Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 21 March 2017
- Published on: 21 March 2017
- Published on: 21 March 2017
- Published on: 21 March 2017Re:Bauld et al omit evidence on passive exposure to e-cigarette aerosolShow More
NOT PEER REVIEWED David Bareham cites 'Rip Tripper' as evidence that e-cigarette users report experiences of allergies being exacerbated in non users by vapour and describes Mr Tripper's subsequent rather mangled argument that the devices should not be used in enclosed public spaces as "eloquent".
Perhaps Mr Bareham is unaware that Mr Tripper has also claimed that vaping causes limb cramps and dry knuckles which...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 21 March 2017Bauld et al omit evidence on passive exposure to e-cigarette aerosolShow More
NOT PEER REVIEWED The American Indoor Hygiene Association (AIHA) i.e. Experts in in this particular field on passive exposure, have, previously, concluded conversely to Bauld et al (1). As they state:
"If the only individual affected by using e-cigarettes were the vaper, the discussion could end here. That is not, however, the case. Similar to secondhand smoke, the ingredients exhaled by the vaper include nicot...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 21 March 2017Indoor vaping and brochodilator use are not analogousShow More
NOT PEER REVIEWED Bauld et al [1] draw an analogy between indoor vaping and the use of bronchodilators for asthma ("if and when vapour products with a medicinal license become available, it will be important to allow their use indoors, just as asthma inhalers, which dispense a drug and propellants into the atmosphere, can be used indoors.")
Surely, they cannot be serious here?
Newman et al showed the a...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.