Safer nicotine wiki - User contributions [en-gb]

Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?

2022-07-10T21:07:54Z

Phil-w888:

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have speculated that vaping could increase the risk of getting COVID-19 and experiencing more severe outcomes from the disease. The claims were grounded in little to no evidence. A small amount has emerged since.

'''2020'''

The authors of a [https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30399-2/fulltext#%20 California study] claimed that their survey showed young vapers were five to seven times more likely than never vapers to test positive. It received a massive amount of media coverage. It also received scathing criticism and calls for retraction from longtime researchers in the field who cited [https://pubpeer.com/publications/CEB008BBD48F89272321EB50092793 multiple methodological issues].

A [https://www.laeknabladid.is/tolublod/2020/12/nr/7557 large Icelandic study] reported that the proportion of e-cigarette users was lower among patients with COVID-19 than in the general population of Iceland and that patients using e-cigarettes did not have more severe symptoms than other patients.

A [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871621000855?via%3Dihub UK study] found, "There were no differences in diagnosed/suspected Covid-19 between never, current and ex-vapers".

'''2021'''

A large [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501327211024391 Mayo Clinic study] found that "patients who used only e-cigarettes were not more likely to have a COVID-19 diagnosis".

A [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticle/analysisofpopulationsintheukbyriskoftestingpositiveforcovid19september2021 UK study] found, "People who only vape were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-smokers. This was only found on one other occasion since 14 March 2021."

Disease outcomes were not analyzed in either study.

====== 2022 ======
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501319211062672 Another Mayo Clinic study] concluded: "Vapers experience higher frequency of covid-19 related symptoms when compared with age and gender matched non-vapers". The study was limited, however, by an inability to determine the frequency or duration of use and by a rarity of severe disease.

[https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyac028/6531917?searchresult=1&login=false An English study] stated: "There was no evidence that e-cigarette use was associated with a difference in risk of severe COVID-19, but the estimates were imprecise, encompassing from modest protection to substantial increased risk". It was limited by the fact that vaping status was recorded a median of 23 months prior to the beginning of the study.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9044777/ A large US study] found that e-cigarette use was "not associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19 illness".

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743522002006?via%3Dihub A study of never-smoking young adults in California] concluded: "...current use of e-cigarettes was not associated with acquiring COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic".

There is a considerable amount of evidence that current tobacco smoking is associated with a reduced chance of testing positive. Former smokers appear to face more serious outcomes than current or never smokers. Outcome data on current smoking are mixed.

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.15276 The association of smoking status with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID‐19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta‐analyses (version 7)]

[https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/07/09/13993003.02144-2020 Characteristics and risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis and adverse outcomes in Mexico: an analysis of 89,756 laboratory–confirmed COVID-19 cases]

A [https://twitter.com/phil_w888/status/1279973073811197952 twitter thread] with links to hundreds of studies which report smoking and vaping status data of COVID-19 patients

Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?

2022-05-14T17:50:51Z

Phil-w888: made paragraphs

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have speculated that vaping could increase the risk of getting COVID-19 and experiencing more severe outcomes from the disease. The claims were grounded in little to no evidence, and only a small amount has emerged since.

'''2020'''

The authors of a [https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30399-2/fulltext#%20 California study] claimed that their survey showed young vapers were five to seven times more likely than never vapers to test positive. It received a massive amount of media coverage. It also received scathing criticism and calls for retraction from longtime researchers in the field who cited [https://pubpeer.com/publications/CEB008BBD48F89272321EB50092793 multiple methodological issues].

A [https://www.laeknabladid.is/tolublod/2020/12/nr/7557 large Icelandic study] reported that the proportion of e-cigarette users was lower among patients with COVID-19 than in the general population of Iceland and that patients using e-cigarettes did not have more severe symptoms than other patients.

A [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871621000855?via%3Dihub UK study] found, "There were no differences in diagnosed/suspected Covid-19 between never, current and ex-vapers".

'''2021'''

A large [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501327211024391 Mayo Clinic study] found that "patients who used only e-cigarettes were not more likely to have a COVID-19 diagnosis".

A [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticle/analysisofpopulationsintheukbyriskoftestingpositiveforcovid19september2021 UK study] found, "People who only vape were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-smokers. This was only found on one other occasion since 14 March 2021."

Disease outcomes were not analyzed in either study.

====== 2022 ======
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501319211062672 Another Mayo Clinic study] concluded: "Vapers experience higher frequency of covid-19 related symptoms when compared with age and gender matched non-vapers". The study was limited, however, by an inability to determine the frequency or duration of use and by a rarity of severe disease.

[https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyac028/6531917?searchresult=1&login=false An English study] stated: "There was no evidence that e-cigarette use was associated with a difference in risk of severe COVID-19, but the estimates were imprecise, encompassing from modest protection to substantial increased risk". It was limited by the fact that vaping status was recorded a median of 23 months prior to the beginning of the study.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9044777/ A large US study] found that e-cigarette use was "not associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19 illness".

There is a considerable amount of evidence that current tobacco smoking is associated with a reduced chance of testing positive. Former smokers appear to face more serious outcomes than current or never smokers. Outcome data on current smoking are mixed.

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.15276 The association of smoking status with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID‐19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta‐analyses (version 7)]

[https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/07/09/13993003.02144-2020 Characteristics and risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis and adverse outcomes in Mexico: an analysis of 89,756 laboratory–confirmed COVID-19 cases]

A [https://twitter.com/phil_w888/status/1279973073811197952 twitter thread] with links to hundreds of studies which report smoking and vaping status data of COVID-19 patients

Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?

2022-05-14T17:42:17Z

Phil-w888: /* 2022 */ added study

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have speculated that vaping could increase the risk of getting COVID-19 and experiencing more severe outcomes from the disease. The claims were grounded in little to no evidence, and only a small amount has emerged since.

'''2020'''

The authors of a [https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30399-2/fulltext#%20 California study] claimed that their survey showed young vapers were five to seven times more likely than never vapers to test positive. It received a massive amount of media coverage. It also received scathing criticism and calls for retraction from longtime researchers in the field who cited [https://pubpeer.com/publications/CEB008BBD48F89272321EB50092793 multiple methodological issues]. A [https://www.laeknabladid.is/tolublod/2020/12/nr/7557 large Icelandic study] reported that the proportion of e-cigarette users was lower among patients with COVID-19 than in the general population of Iceland and that patients using e-cigarettes did not have more severe symptoms than other patients. A [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871621000855?via%3Dihub UK study] found, "There were no differences in diagnosed/suspected Covid-19 between never, current and ex-vapers".

'''2021'''

A large [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501327211024391 Mayo Clinic study] found that "patients who used only e-cigarettes were not more likely to have a COVID-19 diagnosis". A [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticle/analysisofpopulationsintheukbyriskoftestingpositiveforcovid19september2021 UK study] found, "People who only vape were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-smokers. This was only found on one other occasion since 14 March 2021." Disease outcomes were not analyzed in either study.

====== 2022 ======
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501319211062672 Another Mayo Clinic study] concluded: "Vapers experience higher frequency of covid-19 related symptoms when compared with age and gender matched non-vapers". The study was limited, however, by an inability to determine the frequency or duration of use and by a rarity of severe disease.

[https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyac028/6531917?searchresult=1&login=false An English study] stated: "There was no evidence that e-cigarette use was associated with a difference in risk of severe COVID-19, but the estimates were imprecise, encompassing from modest protection to substantial increased risk". It was limited by the fact that vaping status was recorded a median of 23 months prior to the beginning of the study.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9044777/ A large US study] found that e-cigarette use was "not associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19 illness".

There is a considerable amount of evidence that current tobacco smoking is associated with a reduced chance of testing positive. Former smokers appear to face more serious outcomes than current or never smokers. Outcome data on current smoking are mixed.

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.15276 The association of smoking status with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID‐19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta‐analyses (version 7)]

[https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/07/09/13993003.02144-2020 Characteristics and risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis and adverse outcomes in Mexico: an analysis of 89,756 laboratory–confirmed COVID-19 cases]

A [https://twitter.com/phil_w888/status/1279973073811197952 twitter thread] with links to hundreds of studies which report smoking and vaping status data of COVID-19 patients

Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?

2022-05-14T17:34:08Z

Phil-w888: /* 2022 */ added study

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have speculated that vaping could increase the risk of getting COVID-19 and experiencing more severe outcomes from the disease. The claims were grounded in little to no evidence, and only a small amount has emerged since.

'''2020'''

The authors of a [https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30399-2/fulltext#%20 California study] claimed that their survey showed young vapers were five to seven times more likely than never vapers to test positive. It received a massive amount of media coverage. It also received scathing criticism and calls for retraction from longtime researchers in the field who cited [https://pubpeer.com/publications/CEB008BBD48F89272321EB50092793 multiple methodological issues]. A [https://www.laeknabladid.is/tolublod/2020/12/nr/7557 large Icelandic study] reported that the proportion of e-cigarette users was lower among patients with COVID-19 than in the general population of Iceland and that patients using e-cigarettes did not have more severe symptoms than other patients. A [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871621000855?via%3Dihub UK study] found, "There were no differences in diagnosed/suspected Covid-19 between never, current and ex-vapers".

'''2021'''

A large [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501327211024391 Mayo Clinic study] found that "patients who used only e-cigarettes were not more likely to have a COVID-19 diagnosis". A [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticle/analysisofpopulationsintheukbyriskoftestingpositiveforcovid19september2021 UK study] found, "People who only vape were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-smokers. This was only found on one other occasion since 14 March 2021." Disease outcomes were not analyzed in either study.

====== 2022 ======
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501319211062672 Another Mayo Clinic study] concluded: "Vapers experience higher frequency of covid-19 related symptoms when compared with age and gender matched non-vapers". The study was limited, however, by an inability to determine the frequency or duration of use and by a rarity of severe disease.

[https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyac028/6531917?searchresult=1&login=false An English study] stated: "There was no evidence that e-cigarette use was associated with a difference in risk of severe COVID-19, but the estimates were imprecise, encompassing from modest protection to substantial increased risk". It was limited by the fact that vaping status was recorded a median of 23 months prior to the beginning of the study.

There is a considerable amount of evidence that current tobacco smoking is associated with a reduced chance of testing positive. Former smokers appear to face more serious outcomes than current or never smokers. Outcome data on current smoking are mixed.

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.15276 The association of smoking status with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID‐19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta‐analyses (version 7)]

[https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/07/09/13993003.02144-2020 Characteristics and risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis and adverse outcomes in Mexico: an analysis of 89,756 laboratory–confirmed COVID-19 cases]

A [https://twitter.com/phil_w888/status/1279973073811197952 twitter thread] with links to hundreds of studies which report smoking and vaping status data of COVID-19 patients

Nicotine - COVID / SARS / ARDS

2022-01-23T16:07:32Z

Phil-w888: added link to 'Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?'

'''Studies, Surveys, Papers, and Case Studies'''
*Sometimes it's necessary to view the PDF version to access the full study.
*This page is for referencing the possible benefits of '''Nicotine in the battle against COVID / SARS / ARDS'''.
*If you'd prefer someone else to add a study to a topic, there is a subject section called "Suggested studies to add to this page". You may put the link in that section for one of the regular page editors to address.
*'''PAGE EDITORS - Please only add Studies, Surveys, Papers in this format to keep page consistent for all viewers.'''
**Topic
**Year (list new to old) Name of Study (In link format to the study)
**Note here if animal study (leave blank if not)
**Brief Summary
**Link to PDF Version
**Citation
**Acknowledgements (funded by, helped by)
**Keywords
**Other

see [[Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?]]
=Suggested studies to add to this page=

===2021: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8183099/pdf/main.pdf Transdermal nicotine in non-smokers: a systematic review to design COVID-19 clinical trials]===

===2021: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntab004/6073671?fbclid=IwAR3PlyqgttsQh0MO7f6T8EYcGXt6Rd5GXF303SFe-hPQpsGl_wzaho04djs Impact of Tobacco Smoking on the risk of COVID-19.A large scale retrospective cohort study]===

===2020: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7704168/ Does Nicotine Prevent Cytokine Storms in COVID-19?]===

===2020: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32595653/ Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) and Nicotine in COVID-19 Patients: Trying to Calm the Storm]===

=Threads about COVID on Twitter by @phil_w888=

===[https://twitter.com/phil_w888/status/1251956936947331072 So far all existing data show smokers are underrepresented in Covid19 hospitalization data]===
*[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1251956936947331072.html Above thread on threadreader app]

===[https://twitter.com/phil_w888/status/1279973073811197952 The results of preprints & peer-reviewed studies describing the relationship between smoking and SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 are reported in this thread]===
*[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1279973073811197952.html Above thread on threadreader app]

===[https://twitter.com/phil_w888/status/1282094429398921216 A compilation of preprints, peer-reviewed studies, and datasets documenting SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19 patients' smoking status - only the ones with at least 1000 patients.]===
*Thread on twitter

===[https://twitter.com/phil_w888/status/1282814318782771200 Studies of SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19 patients in which vaping is mentioned]===
*Thread on twitter

=Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT)=

===2020: Nicotine-replacement therapy, as a surrogate of smoking, and the risk of hospitalization with Covid-19 and all-cause mortality: a nationwide, observational cohort study in France===
From February 15, 2020 to June 7, 2020, hospitalization with Covid-19 occurred in 647 patients (151 patients in the nicotine-replacement therapy group and 496 patients in the unexposed group).
Results In the first analysis, 297,070 individuals without major smoking-related diseases exposed to nicotine-replacement therapy were matched with 558,228 unexposed individuals without major smoking-related diseases.
In the main multivariable analysis, nicotine-replacement therapy was associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization with Covid-19 compared with unexposed individuals.
Nicotine-replacement therapy exposure was also associated with a decreased risk of intubation or death in hospitalized individuals with Covid-19. (13 vs. 73 patients).

=Smoking=

===2020: How nicotine can inhibit cytokine storm in the lungs and prevent or lessen the severity of COVID-19 infection?===
COVID-19 positive patients who smoke are more often asymptomatic or exhibit less severe respiratory symptoms than non-smokers.
The macrophages, which are directly infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, may drive the cytokine storm in the lings.
Stimulation of macrophage ACh receptors by nicotine inhibits pro-inflammatory cytokines production and inflammatory response.
The nicotine use may lessen or eliminate ARDS in the smoking COVID -19 patients.

===2020: Characteristics and risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis and adverse outcomes in Mexico: an analysis of 89,756 laboratory–confirmed COVID-19 cases===
COVID-19 patients were disproportionately older, males and with increased prevalence of one or more comorbidities, particularly diabetes, obesity, and hypertension.
Current smokers were 23% less likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 compared to non-smokers.

=Smokeless Tobacco=

=Vapor Technology=

=More Information=
*Click on the category link below for more studies by topic on Nicotine.
[[Category:Studies, Surveys, and Papers]]

Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?

2022-01-23T16:03:21Z

Phil-w888: /* 2022 */ corrected font

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have speculated that vaping could increase the risk of getting COVID-19 and experiencing more severe outcomes from the disease. The claims were grounded in little to no evidence, and only a small amount has emerged since.

'''2020'''

The authors of a [https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30399-2/fulltext#%20 California study] claimed that their survey showed young vapers were five to seven times more likely than never vapers to test positive. It received a massive amount of media coverage. It also received scathing criticism and calls for retraction from longtime researchers in the field who cited [https://pubpeer.com/publications/CEB008BBD48F89272321EB50092793 multiple methodological issues]. A [https://www.laeknabladid.is/tolublod/2020/12/nr/7557 large Icelandic study] reported that the proportion of e-cigarette users was lower among patients with COVID-19 than in the general population of Iceland and that patients using e-cigarettes did not have more severe symptoms than other patients. A [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871621000855?via%3Dihub UK study] found, "There were no differences in diagnosed/suspected Covid-19 between never, current and ex-vapers".

'''2021'''

A large [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501327211024391 Mayo Clinic study] found that "patients who used only e-cigarettes were not more likely to have a COVID-19 diagnosis". A [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticle/analysisofpopulationsintheukbyriskoftestingpositiveforcovid19september2021 UK study] found, "People who only vape were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-smokers. This was only found on one other occasion since 14 March 2021." Disease outcomes were not analyzed in either study.

====== 2022 ======
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501319211062672 Another Mayo Clinic study] concluded: "Vapers experience higher frequency of covid-19 related symptoms when compared with age and gender matched non-vapers". The study was limited, however, by an inability to determine the frequency or duration of use and by a rarity of severe disease.

There is a considerable amount of evidence that current tobacco smoking is associated with a reduced chance of testing positive. Former smokers appear to face more serious outcomes than current or never smokers. Outcome data on current smoking are mixed.

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.15276 The association of smoking status with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID‐19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta‐analyses (version 7)]

[https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/07/09/13993003.02144-2020 Characteristics and risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis and adverse outcomes in Mexico: an analysis of 89,756 laboratory–confirmed COVID-19 cases]

A [https://twitter.com/phil_w888/status/1279973073811197952 twitter thread] with links to hundreds of studies which report smoking and vaping status data of COVID-19 patients

Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?

2022-01-23T16:02:43Z

Phil-w888: added new study

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have speculated that vaping could increase the risk of getting COVID-19 and experiencing more severe outcomes from the disease. The claims were grounded in little to no evidence, and only a small amount has emerged since.

'''2020'''

The authors of a [https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30399-2/fulltext#%20 California study] claimed that their survey showed young vapers were five to seven times more likely than never vapers to test positive. It received a massive amount of media coverage. It also received scathing criticism and calls for retraction from longtime researchers in the field who cited [https://pubpeer.com/publications/CEB008BBD48F89272321EB50092793 multiple methodological issues]. A [https://www.laeknabladid.is/tolublod/2020/12/nr/7557 large Icelandic study] reported that the proportion of e-cigarette users was lower among patients with COVID-19 than in the general population of Iceland and that patients using e-cigarettes did not have more severe symptoms than other patients. A [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871621000855?via%3Dihub UK study] found, "There were no differences in diagnosed/suspected Covid-19 between never, current and ex-vapers".

'''2021'''

A large [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501327211024391 Mayo Clinic study] found that "patients who used only e-cigarettes were not more likely to have a COVID-19 diagnosis". A [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticle/analysisofpopulationsintheukbyriskoftestingpositiveforcovid19september2021 UK study] found, "People who only vape were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-smokers. This was only found on one other occasion since 14 March 2021." Disease outcomes were not analyzed in either study.

===== 2022 =====
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21501319211062672 Another Mayo Clinic study] concluded: "Vapers experience higher frequency of covid-19 related symptoms when compared with age and gender matched non-vapers". The study was limited, however, by an inability to determine the frequency or duration of use and by a rarity of severe disease.

There is a considerable amount of evidence that current tobacco smoking is associated with a reduced chance of testing positive. Former smokers appear to face more serious outcomes than current or never smokers. Outcome data on current smoking are mixed.

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.15276 The association of smoking status with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID‐19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta‐analyses (version 7)]

[https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/07/09/13993003.02144-2020 Characteristics and risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis and adverse outcomes in Mexico: an analysis of 89,756 laboratory–confirmed COVID-19 cases]

A [https://twitter.com/phil_w888/status/1279973073811197952 twitter thread] with links to hundreds of studies which report smoking and vaping status data of COVID-19 patients

Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?

2021-09-27T19:12:45Z

Phil-w888: added new study, light copy edits

Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?

2021-08-24T05:02:55Z

Phil-w888: better quote

Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?

2021-08-24T05:01:17Z

Phil-w888: updated UK study to reflect new conclusion in peer-reviewed version

Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?

2021-08-08T14:12:34Z

Phil-w888: wording change, added Mayo Clinic study

What is Harm Reduction?

2020-12-15T03:28:38Z

Phil-w888: added external link

Harm Reduction recognizes the reality that lowering risk – rather than striving to eliminate it completely – is more achievable, compassionate, and effective at improving public health than forbidding risky behaviors. Instead of trying to convince or force people to stop doing something, harm reduction promotes education and gives people safer ways of doing it. Read more here.

====Additional reading====

[https://www.hri.global/what-is-harm-reduction What is harm reduction?] via Harm Reduction International

[[Category:FAQ Question]]

What is tobacco harm reduction?

2020-12-15T03:12:35Z

Phil-w888: expanded

The main purpose of tobacco harm reduction is to reduce (not necessarily eliminate) the harm from smoking. The aim is not to stop nicotine as nicotine causes little harm. Tobacco harm reduction involves encouraging smokers to switch from high-risk combustible (burnable) cigarettes to a lower-risk nicotine alternative such as vaping.

Complete cessation of all tobacco and nicotine consumption is always the ideal goal. However, a large proportion of smokers are unable or unwilling to quit, therefore remaining at high risk of smoking-related death and illness. THR aims to reduce the health risks in continuing smokers by switching from combustible tobacco to lower-risk smokeless nicotine alternatives. Smokeless products are not risk-free but are much safer than smoking.

[[File:Nutt-nicotine-product-risk.gif|left]]
Reduced-risk products include vaping (using an e-cigarette), Swedish snus (small pouches of special tobacco placed under the upper lip), nicotine pouches (similar to snus but without tobacco) and heated tobacco products (which heat tobacco without burning it).
Burning tobacco causes almost all the harm from smoking. It releases over 7,000 chemicals, tars, carbon monoxide, other toxic gases and solid particles.

Safer nicotine products can complement (not replace) traditional tobacco control strategies which target complete quitting.

Tobacco harm reduction is no different from other harm reduction strategies which are generally very effective and widely accepted. These include methadone for heroin users, clean needle exchange programs and even car seat belts. And similar to other harm reduction strategies, THR is not merely about ensuring access to products which reduce risk. It entails the reduction and, ultimately, elimination of external harms usually caused by governments, such as criminal penalties, punitive taxation, and the fomentation of stigma. It involves the empowerment of individuals to make informed decisions and respecting those decisions, whether they choose to continue using nicotine or not.

Tobacco harm reduction is one of the three pillars of Australia’s National Tobacco Strategy. One objective of the NTS is to “reduce harm associated with continuing use of tobacco and nicotine products” (p11). Australia is legally obligated to support tobacco harm reduction as a signatory to the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

The [[FCTC]] provides an obligation on governments to not only allow reduced-risk products but actively promote them as part of implementing their tobacco control policies. Currently Australia is in breach of its international obligations as no harm reduction strategies are supported in practice.

[[Category:FAQ Question]]

Funded Watchdogs and Counters

2020-12-13T13:43:13Z

Phil-w888: light cleanup

The [https://tobaccotactics.org/ University of Bath Tobacco Control Group] has been discussed elsewhere. It has recently received a further boost in funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies to fulfill a [https://exposetobacco.org/about/ STOP] campaign to the tune of $20 million. This was to enhance the self-appointed role that the University of Bath Tobacco Control group had established as Watchdog for the Tobacco Industry.

The exact opposite in terms of funding and content is [https://www.tctactics.org/index.php?title=Main_Page Tobacco Control Tactics] who challenge the findings and rationale of the other group.

Useful THR blogs

2020-12-12T16:22:22Z

Phil-w888: /* Jacob Sullum */ added his main job

These are useful to read in conjunction with Scientific papers and studies, usually relatively simple to understand as they don't have to follow the rigid precise language that traditional studies and papers necessarily have to follow. Don't just instantly dismiss as opinion, these are all well crafted and researched, commonly with links to Scientific papers. Many are produced to generate thought and discussion

=Clive Bates regularly writes in his blog [https://www.clivebates.com/author/admin/ the Counterfactual]=

=Prof Michael Siegel has blogged for ~15 years in [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/ The Rest of the Story]=

=Prof Brad Rodu writes in [https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/ Tobacco Truth]=

=Nicotine Science and Policy(NSP)=

Regularly has [https://nicotinepolicy.net/blogs/harry-shapiro Harrys blog] along with [https://nicotinepolicy.net/blogs/guest-blogs Guest blogs]the blogs commenced in May 2013 and are a very useful reference to trace the increased pace of developing THR to a receptive audience of recent ex-smokers.

=Public health matters blog on electronic cigarettes, by public health england=

[https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/20/clearing-up-some-myths-around-e-cigarettes/ clearing up some myths around e cigarettes]

=Klaus Kneale, ECigAdvanced [https://www.ecigadvanced.com/ Visit ECigAdvanced]=

=Jacob Sullum=

is a [https://reason.com/people/jacob-sullum/ senior editor at Reason] and a nationally syndicated columnist. He [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/ a regular contributor to Forbes.com] and primarily focuses on the US’s expensive yet ineffective war on drugs. He occasionally turns some of his attention to how vaping is being unnecessarily hampered by overzealous anti-smoking policy and perspectives. Even when not talking about vaping, his stuff is worth reading. It will simply make you smarter about the politics affecting our world.

=Reddit’s Electronic Cigarette [https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/ Subreddit]=

Isn’t exactly a blog, but it is a great source of stories and perspectives in the community. Often, this community is the first place to catch news in the industry and the quickest way to find out what the community cares about. I visit daily (or more accurately at times, hourly).

=Chris Price From ECigarette Politics:=

[https://www.ecigarette-politics.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-nicotine.html Visit ECigarette Politics] Note the sites security certificate is out of date! My job is separating the facts from the commercial propaganda, organising the results, and creating ideas for others to use. To identify the facts takes a bit of digging, so research and commentary by scientists and the well-informed are where I go. Some health resources are also of interest to me. I’m completely uninterested in establishment views, which are usually ten years out of date. Most of my vaping info comes from the 100,000 posts a month on ECF. I haven’t included many of the indispensible resources such as Phillips’ Anti THR Lies or Bates’ Counterfactual as they are known to everyone.

=[http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/ Kings Fund]=

An independent health-related resource with a lot of NHS-related materials. You can knock the NHS if you like (I wouldn’t), but if you know somewhere better, get thee hence. Lots of pressure on it now, and it is interesting how it adapts to the digital age; although already rather late in that respect. One thing UK gov or health services will never be is pro-active, they are always playing catch-up.

=[http://ep-ology.com/2014/12/31/how-many-premature-deaths-have-been-averted-by-e-cigarettes-already/ Epology:]=

How Many Premature Deaths Have Been Averted by ECigarettes Already – A brave punt by Phillips on how many extra years of life expectancy (aka ‘lives saved’) ecigs are already responsible for. Hope he’s right.

[[Category:Media - Movies, Videos, Vlogs, Blogs, OpEds, News, etc.]]

Kodak Moment

2020-12-12T14:22:08Z

Phil-w888: complete rewrite

'''Kodak Moment''' originated as an advertising slogan for the Eastman Kodak Company in which meaningful occasions were portrayed as worthy of a photograph. The term gained a new meaning when the company's slow reaction to the development of digital photography led to its eventual demise. It now refers to any large, successful company's failure to adapt to a disruptive change in the industry.

Is vaping a tobacco industry ploy to keep people smoking?

2020-12-12T14:04:39Z

Phil-w888: punctuation, added "-sized"

No. Vaping is primarily small to medium-sized businesses. Vaping was developed by vapers.

Recently cigarette companies have invested in vaping, most likely to avoid having a '[[Kodak Moment]]'
[[Category: FAQ Question]]

Faq athra

2020-12-12T14:02:41Z

Phil-w888: /* Safety and health */ changed link to moved page

From the [[ATHRA]] FAQ - that can be found here: [https://www.athra.org.au/qanda/]
== The basics ==
[[What is tobacco harm reduction?]]

[[What is vaping?]]

[[Why do people vape?]]

[[How many Australians vape?]]

[[Is vaping legal in Australia?]]

== Safety and health ==
[[Are e-cigarettes less harmful than smoking?]]

[[Is it fair to say that vaping is likely to be at least 95% lower risk than smoking?]]

[[PubPeer| Additional information on PubPeer]]

[[Does vaping cause cancer?]]

[[Is vaping harmful to bystanders?]]

[[Should public vaping be banned?]]

[[Isn’t nicotine harmful?]]

[[What about the unknown long-term risks?]]

[[But it took decades to find out that smoking was harmful]]

[[Don’t the recent US cases of severe lung injury prove that vaping is very harmful?]]

[[Does vaping cause popcorn lung?]]

[[Is vaping safe in pregnancy?]]

[[Is vaping addictive?]]

[[How common is child poisoning?]]

[[What about fires and explosions?]]

== Quitting Smoking ==
[[Does vaping help people quit smoking?]]

[[Is vaping a popular quitting aid?]]

[[Should vapers continue to vape after quitting smoking?]]

== Youth vaping ==
[[Is there a ‘youth vaping epidemic’ in Australia?]]

[[Is there a youth vaping ‘epidemic’ in the US?]]

[[Is vaping a gateway to smoking?]]

[[Should flavours be banned to stop youth vaping?]]

[[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]]

[[What can be done to protect young people?]]

== Other issues ==
[[Is vaping being taken up by non-smokers?]]

[[Does vaping ‘renormalise’ smoking?]]

[[Isn’t most vaping ‘dual-use’ of e-cigarettes and cigarettes?]]

[[Is vaping cheaper than smoking?]]

[[The precautionary principle]]

== The tobacco industry ==
[[Is vaping a tobacco industry ploy to keep people smoking?]]

== Regulation of vaping ==
[[How should vaping be regulated?]]

[[How should vaping products be taxed?]]

[[Who should regulate vaping products?]]

[[What are the changes proposed for 2021?]]

[[Category:FAQ list]]

PubPeer

2020-12-12T14:01:17Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Additional information on PubPeer to PubPeer without leaving a redirect

A site that allows scientists to comment on their peers work.

https://pubpeer.com/

Main Page

2020-12-12T03:35:40Z

Phil-w888: /* What is this? */ comma

[[File:98944120-A897-4072-B461-4423B907E527.jpg|thumb|Safer nicotine Wiki]]
MediaWiki has been installed.

__TOC__

= How to explore: =
{{Information|
See the [[Special:AllPages|'''List of all pages''']], or use the [[Special:Search|'''Search page''']] or the search box in the top right corner. There is also a list of [[:Category:FAQ Question|'''FAQ Questions''']] that may be interesting. And a [[:Category:FAQ list|'''lists of FAQ questions from various other organizations''']]
}}

= What is this? =
This Wiki has been assembled by a team of keen volunteers, free of funding from any source. If you would like to contribute to the expansion and evolution of this resource, please contact us at the links shown. Remember: respected sources only.

A few important questions are answered here without having to access the main menu:

'''Safe or Safer?'''
Briefly, nothing is absolutely safe, but as the products continually evolve they become safer. [[Nicotine Replacement Therapy]] products such as [[Transdermal patch|patches]], [[Nicotine Chewing gum|gums]], [[Nicotine sprays|sprays]], and inhalers are substantially less than 1% as risky as smoking. Non-pharmaceutical nicotine products can also pose a fraction of the risk of smoking, e.g. [[Snus]] (approximately 1%), [[What are electronic cigarettes?| E-Cigarettes]] (less than 5%), and Heat not Burn (approximately 10%). These estimates become ever more refined as increasing numbers of research studies are published.

'''Quit Aid'''
The most frequently-used method to quit smoking is 'cold turkey', i.e. unaided, but this has a greater failure rate than perhaps all others. It is very difficult to attribute a precise figure towards popular quit methods such as NRT, Varenicline (various trade names), Allen Carr, hypnotherapy, snus etc., as the usual medical standard of proof, the [[wikipedia:Randomized controlled trial| Randomised Controlled Trial]], doesn't really cover certain options such as e-cigarettes adequately (as choices of all various combinations of flavour choice, nicotine strength, and device type are impossible to include). However, [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1808779 a recent RCT] demonstrated that e-cigarettes were twice as effective as NRT for smoking cessation (probably an underestimate of real world results).

'''Health Improvements'''
Virtually everyone who used a safer nicotine product to quit smoking completely experiences profound improvement in their health, e.g. improved breathing and cardiovascular benefits. This is possibly due to totally removing the previous inhalation of carbon monoxide from the tobacco cigarette.

'''Commentary from Respected Sources'''
Many governments around the world recognise that Safer Nicotine Products offer benefits, along with respected organisations such as Public Health England, Royal College of Physicians, Cochrane, and NASEM (US).

'''Cost Savings'''
Vast savings are experienced; this is quite underappreciated by some members of the general public. It would be a gross underestimate to state that a 50% reduction in spending would be experienced by anyone who completely switches. For some users who make their own liquids and manufacture their own coils, costs can be less than 1% of what they would have incurred when smoking.

= How to Contribute =

Please create an account and start editing! Tips and tricks [[How to edit the wiki|here]]

Please email info@safernicotine.wiki

We will accept documents if you prefer to write them in word (.doc), or open document format (.odf) or PDF (.pdf). Files can be uploaded, please be sure to check the right licence on uploading.

Twitter [https://twitter.com/SaferWiki @SaferWiki]

Main Page

2020-12-12T03:31:45Z

Phil-w888: /* What is this? */ added external link

[[File:98944120-A897-4072-B461-4423B907E527.jpg|thumb|Safer nicotine Wiki]]
MediaWiki has been installed.

__TOC__

= How to explore: =
{{Information|
See the [[Special:AllPages|'''List of all pages''']], or use the [[Special:Search|'''Search page''']] or the search box in the top right corner. There is also a list of [[:Category:FAQ Question|'''FAQ Questions''']] that may be interesting. And a [[:Category:FAQ list|'''lists of FAQ questions from various other organizations''']]
}}

= What is this? =
This Wiki has been assembled by a team of keen volunteers, free of funding from any source. If you would like to contribute to the expansion and evolution of this resource, please contact us at the links shown. Remember: respected sources only.

A few important questions are answered here without having to access the main menu:

'''Safe or Safer?'''
Briefly, nothing is absolutely safe, but as the products continually evolve they become safer. [[Nicotine Replacement Therapy]] products such as [[Transdermal patch|patches]], [[Nicotine Chewing gum|gums]], [[Nicotine sprays|sprays]], and inhalers are substantially less than 1% as risky as smoking. Non-pharmaceutical nicotine products can also pose a fraction of the risk of smoking, e.g. [[Snus]] (approximately 1%), [[What are electronic cigarettes?| E-Cigarettes]] (less than 5%), and Heat not Burn (approximately 10%). These estimates become ever more refined as increasing numbers of research studies are published.

'''Quit Aid'''
The most frequently-used method to quit smoking is 'cold turkey', i.e. unaided, but this has a greater failure rate than perhaps all others. It is very difficult to attribute a precise figure towards popular quit methods such as NRT, Varenicline (various trade names), Allen Carr, hypnotherapy, snus etc., as the usual medical standard of proof, the [[wikipedia:Randomized controlled trial| Randomised Controlled Trial]], doesn't really cover certain options such as e-cigarettes adequately (as choices of all various combinations of flavour choice, nicotine strength, and device type are impossible to include). However [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1808779 a recent RCT] demonstrated that e-cigarettes were twice as effective as NRT for smoking cessation (probably an underestimate of real world results).

'''Health Improvements'''
Virtually everyone who used a safer nicotine product to quit smoking completely experiences profound improvement in their health, e.g. improved breathing and cardiovascular benefits. This is possibly due to totally removing the previous inhalation of carbon monoxide from the tobacco cigarette.

'''Commentary from Respected Sources'''
Many governments around the world recognise that Safer Nicotine Products offer benefits, along with respected organisations such as Public Health England, Royal College of Physicians, Cochrane, and NASEM (US).

'''Cost Savings'''
Vast savings are experienced; this is quite underappreciated by some members of the general public. It would be a gross underestimate to state that a 50% reduction in spending would be experienced by anyone who completely switches. For some users who make their own liquids and manufacture their own coils, costs can be less than 1% of what they would have incurred when smoking.

= How to Contribute =

Please create an account and start editing! Tips and tricks [[How to edit the wiki|here]]

Please email info@safernicotine.wiki

We will accept documents if you prefer to write them in word (.doc), or open document format (.odf) or PDF (.pdf). Files can be uploaded, please be sure to check the right licence on uploading.

Twitter [https://twitter.com/SaferWiki @SaferWiki]

Main Page

2020-12-12T03:30:03Z

Phil-w888: /* What is this? */ added internal link

[[File:98944120-A897-4072-B461-4423B907E527.jpg|thumb|Safer nicotine Wiki]]
MediaWiki has been installed.

__TOC__

= How to explore: =
{{Information|
See the [[Special:AllPages|'''List of all pages''']], or use the [[Special:Search|'''Search page''']] or the search box in the top right corner. There is also a list of [[:Category:FAQ Question|'''FAQ Questions''']] that may be interesting. And a [[:Category:FAQ list|'''lists of FAQ questions from various other organizations''']]
}}

= What is this? =
This Wiki has been assembled by a team of keen volunteers, free of funding from any source. If you would like to contribute to the expansion and evolution of this resource, please contact us at the links shown. Remember: respected sources only.

A few important questions are answered here without having to access the main menu:

'''Safe or Safer?'''
Briefly, nothing is absolutely safe, but as the products continually evolve they become safer. [[Nicotine Replacement Therapy]] products such as [[Transdermal patch|patches]], [[Nicotine Chewing gum|gums]], [[Nicotine sprays|sprays]], and inhalers are substantially less than 1% as risky as smoking. Non-pharmaceutical nicotine products can also pose a fraction of the risk of smoking, e.g. [[Snus]] (approximately 1%), [[What are electronic cigarettes?| E-Cigarettes]] (less than 5%), and Heat not Burn (approximately 10%). These estimates become ever more refined as increasing numbers of research studies are published.

'''Quit Aid'''
The most frequently-used method to quit smoking is 'cold turkey', i.e. unaided, but this has a greater failure rate than perhaps all others. It is very difficult to attribute a precise figure towards popular quit methods such as NRT, Varenicline (various trade names), Allen Carr, hypnotherapy, snus etc., as the usual medical standard of proof, the [[wikipedia:Randomized controlled trial| Randomised Controlled Trial]], doesn't really cover certain options such as e-cigarettes adequately (as choices of all various combinations of flavour choice, nicotine strength, and device type are impossible to include). However a recent RCT demonstrated that e-cigarettes were twice as effective as NRT for smoking cessation (probably an underestimate of real world results).

'''Health Improvements'''
Virtually everyone who used a safer nicotine product to quit smoking completely experiences profound improvement in their health, e.g. improved breathing and cardiovascular benefits. This is possibly due to totally removing the previous inhalation of carbon monoxide from the tobacco cigarette.

'''Commentary from Respected Sources'''
Many governments around the world recognise that Safer Nicotine Products offer benefits, along with respected organisations such as Public Health England, Royal College of Physicians, Cochrane, and NASEM (US).

'''Cost Savings'''
Vast savings are experienced; this is quite underappreciated by some members of the general public. It would be a gross underestimate to state that a 50% reduction in spending would be experienced by anyone who completely switches. For some users who make their own liquids and manufacture their own coils, costs can be less than 1% of what they would have incurred when smoking.

= How to Contribute =

Please create an account and start editing! Tips and tricks [[How to edit the wiki|here]]

Please email info@safernicotine.wiki

We will accept documents if you prefer to write them in word (.doc), or open document format (.odf) or PDF (.pdf). Files can be uploaded, please be sure to check the right licence on uploading.

Twitter [https://twitter.com/SaferWiki @SaferWiki]

Safer nicotine vape/snus for smoking cessation

2020-12-11T03:00:23Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Safer nicotine vape/snus smoking cessation efficacy, to Safer nicotine vape/snus smoking cessation efficacy without leaving a redirect

https://safer-alternatives.org/thr/safer-nicotine-products

Sree Sucharitha

2020-12-11T02:59:25Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Sree Sucharitha, to Sree Sucharitha without leaving a redirect

=About=

Sree Sucharitha
Teaching at Medical College
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

=Other info=

See her presentation at GFN

{{#ev:youtube|s8hCk8E3vaM}}

Main Page

2020-12-11T02:49:27Z

Phil-w888: punctuation, spacing, capitalization, added internal links, light copy editing

[[File:98944120-A897-4072-B461-4423B907E527.jpg|thumb|Safer nicotine Wiki]]
MediaWiki has been installed.

__TOC__

= How to explore: =
{{Information|
See the [[Special:AllPages|'''List of all pages''']], or use the [[Special:Search|'''Search page''']] or the search box in the top right corner. There is also a list of [[:Category:FAQ Question|'''FAQ Questions''']] that may be interesting. And a [[:Category:FAQ list|'''lists of FAQ questions from various other organizations''']]
}}

= What is this? =
This Wiki has been assembled by a team of keen volunteers, free of funding from any source. If you would like to contribute to the expansion and evolution of this resource, please contact us at the links shown. Remember: respected sources only.

A few important questions are answered here without having to access the main menu:

'''Safe or Safer?'''
Briefly, nothing is absolutely safe, but as the products continually evolve they become safer. [[Nicotine Replacement Therapy]] products such as [[Transdermal patch|patches]], [[Nicotine Chewing gum|gums]], [[Nicotine sprays|sprays]], and inhalers are substantially less than 1% as risky as smoking. Non-pharmaceutical nicotine products can also pose a fraction of the risk of smoking, e.g. [[Snus]] (approximately 1%), E-Cigarettes (less than 5%), and Heat not Burn (approximately 10%). These estimates become ever more refined as increasing numbers of research studies are published.

'''Quit Aid'''
The most frequently-used method to quit smoking is 'cold turkey', i.e. unaided, but this has a greater failure rate than perhaps all others. It is very difficult to attribute a precise figure towards popular quit methods such as NRT, Varenicline (various trade names), Allen Carr, hypnotherapy, snus etc., as the usual medical standard of proof, the [[wikipedia:Randomized controlled trial| Randomised Controlled Trial]], doesn't really cover certain options such as e-cigarettes adequately (as choices of all various combinations of flavour choice, nicotine strength, and device type are impossible to include). However a recent RCT demonstrated that e-cigarettes were twice as effective as NRT for smoking cessation (probably an underestimate of real world results).

'''Health Improvements'''
Virtually everyone who used a safer nicotine product to quit smoking completely experiences profound improvement in their health, e.g. improved breathing and cardiovascular benefits. This is possibly due to totally removing the previous inhalation of carbon monoxide from the tobacco cigarette.

'''Commentary from Respected Sources'''
Many governments around the world recognise that Safer Nicotine Products offer benefits, along with respected organisations such as Public Health England, Royal College of Physicians, Cochrane, and NASEM (US).

'''Cost Savings'''
Vast savings are experienced; this is quite underappreciated by some members of the general public. It would be a gross underestimate to state that a 50% reduction in spending would be experienced by anyone who completely switches. For some users who make their own liquids and manufacture their own coils, costs can be less than 1% of what they would have incurred when smoking.

= How to Contribute =

Please create an account and start editing! Tips and tricks [[How to edit the wiki|here]]

Please email info@safernicotine.wiki

We will accept documents if you prefer to write them in word (.doc), or open document format (.odf) or PDF (.pdf). Files can be uploaded, please be sure to check the right licence on uploading.

Twitter [https://twitter.com/SaferWiki @SaferWiki]

Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?

2020-12-10T15:12:41Z

Phil-w888: created

From [https://www.clivebates.com/vaping-tobacco-harm-reduction-nicotine-science-and-policy-q-a/ Nicotine science and policy Q & A] by [[Clive Bates]]:

"No, this is a scare story and the claims do not bear scrutiny. Some public figures, including the US Surgeon General, have suggested that nicotine damages the adolescent brain. The evidence for this hypothesis comes only from a few rodent studies. These are an unreliable guide to human risk because the rodent brain does not offer a reliable proxy for the human brain and it is difficult to design experiments that are controlled to give a mouse equivalent exposure to a human.

But this is not the main reason for doubt. Over the last 60 years, millions of adolescent nicotine users have grown up as smokers and either continue to use nicotine or have quit. The problem for the Surgeon General and others is that there is no sign of any cognitive impairment in the population of former teenage smokers and many of today’s finest adult minds were once young smokers. If a detrimental cognitive effect of nicotine existed in the human population, it is inconceivable that we would not already have seen extensive evidence of it from the study of smokers, non-smokers and ex-smokers over several decades."

== Further Reading ==

[https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/stop-publishing-mouse-studies Why Journalists Should Stop Publishing Studies Conducted With Mice]

Lung health

2020-12-10T15:05:49Z

Phil-w888:

[https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjOidCP96ztAhXwShUIHWsLCc8QFjAQegQIHhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmj.com%2Fcontent%2F366%2Fbmj.l5275&usg=AOvVaw3ALiZAIRqJOBYy-g6LAZsL What are the respiratory effects of e-cigarettes?]

Lung health

2020-12-10T15:03:37Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Lung health, to Lung health without leaving a redirect

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjOidCP96ztAhXwShUIHWsLCc8QFjAQegQIHhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmj.com%2Fcontent%2F366%2Fbmj.l5275&usg=AOvVaw3ALiZAIRqJOBYy-g6LAZsL

Cancer risk

2020-12-10T15:01:54Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Cancer risk, to Cancer risk without leaving a redirect

Cancer risk is greatly reduced by the elimination of burning

Jonathan Foulds

2020-12-10T15:00:54Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Jonathon Foulds to Jonathan Foulds: spelling

__TOC__

=about=

Jonathan Foulds, PhD
Professor, Department of Public Health Sciences
Division of Health Services and Behavioral Research
Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Scientific Program:Cancer Control

Email: jaf51@psu.edu

=further details=

Dr. Jonathan Foulds has spent most of his career finding ways to help smokers beat their addiction to tobacco. He has been a principal investigator on grants totaling well over $27 million and has been invited to speak on smoking cessation in more than 15 countries.

In addition to his many publications on tobacco in peer-reviewed scientific journals, Dr. Foulds continues to treat addicted smokers, teach on smoking cessation and conduct research on tobacco and health.

Smokers
Tobacco Products
Nicotine
Therapeutics
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
Tobacco
Tobacco Use Disorder
Smoking
Smoking Cessation
Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
Tobacco Use
Smoke

[[Category: People of note]]

Simon Chapman

2020-12-10T14:39:23Z

Phil-w888: fixed links

__TOC__

'''Simon Fenton Chapman''', [[wikipedia:Order of Australia|AO]] (born 14 December 1951) is an Australian academic and tobacco control activist.

== Life and career ==

Chapman was born in [[wikipedia:Bowral| Bowral]], [[wikipedia:New South Wales| New South Wales]] to Margaret and Alec Chapman who had emigrated from England in 1948. He is an Emeritus Professor in [[wikipedia:Public health|Public Health]] at the [[wikipedia:University of Sydney| University of Sydney]].<ref>{{|url=http://www.medfac.usyd.edu.au/people/academics/profiles/simonchapman.php |title=Professor Simon Chapman - The University of Sydney |publisher=Medfac.usyd.edu.au |date= |accessdate=2015-04-15}}</ref> In his PhD in [[wikipedia:social medicine| social medicine]] he examined the [[wikipedia:semiotics| semiotics]] of [[wikipedia:cigarette advertising| cigarette advertising]].<ref>[http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/public-health/AHNRC/team.html Australian Health News Research Collaboration (AHNRC)]</ref> He has authored 21 books and major reports, 340 papers and editorials, and 194 letters and commentaries in peer reviewed journals.

Chapman is a regular writer on public health matters in leading Australian newspapers and blogs, having written some 407 opinion page and journalistic articles since 1981.<ref>{{ |url=http://api.profiles.sydney.edu.au/AcademicProfiles/profile/resource?urlid=simon.chapman&type=cv |format=PDF |title=Curriculum vitae: Simon Chapman |publisher=[[wikipedia:University of Sydney]] |accessdate=25 October 2015}}</ref> His main research interests are in tobacco control, media discourses on health and illness, and risk communication. He taught annual courses in Public Health Advocacy and Tobacco Control in the University of Sydney's MPH program. He wrote a regular column, Smoke Signals, on public health matters for The Conversation from January 2015-August 2017 which by December 2019 had been read 3.338 million times. He blogs at simonchapman6.com

In 1997 Chapman won the [[wikipedia:World Health Organization| World Health Organization]]'s [[wikipedia:World No Tobacco Day| World No Tobacco Day]] Medal; in 1999, the [[wikipedia:National Heart Foundation of Australia| National Heart Foundation of Australia]]'s gold medal; in 2006 the Thoracic Society of Australia & New Zealand President's Award.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150304080702/http://www.thoracic.org.au/imagesDB/wysiwyg/Pres_Award_2015.pdf TSANZ President's Award]</ref> In 2003 he was voted by his international peers to be awarded the [[wikipedia:American Cancer Society| American Cancer Society]]'s Luther L. Terry Award for outstanding individual leadership in tobacco control.<ref>[http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/honoringpeoplewhoaremakingadifference/lutherterryawards/lutherterryrecipients/2003-luther-l-terry-award-winners American Cancer Society's 2003 Luther L. Terry Award Winners]</ref> In 2005, his research on the tobacco industry was selected by the [[wikipedia:National Health and Medical Research Council| National Health and Medical Research Council]] as being one of its "top 10" projects. He was foundational deputy editor of the ''[[wikipedia:British Medical Journal| British Medical Journal]]'''s specialist journal, ''[[wikipedia:Tobacco Control (journal)|Tobacco Control]]'', and its editor from 1999 to 2008. He was Tobacco Control's commissioning editor for Low and Middle Income Countries from 2008–2010 and is now editor emeritus.

Chapman studied health complaints regarding [[wikipedia:wind farm| wind farm]]s in Australia in 2012 and concluded the complaints were likely to be the result of [[wikipedia:nocebo| nocebo]] effects.<ref>{{ journal|last1=Chapman|first1=Simon|last2=St. George|first2=Alexis|last3=Waller|first3=Karen|last4=Cakic|first4=Vince|title=The Pattern of Complaints about Australian Wind Farms Does Not Match the Establishment and Distribution of Turbines: Support for the Psychogenic, 'Communicated Disease' Hypothesis|journal=[[wikipedia:PLoS ONE]] |volume=8|issue=10|year=2013|issn=1932-6203 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0076584|pages=e76584|pmid=24146893|pmc=3797792}}</ref><ref>{{|url=http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/wind-turbine-sickness-all-in-the-mind-study-20130315-2g4zd.html |title=Wind turbine sickness 'all in the mind': study |author=Lenore Taylor |date=15 March 2013 |publisher=Sydney Morning Herald |accessdate=22 October 2015}}</ref>

In 2008 he was awarded the $50,000 NSW Premier's award for Cancer Researcher of the Year, voted to become a Fellow of the [[wikipedia:Academy of Social Sciences in Australia| Academy of Social Sciences in Australia]], won the Public Health Association of Australia's Sidney Sax medal,<ref>{{ |url=http://www.phaa.net.au/sidneySaxMedal.php |title=Sidney Sax Public Health Medal |publisher=Phaa.net.au |accessdate=2015-04-16 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://archive.today/20121231074215/http://www.phaa.net.au/sidneySaxMedal.php |archivedate=31 December 2012 |df=dmy-all }}</ref> and was included in the ''[[wikipedia:Sydney Morning Herald]]'''s ''Sydney Magazine'' list of 100 of Sydney's most influential people. He appeared in that magazine's list again in 2012. In 2013 he was given a Distinguished Professorial Award by the faculty of Medicine at the University of Sydney and made an Honorary Fellow of the Faculty of Public Health of the [[wikipedia:Royal College of Physicians| Royal College of Physicians]] (UK).

Simon Chapman is a life member of the [[wikipedia:Australian Consumers' Association|Australian Consumers' Association]] and was its chairman 1999–2002. He served on the board of [[wikipedia:The Cancer Council New South Wales| The Cancer Council New South Wales]] for nine years until 2006. He was a key member of the Coalition for Gun Control which won the 1996 Australian [[wikipedia:Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission| Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission]]'s Community Human Rights award for its advocacy for gun law reform after the [[wikipedia:Port Arthur massacre (Australia)|Port Arthur massacre]] in 1996. The [[wikipedia:Australian Skeptics| Australian Skeptics]] Inc conferred on him the award of Australian Skeptic of the Year in 2013.<ref>{{|url=http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/announcements/featured-announcement/chiropractors-win-joint-bent-spoon/ |title=Chiropractors win joint Bent Spoon |publisher=[[Australian Skeptics|Australian Skeptics Inc.]] |date=25 November 2013 |accessdate=22 October 2015}}</ref>

He was a staff elected Fellow of Senate,<ref>{{|url=http://www.usyd.edu.au/senate/Fellows.shtml |title=Current Fellows of Senate - Senate - The University of Sydney |publisher=Usyd.edu.au |date= |accessdate=2015-04-15}}</ref> at the University of Sydney from 2007–2011. He was a board member of [[wikipedia:Action on Smoking and Health| Action on Smoking and Health]] (ASH) from 1996–2013.

He was lead singer with a Sydney-based rock covers band, the Original Faux Pas,<ref>{{|url=https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Original-Faux-Pas/116370731720721 |title=The Original Faux Pas |publisher=Facebook.com |date= |accessdate=2015-04-15}}</ref> from 2007–2012 and then with The Bleeding Hearts.<ref>{{|url=https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Bleeding-Hearts/557703304248379 |title=The Bleeding Hearts |publisher=Facebook.com |date= |accessdate=2015-04-15}}</ref>

In November 2019, he directed the inaugural St. Anmoré (Stanmore) Festival of Music to honour the late conductor and musical educator Richard Gill AO

He tweets @simonchapman6.<ref>{{|url=https://twitter.com/SimonChapman6 |title=Simon Chapman AO (@SimonChapman6) |publisher=Twitter.com |date=2014-02-17 |accessdate=2015-04-15}}</ref>

Chapman was made an Officer (AO) in the General Division of the Order of Australia on 10 June 2013.<ref>{{ | url=http://www.smh.com.au/national/queens-birthday-honours-list-2013-20130609-2nyam.html |title=Queen's Birthday honours list 2013 | author= | date=10 June 2013 | work= | publisher=Sydney Morning Herald | accessdate=10 June 2013 }}</ref>

He retired in January 2016 and was awarded Emeritus Professor status by the University of Sydney commencing 2016.<ref>{{|url=http://www.skeptics.com.au/2015/04/30/award-winner-prof-simon-chapman-retires/ |title=Award-winner Prof Simon Chapman retires |publisher=[[Australian Skeptics|Australian Skeptics Inc.]] |date=30 April 2015 |accessdate=22 October 2015}}</ref>

In December 2017, Public Health England accused him of presenting factual errors during a Federal Government Enquiry<ref>http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/health-trio-accused-of-presenting-factual-errors-to-ecig-inquiry/news-story/c360953ae14744b6beafc965eb1aa292</ref>
His full reply to these claims was published in Hansard (submission 313.1<ref>https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Health_Aged_Care_and_Sport/ElectronicCigarettes/Submissions</ref>
==Selected books==
* Chapman, S. (2017) ''Wind turbine syndrome: a communicated disease''. (Sydney, Sydney University Press)<ref>{{|url=https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/17600 |format=PDF |title=Wind turbine syndrome: a communicated disease |publisher=Sydney University Press |accessdate=2018-02-25}}</ref>
* Chapman, S. (2016) ''Smoke signals: selected writing''. (Sydney, Darlington Press)<ref>{{|url=http://purl.library.usyd.edu.au/sup/9781921364594|format=PDF |title=Smoke signals:selected writing|publisher=Ses.library.usyd.edu.au |accessdate=2017-03-17}}</ref>
* Chapman, S, Freeman B. (2014) ''Removing the emperor's clothes: tobacco plain packaging in Australia''. (Sydney, Sydney University Press)<ref>{{|url=http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au//bitstream/2123/12257/7/9781743324295_Chapman_RemovingtheEmperorsClothes_FT.pdf |format=PDF |title=Removing the emperor's clothes |publisher=Ses.library.usyd.edu.au |accessdate=2015-04-16}}</ref>
* Chapman, S, Barratt A, Stockler M.(2010) ''Let sleeping dogs lie? What men should know before getting tested for prostate cancer''. (Sydney, Sydney University Press)<ref>{{|url=http://purl.library.usyd.edu.au/sup/9781920899684 |title=SUP eStore :: Let sleeping dogs lie? What men should know before getting tested for prostate cancer |publisher=Purl.library.usyd.edu.au |date= |accessdate=2015-04-15}}</ref>
* Chapman, S. (2007) ''Public health advocacy and tobacco control: making smoking history'' (Oxford, Blackwell)
* Chapman, S. (1998) ''Over our dead bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's fight for gun control'' (Sydney, Pluto Press). Reprinted 2013 by Sydney University Press<ref>{{|author= |url=http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/8938 |title=The Sydney eScholarship Repository: Over our dead bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's fight for gun control |publisher=Ses.library.usyd.edu.au |date=2013-02-14 |accessdate=2015-04-15}}</ref>
* Chapman, S. (1995) ''The last right?: Australians take sides on the right to die'' (Sydney: Mandarin)
* Chapman, S. & Lupton, D. (1994) ''The fight for public health: principles and practice of media advocacy'' (London, BMJ).
* Chapman, S. (1990) ''Tobacco in the third world: a resource atlas'' (International Organisation of Consumers' Unions).
* Chapman, S. (1986) ''Great expectorations: advertising and the tobacco industry'' (London: Comedia).
* Chapman, S. (1983) ''The lung goodbye: tactics for counteracting the tobacco industry in the 1980s'' (International Organisation of Consumers' Unions).

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/simon.chapman.php Professor Simon Chapman] at the University of Sydney with [http://api.profiles.sydney.edu.au/AcademicProfiles/profile/resource?urlid=simon.chapman&type=cv Curriculum vitae, January 2015]
* {{LCAuth|n85247557|Simon Chapman|8|ue}}

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ6gqrQkSzk&feature=emb_logo Simon Chapman - a brief sample thereof..}}

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ6gqrQkSzk&feature=emb_logo Simon Chapman - a brief sample thereof..]

[https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PDE8U4UAAAAJ&hl=en Simon Chapman AO PhD FASSA HonFFPH(UK)]

Simon Chapman has had a long career in Tobacco Control, and has extensively published academic articles, been an editor of BMj tobacco control and has been used in a consultation role for WHO see wiki [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Chapman_(academic) Simon Chapman (academic)]

One particular reason for his inclusion in this Safer Nicotine Wiki is his position regarding Smoking Cessation, dismissing the merits of safer nicotine products in his blog entries and frequently entering into hostile angry exchanges with peers and members of the Public alike usually by the twitter medium.

One particular sad incident involved Lorien Jollye who had the temerity to write into the Lancet pointing out factual errors in a Simon Chapman entry ,this resulted in a 4 person broadside from Chapman,McKee,Glantz and Daube see [http://theindefatigablefrog.blogspot.com/2014/12/so-i-spent-some-time-wondering-how-best.html Voices From The Street.]and [http://theindefatigablefrog.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-lesson-in-manners.html A Lesson In Manners.] this unbecoming behaviour also covered here by Clive Bates [https://www.clivebates.com/the-worst-letter-of-2014-a-review/ The Worst Letter of 2014 - a review] and a general comment to Public Health professionals
[https://www.clivebates.com/memo-to-public-health-grandees-vaping-vapers-and-you/ Memo to public health grandees: vaping, vapers and you]

[[Category: People of note]]

Grim Green

2020-12-10T13:50:29Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Grim Green to GrimmGreen

#REDIRECT [[GrimmGreen]]

GrimmGreen

2020-12-10T13:50:29Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Grim Green to GrimmGreen

__TOC__

=Description=

I'm here to spread some good information about e-cigs and vaping, Nicotine and Tobacco Harm Reduction. Vaping really does save lives. After smoking for 13 years, and many many quit attempts, In 2009 I picked up and ecig and accidentally quit smoking cigarettes. I've personally been using many low mg nicotine vapes for the last 11 years and It has been nothing but amazing for me .

<nowiki>#GrimmArmy</nowiki>

=Art=

GrimmGreen has recently posted art to his twitter. As a beginner he received quite a bit of approval!

==Schedule==

* Monday Build Stream - 1:30pm PST
* Tuesday Bro NewsDay ( with Danielle Jones ) - News and Advocacy show 3:30pm PST
* Wednesday Usually a review or two. Banana sticker ratings are back.
* Thursday VLOG Program. Beer, Vaps, Advocacy, liquid, #GrimmArmy chill time, all are welcome 4:30pm PST

==Contact Details==

Sending an e-mail to Nick@grimmgreen.com is the absolute best way to get a hold of me.

[[Category:Media - Movies, Videos, Vlogs, Blogs, OpEds, News, etc.]] [[Category: People of note]]

GrimmGreen

2020-12-10T13:50:10Z

Phil-w888: spelling, punctuation, capitalisation

Vapor man

2020-12-10T13:45:50Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Vapor man to Vapor Man

#REDIRECT [[Vapor Man]]

Vapor Man

2020-12-10T13:45:50Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Vapor man to Vapor Man

__TOC__

=about=
Vapor Man will not stop until vaping is just as legal as tobacco and taxed like a nicotine replacement product.

Location: Australia

=external links=
[https://twitter.com/VaporMan6 twitter]
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvcWr80D_Uy2sJBiBTW2f9A/featured youtube]

Vapour man

2020-12-10T13:44:49Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Vapour man to Vapor man: spelling

#REDIRECT [[Vapor man]]

Vapor Man

2020-12-10T13:44:49Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Vapour man to Vapor man: spelling

Surveys and questionnaires

2020-12-06T15:09:40Z

Phil-w888: /* 'SURVEY ACCESS' */ let's make it clickable

__toc__

=[https://euronicotinesurvey.urlweb.pro/s/index.php?a=JTk2cSU5QWolOTglQUU=&id=JTk3ciU5N2glOUQlQUQ= European nicotine survey]=

=='MAJOR NEW SURVEY'==

Today ETHRA is launching a major survey. Published in the run up to the revision of the European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), this is the only questionnaire to survey nicotine consumers, the people most affected by possible regulatory changes to nicotine products.

ETHRA, which brings together 22 European groups representing consumers of safer nicotine products, is launching this questionnaire today to examine nicotine use in Europe. '''ETHRA is calling for maximum consumer participation and is asking for consumers to do the survey and also to help with its distribution, by sharing it on social media.''' The questionnaire is open to adults only and has been translated into 11 languages. The development of the survey is the result of collective voluntary work of ETHRA with the support of its scientific advisors. ETHRA is independent from the nicotine and pharmaceutical industries.

=='WHAT IS IT ABOUT?'==

The survey asks questions about the use of different nicotine products in order to discern conditions for users across Europe. The practical consequences of possible regulatory changes are also examined. How would you react to increased taxes, vape flavour bans or to the legalisation of snus? Is there a need for greater access to product information? Would lifting the container restriction on e-liquids have any impact? What is missing for people who want to quit smoking? These are some of the themes of the survey launched by ETHRA and its 22 member associations.

The questionnaire is available in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Serbian, Spanish and Swedish. It takes only a few minutes to complete and is open until December 31, 2020. Access is restricted to adults only. Only one response is possible per IP address, to preserve the integrity of the survey. Please see the notes below for the survey link and QR code. Please get in touch if you would like embedded links to include the survey on your website.

=='DATA TO SHED LIGHT ON EUROPEAN DEBATES'==

The results of the survey will allow advocates of safer products to collect data on nicotine use in Europe, ahead of some key European Union (EU) regulatory deadlines. The European Commission is preparing proposals to amend two directives in 2021:

1. The Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), in which Article 20 deals with vaping as a related product, but prohibits the sale of snus in the EU, except in Sweden.

2. The Tobacco Excise Directive (TED) to harmonize definitions and tax treatment of new products, including vaping, at the request of the European Council. Almost 90% of citizens and organisations who responded to the Commission's public consultations in 2016 and 2018 had rejected the principle.

The proposed changes will be debated, by the Parliament in May 2021 for TPD, and by the European Council for taxes. Drawing up a concrete map of uses and needs based on the responses to the ETHRA survey will shed light on the issues of possible revisions and provide useful information for public, harm reduction advocates and, of course, decision-makers, particularly MEPs.

=='TENS OF MILLIONS OF EUROPEANS AFFECTED'==

These issues concern tens of millions of Europeans: people who use safer nicotine products, people who smoke and who might switch to safer products, their relatives, and also social and health professionals in the field. Building reliable knowledge organically from users is an essential part of harm reduction approaches. This initiative is part of this successful strategy, being both '''about''' and '''with''' users.

==== We thank you for your participation and support. Nothing about us without us. ====

=='NOTES'==

'''Note for transparency''': SOVAPE, a not for profit association, has donated to ETHRA its subscription to the French EVALANDGO platform for this survey. EVALANDGO subscribes to the European regulation on data protection (GDPR) and data are stored in France.

'''ETHRA''' (European Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates) promotes discussion and the exchange of information and potential actions to reduce exposure to tobacco-related harm. ETHRA complements existing organisations by offering European advocates a platform for exchanging information (particularly at European policy level) and for sharing experiences and local initiatives, in support of tobacco harm reduction. ETHRA is registered on the EU Transparency Register, registration number 354946837243-73.

=='SURVEY ACCESS'==

Direct link:

[https://euronicotinesurvey.urlweb.pro/s/index.php?a=JTk2cSU5QWolOTglQUU=&id=JTk3ciU5N2glOUQlQUQ= EU Nicotine Users Survey]

QR code:

[[File:EU Nicotine Users Survey QR code.png|thumb|QR code]]

Impactful You-Tube Recordings of Important Debates & Interviews

2020-12-05T22:14:52Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Impactful You-Tube Recordings of Important Debates to Impactful You-Tube Recordings of Important Debates & Interviews

Carefully curated by David Newell over a lengthy period [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCk0Mdy5QPPXsNHcA0t00Qpw see] It would be virtually impossible to select a 'best' from this list. But over the coming weeks and months that is what we will hope to produce here. 'Popular Uploads' gives a hint of what is on display, but 6 years worth of recordings are available, that are a veritable treasure trove.

Is vaping a gateway to smoking?

2020-12-05T13:54:18Z

Phil-w888: /* Additional reading */ changed subtitle

No. As vaping rates have increased over the past decade, smoking rates have reached record lows across all age groups. If vaping led to smoking, smoking rates would be increasing, not declining. Therefore, there is zero evidence that vaping leads to smoking. [[Read more here.]]

[[Category: FAQ Question]]
Sometimes sleight of hand may be used to attempt to demonstrate a [https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/12/02/dodgy-stats-on-the-gateway-hypothesis/ Gateway effect]

== External Links ==

[https://www.clivebates.com/how-not-to-be-duped-by-gateway-effect-claims/ How not to be duped by gateway effect claims] by Clive Bates

[https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/5/5439/htm Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would)] by Carl V. Phillips

INNCO

2020-12-05T13:52:15Z

Phil-w888: changed subtitles to level 2

[[Image:INNCO.gif|thumb|300px|right|alt=Logo for INNCO]]
'''INNCO''' (International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organizations) is an umbrella organisation that was formed in 2017 to represent consumers of low-risk, alternative nicotine products and to promote [[Tobacco Harm Reduction]] (THR) on the global stage.

== Member organizations ==
* [[CASAA]]

== External Links ==
* [https://innco.org INNCO website]

[[Category:Consumer Advocacy Organization]]

Nicotine therapeutic benefits

2020-12-05T13:49:53Z

Phil-w888: changed subtitles to level 2

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC526783/

==ADD/ADHD==
==Addiction==
==Alzheimer / Dementia / MCI==
==Aphthous ulcers==
==Arthritis==
==Auditory==
==Autism==
==Behcet's disease==
==Brain Injury==
==Cancer / Cancer Treatments==
==Cognitive / IQ==
==Digestive Tract / Bowel==
==Downs Syndrome==
==Endurance / Exercise / Athletic Performance==
==HIV/AIDS==
==Mental Health - Anxiety==
==Mental Health - Behavior Issues==
==Mental Health - Depression==
==Mental Health - Schizophrenia==
==Movement Disorders (not diagnosis specific)==
==Multiple Sclerosis - Humans / Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis (EAE) - Animals==
==OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder)==
==Pain==
==Parkinson Disease==
==Pregnancy==
==Psoriasis==
==Pyoderma Gangrenosum==
==Sarcoidosis==
==Seizures / Epilepsy==
==Sleep Apnea==
==Spinal Cord Injury==
==Tourette Syndrome==
==Weight Loss / Appetite Control / Metabolism / Obesity==
==1991 [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/ Beneficial effects of nicotine]==
*When chronically taken, nicotine may result in reduction of body weight
*[https://sci-hub.st/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01810.x PDF version]
*Citation: Jarvik ME. Beneficial effects of nicotine. Br J Addict. 1991 May;86(5):571-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01810.x. PMID: 1859921.
*Acknowledgement: Supported by U. C. Tobacco-related Disease program, grant # RT87 and a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
==More Information==
==See also: [[Nicotine_Studies|'''List of researchers''']] studying nicotine / tobacco harm reduction==

Is vaping a gateway to smoking?

2020-12-05T13:44:27Z

Phil-w888: capitalization

No. As vaping rates have increased over the past decade, smoking rates have reached record lows across all age groups. If vaping led to smoking, smoking rates would be increasing, not declining. Therefore, there is zero evidence that vaping leads to smoking. [[Read more here.]]

[[Category: FAQ Question]]
Sometimes sleight of hand may be used to attempt to demonstrate a [https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/12/02/dodgy-stats-on-the-gateway-hypothesis/ Gateway effect]

== Additional reading ==

[https://www.clivebates.com/how-not-to-be-duped-by-gateway-effect-claims/ How not to be duped by gateway effect claims] by Clive Bates

[https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/5/5439/htm Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would)] by Carl V. Phillips

Is vaping a gateway to smoking?

2020-12-05T13:42:50Z

Phil-w888: added additional reading

No. As vaping rates have increased over the past decade, smoking rates have reached record lows across all age groups. If vaping led to smoking, smoking rates would be increasing, not declining. Therefore, there is zero evidence that vaping leads to smoking. [[Read more here.]]

[[Category: FAQ Question]]
Sometimes Sleight of Hand may be used to attempt to demonstrate a [https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/12/02/dodgy-stats-on-the-gateway-hypothesis/ Gateway effect]

== Additional reading ==

[https://www.clivebates.com/how-not-to-be-duped-by-gateway-effect-claims/ How not to be duped by gateway effect claims] by Clive Bates

[https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/5/5439/htm Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would)] by Carl V. Phillips

Is vaping a gateway to smoking?

2020-12-05T13:29:29Z

Phil-w888: fixed link

Does vaping increase COVID-19 risk?

2020-12-05T05:45:19Z

Phil-w888: consistency...

Youth Epidemic

2020-12-05T01:00:09Z

Phil-w888: It was the FDA

Hysteria was created when the US agencies the FDA and CDC started to describe youth use as an epidemic. The origins of the use of this term are from a FDA focus group involving youth to find the most impactful scary word to influence their peers.

Clive Bates [https://www.clivebates.com/the-great-american-youth-vaping-epidemic-really/ analysis]

[https://www.qeios.com/read/745076.5 Epidemic of youth nicotine addiction? What does the National Youth Tobacco Survey 2017-2019 reveal about high school e-cigarette use in the USA?]

Brad Rodu [https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-2018-american-teen-vaping-epidemic.html analysis]

Michelle Minton [https://cei.org/blog/blame-anti-tobacco-advocates-for-youth-vaping-epidemic/ Blame Anti-Tobacco Advocates for Youth Vaping “Epidemic”]

Bloomberg

2020-12-05T00:58:33Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Bloomberg to Michael Bloomberg: full name

#REDIRECT [[Michael Bloomberg]]

Michael Bloomberg

2020-12-05T00:58:33Z

Phil-w888: Phil-w888 moved page Bloomberg to Michael Bloomberg: full name

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg Michael Bloomberg], ex-Mayor of New York, has devoted much of his time and fortune to anti-smoking campaigns. In September 2019, his philanthropic arm made a $160 million [https://www.bloomberg.org/press/releases/bloomberg-philanthropies-launches-new-160-million-program-end-youth-e-cigarette-epidemic/ three-year commitment] to anti-vaping campaigns with goals including enacting bans of all flavored e-cigarettes. While this endeavour is led by [[Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids]], his funding and influence are not confined to the United States.