I understand your point jman8, but to me, objectivity is universal. It should not depend on which forum you are on. Otherwise it becomes a forum with an agenda.
Vaping vs Smoking
- Thread starter Exchaner
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Agreed in principle. But I'm yet to encounter true objectivity. Everyone has an agenda. If a scientist has a hypothesis, they have an agenda. They might not fully realize it yet, but if they are following the scientific method (which is clearly an agenda), they'll likely discover it.
As @Robino1 noted, we are holding discussions on eCigs while others (anti types) are adding propaganda to the mix. I'm always curious how objectivity deals with propaganda. IMO, it deals with it in the way that I and @man00ver chose to address the link cited in OP. Might not show up as what we all imagine 'perfect objectivity' to do in face of propaganda, but I honestly think it comes close.
Again, I'm truly up for further discussing / exploring the cited link in OP. Thus the opposite of dismissive. I enjoy taking objective notions and applying it to what the author of that article is conveying.
Yes they did lie about second hand smoke, and they are lying about vaping too. The lies about vaping have much more to do with the money, and the liars are paid to lie, by the states that took big money from big tobacco in master settlement agreements, that they then spent before they even had it. When cigarette sales declined drastically due to the advent of vaping and the numbers of people switching the war was on and the gloves were off. Fake studies and outright lies were suddenly flooding into the media and the web about vaping. I was recently shocked by how many anti-vaping videos are on YouTube, and how brazen the lies really were. It's going to go on for a long time and the liars aren't going to stop. They want us back on the cigarettes that they make money on, and that they took money to look the other way about. Our health and our lives mean nothing to them, it's just about the money.
As an example... in the piece linked from the article that is linked in OP of this thread (with me so far?), it says:
This is not a scientific assertion. It is an assertion from a scientist, but this does not make it scientific. Thus, it is not objective. Or perhaps put in the words being used here it is 'potentially objective' and 'could one day be shown to be scientific' in what is being purported. Today (or the day that assertion was made) is not that day.
"A potential cause for concern" strikes me as having an agenda, and using propaganda at this moment, to raise a yellow flag (not a red one, for surely that isn't warranted).
Now, I intentionally chose a single line from that because a) it is a statement of conclusion and b) because I'm very willing to do same thing with all statements in the piece. To understand what is methodology in play, how scientific is it (honestly) and what is it actually saying/implying. In the interest of objectivity, I'm going to constantly wonder if we could say similar things about other substances. I'm also going to be wondering about why the constant comparisons to tobacco / tobacco smoke, unless there is a well known agenda at work that is otherwise being taken for granted and deemed better left unexplored (as in don't question us on why we constantly feel a need to compare it to cigarette smoking). Me, I'm going to constantly feel that need since it strikes me as not really having a desire to be objective.
This is not a scientific assertion. It is an assertion from a scientist, but this does not make it scientific. Thus, it is not objective. Or perhaps put in the words being used here it is 'potentially objective' and 'could one day be shown to be scientific' in what is being purported. Today (or the day that assertion was made) is not that day.
"A potential cause for concern" strikes me as having an agenda, and using propaganda at this moment, to raise a yellow flag (not a red one, for surely that isn't warranted).
Now, I intentionally chose a single line from that because a) it is a statement of conclusion and b) because I'm very willing to do same thing with all statements in the piece. To understand what is methodology in play, how scientific is it (honestly) and what is it actually saying/implying. In the interest of objectivity, I'm going to constantly wonder if we could say similar things about other substances. I'm also going to be wondering about why the constant comparisons to tobacco / tobacco smoke, unless there is a well known agenda at work that is otherwise being taken for granted and deemed better left unexplored (as in don't question us on why we constantly feel a need to compare it to cigarette smoking). Me, I'm going to constantly feel that need since it strikes me as not really having a desire to be objective.
I am not ready to dismiss the article in the OP as a lie until someone clearly spells out where the lie is. As far as I know, the paper was presented in a science conference attended by experts and scientists - hardly the type of people you can easily lie to.
“We conclude that toxic aldehydes present in electronic cigarette aerosols are potentially a cause for concern and could adverse impact the cardiovascular health of users,” Conklin said.
The key to the above quote are the words "potentially" and "could." The way I interpret that, it means further investigation is needed. In reading a report, I usually ignore the conclusions anyway. Those are written in such a way to protect the authors from future lawsuits/legal claims. The most important part of any report in my opinion is the hard data. I don't need an expert to interpret the data for me. I can do it myself.
“We conclude that toxic aldehydes present in electronic cigarette aerosols are potentially a cause for concern and could adverse impact the cardiovascular health of users,” Conklin said.
The key to the above quote are the words "potentially" and "could." The way I interpret that, it means further investigation is needed. In reading a report, I usually ignore the conclusions anyway. Those are written in such a way to protect the authors from future lawsuits/legal claims. The most important part of any report in my opinion is the hard data. I don't need an expert to interpret the data for me. I can do it myself.
Last edited:
And yet, what you have in this case, is all conclusion and no hard data. Unless I missed something? Was there a results section, and a complete discussion of the methodology? Did we see a full breakdown of the lab results?
Or did we just get a conclusion that was, yes worded so that legally it is ambiguous, slanted in a way so as to lead to headlines such as "E-cigs may be making you sick"?
Hard data? Am I missing something? Exchaner I believe what the article posted in the OP is reporting on is a study that will be done in the future and the "results" being reported in the article are actually just preliminary findings from a small look into vaping and it's effects on the immune system. The actual full scale study hasn't been performed yet. So there really is no hard data from which we can form an opinion yet, at least as far as this particular future study is concerned.
Let me spell it out a little clearer.
The article says "New Study Shows How People Who Vape May Be Making Themselves Sick" and it does no such thing.
Disregard that there is a big difference between a published and peer reviewed study and a preliminary study presentation. Take out the ambiguous "May" which as jman pointed out, can make nearly any combination of clauses potentially true. What you are left with, and what will be the public takeaway is "Ecigs are making people sick." When what we have, in this very limited representation of actual information, is that ecigs have an effect on certain genes, the consequences of which are not known at this time.
The article says "New Study Shows How People Who Vape May Be Making Themselves Sick" and it does no such thing.
Disregard that there is a big difference between a published and peer reviewed study and a preliminary study presentation. Take out the ambiguous "May" which as jman pointed out, can make nearly any combination of clauses potentially true. What you are left with, and what will be the public takeaway is "Ecigs are making people sick." When what we have, in this very limited representation of actual information, is that ecigs have an effect on certain genes, the consequences of which are not known at this time.
Perfectly valid point. I wonder if the hard data is published somewhere.
Hmmm. I always thought it was an actual clinical trial - small or not. Am I wrong in assuming that? I seriously doubt if they would reach such conclusions without some type of actual clinical trial. Where are you getting your information from?
Last edited:
The only published material regarding this is the presentation abstract. The presentation has not been made available, as far as I can tell. No doubt they actually performed some tests, but we have no clue as to the scope of what they did. That is the issue that I have with this whole thing. Which I know I have stated before, in this thread as well as the other thread that I posted the link to, discussing this same presentation.
I have to say I am completely on the same page as both Robino1 and Vaslovik. And yes, there is a pronounced sensitivity to the 'vaping is bad' dialogue. I honestly believe there should be, there needs to be a sensitivity to it and a preparedness to actually stand up and fight for this particular freedom (be it good or bad). There were plenty of smokers out there that didn't believe the 'rules' could ever prevent them from smoking outside too. Have you visited any Theme Parks lately?
Notice the propaganda machine is beginning to rev it's engine. It starts this way, for everything. All it takes is a few cleverly positioned articles here and there. For whatever the reason, people were very quick to jump on the Anti-Smoking bandwagon. The 'Second Hand Smoke' just played nicely into supporting their cause. Even though we know it was a strategic lie, how many people out there do you think even know that it is a lie? None of the Anti-Smokers I know, are aware that the whole second hand smoke rhetoric was B.S.. In fact, they even tried to create a fear over 'Third Hand Smoke', which was ludicrous, so much so, I noticed that whole thing went quiet very quickly. That was stretching it even for them but they tried it none the less. All I am saying is that there are bound to be endless new "Publications" motivated by less than altruistic goals. I do think we need to discuss them and be aware of them both the merits and otherwise. It certainly has been a very interesting read all the way through this discussion. Name calling aside
I do want to add that I support the person who suggested starting his own study, as Dr. B. S., that is a brilliant suggestion!
If you read this from February 12th..
Abstract: Pulmonary Effects of Exposure to Tobacco Smoke and New Tobacco Products (2016 AAAS Annual Meeting (February 11-15, 2016))
You'll notice the last sentence states this..
There are no official results yet. "Our studies will ascertain" is equal to saying the study is not complete.
Penn and Teller did an episode of their BS series on second hand smoke, and showed quite conclusively that it was in fact, BS. When it comes to vaping and those who hate us for it, it's even greater, and more smelly BS.
I've run into a number of people who got real nasty with me because they saw me vaping, and just had to come at me for it, because they just need something to hate real bad. There are people like that out there, and they are the ones that buy into all the ANTZ and anti-vaping lies being spread, just because of what they are, and their need to have something to hate.
We can Thank all the Anti-Smoking legislation for that, it was effectively a license for people to discard any civility and publicly attack smokers as they please. Manners? Who needs those with a license to be as nasty as you please. Sadly, it is just a good excuse for people to be nasty, I totally agree, they need to have something to hate. How nice for them, they can hate and have the public backing to do so.
I think you are parsing the above quote wrong. It could also say,
"We conclude that toxic aldehydes present in electronic cigarette aerosols are potentially safe
and, would not have a adverse impact the cardiovascular health of users,” Conklin said.
Both statements are equally correct.
The word potential when used in this context does not mean it will or ever could cause
harm. The opposite is just as true. The quote literally means,we don't know whether its bad,
while eliminating from the alternative it also could be quite safe.
Don't get hung up on the semantics. Potential is not nor has ever been a statement
conferring actuality. I could potentially be beamed up to the mothership tonight.
In the meantime I won't be holding my breath waiting.
Regards
Mike
They still circulate that lie. It's affecting people's minds, both guilt on one end, and fear on the other. It affects housing sales, and has been pushed in evolved form as 3rd-hand vaping dangers.
It may not have caught on as much as they would've liked, but it's still doing damage, and is still repeated in the press to this day.
Beyond comprehension, frustrating how gullible people can truly be. One of my professors (quite a long time ago) had produced a paper that actually proved that the effects of 2nd Hand Smoke were no more dangerous than breathing in other types of airborne 'non toxic' substances. Like anything else too much of anything is never a good thing and can become harmful. He had Doctor's testimonials, Scientists and others that supported his work. He was not allowed to publish it. It was contrary to the message the Government and Health Agencies were trying to deliver. I will always remember him saying, people can see the smoke, they can smell the smoke so it is easy for them to identify it as something harmful. Unfortunately the things that will kill you are not the ones you can see. Then we were discussing the toxins that will kill you such as those that lurk in recycled air systems many others and no you can't see them, or smell them .. but I digress. What is it about Propaganda that leads people so blindly? I heard the 3rd hand smoke non-sense for the first time on the radio driving home from work (about a year and half ago, maybe 2?) and literally started cursing at the idiots on the radio for even allowing it on air. Just boggles the mind.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked