"Scientists" use vapor to study cigarette smoke. Science laughs.

[DC2]

I was mostly agreeing with you right up until about here...

Right up to your "Nicotine" isn't additive none-sense.

What I'd love to see is a study regarding the addictiveness of vaping with nicotine in non-smokers.
I am pretty certain I know what we would find out from such a study though.

 

[Nate760]

It's a Yahoo news article I seriously doubt it provides sufficient data for you to critique the study's design or methodology.

No, it's a Reuters article that happened to appear in Yahoo news as well as various other outlets. In any event, ad hominem fail.

Maybe it's a crappy study with crap methodology I don't know, and unless you've seen more than that article neither do you.

If you have no idea whether it's a crappy study, why were you defending it in your previous post?

But we've just went through 8 pages of paranoia and dubious opinions and pseudo-scientific nonsense masquerading as fact.

You appear to be reading a totally different thread than the rest of us.

Right up to your "Nicotine" isn't additive none-sense.

Oh dear.

This kind of crap doesn't serve vaper's or the cause in any positive manner, I don't want vaping associated with fringe crazies who make unsound unfounded claims about stuff they don't actually understand. I don't want it to be associated with the anti-vax movement or the anti-fluoride craziness.

Says the guy who happily believes every absurd fiction he's ever heard about smoking and nicotine. Lolz.

 

[Anjaffm]

@Nate760:
well said indeed
I do wonder why some people now venture into the "news" section to spout their insults and nonsense. Must be getting boring in "general threads".

 

[AndriaD]

@Nate760:
well said indeed
I do wonder why some people now venture into the "news" section to spout their insults and nonsense. Must be getting boring in "general threads".

Yeah the board's been pretty dead lately; I guess the trolls have to find SOMEPLACE to argue and blather nonsense. Seems to be a lot of folks around here lately that have swallowed the nicotine myths hook, line, and sinker. Of course they won't bother to go and read Rolygate's blog; they're trolls, after all -- trolls can't read!

Maybe that's the problem with the ANTZ who keep blathering that 'we just don't know!' nonsense -- they're trolls, so nothing printed on the subject of 'what's in e-cigs' would ever make an impression on them -- trolls can't read!

Andria

 

[DrMA]

@Nate760:
well said indeed
I do wonder why some people now venture into the "news" section to spout their insults and nonsense. Must be getting boring in "general threads".

This may explain it: On the dangers of third-hand stupid | EP-ology

 

[AndriaD]

This may explain it: On the dangers of third-hand stupid | EP-ology

Thanks for that! I suffer dreadfully from all the rampant stupidity in the world -- too bad they're too illiterate to even read that, nevermind understand it!

Andria

 

[DC2]

Seems to be a lot of folks around here lately that have swallowed the nicotine myths hook, line, and sinker.

It's pretty much always been that way.

Most everyone who comes here starts out with a set of preconceived notions about nicotine due to all the brainwashing.
It takes awhile to learn the truth, and it has to be hammered into some people.

 

[Oliver]

Skex, I'm really not seeing what you're seeing in this thread.

The issue over the addictiveness of nicotine outwith tobacco in not fringe. Karl Fagerstrom, the author of the world's most used clinical measure of tobacco/nicotine dependence, the FTND has recently renamed the test the Fagerstrom Test of Tobacco Dependence because of new evidence. - see also this blog by Robert West in which he asks Fagerstrom to estimate how addictive e-cigs are (scroll down to May 9th - no permalink, sorry).

The fact is, no-one knows how addictive nicotine in e-cigs is to tobacco naive humans. There's literally zero research from which to draw good inferences, and the ethical considerations should be obvious. It's going to take years of e-cigs being used in the wild to derive this stuff from clinical epidemeology. Certainly, sticking vapers in brain scanners will tell us little about this.

You do know that inferring brain-behavioral data from neural proxy measures such as fMRI is very controversial in and of itself? It's far from a dead-cert that much is added to our understanding of human behaviour from these measures generally, let alone from this study in particular.

That said, I'm glad it's happening, and that some chap at Imperial's booked some scanner time. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with.

 

[AndriaD]

It's pretty much always been that way.

Most everyone who comes here starts out with a set of preconceived notions about nicotine due to all the brainwashing.
It takes awhile to learn the truth, and it has to be hammered into some people.

It seemed pretty obvious to me that my own POWERFUL addiction has very little to do with nicotine; I was a smoker for 39 yrs, yet 18mg AND 12mg ejuice made me sick as a goat. So... it must be SOMETHING ELSE that made me so addicted to cigarettes!

Andria

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

It seemed pretty obvious to me that my own POWERFUL addiction has very little to do with nicotine; I was a smoker for 39 yrs, yet 18mg AND 12mg ejuice made me sick as a goat. So... it must be SOMETHING ELSE that made me so addicted to cigarettes!

39 years for me at 2 packs a day (3 per day the last 5 years). I'm not sure what it was that kept me going... the nicotine, the smell of burning carcinogens or, the daily exercise I got by searching for all those bic lighters. I'm told it was the nic but now I'm only vaping about 7-10ml per week at 12mg and I just keep vaping less.

 

[AndriaD]

39 years for me at 2 packs a day (3 per day the last 5 years). I'm not sure what it was that kept me going... the nicotine, the smell of burning carcinogens or, the daily exercise I got by searching for all those bic lighters. I'm told it was the nic but now I'm only vaping about 7-10ml per week at 12mg and I just keep vaping less.

For quite a while I was vaping probably about 4-5ml per day, but I kept having such problems with my asthma, I was continually trying to find ways to make vaping less stressful for my lungs, and I think I've found a really good way. I was using WTA already, though a pretty small percentage in my 10mg mix. I've bumped it up a bit, to about 11.5mg, using just the 25mg WTA to do it, and it really does seem to be helping, keeping the vaping down quite a bit; yesterday I was awake about 14 hrs, and I'm not sure if I vaped 2ml all day -- the WTA provides so much greater satisfaction, I don't have to sit and chain-vape; I take 2 hits, maybe sometimes 3, and I set it down, and it might be 15-20 mins before I even think of picking it up again.

As a smoker, I was used to smoking at commercial breaks in TV shows, so since I've started using this higher level, I pick it up and vape as much as I like during the commercial, but when the show comes back, I set it down and don't even think about it till the next commercial. Unless someone in the show is smoking, THEN it's nice that I can pick it up and vape, instead of having to suffer till the next commercial, as I had to do as a smoker.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

There is doubt. Robert West, for instance, expressed it at the Summit. And I can't honestly say I know that nicotine is that potent for concentration. It's a mild stimulant, after all - milder than, say, coffee. The only thing I do know is what happens to my concentration without nicotine!

That said, everyone's mileage varies on almost all of these things.

I watched West's presentation and the first and second debate and didn't see him address the subject of nicotine and focus. I did catch his bit on addiction where he thought that nicotine patches weren't necessarily addictive but behavior played perhaps a larger role.

 

[Nate760]

I watched West's presentation and the first and second debate and didn't see him address the subject of nicotine and focus. I did catch his bit on addiction where he thought that nicotine patches weren't necessarily addictive but behavior played perhaps a larger role.

Patches, gum, lozenges, inhalers, e-cigs, whatever. The pertinent fact remains that there's no verified instance, in the history of the world, of a tobacco-naive individual becoming nicotine dependent. Why are we still beating around the bush about something that's so obviously self-evident?

 

[Kent C]

Patches, gum, lozenges, inhalers, e-cigs, whatever. The pertinent fact remains that there's no verified instance, in the history of the world, of a tobacco-naive individual becoming nicotine dependent. Why are we still beating around the bush about something that's so obviously self-evident?

Not the point I was making, but yeah...