Scheer Report - Was steckt dahinter Teil 6

Hallo Liebe Leser,

Heute kommt der sechste Teil der Anmerkungen zum Scheer Report. Also die Dinge die mir zum Scheer Report aufgefallen ist und welche man als Anregung für eine Mail an die Abgeordneten mitnehmen kann.

Vorab liste ich Euch wie schon im vorigen Teil alle Artikel dieser Serie auf:

Mittlerweile befinden wir uns auf Seite 6 des Scheer Reportes.

SUMMARY

The European Commission mandated the SCHEER to assess the most recent scientific and technical information on electronic cigarettes. The aim of this scientific Opinion is to feed into the Commission’s reporting obligations under Article 28 of the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU (TPD) and also help the Commission in assessing the potential need for legislative amendments under the Directive or other regulatory/enforcement measures. The Opinion addresses the role of electronic cigarettes, focussing into potential impacts on the EU context, in relation to: ...

To address the terms of reference of this Opinion, the SCHEER compiled information mainly from review articles published between January 2015 and April 2019, as well as relevant primary sources and literature beyond this period. In addition, the SCHEER used reports by other organisations on this topic, and information provided by the Commission. In order to evaluate the health risks related to the use of electronic cigarettes, the SCHEER follows different lines of evidence, i.e. information on exposure of users and second-hand exposed persons, hazards of ingredients in the aerosol and information from human experience as well as from epidemiological studies. The SCHEER weighs the evidence for every line considered and provide an overall risk assessment based on all lines. The SCHEER weighs the evidence of its assessment according to the five levels: strong, moderate, weak, uncertain or not possible.

1. The SCHEER is of the opinion that chemicals present in the aerosol are mainly responsible for possible health effects for users of electronic cigarettes. Electronic-cigarette aerosol is composed of droplets containing chemicals that can have different origin: i) from e-liquids (propylene glycol, glycerol, nicotine, water, 37 flavourings, preservatives); ii) formed by chemical reaction or thermal decomposition in the heating element of some of constituents or solvent carriers (e.g. aldehydes, free radicals and reactive oxygen species, furans, acetic acid); iii) originating from the device (e.g. metals). Carrier liquids and nicotine were almost completely aerosolised, and their concentrations in the aerosol are therefore determined nearly entirely by the power output of the aerosoliser and the behaviour of the user. The ingredients are considered and assessed by the SCHEER independently from their origin.

There is strong evidence that exposure to nicotine from electronic cigarettes is highly variable and depends on product characteristics and that there is substantial evidence that nicotine intake from electronic cigarette devices among experienced adult electronic cigarette users can be comparable to that from combustible tobacco cigarettes. A very high variability is confirmed also for the exposure to other aerosol constituents. Exposure of electronic cigarette users is considered to be sufficiently characterised for risk assessment.

Second-hand exposure may be to exhaled air following a puff. The reported concentrations of aerosol ingredients are orders of magnitude lower than those reported for exposure of electronic cigarette users. However, consistency of the datais judged to be low and the weight of evidence for second-hand exposure 1 assessment is judged to be weak to moderate.

Bereits auf der Seite 6 des Scheer Reports stösst mir etwas sauer auf:

To address the terms of reference of this Opinion, the SCHEER compiled information mainly from review articles published between January 2015 and April 2019, as well as relevant primary sources and literature beyond this period.

WTF!!! Die reden selber davon das es sich um ein neuartiges Produkt handelt und bewerten nur die Studien die bis April 2019 rauskamen? Habt ihr noch alle Streusel auf dem Kuchen! Ernsthaft, meiner Meinung nach reicht das als Zeitraum nicht aus. Es hätten alle Studien bewertet werden müssen welche bis zu 2 Monaten vor Veröffentlichung erschienen sind. Dann wäre es halbwegs objektiv, da sich die Studienlage nahezu jedes Quartal verändert.

There is strong evidence that exposure to nicotine from electronic cigarettes is highly variable and depends on product characteristics and that there is substantial evidence that nicotine intake from electronic cigarette devices among experienced adult electronic cigarette users can be comparable to that from combustible tobacco cigarettes. A very high variability is confirmed also for the exposure to other aerosol constituents. Exposure of electronic cigarette users is considered to be sufficiently characterised for risk assessment.

*Hust* Wie bitte? Wie bitte soll der Umstieg sonst gelingen, wenn das Nikotin nicht mindestens genauso konstant abgegeben wird wie bei einer Pyro?

Second-hand exposure may be to exhaled air following a puff. The reported concentrations of aerosol ingredients are orders of magnitude lower than those reported for exposure of electronic cigarette users. However, consistency of the datais judged to be low and the weight of evidence for second-hand exposure 1 assessment is judged to be weak to moderate.

