IVAQS Project Briefing - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: IVAQS Project Briefing

  1. #31
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    yvilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JustJulie View Post
    To suggest that concerns associated with IVAQS are primarily driven by petty personal differences does the community a grave disservice, imo.
    Sure, mistakes have been made. People do make mistakes. But to blow them up all out of proportion, mixed in with relentless character assasination and other attacks, many unwarranted, all over the ecig internet community, has long gone past "petty" personal differences.

    We are at the point now where people who know nothing at all are publicly proclaiming that IVAQS donors were "taken for a ride".

    Yeah, attempting to destroy any chance of the study ever being completed is real helpful to the community.

    What we have here, far past "petty" personal differences, is an all out, obsessive, determined, nasty, destructive and internecine war. And I am sickened by it.
    GregH, Indomitable and cigarbabe like this.

    In case anyone's wondering WHY I still have the SD as my sig, it's because I got my first ecig in January 2008 but still smoked for 10 months, until I got my first SD. I have other APVs, but also still love and use my SD (with a Bulli on top). I will be forever grateful to Trog for saving my life!

  2. #32
    CASAA Vaping Advocate
    Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    JustJulie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Des Moines, IA
    Posts
    2,508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yvilla View Post
    Sure, mistakes have been made. People do make mistakes. But to blow them up all out of proportion, mixed in with relentless character assasination and other attacks, many unwarranted, all over the ecig internet community, has long gone past "petty" personal differences.

    We are at the point now where people who know nothing at all are publicly proclaiming that IVAQS donors were "taken for a ride".

    Yeah, attempting to destroy any chance of the study ever being completed is real helpful to the community.

    What we have here, far past "petty" personal differences, is an all out, obsessive, determined, nasty, destructive and internecine war. And I am sickened by it.
    This is not a war, Yolanda. This is people expressing opinions about about IVAQS. Opinions are just that . . . opinions.

    The way I see it, reasonable minds can disagree about the value of IVAQS. Reasonable minds can also disagree about whether the "mistakes" that have been made along the way are significant enough so as to substantially undermine the credibility of the project.

    But suggesting that this is an "all out, obsessive, determined, nasty, destructive and internecine war" is a bit over the top, don't you think?
    Moradiss likes this.

  3. #33
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    yvilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JustJulie View Post
    The way I see it, reasonable minds can disagree about the value of IVAQS. Reasonable minds can also disagree about whether the "mistakes" that have been made along the way are significant enough so as to substantially undermine the credibility of the project.
    I've never disputed that. But what I'm referring to, and reacting to, is not a matter of reasonable differences in opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by JustJulie View Post
    But suggesting that this is an "all out, obsessive, determined, nasty, destructive and internecine war" is a bit over the top, don't you think?
    No Julie, I don't. I've personally and directly witnessed it for far too long. And that is what I'm finally so sickened by that I cannot keep it in any longer. And what I won't allow myself to be a silent, unwilling party to any longer.
    Indomitable and cigarbabe like this.

    In case anyone's wondering WHY I still have the SD as my sig, it's because I got my first ecig in January 2008 but still smoked for 10 months, until I got my first SD. I have other APVs, but also still love and use my SD (with a Bulli on top). I will be forever grateful to Trog for saving my life!

  4. #34
    Ultra Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    USA-Florida
    Posts
    2,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yvilla View Post
    Sure, mistakes have been made. People do make mistakes. But to blow them up all out of proportion, mixed in with relentless character assasination and other attacks, many unwarranted, all over the ecig internet community, has long gone past "petty" personal differences.

    We are at the point now where people who know nothing at all are publicly proclaiming that IVAQS donors were "taken for a ride".

    Yeah, attempting to destroy any chance of the study ever being completed is real helpful to the community.

    What we have here, far past "petty" personal differences, is an all out, obsessive, determined, nasty, destructive and internecine war. And I am sickened by it.
    There certainly has been "pettiness" (in fact, down right ugliness) but the bottom line is that this thing has turned into an expensive debacle. I've followed it from the start. At some point the person at the center of the storm should have had enough common sense to step away.
    Moradiss and girlsaint like this.

  5. #35
    Senior Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vocalek View Post
    CASAA took a close look at our own organization's finances late last fall and decided that we might be trying to accomplish too much with too little. The board voted to set aside the pursuit of any research efforts at this point and focus our efforts on working to keep the sale and indoor use of e-cigarettes legal.
    Fair enough, but maybe the board could reconsider its current position given the relative importance of such a study, specifically as it relates to indoor use. With the support of CASAA, I would be very motivated develop a program to raise the necessary funding to complete, or redo the study. If CASAA were involved, even if just by association, the project could move ahead more quickly. Time seems relevant because the more time that passes without our having credible evidence of our "beliefs" about second hand vapor, the more time opponents and critics have to create their own rules.

  6. #36
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA Kentucky
    Posts
    698

    Default

    I'm an outsider who really, probably, "doesn't understand". My interest is really in knowing some scientific facts. Is there some nic stuff in that vape that some exhale? Is it really something to worry about even if there? Do we have to rely on Phillip Morris paid for research to tell us e-cigs are a fraud and you've addicted your children and caused all your friends to have cancer. Personally, I willing to give some more money to know what the real fact are. But it seems pointless (and unproductive) to give more money with the counter winds seemingly equally determined that this research effort is a failure.

  7. #37
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    laurel099's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Nokomis, FL
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    I think most of us agree that GOOD research is needed! We get enough junk research from FDA lol.

    I personally think it starts with vendors getting their liquids tested but that's just my 2 cents.

    Testing on American Made Instead E-Liquid | The Electronic Cigarette & E-Cigarettes by Instead

    http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/Instead-ELiquid-Report.pdf
    cigarbabe likes this.

  8. #38
    Ultra Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Port Arthur, Texas
    Posts
    1,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vocalek View Post
    CASAA took a close look at our own organization's finances late last fall and decided that we might be trying to accomplish too much with too little. The board voted to set aside the pursuit of any research efforts at this point and focus our efforts on working to keep the sale and indoor use of e-cigarettes legal.
    I think CASAA made a wise decision. I have watched this since the beginning, and CASAA really don't have the experts need to support the IVAQS. Also, CASAA has done a great job of fighting the bans on e-cigarette around the country. We need CASAA to continue this work and they need all their resources to keep up with the bans.

  9. #39
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA Kentucky
    Posts
    698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taz3cat View Post
    I think CASAA made a wise decision. I have watched this since the beginning, and CASAA really don't have the experts need to support the IVAQS. Also, CASAA has done a great job of fighting the bans on e-cigarette around the country. We need CASAA to continue this work and they need all their resources to keep up with the bans.
    I tend to disagree on the "wise decision". That research could have contributed to CASAA's ability to fight the bans. Many e-cig ban efforts seem to arise from misinformation or, perhaps more importantly, lack of information. There seems to be the mentality in some of the hardcore antis that if it looks like smoking, it must be smoking, and therefore it must be evil. That research seemed to me to have the real possibilities of establishing that if the "evil" existed it was an evil only to the adult who made the choice and was not an evil forced upon some bystander or onlooker, a situation that many bystanders in the past history of smoking had to endure for many, many years. And, based upon many posts I have seen on this forum, I think many e-ciggers would like the comfort of knowing, with reasonable certainty or at least with greater certainty, that what they do does not jeopardize the health of others. Hopefully the CASAA choice was not made because of belief the facts would be detrimental to their efforts. For me, I prefer knowing that I am not harming others over forcing harm upon others so that I might vape without public ban. When it is said "decided to set aside the pursuit of any research efforts" that suggests to me facts are not important - it is all politics no matter what the facts are. Pursuit of research by CASSAA is not limited to just money and donations - it might be "encouragement". "Set aside the pursuit of any research" sounds of discouragement for facts.

  10. #40
    DC2
    DC2 is offline
    I'm Chucked Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    DC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    18,785

    Default

    Nvermind... I misunderstood the context of the comment I was responding to.
    Last edited by DC2; 07-11-2011 at 02:34 PM.
    Luisa likes this.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks