Not sure if Media and News is appropriate place for this post, but since the title stems from another (original) post in this sub-forum, it made sense to me to put it here. And by it, I mean the following rant. Open for discussion, but I realize I'm preaching to the choir.
So yeah, in the Imperial College thread's OP, I read the following (very familiar) line: "While the jury is still out on the long-term health impacts of vaping, the evidence suggests that in the short to mid-term at least, switching from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes could reduce the harm to smokers by as much as 95 percent."
Everything after "impacts of vaping" was news in 2010. Here in 2019, it's akin to saying water is wet, in case you didn't know that til just this moment.
The long term health impact(s) is currently the only legitimate leg our opposition has to stand on. Perhaps there's one other valid point in their arsenal, but honestly, none come to mind.
The jury being out is rhetoric that is silly. The fact that we (the jury) don't know what the (long term) future holds is perhaps even more obvious than water is wet. And yet, knowing that it is widely viewed as around 95% safer than smoking is one of those fact thingies that if the jury is ignoring that current information, then truly it is a rigged jury.
Breaking it down, who truly knows when precisely we'll reach that long term future event, where we now collectively understand? I predict no one knows, but may pretend otherwise. I'd say generally, it's likely in the 30 to 50 year range that we'd stand a chance of actually understanding said impacts.
With that said, the jury per se is not remotely out, sitting idly by, patiently waiting. Nope. Media (technically part of the jury) is certainly manipulating data along the way. I just googled along lines of "long term effects" and sure enough sith lord SG comes up with a 2018 article that boldly lays claim to signs of long term effects of vaping. While that's hitting the nail on the head, there is plenty of other media, mostly baloney, that is trying it's darnedest to get everyone believing negative effects of vaping.
Such that, any life threatening illness for any vaper, will undoubtedly be attributed to vaping as a contributing factor. All in the name of pseudo science. Emphasizing correlation to the ridiculous level of plausible causation. Actual science will likely never go there. ANTZ biased media will for sure, always go there. To read and not understand that vaping caused the latest scare tactic, will be seen as an addict in denial, and nothing short of 'scientific blasphemy.' How dare you think it's the THC vapes, and not vaping in general, that lead to deaths in 2019. We here at TobaccoFree will pray that you get on the righteous path, and realize vaping, in general, is and must always be, considered highly dangerous. Just you watch, those vapers will pass away some day, and we'll be right there to let you know all the things vaping caused for those dangerous, and then deceased, vapers.
One wonders, how can the jury be out when the press is openly influencing them (really us) with 97% baloney?
So yeah, in the Imperial College thread's OP, I read the following (very familiar) line: "While the jury is still out on the long-term health impacts of vaping, the evidence suggests that in the short to mid-term at least, switching from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes could reduce the harm to smokers by as much as 95 percent."
Everything after "impacts of vaping" was news in 2010. Here in 2019, it's akin to saying water is wet, in case you didn't know that til just this moment.
The long term health impact(s) is currently the only legitimate leg our opposition has to stand on. Perhaps there's one other valid point in their arsenal, but honestly, none come to mind.
The jury being out is rhetoric that is silly. The fact that we (the jury) don't know what the (long term) future holds is perhaps even more obvious than water is wet. And yet, knowing that it is widely viewed as around 95% safer than smoking is one of those fact thingies that if the jury is ignoring that current information, then truly it is a rigged jury.
Breaking it down, who truly knows when precisely we'll reach that long term future event, where we now collectively understand? I predict no one knows, but may pretend otherwise. I'd say generally, it's likely in the 30 to 50 year range that we'd stand a chance of actually understanding said impacts.
With that said, the jury per se is not remotely out, sitting idly by, patiently waiting. Nope. Media (technically part of the jury) is certainly manipulating data along the way. I just googled along lines of "long term effects" and sure enough sith lord SG comes up with a 2018 article that boldly lays claim to signs of long term effects of vaping. While that's hitting the nail on the head, there is plenty of other media, mostly baloney, that is trying it's darnedest to get everyone believing negative effects of vaping.
Such that, any life threatening illness for any vaper, will undoubtedly be attributed to vaping as a contributing factor. All in the name of pseudo science. Emphasizing correlation to the ridiculous level of plausible causation. Actual science will likely never go there. ANTZ biased media will for sure, always go there. To read and not understand that vaping caused the latest scare tactic, will be seen as an addict in denial, and nothing short of 'scientific blasphemy.' How dare you think it's the THC vapes, and not vaping in general, that lead to deaths in 2019. We here at TobaccoFree will pray that you get on the righteous path, and realize vaping, in general, is and must always be, considered highly dangerous. Just you watch, those vapers will pass away some day, and we'll be right there to let you know all the things vaping caused for those dangerous, and then deceased, vapers.
One wonders, how can the jury be out when the press is openly influencing them (really us) with 97% baloney?
