First time I've seen this...thoughts?
- Thread starter MadKat
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I read through that Drexel study (and I now see that it's 'stickied' to the top of every ECF page, hurrah), and have to say it comes across as being very thorough and objective. It raises concerns about the long-term effects of PG/VG inhalation at the levels we vapers do, but then again, we've all wondered that and determined the risk is far outweighed by the reward (esp. vs. smoking). And ignorance of long-term effects cannot be used to suppress a new technology, otherwise we'd all have to give our smartphones to monkeys and see what happens to their brains after 20-30 years of use.)
Even my dog farts ... and I tell ya, first, second or third hand, it's not good
<---------------
Study Reveals E-Cigarettes Contain Formaldehyde and Produce Toxic Secondhand
Just an FYi:
Normal Human Respiration also contains Formaldehyde.
It's all spin... For instance:
Did you know?
Coffee contain a chemical compounds also commonly found in Anti-Freeze and Nuclear Reactors.
Inhalation of this compound causes more than 380,000 deaths every year.
(Water)
See... Facts can be spun in many ways to elicit the desired emotional response.
Last edited:
Exactly. Just about everything is toxic (including water!!), just depends on the amount/frequency of exposure. But people see headlines like that and immediately conclude the worst - spin doctoring at its finest.
I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, as I am a vaper (w/my doctor's blessings) but did anybody notice the CASAA study was funded by CASAA?
Show me a truly INDEPENDENT study, long term,, not funded by anyone who has a financial stake in any of it, in any of the outcome. Then I will read it.
Just sayin'...........
Yes, but there will always be a conflict of interest when the "sides" of an argument are funding studies to prove "their" point. The previous poster pointed out that the anti studies were funded by the anti's, and I"m just pointing out that the pro vaping orgs are funding their own studies.
In order to achieve true objectivity, studies have to be done by independents. That is how all real science is funded.
I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.
It's the same reason why we wouldn't entirely trust a study commissioned by BP about the effect of oil spills on flora and fauna of the intercoastal waterways and shorelines. Nor would you entirely trust the studies done by the environmentalist tree hugger groups who are fighting BP, right?
Real science is not going to come out of that.
the ecig industry will probably enjoy close to a billion $$ in revenue by 2014...maybe it will surpass that.
Last edited:
The person that did the CASAA study was someone that didn't have any bias one way or the other. He just took ALL available data, for and against ecigs, and read the data to get to what the truth actually is. CASAA stepped out of the picture and agreed to no editing before the study was published.
I, for one, trust that this was unbiased. Yes, I read the study and the press release.
I, for one, trust that this was unbiased. Yes, I read the study and the press release.
I smelled a skunk on the way to work today. I should sue the city for allowing that. Who knows what that stench contains....
Keep in mind that CASAA is not an e-cigarette industry association nor is it an e-cigarette advocacy organization. CASAA is a CONSUMER group and a THR advocacy organization. CASAA advocates for ALL forms of low-risk, smokeless alternatives and is a voice of consumers, not companies. If CASAA had discovered that e-cigarettes were killing our members then that would have been reported. We are not here to protect the industry, we are here to protect smokers' rights to accessable, affordable and effective alternatives to smoking. Of course we hoped the study would support our belief that even the ANTZ studies showed (in spite of their spin) that ecigs weren't a health risk, but we had absolutely no control over Dr. Burstyn's conclusions. We held our breath with everyone else awaiting his study.
There is no such thing as unbiased funding. People fund research because they have an interest in the results. Drug companies fund research submitted to the FDA and ANTZ research. Ecig companies research their products. Who would invest $15,000 in a study like this if they have no vested interest in the results? Regardless of the funding source, the science is there and they cannot deny the facts. I would think a tobacco harm reduction advocacy group that represents the best interests of consumers would be a better funding source than either the ecig or drug industry or even the FDA that is on record as wanting to ban ecigs and that gets much of its funding from drug companies.
Last edited:
Can't wait to see this headline:
Warning -- Studies show breathing causes death!
If you breathe long enough (70-80-90 years) you WILL DIE!
Warning -- Studies show breathing causes death!
If you breathe long enough (70-80-90 years) you WILL DIE!
Remember, as well, that CASAA didn't fund "our own" testing or clinical studies. We paid for an unbiased (non-industry, non-advocacy, non-tobacco control) third-party scientific assessment of EXISTING research that was done both by pro-ecig and anti-ecig groups. Dr. Burstyn has no ties to ecig, tobacco or tobacco control and is a respected scientist. If anyone claims that he would compromise his name, reputation and career by lying for a measly $15k they are obviously just trying to discredit the report, because they can't discredit the science.
I read most of the conclusions in the actual study that the article references to and it doesn't really bring anything new to the somewhat biased table. My summary: "People don't know what's in it, we used others' research results and don't really know either. Thus vaping must be tested endlessly for the sake of public health! Oh yeah and not many people have employment in this industry (shout-out to ministers of finance yo)."
I know CASAA would not mis-represent information.
When a pharmaceutical company pays for research on a new med. they may not misrepresent information but their bias may show up in the way the study was *designed*......just like food manufacturers' research on nutrition. It is very subtle. I've been reading them for decades.
I realize there is very little infrastructure avaiable for independent research and scientific studies, however, there are research grants and funding for post doctorals, conducted at host universities, and even research grants for independent investigators, not just in the US, but international scientific efforts the world over---and there are even grants for supporting research independence.
So to say there is no such thing as unbaised funding is not entirely true.
The Human Genome Project, being internationally supported, benefitted all of humananity by simply generating detailed maps of the human genome. Although there were parallel studies being done by companies like Celera/Quest Diagnostics the HUGO research itself was probably pretty close to bias free.
I'm not saying that scientific advancement can't come from "people with a vested interest in the research" like corporations, private companies, advocacy or special interest groups. I believe that even people like you, and me, and every member on ECF, who are just hobbyists and/or ecig users, are an invaluable part of the research. Even anecdotals yield valuable information.
I'm just saying that I will continue to over-scrutinize any study that may touch upon or intertwine with anything related to retaining or gaining market share.....even if is for a good cause, and even if it is something I believe in.
The only reason I replied is because a previous poster brought up the "who is paying for studies" issue, and I believe that has to be obejectively applied to both sides in order to be fair. So I look.
Last edited:
Your summary is inaccurate. That isn't at all what the study conclusions actually say. You may want to read it again.
I know CASAA would not mis-represent information.
When a pharmaceutical company pays for research on a new med. they may not misrepresent information but their bias may show up in the way the study was *designed*......just like food manufacturers' research on nutrition. It is very subtle. I've been reading them for decades.
I realize there is very little infrastructure avaiable for independent research and scientific studies, however, there are research grants and funding for post doctorals, conducted at host universities, and even research grants for independent investigators, not just in the US, but international scientific efforts the world over---and there are even grants for supporting research independence.
So to say there is no such thing as unbaised funding is not entirely true.
The Human Genome Project, being internationally supported, benefitted all of humananity by simply generating detailed maps of the human genome. Although there were parallel studies being done by companies like Celera/Quest Diagnostics the HUGO research itself was probably pretty close to bias free.
I'm not saying that scientific advancement can't come from "people with a vested interest in the research" like corporations, private companies, advocacy or special interest groups. I believe that even people like you, and me, and every member on ECF, who are just hobbyists and/or ecig users, are an invaluable part of the research. Even anecdotals yield valuable information.
I'm just saying that I will continue to over-scrutinize any study that may touch upon or intertwine with anything related to retaining or gaining market share.....even if is for a good cause, and even if it is something I believe in.
The only reason I replied is because a previous poster brought up the "who is paying for studies" issue, and I believe that has to be obejectively applied to both sides in order to be fair. So I look.
Most research grants are funded by front "foundations" for industries or organizations with a vested interest. You will have to wait a very long time for a study that is financed by completely "clean" funds - if it ever happens. University research has been completely overtaken by ANTZ. So, even if they are funded by -say a billionaire who just gives money to a university to whatever they want - there is still the peer pressure to be anti-tobacco/recreational nicotine. Just ask anyone who every dared to produce research that didn't conclude public SHS was hazardous or promoted THR over abstinence. Dare not to tow the ANTZ line and suddenly you are on the outside looking in without a job or funding and accused of being a tobacco shill. Tobacco research simply does not happen the same way as something like the human genome project. Just look at everytjing we've seen come out of universities about e-cigs to date! There is simply too much pressure -and benefit- in being anti-tobacco. You simply won't see any unbiased research that is "pro" ecig/THR until there are so many studies like Dr. Burstyn's that they would simply look ridiculous trying to claim ecigs are still a public health hazard.
And how does Dr. Burstyn's research have anything to do with retaining or gaining market share? Neither he nor CASAA have anything to do with selling ecigs. Personally, if ecigs were banned off of the face of the Earth today, I would still be working with CASAA to promote other smoke-free alternatives and getting the truth about them to smokers. Unlike many other organizations, no one on CASAA's board is paid to be an advocate. How do any of us on the board benefit financially as directors if ecigs gain market share? Our vested interest is in helping smokers and educating the public. And Dr. Burstyn has no vested interest at all in e-cigarettes. If someone can claim that HE compromised his scientific integrity based on the fact that CASAA funded the research, then no researcher will be able to pass the unbiased test. Because if you dig deep enough, you'll be able to find bias anywhere.
- Status
