What? That nicotine has salient cues to its presence, or that VNeil and I discussed this a few pages back?
Last edited:
Vaping nicotine as a never-smoker, why not?
- Thread starter unixunderground
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
What? That nicotine has salient cues to its presence, or that VNeil and I discussed this a few pages back?
For a second there I actually thought you were attempting to engage in an intelligent discussion. But I was obviously wrong.
I would have to ask one question about the MCS story. Since they should have smelled you 10 feet away, why was that not a que? Or do you think their expectations overpowered their noses?
For some reason your assessment of MCS as idiopathic reminds me of the reaction of the medical and scientific establishment to Agent Orange Syndrome.
Scientists tend to be very sure they are right, and that their experiments leave no room for doubt, at least in their own minds. I think there's a pretty good chance that sometime soon a panel of government scientists is going to decide that vaping is really bad for your health.
Well maybe, depending on how where you are applying propaganda and the source thereof. My main point is the power of expectancy over reality. If these people were truly sensitive to perfume/soap odors, they should have reacted to me. They didn't because they believed that as a responsible medical scientist I would never endanger them. This is almost perfectly analogous to the ex-smoker that believes he/she was made dependent on nicotine because of smoking. The brain makes it appear to those individuals as the truth behind their 'condition'. Because nicotine has no capacity to induce dependence, their beliefs are incorrect, but the brain compensates and continually provides the necessary proof to maintain the belief.
The later, actually. The brain attends to what it thinks is important to attend to. In the case of the 10 ft reported by the technicians. I was the 'boss' and if you can smell the boss coming from 10 feet, that has important consequences. Since the MCS patients had no reason to consider my smell, they just didn't. It is a rather bizarre population in many other aspects. They tend to be introverted and needy, and I think I met several that were either borderline or truly schizophrenic.
If you tell a person a lie, over an over, thousands of times, he will come to believe it. Do that to 10,000 people and they will reinforce the lie by repeating it to each other, over and over. How can everyone be wrong about something?
That's propaganda, and you see it all over this site, although the targets will never acknowledge it.
And I suspect you are saying the same thing with nicotine dependence, if you are correct in your hypothesis.
ETA: Typically malicious intent is ascribed to the purveyor of propaganda. In this case it may have been a simple mistake but regardless of motive that doesn't change the end result.
Last edited:
You are very wrong, here. No one has ever disputed that there was a lot of harm that was inflicted by agent orange, and if we knew as much about the toxic and reproductive effect potential of dioxins in 1970 as we do now we never would have used it (similar to the way we never used paraquat again after the initial effects in us cannabis users were uncovered). The things that are argued as idiopathic are things that have never been connected with dioxins, even after experimental trials. One of these, I remember, was one soldier's interstitial fibrosis. After extensive investigation it was conclusively determined that it was not caused by service-connected dioxin exposure, and that it was idiopathic, in that it apparently had no external physical cause (i.e., it was probably unique to his particular genome). The government had no reason to 'lie' about this, because cause is not a qualification for a service-connected disability.
You are, of course, correct. There is much of that sort of propaganda. But what I'm suggesting is that propaganda only reinforces what the individual has long thought. Its existence makes it all that easier for the brain to set up and expectation of withdrawal symptoms if they remove nicotine. After all the propaganda supports their notion that they are addicted to nicotine.
All arguments aside, youre not going to change peoples minds on way or another on this subject, so have fun beating this dead horse to death for another 31 pages.
When liberal views like this contribute to tighter restrictions on vaping, dont say you werent warned.
Last edited:
If you could point me to anything intelligent by all means. I think the nic has affected your cerebral cortex and cognitive acumen...lol
Thanks for reading!
Hahaha, thanks man. English is my fourth language, but I definitely have to look into it sooner or later as I've been pondering on the idea of writing for a while.
Vaping melatonin would be a waste of time. Melatonin is a relatively fragile molecule. It won't even survive the gut (which is why oral, non-sublingual, melatonin doesn't get into the bloodstream). I seriously doubt it would survive being boiled
Yep, speaking of which, if anyone is considering melatonin due to sleep difficulties, after using it for years I have found 0.1 to 0.3 mg of sublingual melatonin to work best, with absolutely no side effects nor tolerance even with every day use.
Other lucid dreamer here, you guys should definitely check it out. Speaking of which I highly recommend Stephen LaBerge's "Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming" if the subject interests you.
That might be due to them having developed a behavioral addiction towards vaping, rather than nicotine itself, much like some people get addicted to eating junk food compulsively, gambling, video games, the internet etc.
Disagreed.
I keep my mind open in all discussions, if that makes me a liberal then ok.
Changing lanes, and not trying to veer too far off the path (or topic), but am curious what a medical scientist such as yourself believes about the propaganda assertion (or data point, if you prefer) that 480,000 people die annually from tobacco smoking, in the U.S.?
I am inclined to be forthright with my personal belief (that I would not say is strictly opinion) that the number is greatly inflated / made up. But am curious what you think / believe.
It sounds inflated to me as well. However, it may not be as far off I would have imagined, as I look at the CDC mortality and morbidity statistics from 2011. They reported that 207,339 people had lung cancer and 156,953 people died of it. Now 157K (and that would assume 100% of all lung cancer deaths were in smokers) is clearly a lot less 480K. I also looked at lung function and COPD mortality rates and got another 3000 there. Where they really get a break is that the cardiopulmonary mortality rate was 880K. So, well over a million people died of diseases that have been linked to smoking. Are a little less than half of them attributable to smoking? It's anybody's guess. But, in that 480K number I'm sure there were many cases where a smoking-related bias was a factor in death classification.
- Status
Similar threads
