E cigarette study amateur propaganda....
- Thread starter Lania
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I haven't a lot of time to reply to this, I'm at work, but i took time to read the article linked to above and the article it links to...
in the second article, that bashes e-cigs, the following quote caught my attention "...But when they had 10 of the study participants use "control" devices -- e-cigarettes that had the cartridges removed -- they did not see the same airway effects."
I'm sorry... are you telling me that you had the members vaping on a dry atty for 10? and you expect me to believe that there were no effects? First, how did they do that without popping the atty?? second... has anyone ever tasted the burned flavour of a "dry atty"??
what kind of device, was it a standard 510 atty? was it a cheap knock off with nasty filler juice in it...
Why didn't they test this vs the Nicatrol Inhaler? what would that have responded with...
i have dozens of questions regarding the study... if they did a proper, peer reviewed published paper that we could see these answers, i'd be more inclined to believe that this might be true... but frankly, It was performed by a "abstinence only" mentality researcher... he started with the belief that E-cigs are dangerous and then went about to "prove" that they are by designing a study that doesn't properly study them vs cigs or nic inhalers... if i give you data without giving the context by which it can be measured... anything can be made to look scary...
say i do a study on Cure X that stops Activity Y and tell you that Cure X has deadly Z particles in it and thats it... God all mighty... don't touch it... but let me add the fact that Illness Y also has deadly Z particles and you might consider them equivalent... let me add the remaining fact that Activity Y has 1 billion more deadly Z particles than Cure X and suddenly its a miracle drug...
same thing... studies done without context or reference to alternatives is biased and inappropriate.
in the second article, that bashes e-cigs, the following quote caught my attention "...But when they had 10 of the study participants use "control" devices -- e-cigarettes that had the cartridges removed -- they did not see the same airway effects."
I'm sorry... are you telling me that you had the members vaping on a dry atty for 10? and you expect me to believe that there were no effects? First, how did they do that without popping the atty?? second... has anyone ever tasted the burned flavour of a "dry atty"??
what kind of device, was it a standard 510 atty? was it a cheap knock off with nasty filler juice in it...
Why didn't they test this vs the Nicatrol Inhaler? what would that have responded with...
i have dozens of questions regarding the study... if they did a proper, peer reviewed published paper that we could see these answers, i'd be more inclined to believe that this might be true... but frankly, It was performed by a "abstinence only" mentality researcher... he started with the belief that E-cigs are dangerous and then went about to "prove" that they are by designing a study that doesn't properly study them vs cigs or nic inhalers... if i give you data without giving the context by which it can be measured... anything can be made to look scary...
say i do a study on Cure X that stops Activity Y and tell you that Cure X has deadly Z particles in it and thats it... God all mighty... don't touch it... but let me add the fact that Illness Y also has deadly Z particles and you might consider them equivalent... let me add the remaining fact that Activity Y has 1 billion more deadly Z particles than Cure X and suddenly its a miracle drug...
same thing... studies done without context or reference to alternatives is biased and inappropriate.
The study is junk Jay, don't waste too many thoughts on it. It causes irritation/inflammation. We already know that about both nicotine and PG.
Studies that are supposed to be non-partisan frequently are. The bias of those conducting the experiment sometimes result in the unconscious tailoring of the testing environment to confirm what they suspect to be true.
A better study would compare the effect of electronic cigarettes to that of tobacco cigarettes and draw a comparison to breathing room air through a tube for a control level.
Comparisons could be drawn from testing airway restriction of people standing for long periods next to a bus or a on a flightline at an airport. All kinds of environmental contaminants affect our breathing.
A better study would compare the effect of electronic cigarettes to that of tobacco cigarettes and draw a comparison to breathing room air through a tube for a control level.
Comparisons could be drawn from testing airway restriction of people standing for long periods next to a bus or a on a flightline at an airport. All kinds of environmental contaminants affect our breathing.
"healthy" smokers? Is there even such a thing? Since quitting analogs and being a vaper for almost 1 year, I would disagree with everything said in this article. I have wrecked my lungs from smoking so any form of tests on me with ecigarettes wouldn't even be accurate anyways. At least I don't hack up a lung in the mornings, and have to inhale 3 inhalers anymore, not to mention that I can talk for hours and hours without my throat closing off, which would cause me to run and find my inhalers while my lack of oxygen from a closed off airway would cause me to almost pass out! Jeepers! That was embarrassing when it happened at work, and then the customers would see me smoking outside after I inhaled my medicine. Probably thinking, she is going to die soon! Not no more, thanks to ecigs.
you know that and I know that... but if we just ignore it and not tell people why the study is junk, a new vaper may see it and see our decision to not respond to it as "if we ignore that, it will go away and noone will know the 'real' effects of vaping"
i do believe that those of us who have decided to be activists need to be vigilant for this kind of stuff and be sure that there is no equivocation on the topic... the report above misleads people to believe something that isn't true... the results are accurate, but without context, they seem very damning instead of being benign.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
