To anyone who’s paid attention, facebook embraces the leftist agenda and attacks anyone who dares speak out against it. Especially those of faith. This isn’t a random occurrence. It is a daily occurrence. My latest run-in was in a group where I found this post. https://m.facebook.com/groups/468140006548066/permalink/6963869766975025/.
It quickly accelerated to this!
I then responded with this!
I got a light sentence this time, only 7 days. But if you are right wing or a person of faith, there is no way you feel safe. It’s high time to take them down!
The latest lie from the anti vaping fascist is and was that flavors created by Big Tobacco drove the so called youth epidemic. Two lies rolled up into one. Flavors were created by smokers/vapers who found the existing flavors unacceptable. There’s no such thing as a “Tobacco Flavor”, not one single ejuice replicates the taste of a traditional cigarette. If there was, the quit rate would be much higher. Why do I say lie? Because they knew the truth several years ago from the youth tobacco survey which showed that flavors weren’t the driving force behind Teen vaping. Plus 100% of eliquids are flavored.
They subsequently removed the question because it didn’t fit the narrative. So our government is complicit in the lie! WHY?
“Over 75 percent of youth vapers apparently don’t care much about flavors, according to the most recent survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Given the choice of selecting any and/or all of 12 different reasons for why they had tried vaping in the first place, only 22.3 percent of young people said because e-cigarettes “are available in flavors, such as mint, candy, fruit or chocolate.” That’s about the same number of them who said they use e-cigarettes because “I can use them to do tricks.””
A survey done by Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos backs up that fact and can be Found here.
“Adult vapers tend to prefer sweet e-liquid over tobacco flavors, a fact already shown in Dr. Russell’s recent study, produced from 2016 survey data. And the new survey shows vapers with an even more pronounced preference for fruit and dessert flavors over tobacco than the 2016 one.
While 14.8 percent of the ex-smokers in the 2016 Russell data were sometime-users of tobacco flavors, just 7.7 percent of the exclusive vapers in the new survey vape tobacco. And, as in the Russell survey, even the vapers who also smoke prefer non-tobacco flavors. Just 9.1 percent of dual users (vapers who also smoke) sometimes vape tobacco flavors.”
So flavors were not driven by “Big Tobacco” Adult users created and demanded the flavors. And it wasn’t the vapor companies that advertised the flavors to teens, it was the anti vaping groups, they even hired teens for their ads. I mean you too can be as cool as Ferris Bueller.
“Furthermore, youth vaping—though perhaps worthy of attention—is not as common as people may think. Most adolescents have never vaped (81.4 percent), few reported vaping at least one in the last month (13.8 percent), and fewer reported vaping six or more times in a month (3.6 to 6.8 percent).
More importantly, of youth who vaped habitually, approximately 99.5 percent already used tobacco—primarily cigarettes—prior to vaping.
On top of that, it isn’t clear that youth who report “vaping” are vaping nicotine products at all. Research points to the possibility that many are actually using vaping devices and e-cigarettes to vape cannabis.
This is not an epidemic.
Yet, it is concerning that after a 30 percent decline between 2016 and 2017, the number of students who reported experimenting with vaping suddenly spiked in 2018 and has continued to rise. What change might have compelled youth in larger numbers to give vaping a try?”
Like I said they take out ads telling kids all the cool kids are doing it! Everybody does it!
Percentage of CURRENT youth e-cigarette users reporting ever use of THC vapes: 2016: 39% 2017: 52% 2018: 54%
Percentage of HEAVY youth e-cigarette users reporting ever use of THC vapes: 2016: 62% 2017: 73% 2018: 71%
What percentage of youth e-cigarette users reported having also vaped THC in 2019?
The answer is …
… we have no idea.
Why? Because the CDC did not even ask the question about marijuana/THC vaping in the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey!
Why would the CDC intentionally take this question off the survey, when it had included the question in the 2016, 2017, and 2018 surveys?
If you put everything together:
the fact that the CDC concealed the information on youth THC vaping for three straight years;
the fact that the CDC blamed the EVALI outbreak on e-cigarettes rather than on THC vaping for months before finally having to admit that e-cigarettes were not to blame; and
the fact that the CDC intentionally removed the THC vaping question from the 2019 NYTS,
one can only get the impression that the CDC is intentionally hiding from the public the extent of the youth marijuana vaping problem because it wants the public to incorrectly believe that e-cigarettes–not THC vapes–are the greatest and most serious vaping-related health risk faced by our nation’s youth.
The CDC cover-up of the role being played by THC vaping in the youth vaping epidemic has had serious consequences. Arguably, it contributed to the sudden and unexpected outbreak of respiratory disease that took the public health world by storm last year, something that could potentially have been avoided or reduced had health practitioners and agencies throughout the country been aware of the severe health risks being posed by youth THC vaping.
It’s a sad day when you can’t trust your own government.
On a segment of “The Doctors” the question was raised does vaping help smokers quit? What’s interesting to note, the only Dr on the panel was Dr Michael Siegel. The others were anti vaping activist including Matt Myers the founder of Tobacco free kids.
“As we have pointed out in detail, it is the effectiveness standard that the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) should use when assessing whether authorizing the sale of e-cigarettes as consumer products in “appropriate for the protection of public health,” the standard in the law.
The fact that e-cigarettes are efficacious is the clinical trials suggests that they might be appropriate as cessation aids when used under medical supervision as a cessation treatment if the risks/benefit profile is favorable. “
The problem is, that if you look at his own study (that he cites) The numbers don’t back up his commentary. Here is a clip from his own study.
“
Results. We identified 64 papers (55 observational studies and 9 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). In observational studies of all adult smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.947; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.772, 1.160) and smokers motivated to quit smoking (OR = 0.851; 95% CI = 0.684, 1.057), e-cigarette consumer product use was not associated with quitting. Daily e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (OR = 1.529; 95% CI = 1.158, 2.019) and less-than-daily use was associated with less quitting (OR = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.402, 0.665). The RCTs that compared quitting among smokers who were provided e-cigarettes to smokers with conventional therapy found e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (relative risk = 1.555; 95% CI = 1.173, 2.061).
“Conclusions. As consumer products, in observational studies, e-cigarettes were not associated with increased smoking cessation in the adult population. In RCTs, provision of free e-cigarettes as a therapeutic intervention was associated with increased smoking cessation.”
Then you look at the numbers and they don’t back his commentary. If ecigarettes are used daily the quit rate was a 53% increase in the chance of quitting. ” Daily e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (OR = 1.529; 95% CI = 1.158, 2.019)” It also showed that people who don’t use it daily were less likely to quit. “and less-than-daily use was associated with less quitting (OR = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.402, 0.665)”
The rest of the numbers in his study included 1 (null) meaning no statistical significance one way or the other. So basically what his study showed was if you don’t use it, it doesn’t work. Question for Matt and Stan, do any of the big Pharma products work if you don’t use them?
Dual use is another red herring they throw out. Many of the 3 million ex smokers that Dr Siegel mentioned were dual users, myself included. It took years of experimentation with different devices and flavors before I could quit. My story here. And even dual use is harm reduction. Every cigarette not smoked is harm reduction. 15 past presidents of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) agree with Dr Siegel and debunk many of the myths here.
The lead author did an extensive interview with Brent Stafford debunking many of those lies.
Update, a recent study backs up everything I stated in this blogpost.
In this cohort study of adult daily cigarette smokers with no plans to ever quit smoking, those who took up daily e-cigarette use experienced 8-fold greater odds of discontinuation versus those who did not use e-cigarettes. https://t.co/Senn6IYNgv
Vaping was created by smokers for smokers including the flavors.
Vaping was around for over 10 years before Tobacco control started taking out ads telling kids about all the wonderful flavors available. And the CEI showed that the so called uptick in youth vaping was due to anti tobacco groups, Not “Big Tobacco”!
But, as this paper seeks to demonstrate, it was not the vapor industry that reignited youth interest in vaping; it was anti-vaping advocacy. Evidence from developmental psychology, the determinants that push youth toward risky behaviors, and the reasons public messaging campaigns can backfire all indicate that the most viable explanation is not that more youths began vaping in spite of anti-vaping campaigns, but because of them. Therefore, devoting even more money and attention to anti-vaping campaigns is unlikely to solve the issue of youth vaping. More likely, it will make the problem, insomuch that there is a problem, worse.”
Vaping was around for over 10 years before Tobacco control started taking out ads telling kids about all the wonderful flavors available. And the CEI showed that the so called uptick in youth vaping was due to anti tobacco groups, Not “Big Tobacco”!
“Congress has held dozens of hearings and introduced multiple bills, while state authorities across the country have taken steps toward banning most e-cigarette products, with various degrees of success. Yet, none of this has stopped adolescents from using e-cigarettes.
“Congress has held dozens of hearings and introduced multiple bills, while state authorities across the country have taken steps toward banning most e-cigarette products, with various degrees of success. Yet, none of this has stopped adolescents from using e-cigarettes.
Since the initiation of this war on e-cigarettes, youth interest in vaping, including the vaping of nicotine, non-nicotine, and cannabis derivatives, has surged. Rather than ask why this might have happened—after years of waning youth interest in e-cigarettes and in spite of increasingly omnipresent warnings against using e-cigarettes—advocates blamed the vaping industry. They have asserted that the popularity of Juul, the availability of supposedly “kid-friendly” flavors, and unscrupulous advertising by the vapor industry has caused this uptick, and held this up as evidence for the need to increase funding to anti- vaping efforts, raise taxes on vapor products, and impose restrictions on the market even more onerous than those faced by traditional tobacco.
Is it the job of the FDA to put out “Propaganda” to distort public perception in order to achieve a political agenda? Can you show that vaping is a gateway to smoking? In spite of the fact that smoking rates are at a historic low amongst teens, not just teens but adults as a result of vaping? Can you justify giving activist like Stanton Glantz 20 million dollars Knowing that he has been involved in Junk Science for decades?
In light of the fact that the vaping industry is forbidden to bring up the harm reduction aspect but you and anti vaping groups can out and out lie to the public. This is the erroneous results of both your advertising campaigns and the anti vaping community. Are we to assume that your agency follows actual science or propaganda?
Our analysis revealed a consistent pattern and a change in perceived relative harm of e-cigarettes among US adults in both surveys, which showed that a large proportion of US adults perceived e-cigarettes as equally or more harmful than cigarettes, and this proportion has increased substantially from 2012 to 2017.
A paper on risk perceptions has disturbing results
The story starts with a report in JAMA Open that confirms what we already knew: (1) that a majority of the American public believes that e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than cigarettes and; (2) only a small proportion believe, correctly, that they are much less harmful than cigarettes. Not only that, the accuracy of public perception is deteriorating and the misunderstandings are becoming more pronounced over time. This deterioration is happening despite hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants and despite FDA recognition of a ‘continuum of risk’ in nicotine delivery products.
If you read the entire article above you would see how the so called youth epidemic is wrong headed. But I will let Clive Bates the author of the article explain it.
Claim 12: the explosion of youth use outweighs any benefits to adults
Increased perceived risks of e-cigarettes is also an important element for curbing their use by youth. Youth who believe that e-cigarettes are not harmful or are less harmful than cigarettes are more likely to use e-cigarettes than youth with more negative views of e-cigarettes.14 In terms of overall public health effects, this explosion of youth use swamps any potential harm reduction that may accompany adults switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.15
14. Gorukanti A, Delucchi K, Ling P, Fisher-Travis R, Halpern-Felsher B. Adolescents’ attitudes towards e-cigarette ingredients, safety, addictive properties, social norms, and regulation. Prev Med. 2017;94:65-71. [link]
15. Soneji SS, Sung HY, Primack BA, Pierce JP, Sargent JD. Quantifying population-level health benefits and harms of e-cigarette use in the United States. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0193328. [link]
Response – this is a blunt disclosure of a propaganda motive. Reference 14, Gorukanti et al. neatly betrays an activist agenda by rather blatantly making a case for a propaganda approach to risk communications:
Increased perceived risks of e-cigarettes is also an important element for curbing their use by youth. Youth who believe that e-cigarettes are not harmful or are less harmful than cigarettes are more likely to use e-cigarettes than youth with more negative views of e-cigarettes.
This study indicates that adolescents are aware of some of the risks of e-cigarettes, although many harbor misperceptions and hold more favorable attitudes towards e-cigarettes than cigarettes. Of concern is the relationship between favorable e-cigarette attitudes and use. Findings suggest the need to provide adolescents with correct information about e-cigarette ingredients, risks, and the insufficient evidence of their role in cigarette cessation.
This is an extraordinary attitude when you think about it. They are starting from the premise it is wrong for adolescents to have a more favourable view of e-cigarettes than cigarettes – even though on any rational basis a favourable view is exactly what you would expect. This is because the authors think teens should not use e-cigarettes and this matters more than addressing them truthfully. In the face of the inconvenient truth about relative risk, the authors argue for convincing adolescents that e-cigarettes are no better than smoking. This is the mindset of the omniscient public health authority figure – but what if they are wrong? What is the effect of their approach is to deter a teenager who would otherwise be a smoker from being a vaper? What if they persuade adults that their switch from smoking to vaping is doing them no less harm? What if people use this false information in ways not intended by public health authorities? Who would be accountable and how?
Response – models produce results that depend on their input assumptions. Reference 15 (Soneji et al., 2018) is a case study in modelling being subject to ‘garbage-in, garbage-out’ problems. Yes, it is true if a modeller builds in highly negative assumptions into a model, then, hey presto! it can make a safer product look more dangerous. For example, if you run a model that assumes e-cigarettes reduce smoking cessation among adults and act as a gateway to smoking for adolescents, then it doesn’t take much to show: “e-cigarette use currently represents more population-level harm than benefit.” This is exactly what Soneji et al do. It doesn’t matter how safe e-cigarettes are – they could be 100% safe – if they trigger more smoking via these mechanisms then the model will show net harm.
So we have to look where the modellers have found their input assumptions. Firstly, the assumption that vaping reduces smoking cessation. Who would have guessed? It is Kalkhoran & Glantz .
Table 1 describes the data source of each model parameter. S1 Appendix describes how the difference in transition probabilities of ≥6-month cigarette smoking cessation between current e-cigarette users and non-current e-cigarette users was estimated based on various parameters such as the proportion of current cigarette smokers who used pharmaceutical aids during quit attempt and the pooled odds ratio of quitting smoking among smokers interested in quitting reported by the meta-analysis of Kalkhoran & Glantz (emphasis added).
Kalkhoran & Glantz is discussed (and dismissed) in the previous section.
Response: modelling should not build in a gateway effect. The next assumption that Soneji et al build in is a gateway effect – teen vaping causes smoking initiation. The authors also assume that e-cigarette uptake by adolescents is a ‘gateway’ to smoking and therefore that e-cigarette use increases smoking initiation.
We assessed three outcomes of interest: […] (2) the additional number of adolescents and young adults who will initiate cigarette smoking through the ever use of e-cigarettes and eventually become daily cigarette smokers at age 35–39, compared to those who never used e-cigarettes […]
It turns out that the plug-in gateway effect number for the Soneji et al modelling comes from a ‘systematic review’ in which Soneji himself was the lead author (Soneji et al, 2017). What these studies tend to do is to find that being a young e-cigarette user is associated with being a subsequent smoker. After some statistical wizardry, they determine that the vaping caused the smoking. This association is real – the studies do show this association. But there are two rival explanations for the observed associations:
A gateway effect – that taking up the e-cigarette and starting to vape is the reason why they went onto smoke and they would not have smoked otherwise. The vaping caused the smoking.
Common liability – the common factors about the individual (the home environment and role models, educational performance, delinquency, mental health, community norms etc) that incline a young person to be interested in both smoking and vaping. Both the vaping and the smoking were caused by these factors. The vaping didn’t cause the smoking.
Statisticians try to isolate the effect of all the common liabilities to leave only the effect of using the e-cigarette. In the effort to isolate the effect of e-cigarettes, these other factors are referred to as ‘confounders’, and statisticians try to adjust for their effect by ‘deconfounding’ using the information they have collected about the people in the study. But full deconfounding is impossible in practice. This because no-one knows what all the confounders are and what questions would be necessary to characterise the common liabilities fully – probably hundreds. Possible confounding factors like ‘mental illness’ or ‘delinquent behaviour’ are very complicated in themselves and in their interaction with smoking and these can never be thoroughly adjusted for. So the statisticians are always left with ‘residual confounding’ – common factors that cause vaping and smoking that they have not been able to adjust for. So what may look like a gateway effect (the e-cigarette use in part caused the smoking) may just be residual confounding. Adding them together in a ‘systematic review and meta-analysis’ does not solve this problem. In practice, it is likely combining studies that have very different approaches to measuring smoking and vaping, and very different approaches to addressing confounders. A recent analysis of the ‘gateway’ literature (Lee PN et al., 2019) found that none of the studies purporting to demonstrate a gateway effect were adequately adjusted for confounding factors. The authors concluded:
A true gateway effect in youths has not yet been demonstrated. Even if it were, e-cigarette introduction may well have had a beneficial population health impact.
For more background on the conflicting gateway and common liability theories and the difficulty of establishing gateway effects, please see:
Vanyukov, et al. Common liability to addiction and “gateway hypothesis” theoretical, empirical and evolutionary perspective. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012. (here).
Phillips C V. Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would). Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015;12:5439–64. [link]
Response: it is more likely that teenage vaping is forming an exit from smoking than increasing it. One study noted that the decline in youth smoking has accelerated as youth vaping increased:
There was a substantial increase in youth vaping prevalence beginning in about 2014. Time trend analyses showed that the decline in past 30-day smoking prevalence accelerated by two to four times after 2014. Indicators of more established smoking rates, including the proportion of daily smokers among past 30-day smokers, also decreased more rapidly as vaping became more prevalent. The inverse relationship between vaping and smoking was robust across different data sets for both youth and young adults and for current and more established smoking.
Levy DT, Warner KE, Cummings KM, Hammond D, Kuo C, Fong GT, et al. Examining the relationship of vaping to smoking initiation among US youth and young adults: a reality check. Tob Control. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2018 Nov 20. [link]
Whilst this analysis cannot prove that the vaping caused the accelerated decline in smoking, it does make it difficult to argue that vaping is increasing the number of adolescent smokers and it does make modelling that relies on an assumption of a gateway effect feel unreliable and disconnected from reality.
Response: misleading citations can be combined through modelling to create a misleading big picture. So here we can see how this works: a trail of citations can be carefully laid down to provide input to subsequent analysis that looks internally coherent. However, because of the accumulated misunderstandings or misleading findings, the analysis slips its moorings from reality and becomes externally incoherent – i.e. not reality-based.
Response: other, more reality-based modelling is highly positive. Other modelling are at stark variance with the Soneji model.
Take Warner & Mendez, 2018 in modelling of a variety of scenarios to assess the impact of vaping products, under a range of assumptions.
With base-case assumptions, the population gains almost 3.3 million life-years by 2070. If all people who quit smoking by vaping lose 10% of the benefit of quitting smoking, the net life-year gain falls to 2.4 million. Under worst-case assumptions, in which vaping increases smoking initiation by 6% and cessation by 5%, and vaping-induced quitters lose 10% of the health benefits, the population gains over 580000 life-years.
Also, consider Levy et al, 2017 David Levy and colleagues modelled realistic scenarios for the replacement of smoking by vaping. The results suggest very substantial public health benefits are likely in the United States even under a pessimistic scenario.
Compared with the status quo, replacement of cigarette by e-cigarette use over a 10-year period yields 6.6 million fewer premature deaths with 86.7 million fewer life years lost in the Optimistic Scenario. Under the Pessimistic Scenario, 1.6 million premature deaths are averted with 20.8 million fewer life years lost.
To show negative public health effects from vaping requires pessimistic assumptions about vaping reducing smoking cessation, vaping causing a gateway effect and/or vaping being much more harmful than it is. The problem is that such assumptions have no substantiation in fact, and any modelling based on them is an aretfact of the assumptions.
Claim 13: the people are right and science is catching up
From this perspective, the declining public perception that e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes is a good thing that may turn out to be where the scientific consensus lands as the new evidence on the harms of e-cigarettes continues to accumulate.
So is this about youth vaping or using youth as a political pawn to advance a political goal. If it is for a political goal why has “Big Tobacco’s” Juul been exempt from the chopping block. Could it be because of their political clout? Hasn’t all of your propaganda blamed Juul and “Big Tobacco” for the so called “Youth Epidemic” yet you put flavors and “Open Systems” The heart and soul of the vaping industry and the ones that got millions of us to quit smoking on the chopping block leaving the ones that you claim targeted youth in the market.
The recent actions by the FDA begs the question, is any of this based on legitimate science or political influence. If the later then it should be subject to judicial review.
FDA’s PMTA approval process is more adjudicative than it is rulemaking. The eventual outcome, a marketing or denial order, arises from a formal process based on a formal record, applying legal standards set in advance on a case-by-case basis. Thus, a plaintiff suing FDA would only need to show Members of Congress’s action cast doubt on the PMTA process’ impartiality.
The lawmakers’ pressure campaign on PMTA review featured multiple messages and messengers, as compared to the one Senate hearing in Pillsbury. And rather than Senators merely implying that FTC should have ruled differently in its Pillsbury case, Senators and Representatives over the past year have clearly demanded negative outcomes for specific PMTA applicants and dictated which factors should matter most during application reviews.
****
For many of the PMTA applicants, an FDA denial effectively puts them out of business. That reality certainly creates a strong incentive for legal challenges. How ironic if Members of Congress’s own words and deeds undo what they campaigned so aggressively for: FDA’s removal of ENDS products from the market.
I love the Coolfire Z80 kit. I am a loose MTL/tight to medium RDL vaper and the Zenith II covers the entire range of my style of vaping, the Zenith 2 is my go to stock coil tank and I wrote about it here. I was going to do a write up for the Platform Group but couldn’t as I was in Facebook jail when it came out but by then everything I could say had already been said. I love the form factor, it has the feel and size of a pod mod. Nice and compact like the Kroma Z with the Fourier technology which does increase coil life (for me about 30%). So instead of rehashing what everyone says about the Z80 I decided to address a frequent topic in the groups, batteries,
The problem here is I don’t believe there are any 40 amp 3000 mah 18650 batteries, But the problem this person is having is voltage sag caused by the internal resistance of the battery. Of course a perfect battery will have no resistance but we don’t live in a perfect world. I’ve guesstimated that the cutoff voltage on the Z80 to be 3.2 volts so the voltage drop would have to be 1 volt for anything over 10 watts. Using the power formula P=EI (Power=Voltage * Current) or in this case P/E=I 10/4.2=2.381 amps so this is no where near a 40 amp battery. And Using E=IR or in this case R=E/I So for a 1 volt drop at 10 amps the internal resistance would be 1/4.2=0.438 ohms. That’s why anyone who’s been vaping for a while goes to the Battery Guy “Battery Mooch“.
When I’m in the market for new batteries I decide the max wattage I intend to vape the device at. Then I calculate the maximum current I would require at that wattage. You are going to draw the most current when the battery is drained. So I chose 3.2 volts. So if I want to vape the Z80 at 30 watts I use the power formula P/E=I or 30/3.2=9.375 amps, If I wanted to do the full 80 watts it would be 80/3.2=25 amps. Of course at higher powers you will never hit 3.2 so there’s a little cushion there. Then I look at Mooch’s site and pick the highest capacity with a reasonable internal resistance that suits the range that I want to vape.
Mooch did an excellent video on voltage sag.
My two favorite 18650s.
Below 30 watts the Sony VTC6 gets more puffs, at 30 about the same and above less than the Molicel p26a. I will not do a direct comparison as my VTC6’s are over two years old and my p26a’s are less then six months. So I will give the results for them.
Zenith II 0.8 ohm coil 17 watts 847 puffs 3.22 low voltage cut off.
Zenith II 0.3 ohm coil 30 watts 417 puffs 3.34 low voltage cut off.
As you can see the higher the power the earlier (higher voltage) the battery reaches the low voltage cut off. this is due to the internal resistance of the battery.
Looking at the internal resistance provided by mooch.
At 30 watts using ohms law and using my guestimate of 3.2 volts cut off
Using ohms law E=IR 9.375 * 0.0187 ohms=0.175 volts. the voltage drop across the battery. if you add that to the 3.2 estimated cut off of the Z80 you get 3.375 cut off voltage. very close to the actual 3.34 actual cut off. of course the difference is partially do to the fact that the current was based on 30 watts at 3.2 volts and we never got the battery down to 3.2s volts.
Also you can see that the Coolfire Z80 is perfectly paired with the Zenith II Using The MTL coils it’s easily an all day vape, with the 0.3 ohm coil you still will get through most if not all day on one battery. Higher then that you will definitely need two batteries. If you vape it the 40 to 60 watt range you may consider a mod using a single 21700 battery. Over 60 I would highly recommend a dual battery mod.
I‘m writing this from Facebook jail. Don’t worry I will be back soon.
Why do I call this a pre review? Because I have been using a beta copy for the last couple of months. I will be getting the full kit soon. Phil and Dimitris know my vaping style. I call myself a tweener. I never could get the hang of taking primer puffs so I forced myself to learn to direct lung. But it still had to be tight enough to give me good throat hit and flavor. The Zenith II checks those boxes perfectly. Actually so did the Zenith pro.
I had long ago gave up on stock coils. Every time I found a tank I liked the industry shifted gears and abandoned the coils I liked so for years I exclusively bought RTA’s and RDA’s. Then the pod craze hit the market. I really wanted something in a smaller form factor that I could grab when I left the house that was strong enough to give me good flavor and yet had enough battery life to get me through the day and I could stealth vape. Sadly most that I tried were under powered with anemic flavor and poor battery life and again coils were abandoned. Having become friends with Phil and Dimitris I was well aware of their product line, so when they came out with the Z-biip I bought one knowing that the coils were used in two tanks and would likely be around for some time to come. I converted more people with that little bugger then any other device with the adept coming in second and because the people I converted were older and didn’t want the hassle of finding coils I became the supplier of the coils. So whenever the Z-coils were on sale I bought a bunch, I found myself with way too many coils on my hands. So when the Zenith Pro came out with the promise of doing both MTL and RDL I bought one.
The Zenith Pro on the right vaped beautiful, I had two minor issues with it. One the 1.0 ohm coil wasn’t quite warm enough for RDL vaping, it was plenty warm enough for warm MTL vaping but not RDL, they quickly rectified that with the release of the 0.3 ohm coil. Second was the beauty ring. Of course the beauty ring was added to remedy one of the two complaints with the original Zenith. One you couldn’t replace the glass(which is why the added the ring.) and they removed the riser from the top so any 510 drip tip will look good on it.. The issue with the beauty ring for me was two problems. As an RTA user I always grabbed the tank by the base to remove the tank from the mod or put it on, Why? Because with RTA’s if you grab it by the top or the glass you usually end up removing the glass from the base and leaking eliquid all over but with the Pro grabbing it by the base you ended up unscrewing the beauty ring. So you just learned not to grab it by the base. Second the beauty ring protruded farther than the AFC making it difficult to adjust the airflow on the mod.
The AFC ring no longer has the typical knurling, it has a different shape with almost a wingnut quality making it easier to grab and turn. Bottom line this is not a new product but a product that has reached maturity. It has been refined based on user feedback.
And to the reviewer taking cheap shots from the cheap seats. Both Phil and Craig proved you wrong, you do not have to remove the drip tip to fill. Do I? Yes, partially out of force of habit I’ve been using the Ares 2 for so long that I pull the drip tip off before I even start. Second because with my aging eyes I find comfort in getting the tip of the bottle in as far as possible. But hey when something works for me I keep using it, above is an older tank I regularly use where you actually have to remove the top cap to fill.
As I said the above pictures are from a beta copy but from the video’s and pictures I have seen the only difference I have seen is in the RDL portion of the airflow. like the Zenith pro the beta version the cyclops (RDL) airflow only opens 3/4 of the way. In the finished product it opens all the way. But the copy I have already goes from tighter then I vape to more open then I vape so I am happy. This tank will satisfy all but the cloud chasers. Will update more when I have the final product.
Unlike most people my introduction to vaping was not so noble. I was active in the fight against smoking bans and made many friends in the forums like Topix. I was a very active member of Ban the Ban Wisconsin. I’m now a retired Broadcast Engineer but was working in those days. I had many stations in Minnesota and Wisconsin so I was constantly traveling. In 2007 Minnesota enacted their smoking ban. In our private email group I mentioned this and I wont mention her name but she was a School Teacher out of Ohio who picked up an ecigarette by the name Of Janty and she sent me the site. i NEVER intended to quit and it was not my intention when I bought it. My intent was to cheat when I couldn’t smoke. well as it turned out I could have never quit using the devices that were out at that time. The Janty was way underpowered and the battery life was horrible, I couldn’t get 1/4 of a day out of the two batteries that came with it and the carts that were suppose to be the equivalent to a pack of cigarettes was barely a quarter of a pack. And none of the so called tobacco flavors tasted anything like tobacco. they had a nasty chemical aftertaste. (I later learned that the flavor extracts contained alcohol, I learned this through DIY). But being an engineer and fascinated by new technology and the fact that I forked out a hundred bucks for it I kept at it. At this point I reduced my smoking very little. From the Janty I moved on to the Janty stick V2. It took the same carts but had replicable batteries. The battery life was better but still not there. From their carto’s came out so I picked up a 510 adapter for my Janty Stick and at the same time I discovered Johnson Creek (an eliquid made right here in Wisconsin). Between the Carto’s and the flavored eliquid it showed promise. But the carto’s had one drawback. You were constantly dripping, not exactly conducive to someone on the go and driving a good deal of the time, from their I went to the Janty ego as they would take all of the 510 carto’s out there. Still really hadn’t cut down much but I was enjoying it more. Then the clearomizers came out and they used the ego connection. I don’t remember which was my first one, I had many Ce4 Ce5 evod ect. Armed with 2 ego batteries and a couple of Spinner batteries my smoking consumption started to decline, but as a 3+ pack a day camel straight smoker the battery life just wasn’t enough, but I did manage to go from 3+ packs a day to 1/4 to 1/2 a pack a day. And surprise surprise my health improved. I use to get winded walking 3 or 4 blocks and then I was walking the dog several miles a day. Then I was at my sisters in Minneapolis for my godsons wedding and entered my first vape shop. I walked away with a Kanger K Box a Kanger Subtank and some juices I liked even better then the ones I was use to. I’m not even aware of when I stopped smoking, I just realized one morning that I got up, went to make coffee and the first thing I reached for was my vape.
Why do I tell this story now? Because Neo Prohibitionist like Stanton Glantz have ramped up their Bovine Excrement about dual use. Of course he will dismiss my story as anecdotal evidence and that is true, but you would be hard pressed to find a single user that didn’t have a marked improvement in health. And most of what he puts out doesn’t even come close to passing a logic sniff test. More on that later. First before we start you have to know about the different kinds of studies. Here is an article on the different types of studies and the strength and weaknesses of each with randomized control studies being the gold standard and observational being the least reliable. Health News Review wrote about a letter in JAMA internal medicine called Weak reporting of limitations of observational research in it they said.
“A research letter in this week’s JAMA Internal Medicine addresses an issue that has become a pet peeve of ours: the failure of medical journal articles, journal news releases, and subsequent news releases, to address the limitations of observational studies. Observational studies, although important, cannot prove cause-and-effect; they can show statistical association but that does not necessarily equal causation. . . “
From the actual letter.
Here’s what they found:
“Any study limitation was mentioned in 70 of 81 (86%) source article Discussion sections, 26 of 48 (54%) accompanying editorials, 13 of 54 (24%) journal press releases, 16 of 81 (20%) source article abstracts (of which 9 were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine), and 61 of 319 (19%) associated news stories. An explicit statement that causality could not be inferred was infrequently present: 8 of 81 (10%) source article Discussion sections, 7 of 48 (15%) editorials, 2 of 54 (4%) press releases, 3 of 81 (4%) source article abstracts, and 31 of319 (10%) news stories contained such statements.”
The exaggeration should stop. Observational studies play an important role. But communicators should not try to make them more than what they are.
So what is an observational study? it’s basically a collection of anecdotal evidence usually gathered from surveys or questioners. These studies are presented as a range of numbers and supposedly there’s usually a 95% chance that the number falls within that range. 1 is considered null meaning no statistical significance. Less then one means the opposite or usually a protective effect. With that in mind we will go to one of Stanton’s recent blog posts entitled ” More evidence that dual use is worse than smoking”
In the blog he repeats his diatribe about the gateway effect which defies logic since even t t he height of the so called youth epidemic teen smoking is at historic lows. From his blog.
“This finding is consistent with the existing literature on respiratory effects of e-cigarettes. It is also particularly important because they found that dual use was twice as prevalent as people solely using e-cigarettes (2.7% vs 1.4%). In other words, most people who are using e-cigarettes are not “switching completely” from cigarettes, but simply adding e-cigarettes to their cigarette smoking.
While the study does not address why most people are dual users, it is likely that the youth in the sample started with e-cigarettes and then added cigarettes (the gateway effect) and the adults were smokers who tried e-cigarettes an unsuccessful smoking cessation device and ended up dual users.”
But he also linked to his own study which is not behind a paywall.
If you look at the conclusions of the abstract they are quite telling. No mention of confounders or limitation. It’s stated as if it were a fact.
You actually have to read the whole study to get the limitations.
Limitations
Several respiratory conditions were combined to obtain enough events to achieve adequate power. For the same reason, this study did not distinguish between daily and non-daily product use and included both established (smoked >100 cigarettes) and experimenters in the “former smoker” group.
There is a possibility of recall bias because use of e-cigarettes, conventional cigarettes, and other combustible tobacco products were self-reported as were clinical conditions. Participants with respiratory diseases might over-report e-cigarette, conventional cigarette, and other combustible tobacco use. There is also possibility of recall bias because doctor diagnoses of lung or respiratory diseases is reported by respondents rather than being based on actual hospital records but the questions. . .
CONCLUSIONS
Current use of e-cigarettes appears to be an independent risk factor for respiratory disease in addition to all combustible tobacco smoking. Although switching from combustible tobacco, including cigarettes, to e-cigarettes could theoretically reduce the risk of developing respiratory disease, current evidence indicates a high prevalence of dual use, which is associated with increased risk beyond combustible tobacco use. In addition, for most smokers, using an e-cigarette is associated with lower odds of successfully quitting smoking.4,37 E-cigarettes should not be recommended.
Of course the highlighted blocks are mine with the so called lower odds of successfully quitting to be addressed later as it pertains to another of his recent blog posts. Remember I said the more I vaped the less I smoked and the better my lung function was. I now walk miles with no problem. Also remember that clinical studies are the gold standard and much more reliable. So who’s anecdotal evidence is more convincing mine or his? Here’s where you have to apply a little logic. If you reduce a very risky behavior with a significantly less risky behavior logic would dictate that the resulting risk would be somewhere in between the high risk activity and the lowered risk activity, but he would have you believe that those magic ecigs magnify the risk. But thankfully real science says otherwise. Actual studies on actual COPD patients. Health effects in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes: a retrospective-prospective 3-year follow-up
” Results: Complete data were available from 44 patients. Compared to baseline in the EC-user group, there was a marked decline in the use of conventional cigarettes. Although there was no change in lung function, significant improvements in COPD exacerbation rates, CAT scores, and 6MWD were observed consistently in the EC user group over the 3-year period (p<0.01). Similar findings were noted in COPD EC users who also smoked conventional cigarettes (“dual users”). Conclusion: The present study suggests that EC use may ameliorate objective and subjective COPD outcomes and that the benefits gained may persist long-term. EC use may reverse some of the harm resulting from tobacco smoking in COPD patients.”
