sirally
Postman
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
- Messages
- 195
Here we go again!!
- Thread starter sirally
- Start date
zouzounaki
Olympian
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2016
- Messages
- 35,811
Deadly.
"This article has been updated on June 2019 and is based on scientific evidence. It contains direct links to the scientific references."
Based on, uh oh. Scientific references is an interesting wording. If they were talking about scientific studies surely they'd just write studies..there's lots of "mays" and "at risk of" involved too.
first source of scientific reference - link to cancer.org which then references 0 studies.
second - highlights of a study but no link to it and no note of whether subjects were "only ever used ecig" (which would be the significant part we'd want to study) or ex smokers, or dual.
third - same as first, a link to a website article which itself cites no study is a scientific reference apparently.
fourth - finally a study! one from 2016 about flavours that contain diacetyl, I think we've moved on from there.
fifth - four page pamphlet with no sources
sixth - finally our first actual source and it's interesting if dense reading and I've only really skimmed it. in short vaping shows less of the changes to the mouth cells that smoking does by quite a large degree but more than non users. if I'm being critical the study is based on 100 people which is a pretty small sample size, and ecig users are defined as ": e-cig users were those who reported current use of e-cigs for at least 3 times a week for a minimum of 6 months, and no use of combustible cigarettes or any other tobacco products in the past 6 months." so again we run into the issue of exclusively using ecigs vs ecig users who are ex smokers.
well I'm not going to go through 27 sources of an article written in bad faith but you get the point, one out of those 6 is credible/relevant and one out of 6 is pretty poor for science.
Based on, uh oh. Scientific references is an interesting wording. If they were talking about scientific studies surely they'd just write studies..there's lots of "mays" and "at risk of" involved too.
first source of scientific reference - link to cancer.org which then references 0 studies.
second - highlights of a study but no link to it and no note of whether subjects were "only ever used ecig" (which would be the significant part we'd want to study) or ex smokers, or dual.
third - same as first, a link to a website article which itself cites no study is a scientific reference apparently.
fourth - finally a study! one from 2016 about flavours that contain diacetyl, I think we've moved on from there.
fifth - four page pamphlet with no sources
sixth - finally our first actual source and it's interesting if dense reading and I've only really skimmed it. in short vaping shows less of the changes to the mouth cells that smoking does by quite a large degree but more than non users. if I'm being critical the study is based on 100 people which is a pretty small sample size, and ecig users are defined as ": e-cig users were those who reported current use of e-cigs for at least 3 times a week for a minimum of 6 months, and no use of combustible cigarettes or any other tobacco products in the past 6 months." so again we run into the issue of exclusively using ecigs vs ecig users who are ex smokers.
well I'm not going to go through 27 sources of an article written in bad faith but you get the point, one out of those 6 is credible/relevant and one out of 6 is pretty poor for science.
MrDJ
Legend
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 23,643
thats all you need to read to know its total bollocks.
scaremongering at its finest.
fact. there is more diacetyl in one cigarette than there is in the strongest reading of eliquid.
fact. wasnt diacetyl banned in uk and usa after the fiasco of suicide bunny many years ago.
think this will be picked up and debunked by Dr Farsilinos but as all the other scaremongering it will stay on the internet to scare more future quiters of cigarettes.
what do you think of this @Mawsley
edit
wasnt this debunked as well. no harm from second hand vape.
Only got as far as the first bit with the popcorn lung bullshit and closed the link. If they’re leading with totally unsubstantiated bullshit I’m betting it doesn’t improve further down the page.
Fuctifino
Achiever
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
- Messages
- 1,988
Same shit - different day
same report - different bollocks
https://www.planetofthevapes.co.uk/forums/posts/1991885/
71% or 1.7 times higher = yup same report used
Not even twice as likely to develop breathing problems as non-vapers
Again - compared to smoking percentage, nope no mention of the smoking percentage risks
Studied vapers - what DTL/MTL - how much e-juice consumption ???
What was the average: 20ml a day/week, how high nicotine/flavouring levels
nope no mention of the intake, vaping consumption etc.... etc....
I'm waiting for big tobacco companies & US FDA to try to announce:
CIGARETTES ARE PERFECTLY SAFE (as long as you don't light them)
Lost count of "could", "maybe", "possible" in these reports too
My gut feeling they took the worst case scenario of an ultra heavy vaping group
probably already with at the very least minor health issues, causing them to quit smoking
using ridiculous amounts of juice with very high concentrated flavourings/nicotine etc.....
Took the worst case scenario data & perhaps doubled it to arrive at this 71% figure
Then ran with BS scare story & medical study, giving rise to ultra high fear mongering to cover arse
than say something like 15%, get sued in 10 years time coz it was 16.5% higher risk factor or something
Think we all know vaping isn't as healthy as not vaping ffs, but I am extremely doubtful of most of the conclusion in that report
same report - different bollocks
https://www.planetofthevapes.co.uk/forums/posts/1991885/
71% or 1.7 times higher = yup same report used
Not even twice as likely to develop breathing problems as non-vapers
Again - compared to smoking percentage, nope no mention of the smoking percentage risks
Studied vapers - what DTL/MTL - how much e-juice consumption ???
What was the average: 20ml a day/week, how high nicotine/flavouring levels
nope no mention of the intake, vaping consumption etc.... etc....
I'm waiting for big tobacco companies & US FDA to try to announce:
CIGARETTES ARE PERFECTLY SAFE (as long as you don't light them)
Lost count of "could", "maybe", "possible" in these reports too
My gut feeling they took the worst case scenario of an ultra heavy vaping group
probably already with at the very least minor health issues, causing them to quit smoking
using ridiculous amounts of juice with very high concentrated flavourings/nicotine etc.....
Took the worst case scenario data & perhaps doubled it to arrive at this 71% figure
Then ran with BS scare story & medical study, giving rise to ultra high fear mongering to cover arse
than say something like 15%, get sued in 10 years time coz it was 16.5% higher risk factor or something
Think we all know vaping isn't as healthy as not vaping ffs, but I am extremely doubtful of most of the conclusion in that report
Similar threads
