Vaping 'no better' than smoking regular cigarettes

[drnick]

I read the first few lines, Normally I would just go yeah yeah yeah, bull bull bull, But let us read what they wrote again.

The study involved exposing human cells with both nicotine-based and nicotine-free e-cigarette vapour.
Researchers found that the cells which had not come into contact with vapour were more likely to become damaged or die

HANG ON, Cells that had not come into contact more likely to become damaged and die, At this point I stopped reading as by my reckoning I should get more vapour in.

 

[collateral diarrhea]

I've read so my BS articles that nowadays I just go something like this:
Do I feel healthier after stopping smoking and started vaping? Yes. Thus I conclude vaping is better than smoking.

 

[beefy123]

This comes from the country which legalised the use of medical marijuana. Before legalisation it was the devils plant until they realised the lucrative taxes they could generate from it. They don't generate the sort of taxes they make on cigarettes on vaping so fire out some propaganda so people avoid vaping as a alternative to smoking cigarettes and then either give up or continue on the fags thus still generating taxes

 

[2minvapereviews]

Well the information they used has been corrected anyway, the bigger point is that journalists stay quiet when the existing data is thrown out as garbage. Simply put these headlines sell papers and get views, the truth that comes out in the following days doesn't matter.

"Naturally vapers and others responded with outrage, and some excellent articles appeared explaining exactly how the research had been misrepresented. Medical statisticians, tobacco control experts and bloggers united to condemn the way the research had been distorted, with Wang-Rodriguez and Daily Telegraph journalist Sarah Knapton rightly facing the harshest criticism. It seems that some of the reprimands struck home, because yesterday the research team issued a correction.

It’s not a great correction. In fact it’s snivelling, whiny and petulant. They dumped blame for all the “E-cigs as bad as tobacco” headlines squarely on the press, when in fact their own press release and Wang-Rodriguez’s comments seem to have been aimed at creating exactly that impression. They did put one vital piece of data out there though:

the lab experiments did not find that e-cigarette vapor was as harmful to cells as cigarette smoke. In fact, one phase of the experiments, not addressed in the news release, found that cigarette smoke did, in fact, kill cells at a much faster rate.

No kidding. In fact cigarette smoke killed more of the cells in a single day than e-cig vapour did in eight weeks. If I worked in the ethics office at the University of California, San Diego I’d be very interested in why this vital fact was “not addressed in the news release”."

The corrected information/rebroadcasted message is here: http://ecigsplaza.co.uk/ecigs-news/san-diego-vaping-study-corrected-but-journos-are-silent/

 

[electropuffer]

Just the typical "<insert food here> causes cancer!"

You'd think that with such a dramatic decrease in tobacco smoking, people would leave vaping alone. It's almost like they are jelous of vaping. How could that possibly be, when they were so aggressive about how bad smoking is and making an example of dirty smokers? If smoking is so bad, why would you increase the tax (thus knowingly profit from people killing themselves) and force plain packaging? Could there possibly be a hint of money involved? People directly or indirectly linked to tobacco profit, worried that their coffers aren't as bulging as normal.

I remember an article years ago saying a certain variety of Pringles crisps had cancer causing chemicals. But the reality was you'd have to eat a physically impossible amount in one sitting (tons) to even receive a potentially harmful trace of said chemical. Again I'd imagine another big brand were probably about to launch their own snack and wanted a head start.

 

[Mawsley]

Well the information they used has been corrected anyway, the bigger point is that journalists stay quiet when the existing data is thrown out as garbage. Simply put these headlines sell papers and get views, the truth that comes out in the following days doesn't matter.

"Naturally vapers and others responded with outrage, and some excellent articles appeared explaining exactly how the research had been misrepresented. Medical statisticians, tobacco control experts and bloggers united to condemn the way the research had been distorted, with Wang-Rodriguez and Daily Telegraph journalist Sarah Knapton rightly facing the harshest criticism. It seems that some of the reprimands struck home, because yesterday the research team issued a correction.

It’s not a great correction. In fact it’s snivelling, whiny and petulant. They dumped blame for all the “E-cigs as bad as tobacco” headlines squarely on the press, when in fact their own press release and Wang-Rodriguez’s comments seem to have been aimed at creating exactly that impression. They did put one vital piece of data out there though:

the lab experiments did not find that e-cigarette vapor was as harmful to cells as cigarette smoke. In fact, one phase of the experiments, not addressed in the news release, found that cigarette smoke did, in fact, kill cells at a much faster rate.

No kidding. In fact cigarette smoke killed more of the cells in a single day than e-cig vapour did in eight weeks. If I worked in the ethics office at the University of California, San Diego I’d be very interested in why this vital fact was “not addressed in the news release”."

The corrected information/rebroadcasted message is here: http://ecigsplaza.co.uk/ecigs-news/san-diego-vaping-study-corrected-but-journos-are-silent/

A journalist is a paid employee, they scribe whatever the editor tells them to. They do this or they no longer work for their organisation or, due to the incestuous nature of the industry, anyone else.

The same goes for freelance journalists; they provide copy based on the parameters set down by the client.

The way Twatter vapers lambasted, insulted and and whined about Knapton was fucking disgusting. These torch-waving fucktards do nothing but convince those sitting on the fence that all vapers are cunts, engender disgust in other ecig users and guarantee a slew of more negative press.

Martin McKee knew fuck all about ecigs and cared even less until he was roundly attacked on Twitter by the hivemind cockbrains for expressing an opinion. Now he's on a mission for the sole reason of fuck you. Vapers created this problem.

The media persist with negative stories because it drives people to their sites. People love a drama llama. They love a crash on the motorway. And the same goes for research funding - which is why I believe the '95% safer' mantra is a load of bullshit as much as the aforementioned research. As much as the holier than thou attitudes of some vaping tweeters.

 

[2minvapereviews]

A journalist is a paid employee, they scribe whatever the editor tells them to. They do this or they no longer work for their organisation or, due to the incestuous nature of the industry, anyone else.

The same goes for freelance journalists; they provide copy based on the parameters set down by the client.

The way Twatter vapers lambasted, insulted and and whined about Knapton was fucking disgusting. These torch-waving fucktards do nothing but convince those sitting on the fence that all vapers are cunts, engender disgust in other ecig users and guarantee a slew of more negative press.

Martin McKee knew fuck all about ecigs and cared even less until he was roundly attacked on Twitter by the hivemind cockbrains for expressing an opinion. Now he's on a mission for the sole reason of fuck you. Vapers created this problem.

The media persist with negative stories because it drives people to their sites. People love a drama llama. They love a crash on the motorway. And the same goes for research funding - which is why I believe the '95% safer' mantra is a load of bullshit as much as the aforementioned research. As much as the holier than thou attitudes of some vaping tweeters.

 

[vapeguy]

A journalist is a paid employee, they scribe whatever the editor tells them to. They do this or they no longer work for their organisation or, due to the incestuous nature of the industry, anyone else.

The same goes for freelance journalists; they provide copy based on the parameters set down by the client.

The way Twatter vapers lambasted, insulted and and whined about Knapton was fucking disgusting. These torch-waving fucktards do nothing but convince those sitting on the fence that all vapers are cunts, engender disgust in other ecig users and guarantee a slew of more negative press.

Martin McKee knew fuck all about ecigs and cared even less until he was roundly attacked on Twitter by the hivemind cockbrains for expressing an opinion. Now he's on a mission for the sole reason of fuck you. Vapers created this problem.

The media persist with negative stories because it drives people to their sites. People love a drama llama. They love a crash on the motorway. And the same goes for research funding - which is why I believe the '95% safer' mantra is a load of bullshit as much as the aforementioned research. As much as the holier than thou attitudes of some vaping tweeters.

I wonder when Journalists start to be punished for false information. With the Globalization nowadays writing false misleading info can be as dangerous has having a gun

 

[ted232]

To cut long story short. Nicotine dose not directly cause cancer. That comes from someone in the know. Seems to me some dysfunctional/interesting people are getting to much air time on info that is quite misleading.

 

[kirsteyj87]

If i was that concerned about my health and listened to every scary story I wouldnt have been smoking for 13 years Theres risks involved with everything, i havent stopped driving because of all the car crashes that happen on a daily basis. Has anyone actually died from vaping? Ignorance is bliss ☺