Weak to moderate? Ernsthaft. Die Raumluft in einem Raum, wo gedampft wird unterscheidet sich nicht von der Raumluft in einer Nichtraucherwohnung Siehe die Quellen )11 und )12

The hazard profiles for some relevant ingredients like nicotine and its derivates are well known, with strong weight of evidence. However, for a large number of other chemicals, the weight of evidence for their hazard profiles is moderate or weak, there is no harmonised classification to clearly identify their hazards, especially via inhalation, the relevant route of exposure.

Acute effects reported for electronic cigarette users are mouth/throat irritation, and cough, but the overall incidence is low. The weight of evidence is moderate. There are also cases of i) poisoning from accidental ingestion of liquid nicotine, ii) injuries due to burns and explosions. For both, poisoning and injuries, the evidence for the intrinsic capability to cause health problems is strong, but the incidence is quite low.

Overall, there is moderate, but growing level of evidence from human data suggesting that electronic cigarette use has harmful health effects, especially but not limited to the cardiovascular system. However, more studies, in particular on long-term health effects, are needed.

With regard to human data on effects associated to second-hand exposure, the weight of evidence to date is weak, due to the limited database. There exists a complete paucity of evidence regarding the acute and long-term effects on cardiovascular and other health outcomes in children and adolescents. Therefore, further research is needed whether children and adolescents have higher risk than adults when regularly second-hand exposed within their home environments.

Da mit den bisherigen Zitaten der Absatz nicht komplett war, machen wir hier mal weiter. und es kommen gleich mehrere Schenkelklopfer drin vor. Der erste wäre folgender:

The hazard profiles for some relevant ingredients like nicotine and its derivates are well known, with strong weight of evidence. However, for a large number of other chemicals, the weight of evidence for their hazard profiles is moderate or weak, there is no harmonised classification to clearly identify their hazards, especially via inhalation, the relevant route of exposure.

Ernsthaft Euch sind die Risikoprofile der Inhaltsstoffe bekannt? Ihr denkt ja immer noch das Nikotin krebserregend sei oder gar suchterzeugend. Dieses ist nicht belegt. Daher verweise ich hier auf meinen Beitrag Nikotin - Das tödliche Suchtgift

Acute effects reported for electronic cigarette users are mouth/throat irritation, and cough, but the overall incidence is low. The weight of evidence is moderate. There are also cases of i) poisoning from accidental ingestion of liquid nicotine, ii) injuries due to burns and explosions. For both, poisoning and injuries, the evidence for the intrinsic capability to cause health problems is strong, but the incidence is quite low.

Und wieder einmal WTF!!! Vergiftungen durch Nikotin? Wo bitte nehmt ihr den Beweis dafür her? Und wieder verweise ich auf Nikotin - Das tödliche Suchtgift.

Aber es geht ja noch weiter. Verbrennungen und Explosionen. Zeigt mir bitte einen einzigen Fall in dem dieses durch den bestimmungsgemässen Gebrauch der E-Zigarette passierte. Und ja bei Selbstwicklern gehört das einhalten des Ohmschen Gesetzes ebenfalls zum Bestimmungsgemässen Gebrauch.

Overall, there is moderate, but growing level of evidence from human data suggesting that electronic cigarette use has harmful health effects, especially but not limited to the cardiovascular system. However, more studies, in particular on long-term health effects, are needed.

Ich werde nicht müde, es zu betonen. Besagte Studie von Stanton Glantz wurde zurückgezogen. Auch hier verweise ich auf meinen Beitrag in der Kritik zum Film: Nikotin -Droge mit Zukunft.

With regard to human data on effects associated to second-hand exposure, the weight of evidence to date is weak, due to the limited database. There exists a complete paucity of evidence regarding the acute and long-term effects on cardiovascular and other health outcomes in children and adolescents. Therefore, further research is needed whether children and adolescents have higher risk than adults when regularly second-hand exposed within their home environments.

*Hust* Wozu benötigen wir Studien der Gefährlichkeit von Passivdampf bei Kindern. Irgendwie habt ihr da den Schuss nicht gehört. Es gibt keinen Passivdampf. Somit auch keine Gefährdung der Gesundheit in irgendeiner Form. Auch hier wieder der Verweis auf die Quellen)11 und )12

Fazit

Tja was soll ich dazu groß schreiben, das mich Ignoranz und Dummheit einfach nur aufregt? Das diese Aussagen im Summary einfach nur Schwachsinn sind, weil in sich unlogisch, da es keine Studien gibt die zweifelsfrei belegen, das die Aussagen in dem Pamphlet in irgendeiner Form stimmen? Ja das könnte ich. Aber viel wichtiger ist etwas anderes. Die Aussagen sind so dünn und der Wissenschaft wird nicht mehr zugehört. Siehe verlinktes Video von Heino Stöver und Bernd Mayer.

Das ich nur bei deren und meinem Appell bleiben kann und Euch frage:"Wie lange wollt ihr noch zu bequem sein um aufzustehen und dagegen zu sein. "Für mich persönlich ist das Ende der Fahnenstange erreicht und ich hoffe für einige von Euch auch. Für alle die unsicher sind habe ich ne kleine Lebensregelempfehlung: