I'm a 45yo New Zealander, and I have absolutely no axe to grind, except one:
I smoked for 25 years. Therefore the tobacco companies have had more than their fair share of my money, and more importantly my health.
Thanks to vaping, using RBAs and mods, and diying my own ejuices - I've been smoke-free for 20 months.
One company that looks like winning, with all the fake news and hysteria being dredged up in USA over vaping is Phillip Morris International. And I'm not talking about their cigarette products - but rather their IQOS product.
A Device That Heats Tobacco, But Doesn't Burn It, Can Now Be Sold in the U.S. Here's What to Know About IQOS
The FDA have already approved this product for sale in USA. And how does the IQOS work?
the FDA says the pen-like IQOS device heats, but does not burn, “tobacco-filled sticks” wrapped in paper, creating an aerosol that contains nicotine. Marlboro, an Altria brand, will make the tobacco sticks used inside the cartridge, which will come in menthol and unflavored versions.
Click to expand...
It's pretty much a cigarette, that goes into a device which 'heats' the tobacco, so you can inhale it.
Here's Why IQOS Could Completely Own the U.S. E-Cig Market | The Motley Fool
And how safe is it?
Comparison of Chemicals in Mainstream Smoke in Heat-not-burn Tobacco and Combustion Cigarettes. - PubMed - NCBI
There is little scientific data, however, of the hazards and toxicity of iQOS. In this study, we evaluated several harmful compounds (nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide (CO) and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)) in the mainstream smoke and fillers of iQOS, and compared their concentrations with those from conventional combustion cigarettes.
The concentrations of nicotine in tobacco fillers and the mainstream smoke of iQOS were almost the same as those of conventional combustion cigarettes, while the concentration of TSNAs was one fifth and CO was one hundredth of those of conventional combustion cigarettes. These toxic compounds are not completely removed from the mainstream smoke of iQOS, making it necessary to consider the health effects and regulation of iQOS.
Click to expand...
iQOS may not be as harm-free as claimed, study finds
The University of California study found that, since the device could only be used for six-minutes before it needed to be recharged, it may cause some people to shorten the interval between puffs in order to make sure they did not waste any of the tobacco stick which could increase the possible toxic exposure.
But of greater concern was that the polymer filter melted slightly during use and released formaldehyde cyanohydrin, a toxic substance which could be fatal to humans. The compound is metabolised in the liver and broken down into formaldehyde and cyanide.
"This study has shown that the iQOS system may not be as harm-free as claimed and also emphasises the urgent need for further safety testing as the popularity and user base of this product is growing rapidly," the study concluded.
University of Otago public health and marketing Professor Janet Hoek said the findings led her to question whether it really was a "reduced harm" product as claimed by the manufacturers.
If users inhaled more frequently as it was suggested, it was likely they would "increase their nicotine intake and exposure to harmful compounds present in the inhaled aerosol", she said.
She said those who had tried unsuccessfully to quit smoking were better off considering e-cigarettes.
Click to expand...
Just my
They mention that the do use tobacco but heated them at a consistent rate of 350 Celsius. Recently I went to the iqos store nearby my house and the staff told me that you do not need iqos if vaping is working for you,I ended up buying one just to experience and it tastes close to cigarette but milder taste and hit.I heard that vaping heat not more then 315 Celsius,and assume it is totally safer then IQOS.
I find that I am more satisfy with vaping,mod ones as I drank more water.Comparing IQOS vs Sub ohm vaping where there is lots of cloud which one is safer to health,and which one to pick if I were to quit nic?
Some of y'all may remember me, some not so fondly, but that's okay. I used to be a very frequent and outspoken contributor here.
I haven't posted in awhile. Mainly because I fell off the wagon big time after 5 years of vaping and felt like a hypocrite posting on these forums.
I've tried new vaping products in the interim and just haven't been able to stay away from the cancer sticks.
That changed for me yesterday after trying the Iqos device.
I tried one, bought one and haven't had an analog since.
For those wondering about these, especially those who are looking for that missing something with nicotine salts, WTA etc, give these a try.
They are basically a miniature dry herb vaporizer for tobacco.
You get that same instant rush from a cigarette, those same missing chemicals, and a very similar hand and mouth feel.
No harshness or coughing like from vaping either. And the taste is PHENOMENAL. I'm not a fan of tobacco flavors....have never smoked for the taste.... but this is the fullest, cleanest tobacco flavor I've ever experienced.
And the best part is, since nothing is burning like a cigarette, there's a big reduction in tar and harmful chemicals.
I will try to post a video review in the next few days if anyone is interested.
This is a game changer for me, even bigger than that first kr808 I tried over a decade ago....and if keeps someone else off of cigarettes, I think it's worth posting here
If the IQOS heat-not-burn product is subject to the Master Settlement Agreement payments then may be we know the motivation for the flavor bans. IQOS is already FDA approved, ready to go, and I presume coming very soon to a C Store near you..
Scientists want probe of UCSF tobacco research
One of the country's best-known tobacco researchers is under fire this week after one of his federally funded vaping studies was retracted and other academics are calling for federal review of some of his other influential anti-vaping research.
Click to expand...
additional Glantz studies deserving of the most scrutiny include two major publications in 2018: A meta analysis of other vaping studies published in the British journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine and one in the journal Pediatrics about teen vaping and smoking.
The Lancet analysis of several studies was based on a "misleading negative correlation between e-cigarettes and smoking cessation"and used studies that had nothing to do with quitting smoking, Abrams said. This violated the basic tenets of medical research review, he added.
"It has had a massive misleading influence in the field to this day because it is cited as the main reference" to show vaping makes it harder to quit smoking, Abrams said.
The other study concluded the "use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents." Rodu, who analyzed the claim, found only 11 of 9,000 teens studied vaped before they started smoking and 80% of the kids who smoked hadn't used tobacco product previously.
Using that data, Abrams said the "effect of vaping is not just diminished, it disappears."
Click to expand...
"
Vaping is supposed to be a form of harm reduction, that is, allow nicotine addicts to have access to the drug without the harmful tars and chemicals in cigarettes that cause cancer, heart disease, and other maladies.
Last year, the Journal of the American Heart Association published a study finding that vaping posed as great a heart risk as smoking itself. That study fueled public policies at all levels of government to stifle the industry. A lot of small business people had their livelihoods destroyed or damaged as a result.
Now, the study has been retracted — which is a very big deal in science — because the editors are “concerned that the study conclusion is unreliable” due to what appears to have been an uncompleted peer review process..........."
Major Anti-Vaping Scientific Study Retracted | National Review
Score one for our side. 'They will not stop until tobacco becomes regulated like a hard drug - 'We will not stop until our rights, especially our right to use a less harmful form of tobacco, such as vaping,
is assured.
Obviously enough there's no smoke in tobacco vapor (heat not burn) but is the opposite also true? Is there vapor in tobacco smoke as well?
The reason I ask is because my body seems to react negatively to vaping e-juice so I'm hoping tobacco vapor doesn't feel the same because if smoking already has vapor in it then there should be no reason for me to react negatively to tobacco vapor anymore than tobacco smoke.
I am just wondering if you can really stop smoking with one of the the closed pod systems of Big-T.
Is anybody here who has quit smoking with IQOS (or something similar), or do you know such one?
This is part of an newsletter email:
Q: Do the words used to describe vaping alter perceptions of risk?
A: At first sight, the two headlines appear very similar: “Labeling e-cigarette emissions as ‘chemicals’ or ‘aerosols’ increases the perceived risk of exposure” and “Accurate labels like ‘aerosol’ or ‘chemicals’ increase perceived risks of e-cigarette use”. The ironic thing is that while both fairly accurately reflect the study being reported, one – the one that uses the word “Accurate” – is not quite so, well... accurate.
As any chemistry teacher will tell you, everything is composed of chemicals – you are, your food is, the screen you’re reading this on is made up entirely of chemicals. Which makes the labelling of e-cig vapour as “chemicals” self-evidently true at one level, but deliberately misleading at another. (Don’t drink that water, it’s nothing but chemicals!)
As it turns out, those headlines – one from News-Medical.net, the other from Medical Xpress – are placed over identical reports (i.e. an uncritically reproduced press release) of a study published this week in the Journal of American College Health. And the very title of that study, “Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy”, tells you at once that this is hardly unbiased science, seeking answers not yet known, but rather that sadly common form of pseudo-science that starts out with its conclusion in place and sets out to “prove” it.
The study of college students in 2018 and 2019 found – not altogether surprisingly – that those asked to assess the harmfulness of secondhand “aerosol” or “chemicals” emitted by e-cigarettes were more inclined to see them as dangerous than those who were asked to assess “vapor”.
It also found, unsurprisingly, that they were around twice as likely to support a tobacco-free campus policy. This being the US, where authority routinely seems to miss the point that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, we can take that to mean a vape-free campus policy too. Which, it is not hard to assume, is exactly what the researchers wanted them to support.
The study’s conclusion is itself a masterpiece of deception (perhaps self-deception). It is this: “Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.”
Just how the term “chemicals” – which, after all, encompasses every breath you take – is more “accurate” than “vapor” the authors make no attempt to explain.
Now it may be true that much research which purports to support e-cigarette use is equally tendentious, setting out with its conclusion already prepared. But to respond with such blatantly bad science is no help to anyone who really wants to discover facts as yet unknown. And there are plenty of those yet to be discovered in the field of vaping.
Oh, and the answer to the question posed above is: “Yes, of course”.
Click to expand...
This is a link to the study mentioned.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293
Why ? - The many varieties of devices, flavors, and nicotine strengths still available in many places not contaminated by the political whores who apparently hate all tobacco so much that they are willing to jeopardize the lives of many thousands, if not millions, of ex and even current smokers, by killing off the vape industry in favor of their hypocritical agendas of tobacco control.
The fact that vaping tobacco has been proven to be less toxic than lit tobacco products is, to them, all the more reason to restrict and eventually eliminate it. {As has been done in India where all vaping is a crime}
Vaping has been and is still being used by many to wean their way off of nicotine by gradually lowering nicotine concentration - For others who do not want to quit completely vaping offers a much safer alternative to the toxic stew present in lit tobacco, especially cigarettes.
And the fact that vaping for flavor with zero nicotine is available - seems to give them all the more reason to outlaw flavors ?!??!?!
Do they know what they are doing you may ask? - Sure they do, and its all about money. Apparently they make more in tax revenues from old fashioned cigarettes - Still as tax rates go up everywhere on vape products, they may decide there is enough to be made to keep it legal. But don't fool yourself, it has nothing to do with 'saving the children'. In a nation where it may soon become easier, in some places, to buy marijuana than tobacco - I ask who is going to save the children from the political whores who can no longer keep following the mantra that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Who will save the children from them ?
And no I am not against marijuana legalization - but still must point out that tobacco, a mental stimulant, is being downgraded by a drug often used to get 'stoned'
Maybe this is what they want - Not a thinking population of voters - When a stoned population is easier to fool!
Pharma Vaporizer Brings Big Billionaire Names
Gates and Bloomberg
"Donating money to anti-vaping efforts while simultaneously investing in a pharmaceutical grade smoking cessation “vaporizer” that is completely in its own category – Pharma – could appear suspicious. Hale won’t need PMTA approval, because it will not be a tobacco product, but will require FDA approval as a drug."
As e-cigarettes come under fire, Hava Health readies a vape pen to help people quit smoking
By contrast, Hava Health is pitching a smoking cessation tool. “We have a patented design,” says Israel. “What we do is we separate nicotine from the other compounds. We reduce the nicotine as we leave the other oils the same. Over time we reduce the nicotine and increase the clean oils and we get them to zero percent.”
Reduce nicotine percentage downward. Umm, I think we've been doing that already with open system vaping. I bet it won't be as cheap as my diy.
Smdh