What I don't understand is vapers who make excuses for those vendors in the industry who continue to sell products with high levels of diketones in them, without disclosing that fact, or who've gone as far as hiding that fact and outright lying to their customers.
I don't find this too challenging to either explain or to justify. But I strongly believe if I provide explanation to you on this, it'll be a day or week (at most) where you'll make the same claim, of not understanding how vapers make excuses.
But I'll bite anyway, because I see this near the core of the issue and where things were in industry right before the big blow up (that we have now).
I just got done saying that science cannot be fully trusted. That's a bit soundbite, but is a challenge I put forth, kinda like your challenge to justify why vapers would defend industry. And it relates to this point, for me, because I don't think any vendor (in any industry) can be fully trusted. As in, every product in its marketing contains aspects of deception, if not outright lies. While I think this is highly pertinent to your point, I also think it is too blanket of an assertion to get to the specific type of 'lie' that you are addressing.
The more specific ways that I would make excuses, or properly defend vendors are:
1. Vendors are getting their diketone laced products from other suppliers and have been told that supply did not contain diketones, therefore passing along misinformation. I think in the most prominent case facing vaping vendor today, this is the case (up to a point in time).
2. I think vendors were making the claim of "we don't intentionally add this to our eLiquids." Yet, if it is found in the eLiquid, then that comes off as (outright) lying, and yet given the actual assertion they made, and likely marketed, then they were actually (likely) telling the truth.
3. I think of it as foolish to make the claim in the first place and mostly filter it through (insane) desire to be politically correct, in a vaping reality that circa 2012, saw it as beneficial to make claims of diketone-free liquids. Because we are talking about micrograms, of stuff that can come from their suppliers and can occur naturally (thus all not really known to vendors), I think it was likely to bite some vendors in the ..... My cynical side says you deserve to have it bite you in the .... if you are wanting to go out on the PC limb and make such a, rather pointless, claim. I guess this isn't great defense of vendors, but is an indirect one as I think it is how witch hunt got going early on. Which was later fueled by the Dr. F. study where we got to see 75% had it in there while claiming it wasn't, but of course the good doctor wasn't going to tell us which ones, cause you know, we need to do our own hunting.
4. So, then enter the age of testing for this specific compound (all 750 micrograms of it) and how do you not defend not doing this test when you are making billions of dollars? This, to me is the PC tangent pushed to its next logical step, while also just further setting up the industry to take a fall. Cause some tests are better than others. And so then we have to argue about validity of tests, all while we get to nail vendors on idea of "see! You have it in there! I knew it! I am so cool for being right." And while it might have some benefit to some consumers in a free market arena to substantiate the presence, or lack thereof, for this compound PLUS have benefit to do valid testing (whatever that currently means), the key aspect of these last 2 points is being the vaper(s) in the arena who are defending against the very obvious witch hunt that is taking place.
5. Cause in current scientific reality, the hunters have ZERO claim toward actual harm that comes from this compound as it relates specifically to vaping, and yet are persisting in direction of, 'we don't need you anti-vapers, we can take this on ourselves. We can weed out all the bad players on our own, cause we're good like that. Oh wait, you have some ANTZ-friendly lawyer types that will assist us? Where do we sign up?!'
6. And so with looming regulations, that have been looming since around 2009, it would be very unwise for any vendor to make this claim (either way) and let vapers who are on such a hunt decide if vaping is for them or not, given the uncertainties and/or insecurities they currently have. But as that didn't happen, and many did make the claim, then pro-vaping enthusiasts need to make a decision, do I generally want to side with industry that is squarely in the sights of anti-smoking, anti-vaping people (who are not vapers) or do I want to side with the hunters that Dr. F. nudged along in an effort to "remove all diketones from the industry?"
7. Even while I am convinced, to this moment, that Dr. F. never meant for consumers to be on the witch hunt, and yet due to his insane language of "should be removed," left the door wide open. To which I walked through and felt it very necessary to defend vendors from what amounts to JUNK SCIENCE BY
@KFarsalinos (by saying what 'should' occur).
