True or false?

[smoked25years]

Not so sure this is true, in the case of scientists whose money/grant comes from special interests who are employing them to "prove" a certain viewpoint.

Prove it. If there is proof of lack of scientific integrity, the research will get rejected by journals and the lab will likely lose other funding and get booted.

It is always easier to cast doubt in general than argue about facts. That's why casting doubt on integrity is so often used on the internet... and politics.

 

[Bunnykiller]

wellll.... if a juice can crack a plastic atty....

 

[smoked25years]

It's good to think... so think about this..

Science can be skewed just as well as media. Facts omitted are just as important as facts presented. Most science done now a days is done towards an agenda, and funded for that agenda.

This is ridiculous. And why is it that you think you know about "Most science done now "?

Take that article.. it was originally published by a non scientist (Amber Brenza) who has a masters in journalism. That in and of itself means she is skilled at writing, but it does nothing to convey the full understandings of the study. I do give her Kudos for at least noting that it's not definitive.

The article is not science. It's the media.

I think, and I do research.

I don't understand this sentence. Based on what you've written, I know that you don't have experience getting academic research funded and published in a scientific journal.

 

[ScottP]

The article is not science. It's the media.

Correct. And therein lies the problem. It's like getting a very very short book report, only we aren't given the actual book to see if it's a good and accurate report or not. If a link to the source material had been provided we could dig in and check validity and integrity of both the source material and the report/article. Since that was not provided, it casts doubt on the article. Did she interpret the data correctly? Was she in any way misleading either intentionally or non-intentionally? There is no way to know. However, considering how many times junk from people like Stanton Glantz has been pushed as science when it was either misinterpreted data or complete lies, many of us now have a "show me the proof" mentality. Sadly there is zero proof here. In fact even one of the quotes she used from the study states that the levels used are "unlikely to be achieved in the real world". I mean in enough concentration even things we require to live are bad. Too much water, too much any any vitamin, too much of any mineral, too much of anything can be fatal. I could totally inject a 5 oz mouse with 3 oz of vanilla and then say in my study, mice exposed to vanilla died. It is true but completely misleading and unlikely to ever happen to a human in real life.

Don't get me wrong, I would really love to see proof one way or the other but until someone does some real studies and actually releases the complete results, we will not have any. In the meantime you'll just have to excuse me for not believing every negative article about vaping that fails to back itself up with credible evidence.

 

[smoked25years]

Correct. And therein lies the problem. It's like getting a very very short book report, only we aren't given the actual book to see if it's a good and accurate report or not. If a link to the source material had been provided we could dig in and check validity and integrity of both the source material and the report/article. Since that was not provided, it casts doubt on the article.

A link to article was in the second paragraph. This is the second time that I've corrected this false accusation.

Did she interpret the data correctly? Was she in any way misleading either intentionally or non-intentionally?

Don't know. I've wasted too much time responding to false statements. A new rabbit hole gets dug as soon as I cover one.

I could totally inject a 5 oz mouse with 3 oz of vanilla and then say in my study, mice exposed to vanilla died. It is true but completely misleading and unlikely to ever happen to a human in real life.

It would never make it past the initial screening to get reviewed in any real journal.

 

[smoked25years]

I downloaded the journal article. Might have time to read it tomorrow.

 

[ScottP]

A link to article was in the second paragraph. This is the second time that I've corrected this false accusation.

Don't know. I've wasted too much time responding to false statements. A new rabbit hole gets dug as soon as I cover one.

It would never make it past the initial screening to get reviewed in any real journal.

OK for some reason the first and second time I clicked that link only the first section of the study was loaded so it looked incomplete. A refresh of the page finally loaded it all. So I stand corrected that a link to the whole study was not provided.

You say it wouldn't get published yet this study did basically just that. It took cells and exposed them to levels that even those involved in the study said were "unlikely to be achieved in the real world" (their words not mine) and yet it not only got published but is now being pushed in the media as proof ecigs are dangerous. Sorry but it's not proof that the concentrations we are ACTUALLY exposed to is in any way dangerous.

Concentration and exposure levels are the key to the toxicity of anything. Many things can be both beneficial and lethal depending on dose. Alcohol and aspirin for instance in small doses can be good for the heart, yet both can damage kidneys, damage livers, and even be lethal with too high a dose. So they proved that at an unrealistic dose these things are harmful, but what about a realistic dose? That remains to be seen.

 

[smoked25years]

OK for some reason the first and second time I clicked that link only the first section of the study was loaded so it looked incomplete. A refresh of the page finally loaded it all. So I stand corrected that a link to the whole study was not provided.

No problem.

You say it wouldn't get published yet this study did basically just that.

You haven't read the article. In a quick skim, I see they use a range of concentrations... and they claim some of those concentrations are likely achieved in vivo.

You seem to be focused on the extremes.

"Cell death and reactive oxygen species production were induced only at high concentrations unlikely to be achieved in vivo. Lower concentrations of selected flavors (vanillin, menthol, cinnamaldehyde, eugenol, and acetylpyridine) induced both inflammation and impaired A23187-stimulated nitric oxide production consistent with endothelial dysfunction."

Don't have time to read tonight before bed but will try to find time tomorrow.

Concentration and exposure levels are the key to the toxicity of anything. Many things can be both beneficial and lethal depending on dose. Alcohol and aspirin for instance in small doses can be good for the heart, yet both can damage kidneys, damage livers, and even be lethal with too high a dose.

Yes.

So they proved that at an unrealistic dose these things are harmful, but what about a realistic dose? That remains to be seen.

Will know when we both read the full article.

 

[NealBJr]

This is ridiculous. And why is it that you think you know about "Most science done now "?

Because I dug past the the media and saw the actual study... then actually saw how that study was flawed. This is not the first time it has happened... I have seen it time and time again.. same story, same excuses. I mentioned that in my original posting. Please re-read it again.

The article is not science. It's the media.

You're re-stating what I said in my post. Please re-read it again.

I don't understand this sentence. Based on what you've written, I know that you don't have experience getting academic research funded and published in a scientific journal.

No, but my step-father has. He was a ex-navy, and was a scientist that worked on the eradication of smallpox. He's tried to publish some of his works before but was denied. I grew up listening to stories of how they had to side-step the system to get funded. My sister was a nurse, and did some quite accurate drawings of the human muscular system. She tried to get those published, but was dismayed at the politics involved. My mother and grandmother were also nurses.. they didn't do any research or publications though, but talks around the dinner table usually involved tracheostomies and catheters. I got sick of hearing about all these and decided to go into the computer field. I have had the medical field around my life this whole time. Although I'm not a doctor, or certified, I do get the basic idea of how things work in the medical field. The medical field is more political than most people think.

I am going to stop responding to this thread... it seems we've both reached an impasse. I don't see anything your're adding to the conversation except arguments without backup.

 

[smoked25years]

Because I dug past the the media and saw the actual study... then actually saw how that study was flawed. This is not the first time it has happened... I have seen it time and time again.. same story, same excuses. I mentioned that in my original posting. Please re-read it again.



You're re-stating what I said in my post. Please re-read it again.



No, but my step-father has. He was a ex-navy, and was a scientist that worked on the eradication of smallpox. He's tried to publish some of his works before but was denied. I grew up listening to stories of how they had to side-step the system to get funded. My sister was a nurse, and did some quite accurate drawings of the human muscular system. She tried to get those published, but was dismayed at the politics involved. My mother and grandmother were also nurses.. they didn't do any research or publications though, but talks around the dinner table usually involved tracheostomies and catheters. I got sick of hearing about all these and decided to go into the computer field. I have had the medical field around my life this whole time. Although I'm not a doctor, or certified, I do get the basic idea of how things work in the medical field. The medical field is more political than most people think.

I am going to stop responding to this thread... it seems we've both reached an impasse. I don't see anything your're adding to the conversation except arguments without backup.

I would enjoy seeing those drawings. I don't know anything about medical illustration. In one of my articles, I did a very basic illustration and the journal had a professional artist completely redo it --haha! I gave science input and the artist made it pretty. I must admit that it was better than mine.

 

[smoked25years]

Looking through the methods and the figures as I sip coffee and have the 1st vape of the day. It's interesting that the high concentrations got so much attention on the forum since they are NOT the real point of the article. But if the internet was subjected to the same review as scientific research, then most of the internet would need to be deleted.

The experiments seem adequately controlled. There are some experiments that I would have preferred done a little differently.

The discussion area, I've only skimmed last night. I saw some stuff that would trigger some of you guys. The first author seems to be just getting started as a primary investigator with her own lab... maybe in the last 5 years. I looked up some of her other work and she recently wrote a review. I did read the review last night. I don't like everything she says but I do think she believes that vaping is safer than smoking. And that doing neither is better.

 

[Horselady154]

Prove it. If there is proof of lack of scientific integrity, the research will get rejected by journals and the lab will likely lose other funding and get booted.

Prove it.

 

[smoked25years]

Prove it.

Proof that fraud goes punished? Here you go:
Millions of surgery patients at risk in drug research fraud scandal
"Joachim Boldt is at the centre of a criminal investigation amid allegations that he may have forged up to 90 crucial studies on the treatment. He has been stripped of his professorship and sacked from a German hospital following allegations about his research into drugs known as colloids."

Now... What is your proof that the current topic is fraud?

 

[Horselady154]

No. On the topic at hand, of course.

 

[smoked25years]

No. On the topic at hand, of course.

You're asking me to prove a negative?
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

I'm asking you to prove a positive. Certainly you must have some proof to accuse the authors of something so horrible. That's not an accusation that should just be thrown around lightly.

 

[Horselady154]

And now you are putting words in my mouth; accusing me of saying things that I did not say. Time to push back from the table, smoked25.

 

[smoked25years]

Thought so.

And now you are putting words in my mouth; accusing me of saying things that I did not say. Time to push back from the table, smoked25.

Have a nice day.

 

[DaveP]

I've always thought that high flavor percentages, especially with juices such as the ones mentioned in the article, might be better used at lower levels. Eventually, I started vaping unflavored juice most of the time and discovered that it satisfied my need for Nic and the actions of smoking.

All that was a result of getting my tasted buds rebuilt over time after decades of smoking. These days I mix juices at recommended flavor percentages and use those to add a hint of flavor sometimes to my unflavored juice. I seldom vape a tank of flavored juice at full strength.

A typical DIY session for me results in four 100ml bottles of unflavored and a half dozen bottles of flavored juices.

 

[smoked25years]

I've always thought that high flavor percentages, especially with juices such as the ones mentioned in the article, might be better used at lower levels. Eventually, I started vaping unflavored juice most of the time and discovered that it satisfied my need for Nic and the actions of smoking.

All that was a result of getting my tasted buds rebuilt over time after decades of smoking. These days I mix juices at recommended flavor percentages and use those to add a hint of flavor sometimes to my unflavored juice. I seldom vape a tank of flavored juice at full strength.

A typical DIY session for me results in four 100ml bottles of unflavored and a half dozen bottles of flavored juices.

I vape similarly.

The high concentrations in the article were at a top of range with lower concentrations... an extreme value. The important results were at lower concentrations.

I think that if you're vaping rather than smoking, that's really important. But if we do find out that some flavors are safer than others that could be helpful information. I'd like to see serum levels that the authors suggested for a future study.

 

[charlie1465]

Welcome

As usual these types of report may have some truth in them but nearly always they refer to a tiny percentage of harm compared to other things...like smoking, crossing the road, breathing etc. etc.

I wouldn't worry too much