Provaping verse Antivaping

[DeAnna2112]

I don't pay attention to antivape research, i just wish provaping research would step outside of their agendas and provide more info on how we can improve vaping. We already know vaping is safer, but like diketones and high heat, we need more research on the flip side as well. That's all i am asking for. It would carry soo much more weight coming from them, but i can't trust they will do that honestly.

 

[Aus11]

I don't pay attention to antivape research, i just wish provaping research would step outside of their agendas and provide more info on how we can improve vaping. We already know vaping is safer, but like diketones and high heat, we need more research on the flip side as well. That's all i am asking for. It would carry soo much more weight coming from them, but i can't trust they will do that honestly.

All in due time I suppose, 10 years in ecigs have seen much opposition but they have found ways to improve so far. Although we have mostly fixed any problems that have arisen we still dont know everything so you are very right. I doubt we will ever know everything but I am sure we will know more. It is just a matter of time, the industry is still new but it is growing at a decent rate all things considered. Just have to hope we arent destroyed before we have the time to figure out much more. This technology can and has changed lives, its a shame how many people arent willing to give it even that.

 

[kbeam418]

I don't pay attention to antivape research, i just wish provaping research would step outside of their agendas and provide more info on how we can improve vaping. We already know vaping is safer, but like diketones and high heat, we need more research on the flip side as well. That's all i am asking for. It would carry soo much more weight coming from them, but i can't trust they will do that honestly.

It's like Phil Busardo said vaping is moving a million miles per hour, research on vaping is moving 1 mile an hour. Only the person is I trust is Dr K since he isn't getting funding from vape companies or bt. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I couldn't care less what research says NOW all I know is I feel 10x better. It's going to take at least a decade to find out the long term effects.

 

[Eskie]

I don't pay attention to antivape research, i just wish provaping research would step outside of their agendas and provide more info on how we can improve vaping. We already know vaping is safer, but like diketones and high heat, we need more research on the flip side as well. That's all i am asking for. It would carry soo much more weight coming from them, but i can't trust they will do that honestly.

Just to stir up more trouble, but reading pro-vaping research only will leave you with the very bias you're looking to overcome. By reading anti-vaping research, you can look at how they conducted the research and see if they're way off the rails, or they raise an issue that may or may not need to be addressed. Identifying significant errors in anti-vaping research is important if you want to point out their bias.

 

[DeAnna2112]

Just to stir up more trouble, but reading pro-vaping research only will leave you with the very bias you're looking to overcome. By reading anti-vaping research, you can look at how they conducted the research and see if they're way off the rails, or they raise an issue that may or may not need to be addressed. Identifying significant errors in anti-vaping research is important if you want to point out their bias.

I don't think your stirring up trouble at all, your calling it as you see it and that is all i ask of anyone regardless if their opinion agrees with mine or not. I think you have raised a very good point. I do try to listen to both sides of research and i guess that's were i am stuck, both sides having agendas and keeping that in mind. I just look to provaping research and maybe have too high expectations for them that it frustrates me. I'm just not seeing what i want to see from them. Again maybe i have set the bar too high which goes right back to the reasoning being is agendas. I just don't feel like they have my back completely.

 

[Robino1]

Just a thought, is it entirely possible that there is nothing 'bad' to be found?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I dunno, just throwing that out there. When things do crop up, they get analyzed to death almost.

 

[DeAnna2112]

Just a thought, is it entirely possible that there is nothing 'bad' to be found?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I dunno, just throwing that out there. When things do crop up, they get analyzed to death almost.

I agree Ribino, which is why i keep vaping. But nothing is perfect in this world nothing. Everything has a drawback on some level. All i believe is, at this point, is that vaping is safer then smoking. Like i said maybe i am setting the bar too high with expectations, but come on surely along the way of research they have found things that are of concern that can be avoided and improved upon. All i hear is vaping is flawless.

 

[Tonee N]

Just a thought, is it entirely possible that there is nothing 'bad' to be found?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I dunno, just throwing that out there. When things do crop up, they get analyzed to death almost.

Don't tell anyone, that's supposed to be our little secret.[emoji16]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[Katdarling]

It's been known for over 1/2 a century that smoking leads to frequent sore throats and colds.... Smoking interferes with the vitamin C absorption and therefor the proper functioning of the immune system. I got totally sick of getting 3 or 4 nasty colds every year and so I started taking massive, daily, amounts of vitamin C (when I was still smoking).... After that I went for almost 8 years without getting one single cold (while still smoking)...

Sorry, and not that it matters, but I do not agree that vaping improves one's health or makes them feel better.......... Years ago, b4 vaping was ever invented, I had talked with many folks who quit smoking........ In every single case, the people told me how much better they feel after quitting.... It's highly unlikely that vaping helped those people in the past since vaping did not exist at that time... A more logical conclusion would be that all of the toxins eventually left their system, their lungs started to repair themselves, and they got more oxygen to their brain and other vital organs.

As for vaping helping reduce the frequency of colds, I have no comment in those regards.... My wife makes her own concentrated herbal oils and she always carries a small bottle of lavender oil with her and she constantly sniffs it throughout the day because it eliminates contracting upper respiratory disorders such as colds/flu's ... Since she started breathing the fumes in from the lavender oil, she has not had a cold or flu in over 10 years... This is because lavender has anti-microbial properties to it.... So, there may be merit to the thought that anti-microbial properties of PG help the body to fight off respiratory infections.... But that is a long way from improving one's overall health or experiencing the vigor one has after quitting smoking.

I ALREADY stated that the anecdotal evidence points in the direction that PG could possibly help at warding off colds.... I must be talking backwards today as nobody is understanding my posts lol

Welp, call me a nobody, but I totally understood your posts (and agreed silently with much you said).

Lavender oil is a must-have in my life, as are many other oils (that support respiratory functions). Thank you for sharing your wife's experiences.

Just a thought, is it entirely possible that there is nothing 'bad' to be found?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I dunno, just throwing that out there. When things do crop up, they get analyzed to death almost.

ALMOST?

 

[DeAnna2112]

Don't tell anyone, that's supposed to be our little secret.[emoji16]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Secret?? and i bet you were saying the same thing before diketones, high temps and high temps with VG came out.

 

[Tonee N]

Just like fluoride in the water.[emoji6]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[AXIOM_1]

Welp, call me a nobody, but I totally understood your posts (and agreed silently with much you said).

Lavender oil is a must-have in my life, as are many other oils (that support respiratory functions). Thank you for sharing your wife's experiences.

You're NOT a nobody and thanks for the kind words.......... Yeah my wife loves her oils and such ........ Speaking of lavender and anecdotal evidences, there was a phenomenon that occurred during the Spanish flu epidemic that hit the United States...... For you history buffs, you may know that the Spanish flu epidemic (circa early 1900's) that hit the USA killed a great number of people and had a high mortality rate........ But it was noticed that the workers at a certain factory were not getting sick (only 1% mortality rate for the factory workers)......... Researchers at that time investigated the factory to see if they could discover why.... They didn't put two and two together until after some years passed...... The factory in question was a lavender factory and it was later realized that it was the lavender itself and that the workers were constantly breathing it from working around it.

 

[Ca Ike]

I don't think your stirring up trouble at all, your calling it as you see it and that is all i ask of anyone regardless if their opinion agrees with mine or not. I think you have raised a very good point. I do try to listen to both sides of research and i guess that's were i am stuck, both sides having agendas and keeping that in mind. I just look to provaping research and maybe have too high expectations for them that it frustrates me. I'm just not seeing what i want to see from them. Again maybe i have set the bar too high which goes right back to the reasoning being is agendas. I just don't feel like they have my back completely.

First thing you have to do is get off this agenda kick you are on. Once you do that you can look at the science itself with a more open view. Then you have to dig into the details of the study and decide if the results are sound.

I agree Ribino, which is why i keep vaping. But nothing is perfect in this world nothing. Everything has a drawback on some level. All i believe is, at this point, is that vaping is safer then smoking. Like i said maybe i am setting the bar too high with expectations, but come on surely along the way of research they have found things that are of concern that can be avoided and improved upon. All i hear is vaping is flawless.

Your actually not setting a bar at all. Based on everything you have posted in this thread you have done two things.

1 You created an unsubstantiated group classification where there isn't and shouldn't be one. "pro-vaping researchers"

2 Created your own "agenda" you want them to follow so YOU can be satisfied with the results.


You are doing the very thing your condemning the researchers on both sides for except your not doing the actual research yourself. Your chastising them not based on what they have done, but because they haven't done it they way you want them to. No researcher including DR F can meet your demands without abiding by the agenda you have set and by that very act, they will violate your "ethical" argument.

