Vaping and the immune system?

[Nimaz]

I have no idea of what the process may be for making (ongoing?) research methodology and data available to the public.

Usually, results of a given study are put together in a paper that include Abstract, Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, Discussion, Figures an legends, and references sections. The paper is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, and the editor board may send the paper to anonymous reviewers (scientist, usually 3 of them) expert in the field if the board think the study is relevant. The reviews are send to the authors, and if one reviewers find that the paper is not good enough for valid reasons, the paper is rejected. If all reviewers agree that the paper is relevant, scientifically accurate and rigorous, well written, specific points of the reviews are addressed by the authors, who send back the paper once the reviews are all addressed. If the reviewers are satisfied, the paper is then published, available to the public on line (PubMed for instance) sometime for free but often for relatively high fees (~$40).

 

[zoiDman]

To clarify, I am not saying that there is nothing to see here. I am saying that we don't actually know what we're looking at, because we're being shown specifically what someone wants us to see. That is not how science works.

Correction, that is not how good science works.

When did this ever Stop the Media from putting up a 28 point Headline on an Article saying that "e-Cigarettes" are going to Harm You?

 

[MacTechVpr]

I don't have the resources to summon peer review and more studies. What might do you suggest, Mac?

Don't know if the report has actually been issued yet (or if will be peer reviewed). As I understand reading a few articles on this briefly (found no direct ref) the submission were comments to the AAAS. If interested, as I am, post here. The threads on my watch list CB as the subjects of particular interest to me. Thanks for your remarks.

Good luck.

 

[Lessifer]

When did this ever Stop the Media from putting up a 28 point Headline on an Article saying that "e-Cigarettes" are going to Harm You?

Yeah.... this is one of the actual headlines from an article about this same researchers presentation:
Scientists Offer New Evidence E-Cigarettes Could Kill You

 

[zoiDman]

Yeah.... this is one of the actual headlines from an article about this same researchers presentation:
Scientists Offer New Evidence E-Cigarettes Could Kill You

Just seems like Most of the Abuse (and the Thing that has the Biggest Impact) is Not so much a Study, but the way the Media Reports Things and the Wording that they Use about a Study.

I have No Clue if this Gene Suppression "Study" is Good Science or Bad Science? Because I haven't read the Actual Study. And even if I did, I probably wouldn't have the Expertise to say what if something was Conclusive or Not.

 

[Lessifer]

Just seems like Most of the Abuse (and the Thing that has the Biggest Impact) is Not so much a Study, but the way the Media Reports Things and the Wording that they Use about a Study.

I have No Clue if this Gene Suppression "Study" is Good Science or Bad Science? Because I haven't read the Actual Study. And even if I did, I probably wouldn't have the Expertise to say what if something was Conclusive or Not.

It makes me wonder, are "reporters" actually scoping out health conferences looking for things to report? Or, are researchers and institutions seeking out avenues for spreading their "findings?"

 

[MacTechVpr]

It makes me wonder, are "reporters" actually scoping out health conferences looking for things to report? Or, are researchers and institutions seeking out avenues for spreading their "findings?"

No it would appear simpler than that. Dr. Ilona Jaspers is a Joint Professor of Microbiology, Immunology and
Director, Curriculum of Toxicology and the reported author of this story, a beneficiary of FDA grants for unspecified programs. The AAAS the apparent nexus for distribution of her work which is being picked up by copacetic digital media across the internet. One of the areas of her particular interest are the adverse potentials of e-cigarettes.

Good luck all.



“Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.” — H.L. Mencken

Is AAAS Serving Science or Monsanto? - Huffington Post
Science should keep out of partisan politics : Nature News ...

 

[zoiDman]

It makes me wonder, are "reporters" actually scoping out health conferences looking for things to report? Or, are researchers and institutions seeking out avenues for spreading their "findings?"

Generalizing:

I think that Many Authors just look for things that are Topical, Emotional or Controversial and then Put some "Shock" Headline on it to garner Web Hits.

I think it is More Important for Most Media Outlets to Sell Advertising Slots (at Higher Rates based on Analytics) than it is to Accurately Report News without Bias or Commentary.

I mean aren't people More Likely to click on an article that says...

"Study Shows that e-Cigarettes Cause Cancer."

vs.

"A Pilot Study was done and there is a possibility that certain e-Liquids flavorings might have adverse side effects."

 

[zoiDman]

BTW - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died Today.

 

[Nimaz]

Here is my morning news read:

Air Pollution Kills More Than 5 Million People Around the World Every Year
Air Pollution Kills More Than 5 Million People Every Year

That scares the hell out of me! My vape is just affecting me, but this....

 

[somdcomputerguy]

Generalizing:

I most wholeheartedly agree with the whole post, especially the part about media outlets wanting to sell more 'advertising space'.

 

[MacTechVpr]

BTW - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died Today.

Naturally smoking will be to blame. Good luck all.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Thanks for covering me on that. Didn't mean to sound quite so callous. I'm kind of in shock.

 

[Yiana]

I'm going on three years of vaping in May and I haven't had any crazy colds at all. I used to. Just putting this out there. Cheers!

 

[zoiDman]

Thanks for covering me on that. Didn't mean to sound quite so callous. I'm kind of in shock.

Today is a Day that Can/Will have a Profound Effect for a Very Long Time.

 

[mindriot]

This wording makes me think they haven't "Using translational human in vitro and in vivo approaches, our studies will ascertain whether exposure to e-cigs, with a specific focus on cinnamon-flavored e-liquids/e-cigs, have immune suppressive effects on the respiratory mucosa."

Re-reading it, it is very unclear exactly what they are talking about. They seem to make reference to some work that seems to have been done and some other work that is on going. My initial understanding was that it seemed like they had performed a fairly small broad study (and that is what is being discussed in the article) while they are also doing a more targeted study that is related to the same issues possibly kick started by the original findings. But that is just how I read it, it could easily be totally wrong, it certainly isn't clear what parts are being discussed where and if parts of one study are being mixed into the other when presented/reported on. I suppose we might have some better idea what the claims are, what scope they might have and how they were achieved if it ever makes itself into a journal.

 

[MacTechVpr]

But it begs the question @mindriot if the results were so indicative why not a peer-reviewed submission? Why this propagandistic alarmist release which smears vaping generally while relying upon the known irritant characteristics of cinnamon. This is an old story. My take is there's a lot of wild swinging going on for the anti-vaping piñata of FDA funding.

Good luck all.

Vaping, as it's called, means I will now live longer which is awesome for me and you. It's the greatest medical device since the Clapper. And yet spurred by cash and drama these hacks smear vaping which makes death smile. They need to be taken to a town square and shown what real tar is. —Greg Gutfield, The Five (FOX News)

Greg Gutfeld - Who Needs Protection From E-Cigs? - YouTube

 

[Rossum]

They need to be taken to a town square and shown what real tar is.

Don't forget the feathers.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Don't forget the feathers.

An immuno inflammatory response to an irritant. How novel. Jeepers, why didn't I think of that?

Good luck all.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

It seems to me that folks here are grasping at straws trying to find something wrong with the process of the study. Apparently there is a difference in what the study is finding and what many would like to believe. Is it that 'we just have to find something wrong here?' ...and a bit of cherry-picking in the approach.

I really don't know enough about the process of the study and procedures of research to criticize anything about it, nor do I feel a compelling need to. I do know enough to say I have developed an uncharacteristic autoimmune disease since taking up vaping.

Anybody can raise questions or criticize a matter, but who here is truly qualified to critique the matter? If you are, please list those qualifications. Does someone have lengthy experience in doctorate level research?

And let's leave out the post-modern playing of the victim card. "They're picking on us!"

Perhaps this study brings forth what is an inconvenient truth.