. Can't see it appealing to me because I never really liked the taste of burnt tobacco that much anyway and tobacco flavour vapes for me taste even worse. I welcome studies like this because Big Tobacco have absolutely no reason to tell you the truth.

All that needs to be said about that study:

1. University of California San Francisco

 

[Andy S]

All that needs to be said about that study:

1. University of California San Francisco

Since I can't draw any conclusions from that alone, I'd say there's quite a lot more needs to be said about it.

 

[Mawsley]

Since I can't draw any conclusions from that alone, I'd say there's quite a lot more needs to be said about it.

Type it into the search bar in the news section.

It’s the global centre for shit research by the sackful. Look up the researchers too.

It’s tobacco with added PG, only not combusted. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out that instantly presents a reduced risk.

 

[Andy S]

Type it into the search bar in the news section.

It’s the global centre for shit research by the sackful. Look up the researchers too.

It’s tobacco with added PG, only not combusted. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out that instantly presents a reduced risk.

See, there was more to be said.