How do you know it is "junk science"? Anything not CASAA approved?
New research. Rebuttal?
- Thread starter Alien Traveler
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Did they just perform research to prove that the glass is in fact half empty?
One may say some e-cigarettes are even less harmful than others. One could also determine which pea is the greener and healthier than another. Does that teach us anything about the healthiness of peas in general?
Wrong department. It's the Ministry of Truth you're looking for. Three doors down the hall on your right.
One may say some e-cigarettes are even less harmful than others. One could also determine which pea is the greener and healthier than another. Does that teach us anything about the healthiness of peas in general?
alien Traveler" data-source="post: 15806639" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">alien Traveler said:
Wrong department. It's the Ministry of Truth you're looking for. Three doors down the hall on your right.
Last edited:
alien Traveler" data-source="post: 15806639" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">alien Traveler said:
Unless scare articles are backed up by credible studies, it will be assumed that they are junk.
The link was broken with this message: Last edited by a moderator: Today at 1:16 PM
Reason for edit: Broke link to article of questionable authority. No links to studies to back up to the claims stated in the article.
Forum Rules | E-Cigarette Forum
Nothing at all to do with if it approved by CASAA. It has to do with whether it is approved under the rules of the forum.
OK. I obey rules, even if they are against ECF members interests.
May be they really do not need to know if some of the flavorings are not good for health.
May be they really do not need to know if some of the flavorings are not good for health.
If you find some actual scientific evidence that some of the flavorings are not good for the health of vapors, feel free to post links. There is none in the original link you posted.
Here's the paper: www.
atsjournals.org
/doi/abs/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2015.191.1_MeetingAbstracts.A2896
If someone with a subscription wanted to login and give us more detail that would be good.
There are warning signs: the abstract gives no dosages or numerical results and appears to be funded by a tobacco regulation body.
I could publish a paper that said "we fed hydrogen hydroxide to a group of healthy men and they all died." If I withheld the dosage then there is no way to determine if this chemical is a cause for concern or not. If, on the other hand, I said "we fed six litres of hydrogen hydroxide (AKA water) over a three minute period to a group of healthy men averaging 70kg body weight and they all died," then it becomes apparent that, while this is an interesting fact about water, it is not particularly worrying.
atsjournals.org
/doi/abs/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2015.191.1_MeetingAbstracts.A2896
If someone with a subscription wanted to login and give us more detail that would be good.
There are warning signs: the abstract gives no dosages or numerical results and appears to be funded by a tobacco regulation body.
No. It might be difficult for a non-scientist to be certain that we are being truthful, but there are good studies and bad studies. Good studies use all the right techniques, whereas bad studies use whatever techniques they think they can get away with that will produce the right result. That can be hard for anyone not practicing in that field to notice. Another technique bad papers often use is dodgy choice of statistical methods. One has to understand statistics even to grasp where they go wrong. Rather easier to detect are the warning signs I noted above -- who funds it (which, while it isn't a slam dunk, definitely rings warning bells) and the detailed methodology and results that are generally missing. A paper is required, if it is good science rather than propaganda, to give sufficient information for other scientists to replicate the study and check the results.
I could publish a paper that said "we fed hydrogen hydroxide to a group of healthy men and they all died." If I withheld the dosage then there is no way to determine if this chemical is a cause for concern or not. If, on the other hand, I said "we fed six litres of hydrogen hydroxide (AKA water) over a three minute period to a group of healthy men averaging 70kg body weight and they all died," then it becomes apparent that, while this is an interesting fact about water, it is not particularly worrying.
Last edited:
In other words:
Breaking news! Scientists have just discovered that two somewhat similar looking objects are not necessarily the same. Relative to each other - their effects may differ. The incredible part of this find is - as mentioned - how the two items producing such different results - could share so many visual design traits. If further funding is obtained, the scientist hopes to move on to perform the same experiments on various makes of automobiles and sports underwear.
The scientists are still debating on whether to call this theory "The Theory of Relativity" or "The Relativity Theory".
Breaking news! Scientists have just discovered that two somewhat similar looking objects are not necessarily the same. Relative to each other - their effects may differ. The incredible part of this find is - as mentioned - how the two items producing such different results - could share so many visual design traits. If further funding is obtained, the scientist hopes to move on to perform the same experiments on various makes of automobiles and sports underwear.
The scientists are still debating on whether to call this theory "The Theory of Relativity" or "The Relativity Theory".
This.
Unfortunately, many average people do not know about the difference between "science" and Science.
For them, even Tom Frieden's "science" IS proper Science. And those will believe anything CDC says to serve it's own, and it's buddies agenda, because what they say has a "scientific ring" to it.
Therefore, all that rubbish has been "scientifically proven".
As of today, I still hear sometimes references to the "10x more dangerous than tobacco" formaldheyde "study".
And when I try to put some reason on those people's little heads, *I* am the one "making excuses" to keep vaping, because "facts are facts". I should stop vaping (probably resorting to smoking while doing so, but that's OK) because "science" has proven that I would be better off with tobacco cigarettes. "Science" has proven that tobacco cigarettes are 10x LESS dangerous than e-cigs. And *I* shouldn't "fool myself" by thinking otherwise. There is this recent "scientific study" PROVING me wrong.
I also know several smokers that will ONLY switch to vaping, when and if they're SURE vaping is less harmful. "When I see what you say [vaping is safer] on the news, I will believe it and I'll consider using an e-cig. Until then, I feel *safer* using tobacco cigarettes".
This is the *true*, *everyday* effect of the "science" spread by "health groups" to litter people's minds.
They are soooo worried about hypothetical, unproven e-cigarette effects in the future, and do not even think twice about the very *real*, negative effects their policies and "science" are already doing *today*.
I think this particular ATS study is useful.
Lacking a proper scale, it doesn't tell much about cinammon other than they were able to put into evidence some reactions with cells/tissue. Whether these are harmful and the extent of such harm - we don't know. It's a "further studies are needed" thing.
But, when it comes to unflavoured and a few flavours, the results are spectacular: even when applied at maximum possible strength (direct application of liquid instead of aerosol), ATS was not able to put into evidence any reaction with tissue/cells.
And it's not that they haven't tried hard enough.
Lacking a proper scale, it doesn't tell much about cinammon other than they were able to put into evidence some reactions with cells/tissue. Whether these are harmful and the extent of such harm - we don't know. It's a "further studies are needed" thing.
But, when it comes to unflavoured and a few flavours, the results are spectacular: even when applied at maximum possible strength (direct application of liquid instead of aerosol), ATS was not able to put into evidence any reaction with tissue/cells.
And it's not that they haven't tried hard enough.
It's kind of sad, these days science is not taken very seriously by a lot of people. At one time scientists were the good guys.
The first time I remember being aware of this was during the Congressional hearings about whether tobacco was bad for your health. The tobacco companies produced a handful of scientists, in their employ, who said there was no proof, everyone else said it was a no-brainer.
That concept of it being possible to use science to prove whatever you want has gone mainstream. Like global warming. Both sides say the other side's scientists have an agenda and shouldn't be trusted.
It's bad for our society. A lot of people go from seeing instances of science being misused for an agenda, to discounting anything they hear from scientists that doesn't confirm what they already believe.
But like you said there are ways. Stuff like statistical methodology is beyond the ability of us non-scientists to evaluate. But the peer review process is supposed to give the rest of us some confidence. You mentioned funding sources as a clue. And we can all count. If 95% of scientific research says "A" then I'll pretty much go with "A".
Some things are kind of obvious to the average lay person, so long as their head isn't too far up their rear end. Like millions of people vaping all over the world for 10 years without a single verified case of bad health outcomes (not including exploding batteries which I think fall into a different category). I'm sure there could be one flavor chemical that messes you up. And if not one could be introduced into the vaping food chain tomorrow. There could be a tank with a particular type of plating that is bad for you. But overall I'm pretty confident.
From 2013, in a MedicalDaily article speaking to the occurrence of obliterative bronchiolitis in workers handling/inhaling coffee-flavorings - in concentrated form -, the author quotes the CDC as saying, "someone would have to inhale significant amounts of flavoring chemicals evaporated from their volatile liquid or solid form over a long period of time in order to be at risk."
Coffee-Processing Workers May Be At Risk For Flavorings-Related Lung Disease
this is excluding diactyl and it's substitute, which are primary suspects in lung disease, as noted in this 2012 CDC article, (when the ecig industry was barely 3 years old). Following release of similar related articles, ecig first adopters took a proactive stance and strongly pressured flavoring companies to eliminate diactyl and 2,3-pentanedione (acetyl propionyl).
CDC - Flavorings-Related Lung Disease: Exposures to Flavoring Chemicals - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic
Not sure what to say about 'menthol.' I don't know of any absolute evidence that menthol smokers have more or less lung damage from smoking than non-menthol smokers. A recent 4 year study of cancer rate in menthol versus nonmenthol smokers meant to support a ban of menthol cigarettes and as published at NIH PubMed, points towards menthol smokers having a possibly lower lung cancer rate, which could indicate less damage (chronic inflammation) from inhaling menthol. I do know that as kids, we all inhaled 'mentholatum' from steam machines when we came down with colds - I think 'Vicks' is the modern version of mentholatum.
Lung cancer risk among smokers of menthol cigarettes. - PubMed - NCBI
We might as well be discussing which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead. E-cigs will never be 100% without a doubt harmless in all respects. This leaves two choices, accept that there may be some inherent risk just like we did when we smoked, and vape away with a big smile on your face, or quit vaping and avoid anything in your life that could potentially hurt you or kill you.
If we are going to always look for and nitpick every little thing in e-cigs/juice/vapor that could harm or kill us, then we should definitely be having a serious conversation about Dihydrogen Monoxide. It is a primary ingredient in antifreeze, it is found in acid rain, is corrosive to metal, can burn the skin with contact, and is a byproduct of every single e-cig on the planet regardless of brand or juice. In large enough doses/concentrations it is lethal and it has killed millions of more people than anything else in the vapor ever will.
TL;DR: Vape and accept the risk or don't vape. But for God's sake, think of the children!
If we are going to always look for and nitpick every little thing in e-cigs/juice/vapor that could harm or kill us, then we should definitely be having a serious conversation about Dihydrogen Monoxide. It is a primary ingredient in antifreeze, it is found in acid rain, is corrosive to metal, can burn the skin with contact, and is a byproduct of every single e-cig on the planet regardless of brand or juice. In large enough doses/concentrations it is lethal and it has killed millions of more people than anything else in the vapor ever will.
TL;DR: Vape and accept the risk or don't vape. But for God's sake, think of the children!
I think Vicks is eucalyptus, not menthol.
But both are currently used as inhalers: Menthol/Eucalyptus - medicines and drugs - NHS Choices
It is a personal irritant of mine that this meme is wrongly named. As anyone with a smattering of high-school chemistry knows, the compound in question is formed of two ions, H+ and OH-. It is therefore Hydrogen Hydroxide. But whatever its name it is indeed one of the most dangerous chemicals in existence. In sufficient dose it is highly toxic, causing brain inflammation and death. When inhaled it causes death by asphyxiation in even lower doses.
Last edited:
Hm, definitely interesting, though it's not saying much definitively. And I'm definitely curious about the "scale" of the damage. ie: They're saying one was the most/least harmful, but what about the ones that fall in between? And what kinda harm are we talking about here?
A lot of people seem to be hiding in their holes, refuting any possibility that this article could have some credibility. C'mon. That doesn't foster intelligent discussion/debate. Not saying I'm 100% agreeing/believing the article's claims, but I'm also not in a position to refute them (and neither are you!)
We both are, actually. If menthol is used in over-the-counter inhalation products, is it really credible that it causes lung damage in any doses that we are likely to encounter?
It is not our responsibility to prove the paper wrong. It is impossible to prove a negative. It is the responsibility of the authors to prove their case with sufficient detail to allow their results to be independently verified. That is how science works.
Nobody is doubting that the study was carried out and obtained the results that they claim. Those results are not unexpected. They confirm things that we already know or suspected -- certain flavourings may be a health issue. I have seen cinammon mentioned as possibly dangerous and one only has to inhale menthol to realise that too much of it is probably harmful. But the paper does not add to our knowledge in any useful way because it does not let us see how dangerous any of these flavourings are. As caramel said though, it does add to our knowledge of where the danger isn't; unflavoured eliquid does not cause tissue damage, in the test-tube at least.
we also must consider what does this mean in the real world.
when you walk by a Cinnabon (a store that sells cinnamon glazed pasties)
is not the pastries baking your smelling. they use aroma generators.
mike
Ok so basically their findings were that some flavors were causing the epithelial cells lining the respiratory system to be irritated (and proliferate) and regenerate more slowly (they kind of so that with any irritant..so yeah NOT vaping would certainly be "healthier".)
they didn't do a compare to smoke vs vapor..and certainly none of those findings at least in that article support the headline.
it didn't state what changes in the cells are seen like pseudostratification of the columnar epithelium, mucous changes, immune response. It was more a preliminary "what we should" research w/o the valid part..control etc.
junk imo.
they didn't do a compare to smoke vs vapor..and certainly none of those findings at least in that article support the headline.
it didn't state what changes in the cells are seen like pseudostratification of the columnar epithelium, mucous changes, immune response. It was more a preliminary "what we should" research w/o the valid part..control etc.
junk imo.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
