Provaping verse Antivaping

[DeAnna2112]

I serve nor contribute to either provaping research or antivaping research....however i do support this forum. I do believe all researchers all have their own agendas...not this forum who has been very open minded of all that transpires in the research world...they leave it up to us to debate.
One serves to find only bad in vaping and the other serves in only finding the good in vaping. Anyone who really believes one side or the other doesn't have an agenda is kidding themselves. I have decided to go on vaping because my health has improved, but i don't know the long term effects. I certainly ain't going to believe in research that says it's harmful because my experience says differently, but time may prove other wise with vaping. I surely am not going to believe in provaping researchers because they are only out to say what we want to hear, thus increasing their financial increase and support. I will admit provaping research has called some things out and i think that is because they couldn't deny it...like diketones for example....which was a easy fix.
ALL researchers seek to fulfill an agenda..this or that..it's their reasoning for existing in their research. They all have sides to serve..one or the other. Which do we believe? i vape on not by research but what vaping has proved to me and my health.

 

[DeAnna2112]

I serve nor contribute to either provaping research or antivaping research....however i do support this forum. I do believe all researchers all have their own agendas...not this forum who has been very open minded of all that transpires in the research world...they leave it up to us to debate.
One serves to find only bad in vaping and the other serves in only finding the good in vaping. Anyone who really believes one side or the other doesn't have an agenda is kidding themselves. I have decided to go on vaping because my health has improved, but i don't know the long term effects. I certainly ain't going to believe in research that says it's harmful because my experience says differently, but time may prove other wise with vaping. I surely am not going to believe in provaping researchers because they are only out to say what we want to hear, thus increasing their financial increase and support. I will admit provaping research has called some things out and i think that is because they couldn't deny it...like diketones for example....which was a easy fix.
ALL researchers seek to fulfill an agenda..this or that..it's their reasoning for existing in their research. They all have sides to serve..one or the other. Which do we believe? i vape on not by research but what vaping has proved to me and my health.

I think we all should tread carelully

 

[Beamslider]

I'm with you. But after more than 40 years of smoking and noticing improved health after switching, I'll take the risk.

Also of course at 66, I probably don't have another 40 years for it to catch up with me anyway

 

[DeAnna2112]

It's like i said in another thread, if i am a democrat and go to their website i am gonna hear what i want to hear, if i go to a rep website i am gonna hear what i want to hear. It's no different here when it come to researchers from either side. Both have an agenda. I trust neither.

 

[Tonee N]

If you can't ban it, you regulate it and tax the crap out of it!
Alcohol and cigarettes.
BT is probably giving grad students grant funds to do research so they can publish and have their name in the science community as long as their research is beneficial to BT.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[Ryedan]

One serves to find only bad in vaping and the other serves in only finding the good in vaping. Anyone who really believes one side or the other doesn't have an agenda is kidding themselves.

You seem to be looking at this with a very 'no shades of grey' attitude DeAnna

One thing I've learned over the years is that everyone has an agenda. Those agendas are not however always one sided, nor are they always economically driven. The trick is to figure out what the agenda is and then use the data supplied appropriately.

There is definitely some work involved in running through this process, but I find it worth doing. I don't know for sure if I always reach the correct conclusions but I have fun doing the research and making up my own mind on things. The scientific method is a wonderful thing.

 

[Eskie]

It's like i said in another thread, if i am a democrat and go to their website i am gonna hear what i want to hear, if i go to a rep website i am gonna hear what i want to hear. It's no different here when it come to researchers from either side. Both have an agenda. I trust neither.

The political analogy is a good one. Same with news sources. If you only get news from one cable channel and website or another, your worldview will be skewed. The only way I know around that is follow multiple sources and look at the logic of either side. Chances are you'll agree with one or sometimes the other, but not always with either side.

Same here, you do need to read the "pro-vaping" studies and "anti-vaping studies", contrast and compare and to the best of your ability draw your own conclusions

 

[WillieB69]

 

[Bad Ninja]

If you can't ban it, you regulate it and tax the crap out of it!
Alcohol and cigarettes.
BT is probably giving grad students grant funds to do research so they can publish and have their name in the science community as long as their research is beneficial to BT.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

There is a HUGE difference between privately funded "research" or "studies" and peer reviewed science.

Most people cannot differentiate between the two.

Peer reviewed science usually isnt found on some special intrest website.

 

[OlderNDirt]

It just seems to me that most research is done by those looking for something/anything to prove vaping is at least bad if not as bad as or worse then smoking.

It also seems to me that the majority of research by pro-vaping advocates is done to refute all the faulty conclusions of the original studies.

That and the total lack of known medical issues resulting from vaping tells me all I need to know.

 

[Bad Ninja]

People need to understand the business.

Non profit groups take in donations.
They fund studies with the money.

"Studies" are a way to siphon donation money from non profit groups, and launder it back into the pocket.
It's a huge racket.

Has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with money.

Real science is published in accepted journals and subjected to rigourus peer review and scrutiny before anyone declares it accurate.

 

[VHRB2014]

Fake News! Lots of that about. Vaping saves lives. PERIOD!

 

[stols001]

I don't dispute the right of *anyone* to vape how they want, using research or not. I also don't deny the right of people to investigate research done, and (hopefully) to have enough knowledge to effectively analyze the results. DeAnna, I certainly agree with you that if you ARE going to investigate, do so on both sides of the issue, and I think that vaping research *should* continue, obviously, to investigate and minimize potential harm, but it shouldn't, you know, necessarily be something one spends all one's free time doing. However, I DO think the reserach (on both sides) is currently *important* due to the political climate, more than anything else. I want to know where the FDA is headed so I can *obtain* what I need, and I'd also want to know about particular ingredients to avoid, those kinds of things.

That being said, I don't think one should make it a lifetime endeavor to research vaping or smoking, and in a normal world, we'd get SOME reasonableness in studies, and would eventually have those filter over to vaping, in a reasonable, rational way. That's not *exactly* what is going on from what I've seen at the moment. Which is a shame.

That being said, tobacco has been studied extensively and found to be harmful, and since vapes use a tobacco biproduct, they should be subject to the *exact same standard* which is do it if you WANT to, here are the known and unknown risks, etc. THAT is how vaping should be approached. I'm not going to get any more into politics than to say that a grown adult should be allowed to vape, regardless of whether they smoked, because smoking remains *an option* despite MANY known risks, so why be hypocritical regarding vaping?

That said, after only 21 days, *I* feel so much better, and Every.Single.Medical.Professional who has evaluated me since then has noted improvement in my lung function (lack of wheezing) and has heartily congratulated me, including sometimes pulling out their *own* vape. That's good enough for me, though I do have *interest* in scientific research, it really *is* the only way we can move forward in either direction (pro or con). My only wish would be more research and less "research" and the fact is, many people who aren't trained or who don't care enough to investigate a study may CHOOSE to be swayed by "research." I think John Oliver did an excellent piece on how the media uses "research" "findings" and that it's ultimately detrimental and or junk. Worth a watch, I think it was early in his second season.

Anna

 

[SteveS45]

What we really need to do is to stop the untrained "Wannabe Scientists" from posting unsupported and totally unscientific "data" to support their own opinions on vaping.

 

[zoiDman]

What we really need to do is to stop the untrained "Wannabe Scientists" from posting unsupported and totally unscientific "data" to support their own opinions on vaping.

Because One Wasn't Enough.

 

[Bad Ninja]

What we really need to do is to stop the untrained "Wannabe Scientists" from posting unsupported and totally unscientific "data" to support their own opinions on vaping.

The better option would be to educate yourself enough to recognize the difference.
Censoring just gives people an excuse to stay uneducated.

 

[Eskie]

People need to understand the business.

Non profit groups take in donations.
They fund studies with the money.

"Studies" are a way to siphon donation money from non profit groups, and launder it back into the pocket.
It's a huge racket.

Has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with money.

Real science is published in accepted journals and subjected to rigourus peer review and scrutiny before anyone declares it accurate.

The follow the money trail can be of some use in determining potential bias, but plenty of peer reviewed work is published out of research funded by non-profits. Same with peer reviewed work published whose research was conducted with funding from drug companies. Which is why most mainstream journals these days require and publish as part of the paper both funding sources and potential conflicts of interest of the authors.

 

[DPLongo22]

Don't mind me. I just came for the popcorn that they guy outside promised...

 

[SteveS45]

Because One Wasn't Enough.

The better option would be to educate yourself enough to recognize the difference.
Censoring just gives people an excuse to stay uneducated.

As much help as reposting the pictures of the fools who blew their fingers and faces off. Sudo-Science is worse than helping the pictures of the explosions go viral. Education should be from certified and substantiated sources............

 

[Katdarling]

Diacetyl-free, I presume, DPL?

Pass me a bowl of the good stuff, please.