So exactly why could the survey that Stanton use be so far off? Easy, now we get to the FUD. The weekend before last I was watching a movie and was bombarded with this ad 9 times during the movie.
Do some ecigarettes have heavy metals in them Yes! You know what else does? Air! and also inhalable Pharmaceuticals, Can you imagine if the ad said Big Pharma was trying to kill you by putting heavy metals in your asthma inhaler? What is never mentioned is dose. As Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos points out.
Of course if Nicotine damaged the adolescent’s brain there would be millions of us brain damaged Baby Boomers running around. And what kind of studies to they show to prove it? Brain fog? Vaping Could Cloud Your Thoughts
We’ve seen it in numerus ads and articles but there’s a limitation here that is never mentioned. From the article.
“While the URMC studies clearly show an association between vaping and mental function, it’s not clear which causes which. It is possible that nicotine exposure through vaping causes difficulty with mental function. But it is equally possible that people who report mental fog are simply more likely to smoke or vape – possibly to self-medicate.”
“Methods: 15 non-smoking young adults (20+/-1.7 years) diagnosed with ADHD-C received acute nicotine (7 mg patch for 45 min) and placebo on separate days. Cognitive tasks included the Stop Signal Task, Choice Delay task, and the High-Low Imagery Task (a verbal recognition memory task). Three subjects experienced side effects and their data was excluded from analysis of cognitive measures.
Results: There was a significant (p<.05) positive effect of nicotine on the Stop Signal Reaction Time measure of the Stop Signal Task. The SSRT was improved without changes in GO reaction time or accuracy. There was a trend (p=.09) for nicotine to increase tolerance for delay and a strong trend (p=.06) for nicotine to improve recognition memory.
Conclusions: Non-smoking young adults with ADHD-C showed improvements in cognitive performance following nicotine administration in several domains that are central to ADHD. The results from this study support the hypothesis that cholinergic system activity may be important in the cognitive deficits of ADHD and may be a useful therapeutic target.”
And of course these ads are not aimed at children, they laugh at them. Remember they are at the age where they eat spoonful’s of cinnamon and tide pods. Am I saying our youth are dumber then previous generations, nope. My generation ate live goldfish and sparked up a doobie laughing at the “This is your Brain” ads. So why would they target these ads towards adults? To gin up support for legislation denying these products from adults in the same way they did for smoking.
A paper on risk perceptions has disturbing results
The story starts with a report in JAMA Open that confirms what we already knew: (1) that a majority of the American public believes that e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than cigarettes and; (2) only a small proportion believe, correctly, that they are much less harmful than cigarettes. Not only that, the accuracy of public perception is deteriorating and the misunderstandings are becoming more pronounced over time. This deterioration is happening despite hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants and despite FDA recognition of a ‘continuum of risk’ in nicotine delivery products.
Our analysis revealed a consistent pattern and a change in perceived relative harm of e-cigarettes among US adults in both surveys, which showed that a large proportion of US adults perceived e-cigarettes as equally or more harmful than cigarettes, and this proportion has increased substantially from 2012 to 2017.
Huang J, Feng B, Weaver SR, Pechacek TF, Slovic P, Eriksen MP. Changing Perceptions of Harm of e-Cigarette vs Cigarette Use Among Adults in 2 US National Surveys From 2012 to 2017. JAMA Netw Open. American Medical Association; 2019 Mar 29;2(3):e191047. [link]
He goes on to say that if Stanton gets his way we will never know the truth about the risks of vaping.
Response: if Professor Glantz is successful, we would never have the data. Those playing up fears of unknown risks are not tirelessly striving to resolve the uncertainties or conducting the necessary studies. Professor Glantz, for example, backs outright bans on e-cigarettes even in situations where cigarettes continue to be on widespread sale. Take as the recent ban in his institutional home town of San Francisco. As reported by Politico, 9th July 2019:
Stanton Glantz, director of UC San Francisco’s Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education and a strong anti-tobacco advocate, called the city ban “a totally brilliant way of a local government basically saying to the FDA and to Juul and the other e-cigarette companies that hey, we’ve got a law here and it should be followed.”
Professor Glantz favours outright bans pending FDA approval of individual vaping products (a process that will become mandatory in 2020) This approval regime is a highly disproportionate, expensive and burdensome process that will remove nearly all vaping products and most companies from the market. I have yet to see a single instance of Professor Glantz supporting the approval of a product or a relative-risk claim through the FDA’s regulatory system. For some, regulatory barriers to entry are best if they are insurmountable: de facto prohibition.
Again it is a must read if you want the lowdown on Glantz. But it’s not just Glantz. They actually monitor how their FUD campaign is working.
If you notice they are not measuring how well they are doing reducing teen vaping or smoking, they are measuring how well their prohibitionist movement is going. From the poll.
64% believe the state should ban flavored e-cigs and vapes
30% say they disagree
6% say they don’t know
Pollsters say support for the ban crosses all demographic lines.
In the above picture it says Progressivism, that does not mean the Democrat party, Progressivism infected both parties early in the last century and it infects both parties today. Mitt Romney is a classic example of a modern progressive Republican. If you think the cartoon is far fetched you may want to remember the same Michael Bloomberg that is funding the anti vaping campaign also banned Big Gulps in New York City. You should also remember that Obesity kills more people then smoking so if they get away with this how soon will it be that you can’t get your favorite carbonated beverage, or candy ect after all it’s for the children.
The following video was done by a good friend and founder of NYC CLASH Audrey Silk about 8 years ago.
The clinical trials show that, under clinical supervision, e-cigs have efficacy as smoking cessation aids. At the same time, the population studies show that e-cigs are not effective for smoking cessation.
As we have pointed out in detail, it is the effectiveness standard that the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) should use when assessing whether authorizing the sale of e-cigarettes as consumer products in “appropriate for the protection of public health,” the standard in the law. . . . The lack of effectiveness in the population means that if the FDA CEDR were to approve e-cigarettes as a clinical cessation aid, it should require that they be used under prescription. Why? To increase the chances that they were used under the same conditions as the clinical trials (as with COVID vaccines). In particular, the lack of effectiveness of e-cigarettes as unsupervised consumer products means that they should not be approved for over-the-counter (unsupervised) use.
So basically what he’s saying is ignore real science (clinical trials) and believe his statistically manipulated (meta analysis) on a combination of clinical trials and observational studies. Shall we look at his study he cites? E-Cigarette Use and Adult Cigarette Smoking Cessation: A Meta-Analysis
Methods. We searched PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and EMBASE and computed the association of e-cigarette use with quitting cigarettes using random effects meta-analyses.
Results. We identified 64 papers (55 observational studies and 9 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). In observational studies of all adult smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.947; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.772, 1.160) and smokers motivated to quit smoking (OR = 0.851; 95% CI = 0.684, 1.057), e-cigarette consumer product use was not associated with quitting. Daily e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (OR = 1.529; 95% CI = 1.158, 2.019) and less-than-daily use was associated with less quitting (OR = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.402, 0.665). The RCTs that compared quitting among smokers who were provided e-cigarettes to smokers with conventional therapy found e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (relative risk = 1.555; 95% CI = 1.173, 2.061).
Conclusions. As consumer products, in observational studies, e-cigarettes were not associated with increased smoking cessation in the adult population. In RCTs, provision of free e-cigarettes as a therapeutic intervention was associated with increased smoking cessation.
Remember when I said when looking at these studies you have to look at The CI? I highlighted them in red. the only things that were statistically significant was:
Daily e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (OR = 1.529; 95% CI = 1.158, 2.019)
and less-than-daily use was associated with less quitting (OR = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.402, 0.665)
The RCTs that compared quitting among smokers who were provided e-cigarettes to smokers with conventional therapy found e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (relative risk = 1.555; 95% CI = 1.173, 2.061).
The rest had 1 in the CI and was statistically insignificant. But lets take this a step further, Meta analysis is totally unreliable on observational studies And Stanton Glantz knows it. Hell anecdotal evidence is more reliable. The only negative n the study is that if you don’t use it daily it won’t work? Use a little logic Stan. Again you flunked logic, Will the big pharma products you peddle work if you don’t use them daily? Didn’t the courts slam your use of Meta analysis in your first attempt at activism while you worked for the EPA. Even your Side kick there had the decency to admit it when he was the lead author of the SG report.
Meta-analyses performed by strong advocates of a particular position in an ongoing controversy are at higher risk for bias. . . .
The interpretation of a meta-analysis is potentially subject to an author’s bias by what inclusion and exclusion criteria is selected, the type of statistical evaluation performed, decisions made on how to deal with disparities between the trials, and how the subsequent results are presented.
Whether the conclusions of a meta-analysis are broad reaching or limited can be affected by the inherent bias that the author of the meta-analysis brings to the study.
Human nature dictates that each of us tends to find it more satisfying to confirm a previously held opinion, particularly a published opinion, rather than create an analysis that refutes our own prior conclusions. Hence, interpretive bias is even more likely to occur when a meta-analysis is conducted by an author with a strong particular viewpoint in an area of controversy. When the meta-analysis is conducted by a strong advocate of a particular position, it is more likely to be biased in concordance with the author’s previously advocated opinion.
Judge William L. Osteen, Sr., in the North Carolina Federal District Court criticized the approach EPA had used to select studies for its meta-analysis and criticized the use of 90 percent rather than 95 percent confidence intervals for the summary estimates (Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 857 F. Supp. 1137 [M.D.N.C. 1993]). In December 2002, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the lawsuit on the basis that tobacco companies cannot sue the EPA over its secondhand smoke report because the report was not a final agency action and therefore not subject to court review (Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 98-2407 [4th Cir., December 11, 2002], cited in 17.7 TPLR 2.472 [2003]). Recognizing that there is still an active discussion around the use of meta-analysis to pool data from observational studies (versus clinical trials), the authors of this Surgeon General’s report used this methodology to summarize the available data when deemed appropriate and useful, even while recognizing that the uncertainty around the metaanalytic estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated by conventional statistical indices, because of biases either within the observational studies or produced by the manner of their selection.
To any would be vapor or dual user, remember every cigarette not smoked is harm reduction, and as Stanton says if you don’t use it it won’t work.
Full disclosure I am a moderator on the platform help group page. I joined the group in order to help beginners in their vaping journey. And the innokin platform products are primarily aimed at beginners. I do not work for innokin nor do I get paid for this.
A frequent question in the group is which is the best coil, and some get frustrated when they don’t get an exact answer “this one”. In this post I will try to explain why there isn’t an exact answer. Before I give my opinion on each coil I have to qualify with my vaping journey and how I got to my style of vaping, then I will give my opinion on each coil and who they may appeal to. This is just my opinion, someone like Phil who has a different vape style will have a different opinion.
Long before I started vaping I tried smoking a pipe to skirt the ever increasing abusive taxes including the hidden abusive MSA tax. Two things in smoking a pipe was a major annoyance to me. One was the constant primer puffs to keep it lit. The second was the fact that you had to carry multiple pipes as condensation would build up and you would get a mouthful of built up condensate, not a pleasant experience.
There is no direct one to one experience between vaping and smoking. There are trade offs. When you smoke cigarettes other then when you light them there are no primer puffs. It’s puff inhale, puff inhale. In the early days of vaping most box mods had between a 0.3 to 0.5 second delay. So your choices were puff, puff, puff inhale or learn how to direct lung. I found the first annoying and unacceptable. Even though the delay is all but gone you still have to take a primer puff or two to get a warm and saturated vape with a good throat hit. In the group I’ve frequently called myself a tweener. I still like it tight. I like it between a loose MTL and a medium RDL depending on the flavor. Yes flavor also makes a difference on coil choice. It’s a balancing act between power and airflow to get the best flavor. Power because different flavors come through at different temperatures. That is why you may get one flavor on the inhale and another on the exhale. If your vaping style is similar to mine you should find this helpful. On to the coils that I have used or tested.
1.6 ohm round wire. Best suited for a proper (tight) Mouth to Lung. When the airflow is tight after one or two primer puffs you get a great warm puff with great throat hit and flavor. With a loose MTL (mouth to lung) or RDL (restricted direct lung) I find it lacking in temperature and throat hit. If you were a light cigarette smoker it may appeal to you in this mode.
1.2 ohm. Never tested but expect it would be similar to the 1.6.
0.48 and 0.5 ohm plex. These are kind of a cross between a notch coil and a mesh coil, they have a faster ramp up then round wire and more vapor production. This coil gives you a very warm “proper” MTL and a fairly warm loose MTL- tight RDL and would suit people who like loose MTL users. I like this one with lighter flavors like fruit flavors. Because of the fast ramp up I don’t like them where the predominant flavors are dark, like coffees.
0.8 ohm my personal favorite with dark flavors in loose MTL/ tight RDL at lower wattage it has a long enough ramp up for the dark notes to come through. At the higher watt range it’s good for the other flavors.
1.0 ohm this coil produces a warm loose MTL through medium RDL and works well with darker flavors.
0.3 ohm plex. Like the earlier plex it has a super fast ramp up, didn’t like it when all of the flavor notes were dark like coffee with caramel, but one of my none all day vapes is a caramel apple by five pawns. The caramel was slightly muted for a break in of about a quarter of a tank, but the juice never tasted better. The apple was crisp and sharp with enough caramel to complement it. Also it lasted about three days longer then the 1.0 ohm. This coil is strictly a RDL coil in my opinion. It is way too warm for even a loose MTL.
This is my opinion on all the z-coils and why no one can tell you (x) is the best coil.
Nicotine prohibitionist have been engaging in science by press release for decades and now they have kicked it up a notch with headlines like “Lawmakers urge the FDA to temporarily clear e-cigarettes from market amid Covid pandemic. Here’s why“
With bold statements like:
“Being diagnosed with Covid-19 was five times more likely among young people who have used e-cigarettes ever, according to a new study that is referenced in Krishnamoorthi’s letter.“
But what did they actually study, absolutely nothing! This so called study was based on an anonymous online survey that asked about vaping and about symptoms that may or may not be covid related. Have any of you actually looked at the symptoms? From the CDC here they are.
