To be fair - 99% of the time that's all it turns out to be.
Is that a metric that was validated somehow or your guestimate?
I don't think people "write it off" so much as suggest that is what it could be. When they do that, they are chided by the worrywarts for not taking it seriously enough or wearing blinders/rose colored glasses. Honestly, I have yet to see a serious adverse side effect and the mild side effects, while sometimes alarming, are usually just that - PG allergy, too high nicotine, mild dehydration or quitting smoking side effects that subside rather quickly. I have yet to see one person come back with a report that their doctor linked severe symptoms to vaping.
Well, that makes sense but not in a good way. There is no body of data to let them even form a decision tree to make such a connection.
And think about what you ~just did~, you called them worrywarts and used a slightly condescending term.. chided. That's pretty much how most threads make the OP feel from where I'm sitting. And I have a track record of screaming off the buildings people are worrywarts. I just generally, believe it or not, do it more diplomatically in the New Users responses than I've seen others do.
People can't walk away thinking they've been scolded or something is being hidden from them. They need to feel confident that people do, have, and are taking it all very seriously. And have given it considerable thought. That "feeling" is not regularly instilled in New User responses having to do with health or concerns.
That is ridiculous when you consider that I'm on the board of CASAA (CONSUMER ADVOCATES) - the last thing we want to do is be like the antis and hide the truth from smokers. It goes against our very mission statement. If something serious was ever even remotely linked by a physician, as soon as we heard it we'd verify it and report it as a known issue to our members!
While I tend to believe the CASAA advocates I've interacted with, I'm not sure I believe what you just said to be generally true. For example, CASAA's stance on nicotine as presented
Casaa.org - Harm Reduction is very peculiar to me.
They open by basically saying nicotine has benefits, they bullet them out. Then they say "
Theoretically, the healthiest thing a smoker can do is to totally give up using nicotine in any form. But does reality conform to the theory?"...
They should be defining ~reality~ in the use cases they suggest. They don't.
They completely disregard nicotine's effects on prediabetes and diabetes as it pertains to heart disease. If you're already familiar w/ the situation what CASAA is really indicating is statistical relative risk of nicotine cessation vs weight gain. I get that, I've said that, however... shouldn't CASAA note that those who are borderline and have healthier weights might want to try to stick to that without nicotine?
And in terms of nicotine cessation I think CASAA should probably tell you what else you're ~not~ getting in vaping (vs analogs) that might be beneficial to your mental health too. The whole WTA discussions had even in this thread. I would think when you're talking about nicotine helping w/ depression and anxiety you might want to mention this too.
So while I agree it's absurd to think CASAA is out there covering up dangerous aspects of vaping, I'm not sure they're advocating for the consumer as an unbiased broker either. As an individual broker and not the whole of CASAA, you indeed may be... I just don't see the organization's outward facing presentation quite that clearly.
Basically, I think I'm w/ Nate on this one... I think the general attitude is far more dismissive than you suggest.
And this is coming from somebody who firmly espouses the risk reduction and relative risk line. I just think a bit more honest brokerage should come from CASAA than would just an end-user like me. -Magnus