Politics... it is now religions in the USA all faith based not fact based. I mostly just vote against the worst ones or the incumbent. Not seen anyone to actually vote FOR in years and years.
New study: vaping no more toxic than breathing air
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I find it interesting that all the people discrediting this report "just because...." have not come up with a single factoid indicating any bias or poor science in the testing. Unlike the other studies mentioned, such as the formaldehyde study, which had patently obvious flaws.
If BAT gamed the test, the flaws should be obvious. Reveal them.
Propaganda at it's finest.
If BAT gamed the test, the flaws should be obvious. Reveal them.
Propaganda at it's finest.
All research/studies have an agenda, if it was something no one cared about no one would be researching/studying it.
Every human on the planet has some agenda; that doesn't invalidate any actual science that may be performed. I have to echo VNeil; if there are methodological flaws that invalidate this research, such as the formaldehyde "study," let's hear 'em.
So far all I've heard against this study is blind prejudice, no actual facts.
Andria
So far all I've heard against this study is blind prejudice, no actual facts.
Andria
A good propagandist gets the masses to carry his water for him
A really good propagandist gets his own opponents to carry his water for him
Those ANTZ are really good propagandists
It kinda gets down to what is the Agenda. And is your Agenda "Good" or Not.
If your agenda is to Cure Cancer?
If your agenda is to Develop a Safe Inhaled Flavoring?
If your agenda is to Make your Product appear to be Safe so it can be FDA Approved?
If your agenda is to Slam e-Cigarettes because your tobacco Sales are down 7%?
The List kinda goes On and On and On.
They don't say how many cigarettes they used in this "acute continuous (6 h) exposure," which is extremely different from actual cigarette smoking. (The e-cigs were equivalent to 30 minutes each.) However, the e-cigs managed to deposit more particles than the cigarettes, which their enemies will undoubtably jump on.
Here is a Break Down of 3R4F Research Cigarettes that were used in the Study.
http://www2.ca.uky.edu/refcig/3R4F Preliminary Analysis.pdf
I wonder if these Research Cigarettes are "Healthier" to smoke verses those Sold at 7-11?
LOL
http://www2.ca.uky.edu/refcig/3R4F Preliminary Analysis.pdf
I wonder if these Research Cigarettes are "Healthier" to smoke verses those Sold at 7-11?
LOL
which is why "they had an agenda" is a hollow argument. A lot of research is privately funded too and in this instance if the study concluded in undesirable results we probably would have never heard about it.
I think it might be Defined under ISO 3308:2012.
Can seem to find a Full Text of ISO 3308:2012 that Isn't Pay-to-View.
It is Always a Prudent idea to View the Funding Source of Any Study. And to Read the Transparency Statements of the Authors.
Authors who are Employees of a Company that Funds a Study is kinda a Red Flag.
So true. Every time some ignorant smoker says, "Smokers know the risks," it means they've swallowed everything whole, and believe that everyone has also. And all the supposed "experts" employed by every corporation, including the tobacco companies, is a clone who believes that chemicals and genes are the only things that matter, but not infections.
I just Don't know all the Details of what ISO 3308:2012 does and doesn't include.
"Reference 3R4F cigarettes were smoked to the ISO6 smoking regime (35 mL puffs drawn over 2 s with 1 min intervals) in accordance with the standard ISO 3308:2012, and using an 8 s exhaust and a bell-shaped smoking curve. Cigarettes were smoked to eight puffs/cig."
Well what does that say about crowd funded studies (by vapers) on eliquid or other vape related stuff? Or studies funded by arms of ecig industry?
The test of good science for me is that I look for a large sample size of population..... test 50 and you've lost me. Also, must be peer reviewed, and also, would like to see more than 1 or 2 further "collaborating" studies. All this takes time. So far, there haven't been enough studies, pro or con, to come to a final conclusion IMHO.
At any rate, knee-jerk reactions to "one" study, whether it be pro vaping or anti vaping.......
that isn't necessarily true.
does anyone believe a ANTZ leaning group would fund this study.
no way. it might jeopardize any further funding.
just because one might not like the source of the funding
is not justification to disregard it on that merit alone.
considering the source of the funding does anyone believe
that by rigging the study to get the results they supposedly wanted
they would set themselves up to get shredded by the media and the ANTZ?
the total lack of attention from the media and other sources
indicates to me the other side has nothing and as such will
just ignore it until it goes away.
regards
mike
It really all gets Back to what you want the Study to do?
Do you want a Study to try to Quantify and Explain what is Actually Happening in a given Situation? And the Study will be Published no matter what the Results say?
Or are you looking for a Study to Help Promote or Discredit something for some type of Gain? So Study data can be Massaged to yield a Desire Result. Or the Study isn't Published if it doesn't assist in one's Gain.
I'm not saying that the Study in this Thread is "Good Science" or "Bad Science". That is what a Peer Review process helps in Determining. And would like to hear someone like Dr. Farsolino's (sp?) opinion on it. And Other's who are Qualified to examine it in Detail.
There is a Reason why an Author of a Study is asked to Disclose an Financial Conflicts in a Transparency Statement. And being an Employee of the Company who Funded a Study would be a Huge Financial Conflict to Me.
We Shouldn't like a Study based on the Conclusion the Study's Author draws. We should like a Study when the Study follows Good Scientific Methods.
Last edited:
It is true, all studies have an agenda. The ANTZ might fund this study if they believed the opposite of what the study found would be the results, that's the risk of any study. Researchers often set out to prove a theory and run into surprising results, you hear about it all the time.
The rest of your response has nothing to do with my statement.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
