They want proof lets give them proof

[mre777]

I'm not sure if this belongs here but I thought I would throw this out there..
The ecig industry is for the most part unregulated and is under constant attack. Laws and bans are being enforced based on little to no facts and bias opinions that e-cigs are bad for you (at least to a much higher degree than they really are).
I think the lack of studies to disprove these falsehoods is one of our biggest problems, and we know that Big tobacco will not sponsor a study that could destroy their industry, nor will Big Pharmaceutical.
We are a community of vapers, and we (at least i know i do) spend a lot of money on this lifestyle. Its become as much a hobby as a means to not smoke analogs for me. A hobby that i very much enjoy.
Could we as a community form a kind of co-op to fund a reputable study to try and disprove these falsehoods put forth by the profit hungry powers that be? Something solid that would hold up in court and help to lift the bans all over this country..
I would throw money into something like this..
I am not offering to do this, I have no idea on how to go about doing it (other then posting this) but there are some very intelligent people on this forum that are highly motivated and I am positive vapers would support this cause.
Just a thought

 

[Reaperman]

I'm not really sure that any research funded by a vaping 'interest group' would be looked on as being any more legitimate than anything funded by manufacturers.

 

[mre777]

Well I thought the "who" was doing the research would matter. As in hiring a reputable non biased facility to conduct the studies.

 

[N_Jones]

It really isn't "who's" doing the research. It's always about "who's" paying for it. The reason is the lab almost always favors whoever is paying the bills....

Just sayin'

Noel

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

[mre777]

Even if someone took that point of view, we would still be holding the paperwork to back up our claims and they would have nothing to the contrary except some vague third party information. They would be forced to try and prove otherwise which would not go well for them I think.

 

[sonofthesun]

You're making assumptions based on research backing up your preconceived notions. What if it was the other side of the coin?

 

[mre777]

Empirical evidence can only be fought with empirical evidence.

 

[mre777]

That may very well be the case and I would be willing to except that outcome. I would rather really know how bad something is for me then not know.

You're making assumptions based on research backing up your preconceived notions. What if it was the other side of the coin?

 

[Baditude]

The study would have to be funded by a party with nothing at stake in the results. It would have to be done with the strictest of medical standards, because it will be scrutinized by those with the most to lose, Big Pharmaceuticals.

In my way of thinking, e-cigarettes work where nicotine patches and gum do not, because e-cigarettes allow smokers trying to quit to receive nicotine replacement, BUT in addition allows them to continue the hand-to-mouth ritual that is so ingrained in their minds and personalities over years of smoking, AND provides an experience not totally unlike cigarette smoke by providing an inhaled warm water vapor into the mouth, throat, and lungs. These last two are as important as the nicotine replacement also available in the gum and patches.

One would think that Big Pharmaceutical would jump on the bandwagon and start research and development to perfect their own e-cigarette. But they seem to be choosing to lobby for the banning of e-cigarettes instead.

Big Tobacco has bought up a couple of the e-cigarette makers. It's not clear what their motivation is yet. They are probably keeping both feet in the door to see how things work out.

 

[sonofthesun]

My point is you're assuming the research will solve your problems. Instead, it'll merely change them. And you have no idea whether or not the data generated will back up your presumptions. If vaping did cause a major health issue, and it were demonstrably true, would you continue to do it?

 

[mre777]

I knew the health risks of smoking and I continued to do it for 14 years, if evidence is found that PG or VG is as detrimental to my health as cigarets I don't suppose that alone would make me quit. But those are just bases for nicotine and other bases could be found that where safer. Honestly my nic ratio is so low now I'm sure I could just stop using it but i enjoy vaping. I do know i feel a lot better since I quit smoking and switched to vaping more then a year ago.

My point is you're assuming the research will solve your problems. Instead, it'll merely change them. And you have no idea whether or not the data generated will back up your presumptions. If vaping did cause a major health issue, and it were demonstrably true, would you continue to do it?

A question for you is are you a vaper because of your assumptions that it is healthier then smoking?
Wouldn't you like to know if it was or not?

 

[Unhooked]

The study would have to be funded by a party with nothing at stake in the results. It would have to be done with the strictest of medical standards, because it will be scrutinized by those with the most to lose, Big Pharmaceuticals.

I'm not sure I agree, huge companies with lots at stake fund studies all the time.

 

[Lexos]

It would be useless. Big tobacco industries have millions in the multitude they are willing to throw away, especially at destroying a cause like that. The minute they wish to terminate this vaping hobby,they will. It makes me sick.

 

[Darksyde]

If you like, check out the campaigning section of the forum. There is info on how we all can help influence the laws that pertain to vaping and the e-cig.

 

[Darksyde]

It would be useless. Big tobacco industries have millions in the multitude they are willing to throw away, especially at destroying a cause like that. The minute they wish to terminate this vaping hobby,they will. It makes me sick.

Hmmm... I think this may be the Bruce Wayne to Perrien's Batman. We've been infiltrated I fear.

 

[mre777]

lol who knows there could be spys among us

 

[Lexos]

You may try and try, but it will be useless! BWAHAHAHA!
*cough* *cough*

 

[Reaperman]

last I heard, long term usage of nicotine gum was looking pretty bad after research, and it wouldn't take much to get ecigs banned entirely. Let's face it, the 'normals' don't much care for how they look or how we are currently allowed to use them. I'm not entirely sure we want extra research.

I'm sure not willing to call them 'safe.' 'Safer than the primary alternative' I will agree with, but '100% safe' is a statement that I tend to doubt.

edit: Of course this is really me drunk-posting, and I should probably hook some kind of breathalyzer to my computer to avoid such missteps in the future. Whichever way it goes, I do generally want to know where e-juice falls in the safety spectrum, but I think that we should stay well clear of such research, as our 'funding' would loom over any data collected, and call every bit of it into question. It's just a fact that people care about who funded research before they care about results or methods.

 

[kiwivap]

It's a nice idea Mre777, and funding research doesn't have to be from non-involved third parties. On the contrary, pharmaceutical companies fund R&D all the time for prospective new products.
The problem would be that one study would not be enough. And the limits of a study. These things take time in the lab.
There are studies being done, some with the involvement of people in the industry, and some from interested medical scientists.
It will take several studies - a compilation of evidence - to make the point.
If those studies are published in reputable journals that are more widely read in the scientific community that helps, because then they are peer reviewed. And if those studies get a good citation frequency, not disproving the results, that's even better. If the data is hard and conclusive it doesn't matter who funded it.
The study part is in its infancy. I believe we'll see more of them, and I think the medical community will be the gateway for more acceptance.

 

[yzer]

No, none of us as indivuals can throw together enough money to effect future legislation on the E-cig industry.

It's up to the big dogs, here.

If the E-cig industry can get enough bucks to bribe (lobby) congress then maybe they can be heard over the big tobacco, big pharma and big health industries. Maybe.

Otherwise, it whizzin' in the wind.