17
   

Vaping is all the rage!!

Forums: Nicotine, Electronic Cigarettes, Vaping, Vapor
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Germlat
 
  0  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 10:25 am
@FBM,
Consider your sources. Don't go for simply headliners/attention hoarders Scientific sites tend to offer the best info. Unfortunately, you have to pay and subscribe to the best sites. Don't settle for bargain basement headliners. But--I think we have a while to go before we understand all the implications. The point of my thread is this: People think it's harmless .
FBM
 
  2  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 10:27 am
@Germlat,
The British Journal of General Practice is bargain basement? Also, you know, attacking the source is a well-known logical fallacy. Attack the data, the structure and/or validity of the argument, yes, but the source is irrelevant to the strength of the argument.

So your point is that people think it's harmless. Some people think it's harmless and others - yourself, apparently - don't. I admit that I don't know. What people think is ultimately less important than what the science reveals, I think. I'll wait for a significant scientific consensus before deciding.
Germlat
 
  0  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 10:32 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

The British Journal of General Practice is bargain basement? Also, you know, attacking the source is a well-known logical fallacy. Attack the data, the structure and/or validity of the argument, yes, but the source is irrelevant to the strength of the argument.

I'm thinking specific unbiased, scientific direct approach is best. It never comes for free. I only know this from doing research myself. I used to not understand why people would quote research from a journal that was supported by a particular entity....politics exist.
FBM
 
  1  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 10:37 am
@Germlat,
Germlat wrote:

I'm thinking specific unbiased, scientific direct approach is best. It never comes for free.


The science itself doesn't come for free, but quite a bit of it is made available at no charge. For example, what is NASA charging for data about Mars? Does someone else have better data that they make you pay for? I don't see any reason to think that the British Journal of General Practice is either biased or unscientific just because their data got out to us for free.
Germlat
 
  0  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 10:45 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

Germlat wrote:

I'm thinking specific unbiased, scientific direct approach is best. It never comes for free.


The science itself doesn't come for free, but quite a bit of it is made available at no charge. For example, what is NASA charging for data about Mars? Does someone else have better data that they make you pay for? I don't see any reason to think that the British Journal of General Practice is either biased or unscientific just because their data got out to us for free.

Yes and not all research is worth a darn. But--I'm glad the FDA took notice of the potential hazards.
FBM
 
  1  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:04 am
@Germlat,
I'm all for leaving it up to the experts at the FDA and the contributors to the British Journal. I realize that it's not easy to resist the temptation to start with a preferred conclusion and then work backwards to find evidence to support it, but I'm going to remain skeptical and suspend judgement until the scientists - not just the American ones - have reached a consensus. Big Tobacco has Big Money in the US. Less so overseas.
Germlat
 
  0  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:07 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

I'm all for leaving it up to the experts at the FDA and the contributors to the British Journal. I realize that it's not easy to resist the temptation to start with a preferred conclusion and then work backwards to find evidence to support it, but I'm going to remain skeptical and suspend judgement until the scientists - not just the American ones - have reached a consensus.

Well...isn't that how things start? Something attracts your attention and you dig further...nothing wrong with that. But--it's best to understand what a reputable site is when it comes to research....obviously. Some are more reputable,..1st, 2nd,3rd tier..in the end I'm glad some attention has been shed on the subject.
FBM
 
  1  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:09 am
@Germlat,
The problem is taking sides and waving flags before the consensus is reached. If you'll forgive me for saying so, that's what you seem to be doing with your anti-e-cig posts.
Germlat
 
  0  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:17 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

The problem is taking sides and waving flags before the consensus is reached. If you'll forgive me for saying so, that's what you seem to be doing with your anti-e-cig posts.

Well...there's now enough evidence to prove them other than harmless. With my knowledge of physiology I knew this had to be the case....a matter of time.
FBM
 
  2  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:23 am
@Germlat,
I'm pretty sure that your knowledge of physiology is the result of a lot of people doing a lot of experiments and waiting for a consensus before reaching a firm conclusion.
Germlat
 
  1  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:26 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

I'm pretty sure that your knowledge of physiology is the result of a lot of people doing a lot of experiments and waiting for a consensus before reaching a firm conclusion.

Isn't that how all research goes...on a hunch or observation to intrigue one's curiosity....
FBM
 
  2  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:31 am
@Germlat,
Germlat wrote:

FBM wrote:

I'm pretty sure that your knowledge of physiology is the result of a lot of people doing a lot of experiments and waiting for a consensus before reaching a firm conclusion.

Isn't that how all research goes...on a hunch or observation to intrigue one's curiosity....


That might inspire a hypothesis, which would be tested, submitted for peer review, replication, revision, re-testing, etc. But a conclusion isn't reached (in science, anyway) on a hunch or a single (or small set) of observations. When I took A&P years ago, I'm pretty sure that everything presented in our textbook as fact had been subjected to that rigorous scientific process. What I'm saying is that you seem to be very sure of your conclusion about vaping prior to the completion of that process. I'm waiting for the experts to reach a carefully controlled consensus.
Germlat
 
  0  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:37 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

Germlat wrote:

FBM wrote:

I'm pretty sure that your knowledge of physiology is the result of a lot of people doing a lot of experiments and waiting for a consensus before reaching a firm conclusion.

Isn't that how all research goes...on a hunch or observation to intrigue one's curiosity....


That might inspire a hypothesis, which would be tested, submitted for peer review, replication, revision, re-testing, etc. But a conclusion isn't reached (in science, anyway) on a hunch or a single (or small set) of observations. When I took A&P years ago, I'm pretty sure that everything presented in our textbook as fact had been subjected to that rigorous scientific process. What I'm saying is that you seem to be very sure of your conclusion about vaping prior to the completion of that process. I'm waiting for the experts to reach a carefully controlled consensus.

I agree...it still all starts as a hunch or curiosity. Like I've said before, we need more studies...read back on my posts. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be weary of the possible implications given what we know about our responses correlation to physiological processes. That was my tone: Be weary!!
FBM
 
  2  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:38 am
@Germlat,
It's 2:40 here and, yes, I am weary. Wink

Don't forget the lesson we learned from Reefer Madness...be wary of the scare tacticians and their hidden agendas.
Germlat
 
  1  
Wed 5 Nov, 2014 11:43 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

It's 2:40 here and, yes, I am weary. Wink

Don't forget the lesson we learned from Reefer Madness...be wary of the scare tacticians and their hidden agendas.

It's nearly noon here. I'm off today. Thanks for your clever assertions...I had a good time sharing with you....I always learn something new.
0 Replies
 
atmosrx
 
  1  
Fri 7 Nov, 2014 08:19 am
Vaping is good alternative for smoking..
Germlat
 
  0  
Fri 7 Nov, 2014 02:28 pm
@atmosrx,
atmosrx wrote:

Vaping is good alternative for smoking..

Is it really? Not based on research ....
roger
 
  2  
Fri 7 Nov, 2014 03:04 pm
@Germlat,
Read till your heart is content.

http://onvaping.com/the-ultimate-list-of-studies-on-e-cigarettes-and-their-safety/?_ga=1.224549338.1753947963.1387506998
Germlat
 
  0  
Fri 7 Nov, 2014 04:50 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Thanks Roger...the studies I read were newer...plus the FDA has considered the outcomes noteworthy....
roger
 
  1  
Fri 7 Nov, 2014 07:11 pm
@Germlat,
Didn't read a one of them, did you?

So, post your own.
 

Related Topics

nicotine test - Question by conniesworld
Science finds Nicotine Enormously Helpful to Humans - Discussion by hawkeye10
List of smoking triggers - Discussion by Robert Gentel
who would use the "E-cigarette"? - Discussion by existential potential
Kicking the habit - Discussion by Cliff Hanger
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Vaping is all the rage!!
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 10:20:07
▲ ▼