Good video from Regulator Watch
- Thread starter skoony
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Was just about to post it myself, you beat me 57 minutes 
Great video! I hope we can finally put to rest the diacetyl scare!
Great video! I hope we can finally put to rest the diacetyl scare!
Thanks for posting. I think Dr. F lets the media off the hook. It isn't that they just report what the studies say, they spin them, They make 'pro-vaping' headlines but the articles contain almost every anti-vaping point that has come down the pike. And if it's an anti-vaping article, they never 'balance' it with any pro-vaping points. Emphasis is on children, gateways, wild west, etc. etc.
Damn, Webroot recommends staying away from that link with a ten foot pole. I want to see it! But don't want to take the chance.
Very good video.
Thing is, the stuff Dr. F. is saying at the end, i.e. 'ethically, for a doctor, it is scientific misconduct' is all fine and good, until you realize Dr. F. has engaged in this himself. For sure, he is on the low end of the misconduct scale, but when you make assertions like "it should be removed" that ceases to be scientific assertion and becomes biased opinion. Which is what all the other agencies are partially basing their assertions on. As long as it is in there (and doctor that is pro vaping says it shouldn't be), then what do you expect BP type doctors/scientists to convey?
Even just saying, 'could be removed' would be less bias from Dr. F. But with 'should be removed' it sends strong signal to anyone paying attention that here is something to attack the industry on incessantly. Could have it all removed today and the attackers would then still have case, for it was once in there and 'it shouldn't have been' therefore, I've been irreparably harmed and deserve something (i.e. $5 million) from this industry that sought to harm me, when they 'shouldn't have.'
But to come out, strongly, as Dr. F. is now to make the case that many others are exaggerating the risks, is helpful. Helps put things in perspective, on an issue where the concern has been trumped up so high, it is at a fever pitch.
Hard to reconcile how vaping is 99% safer than smoking and yet has an ingredient in it that makes it 'much worse than smoking.' Fortunately, (actual) science will be able to dig itself out of this place that bias got us to, though it could take another 50 years given the mixed messages that are still allowed to persist. Even from Dr. F.
Thing is, the stuff Dr. F. is saying at the end, i.e. 'ethically, for a doctor, it is scientific misconduct' is all fine and good, until you realize Dr. F. has engaged in this himself. For sure, he is on the low end of the misconduct scale, but when you make assertions like "it should be removed" that ceases to be scientific assertion and becomes biased opinion. Which is what all the other agencies are partially basing their assertions on. As long as it is in there (and doctor that is pro vaping says it shouldn't be), then what do you expect BP type doctors/scientists to convey?
Even just saying, 'could be removed' would be less bias from Dr. F. But with 'should be removed' it sends strong signal to anyone paying attention that here is something to attack the industry on incessantly. Could have it all removed today and the attackers would then still have case, for it was once in there and 'it shouldn't have been' therefore, I've been irreparably harmed and deserve something (i.e. $5 million) from this industry that sought to harm me, when they 'shouldn't have.'
But to come out, strongly, as Dr. F. is now to make the case that many others are exaggerating the risks, is helpful. Helps put things in perspective, on an issue where the concern has been trumped up so high, it is at a fever pitch.
Hard to reconcile how vaping is 99% safer than smoking and yet has an ingredient in it that makes it 'much worse than smoking.' Fortunately, (actual) science will be able to dig itself out of this place that bias got us to, though it could take another 50 years given the mixed messages that are still allowed to persist. Even from Dr. F.
I do wonder if Dr. F is sort of walking a tight rope with the diactyl issue, or any other issue of vaping that raises questions, with the medical community. It's like he's trying to keep one foot in the anti camp and the other foot in the pro camp.
I feel like he's trying to keep both feet in the vaping camp.
But trying to make sure he isn't wrong about anything he says.
He has a reputation to maintain.
Can't say I blame him.
:shrug:
Yeah, making sure he isn't wrong could be it. If he has to cover his .... at this time, during the infancy of testing in this industry, I can understand that. I can also understand why some of his comments can be seen as anti-ish too though.
