I'll just leave this here.
- Thread starter Feliks Karp
- Start date
Twisted Messes, Dino Ferrari et al will be chuffed to discover that they're teens again. 
What Bullsh!t... (he muttered while exhaling a MAssive Cloud from his extra hot extra dripped dripper)
What do these idiots gain from posting crap like this without doing their own studies? Just repeat and regurgitate!
They make it sound like its a new street drug taking kids by storm
What do these idiots gain from posting crap like this without doing their own studies? Just repeat and regurgitate!
They make it sound like its a new street drug taking kids by storm
Makes you wonder about everything else we read, see, and hear in the media.
There is an awful lot of misinformation on the internet. It is, unfortunately, the price of both freedom and the free market. It's great that the monopoly of the traditional media outlets has been broken. It's not so great that any high school kid with a bit of coding knowledge can now become a "news outlet".
It's great that people can earn a living by marketing information on the internet. Enyawreklaw, for example, can make a living as a mixer partly due to the subscriptions he gets for DoD. What's not so great is when companies give in to greed and sensationalise stories to get more clicks and income at the expense of objectivity.
Unfortunately, it even taints science. As John Oliver noted in his programme on Scientific Research, a scientific study that unveils shocking new results will have a million readers. Scientific studies which conclude nothing extraordinary are never read and the lead researcher in the study will struggle to get funding for his next study. Sponsors don't want to pay money to not make the news.
It's great that people can earn a living by marketing information on the internet. Enyawreklaw, for example, can make a living as a mixer partly due to the subscriptions he gets for DoD. What's not so great is when companies give in to greed and sensationalise stories to get more clicks and income at the expense of objectivity.
Unfortunately, it even taints science. As John Oliver noted in his programme on Scientific Research, a scientific study that unveils shocking new results will have a million readers. Scientific studies which conclude nothing extraordinary are never read and the lead researcher in the study will struggle to get funding for his next study. Sponsors don't want to pay money to not make the news.
Media has and never will cared about facts, they care only for sensationalism.
But the facts are... anything you breathe, even "metabolising" clean air, is destructive.
Ecigs in any form aren't healthy, they are just expected to be marginally less harmful than smoking tobacco in the way that cocaine is less harmful than crack.
But the facts are... anything you breathe, even "metabolising" clean air, is destructive.
Ecigs in any form aren't healthy, they are just expected to be marginally less harmful than smoking tobacco in the way that cocaine is less harmful than crack.
Also, people will much rather avoid the knowledge from scientific research, if it would mean that they need to accept that their habits/culture/believes/religions is wrong.
I could show scientific proof that nature never intended for man to eat meat, but mostly no one would put in he time to self study unless they had proper motivation.
EDIT:
@Sprint, Care to join the discussion. If everyone agrees, someone ain't thinking
Last edited:
I dont think that comparing Cigarettes Vs Vaping is anything close to the Cocaine vs Crack comparison.
Cocaine and Crack is still the same thing. Vaping (with or without Nicotine) is not the same thing as smoking. Yes one is more refined than the other, but smoking and Vaping you are taking in different substances, the only commonality between Vaping and smoking being Nicotine.
Fake news isnt new.
It hasnt been for years.
It used to be called disinformation, and was used first during the first world war, and then more during the second, and became even more popular during the 50's, 60', 70's during the cold war.
When the so called network news agencies, and of course the print empires were built in the 80's by murdoch, turner et al, news became whatever the owner wanted it to be.
So when a owner of a news network has a certain point of view, and political leanings, this soon becomes apparent in the way the news is reported.
The rise of the internet, and expecially the way it was used during the last USA presidential election, has just highlighted the latest incarnation (Social Networks), and its uses to form and shape public opinion and thought.
What will happen, is the rise of pure unbiased journalism in reaction, and the merest hint of bias, or agenda, will also see them fall and the rise of a newer form of reporting.
This kind of post, where something is made "newsworthy" with catchy or attention grabbing headlines, is just one form of the current malaise that we will have to develop filters for.
Based purely on the headline, i had been thinking before clicking, that we would see some kind of drug version of vaping....
Not dripping?
It hasnt been for years.
It used to be called disinformation, and was used first during the first world war, and then more during the second, and became even more popular during the 50's, 60', 70's during the cold war.
When the so called network news agencies, and of course the print empires were built in the 80's by murdoch, turner et al, news became whatever the owner wanted it to be.
So when a owner of a news network has a certain point of view, and political leanings, this soon becomes apparent in the way the news is reported.
The rise of the internet, and expecially the way it was used during the last USA presidential election, has just highlighted the latest incarnation (Social Networks), and its uses to form and shape public opinion and thought.
What will happen, is the rise of pure unbiased journalism in reaction, and the merest hint of bias, or agenda, will also see them fall and the rise of a newer form of reporting.
This kind of post, where something is made "newsworthy" with catchy or attention grabbing headlines, is just one form of the current malaise that we will have to develop filters for.
Based purely on the headline, i had been thinking before clicking, that we would see some kind of drug version of vaping....
Not dripping?
Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. No matter how you ingest it, its still a poison. The point is that a different (healthier) delivery method doesn't al of a sudden make it healthy.
Even 0mg ejuice still contains chemicals and flavourants you are not evolved to inhale. Dikatones, metals, gasses. Its inhalation of foreign substances.
My Point is, its two different things (Smoking and Vaping) where cocaine and Crack is the same thing. Remove Nicotine from you comparison of smoking and vaping then there are two different things despite the fact that they may both be destructive in some form or way
If you are going into the biological evolution then NOTHING you currently put into your body is good for you, Including Meds and anything else (Even WATER from your taps or the GM Grown Fruits you eat).
So anything You will compare anything to will be bad. and this is not what we're looking at.
Like I said, I dont think that comparing Cigarettes Vs Vaping is anything close to the Cocaine vs Crack comparison.
I never disputed that there are health benefits or harms to either.
Vaping Is a healthIER alternative to smoking, no one ever said its HEALTHY. you cannot say that cocaine or Crack is a healthier alternative to the other.
Last edited:
Actually, in biological terms anything you metabolise is bad for you. Its a destructive process and the reason why you age.
The comparison is sound, a drug is a drug is a drug. Whether your doctor prescribes it or you buy it from the street corner. A cafe, liquor store or vape shop.
you are missing the point of your comparison that is not correct.
I can see you are one who does not take criticism well, for that reason Im done here, said what i needed to.
Much rather think that you are offended by the comparison and thus you are missing the point.
Crack users are often hospitalized after 10 months of abuse, Cocaine user can abuse the drug for years.
Smoking is the inhalation of foreign substances by burning tobacco, vaping is the inhalation of foreign substances by super heating.
Hi @Polar
With reference to your previous statement above:
While I agree with you that "Ecigs in any form aren't healthy" I don't agree with the next part that they are "just expected to be marginally less harmful than smoking tobacco".
Most of the reputable scientific studies that have been conducted so far have suggested that Ecigs are not just "marginally" less harmful, but significantly less harmful. Public HealthCare England has published that they believe Ecigs are 95% less harmful than smoking.
I have not conducted my own research into this - but just relaying what I have seen. I think it would be fair to say that the general expectation (at this point) is that Ecigs are significantly less harmful than smoking and a far healthier alternative. That is how I see it.
With reference to your previous statement above:
While I agree with you that "Ecigs in any form aren't healthy" I don't agree with the next part that they are "just expected to be marginally less harmful than smoking tobacco".
Most of the reputable scientific studies that have been conducted so far have suggested that Ecigs are not just "marginally" less harmful, but significantly less harmful. Public HealthCare England has published that they believe Ecigs are 95% less harmful than smoking.
I have not conducted my own research into this - but just relaying what I have seen. I think it would be fair to say that the general expectation (at this point) is that Ecigs are significantly less harmful than smoking and a far healthier alternative. That is how I see it.
The point is that we don't really know, do we. We'll know for sure in 60 years if "life long" e-cig users do experience any problems and it might also take 50 years after that for us to accept as was see and still happens with tobacco. By then we might have a "Big Vaping" influencing scientific research the same as Big Tobacco.
Agreed @Polar - you are right - we don't know the longer term effects of vaping because it simply hasn't been around long enough.
I am just trying to point out that as of today, the research is suggesting that Ecigs are significantly safer than smoking. Not marginally.
It may turn out that long term Ecig use is actually a lot more harmful than originally thought. But it also may turn out that it is significantly less harmful.
