The Perspective of Both Sides

March 11 2016

It is now grounded that there are two sides battling out to determine whether e-cigarettes are safe or not. While some researchers and doctors believe vaporizers to be the key in solving tobacco related issues, others believe that e-cigarettes may actually cause more problems. Both sides have expressed their ideas on the web and now the readers are caught in the middle, many of them not knowing what to believe. Guy Bentley on The Daily Caller (article title: “Survey Shows Doctors Are Split On E-Cig Benefits” ) says that
“Physicians are split on the benefits of using e-cigarettes as a tool for reducing smoking-related harms, according to a study from the Saint Louis University School of Medicine.
Researchers sent an anonymous online questionnaire to faculty, residents and fellows in the university’s departments of internal medicine and surgery — receiving responses from 51 percent.

The Perspective of Both Sides

“With easy access and over the counter availability, many patients consider using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. Few studies have looked at long-term safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes,” writes Venkatkiran Kanchustambham, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine.
The findings presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Annual Meeting from March 4-7 also found that more than a quarter of respondents were unfamiliar with what “vaping” meant.
Half of those polled worried e-cigarettes would prove tempting to non-smokers despite data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing that just 0.4 percent of never-smokers are current vapers.
There were slight majorities in favor of tighter e-cigarette regulations and warnings on vapor products, similar to those on tobacco, and 36 percent supported advertising restrictions.
“Further research is needed to assess whether e-cigarettes could be an effective smoking cessation tool,” said Kanchustambham. “There is an apparent knowledge gap among physicians and an urgent need for evidence-based guidelines to aid with advising smokers enquiring about e-cigarettes.”
The medical profession’s attitude toward e-cigarettes is wildly different that in the United Kingdom, where they have been classified as medical devices. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said e-cigarettes could be marketed as smoking cessation aids, opening the way for prescription use by Britain’s National Health Service.
Prior to MHRA’s decision, e-cigarettes could not be recommended by general practitioners because they were not licensed. Now, e-cigarettes will be able to more fully compete with traditional quitting remedies such as nicotine gum and patches.
The U.K. has been one of the most bullish countries on the public health benefits of e-cigarettes, with an independent study from Public Health England claiming they are 95 percent safer than tobacco.” (Guy Bentley, The Daily Caller)
One critical factor that may be a cause for this divide is because of the research that is being done. In the case of the U.K., Public Health England has been an advocate for e-cigarettes carrying out research that shows e-cigarettes to be 95% less dangerous than smoking. On the other hand, other researchers have made studies that show e-cigarettes to be just as dangerous as or even more dangerous than smoking. However, the claims that have been going against the use of e-cigarettes are slowly starting to be proved wrong.
Many studies have been exaggerated to make e-cigarettes look more dangerous than it really is. A key example could be about the statement that e-cigarettes are just as dangerous as smoking. After this study was released to the public, investigation into this study was made and it was found out that when experimenting, the researchers used unrealistically high concentrations of vapor (not even the heaviest vapers used concentrations to this level). It was also found that even when using high concentrations of vapor, smoking still showed to be more dangerous than vaping. Though both sides have been expressing their stance on this issue, only the correct information should be provided to the public to avoid any misunderstandings.