I don't think he really lets media off the hook, but he could probably emphasize his point better. He said that the media like "horror stories", and that's true, because fear sells content. Media companies, like any other company, care about profits and profits are driven by advertising dollars. The more attention your content gets, the more you can charge for advertising space / time.
I think it might go a Little Deeper than just Reputation.
If I flit from Thread to Thread saying that Brand X RTA is the Best RTA on Earth and it turns out I am Wrong, well, then some people will have spent their Hard Earned money on an RTA that is Bad.
Now consider what happens if I do the Same thing about Diketones. What happens if I go from Thread to Thread saying that there is Nothing to worry about? If I'm Right, Nothing. Nothing Happens. But If I'm Wrong?
I think that Dr. F would like to error, if he is going to error, on the Side of Caution.
I don't understand how you can say that. It's not biased opinion and it is a scientific misconduct.
The context in which he is saying the term "scientific misconduct" is when a doctor tell his patient that ecigs are dangerous, should not be used and tell the patient to just continue smoking. It is scientific a misconduct.
There's been enough studies published in the last 5 years that proves that ecigs are safer than smoking. Doctors have no excuses to not be informed at this point.
The brilliant insight in the story, new to my thinking, is that researchers would exagerate the threat hoping to persuade regulators to impose rules that create a lot of research and lab work. That's a compelling explanation of their behavior and I'm a llittle surprised it's onlly coming up now.. The "news" media might not mind passing on misinformation on this issue because they could have their own reasons for not liking ecigs. Local governments will suffer financially if the tobacco market collapses. Journalists spend a lot of their time reporting on local government.
Dr. F does get pushed into the position of defending ecigs in a sometimes unscientific way. It must be frustrating to spend so much time countering junk science.
Dr. F does get pushed into the position of defending ecigs in a sometimes unscientific way. It must be frustrating to spend so much time countering junk science.
Last edited:
Which part of my post are you referring to? I said "it should be removed" is biased opinion. You saying it is not doesn't convince me it's not. One could say this about any component in eCigs. If one were being consistent, then based on idea of 'potential harm' one would equally advocate for removal of nicotine from all eLiquid products. And as all the ingredients don't have the 30 year old data on them that some require, then arguably all ingredients should be removed. Hey look, we are now squarely in the anti-vaping domain. Look how we got there.
I observe the part of "what should be removed" is a) part of what has made vaping wildly popular and b) part of that which equals to vaping being designated as 99% safer than smoking. I don't see anything from Dr. F. in terms of actual science that would dispute that last assertion. Vaping with diketones in eliquid is 99% safer than smoking.
And follows from the idea that some of the ingredients in vaping are not known, and therefore could be more dangerous than smoking, for all we know. So, Dr. F. apparently wants to have it both ways based on his biased assertion and what I'm saying is misconduct (thought not as bad of misconduct as other scientific types). He is saying an ingredient is so potentially dangerous it should be removed, but vaping as it stands right now (with diketones) is 99% safer than smoking. But how could anyone claim to know that if the potential, when realized, turns out to be 99% more harmful than smoking? Or even .1% more harmful than smoking?
Either you take into account all the anecdotal data that shows very little to no issue with vapers (vaping diketones, and the other potentially dangerous ingredients) and are able to conclude it is (likely) 99% safer than smoking, or you make mountains out of the potential molehills that are the associative links that can be found in vaping right now, albeit very weak on the associations, and you MUST amend the claims of 99% safer to, 'in reality, we don't actually know, cause we don't have enough long term data.'
And to me, this helps make the point I am making, plus shows that the "should be removed from flavors" assertion is biased opinion. One could just as well say that this assertion should be removed from the vaping discussion and vaping will continue to be 99% safer than smoking.
Our palets can probably distinguish as many differences in flavor as the eye can distinguish colors, may be even more. That gigantic number of possibilities gets reduced because we can't create every possible flavor artificially. Then it's reduced some more because a lot of flavors don't taste good. Then lets eliminate all the favors that have chemicals we would pefer to avoid. So we take what's left and eliminate everything except the favors that more than a few people think taste good. How many technically possible, decent tasting, hazard free flavors do we have. At least a few, right? I wish I knew whch ones they are.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
