So far, the only sketchy science I’ve seen has been people trying to claim vapes are killing our children. It’s a classic moral hysteria. Every. Single. Case. Of kids being harmed by vapes has been sketchy Chinese shit, which they wouldn’t try to get if you people weren’t so insistent on banning vapes in the US!
I’m arguing that vapes are less harmful than alcohol, fast food, or car exhaust. Less harmful than sitting at a desk all day. Less harmful than any of a thousand things people do daily. This absolute hysteria around vaping needs to end.
And it’s less a conspiracy than a social movement - if you want funding, find vapes to be harmful. If you want your career destroyed, tell the truth. I don’t think there’s a cabal of evil moustache-twirling scientists; I think there’s a very powerful social and financial incentive to come to certain conclusions.
I don’t think the science is sketchy - I’ve linked 4 or 5 studies so far which seem to indicate that nicotine has cancer promoting effects and seem to be in mostly decent journals. (I’m not an oncologist ofc, if you’d like to make some arguments about the impact factors of those journals, that’s usually the last refuge of “the science clearly shows something I don’t like.”) Here’s another:
And yes - we are surrounded by carcinogens. The harm of nicotine is that it facilitates those carcinogenic effects. If you’ll read that article, or the others I’ve linked - that’s what the problem is. Carcinogen + nicotine = increased risk of cancer.
if you want funding, find vapes to be harmful. If you want your career destroyed, tell the truth.
What is more financially incentivized here? Let’s “qui bono” our conspiracy theory.
Do you think that Juul or Phillip Morris or whatever wouldn’t fund studies that said vape is harmless? When we think, who has the money for funding, who makes money from the conception of vape as harmless…
Why exactly do scientists and the government have a “party line” against vapes? Do you not realize that the same arguments you are making now were made about cigarettes?
Edit: diving into that study more:
In some cases, cellular damage from e-cigs was found to be more extensive [my emphasis] than the damage imposed by traditional cigarettes [56]. Comparing the exposure of different bronchial epithelial cell isolates from COPD patients with vaporized JUUL and a reference standard cigarette showed augmented cell cytotoxicity, especially in response to flavored e-cig aerosols and LDH secretion as previously reported [57]. A 2019 study on the airway smooth muscle cells (ASMCs) of COPD patients showed increased secretion of IL8 following e-cigarette exposure, supporting other reports that e-cigarettes lead to increased neutrophilic inflammation in pulmonary tissues [55]. The findings in this study suggest the progression of COPD may be accelerated by e-cigarette use [55]. The pathogenesis of COPD is highly associated with increased inflammation, particularly from macrophages and neutrophils [55]. Of note, as previously mentioned, even the carrier liquid component propylene glycol can negatively affect the airways: Using bronchial epithelial cells and an in vivo sheep model, it was demonstrated that exposure to e-cig aerosol of 100% propylene glycol resulted in increased mucus concentration as relevant to lung disease and COPD [58], Figure 1. The exposure of human airway epithelial cells to e-cig aerosols can increase the secretion of inflammatory cytokines, such as IL6 and IL8. Furthermore, human lung fibroblasts show stress responses and morphological changes upon e-cig exposure, such as an increased secretion of IL8 or even cell death, especially after treatment with cinnamon-flavored e-liquid [59].
Do you think that Juul or Phillip Morris or whatever wouldn’t fund studies that said vape is harmless?
Absolutely! Cigarettes are the money makers. Vapes have been eating into their profits. When vapes are restricted, cigarette usage goes way up.
I’ve linked 4 or 5 studies so far which seem to indicate that nicotine has cancer promoting effects
The problem as I’ve mentioned is these studies will have titles and abstracts that say vapes are more dangerous than fentanyl, but the actual science doesn’t support that conclusion. Typically the study will show that vapes can cause cancer in some way, but completely fail to give any context for how dangerous it is in comparison with other environmental factors. In the worst case, they’ll actually cook the books with insane concentrations of nicotine or outrageous assumptions about vape use. Well I guess the worst case was that one study which literally fabricated data, but that’s an outlier.
No. You are trolling. You have fallen for a conspiracy theory - you have not read a single one of the articles I have linked. You have hyper fixated on an article which you think you can use your amateur level science skills to debunk, and find yourself completely unable to face the prospect of being challenged on interpreting a scientific paper. This hyper fixation has also lead you to make the extremely grievous claim of data fabrication, which you had no evidence or basis to claim, and could possibly be considered libel.
Because you are emotionally reactive and incapable of accepting when you are wrong, you grasp at straws for any stupid reason you can to deny the fact that nicotine is harmful - whether Phillip Morris sells it to you in a cigarette or a pod.
I read, reviewed, and linked TEN STUDIES that you refused to
Ah fuck it you’re not even listening. I don’t often use the block button, I ideologically disagree with blocking anyone who disagrees with you. So consider this an honor.
So I need to debunk your debunking of these studies, but you don’t need to address my studies that forward my claim? A truly novel approach to science.
I do find your blocking of me a concession my friend - I do recommend therapy as well.
Phillip Morris sells vapes. Cigarette companies have been pivoting, because of the false conception that vapes are safe.
The problem as I’ve mentioned is these studies will have titles and abstracts that say vapes are more dangerous than fentanyl, but the actual science doesn’t support that conclusion.
Is this true of any of the six or so studies I’ve linked so far? Most of what I’m pulling isn’t from the abstracts btw.
In the worst case, they’ll actually cook the books with insane concentrations of nicotine or outrageous assumptions about vape use. Well I guess the worst case was that one study which literally fabricated data, but that’s an outlier.
Can you give specific examples of this happening? Name of study, institution?
Is this coming from Joe Rogan or something? Nicotine denialism is wild.
Sorry, I had to take a break from Lemmy. Sometimes the stupid gets overwhelming.
Can you give specific examples of this happening?
Did you not read my two very long and detailed analyses of the various studies the NIH cited to support their vape hysteria statements? It takes a long time to go through any given study with a critical eye (you have to research the context for the data they publish) so I’d prefer not to for the grab bag of studies you linked.
If you insist, I can look over them this weekend. But the issues generally boil down to either lumping cigarettes and vapes together, or taking numbers wildly out of context to arrive at a desired conclusion. I did name and link the specific studies I already reviewed in those two comments. And yes, one of them literally cited “unpunlished private data” ie absolutely nothing, and then drew conclusions from it.
I wanted the study you claimed that data was faked on specifically as I recall. A doi, an authors name, a title? Willing to start this back up again - how about this for some terms of engagement?
You share one study and your interpretation of it, and I’ll respond in kind? I’m very happy to read studies - a favorite way to tutor several topics is “let’s pull up a random study and analyze it.”
Just to clarify your claims are:
Nicotine is not harmful when ingested via vape/electronic cigarettes devices.
There is a conspiracy on the part of the government, the tobacco industry, and research scientists to hide this fact.
An earlier claim, that I think is categorically false and you thus must concede is:
3) The substance ingested is just water.
Directionally accurate but too superlative. I’d modify them to be
Nicotine is marginally harmful when ingested via vapes/electronic cigarettes, in the same ballpark as any number of harmful things people do daily with no furor about them, and exponentially less harmful than tobacco cigarettes.
There is an overwhelmingly strong financial and social motivation for scientists and governments to hide this fact. I don’t believe anyone is literally conspiring in the sense of an evil mastermind plan, just a confluence of factors that make it unfeasible to release a study with conclusions contrary to the narrative.
The substance exhaled is effectively just water vapor. That’s not a backtrack, that was my original claim.
Also if you plan on doing that thing where you keep narrowing and narrowing the focus of the conversation until you can do a gotcha like “aha! You said they ‘are studying’ but in fact they completed this study in the past therefore they ‘have studied’ it which makes you a liar and everything you say wrong” then that’s just trolling and there’s no point to this conversation at all.
Yes. They cited “Unpublished studies from our laboratory” which is nothing. Being charitable, they actually did all the work and then just decided for the hell of it to not publish.
As I said in my post:
Their model is convincing enough: nicotine activates certain signaling pathways which starts a cascade effect causing out of control cell proliferation (aka cancer). But the first domino in that chain is literally “trust me, bro” with no published experimental data.
So far, the only sketchy science I’ve seen has been people trying to claim vapes are killing our children. It’s a classic moral hysteria. Every. Single. Case. Of kids being harmed by vapes has been sketchy Chinese shit, which they wouldn’t try to get if you people weren’t so insistent on banning vapes in the US!
I’m arguing that vapes are less harmful than alcohol, fast food, or car exhaust. Less harmful than sitting at a desk all day. Less harmful than any of a thousand things people do daily. This absolute hysteria around vaping needs to end.
And it’s less a conspiracy than a social movement - if you want funding, find vapes to be harmful. If you want your career destroyed, tell the truth. I don’t think there’s a cabal of evil moustache-twirling scientists; I think there’s a very powerful social and financial incentive to come to certain conclusions.
I don’t think the science is sketchy - I’ve linked 4 or 5 studies so far which seem to indicate that nicotine has cancer promoting effects and seem to be in mostly decent journals. (I’m not an oncologist ofc, if you’d like to make some arguments about the impact factors of those journals, that’s usually the last refuge of “the science clearly shows something I don’t like.”) Here’s another:
And yes - we are surrounded by carcinogens. The harm of nicotine is that it facilitates those carcinogenic effects. If you’ll read that article, or the others I’ve linked - that’s what the problem is. Carcinogen + nicotine = increased risk of cancer.
What is more financially incentivized here? Let’s “qui bono” our conspiracy theory.
Do you think that Juul or Phillip Morris or whatever wouldn’t fund studies that said vape is harmless? When we think, who has the money for funding, who makes money from the conception of vape as harmless…
Why exactly do scientists and the government have a “party line” against vapes? Do you not realize that the same arguments you are making now were made about cigarettes?
Edit: diving into that study more:
Absolutely! Cigarettes are the money makers. Vapes have been eating into their profits. When vapes are restricted, cigarette usage goes way up.
The problem as I’ve mentioned is these studies will have titles and abstracts that say vapes are more dangerous than fentanyl, but the actual science doesn’t support that conclusion. Typically the study will show that vapes can cause cancer in some way, but completely fail to give any context for how dangerous it is in comparison with other environmental factors. In the worst case, they’ll actually cook the books with insane concentrations of nicotine or outrageous assumptions about vape use. Well I guess the worst case was that one study which literally fabricated data, but that’s an outlier.
To clarify, you have no evidence of this and this would possibly be considered libel.
Ok, so you are just trolling. Got it. Fuck off.
No. You are trolling. You have fallen for a conspiracy theory - you have not read a single one of the articles I have linked. You have hyper fixated on an article which you think you can use your amateur level science skills to debunk, and find yourself completely unable to face the prospect of being challenged on interpreting a scientific paper. This hyper fixation has also lead you to make the extremely grievous claim of data fabrication, which you had no evidence or basis to claim, and could possibly be considered libel.
Because you are emotionally reactive and incapable of accepting when you are wrong, you grasp at straws for any stupid reason you can to deny the fact that nicotine is harmful - whether Phillip Morris sells it to you in a cigarette or a pod.
I read, reviewed, and linked TEN STUDIES that you refused to
Ah fuck it you’re not even listening. I don’t often use the block button, I ideologically disagree with blocking anyone who disagrees with you. So consider this an honor.
So I need to debunk your debunking of these studies, but you don’t need to address my studies that forward my claim? A truly novel approach to science.
I do find your blocking of me a concession my friend - I do recommend therapy as well.
Phillip Morris sells vapes. Cigarette companies have been pivoting, because of the false conception that vapes are safe.
Is this true of any of the six or so studies I’ve linked so far? Most of what I’m pulling isn’t from the abstracts btw.
Can you give specific examples of this happening? Name of study, institution?
Is this coming from Joe Rogan or something? Nicotine denialism is wild.
Sorry, I had to take a break from Lemmy. Sometimes the stupid gets overwhelming.
Did you not read my two very long and detailed analyses of the various studies the NIH cited to support their vape hysteria statements? It takes a long time to go through any given study with a critical eye (you have to research the context for the data they publish) so I’d prefer not to for the grab bag of studies you linked.
If you insist, I can look over them this weekend. But the issues generally boil down to either lumping cigarettes and vapes together, or taking numbers wildly out of context to arrive at a desired conclusion. I did name and link the specific studies I already reviewed in those two comments. And yes, one of them literally cited “unpunlished private data” ie absolutely nothing, and then drew conclusions from it.
I wanted the study you claimed that data was faked on specifically as I recall. A doi, an authors name, a title? Willing to start this back up again - how about this for some terms of engagement?
You share one study and your interpretation of it, and I’ll respond in kind? I’m very happy to read studies - a favorite way to tutor several topics is “let’s pull up a random study and analyze it.”
Just to clarify your claims are:
An earlier claim, that I think is categorically false and you thus must concede is: 3) The substance ingested is just water.
I gave all that information in the exhaustive post you didn’t read: “Nicotine as a mitogenic stimulus for pancreatic acinar cell proliferation”, Chowdhury, doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i46.7428
Directionally accurate but too superlative. I’d modify them to be
Nicotine is marginally harmful when ingested via vapes/electronic cigarettes, in the same ballpark as any number of harmful things people do daily with no furor about them, and exponentially less harmful than tobacco cigarettes.
There is an overwhelmingly strong financial and social motivation for scientists and governments to hide this fact. I don’t believe anyone is literally conspiring in the sense of an evil mastermind plan, just a confluence of factors that make it unfeasible to release a study with conclusions contrary to the narrative.
The substance exhaled is effectively just water vapor. That’s not a backtrack, that was my original claim.
To clarify again, before I address any of your other claims -
Is:
“Nicotine as a mitogenic stimulus for pancreatic acinar cell proliferation”, Chowdhury, doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i46.7428
the study which you claim faked data? If not, which study do you claim faked data?
Also if you plan on doing that thing where you keep narrowing and narrowing the focus of the conversation until you can do a gotcha like “aha! You said they ‘are studying’ but in fact they completed this study in the past therefore they ‘have studied’ it which makes you a liar and everything you say wrong” then that’s just trolling and there’s no point to this conversation at all.
Yes. They cited “Unpublished studies from our laboratory” which is nothing. Being charitable, they actually did all the work and then just decided for the hell of it to not publish.
As I said in my post: