I guess I will leave you with this...
- Thread starter Vapntime
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
From a purely neutral perspective i can see why this argument would make sense. I can also see massive holes in their rationale.
If long term studies have not been carried out to prove e-cigarettes are safe(r) then equally there are no long term studies to prove otherwise..
And the whole 'marketed at children' rhetoric. SMH.
If long term studies have not been carried out to prove e-cigarettes are safe(r) then equally there are no long term studies to prove otherwise..
And the whole 'marketed at children' rhetoric. SMH.
Nothing is perfect, however I think it brings up some important information often overlooked by vapers in general. Maybe you should check out some more of my recent posts.
Last edited:
I’ve seen some pretty iffy articles out of “the verge”. A few things popped out at me.
One is the phrase “big vape”. What is “big vape”? It’s not defined. JUUL at least at one point had 70% of the market. They’re the closest candidate. Thing is though a very possibly working control interest in them was bought by either Altria or one of its former subsidiaries. That makes JUUL big tobacco not big vape. After that there are just a miriad of tiny tiny companies with single digit or smaller percentages of control. Who else could “big vape” be? I question the existence of “big vape” except as a subsidiary of BT.
Another thing that popped out at me were a lot of phrases like “he figured” and “he suspected”. That’s not science. They’re reasons to DO science, certainly, but they seem a lot more like assumptions than findings.
“
I didn't suggest it was science... Just that it brought up some interesting points. Truth or fact or inbetween is totally up to the reader.
The language of the piece is too emotive. Its an opinion piece, i guess the emotive language is to be expected. Opinions are nurtured by emotions. It would be hard to write that from a none emotive point of view and engage a reader.
Keep spreading the FUD, man.
One section of that article is entitled, "RECYCLING OLD CLAIMS" and that's exactly what a good portion of this article does. Here's just one example:
The article is also two years old. There has been a fair amount of new research released since then including the New England Journal of Medicine showing e cigarettes were twice as effective over NRT at the one year point.
Repeated studies have shown toxic chemicals in e juice vapor but at levels magnitudes of order less than cigarette smoke. I don’t think there’s a person who believes vaping is 100% safe. I don’t believe you’ll find folks here encouraging non-smokers or underage users to vape. But within the population represented here of ex-smokers, I think it’s very difficult to present a coherent argument that vaping is as bad as smoking.
Repeated studies have shown toxic chemicals in e juice vapor but at levels magnitudes of order less than cigarette smoke. I don’t think there’s a person who believes vaping is 100% safe. I don’t believe you’ll find folks here encouraging non-smokers or underage users to vape. But within the population represented here of ex-smokers, I think it’s very difficult to present a coherent argument that vaping is as bad as smoking.
Truth and fact are not user definable. I’m not holding you responsible for article content. I’m just pointing out holes in that content. The person reaponsible for those issues is the writer.
I have no qualms with the article. I don't think it bashes vaping, but rather points out much that some vapers would rather ignore. If Ms. Gross missed the mark on a point or two, that's just human. It seems she did quite a bit of research. I'd like to see what she might offer after the air clears a bit on the recent adlulterant concerns.
It is petty that people take issue with some termonology like 'Big Vape' or something and ignore most of everything else. She seems to make a lot of connections in the vaping realm that might be considered less than pure.
There are issues in the article I have brought up in ECF, mostly be be bashed or somehow shunned for not being 'part of the team' <sic>.
One in particular is the "95% Safer" figure that many take as some sort of gospel. If you look into PHE, what came before that, who the players were, their alliances, and how that figure got to be, it is far from an untainted matter.
I'm pleased for all the people who proclaim their whole health changed when they switched from cigarettes to e-cigarettes. Other than the clearing up of my breathing and my domestic environment, I noticed few changes when I switched over 8 years ago. I don't make the claim that I 'quit,' as I believe that notion is in the eye of the beholder. It also depends on one's measure. The notion that one 'quit' as there is no 'smoke' involved in vaping isn't much more than a word game. I vape largely for the same reasons I smoked, but with some improvements. A casual observer might notice little difference in my actions while vaping and those when smoking.
As well I suffered none of the proported 'chemical withdrawal' <sic> symptoms that are bandied about.
A concerning factor is just who among the participants may be influencers with compromising ties, or perhaps just playing for sport. Do some appear overly-active...posting on most every thread, angry, dogmatic and other? While I'll not suggest that each person with an interest other than simply as an e-cig user and consumer bear a 'Star of David' aside their name, I suggest there are many here with entangling associations that may influence the truths, or untruths to be found here.
@Vapntine - Thanks for the interesting link. The article supported much of what I've thought and illuminated some connections I hadn't previously known about. Please leave the door open as you exit.
It is petty that people take issue with some termonology like 'Big Vape' or something and ignore most of everything else. She seems to make a lot of connections in the vaping realm that might be considered less than pure.
There are issues in the article I have brought up in ECF, mostly be be bashed or somehow shunned for not being 'part of the team' <sic>.
One in particular is the "95% Safer" figure that many take as some sort of gospel. If you look into PHE, what came before that, who the players were, their alliances, and how that figure got to be, it is far from an untainted matter.
I'm pleased for all the people who proclaim their whole health changed when they switched from cigarettes to e-cigarettes. Other than the clearing up of my breathing and my domestic environment, I noticed few changes when I switched over 8 years ago. I don't make the claim that I 'quit,' as I believe that notion is in the eye of the beholder. It also depends on one's measure. The notion that one 'quit' as there is no 'smoke' involved in vaping isn't much more than a word game. I vape largely for the same reasons I smoked, but with some improvements. A casual observer might notice little difference in my actions while vaping and those when smoking.
As well I suffered none of the proported 'chemical withdrawal' <sic> symptoms that are bandied about.
A concerning factor is just who among the participants may be influencers with compromising ties, or perhaps just playing for sport. Do some appear overly-active...posting on most every thread, angry, dogmatic and other? While I'll not suggest that each person with an interest other than simply as an e-cig user and consumer bear a 'Star of David' aside their name, I suggest there are many here with entangling associations that may influence the truths, or untruths to be found here.
@Vapntine - Thanks for the interesting link. The article supported much of what I've thought and illuminated some connections I hadn't previously known about. Please leave the door open as you exit.
Actually I did try to get my never smoked husband to try vaping. He has severe Young Onset Parkinson's* and nicotine has been shown to be helpful for that and a number of other neurological problems.
* He's in a nursing home now
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
