Provaping verse Antivaping

[CMD-Ky]

I have ask you previously, without a response. You keep mentioning pro-vaping research, but it is very unclear as to what you mean. Please link to any research you consider pro-vaping. I have never actually seen any research that I would consider to have a pro-vaping slant, meaning that the study was purposely set up to have a pro-vaping bias (though there are plenty of anti-vaping studies that have an obvious bias).

100 likes

 

[DeAnna2112]

I have ask you previously, without a response. You keep mentioning pro-vaping research, but it is very unclear as to what you mean. Please link to any research you consider pro-vaping. I have never actually seen any research that I would consider to have a pro-vaping slant, meaning that the study was purposely set up to have a pro-vaping bias (though there are plenty of anti-vaping studies that have an obvious bias).

Seriously you expect me to go out and go through a bunch of research articles to show provaping research is just that provaping. I really need to provide you with that data? Have you seen one research article outside of Dr. F and Dr. K that says one negative thing towards vaping. Please you show me. I may have missed those research articles and i am being serious. I want to be proved wrong trust me. Help me regain my trust in provaping research.

 

[DeAnna2112]

I have learned alot about myself in this thread and glad i started it. I mean really, i truly don't believe vaping will ever be found harmful or nowhere near as harmful as cigs. I feel a thousand times better since i quit smoking. I guess i was taken back with the diketone and high heat concerns. I do feel like there is more to improve upon that has yet to be found or discovered, that i will say i fully do believe. I think the only answer for me is to continue to explore research on both sides, and continue to watch what Dr. F and Dr. K do as well given i feel the most comfortable with their research. Stop expecting general provaping research to do what Dr. F and Dr. K do, and that is bring all variables to the table regardless of what those findings may be.

 

[puffon]

Research from a neither pro of against vaping entity.
Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction

 

[Katdarling]

Who is Dr. K? (I know of Dr. Farsalinos, "Dr. F", but don't know of Dr. K.)

 

[DeAnna2112]

Research from a neither pro of against vaping entity.
Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction

That was all provaping jargon

 

[DeAnna2112]

Who is Dr. K? (I know of Dr. Farsalinos, "Dr. F", but don't know of Dr. K.)

I am not familiar with him but he was brought up on this forum by another member who says he works with Dr. F and is as bias as Dr. F is. I took their word for it especially if he works with Dr. F. I wish someone would provide me links to his work, i sure would appreciate it.

 

[Katdarling]

Perhaps, Kurt Kistler, our own ECF member who is also a chemist.

 

[DeAnna2112]

Perhaps, Kurt Kistler, our own ECF member who is also a chemist.

It is possible and i have always loved Kurt's threads, he has come under fire in the past when i was more active on this forum for the diketone issues

 

[Ca Ike]

I understand what your saying and agree with some of it. But the reason i like Dr. F is because he has reported findings that support provaping as well as areas of concern that are worthy of noting. That is the kinda researcher i want to read findings from. How is it he can do it, and from what i understand Dr. K does it, but i should expect less from general provaping research. That's the only point i am trying to make and i think it's reasonable.

Dr F took concerns from vapers here on this forum and designed a study to test them. That's partly where the diketone study came from and why he reported on it. He is also a vaper and uses his own concerns to decide what to test.

The other studies you may consider provaping are not, really. Several were done because of the really bad formaldehyde study. Others set out to compare vaping vs smoking vs normal room air or even outside air. All these studies set out to test specific parameters pertaining to the goal of the study. What you don't seem to understand is they can not report conclusions not specifically part of the design parameters.

For example, the lauded formaldehyde fiasco study did find other compounds along with formaldehyde but couldn't report the amount or exactly what they were because the test wasn't set up to measure them directly. The GCMS was specifically calibrated for formaldehyde.

On the other hand, the room air comparison test was done to detect a broad range of compounds so anything they found could be included, good or bad. They just didn't find anything that could be considered bad and found better air quality after they vape was introduced.

Can you see the difference and why your ideas won't work?

 

[zoiDman]

Who is Dr. K? (I know of Dr. Farsalinos, "Dr. F", but don't know of Dr. K.)

I believe that DeAnne is referring to Dr. Kurt A. Kistler

Who most of us here just know as Kurt.

 

[DeAnna2112]

Dr F took concerns from vapers here on this forum and designed a study to test them. That's partly where the diketone study came from and why he reported on it. He is also a vaper and uses his own concerns to decide what to test.

The other studies you may consider provaping are not, really. Several were done because of the really bad formaldehyde study. Others set out to compare vaping vs smoking vs normal room air or even outside air. All these studies set out to test specific parameters pertaining to the goal of the study. What you don't seem to understand is they can not report conclusions not specifically part of the design parameters.

