Linda Bauld debunks ecigs cancer garbage
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Good find. For those who don't like clicking through links, this is the relevant quote which shows that they'd actually proved that ecigs are 95% safer than tobacco........
"In only one small part of the article, not covered in the press release and not picked up by the media, do the authors mention that they also exposed some cells to tobacco smoke, using media from Marlboro Red filter cigarettes. Yet the authors could not directly compare the cigarette and e-cigarette treated cells, because the cigarette treated samples all died within 24 hours. Cigarette smoke was so toxic that the cells did not survive beyond this short period, whereas the e-cigarette cell lines were topped up with e-liquid every three days, and the testing continued for several weeks.
It is possible that the authors originally set out to directly compare cell response between cigarette and e-cigarette treated cells but were unable to because of the high toxicity of tobacco smoke. All they were left with was to examine the absolute (rather than relative) risk of e-liquid on cells. Indeed an alternative headline for the press release, as a colleague from a cancer charity has already pointed out, could have been ‘cells can survive for 8 weeks in e-cig liquid but only 24 hours in cigarette extract’. In other words, if we compare e-cigarette vapour with fresh air we find the presence of some toxicants, as previous research has done. But it seems from the results of this study that if we compare e-cigarettes with tobacco smoke, e-cigarettes are safer.
"
"In only one small part of the article, not covered in the press release and not picked up by the media, do the authors mention that they also exposed some cells to tobacco smoke, using media from Marlboro Red filter cigarettes. Yet the authors could not directly compare the cigarette and e-cigarette treated cells, because the cigarette treated samples all died within 24 hours. Cigarette smoke was so toxic that the cells did not survive beyond this short period, whereas the e-cigarette cell lines were topped up with e-liquid every three days, and the testing continued for several weeks.
It is possible that the authors originally set out to directly compare cell response between cigarette and e-cigarette treated cells but were unable to because of the high toxicity of tobacco smoke. All they were left with was to examine the absolute (rather than relative) risk of e-liquid on cells. Indeed an alternative headline for the press release, as a colleague from a cancer charity has already pointed out, could have been ‘cells can survive for 8 weeks in e-cig liquid but only 24 hours in cigarette extract’. In other words, if we compare e-cigarette vapour with fresh air we find the presence of some toxicants, as previous research has done. But it seems from the results of this study that if we compare e-cigarettes with tobacco smoke, e-cigarettes are safer.
"
What????!!!! Say It Ain't So, Joe!
Not More BG, BT, BP financed MEDIA PROPAGANDA!! Not In The Land Of The Free And Home Of The Brave!
Our Beloved Big Brother Would Never Attempt To Harm Or Deceive It's Precious PROLETARIAT!!!
Not More BG, BT, BP financed MEDIA PROPAGANDA!! Not In The Land Of The Free And Home Of The Brave!
Our Beloved Big Brother Would Never Attempt To Harm Or Deceive It's Precious PROLETARIAT!!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
