Vaping vs Smoking

[dcdozer]

As I have said before, I happen to believe vaping might be the safer alternative with one proviso: I reserve the right to change my mind in 20- 50 years when the long term effects are known !!! Meantime, I refuse to reject out of hand any report that sheds a negative light on vaping.

There's not a lot to argue with here. The issue has been that the reports that shed a negative light have generally been refuted, debunked (insert many other words here) by scientists, scholars, and people within TC. Which is why you see the views you see here - there's a lot of skepticism, and understandably so. But, I also "refuse to reject out of hand any report that sheds a negative light on vaping". Most people here would agree.

 

[Robino1]

Be happy to,even though I have done so before. I happen to believe vaping might be the safer alternative with one proviso: I reserve the right to change my mind in 20- 50 years when the long term effects are known. Meantime, I refuse to reject out of hand any report that sheds a negative light on vaping.

I would say that's fair.

As long as an open mind is kept for Both sides of the argument.

 

[Lessifer]

As I have said before, I happen to believe vaping might be the safer alternative with one proviso: I reserve the right to change my mind in 20- 50 years when the long term effects are known !!! Meantime, I refuse to reject out of hand any report that sheds a negative light on vaping.

So, you believe vaping is safer, and then reports come along that make you question it. Fair enough. Did you actually read the report before you questioned it though? I haven't seen anyone reject this out of hand. I have seen plenty approach it with skepticism, which is how we must approach these things. Upon further review, it has been pointed out that this is not a study, no data has been given, only speculation on the part of the researchers and exaggeration on the part of the journalists.

So, in your opinion, how should one approach something like this? You see a headline that says "vaping may do X" so you stop vaping and continue smoking until someone proves that vaping doesn't do x?

 

[skoony]

That may be true, but not everyone believed it until years later. I see parallels here with skepticism we see of research done on vaping. People are skeptical - just like they were in the 40's.

The only parallels I see are the tactics being used. Granted as cigarette smoking became prevalent
during the WW's of the last century the apparent harm started to become evident. Remember though
it was cigarette smoking and inhaling of the smoke thought to cause harm. Prior to cigarettes
cigar and pipe smoke generally were not inhaled. They still are not. Even today it's not quite clear
just exactly what and how much harm inhaling cigarette smoking actually causes and simply
exacerbates.
When it comes to vaping there is absolutly nothing comparable scientifically in terms
of observable or provable toxicity or illness and modern toxicology and scientific methods
are far more advanced than the mid 20th century.
The demonizing tactics used today are the same when used against cigarettes
when it was realized the onerous taxation and utter control that could be wielded
against a minority bereft of saving grace as being an ignorant addictive second
class sub-species of mankind.
Am I skeptical? Believe it. I have lived through this before.

Regards
Mike

 

[Kent C]

Time to drop the mic on this one.....

 

[Exchaner]

Upon further review, it has been pointed out that this is not a study, no data has been given, only speculation on the part of the researchers and exaggeration on the part of the journalists.

So, in your opinion, how should one approach something like this? You see a headline that says "vaping may do X" so you stop vaping and continue smoking until someone proves that vaping doesn't do x?

I could be wrong, but as I have stated before, the work has been presented in a science seminar. Don't know where - or how - to get the raw data, but I am sure the scientists who attended the seminar are not fools. They know a phony report when they see one. As to the headlines, it's just regular practice by the press to grab attention using provocative headlines - in politics, business, crime ... take your pick. It's not exclusive to vaping.

 

[skoony]

I reserve the right to change my mind in 20- 50 years when the long term effects are known.

You are very fortunate to have the confidence to wait around 20 to 50 years
waiting for a definitive answer. I myself would consider myself very fortunate
if I could squeeze out another 20 years. My main concern is with those still smoking
and hesitant to switch to vaping because of all the negativity being being thrown at it
with no real credible evidence to back it up. What is to be said to them if in 20 to 50
years vaping is deemed to be relatively harmless to healthy individuals and a minor
inconvenience to those with other conditions. This is just as likely an outcome as
the alternative.

Regards
Mike

 

[Lessifer]

I could be wrong, but as I have stated before, the work has been presented in a science seminar. Don't know where - or how - to get the raw data, but I am sure the scientists who attended the seminar are not fools. They know a phony report when they see one. As to the headlines, it's just regular practice by the press to grab attention using provocative headlines - in politics, business, crime ... take your pick. It's not exclusive to vaping.

So you take it on faith that these scientists are "not fools." With no evidence to back up their claims. What about the scientists in the NEJM study that found formaldehyde by burning CE4 clearomizers?

I don't believe anyone involved is a fool. I believe that scientists know what will get them a grant to study, and they know how to find what will get them further grants to continue their research. They also know how to imply without stating. Notice that the scientists in this case have not said "vaping will cause this harmful effect" only that vaping seems to effect x in y way, the rest is left for the media to infer, and the public to panic over.

 

[Exchaner]

So you take it on faith that these scientists are "not fools." With no evidence to back up their claims.

That is why I said this report, and others like it, needs to undergo a peer review.

 

[Lessifer]

That is why I said this report, and others like it, needs to undergo a peer review.

Unfortunately, I no longer have much faith in the scientific process either.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
Sponsorship bias in clinical research. - PubMed - NCBI

I used to be able to read articles and just admire the sharing of knowledge without feeling compelled to look up the authors, see where their funding came from, check out their previous work, and comb through methods, data and conclusions to actually see if everything matched what they were saying. I miss those days, but what has been seen cannot be unseen.

 

[Mazinny]

So, you believe vaping is safer, and then reports come along that make you question it. Fair enough. Did you actually read the report before you questioned it though? I haven't seen anyone reject this out of hand.

Did you read this first page of this thread ?

 

[Lessifer]

Did you read this first page of this thread ?

I did actually, I have a few of the first comments. I only see one that MIGHT be construed as dismissing out of hand. A couple that could be seen as reading my comments, or likely coming from one of the other threads discussing this same presentation, and concurring. Most of the comments seem to have done a more thorough reading than the OP of the article posted.

Now, if you consider choosing skepticism over acceptance as an initial reaction, then maybe people could be considered as dismissing.

In fact, there's nothing to dismiss, as nothing has been said, other than there's another avenue that requires more research.

 

[Mazinny]

I did actually, I have a few of the first comments. I only see one that MIGHT be construed as dismissing out of hand. A couple that could be seen as reading my comments, or likely coming from one of the other threads discussing this same presentation, and concurring. Most of the comments seem to have done a more thorough reading than the OP of the article posted.

Now, if you consider choosing skepticism over acceptance as an initial reaction, then maybe people could be considered as dismissing.

In fact, there's nothing to dismiss, as nothing has been said, other than there's another avenue that requires more research.

Fair enough, if that's your take from the first page of this thread, so be it ! Btw, i agree wholly with your last sentence.

I don't expect the same level of scrutiny being applied to studies with favorable outcomes than those with unfavorable ones ( and sometimes even those perceived as unfavorable ), from an enthusiast forum, but sometimes i worry that the first thing members think of when they read unfavorable studies, is how the media will ( and does ) exaggerate the results, and the effect on the FDA deemings. I understand, but i wish there was less of a knee-jerk reaction. ( Yeas i know you don't think there are knee-jerk reactions, but we will agree to disagree ).

 

[Lessifer]

Fair enough, if that's your take from the first page of this thread, so be it ! Btw, i agree wholly with your last sentence.

I don't expect the same level of scrutiny being applied to studies with favorable outcomes than those with unfavorable ones ( and sometimes even those perceived as unfavorable ), from an enthusiast forum, but sometimes i worry that the first thing members think of when they read unfavorable studies, is how the media will ( and does ) exaggerate the results, and the effect on the FDA deemings. I understand, but i wish there was less of a knee-jerk reaction. ( Yeas i know you don't think there are knee-jerk reactions, but we will agree to disagree ).

Actually, I do agree that sometimes there are knee jerk reactions. I just don't think there were in this case, but of course that's my subjective interpretation.

This case is a bit different from what we usually see. Usually we get an article about a study, and we can almost always find the actual study. Sometimes people react before anyone has actually looked at the study. Often the initial reaction turns out to be true, but that doesn't stop it from being a knee jerk reaction. In this case though, there is no study to analyze. I suppose some of the reactions could have been formed before they realized that, but I had already looked for any sign of an actual study prior to posting in this thread.

What is the appropriate non-dismissive reaction to something that tells us nothing, but tries to imply a whole lot of negative?

ETA: I have a tendency to assume that people who post after me have read my posts. It's probably not true, but I like to think it is

 

[Kent C]

but i wish there was less of a knee-jerk reaction.

I wish there were less of a knee jerk reaction to anything that even hints at a negative reaction with all the positive aspects we have seen from ecigs. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be known but also saying there doesn't have to be a magnet to anything negative (The ANTZ and media have that pretty well covered.) or even slightly skeptical. Esp. opinions not backed up with any links.

 

[Mazinny]

What is the appropriate non-dismissive reaction to something that tells us nothing, but tries to imply a whole lot of negative?

ETA: I have a tendency to assume that people who post after me have read my posts. It's probably not true, but I like to think it is

Lol ! So you figure comments like the following would be more appropriate if implicit was a reading and full agreement with your posts :

- Disbelieve every article you read
- You should continue smoking cigarettes, quit vaping.
- I'll continue to vape as those studies are all geared toward what the Government wants so they can keep the funding for doing so.
- I'll dismiss the article and never give it another thought
.... along with a couple of personal anecdotes etc ...

 

[Lessifer]

Lol ! So you figure comments like the following would be more appropriate if implicit was a reading and full agreement with your posts :

- Disbelieve every article you read
- You should continue smoking cigarettes, quit vaping.
- I'll continue to vape as those studies are all geared toward what the Government wants so they can keep the funding for doing so.
- I'll dismiss the article and never give it another thought
.... along with a couple of personal anecdotes etc ...

-I see disbelief as skepticism.
-I'm not usually that mean, but if the non information in this article makes you question the safety of vaping over smoking, perhaps vaping isn't right for you. I believe I actually said that first.
-This does actually seem to be a study geared toward attaining funding, and gives me no reason to not continue vaping.
-The full quote is "I'll dismiss the article and never give it another thought. It's about a bogus "study" designed to reach a desired conclusion that doesn't prove anything other than the opinion of the "researcher"" perhaps bogus was harsh, but that's actually a fair observation of the article IMO, possibly not the researcher, but I have a hard time believing that the researchers are not aware that their words are being used in this way.

 

[Exchaner]

Most of the comments seem to have done a more thorough reading than the OP of the article posted.

Interesting take, but not true. I actually did read the version you suggested from another thread. That is where I learned the report was presented in a science conference. If want examples of those who haven't even read the article before disparaging it, look at the comments that effectively characterize it as just a press release - without any clinical trials

I for one am not so dismissive of the report as others are. Besides, if you read the entire thread, you will see a lot of dismissive remarks such as: this article is crap, not worth the paper it is written on etc. etc. (paraphrasing of course ...) They cite no reason for saying so, just knee jerk reactions. To be sure, the report might ultimately be discredited, but in my opinion it deserves a chance to go under scrutiny.

 

[Lessifer]

Interesting take, but not true. I actually did read the version you suggested from another thread. That is where I learned the report was presented in a science conference. If want examples of those who haven't even read the article before disparaging it, look at the comments that effectively characterize it as just a press release - without any clinical trials

I for one am not so dismissive of the report as others are. Besides, if you read the entire thread, you will see a lot of dismissive remarks such as: this article is crap, not worth the paper it is written on etc. etc. (paraphrasing of course ...) They cite no reason for saying so, just knee jerk reactions. To be sure, the report might ultimately be discredited, but in my opinion it deserves a chance to go under scrutiny.

I am one of those who has called this a press release, because in my opinion, that is what this article is. I am referring to the article, not the presentation. I can't refer to the presentation because it hasn't been made public, only the abstract has and the abstract lists conclusions without providing data. If there have been clinical trials, no information has been provided regarding them, so I don't count this as a study.

When the actual study is published, if it is ever published, I (and I assume others) will give it as much scrutiny as it deserves.

I will repeat what I find objectionable: Implications that vaping can at best, lead to a weakened immune system, and at worst lead to an autoimmune disease or even death, with no verifiable data to back up those claims. So I will continue to point out that this article, and the other articles written about this same presentation are participating in unfounded fear mongering.

 

[Exchaner]

I used to be able to read articles and just admire the sharing of knowledge without feeling compelled to look up the authors, see where their funding came from, check out their previous work, and comb through methods, data and conclusions to actually see if everything matched what they were saying. I miss those days, but what has been seen cannot be unseen.

I fully understand your concerns, but I for one am not qualified to judge whether someone's scientific work is valid or not. That is more than I can say about others who consider bluster as a good substitute for actual knowledge. You will find plenty of examples of such bluster in this and other threads.