Well, there's science and there's science. The article in the OP cites and links several scientific studies. Whether those studies are correct or not is debatable.
One thing that interests me is the continuing trend to research vaping using tobacco as a baseline. For example, we had the University of London study mentioned a few days ago in which vaping was (again) shown to lack most of the carcinogens present in cigarette smoke. While that is helpful, it also doesn't tell the full story. Vapour might contain little or none of the ten most carcinogenic substances in cigarette smoke. It could, however, contain 55 carcinogens which aren't present in tobacco smoke and therefore weren't tested. It's admittedly unlikely, I think medical science has evolved to the point where toxic and carcinogenic substances can be detected quite reliably. However, there may be one or two nasties which we can't detect yet, or which may have more harmful consequences than is currently assumed.
In this sense, I appreciate the work that Maciej Goniewicz is doing. He is looking at aspects like flavourings which are not tobacco-related, and examining them on their own merits. That, for me, is the new frontier in vaping research. Doing yet another study that analyses tobacco smoke and vapour, and finds that vapour contains few or none of the major nasties in tobacco, is just reinventing the wheel at this point. I think we've established that by now, there is not a single reputable scientist who will dispute that vapour contains less benzene, carbon monoxide, etc, than cigarette smoke. Funds and time are limited so let's move on to the things we don't know rather than re-proving the things we do know.
To me its enough to know that it is a health risk. In other words, if I was of sound mind I would not be vaping. I know its detrimental to my health but I do still enjoy it. Life has turned us into rather hardy organisms, if you consider a person can smoke everyday for 70 years before it kills them, they're not healthy but they persevere. We are in uncharted territory so there is a lot to be discovered from the effect vaping will have on humans, but we need to understand that it unhealthy and it will have consequences. Our bodies relies on a very fine balance to remain healthy, small things like constant dehydration which is a side effect of vaping could have a dramatic effect on health. We don't know how our bodies react to constant and excessive VG or PG, it certainly not something we have adapted to and if in doubt we are better off expecting the worst, I think.
Research have a tendency to be swayed by funding. A scientist might set out to prove his findings around the health risks of cheese consumption. The dairy industry comes along and buries these findings under a mountain of contradictory findings by simply paying their way. And as we know humans, we like cheese, we'll much rather believe the findings telling us is ok for human consumption. Its like we find it hard to enjoy our bad habits if we are willing to understand that they are in fact bad.
As a means to quit smoking I think vaping is awesome. Especially as you can reduce your nicotine intake to zero over time. But as another means to our constant need for self destruction, I feel vaping is as bad as smoking. I mentioned earlier, from my research everything we ingest is destructive. But somethings we can't live without (food, water and air). So cigarettes (and vaping) is one of the things that's very much destructive yet completely unnecessary to our survival. I'm not quitting today, but its in the plan.
Research have a tendency to be swayed by funding. A scientist might set out to prove his findings around the health risks of cheese consumption. The dairy industry comes along and buries these findings under a mountain of contradictory findings by simply paying their way. And as we know humans, we like cheese, we'll much rather believe the findings telling us is ok for human consumption. Its like we find it hard to enjoy our bad habits if we are willing to understand that they are in fact bad.
As a means to quit smoking I think vaping is awesome. Especially as you can reduce your nicotine intake to zero over time. But as another means to our constant need for self destruction, I feel vaping is as bad as smoking. I mentioned earlier, from my research everything we ingest is destructive. But somethings we can't live without (food, water and air). So cigarettes (and vaping) is one of the things that's very much destructive yet completely unnecessary to our survival. I'm not quitting today, but its in the plan.
Great points you make @Polar - and of course you are quite right - most of us started vaping in order to stop smoking - and then kind of got caught up enjoying vaping.
Just wanted to highlight that in my view, while vaping may still be detrimental to our health, I think it is significantly less harmful than smoking. I do not think it is as bad as smoking. I am judging this based on the research I have seen so far from various sources, Dr Farsalinos included - and my own experience over the past 3 years since I switched vaping to smoking.
And that's what I believe. Who knows what will be discovered regarding the long term impacts, but that's what I believe for now.
I thought everyone would get a guilty chuckle out of this, boy was I wrong.
Similar threads
