VapinGreek
Postman
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2012
- Messages
- 190
Replay is up, featuring lab reports testing the toxicity of vapor vs tobacco smoke on cultured heart cells!
Last edited by a moderator:
Must Watch! VP Live Effects of Smoke and Vapour on Live Heart Cells
- Thread starter VapinGreek
- Start date
K
KulrMeStoopid
Guest
Scroll to about 16:43 minutes in to see the study.
The results will SHOCK the Anti THR activists and pat us ECIG users on the back.
Thank you @VapingGreek for doing this episode!!
The results will SHOCK the Anti THR activists and pat us ECIG users on the back.
Thank you @VapingGreek for doing this episode!!
AnnaLaw
Postman
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2012
- Messages
- 503
The government ever admit they were wrong? They never do so openly, just say things like 'vaping is more harmful than smoking'.
steffijade
Achiever
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 3,405
Personally, I have no doubt that vaping is less damaging to health than smoking because I've witnessed the impact on my own health firsthand... but that said, I feel a need to play devil's advocate on a few points from this video.
In the test, there appeared to be a different method for extracting the tobacco smoke than for extracting the vapour. Why was the flask being agitated during the vapour extraction but not during the tobacco smoke extraction and what effect could this possibly have on the final results?
It appears that the method of extracting the vapour was being made up 'on the fly'. Surely the parameters of the test should have been decided prior to the test and adhered to.
When the tobacco solutions were being transferred to the cultures, there was no cleaning of the pipette in between different concentrations... could this not lead to a risk of cross contamination and therefore, skewed results?.
I'm certainly no scientist and my questions may seem niave but isn't that descriptive of the vast majority of the public? How many of us possess the scientific training necessary to fully understand the processes being employed in the test. Although the slides seem pretty conclusive at first glance, it should be remembered that the anti smoking lobby is not above cherry picking to try and back up their arguments. Are we simply to take it on trust that a study financed by a vested interest in vaping would operate any differently?
I suppose that's the general point I'm trying to make.... trust.
This study was paid for by a vested interest and (please correct me if I'm wrong) as I understand it, the true test of any study's validity comes from peer review. I for one, would be interested to hear the opinions of others in the scientific community (obviously, those without a vested interest) regarding this study.
I can understand the temptation to say fight fire with fire and if the antis want to produce cherry picked data then why shouldn't we? But isn't the object of the exercise to get to the actual truth?... not a skewed version (in either direction).
I've said it so many times now that it feels like a waste of time to repeat it but here goes : We can only claim to have true, unadulterated facts and figures if we have studies that are truly independent and that aren't bankrolled by a vested interest... on either side of the argument.
When it comes to trust, I trust the evidence of my own personal study... or to put it another way, I've been vaping again for almost 2 years now and I can see the positive differences it's had to my health. That's all the evidence I really need but if we want the general (mostly non vaping) public to believe too, then I believe what's needed above all else is credibility.
In the test, there appeared to be a different method for extracting the tobacco smoke than for extracting the vapour. Why was the flask being agitated during the vapour extraction but not during the tobacco smoke extraction and what effect could this possibly have on the final results?
It appears that the method of extracting the vapour was being made up 'on the fly'. Surely the parameters of the test should have been decided prior to the test and adhered to.
When the tobacco solutions were being transferred to the cultures, there was no cleaning of the pipette in between different concentrations... could this not lead to a risk of cross contamination and therefore, skewed results?.
I'm certainly no scientist and my questions may seem niave but isn't that descriptive of the vast majority of the public? How many of us possess the scientific training necessary to fully understand the processes being employed in the test. Although the slides seem pretty conclusive at first glance, it should be remembered that the anti smoking lobby is not above cherry picking to try and back up their arguments. Are we simply to take it on trust that a study financed by a vested interest in vaping would operate any differently?
I suppose that's the general point I'm trying to make.... trust.
This study was paid for by a vested interest and (please correct me if I'm wrong) as I understand it, the true test of any study's validity comes from peer review. I for one, would be interested to hear the opinions of others in the scientific community (obviously, those without a vested interest) regarding this study.
I can understand the temptation to say fight fire with fire and if the antis want to produce cherry picked data then why shouldn't we? But isn't the object of the exercise to get to the actual truth?... not a skewed version (in either direction).
I've said it so many times now that it feels like a waste of time to repeat it but here goes : We can only claim to have true, unadulterated facts and figures if we have studies that are truly independent and that aren't bankrolled by a vested interest... on either side of the argument.
When it comes to trust, I trust the evidence of my own personal study... or to put it another way, I've been vaping again for almost 2 years now and I can see the positive differences it's had to my health. That's all the evidence I really need but if we want the general (mostly non vaping) public to believe too, then I believe what's needed above all else is credibility.
K
KulrMeStoopid
Guest
I think the lack of agitation with the cig smoke solution, highlights that you dont need to do much of anything to cause the changes seen with the naked eye, agitation with the vapour would highlight that even with movement and mixing, there were no naked eye changes.
I do agree though that both mediums should have been exactly the same and replicated with both (however, there may have all ready been previous studies similar to the cigarette smoke which would negate having to replicate it again?)
I do agree though that both mediums should have been exactly the same and replicated with both (however, there may have all ready been previous studies similar to the cigarette smoke which would negate having to replicate it again?)
steffijade
Achiever
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 3,405
Highlighting differences.. that could well explain why the agitation was used but was it really necessary for the test?
Also, I'm wondering if they used a brand new atty or a week old, chained vaped to hell and back, crudded up atty.... that might be more of a real life test.. for an idle cow like me that is.
K
KulrMeStoopid
Guest
Deffo shows a lot of different mediums need to be explored in order to gain an "average" result. Either way, it will always show what we expect it to show, which is something the Big P don't want us to know 
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
