I have made a lot of posts for a long time about what i thought the problems with protonated nic were.
They were based very heavily on other previous posts and article references made here.
In particular it was the existence of a single class action lawsuit where juul was served a no-knock warrant and a bunch of documents were seized. The suit was apparently lost by the plaintiffs, or the suit was thrown out. Nothing came of it, but I never got a look at the straight documents so I never knew exactly why this happened.
It was, as I remember it, the talk of the forum for some time. Many threads were created on the subject as various reports and articles were looked at.
This produced several points
1. juul never did any safety or addiction testing on protonated nic.
2. JUUL admitted that the active ingredient in their product was n-benzoate.
3. that the internal pre marketing department stroked reports seized said that the scientists working on the actual stuff referred to the compounds they were working on as “protonated nicotine” rather than “salt”.
I believed what I had read, and championed these concepts. Lately though I have run into a problem.
I can’t find the data.
This does not mean that it never happened. My memory of the whole event remains reasonably clear. I can’t find references to what I remember reading though.
The problem is two fold:
1. The Google search engine doesn’t seem to like to look for old information. Finding anything pre 2019 is difficult as it is swamped by newer data. I didn’t copy the stuff I saw, assuming the information would remain involate and findable.
This did not happen.
2. while I remember these conversations taking place, and seeing the articles here, and this site DOES have a search engine willing to look for old stuff, I have trouble actually using it. I have made attempts to find references to the stuff and failed.
The upshot is while I remember it I can’t prove it. At least anymore. I remember there being a time when I could, and the data was easily referenced. This no longer seems to be the case. The only thing I have to say it ever even happened was is my memory of the posts about the event.
I stopped talking about it much, mostly because it seemed to annoy people, but it came up again recently. I attempted to find the earlier data and was unable to. There WAS some data, but it was thin. Specifics were missing and the articles were from less than reputable sources.
I then reached outside of the vaping community to a legal firm in the midst of attempting to sue JUUL thinking that they might have references I lack because they actually have research people for such things and would have already found the information, or at least references to the information.
the reply returned was wild to me. “Currently there have not been any JUUL trials to date”. This could mean several things.
1. They hadn’t really looked yet
2. The trial I was thinking of did not apply to the particular issue they were investigating and didn’t matter.
3. (Which is weak and based on confluent possibilities I know little about making it unbelievably weak) that trials that are thrown out are not considered to have happened and thus did not show up on their radar.
4. (Which is the giant one for me) is that the thing I thought happened simply didn’t.
This means that unless or until I unearth this stuff, such statements are not supportable, at least by me, and that much of what I have said about JUUL cannot be supported either.
Statements I have made about the nature of JUUL and the product it sells are not currently provable by me as not being simply assumptions and rantings.
I am profoundly disturbed by this.
I cannot conclusively show that what I remember happening actually did. This places me in the same position as Deep state theorists. Spouting stuff based on the thinnest of evidence or no evidence at all. For what it’s worth I believe I saw what I said I saw. What that is worth is not much of anything though.
The statement I made about this are consequently untrustable. I will keep looking. Mostly because this whole thing makes me doubt my own mind.
I am not someone who believes that conspiracies exist. They’re mathematically stupid. Confluence of unlikely events multiples unlikelihood and massively magnifies it.
I do believe myself someone capable of incompetence. Right now incompetence is more likely.
The greatest likelihood right now, lacking data, is that I was just wrong.
I’m still not going to call protonated nic “salt”. It remains a more accurate term. One of the weirdnesses of all this is I learned the term “protonated” during those exchanges. It itself is evidence that they happened, at least to me.
I can’t make statements about problems with it though, because I don’t have the data.
I apologize to those who took my words as supported, and those who I annoyed by making claims that at this time I cannot back up.
I do not like doubting my own mind. I don’t like it at all. I like even less that I might have misled someone through my own failures.
They were based very heavily on other previous posts and article references made here.
In particular it was the existence of a single class action lawsuit where juul was served a no-knock warrant and a bunch of documents were seized. The suit was apparently lost by the plaintiffs, or the suit was thrown out. Nothing came of it, but I never got a look at the straight documents so I never knew exactly why this happened.
It was, as I remember it, the talk of the forum for some time. Many threads were created on the subject as various reports and articles were looked at.
This produced several points
1. juul never did any safety or addiction testing on protonated nic.
2. JUUL admitted that the active ingredient in their product was n-benzoate.
3. that the internal pre marketing department stroked reports seized said that the scientists working on the actual stuff referred to the compounds they were working on as “protonated nicotine” rather than “salt”.
I believed what I had read, and championed these concepts. Lately though I have run into a problem.
I can’t find the data.
This does not mean that it never happened. My memory of the whole event remains reasonably clear. I can’t find references to what I remember reading though.
The problem is two fold:
1. The Google search engine doesn’t seem to like to look for old information. Finding anything pre 2019 is difficult as it is swamped by newer data. I didn’t copy the stuff I saw, assuming the information would remain involate and findable.
This did not happen.
2. while I remember these conversations taking place, and seeing the articles here, and this site DOES have a search engine willing to look for old stuff, I have trouble actually using it. I have made attempts to find references to the stuff and failed.
The upshot is while I remember it I can’t prove it. At least anymore. I remember there being a time when I could, and the data was easily referenced. This no longer seems to be the case. The only thing I have to say it ever even happened was is my memory of the posts about the event.
I stopped talking about it much, mostly because it seemed to annoy people, but it came up again recently. I attempted to find the earlier data and was unable to. There WAS some data, but it was thin. Specifics were missing and the articles were from less than reputable sources.
I then reached outside of the vaping community to a legal firm in the midst of attempting to sue JUUL thinking that they might have references I lack because they actually have research people for such things and would have already found the information, or at least references to the information.
the reply returned was wild to me. “Currently there have not been any JUUL trials to date”. This could mean several things.
1. They hadn’t really looked yet
2. The trial I was thinking of did not apply to the particular issue they were investigating and didn’t matter.
3. (Which is weak and based on confluent possibilities I know little about making it unbelievably weak) that trials that are thrown out are not considered to have happened and thus did not show up on their radar.
4. (Which is the giant one for me) is that the thing I thought happened simply didn’t.
This means that unless or until I unearth this stuff, such statements are not supportable, at least by me, and that much of what I have said about JUUL cannot be supported either.
Statements I have made about the nature of JUUL and the product it sells are not currently provable by me as not being simply assumptions and rantings.
I am profoundly disturbed by this.
I cannot conclusively show that what I remember happening actually did. This places me in the same position as Deep state theorists. Spouting stuff based on the thinnest of evidence or no evidence at all. For what it’s worth I believe I saw what I said I saw. What that is worth is not much of anything though.
The statement I made about this are consequently untrustable. I will keep looking. Mostly because this whole thing makes me doubt my own mind.
I am not someone who believes that conspiracies exist. They’re mathematically stupid. Confluence of unlikely events multiples unlikelihood and massively magnifies it.
I do believe myself someone capable of incompetence. Right now incompetence is more likely.
The greatest likelihood right now, lacking data, is that I was just wrong.
I’m still not going to call protonated nic “salt”. It remains a more accurate term. One of the weirdnesses of all this is I learned the term “protonated” during those exchanges. It itself is evidence that they happened, at least to me.
I can’t make statements about problems with it though, because I don’t have the data.
I apologize to those who took my words as supported, and those who I annoyed by making claims that at this time I cannot back up.
I do not like doubting my own mind. I don’t like it at all. I like even less that I might have misled someone through my own failures.
Last edited:
