And now they're coming after drippers.......Monday morning junk science edition

[Eskie]

Is it possible that the reporter and/or their editor is intentionally painting vaping in a negative light? Sure. At the same time, I believe it's entirely possible that this reporter thought they did their due diligence. How many peer reviewed studies are there that detail how dripping is not a higher risk than regular vaping?

How much of the evidence in favor of vaping exists on blogs or other mediums that most people wouldn't consider to be credible sources?

That is very true. Fortunately, more traditional, peer reviewed, and well respected journals are publishing studies that are "cautiously optimistic" about vaping. Let's face it. Vaping is very new. Hardware is evolving rapidly as are use patterns. It takes a bit of time for valid scientific data to be collected. Mainstream medical journals such as the Annals of Internal Medicine is publishing thoughtful papers on the topic ( E-Cigarettes and Toxin Exposure | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians ).

Superficial, ill conceived studies are easy to conduct and peddle. Thoughtful, reproducible science doesn't work like that. It takes time to collect valid data. Larger numbers of healthcare providers are recognizing the potential benefits of vaping for a smoking population. The issue will be whether a critical mass of information is released supporting the claims of benefits from vaping before the industry is eliminated through improper regulation.

 

[Lessifer]

That is very true. Fortunately, more traditional, peer reviewed, and well respected journals are publishing studies that are "cautiously optimistic" about vaping. Let's face it. Vaping is very new. Hardware is evolving rapidly as are use patterns. It takes a bit of time for valid scientific data to be collected. Mainstream medical journals such as the Annals of Internal Medicine is publishing thoughtful papers on the topic ( E-Cigarettes and Toxin Exposure | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians ).

Superficial, ill conceived studies are easy to conduct and peddle. Thoughtful, reproducible science doesn't work like that. It takes time to collect valid data. Larger numbers of healthcare providers are recognizing the potential benefits of vaping for a smoking population. The issue will be whether a critical mass of information is released supporting the claims of benefits from vaping before the industry is eliminated through improper regulation.

Exactly.

I'm also not saying that there is no conspiracy. I just don't believe that reacting to every ill-informed report on vaping with "fake news" is beneficial to us in the long run. If there's a comments section, by all means, discuss what's wrong with the report. Shouting down conflicting information only bolsters support from those who already support you. It tends to make people who disagree stop listening.

 

[zoiDman]

"... He [Trump] could have Undermined the massaging so much that he could actually Control ah exactly what People Think... and that is Our Job. ..."

Refreshing to Hear someone from the Media speaking the Truth for a Change.

 

[puffon]

Seems the US media and FDA are ignoring many positive studies from credible sources.
Long-term vaping 'far safer than smoking' says 'landmark' study - Health News - NHS Choices

 

[Lessifer]

Seems the US media and FDA are ignoring many positive studies from credible sources.
Long-term vaping 'far safer than smoking' says 'landmark' study - Health News - NHS Choices

Well, you know, vaping is different in the US than it is in the UK. I believe they actually said this at one point...

Of course the actual difference is that in the UK the focus is on protecting the health of all, including smokers, whereas in the US the focus is, at least nominally, on preventing future smokers and protecting non-smokers.

 

[zoiDman]

...

Of course the actual difference is that in the UK the focus is on protecting the health of all, including smokers, whereas in the US the focus is, at least nominally, on preventing Harm Reduction Innovations and protecting Current/Future Tax Revenues.

I Fixed that for you.

 

[EddieAdams]

"... He [Trump] could have Undermined the massaging so much that he could actually Control ah exactly what People Think... and that is Our Job. ..."

Refreshing to Hear someone from the Media speaking the Truth for a Change.

Just saw that. Project Veritas supposedly has some bombshell about the liberal networks coming out tomorrow. We'll see.

FDA BOC

 

[Lessifer]

I Fixed that for you.

Well, they don't usually go out and say that, they usually at least pay lip service to "protecting the youth from a lifetime of nicotine addiction."

 

[Smoke_too_much]

I would have thought the recent election coverage would have stopped anyone from ever again watching FNN. I couldn't even read the whole article it was so pathetic.