The simple act of creating an experiment starts with an agenda, what we used to call a study premise. If you want to have some integrity in your research, you report the results that pertain to the premise and if you find anything else of interest, you create another experiment focused on that side result. You don't report it because it has nothing to do with your premise to begin with and you have no hard data to back it up. There's a reason the scientific method is used as a hard rule yet your asking researchers to break that rule

 

[mcclintock]

How about something a little different, maybe a better word is provaper research. Say we know people are going to vape that's not the question, instead it is what is OK and what really isn't. Not just be safe but what is the real relative risk, actual thresholds. If nothing else, maybe a pool to get actual testing done of the most popular flavorings, maybe Capella V1 Custard is .02% AProp and maybe it's 5% who knows? We're in a kind of information vacuum here, everyone's waiting for something to happen and safety is an adversarial situation with the government. Even research that has possible conflict of interest could easily be better than what we're getting.

 

[Robino1]

Ack! Another thought I just had (can of worms?) Dr. F got funding from the vaping industry... so according to the premise of this thread, are his findings then suspect?

Someone or group has to fund the research that happens (with Anything). That is a fact of life.

Such a conundrum...

 

[CMD-Ky]

Ack! Another thought I just had (can of worms?) Dr. F got funding from the vaping industry... so according to the premise of this thread, are his findings then suspect?

Someone or group has to fund the research that happens (with Anything). That is a fact of life.

Such a conundrum...

Every study should be suspect regardless of the source of funds. There is a possible world in which a tobacco industry researcher could have integrity as could a researcher funded by vapes. A recurring theme in this thread seems to be that studies are unacceptable merely because the results don't contain findings some think should be found. That theme is a bias in itself and it is more than suspect.

 

[DeAnna2112]

First thing you have to do is get off this agenda kick you are on. Once you do that you can look at the science itself with a more open view. Then you have to dig into the details of the study and decide if the results are sound.


Your actually not setting a bar at all. Based on everything you have posted in this thread you have done two things.

1 You created an unsubstantiated group classification where there isn't and shouldn't be one. "pro-vaping researchers"

2 Created your own "agenda" you want them to follow so YOU can be satisfied with the results.


You are doing the very thing your condemning the researchers on both sides for except your not doing the actual research yourself. Your chastising them not based on what they have done, but because they haven't done it they way you want them to. No researcher including DR F can meet your demands without abiding by the agenda you have set and by that very act, they will violate your "ethical" argument.

The simple act of creating an experiment starts with an agenda, what we used to call a study premise. If you want to have some integrity in your research, you report the results that pertain to the premise and if you find anything else of interest, you create another experiment focused on that side result. You don't report it because it has nothing to do with your premise to begin with and you have no hard data to back it up. There's a reason the scientific method is used as a hard rule yet your asking researchers to break that rule

I understand what your saying and agree with some of it. But the reason i like Dr. F is because he has reported findings that support provaping as well as areas of concern that are worthy of noting. That is the kinda researcher i want to read findings from. How is it he can do it, and from what i understand Dr. K does it, but i should expect less from general provaping research. That's the only point i am trying to make and i think it's reasonable.

 

[DeAnna2112]

Ack! Another thought I just had (can of worms?) Dr. F got funding from the vaping industry... so according to the premise of this thread, are his findings then suspect?

Someone or group has to fund the research that happens (with Anything). That is a fact of life.

Such a conundrum...

I don't think his findings are suspect because he has clearly put forth the good and the bad in his findings. He's not serving one side or the other, he is just being upfront in his research and findings regardless of the what the outcome reveals. I respect that.

 

[DeAnna2112]

Every study should be suspect regardless of the source of funds. There is a possible world in which a tobacco industry researcher could have integrity as could a researcher funded by vapes. A recurring theme in this thread seems to be that studies are unacceptable merely because the results don't contain findings some think should be found. That theme is a bias in itself and it is more than suspect.

I think you make a fair point, but i just find it hard to believe that vaping is always, in findings by provaping research, without flaws.

 

[Stubby]

I think you make a fair point, but i just find it hard to believe that vaping is always, in findings by provaping research, without flaws.

I have ask you previously, without a response. You keep mentioning pro-vaping research, but it is very unclear as to what you mean. Please link to any research you consider pro-vaping. I have never actually seen any research that I would consider to have a pro-vaping slant, meaning that the study was purposely set up to have a pro-vaping bias (though there are plenty of anti-vaping studies that have an obvious bias).