Who is behind the "95% Safer"..?
- Thread starter Cool_Breeze
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Agreed.
In my 4 to 5 years being here on the forums I have witnessed many people successfully quit a long term smoking habit that they pretty much accepted for many years, only to question every aspect of vaping.
If they don't notice a difference in how they feel, comparatively speaking, perhaps their long lived smoking habit is the cause.
Even German scientists in the 30's pointed out the dangers of smoking due to carbon output from the combustion of tobacco. That's one important factor absent from vaping.
If it was offensive, it wasn't really my intention. You are a vaper, not a scientist. Or are you claiming otherwise? You seem to have suggested that you are reading a lot of journal articles. As someone who has published scientific articles (in a field completely unrelated to vaping) and reviewed other articles that were submitted for publication (in my field), I am more familiar with journal articles. And I know any scientist would check the methods. I don't claim any expertise on the subject of vaping research. But I do know that you are a layperson. That's okay. I use a cell phone but I can't design a microprocessor for one.
I like vaping. I just don't think you know what you are talking about.
Last edited:
So what part do I have wrong? My first post about the document was based on the part you posted. Once you posted the rest I read that and modified my viewpoint based on the new data. So what part of the second post is wrong?
It's really easy to say someone is "wrong" and "don't know what they are talking about" while not saying how or what part they have wrong.
Easy sounds good to me at this hour. Our last exchange in another topic, I pointed out several errors. I'm not sure what good will come of making the effort again. What exactly is your expertise in science?
You haven't made any effort to explain what I have wrong. All you have said is that there are more studies, questioning if I have ever read one before, and insinuating that I am reading and interpreting it incorrectly. So it seems to me you are just doubling down on your opinion that I am wrong either without knowing how I am wrong or lacking the ability to articulate how I am supposedly wrong.
Let me refresh your memory of what you have said, these are COMPLETE, UNEDITED quotes, none of which say how or what is wrong with what I have said.
If you have an opinion that is not "you're wrong, nanny nanny boo boo" then I'd love to hear it otherwise I think we are done.
Okay...Scientific Literacy Quiz time...
1) How many steps are there in the Scientific Method?
2) How many times in a second does 60Hz Alternating Currnet (50Hz for those in England and perhaps elswhere in the world) change direction of flow of current?
3) Who was the well known German that spearheaded the modern genetics effort?
1) How many steps are there in the Scientific Method?
2) How many times in a second does 60Hz Alternating Currnet (50Hz for those in England and perhaps elswhere in the world) change direction of flow of current?
3) Who was the well known German that spearheaded the modern genetics effort?
Last edited:
People smoke for nicotine but they die from the tar.
-Professor Michael Russell
There is no tar in vapor. Vaping is safer than smoking--100% safer, if you ask me. Please note that we are talking about vaping being safer, as in harm reduction, and not about vaping being 100% or 95% safe. Just safer. And there's plenty of good science to support that assertion. Even the ANTZ agree that vaping is safer--so their last arguments are "But you're still using nicotine" and "Save the children."
ETA: So you're saying that all the research conducted and published by various institutions and investigators in several countries to date is no good? And that the Royal College of Physicians and PHE are corrupt and uninformed and lying to us because "half a dozen Swiss registered companies whose sole owner’s business activities are central to rising concerns about the credibility of Public Health England (PHE)" say so? Who is this Swiss (?) "sole owner" and why is he trying to discredit PHE? Why should we believe him and not everybody else? Never mind.
Carry on.
Last edited:
Morning, sunshine.
I feel a bit like a parent following behind their kids and picking up after them. Here is one example:
“Daily e-cigarette use, adjusted for smoking conventional cigarettes as well as other risk factors, is associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction.”
Association Between Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction.
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Oct;55(4):455-461
Like last time, you made an exaggerated claim. And as before, you put the burden on others to do the reading for you. I have no doubt that you won’t like this article or any other article that is not saying what you want to hear. You are a good debater who can turn and twist a discussion. Are you in marketing?
Oh really? You left out a several of these examples:
You said there weren’t any articles about benzene and vaping, and I showed you one with the title: “Benzene formation in electronic cigarettes”.
You said the study was useless because they didn’t give the ohms etc and I showed you the article did give the ohms etc.
You said benzene couldn’t be formed without additives and I said that figure 1 and table 1 showed benzene could be formed with just PG and VG.
You said the numbers were the same as benzene in air and I said that 5000 was greater than 1 etc.
I feel a bit like a parent following behind their kids and picking up after them.
Here is one example:“Daily e-cigarette use, adjusted for smoking conventional cigarettes as well as other risk factors, is associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction.”
Association Between Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction.
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Oct;55(4):455-461
Like last time, you made an exaggerated claim. And as before, you put the burden on others to do the reading for you. I have no doubt that you won’t like this article or any other article that is not saying what you want to hear. You are a good debater who can turn and twist a discussion. Are you in marketing?
Oh really? You left out a several of these examples:
You said there weren’t any articles about benzene and vaping, and I showed you one with the title: “Benzene formation in electronic cigarettes”.
You said the study was useless because they didn’t give the ohms etc and I showed you the article did give the ohms etc.
You said benzene couldn’t be formed without additives and I said that figure 1 and table 1 showed benzene could be formed with just PG and VG.
You said the numbers were the same as benzene in air and I said that 5000 was greater than 1 etc.
You're kidding, right? You'e quoting Stanton Glantz? Do you know who he is? He's the worst ANTZ on this planet.
And this is a survey--not a study.
"METHODS: The National Health Interview Surveys of 2014 (n=36,697) and 2016 (n=33,028) were used to examine the cross-sectional association between e-cigarette use."
I'm not discounting anything other than the speculation that the vaping style doesn't matter in this regard. It most certainly can, and does, matter... an awful lot actually, as the point was about accurately controlling surface temperature of the coils, which is exactly what high wattage DL on a mech with fast wicking advanced coil builds and using high VG juices lets me achieve, but you wouldn't know that, as you already have discounted it before you even gave it an honest try so, per usual, the pot is calling the kettle black.
I come here mainly to be entertained. This typical fake argument of yours has been really very amusing, thank you!
Whats the difference of being 100% safer than smoking and being 100% safe?
Well, being safer than smoking is really not difficult--we all know how dangerous smoking is and it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. NRT, Swedish snus, and vaping are much safer ways of getting nicotine into our bloodstream than burning tobacco leaves. Hence the concept of harm reduction.
Whether vaping in itself--not in comparison to smoking--is perfectly safe remains to be seen. There are all kinds of potential dangers and unknowns associated with inhaling vapor + flavorings (diketones, various aldehydes, heavy metals, etc.). Besides, nothing is 100% safe--not even water or vitamins.
You're kidding, right? You'e quoting Stanton Glantz? Do you know who he is? He's the worst ANTZ on this planet.
Do you have a scientific basis for objecting to the conclusion or do you just not like the guy? I wouldn't make an argument that there is no heart disease until it is proven otherwise.
I'm not sure why you make a point of it. I don't call it a study but I would not object to it being called a study. It's a pretty general term. I did call the article about benzene a "study". And I did say that surveys aren't my thing.
Yes, add more speculation. I never tried to even suggest that vaping is so unsafe, and, on the contrary I'm the one who is telling you I am thoroughly confident the level of formaldehyde I inhale is profoundly lower than you are trying to portray with your colorful graph and your speculation that surrounds it.
Everything he's ever written has been totally debunked. He has an agenda. He is funded by the makers of Nicorette. So yes, after 10 years of following his work, I have formed an opinion about the quality and motivations of his publications. I also know that he's a liar. It has nothing to do with disliking him. He's been completely discredited and nobody takes him seriously any more. Please search this forum for "Stanton Glantz."
Search Results for Query: Glantz | E-Cigarette Forum
I'm not making any such argument. I'm just questioning your sources.
Please show me a reputable, scientific, and reproducible study and we'll talk. I have no time to discuss Stanton Glantz. Life is too short.
And now I'm really out of here!
Last edited:
I heard a rumor saying you have to drown a child in a barrel of tar before you can become a member of the Royal College of Physicians.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
