Topic: This just in- CDC says about kids vaping
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #92,197
It's as bad as them inhaling 'chemical spills' or breathing in Mustard gas like in World War II.
Sounds like liberals came up with that shit.
Sounds like liberals came up with that shit.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #1,046,936
Those wacky liberals! You should go out and vape homemade vape oil just to show them.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,937
Yeah the Trump Administration is known for being overrun with liberals which is why it's so popular with liberals.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 37 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,948
I'm sure your statement in no way mirrors how people first reacted when they first said cigarettes cause cancer.
tteh !IAMGAYLOL joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,950
Bloody Trump.
Ananthanarayanan M R joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,953
src
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,954
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,955
you can be sure of one thing: vaping makes kids turn queer, like everything else society provides
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,956
Vaping-linked lung illness looks like exposure to mustard gas, doctors say ...
Close examination of lung tissue from 17 people with severe vaping-linked injuries found a type of tissue damage seen in people exposed to toxic fumes and chemical weapons, such as mustard gas. That's according to a short report in The New England Journal of Medicine published Wednesday by doctors from the Mayo Clinic.
--------------------
Hell yeah. NO more punk kids hanging out with their goofy ass vape rigs!
E- cigs give you nicotine just fine but nooooooo...they wanted their clouds of smoke, running around looking like they fires were starting everywhere.
HA!! That shits over.
Close examination of lung tissue from 17 people with severe vaping-linked injuries found a type of tissue damage seen in people exposed to toxic fumes and chemical weapons, such as mustard gas. That's according to a short report in The New England Journal of Medicine published Wednesday by doctors from the Mayo Clinic.
--------------------
Hell yeah. NO more punk kids hanging out with their goofy ass vape rigs!
E- cigs give you nicotine just fine but nooooooo...they wanted their clouds of smoke, running around looking like they fires were starting everywhere.
HA!! That shits over.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,957
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,960
@1,046,953 (Ananthanarayanan M R)
The study referenced is from the New England Journal of Medicine. Summary here. It doesn't actually mention mustard gas or chemical spills at all. That part comes from an interview given by primary investigator on the study, Dr. Brandon T. Larsen, a surgical pathologist at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona.
So what he is trying to do here is find an easy-to-understand comparison for chemical burns and toxic exposure in the lungs. Because if he were to say, "Histopathologically, vaping-associated acute lung injury shows nonspecific injury patterns that are usually airway-centered, including acute fibrinous pneumonitis, diffuse alveolar damage, organizing pneumonia, interstitial edema, and intraalveolar fibrin accumulation, often accompanied by bronchiolitis. Regardless of the fundamental pattern of injury seen, foamy macrophages and foamy pneumocytes are universally present, sometimes with a lesser number of pigmented macrophages, and neutrophils are often numerous. This constellation of histologic changes suggests the possibility of direct lung toxicity from an inhaled noxious agent or agents. Although nonspecific, foamy macrophages and foamy pneumocytes may be a useful diagnostic clue in an appropriate clinical context."
Then people would stare at him and ask him for an easy-to-understand comparison.
Mind you, he's just comparing one kind of tissue damage with another. At no point is he making any kind of blanket statement about vaping being "just like" or "as bad as" anything. Saying that the lung tissue damage looks similar to something a little more imaginable isn't terribly far fetched. That kind of clinical, factual description doesn't make headlines though, so I'm sure we'll see all manner people, OP included, try to spin this into whatever story they want to hear.
The study referenced is from the New England Journal of Medicine. Summary here. It doesn't actually mention mustard gas or chemical spills at all. That part comes from an interview given by primary investigator on the study, Dr. Brandon T. Larsen, a surgical pathologist at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona.
“All 17 of our cases show a pattern of injury in the lung that looks like a toxic chemical exposure, a toxic chemical fume exposure, or a chemical burn injury,” said Dr. Brandon T. Larsen, a surgical pathologist at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz. “To be honest, they look like the kind of change you would expect to see in an unfortunate worker in an industrial accident where a big barrel of toxic chemicals spills, and that person is exposed to toxic fumes and there is a chemical burn in the airways.”
The injuries also look like those seen in people exposed to poisons like mustard gas, a chemical weapon used in World War I, he said.
The injuries also look like those seen in people exposed to poisons like mustard gas, a chemical weapon used in World War I, he said.
So what he is trying to do here is find an easy-to-understand comparison for chemical burns and toxic exposure in the lungs. Because if he were to say, "Histopathologically, vaping-associated acute lung injury shows nonspecific injury patterns that are usually airway-centered, including acute fibrinous pneumonitis, diffuse alveolar damage, organizing pneumonia, interstitial edema, and intraalveolar fibrin accumulation, often accompanied by bronchiolitis. Regardless of the fundamental pattern of injury seen, foamy macrophages and foamy pneumocytes are universally present, sometimes with a lesser number of pigmented macrophages, and neutrophils are often numerous. This constellation of histologic changes suggests the possibility of direct lung toxicity from an inhaled noxious agent or agents. Although nonspecific, foamy macrophages and foamy pneumocytes may be a useful diagnostic clue in an appropriate clinical context."
Then people would stare at him and ask him for an easy-to-understand comparison.
Mind you, he's just comparing one kind of tissue damage with another. At no point is he making any kind of blanket statement about vaping being "just like" or "as bad as" anything. Saying that the lung tissue damage looks similar to something a little more imaginable isn't terribly far fetched. That kind of clinical, factual description doesn't make headlines though, so I'm sure we'll see all manner people, OP included, try to spin this into whatever story they want to hear.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,962
@previous (B)
but are these 17 cases vaping regulated e-liquids?? this is about the weed stuff right
but are these 17 cases vaping regulated e-liquids?? this is about the weed stuff right
Ananthanarayanan M R double-posted this 6 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,963
glycerin has not been known to cause injury and neither has nicotine
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,964
@1,046,962 (Ananthanarayanan M R)
> this is about the weed stuff right
At least 12 of them were. Data weren't available for all subjects, but a summary of the subjects is offered in Supplementary Table S1 of the summary link above. The N on this study (17) is really small. I get the impression they are just trying to get a better idea of what doctors might be seeing in the future.
Things like glycerin or vitamin E oil aren't generally considered biologically harmful, but we haven't had people heating them up to aerosolize them and then inhaling them before. The study draws links to lipid pneumonia and similar problems that suggests that huffing hot oil isn't the best health decision.
> this is about the weed stuff right
At least 12 of them were. Data weren't available for all subjects, but a summary of the subjects is offered in Supplementary Table S1 of the summary link above. The N on this study (17) is really small. I get the impression they are just trying to get a better idea of what doctors might be seeing in the future.
Things like glycerin or vitamin E oil aren't generally considered biologically harmful, but we haven't had people heating them up to aerosolize them and then inhaling them before. The study draws links to lipid pneumonia and similar problems that suggests that huffing hot oil isn't the best health decision.
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,967
@previous (B)
vitamine e oil isn't in regular vape juice! and we have had people aerosolizing glycerin for like 10 years now
vitamine e oil isn't in regular vape juice! and we have had people aerosolizing glycerin for like 10 years now
Ananthanarayanan M R double-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,968
also I shan't be reading a summary
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,972
@1,046,967 (Ananthanarayanan M R)
You're right. This isn't a study about regulated vape juice. It's about the weed stuff. The supplementary tables describing patient vaping histories specifically mention several subjects vaping CBD oil, "cannabis oils", and "synthetic cannabinoids from black market”. I would generally agree with you that any problems from inhaling glycerin or propylene glycol would have been pretty evident by now, but I'm not a surgical pathologist at the Mayo Clinic.
You're right. This isn't a study about regulated vape juice. It's about the weed stuff. The supplementary tables describing patient vaping histories specifically mention several subjects vaping CBD oil, "cannabis oils", and "synthetic cannabinoids from black market”. I would generally agree with you that any problems from inhaling glycerin or propylene glycol would have been pretty evident by now, but I'm not a surgical pathologist at the Mayo Clinic.
Green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 44 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,046,986
I wonder who could be funding these doctors. They can't possibly be getting money from tobacco companies. No, that can't be right, tobacco companies are benevolent saints and if they say cigarettes are safer than vaping I believe them!
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,028
I recall some tobacco company owns a big stake in some vape company so some companies adapt rather than cling to one thing
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,071
@1,046,964 (B)
As a point of clarification for nobody reading this:
The study in question did not link vaping to lipoid pneumonia. That was two other studies that have been in the news. This one found a lack of evidence for lipoid pneumonia. As the author puts it, "To us, the histologic findings would instead seem to suggest that vaping-associated lung injury represents a form of airway-centered chemical pneumonitis induced by one or more inhaled toxic substances in the aerosolized vapor, rather than an exogenous lipoid pneumonia per se."
I clearly conflated foamy macrophages with lipid-laden macrophages across different studies. My bad.
Anyway, it still looks like heating up strange oils and inhaling them is not going to be recommended by doctors anytime soon. And vaping still isn't equivalent to being in the trenches in WWI.
As a point of clarification for nobody reading this:
The study in question did not link vaping to lipoid pneumonia. That was two other studies that have been in the news. This one found a lack of evidence for lipoid pneumonia. As the author puts it, "To us, the histologic findings would instead seem to suggest that vaping-associated lung injury represents a form of airway-centered chemical pneumonitis induced by one or more inhaled toxic substances in the aerosolized vapor, rather than an exogenous lipoid pneumonia per se."
I clearly conflated foamy macrophages with lipid-laden macrophages across different studies. My bad.
Anyway, it still looks like heating up strange oils and inhaling them is not going to be recommended by doctors anytime soon. And vaping still isn't equivalent to being in the trenches in WWI.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 19 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,076
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,078
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 39 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,081
@previous (B)
So you get a pass on nicotine or do you?
"The U.S. Surgeon General has found that nicotine exposure during pregnancy can harm the fetus and have lasting consequences for brain and lung function in newborns, according to the American Lung Association. Nicotine also has a negative impact on brain development in adolescents, according to the Surgeon General."
Smokers don't give a damn who they contaminate with their smoke and for them it does not matter if their smoke hurts women, who may be with child, or teens who have so many reasons to end up brain deprived.
So you get a pass on nicotine or do you?
"The U.S. Surgeon General has found that nicotine exposure during pregnancy can harm the fetus and have lasting consequences for brain and lung function in newborns, according to the American Lung Association. Nicotine also has a negative impact on brain development in adolescents, according to the Surgeon General."
Smokers don't give a damn who they contaminate with their smoke and for them it does not matter if their smoke hurts women, who may be with child, or teens who have so many reasons to end up brain deprived.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 59 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,082
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 7 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,181
ALL people heard on the one minute
of news coverage last night was that the kids vaping is like inhaling mustard gas.
of news coverage last night was that the kids vaping is like inhaling mustard gas.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,182
@previous (J)
That's incorrect because vaping is for losers and inhaling mustard gas is fucking badass.
That's incorrect because vaping is for losers and inhaling mustard gas is fucking badass.
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 53 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,183
@1,047,076 (I)
the cancer is from inhaling smoke.
all nicotine does is make it addictive
@1,046,972 (B)
I don't see the value of this study then. we already know you can die from some types of synthetic cannabis
the cancer is from inhaling smoke.
all nicotine does is make it addictive
@1,046,972 (B)
I don't see the value of this study then. we already know you can die from some types of synthetic cannabis
Ananthanarayanan M R double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,185
@1,047,081 (I)
what types of nicotine exposure did they research because I'm pretty sure it involved burning tobacco
what types of nicotine exposure did they research because I'm pretty sure it involved burning tobacco
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,401
@1,047,183 (Ananthanarayanan M R)
> I don't see the value of this study then. we already know you can die from some types of synthetic cannabis
I think they're more interested in the vaping injuries. The studies I cited aren't planned scientific studies. They are, essentially, small collections of case studies from patients with respiratory problems likely linked to vaping. The two from the NEJM are found under "letters" in the journal and the one from the CDC was published in its weekly circular. What we're looking at is medical professionals discussing the latest patterns in people injuring themselves that doctors might be called upon to deal with. By comparing notes and discussing it in professional journals, doctors probably have a better chance of isolating some variables or finding commonalities.
It very much sounds like there is some additive or oil that people are putting in off-market or homemade vape juice that is dangerous to vape in some circumstances. Whether something interacts with oils, or some oils clog up the respiratory system, or because some chemicals break down into something harmful when heated and vaped seems to be a bit of an open question. Since people often turn to doctors for an answer about that, doctors think it would be nice to have an answer. That way we would know what it is, why it is dangerous, how to stop that from happening, and how best to treat it when it arises.
We can't exactly recruit subjects into studies that try to induce respiratory failure, so comparing case notes and trying to analyze the data afterward is what we have. So you're probably going to see more of these kinds of articles in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the press and popular media will probably lean into each one that comes out too. Nothing punches up a slow news day like a public health scare about the hot new trend all the kids are doing. I don't mean to glib about it, there probably is some real unknown health risk here. But the popular press has a habit turning "mind the gap" into "A killer train ate my family!" sometimes.
> I don't see the value of this study then. we already know you can die from some types of synthetic cannabis
I think they're more interested in the vaping injuries. The studies I cited aren't planned scientific studies. They are, essentially, small collections of case studies from patients with respiratory problems likely linked to vaping. The two from the NEJM are found under "letters" in the journal and the one from the CDC was published in its weekly circular. What we're looking at is medical professionals discussing the latest patterns in people injuring themselves that doctors might be called upon to deal with. By comparing notes and discussing it in professional journals, doctors probably have a better chance of isolating some variables or finding commonalities.
It very much sounds like there is some additive or oil that people are putting in off-market or homemade vape juice that is dangerous to vape in some circumstances. Whether something interacts with oils, or some oils clog up the respiratory system, or because some chemicals break down into something harmful when heated and vaped seems to be a bit of an open question. Since people often turn to doctors for an answer about that, doctors think it would be nice to have an answer. That way we would know what it is, why it is dangerous, how to stop that from happening, and how best to treat it when it arises.
We can't exactly recruit subjects into studies that try to induce respiratory failure, so comparing case notes and trying to analyze the data afterward is what we have. So you're probably going to see more of these kinds of articles in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the press and popular media will probably lean into each one that comes out too. Nothing punches up a slow news day like a public health scare about the hot new trend all the kids are doing. I don't mean to glib about it, there probably is some real unknown health risk here. But the popular press has a habit turning "mind the gap" into "A killer train ate my family!" sometimes.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,430
@1,047,081 (I)
The U.S. Surgeon General has also found that abortion during pregnancy can harm the fetus and have lasting consequences for brain and lung function in newborns.
The U.S. Surgeon General has also found that abortion during pregnancy can harm the fetus and have lasting consequences for brain and lung function in newborns.