What do you mean exactly? Any time I hear "evidence based" in a medical context, It reminds me of the current zealous pursuit of Evidence Based Diagnosis, as if before 2011, patients were triaged and diagnosed by shamans and California psychics.
For sometime now, treatment has been based on what symptoms the patient presented with, folowed up by the appropiate diagnostic tools to confirm diagnosis, and determine treatment options.
Your usage of "evidence based notion" leaves me sincerely hoping that you are not a medical practitioner, as the definition of notion (a general understanding; vague or imperfect conception or idea of something), is contraindicated by evidence. Medical professionals should not be diagnosing, or treating patients based on whim.
The term harm reduction, more and more is beginning to become a valid principle driving treatment, but harm reduction is nothing new either.
"When does your back hurt? when you do over 200 jumping jacks? try doing less."
For some reason, common sense needs to be called harm reduction. Eliminating 4000+ carcinogens, by using ecigs is a good example. The medicinal properties of glycerine, and propylene glycol are well known and understood, PG being used as a carrier in some inhalers, Nicotine according the the best research, although addicting, is not a carcinogen, just a stimulant best compared to caffeine. It is shocking that so many physicians are unaware of the facts regarding nicotine, and still believe it to be a serious heath hazard in and of itself. Evidence based indeed.
Asthma does not present identically in patients, which is the reason there are so many treatment options. Every patient needs to be evaluated individually.
Smoking, with its 4000+ known carcinogens and irritants can kill you. Fact. Evidence based if you like. Ecigs, may or may not have some negative long term impact on health, but there exists no evidence of that, and not due to a lack of effort on the part of Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, governments and the corrupt organizations they fund to try and portray ecigs in a negative light. Like the Formaldehyde in ecigs experiment. I wonder sometimes if those academic prostitutes ever sit down and consider how many live lost they are responsible for, by doing deliberately bad science, and publishing a paper that was created solely for the purpose of misleading people, and deterring them from pursuing something that might have saved their lives, deliberately, for money. Like deliberately directing people the wrong way to the fire escape in a burning building.
If it were up to me, I'd throw the entire bunch in fucking jail for life.
The old adage of "the operation was a complete success, but the patient died" is as valid as ever. Smokers should stop. There is however no great victory won in a patient stopping smoking, after they are terminal with cancer.
How long have you been vaping? How long were you a smoker? I ask, because you chose a very odd thread for your second post here.
Last edited: