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.
Usually, as part of the scientific method, one conducts preliminary testing and uses that as a prompt for further research. Things like a two tailed t-test, for example, can’t tell you the direction of change but only that there is a change.
Or, you notice a pattern while doing other research, and then start another experiment to do proper statistical analysis.
The claim of “faking research” is an extremely serious one, and may be considered libelous.
Regarding nicotine only being mildly harmful, would you care to address any of the numerous studies I linked earlier to address that claim?
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:
Usually, as part of the scientific method, one conducts preliminary testing and uses that as a prompt for further research. Things like a two tailed t-test, for example, can’t tell you the direction of change but only that there is a change.
Or, you notice a pattern while doing other research, and then start another experiment to do proper statistical analysis.
The claim of “faking research” is an extremely serious one, and may be considered libelous.
Regarding nicotine only being mildly harmful, would you care to address any of the numerous studies I linked earlier to address that claim?