I Bet They Were Funded by Big Tobacco...

[The Vape Space]

So in the findings were some pretty amazing data points, and some that were per usual. The nicotine levels found in e-cigs were about 10x less than cigarettes, but the harmful and potentially harmful constituents of vaporizers clocked in at 2 micrograms per puff, as where the cigarettes clocked in at 3000 micrograms - no surprise on the cigarettes really.

--->The 2 micrograms of HPHC per puff for the e-cigs puts them roughly on the same level as air <---

The study, and the scientists were funded by Philip Morris.

Lots of people like to use the ad hominem attack of "I bet they are funded by big tobacco, or big pharma" when they run across a study that they don't like the findings in. Welp, this just got interesting... I suppose we should throw these findings out then?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230014002505

 

[OB61887]

FYI, The Vape Space, funded by big tobacco.

 

[freemind]

You DID see this was a study of cig-a-likes that Big Tobacco sells, and not just an ego type device with random mom and pop shop juice, right?

This type of study would NOT surprise me. It's about preparing for battle with the FDA. Crushing the small guys.

They will point to how good THEIR product is, and how these "unregulated" manufactures are the ones dumping nuclear waste in the juice.

 

[Time]

I think you might be over optimistic. What was tested were "commercial" e-cigs. One of which was the Blu. These are big tobacco brands and there is no push to heavily restrict them. The push, by big tobacco and government, is to ban open systems, not commercial closed tank systems.

I believe you will see, in the near future, more "testing" on open tank(refillable) systems and the juice claiming that higher wattage and unregulated juice in open systems is potentially harmful and the call from big tobacco and governments will be to restrict and regulate the industry so that only approved closed tank devices will be deemed "safe"(er) for vaping. This gives big tobacco their corner on the market and the governments their income from heavy sin tax and big tobacco bribe money.

We are already seeing this happen.

 

[The Vape Space]

You DID see this was a study of cig-a-likes that Big Tobacco sells, and not just an ego type device with random mom and pop shop juice, right?

This type of study would NOT surprise me. It's about preparing for battle with the FDA. Crushing the small guys.

They will point to how good THEIR product is, and how these "unregulated" manufactures are the ones dumping nuclear waste in the juice.

The limited amount of studies done on open source devices isn't really surprising, the diversity in open source devices makes testing each one a lofty and expensive task. It isn't necessarily a ploy to gain traction with the FDA.

I think you might be over optimistic. What was tested were "commercial" e-cigs. One of which was the Blu. These are big tobacco brands and there is no push to heavily restrict them. The push, by big tobacco and government, is to ban open systems, not commercial closed tank systems.

I believe you will see, in the near future, more "testing" on open tank(refillable) systems and the juice claiming that higher wattage and unregulated juice in open systems is potentially harmful and the call from big tobacco and governments will be to restrict and regulate the industry so that only approved closed tank devices will be deemed "safe"(er) for vaping. This gives big tobacco their corner on the market and the governments their income from heavy sin tax and big tobacco bribe money.

We are already seeing this happen.

Almost all tests done by independent scientists have been conducted on closed source systems, this isn't because of a nefarious attempt by scientists to ruin small, or niche vaping, it is because of (a) the price - these large brands are far less expensive and (b) their lack of choice. It is easy to get a Blu and test it, as where getting an ego, or mech mod with a thousand different options (don't even think I'm exaggerating) and try to test it. It opens the study up to more qualms on cost, and on consistency in methodology and findings, it's something that is simple and easily replicated.

The study coming up for the systems we use is actually going to be done by Dr. Farsalinos, he already has one up for peer review I believe, and it is testing for acrolein, and aldehydes in higher end devices under user conditions.

 

[Time]

The limited amount of studies done on open source devices isn't really surprising, the diversity in open source devices makes testing each one a lofty and expensive task. It isn't necessarily a ploy to gain traction with the FDA.



Almost all tests done by independent scientists have been conducted on closed source systems, this isn't because of a nefarious attempt by scientists to ruin small, or niche vaping, it is because of (a) the price - these large brands are far less expensive and (b) their lack of choice. It is easy to get a Blu and test it, as where getting an ego, or mech mod with a thousand different options (don't even think I'm exaggerating) and try to test it. It opens the study up to more qualms on cost, and on consistency in methodology and findings, it's something that is simple and easily replicated.

The study coming up for the systems we use is actually going to be done by Dr. Farsalinos, he already has one up for peer review I believe, and it is testing for acrolein, and aldehydes in higher end devices under user conditions.

The letters to the FDA from the big tobacco and the number of bills and their content that is present in some states tells the real story.

In fact, they pave the way in this very study. "Additional research related to e-cigarette aerosol characterization is warranted. For example, continued characterization of major components and flavors is needed."

You do sell juice, don't you? Let me know how it works out for you in the end.

As I said, There is no proposal to ban "commercial" e-cigs. Just open tank systems and juice.

 

[freemind]

Sorry, about every place that sells cig a likes, also sells a cheap ego with a clearo. They are readily available.

I know to my core, why Big Tobacco is testing cig a likes. They are getting prepared to make their case to the FDA, and propose legislation to crush the vape industry.

It's about killing the competition. Mom and Pops don't have the bank roll to play with the big tobacco companies. So, BT will regain those dollars by crushing competition.

 

[The Vape Space]

The letters to the FDA from the big tobacco and the number of bills and their content that is present in some states tells the real story.

In fact, they pave the way in this very study. "Additional research related to e-cigarette aerosol characterization is warranted. For example, continued characterization of major components and flavors is needed."

You do sell juice, don't you? Let me know how it works out for you in the end.

You know that doesn't actually rebuttal what I just said right

I am with you on your concern with FDA legislation, and everything going on in the States, but let's be reasonable here.

The FDA and Philip Morris/Lorillard does make sense, and there is substantial proof to back it up. The bills in State legislatures, well, it's honestly a mix bag. For example, in Illinois, we were facing an indoor vaping ban, and a flavored e-juice ban. While the flavored e-juice ban was tabled (the one that would have helped them the most) Lorillard still sent a representative to fight the indoor vaping ban - this had the potential to drive in more revenues to cigarettes, or stunt the niche vaping community. But they still fought it.

As for the ad hominem attack on scientists in studies. It's just that. Fallacious. I've detailed perfectly reasonable explanations as to why they use closed source systems, but still people want to do this - even though it comes off as paranoid and irrational. Often times the findings are in vaping's favor too.

 

[The Vape Space]

Sorry, about every place that sells cig a likes, also sells a cheap ego with a clearo. They are readily available.

I know to my core, why Big Tobacco is testing cig a likes. They are getting prepared to make their case to the FDA, and propose legislation to crush the vape industry.

It's about killing the competition. Mom and Pops don't have the bank roll to play with the big tobacco companies. So, BT will regain those dollars by crushing competition.

If for all the studies that were just written off as shillery were being funded by Big Tobacco, or Big Pharma, then why didn't they use a mech mod or cheapo clearo just burning the wicks? The only one that comes to mind is the NEJM study. They could compile an effective case against the competition... They don't though, because it drives people away from vaping, and that hurts their bottom line as they have invested a sizeable lot of money into it at this point.

I do see that they would like FDA regulation, but that is largely a non-sequitur from the studies.

 

[kingworm]

i am very suspicious of you. singing praise to these studies that harm our freedom and you have a website supposedly selling safe alternatives to our e juice. yet i did some looking and you are based 30 minutes from lorillards hq in st Luis. sorry to say but i think you may be in their pocket.

 

[The Vape Space]

lolololololololololol

 

[Time]

You know that doesn't actually rebuttal what I just said right

I am with you on your concern with FDA legislation, and everything going on in the States, but let's be reasonable here.

The FDA and Philip Morris/Lorillard does make sense, and there is substantial proof to back it up. The bills in State legislatures, well, it's honestly a mix bag. For example, in Illinois, we were facing an indoor vaping ban, and a flavored e-juice ban. While the flavored e-juice ban was tabled (the one that would have helped them the most) Lorillard still sent a representative to fight the indoor vaping ban - this had the potential to drive in more revenues to cigarettes, or stunt the niche vaping community. But they still fought it.

As for the ad hominem attack on scientists in studies. It's just that. Fallacious. I've detailed perfectly reasonable explanations as to why they use closed source systems, but still people want to do this - even though it comes off as paranoid and irrational. Often times the findings are in vapings favor too.

Watch.

The study will only be deemed useful for the use of the tobacco companies closed source systems. While it makes me feel good about my own vaping, the study will have no impact on the open source systems that I use because while big tobacco makes their case for their own closed source systems they actively and openly lobby to ban the system I use, including the juice.

It matters not one wit if big tobacco lobbies for vaping in bars if the only device that is legal to use is a e-cig of their making.

Like I said, let me know how this study works out for you in the end.

 

[kingworm]

lolololololololololol

not an answer.

 

[The Vape Space]

Watch.

The study will only be deemed useful for the use of the tobacco companies closed source systems. While it makes me feel good about my own vaping, the study will have no impact on the open source systems that I use because while big tobacco makes their case for their own closed source systems they actively and openly lobby to ban the system I use, including the juice.

It matters not one wit if big tobacco lobbies for vaping in bars if the only device that is legal to use is a e-cig of their making.

Come on Time I have explained why they use closed source systems in studies. And there has not been an actual refutation of that foundational premise, only more slippery slope arguments posited on that assumption.

 

[The Vape Space]

not an answer.

>Be Me.
>Rolling in Lorillard Money.
>Donating it back to CASAA.
>Playing both sides against the middle.
>?
>Profit.

 

[kingworm]

>Be Me.
>Rolling in Lorillard Money.
>Donating it back to CASAA.
>Playing both sides against the middle.
>?
>Profit.

its a perfect cover. double agent

 

[The Vape Space]

I just wish it was more profitable :/

I thought these were multi-billion dollar companies. Here I am, a multi-thousandaire doing the grunt work.

 

[kingworm]

I just wish it was more profitable :/

I thought these were multi-billion dollar companies. Here I am, a multi-thousandaire doing the grunt work.

thats the part that is most suspicious. you claim to have a clean room where you manufacture juice to high standards and you donate a dollar of every purchase yet sell for industry standard price. i make my own juice so i know the cost it just doesn't seem very profitable.

 

[The Vape Space]

Why couldn't it be lot lizard work on the side?

thats the part that is most suspicious. you claim to have a clean room where you manufacture juice to high standards and you donate a dollar of every purchase yet sell for industry standard price. i make my own juice so i know the cost it just doesn't seem very profitable.

 

[kingworm]

Why couldn't it be lot lizard work on the side?

and waste all that small business profit on healthcare for stds?

 

[The Vape Space]

and waste all that small business profit on healthcare for stds?

Dental dams are a tax write off

 

[kingworm]

one pube in your juice vaping is much less enjoyable.

 

[The Vape Space]

The trade offs we make in life, ya know?

 

[Time]

Come on Time I have explained why they use closed source systems in studies. And there has not been an actual refutation of that foundational premise, only more slippery slope arguments posited on that assumption.

Yes. You have explained your assumption of why they used closed source systems. And, as I have explained, my assumption is different than yours.

They literally could have built their own system. It's very simple electronics and the cost is very cheap. I'm not inclined to assume they chose commercial ecigs of their own making simply for ease.

Conflicts of interest
The company for which the study authors work and the companies that manufacture the e-cigarettes tested for this study are owned by the same parent company.

 

[The Vape Space]

Yes. You have explained your assumption of why they used closed source systems. And, as I have explained, my assumption is different than yours.

They literally could have built their own system. It's very simple electronics and the cost is very cheap. I'm not inclined to assume they chose commercial ecigs of their own making simply for ease.

Conflicts of interest
The company for which the study authors work and the companies that manufacture the e-cigarettes tested for this study are owned by the same parent company.

I mean they are both backed up by incentives, one is relatively immediate, and utilitarian for their purposes (cost/ability to replicate/consistency), the other is far seeing, and somewhat unrelated in the majority of studies (end profit/unrelated companies prospering from it) - not to mention this shoots most scientist's reputations in the foot.

Lol I find the last bit ironic seeing as I pointed it out. Yes. 2 micrograms of HPHC/puff were found in e-cigs. Yet 3000 micrograms of HPHC/puff were found in their cigarettes. I suppose that because they didn't use a mech mod, these findings are a slander to all open source devices? That's the leap I just can't quite follow you on.

 

[kingworm]

Yes. You have explained your assumption of why they used closed source systems. And, as I have explained, my assumption is different than yours.

They literally could have built their own system. It's very simple electronics and the cost is very cheap. I'm not inclined to assume they chose commercial ecigs of their own making simply for ease.

Conflicts of interest
The company for which the study authors work and the companies that manufacture the e-cigarettes tested for this study are owned by the same parent company.

to say nothing of peer reviewing

 

[kingworm]

I mean they are both backed up by incentives, one is relatively immediate, and utilitarian for their purposes (cost/ability to replicate/consistency), the other is far seeing, and somewhat unrelated in the majority of studies (end profit/unrelated companies prospering from it) - not to mention this shoots most scientist's reputations in the foot.

Lol I find the last bit ironic seeing as I pointed it out. Yes. 2 micrograms of HPHC/puff were found in e-cigs. Yet 3000 micrograms of HPHC/puff were found in their cigarettes. I suppose that because they didn't use a mech mod, these findings are a slander to all open source devices? That's the leap I just can't quite follow you on.

i think the point is a shitty gas station e cig and a 200$ setup is not going to yield results that are in any way similar. these studies dont accurately represent vapers as a whole. they are studying the market as it was years ago not the market of today. its like testing the fuel efficiency of a model t

 

[The Vape Space]

i think the point is a shitty gas station e cig and a 200$ setup is not going to yield results that are in any way similar. these studies dont accurately represent vapers as a whole. they are studying the market as it was years ago not the market of today. its like testing the fuel efficiency of a model t

Definitely, and that's why I contributed to Farsalinos's crowdfunding for his look into higher end set ups. But as it stands, as surreal as it may appear to us, the majority of the 'e-cigarette market' is cig-a-likes, so it makes perfect sense to me that the majority of studies have been conducted on these devices. This (among other reasons) also gives leverage to the idea that it isn't a nefarious ploy.

 

[Time]

I mean they are both backed up by incentives, one is relatively immediate, and utilitarian for their purposes (cost/ability to replicate/consistency), the other is far seeing, and somewhat unrelated in the majority of studies (end profit/unrelated companies prospering from it) - not to mention this shoots most scientist's reputations in the foot.

Lol I find the last bit ironic seeing as I pointed it out. Yes. 2 micrograms of HPHC/puff were found in e-cigs. Yet 3000 micrograms of HPHC/puff were found in their cigarettes. I suppose that because they didn't use a mech mod, these findings are a slander to all open source devices? That's the leap I just can't quite follow you on.

There is no leap. I simply said "I think you might be over optimistic."

This study benefits big tobacco, not you or I.

There is no proposal to ban the commercial big tobacco products. None. This study is moot as far as the proposed regulations that big tobacco wants to be put in place go. It was done on their closed source systems. It is moot to all other systems and juice. It was done on their own closed source e-cigs for a reason. Their own reason.

The only thing this study does for me is give me, personally as a vaper, confidence that my vaping is probably healthier than smoking. It does nothing to say my juice and open source system is healthier. It does not say that your juice is healthier than smoking and big tobacco says that your juice should be regulated and unless you can spend the money that they spent to prove your juice is as safe as theirs, they don't want you selling it.

I've been saying the same thing for a long time. Vaping, like smoking, will never be banned. E-cigs sold by big tobacco will always be legal. But business' like yours won't be and the system I use won't be. So, I'll repeat. I think you might be over optimistic.

 

[The Vape Space]

There is no leap. I simply said "I think you might be over optimistic."

This study benefits big tobacco, not you or I.

There is no proposal to ban the commercial big tobacco products. None. This study is moot as far as the proposed regulations that big tobacco wants to be put in place go. It was done on their closed source systems. It is moot to all other systems and juice. It was done on their own closed source e-cigs for a reason. Their own reason.

The only thing this study does for me is give me, personally as a vaper, confidence that my vaping is probably healthier than smoking. It does nothing to say my juice and open source system is healthier. It does not say that your juice is healthier than smoking and big tobacco says that your juice should be regulated and unless you can spend the money that they spent to prove your juice is as safe as theirs, they don't want you selling it.

I've been saying the same thing for a long time. Vaping, like smoking, will never be banned. E-cigs sold by big tobacco will always be legal. But business' like yours won't be and the system I use won't be. So, I'll repeat. I think you might be over optimistic.

Actually, findings like this benefit the vape industry as a whole.

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research/2015/194-dual

While this finding is particular to a handful of cig-a-like brands, you realize that there will never be an array of tests on every single device/product, and the combinations thereof? I mean... Short of FDA mandated studies. Which I think we can all agree wouldn't be a good thing.

So all I'm saying is that to expect scientists to be jumping on board to test new devices every time a new study is around the corner is a tad naive, and then to assume this is because they are in the pockets of the monopoly man is slanderous and fallacious.

I realize there is a struggle going on with the FDA, and that we will find ourselves at odds with major tobacco companies, all this post was to illustrate was that we shouldn't get scientists caught up in the crossfire for things that aren't necessarily true. It makes those people (who often times represent the vape community) look like idiots, and doesn't do vapers a lot of service.

 

[Time]

Actually, findings like this benefit the vape industry as a whole.

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research/2015/194-dual

While this finding is particular to a handful of cig-a-like brands, you realize that there will never be an array of tests on every single device/product, and the combinations thereof? I mean... Short of FDA mandated studies. Which I think we can all agree that just won't happen.

So all I'm saying is that to expect scientists to be jumping on board to test new devices every time a new study is around the corner is a tad naive, and then to assume this is because they are in the pockets of the monopoly man is slanderous and fallacious.

I realize there is a struggle going on with the FDA, and that we will find ourselves at odds with major tobacco companies, all this post was to illustrate was that we shouldn't get scientists caught up in the crossfire for things that aren't necessarily true. It makes those people (who often times represent the vape community) look like idiots, and doesn't do vapers a lot of service.

Ya see, that's where we disagree. I don't see the study as benefiting the vaping industry as a whole for the very reason you outline; "there will never be an array of tests on every single device/product, and the combinations thereof? I mean... Short of FDA mandated studies. Which I think we can all agree that just won't happen. "

There will not be an array of tests and big tobacco has proven their product. They will adopt big tobacco's regulations because big tobacco will be leading the way for their "safer alternative" and no others will be proven. They have the labs. They have the scientists. They have the attorneys. Government will fall back on the people with the money because the people with the money can pay if there is a problem(or even if there isn't a problem).

Do you think big tobacco is going to go out of their way to prove the flavoring in their competitors(yours) juice? No, they are not. They are going to say that you need to be regulated to make sure there are no pubes and your juice tested and you pay attorneys to make sure you meet the regulations and fees for licensing to pay the inspectors and even when all those are met, who is to say that I don't misuse your juice and put it in a dripper at 150watts making your once safe juice unsafe. It's best(for public safety) to just keep the closed and proven source systems and make open source juice illegal because nobody knows what's in it or how it will be used. That is, by the way, the argument that big tobacco is already making. The argument is a rather simple one, there is no way to make sure all juice and wattages are safe so juice should be restricted to closed systems.

You and I have different conclusions stemming from the same information. I don't see you keeping your juice company open based on a study of big tobacco's closed ecig Blu. Not with them, and you, making the point that not all juice or delivery systems can ever be properly tested. That just leaves them.

 

[The Vape Space]

Ya see, that's where we disagree. I don't see the study as benefiting the vaping industry as a whole for the very reason you outline; "there will never be an array of tests on every single device/product, and the combinations thereof? I mean... Short of FDA mandated studies. Which I think we can all agree that just won't happen. "

There will not be an array of tests and big tobacco has proven their product. They will adopt big tobacco's regulations because big tobacco will be leading the way for their "safer alternative" and no others will be proven. They have the labs. They have the scientists. They have the attorneys. Government will fall back on the people with the money because the people with the money can pay if there is a problem(or even if there isn't a problem).

Do you think big tobacco is going to go out of their way to prove the flavoring in their competitors(yours) juice? No, they are not. They are going to say that you need to be regulated to make sure there are no pubes and your juice tested and you pay attorneys to make sure you meet the regulations and fees for licensing to pay the inspectors and even when all those are met, who is to say that I don't misuse your juice and put it in a dripper at 150watts making your once safe juice unsafe. It's best(for public safety) to just keep the closed and proven source systems and make open source juice illegal because nobody knows what's in it or how it will be used. That is, by the way, the argument that big tobacco is already making. The argument is a rather simple one, there is no way to make sure all juice and wattages are safe so juice should be restricted to closed systems.

You and I have different conclusions stemming from the same information. I don't see you keeping your juice company open based on a study of big tobacco's closed ecig Blu. Not with them, and you, making the point that not all juice or delivery systems can ever be properly tested. That just leaves them.

I actually cited a large study conducted which asked people of duel use what the biggest reason why they haven't completely stopped using cigarettes - that was misinformation/studies that find unhealthy things about e-cigs. This is the exact opposite.

What will be done with this information with regards to regulation, well that is purely speculation, but with these two data points it doesn't take Mr. Holmes to deduce that it isn't just benefiting them in the mean time.

You do get the main point of the thread, right? I mean we can speculate all day on the uncertain regulatory future, but making slanderous claims about scientists is a completely different matter. Slandering them does exactly jack shit to thwart actual regulations.

 

[freemind]

Ya see, that's where we disagree. I don't see the study as benefiting the vaping industry as a whole for the very reason you outline; "there will never be an array of tests on every single device/product, and the combinations thereof? I mean... Short of FDA mandated studies. Which I think we can all agree that just won't happen. "

There will not be an array of tests and big tobacco has proven their product. They will adopt big tobacco's regulations because big tobacco will be leading the way for their "safer alternative" and no others will be proven. They have the labs. They have the scientists. They have the attorneys. Government will fall back on the people with the money because the people with the money can pay if there is a problem(or even if there isn't a problem).

Do you think big tobacco is going to go out of their way to prove the flavoring in their competitors(yours) juice? No, they are not. They are going to say that you need to be regulated to make sure there are no pubes and your juice tested and you pay attorneys to make sure you meet the regulations and fees for licensing to pay the inspectors and even when all those are met, who is to say that I don't misuse your juice and put it in a dripper at 150watts making your once safe juice unsafe. It's best(for public safety) to just keep the closed and proven source systems and make open source juice illegal because nobody knows what's in it or how it will be used. That is, by the way, the argument that big tobacco is already making. The argument is a rather simple one, there is no way to make sure all juice and wattages are safe so juice should be restricted to closed systems.

You and I have different conclusions stemming from the same information. I don't see you keeping your juice company open based on a study of big tobacco's closed ecig Blu. Not with them, and you, making the point that not all juice or delivery systems can ever be properly tested. That just leaves them.

EXACTLY.

Being hopeful when these mom and pops don't have enough money to buy a glass of water at the table, will leave many VERY disappointed in the end.

It take LARGE bankrolls to win anything with the government. Big Tobacco already KNOWS how things work in Washington.

 

[The Vape Space]

EXACTLY.

Being hopeful when these mom and pops don't have enough money to buy a glass of water at the table, will leave many VERY disappointed in the end.

It take LARGE bankrolls to win anything with the government. Big Tobacco already KNOWS how things work in Washington.

Missing the entire point... But that's okay. Strawmen are always going to be easier.

 

[freemind]

No, I'm not missing the point.

You just refuse to see this for what it really IS.

Do corporations spend tons of money for their own self interests, carefully planned? Or do they spend piles of money to benefit their competitors?

If you think they are spending money for your benefit, you are completely nuts.

 

[The Vape Space]

No, I'm not missing the point.

You just refuse to see this for what it really IS.

Do corporations spend tons of money for their own self interests, carefully planned? Or do they spend piles of money to benefit their competitors?

If you think they are spending money for your benefit, you are completely nuts.

False Dichotomy.

While the studies may have been self motivated, the unintended consequences of having these studies conducted did produce an externality that benefits vaping as a whole.

The point is not what you have mentioned at all though, so keep trying.

 

[freemind]

There is nothing to keep trying.

You will see exactly what I mean, when you are OUT of business. I don't like it, but I don't have my head buried in the sand either.

You and 99% of the juice guy are gonna be out. You are too broke to afford to play with the big players. This study is not for your benefit. It gonna take a lot of MILLIONS to get a seat at the table.

 

[The Vape Space]

Once again, not the point... But if you wanna continue on with the red herring fear mongering, that's cool.

We can sit around and speculate on courses of action, and discuss game theory, but this isn't the thread for that.

This thread is to (a) show that even scientists who are clearly funded by big tobacco, whether through intended consequence, or not, can benefit vapers as a whole - I've actually provided peer reviewed evidence to back this claim up.

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research/2015/194-dual

And (b) that to assume that just because a study doesn't fit an ideal methodology, or finding, doesn't mean that those scientists were funded by some nefarious corporation. It's sad that I have to reiterate this, but it's a rampant plague in the community, and it's intellectually lazy.

 

[Time]

I actually cited a large study conducted which asked people of duel use what the biggest reason why they haven't completely stopped using cigarettes - that was misinformation/studies that find unhealthy things about e-cigs. This is the exact opposite.

What will be done with this information with regards to regulation, well that is purely speculation, but with these two data points it doesn't take Mr. Holmes to deduce that it isn't just benefiting them in the mean time.

You do get the main point of the thread, right? I mean we can speculate all day on the uncertain regulatory future, but making slanderous claims about scientists is a completely different matter. Slandering them does exactly jack shit to thwart actual regulations.

I'm not sure I understand your slandering accusation. I know I don't appreciate it. I have not slandered anyone. The study was done on big tobacco's Blu ecig and SKYCIG. It was done for the benefit of big tobacco. It was done by big tobacco. I have made no claim that the study is not valid for the purpose it was done for.

What you call speculation is not speculation at all.
http://www.journalnow.com/business/...cle_77b131f5-540d-5f02-927c-733bac751529.html

I very much enjoy conversations about such things that concern me but have decided that when things begin to degrade to accusations of slander and such I will just bow out before(or shortly after) the name calling begins. I hope you're right but the writing that I see on the wall is quite different. I really do hope everything works out for you in the end.

 

[The Vape Space]

The slandering was referring to no one here in particular - it was a reference towards those that make the generic claim made whenever a study comes out 'they must be in the pockets of -----'... A cue towards the title, and irony of the OP.

The study, while funded by those very people, actually provided good evidence, and that has been used by several outlets to prop vaping as a whole. When compounded with the Farsalinos research on what perpetuates people from switching over completely, it should be no surprise that there is an externality which benefits the vape community as a whole.

Never claimed that Tobacco Companies, and the FDA wouldn't make a nasty baby, it wasn't even about that - ever.

Peace mang.