For example, the lauded formaldehyde fiasco study did find other compounds along with formaldehyde but couldn't report the amount or exactly what they were because the test wasn't set up to measure them directly. The GCMS was specifically calibrated for formaldehyde.

On the other hand, the room air comparison test was done to detect a broad range of compounds so anything they found could be included, good or bad. They just didn't find anything that could be considered bad and found better air quality after they vape was introduced.

Can you see the difference and why your ideas won't work?

I am hearing you and taking it into consideration. They were not testing what they found therefore not enough data was gathered to make a full conclusion to report it. But for me, they should have reported that as unsubstantiated finding that needs further analysis. I expect to see further studies to follow on the issues found that were not expected in their studies. Heck even if they found positive findings, report it as is...not enough data to substantiate or confirm.

 

[DeAnna2112]

I believe that DeAnne is referring to Dr. Kurt A. Kistler

Who most of us here just know as Kurt.

thank you zoid!!

 

[DeAnna2112]

Dr F took concerns from vapers here on this forum and designed a study to test them. That's partly where the diketone study came from and why he reported on it. He is also a vaper and uses his own concerns to decide what to test.

The other studies you may consider provaping are not, really. Several were done because of the really bad formaldehyde study. Others set out to compare vaping vs smoking vs normal room air or even outside air. All these studies set out to test specific parameters pertaining to the goal of the study. What you don't seem to understand is they can not report conclusions not specifically part of the design parameters.

For example, the lauded formaldehyde fiasco study did find other compounds along with formaldehyde but couldn't report the amount or exactly what they were because the test wasn't set up to measure them directly. The GCMS was specifically calibrated for formaldehyde.

On the other hand, the room air comparison test was done to detect a broad range of compounds so anything they found could be included, good or bad. They just didn't find anything that could be considered bad and found better air quality after they vape was introduced.

Can you see the difference and why your ideas won't work?

and as a vaper if i was Dr. F you betcha i am going to research things that i am concerned with, which is what Dr. F did.

 

[zoiDman]

I am not familiar with him but he was brought up on this forum by another member who says he works with Dr. F and is as bias as Dr. F is. I took their word for it especially if he works with Dr. F. I wish someone would provide me links to his work, i sure would appreciate it.

I am the one who First mentioned Kurt's name...

No Problem DeAnna.

It just kinda threw me. Because you seem to hold Dr. F in High Regards. But when I mentioned Dr. Kistler's name, I got yelled at.

And Dr. F and Dr. Kistler have worked closely on many projects. And have, what I would call, closely Aligned Views on many aspects of e-Cigarettes, e-Liquids, and e-Cigarette Policy.

Academic pursuits can dominate one's time. But in most Fields of Study, can pay Huge Dividends over a lifetime.

If you get some Free Time, you might read this work by Konstantinos E. Farsalinos MD, Kurt A. Kistler PhD, Gene Gillman PhD, Vassilis Voudris PhD

Evaluation of electronic cigarette liquids and aerosol for the presence of selected inhalation toxins

I think it is a Good Example of people who are Very Pro-Vaping but are unafraid to point out that there might be Avoidable Risk in doing so.

And something if they were just "Pushing an Agenda", they would Not have Published it.

But I in NO Way was Implying or Trying to Imply that Kurt is "Biased" in a negative connotation.

In Fact, I would consider Kurt's work and Written Views to Fair and Balanced. Even when the Subject Matter was, I'm sure, known to Not be Received Well by some/many members here on the ECF.

 

[DeAnna2112]

I am the one who First mentioned Kurt's name...





But I in NO Way was Implying or Trying to Imply that Kurt is "Biased" in a negative connotation.

In Fact, I would consider Kurt's work and Written Views to Fair and Balanced. Even when the Subject Matter was, I'm sure, known to Not be Received Well by some/many members here on the ECF.

I couldn't remember who brought his name up i just remember trying to remember who it was when i was more active, so it must have been you. And i in no way was saying it was negative on vaping.

 

[puffon]

That was all provaping jargon

Really? Did you read it?
"E-cigarettes are not currently made to medicines standards and are probably more hazardous than NRT."

 

[DeAnna2112]

i was looking more towards calling their findings as it was and being upfront about it.

 

[Alien Traveler]

Ok. About "pro-vaping" "research".​

There was a thread about some science director (or something as that) of CASAA who stated that vaping is at least 99% safer than smoking, in contrast to British 95%? Do you really believe him?

 

[DeAnna2112]

Really? Did you read it?
"E-cigarettes are not currently made to medicines standards and are probably more hazardous than NRT."

I guess we read

Really? Did you read it?
"E-cigarettes are not currently made to medicines standards and are probably more hazardous than NRT."

Puffon, not inhaling anything is better clearly. But vaping was totally supported in this research article without any flaw if one chooses to vape over smoking. I agree vaping is better then smoking...that is what this article stated and i agree