I read through the report and although I believe it to be true... all someone has to do to "debunk" this is to refer to the studies performed by "Big tobacco" in the past here in the US. A study performed by the manufacturer is immediately scrutinized and questioned: "Financial disclosure. This report is funded by Ruyan" so it wont hold up and won't get any traction from "non-receptive" folks. Thanks though it was informative.
Well true, but this is how all medicinal trials are done. Otherwise the studies would never get done. In fact thats how 90% of research is acheived, by private funding of some sort. It's only medical post-marketing thats ever not funded by the company itself in medicine, because its cheap.
If this research is invalid, so is half of medical science (probably a fair chunk of ALL science, seeing as the majority is privately funded), which tends to be funded by big pharma....
And non-private funding does not ensure a lack of bias either....
I think the better way to view any study is this - can you interpret studies and critique the science involved?
If not, assume it can always be untrue, or true, and you just don't have the ability to discern yourself. Look to others actual scientific critiques for an objective veiw on the controls, the interpretation, the methodology.
And if so, read it. Even if the funding is biased, they can fudge the interpretation, or the controls, but not the data itself. And they have to write their whole method down. You can pick apart anything thats not done right, just by reading it and thinking about it. The only true distortion that even happens is if the researchers are employees, or biased for non-commercial reasons, sometimes they omit stuff. But this particular science doesnt work like that - it relies on their included measurement of the vapers own intake of nicotine.
Science is science, funded or not. This particular science measures that the vaper absorbs 98% of the nicotine, because they actually physically measured it.
What makes this researcher even more interesting, is he was a researcher that investigated tobacco - alot. This gives him credibility IMO.
Anyway, that all aside - your freind has a heart issue. He mentioned he thought nicotine effected the heart (which actually it can, not near as bad as smoking, but it does have an effect on the heart). He also mentioned "second hand vapor", which isn't really a thing, as you now know.
Maybe he's personally worried, for his own health, when you vape around him? Health issues can be a real scare. Can throw you mental space right off, leave you with all sorts of fears and anxieties....
So maybe this isn't intellectual, maybe he wants reassurance, that you vaping around him won't hurt him? In which case that study may help....just look up the reference where they measure the nicotine absorbed, in that section, and find that, so he can read the details of how they measured it. Then at least he knows the vast majority (98%) of what amounts to less than a smoking (just under 50% nic absorbed via vaping per puff @ 16mg/ml), ends up in you not him.....
That might be his angle, or part of it. Might be worth considering ...I mean if we wants to generalize his anger at tobacco for his situation, to a relatively unrelated product, e-cigs, then he's going to do that reason or not, specially if he's partly jelly - but at least if hes got some reassurance he personally is safe around the things, thats more the issue between the two of ya...
Last edited: