A leading British expert: "The British PHE promoted electronic cigarettes and ignored scientific evidence" * The Cancer Society: "We were among the first to question the statement. 95% less materials, does not indicate a reduction in damage at the same rate"
Severe criticism is currently being leveled at the British Public Health Authority PHE, which is the executive arm of the Ministry of Health in Great Britain, which previously published a report in support of electronic cigarettes and presented them as allegedly 95% less harmful. The PHE is now accused of turning a blind eye and ignoring evidence accumulated by leading medical professionals.
Prof. Martin McKee, a doctor and lecturer in public health at the prestigious London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine), which is a center for advanced studies and has an international reputation in epidemiology, said that: "Britain has lost its way compared to other countries in the world in relation to For the safety of the vaporizers. While the United States is warning teenagers about the dangers of nicotine addiction in electronic cigarettes, the British PHE has done everything it can to promote electronic cigarettes and has chosen to ignore evidence and warnings about the risks."
The report of the British Public Health Authority (Public Health England), subordinate to the British Ministry of Health, serves as a central argument for the companies that market electronic cigarettes, which claim that their product is less harmful, while repeating many times the message according to which: "Switching from smoking to using a cigarette Electronically reduces the risk of smoking by 95% and almost eliminates the risks of passive smoking."
The Cancer Society mentions that they were among the first to warn against the health damage and to question the recommendations of the British report which chose to side with electronic cigarettes without addressing the long-term consequences, not all of which are yet known, including in the discussion on November 27.11.2018, XNUMX in the Labor, Welfare and Health Committee of the Knesset.
Dr. Dodi Bitton, a physician and senior outreach coordinator at the Cancer Society explained that: "The claim that there is a reduction in harm is denied scientific support, because 95% less harmful substances do not indicate a reduction in harm at the same rate. We were among the first to warn that there is no scientific basis for the claim. Including in the discussion in the Labor, Welfare and Health Committee of the Knesset chaired by MK Eli Alalof, where we said that the opinion of the PHE, which is used as a fig leaf for the electronic cigarette manufacturers who repeat the misleading message, should be doubted. Now it is appropriate to say clearly that it is not possible to claim a 95% reduction in harm, or to think that electronic cigarettes can save the lives of 7,600 smokers in Israel every year (out of the 8,000 people who die every year from smoking). This is a claim designed to tempt smokers of regular cigarettes to switch to electronic cigarettes, in many cases at the expense of complete withdrawal, and worst of all to introduce young people into the smoking cycle, therefore it seems to be more about replacing harm than reducing harm. You have to be precise and stick to the scientific truth. Claiming that an electronic cigarette is less harmful than a regular cigarette, at this point, is equivalent to claiming that a heart attack is less harmful than cancer."
Dana Frost, the health promoter at the Cancer Society, added that: the British are on the side of e-cigarettes as a means of detoxification. As recalled, the report of the advisory committee to the FDA on electronic cigarettes emphasized that the evidence regarding the contribution of electronic cigarettes to smoking cessation is limited and at the same time studies show that the use of electronic cigarettes increases the difficulty of quitting smoking. The British figure that the electronic cigarette contains only 5% cancer-causing substances, that is, 95% less compared to a regular cigarette, does not include scientific evidence of reduced harm to the same extent. It must be remembered that the other substances, especially nicotine, have a long-term toxic effect on brain development during adolescence. Most health organizations around the world, including the Israel Cancer Society, adopt a different policy and warn against the health damage associated with the use of electronic cigarettes as well as the fact that there is not enough research on the long-term consequences. At the same time, it has already been found that electronic cigarettes are not an innocent product and that they contain toxic substances, known carcinogens and metals. As of today, short-term dangers are also beginning to be revealed, such as genetic changes in the oral cavity associated with the development of cancerous tumors, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events and an increased risk of angina pectoris or coronary heart disease and damage to the immune system of the lungs."
Dr. Beaton said in conclusion: "We already know that electronic cigarettes are suspected of causing convulsions among teenagers based on reports from the field and updated studies have also indicated a link between nicotine and cancer. It is not just about direct harm to smokers. In pregnant women, a risk to the developing fetus was observed, and harm was also discovered in people exposed to the vapors of the electronic cigarette. It is important to emphasize to smokers who have switched to electronic cigarettes or various types of vaporization and nicotine vaporization devices, thinking that they are a withdrawal tool, that some studies have proven that use reduces the chance of quitting regular cigarettes, and even the flattering studies indicate low withdrawal rates, and this too with close therapeutic accompaniment. In addition, it must be remembered that the source of nicotine in electronic cigarettes is also from tobacco, like regular cigarettes."
8 תגובות
No positive effect that nicotine has (and I haven't tested it) does not compare to the harm of smoking. If something contains a concentration of 5% of the poison but its absorption is more effective, this means that the damage is much greater than 5%, this is what they tried to explain in the article
••• { not related to the article: it seems that you have a problem with the site } •••
What is written above is full of repeated motifs and could have been shortened by at least 50%.
A little over a week ago I went to buy tobacco. I've been smoking since I can remember (except for a 7 year break) and they introduced the electronic cigarette there and I bought it instead of tobacco.
The first 2 days were difficult.
As of now, this cigarette gives a good answer and it is not impossible that I will be able to persist with it.
The point is this: it is without a shadow of a doubt much less harmful than a regular cigarette
Or - harmless at all (for me, 2, 3 percent of a regular cigarette - it's harmless).
Another thing - I have no doubt that nicotine itself has a variety of virtues such as eliminating fatigue and improving concentration (and for programmers this is really important) and I also read in several places that nicotine contributes to the heart (or blood), but that interested me less, so I did not delve into this matter.
Bottom line: I suggest the average smoker switch to this thing.
I purchase a liquid produced in Israel - they sold me something with a concentration of 3 mg, which is the lowest - and it was a mistake. If you just switched, take a higher dose (in the first few days I was very close to breaking).
And good luck to the immigrants.
Lorm, if you are unable to fill in details, you are welcome to try using the TAB button to move to another part of the web page. In particular, if you wish to fill in the name and email fields, it is necessary to click on leave a comment and then click on the tab button
Thanks.
The problem exists in some browsers, it is a fact that there are surfers who manage to leave details
As an adult who quit heavy smoking about 40 years ago without any help from chemical substitutes/drugs and other methods of making money from youth addiction to harmful habits, I do not suspect any interest in promoting the electronic cigarette. All the claims I heard from the doctors quoted in the article are correct in terms of the method of scientific research, it is necessary to prove the claim that the new practice does reduce the incidence of diseases and not to assume that it is a linear result of the reduction of the absorption of certain components of the smoke of a burning cigarette when switching to the vapor of an electronic cigarette. But medicine is not a science, but the utilization of scientific knowledge to bring benefit to patients or the general public, even if the research background does not meet strict criteria (for example, aspirin brought such benefit decades before the mechanism that operates in the drug was discovered, a study that earned its editors a Nobel Prize, and it also did not Free from "environmental" damage, such as stomach ulcers). The first principle that is sufficient to encourage the use of any drug is the potential to minimize exposure to potentially harmful factors. The same goes for most of the diet recommendations that relate to vascular diseases - for example, eat less fat and especially cholesterol. If it is true that publishing a news story like "Peanut butter reduces the chance of having a heart attack by 95 percent" is nonsense that many have been harmed by its usefulness.
Did anyone really expect the cigarette scum to provide full and correct information about the risks involved in the new type of mass poisoning technology?
It is very disturbing that only in the last paragraph and only in passing is the danger of passive and forced smoking discussed. If they don't start acting on the matter immediately, then we are going back decades in terms of the treatment of smoking and its damages.
It's also disturbing that you can't enter the sender's information above. Will the response be recorded?
(Loram Ipsum).
The most established research found and established: 100% of living humans will die one day