... what do e-cigarettes really do to the body?

[ScottP]

...from the life sucking, money grubbing tenacles of corporate America.

There are some people that believe that in the future (maybe 20-30 or less) that the Corporations of the World will replace governments as the governments go bankrupt and the corps are the only ones with the funds to keep the world going. If that happens there will be no escape.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Yeah...okay...throw in a doomsday scenereo for good measure.

Primany matter...did Ms. Dorking lie?

 

[ScottP]

Yeah...okay...throw in a doomsday scenereo for good measure.

Primany matter...did Ms. Dorking lie?

I didn't say I believed it.

I do not profess to know what she was thinking by writing and publishing that mess, but I can say either she was being purposefully dishonest, OR that she lacked the integrity to do the due diligence to verify her sources. Either way that means she is a really really bad "journalist". I don't really see a third option, do you?

 

[bombastinator]

If Ms. Dorking's credentials are questionable as you might be suggesting, that's only about half of 'journalism's problem' today. The "quality and ethics" of mainstream news media is suffering as well.

Agreed. This person actually IS a real journalist for one, though apparently operating outside her speciality. The fault in this instance IMHO is at most only partially hers. She fell for a trap created by the funders of a probably deliberately corrupt study. It has all the hallmarks of one anyway. The lung irritation potential for those spices has been known almost as long as they’ve been imported to the west. There is NO logical reason to test them again unless you’re up to no good.
The journalistic failure here is BECAUSE of her professional status she should know better.

 

[bombastinator]

Yes the other half is catering to the lowest common denominator and using deceptive "click bait" titles in order to generate ad revenue. I agree mainstream media is also more concerned with ratings and ad revenue than with truth and objectivity.

Calling yahoo news “mainstream media” is a bit of a gift imho, but let’s ignore that one for the moment.
While I don’t disagree completely, the implication of your statement is that therefore “non-mainstream media “ is somehow better, when it is almost always infinitely worse. Nothing in this world is totally immune from some sort of corruption. There seems to be a tendency today to measure corruption as a yes/no function. “These people are corrupt but those people are corrupt too so it’s all the same”.
No it isn’t.
In a situation where corruption is omnipresent like basically everything in life in general One generally has to look for the LEAST corrupt option. And that is generally NOT non mainstream news.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

I see nothing in her writing that I can point to as not being fact.

As far as her passion, it seems rather dispassionate to me...simply a recitation of information.

I don't care to speculate on what her motivation might be.

Yahoo News - I learned early on in the www scheme of things to pretty much keep Yahoo at a distance. I'm not sure why one might seek news there...except apparently something is there along those lines.

 

[LoveVanilla]

Well I am back to thinking she is a liar. She uses another article as reference -- an article that she also wrote. And in that article claims that "Vaping could have as big an impact on the lungs as conventional smoking, new research has revealed." That's pure BS and I find absolutely nothing in the referenced research to support that conclusion.

Second is this, "A recent study conducted in the United States found that inhaling the liquids used in e-cigarette vapour can contribute to the development of both lung and bladder cancer." Sure would like to see the name or source of that study... However, she instead references a hypnotherapist as an authority for this outrageous claim. So hypnotherapists are now authorities on the causes of cancer??? PLEASE!!!

She is so deeply out of her element on this subject that there is no perceivable different between her irresponsible ignorance and purposeful lies.

 

[bombastinator]

Well I am back to thinking she is a liar. She uses another article as reference -- an article that she also wrote. And in that article claims that "Vaping could have as big an impact on the lungs as conventional smoking, new research has revealed." That's pure BS and I find absolutely nothing in the referenced research to support that conclusion.

Second is this, "A recent study conducted in the United States found that inhaling the liquids used in e-cigarette vapour can contribute to the development of both lung and bladder cancer." Sure would like to see the name or source of that study... However, she instead references a hypnotherapist as an authority for this outrageous claim. So hypnotherapists are now authorities on the causes of cancer??? PLEASE!!!

She is so deeply out of her element on this subject that there is no perceivable different between her irresponsible ignorance and purposeful lies.

Using your own work as a reference is a big no-no unless that work is also referenced, and even then it’s still frowned upon.
We’ve already established she isn’t the most careful of journalists, at least in this particular instance, and that the end result of the article is basically BS. An accusation of evil intent is still beyond reasonable imho though. Impossible? No. It’s not impossible for example that she might have gotten a kickback for smear work which would put her squarely in the ”total ....heel” catagory. There is no evidence that this happened though, and while it does occasionally, one would hope that it is at least quite uncommon.

 

[ScottP]

I see nothing in her writing that I can point to as not being fact.

Did she list a credible source? If so what was it? If not then, you cannot point to anything in the article that IS fact, beyond her name.

There was a time that both print and televised media would not go to press or air without first validating the story with a minimum of 1 source and either a corroborating source or proven legit documentation but the more the better. Now, it's anything goes. Singular un-named sources or uncited studies is more than enough for them to publish.

 

[bombastinator]

I’m curious what the writer might think of all this, but I can’t seem to be able to get a contact for her without signing up for something. Not worth it imho.
If anyone is already on twitter or LinkedIn or whatever, she seems to be contactable if anyone feels like it.

 

[ScottP]

Yahoo News - I learned early on in the www scheme of things to pretty much keep Yahoo at a distance. I'm not sure why one might seek news there...except apparently something is there along those lines.

I like yahoo "news" for the comments section, they are often quite entertaining.

 

[bombastinator]

Did she list a credible source? If so what was it? If not then, you cannot point to anything in the article that IS fact, beyond her name.

There was a time that both print and televised media would not go to press or air without first validating the story with a minimum of 1 source and either a corroborating source or proven legit documentation but the more the better. Now, it's anything goes. Singular un-named sources or uncited studies is more than enough for them to publish.

That’s sort of a hairy one. Are the sources credible? No, but they were designed by experts to LOOK credible. Especially to journalists in a hurry which is their entire reason for existing in the first place.
The only reason I know is this research has been posted here and previously debunked.

 

[Fredman1]

I see nothing in her writing that I can point to as not being fact.

I can...my problem is where to start, as the whole "article" is loaded with BS.

 

[bombastinator]

I can...my problem is where to start, as the whole "article" is loaded with BS.

It is. It’s premise is based entirely on insuficiently backgrounded information. If you happen to have a memory for past events and research regarding ecigs though it’s parsable.

There’s the first piece of data which is the FDA announcement which sounds general and without background would reasonably be considered so. My admittedly unconfirmed suspicion is that it speaks more specifically to the two companies that recently pulled a fast one on the fda and both manufacture only castrations pod mods than might be construed from the bare announcement.

The second piece of data is for whatever reason treated as three pieces. It’s research I’ve seen here before and it was pretty thoroughly debunked. Doing so required some scientific acumen.

 

[ScottP]

There’s the first piece of data which is the FDA announcement which sounds general and without background would reasonably be considered so. My admittedly unconfirmed suspicion is that it speaks more specifically to the two companies that recently pulled a fast one on the fda and both manufacture only castrations pod mods than might be construed from the bare announcement.

I have read the quote in multiple other more reputable places. It sounds like if the underage vaping keeps rising in 2019 he will start enforcing the deeming regs for ALL products until they pass the regulatory process. So yes it will be for everything, not just Juul.

 

[dripster]

Perhaps some of the ECF participants who are disappointed with the findings of the studies as reported by Ms. Dorking can provide her with studies that have findings that negate those she mentioned.

The less these kinds of yellow journalists know about vaping, the better. They will all just continue to abuse every last bit of truthful information to continue to propel the crusade against vaping, by providing a view that is even more one-sided and misleading than their last one, i.e. disinformation is their only strategy, and we need to make their strategy visible if we want vaping to survive so, the less these people know, the less they will be capable to hide their strategy that is in fact damaging to society as a whole. Anyone familiar with the work done by, for example, Royal College of Physicians and Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos will know that this is true. So instead of letting me do her job for her, just let the blatant demonization backfire on her because nonsense is still nonsense no matter how you want it served, and, I feel enough time has gone to waste dealing with nonsense so that's why we shouldn't provide her with studies, also because she's the one getting paid to find those studies, and those studies aren't exactly very hard to find, now, are they?

Certainly vaping could benefit from more journalists who view the realm in a brighter light. Has someone attempted to take up dialogue with Ms. Dorking or are we just here to rant among the loyal?

Vaping COULD benefit, but it really never DOES benefit. Excepting maybe if you're willing to fight fire with fire, which is what I suggest doing.

 

[dripster]

manufacture only castrations pod mods

Eloquently put.

 

[dripster]

So I'm going to write this mildly scientific study to show that vaping will make you live forever, and, after I'm finished I'll put the pope's name on it. (Not really.)