Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study

[Kent C]

I get that premise, but only partly. I see that House of Liquid donated 3K, but it should also be noted that HoL came out looking rather blemished in their last study. A few of HoL tobacco liquids were found to be cytotoxic. At least we know who the bigger donors are. I also read on the site that they do not accept requests to test any particular liquid, so it's not like a vendor can pay to get their liquids a clean bill of health. It apparently all mystery shopped so they get exactly what generally goes out the door. But I do get the "industry" aspect of it.

I was specific in my wording - 'seems' not 'is', and no reflection on the Doctor. We know how other studies are dismissed out of hand by their financing. It will be the first thing mentioned by ANTZ in any report or article. 'Conflict of interest' is now the focus of Dr. Siegal on ANTZ reporting and studies.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/01/cdc-is-intentionally-hiding-conflicts.html

Why not be different than them? I'd rather see something funded only by consumers.

 

[SecGuru]

That study is already available (it's on ECF) so there's no secrecy--they're just casting a wider net. Or look here: Evaluation of the cytotoxic potential of e-cigarette vapor on cultured cardiac cells: a new study

And as far as as the testing costs, if 100 liquids were tested and the cost of a comprehensive analysis for each liquid only costs $300, that would be $30K. That's not including the cost of 100+ different liquids and shipping cost to Greece (or wherever it's going).

I only scratch mind head in amazement that this is just now becoming more common place.

HOWEVER, I do agree with you we haven't done this more on a regular basis. Just because I buy ingredients that are food grade, that doesn't make them safe to vape.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I was specific in my wording - 'seems' not 'is', and no reflection on the Doctor. We know how other studies are dismissed out of hand by their financing. It will be the first thing mentioned by ANTZ in any report or article. 'Conflict of interest' is now the focus of Dr. Siegal on ANTZ reporting and studies.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/01/cdc-is-intentionally-hiding-conflicts.html

Why not be different than them? I'd rather see something funded only by consumers.

I was specific too, which is why I spoke about that "premise" (what was inferred) and I also said I "get the 'industry' aspect of it." Would it have been better if it was all consumer based? Yes, I get that part. But it's what we have now which is why I was glad to donate.

Also, that article speaks to non-disclosure of donors with a conflict of interest. If I am not mistaking, us knowing that TW and HoL and others have donated large sums, and knowing what those large sums are, is different than having to get an FOIA to find out.

Kent, I get it though.

 

[SecGuru]

I was specific too, which is why I spoke about that "premise" (what was inferred) and I also said I "get the 'industry' aspect of it." Would it have been better if it was all consumer based? Yes, I get that part. But it's what we have now which is why I was glad to donate.

Also, that article speaks to non-disclosure of donors with a conflict of interest. If I am not mistaking, us knowing that TW and HoL and others have donated large sums, and knowing what those large sums are, is different than having to get an FOIA to find out.

Kent, I get it though.

Yeah, I can't disagree on that. If I really wanted to run a study on how vaping might be bad for you, I'm sure that Philip Morris would throw a ton of cash at me for the study.

 

[Kent C]

I was specific too, which is why I spoke about that "premise" (what was inferred) and I also said I "get the 'industry' aspect of it." Would it have been better if it was all consumer based? Yes, I get that part. But it's what we have now which is why I was glad to donate.

Also, that article speaks to non-disclosure of donors with a conflict of interest. If I am not mistaking, us knowing that TW and HoL and others have donated large sums, and knowing what those large sums are, is different than having to get an FOIA to find out.

Kent, I get it though.

I also got your specificity but my points still stand. You're absolutely right on the 'bold'. Great efforts are made to keep certain things disclosed on the 'other side'.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I also got your specificity but my points still stand. You're absolutely right on the 'bold'. Great efforts are made to keep certain things disclosed on the 'other side'.

There's the rub!

In a way, I was torn. I almost wish customers didn't have to pay when we already pay the vendors large sums, but they still don't get their liquid tested (generally speaking). I mean, the onus is on us? But I also wish it could be straight-up grassroots--and I mean for real grassroots.

Maybe they could've capped support at $100 dollars or something. I dunno. I know one thing, I am anxiously awaiting the results and especially to see which liquids were tested. Man, I would've loved to have been the mystery shopper for this endeavor!

 

[Kent C]

Yeah, I can't disagree on that. If I really wanted to run a study on how vaping might be bad for you, I'm sure that Philip Morris would throw a ton of cash at me for the study.

Maybe not...

Philip Morris to Tap E-Cigarette Market Next Year - WSJ.com

 

[SecGuru]

Maybe not...

Philip Morris to Tap E-Cigarette Market Next Year - WSJ.com

Yeah yeah. You know what I meant.

E-cigs won't match their analog sales. One, because they got enough of our money. Second, because, you know, they suck. Lol

 

[Kent C]

Yeah yeah. You know what I meant.

E-cigs won't match their analog sales. One, because they got enough of our money. Second, because, you know, they suck. Lol

I know what you meant... and while I never cared for Phillip Morris, I loved RJ Reynolds. I don't hate BT, they made me happy for a long time. I happen to be one of those who knew the risk I was taking and for me, it was worth it.

 

[SecGuru]

At the very least, we can hug it out...

 

[Mohamed]

Electronic cigarette liquids analysis-evaluating potentially harmful ingredients | Indiegogo

Just noticed they reached there goal today. From my understanding the more they get the more they will test...but nice to know they reached there goal and the study will definitely be going through now.

 

[yorkiegirl]

Done. Bump

 

[Ian444]

Done. Mt Baker Vapor put in $5000, that demonstrates a lot of customer care and professionalism.

 

[Mohamed]

Done. Mt Baker Vapor put in $5000, that demonstrates a lot of customer care and professionalism.

Aside from donating money has anyone contacted their vendors either B&M or online? I'm relatively new to vaping maybe 6 months? So don't necessarily have a vendor that I go to all the time...but I wonder if the research team would accept gifted juice from vendors or if the vendors would give a discount to these guys for the sake of research.

I'll contact the two vendors that I use somewhat regularly to see if they are interested in donating/discounting if someone could tell me for sure if the research team would be receptive to this idea.

 

[Mohamed]

Done. Mt Baker Vapor put in $5000, that demonstrates a lot of customer care and professionalism.

Was looking through the funders and saw them as well. I also noticed at the top that someone donated 7,000

vicki77
38 minutes ago
$7,000

No idea who that is but very generous especially if it is just some random vapor

 

[Ian444]

...but I wonder if the research team would accept gifted juice from vendors or if the vendors would give a discount to these guys for the sake of research.

I think the team would prefer donations, and buy the juice samples as an anonymous buyer. Discounted or free juice would not be "random samples" required for research. Not that I would know for sure, but that is what I would suspect.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I think the team would prefer donations, and buy the juice samples as an anonymous buyer. Discounted or free juice would not be "random samples" required for research. Not that I would know for sure, but that is what I would suspect.

Yeah, you are suspecting correctly. I mean, of course a vendor would put on their best behavior, i.e, professionalism in mixing, once they know their liquid was being tested. This is supposedly all being mystery shopped.

 

[Mohamed]

I think the team would prefer donations, and buy the juice samples as an anonymous buyer. Discounted or free juice would not be "random samples" required for research. Not that I would know for sure, but that is what I would suspect.

Good point. If it's coming from anonymous buyer the vendor couldn't give a doctored up "safe" sample.

 

[Mohamed]

Yeah, you are suspecting correctly. I mean, of course a vendor would put on their best behavior, i.e, professionalism in mixing, once they know their liquid was being tested. This is supposedly all being mystery shopped.

again never thought of the anonymous "mystery shopper" aspect. I get now why donations of e-liquid itself may not be appropriate for the study.

 

[Mohamed]

again never thought of the anonymous "mystery shopper" aspect. I get now why donations of e-liquid itself may not be appropriate for the study.

That being said I will still will forward this thread to the two vendors that I use most consistently. Hopefully they will see benefit of donating. I hope the end study lists each vendor separately and the findings it found. It would be great to have x vendors had y parts per million of z and so on...

Then we the consumers could decide on yes x vendor is offering all safe stuff or this particular vendor is questionable...just my thoughts on what I want to see from the study.