Symptoms may appear 2-14 days after exposure to the virus. People with these symptoms may have COVID-19:
Fever or chills
Cough
Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
FatigueMuscle or body aches
HeadacheNew
loss of taste or smell
Sore throat
Congestion or runny nose
Nausea or vomiting Diarrhea
Pretty vague symptoms I would say, could be anything. Was anyone actually tested? NOPE! From the article.
“The study comes with some limitations, including that it was based on self-reports from anonymous online survey responses — which can be vulnerable to biases if respondents don’t give honest answers.”
They go on to say:
“The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, looked at more than 8,000 participants ages 18 to 25 who had participated in the National Health Interview Survey to see what their medical vulnerability to severe Covid-19 was in relation to risk indicators that had been set out by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including health conditions and smoking habits.The researchers found 32% of the total study population were medically vulnerable for severe Covid-19. However, when the group of participants who smoked cigarettes or e-cigarettes were taken out of the analysis, the medically vulnerable percentage decreased by half, to 16%. . . .“
Wait, what? UCSF? Stanton Glantz was the head of that department for 20 years and never saw statistics he couldn’t cook.
Stanton’s arrogance is also well known. He has long used taxpayer money to push his personal agenda. For him it started in 1998 when he and his cronies were hired under the Radon Research Act by the EPA to study the effects of Radon on indoor air quality. He and his cronies turned it into an anti smoking crusade. The report was thrown out as total garbage by a federal judge. That was later overturned by a higher court on a procedural matter. The higher court ruled that it was only a report not a final action by the agency and therefore not review able by the courts. Let that sink in. You can out and out lie on a government report and the groups lied about have no recourse. But it doesn’t stop there. In 2012 he used taxpayer money to actively attack the TEA party. When questioned about this he arrogantly boasted
Wait what? We are suppose to ignore Hard data as opposed to an online survey. Really? We are suppose to ignore actual Covid patients in favor of an online survey that didn’t document any covid diagnosis in favor of an anonymous survey that asked about symptoms.
He is correct though There are studies that are not surveys that show that smokers and perhaps vapors have a reduced chance of contracting from one of those non surveys.
Suggested mechanisms that may confer a protective effect of smoking include altered host cell expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2, the receptor the virus uses to infects cells); the anti-inflammatory activity of nicotine; the antiviral effect of nitric oxide; the effects of smoking on the immune system and vapor heat-related stimulation of immunity in the respiratory tract.
And Stanton goes on to tell his normal lies.
These results specifically challenge FDA’s assumption that e-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes. They also highlight the fact that there are immediate serious adverse effects of e-cigarettes that cost a lot of money (both in terms of direct health costs and general social disruption to the economy), something that the FDA needs to consider in its regulatory impact analysis (cost-benefit analysis) of approving e-cigarettes.
Really can he prove any? we know that he and his cronies did another science by press release earlier this year when they tried to blame teens vaping black market illegal THC products. The CDC and nicotine prohibitionist were plastering it all over the news that vaping (nicotine) was killing teens and causing lung injuries. EVALI. More science by press release.
In fact, the number one cause of severe, vaping-related health damage to youths is not electronic cigarettes, although you would not know that from reading the CDC’s literature on youth vaping. . . .
The Rest of the Story
The chief cause of substantial health harms to youth from vaping is actually not e-cigarettes. It is marijuana or THC vaping. . . . For some reason, the CDC has been concealing this critical information from the public. For three years in a row (2016-2018), the CDC’s National Youth Tobacco Survey (NTYS) showed that the overwhelming majority of youths who were heavy e-cigarette vapers (use on 20 or more days per month) were also vaping marijuana. However, in all three years, the CDC failed to report these data.
Why is this? Want to hear the big shocker? The THC question was removed from the Youth Tobacco survey. Again why. Again from Dr Siegil.
Percentage of HEAVY youth e-cigarette users reporting ever use of THC vapes: 2016: 62% 2017: 73% 2018: 71%
What percentage of youth e-cigarette users reported having also vaped THC in 2019?
The answer is …
… we have no idea.
Why? Because the CDC did not even ask the question about marijuana/THC vaping in the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey!
If we are going to do a survey, let’s do one on ex smokers and find if they have improved lung function due to switching to vaping. Wait there are actual studies.
ECs are quickly becoming the most promising THR products to date.49 This is due to their effectiveness in decreasing conventional tobacco consumption, competitive price, and the discernment of being a much less detrimental smoking substitute, and also they permit the smoker to maintain a “smoking experience without smoking.”50–52 Currently, they are the only products in the arsenal that replicate the habits of conventional cigarette smoking along with nicotine delivery As such, they may encourage harm reduction in three ways: allowing smokers to quit, helping former smokers avoid relapse, and preventing nonsmokers from initiating smoking. Population studies53–55 have shown that regular EC use is predominantly noted in former and current smokers (and very rare among never smokers), supporting the argument that these products are currently used for harm reduction. . . . A recent RCT of “healthy” smokers, for up to 1 year, invited to quit or reduce cigarette consumption by switching to ECs assessed changes in lung function, airway responses, and respiratory symptoms,82,83 has shown normalization of both exhaled nitric oxide and carbon monoxide levels among those subjects who completely quit cigarette smoking by switching to ECs.82 Reversal to within normal nonsmoking levels was already documented at 3 months and complete normalization observed at 6 and 12 months.82 No evidence of airway obstruction was noted, irrespective of participants’ smoking phenotype classification. . . .
The absence of significant increments in spirometric indices after quitting smoking is not uncommon in COPD smokers and irreversible airway obstruction.86,87 Nonetheless, progressive significant decline in annual respiratory exacerbations, improved general health status (assessed using the COPD assessment tool [CAT]) and physical activity (assessed using the 6-minute walk distance test) were documented throughout the 2-year reporting period.85 That respiratory exacerbations were halved in patients with COPD who ceased or markedly reduced their tobacco consumption after switching to ECs was a key finding. Persistent exposure of cigarette smoke to the airways is known to promote infection susceptibility through several different mechanisms.88,89 Thus, switching to ECs by abstaining from tobacco smoking may explain the attenuation in respiratory infections.90 The reported improvement in health outcomes is in agreement with observations from an Internet-based survey of 1,190 regular COPD EC users.51 Self-reported improvement in respiratory symptoms after switching was reported in 75.7% of the respondents, whereas worsening was reported in only 0.8%. Of note, it was reported that a fifth of all the participants stopped the use of their routine respiratory medications with the use of ECs.
The positive evidence from real-life surveys and clinical studies of patients with COPD supporting respiratory health benefits with EC
The smoking history of participants is presented inTable 3. Almost 95% of participants reported that they were ever smokers. The majority had quit smoking, while 61% of current smokers were occasional smokers (smoking on some days).Only 5.2% of the study sample reported being never smokers. The smoking status of the participants is presented in Figure 1. Former smokers who were using e-cigarettes at the time of smoking cessation are presented as a separate bar inFigure 1. Almost 92% of former smokers reported that they were using e-cigarettes at the time of quitting
But any time a harm reduction advocate tries to present a survey it is dismissed as anecdotal, So why is it Mz Howard that you enable them to present anecdotal evidence as a legitimate scientific study. Do your homework and present hard science with factual results.
Veritas Vincit Pro Libertate 