Working on a study about vaping

[Time]

I think any serious discussion, from a scientific perspective, about vaping needs to start with "Is it less harmful". If I remember correctly from reading their blog, they do ask a similar question. If they have not attempted to answer that question first, and they have not or they wouldn't be asking it, then young persons perspective at this point is putting the cart before the horse. There is nothing to judge a young(or old for that matter) persons own perception of vaping as there is with smoking where the possible consequences are known.

For instance, you can't ask why do you do it when you know it's bad for you.

That's why I consider their study at this point to be pseudoscience. Without answering the "less harmful" question first, their conclusions cannot be accurate.

 

[pulsevape]

I'd still like to believe taking a rational approach focused on thoughtful, factually-based responses highlighting the reasons we feel the way we do about vaping will get us farther than something along the lines of

Researcher: Hi, I'd like to talk
Collective Mob: Eeek! Science! Fuck science and learny-people who go to schools and stuff, you go to hell!

Eventual Report: "Attempts to discuss and/or research users' motives were met with extreme hostility. None of the nicotine inhalers were willing or able to explain their reason for using these cigarette-like devices..."


What exactly are we attacking here?

For me, the most objectionable part is the bit about "threaten[ing] tobacco denormalization efforts that are intended to make smoking socially unacceptable." That may be on someone's agenda, but it's certainly not on mine, and that being a central tenet of the research (I'd like to hear Rachelle comment specifically on what the emphasis is on this facet of the end report) it certainly does make me nervous about contributing.

But I think that the end result of the paper could have some positives, if the focus is also to explore how vaping could "(1) promote nicotine dependency by encouraging dual-use with cigarettes, (2) act as a gateway into cigarette smoking, (3) serve as a cessation aid for young people."

I feel very strongly that the vast majority of dual-users are either seeking to quit or primary smokers seeking to reduce their tobacco consumption, and I believe that any legitimate and objective research on the topic would prove this - which would ultimately be a win for vapers.

I disagree strongly with the theory that vaping is a gateway to tobacco use of any sort, and again I'm thoroughly confident that an objective look at the facts would bear my theory out.

I just as strongly (for the sake of being "strong" with all of my words here) believe that vaping is an incredibly effective cessation aid - my wife and I smoked for 15 years when we quit at age 30 (a little outside the target age range of this study), but there are a handful of younger VU members who are former smokers - I doubt they're alone, and most of them cruise by for a quick hit on looking at equipment advice before moving on and actually quitting rather than becoming involved in our hobbyist community.

So that's three out of four topics of the study that I believe would come out making vapers look good, and one topic that I think is total bullshit that shouldn't even be up for discussion in an allegedly "free" society. In my world that's not the worst outlook ever, and generally the inverse favorability ratio I have to three out of four objectives stated by any politician, choose your party...


I agree. I'm trying to break down my concerns and reasons for having them as explicitly as possible so they can't help but be addressed...expressing distrust for anyone who's ever practiced medicine, claiming that a person we don't know (but have reasons to be suspicious about) is as lacking in ethics as your typical police officer, allegations of fascism, expressing distrust for people because of their place of origin - these don't drive the debate. Not to say that anyone is actually attempting to have one.

Flame on...I'm pretty sure we've chased her off anyways, so this is pretty much moot.

What the fuck are you talking about?....I've known vapers who ...had a PHD in toxicology...were research chemists,were engineers,were doctors......when any new wick material or juice ingredent is introcduced there are huge threads investigating it very intelligent and learned vapers contribute information...for the whole community to read I personally ask the vaper I know who is a PHD in toxicology wht his thought are on the subject..I have never seen a group of people go to the extremes of vetting what they put in their body as vapers have....To accuse us of being ant-science is ridiculous..
What we are is realistic...we know we live in a country with an amazingly corrupt and oppresive goverment, a goverment who has no problem watching people die to increase the wealth of corporations and the national banks.we know that so called science is now, and has historically been in the past a political football. We know for instance that the goverment is pushing the whole "climate change" propoganda, and that it's implementation will make or break fortunes for very wealthy people...we have a goverment telling us "the science is in" what kind of facist lunacy is that...the science isn't "in" on anything that's why it's called science.our knowledge has to be always questioned the boundery pushed farther....we have facist freaks in the goverment who actually are calling for people who question man made climate change to be jailed...the goverment. the IPCC has been caught lying about data,surpressing data, manipulating data, threatening dissenting scientist, with loss of funding, loss of employment at universities.ect....that is not science.......we have Monsantos corporation telling us "the science is in" on GMOs , and they are harmless even though most of the world will not allow them in their countries...we have all kinds of data on the deadly effects of GMOs across the globe and yet Monsantos is able to buy our goverment "scientists to lie....the idea vapers are a bunch of 23 year old hipsters blowing huge nar nar clouds , is silly we are adults,educated and competent not afraid of EEEEWWW science or anything else, except the power and evil of our own goverment....and this persons evasive attitudes and creepy Orwellian cliches are a red flag we are dealing with a little appertchick of the state.

 

[vuJim]

I'd still like to believe taking a rational approach focused on thoughtful, factually-based responses highlighting the reasons we feel the way we do about vaping...

That would be nice. Too bad the people doing the study are starting with...

(1) ENDS may threaten tobacco denormalization efforts that are intended to make smoking socially unacceptable, (2) ENDS may be used together with, not in place of, conventional cigarettes (dual-use), and (3) ENDS may serve as a gateway into smoking.

Maybe you don't see it, Dave, but, to me, this looks just like the same kinds of "studies" I've seen anti-gun zealots conduct. ICBW, but this looks to me like the organization in question has an agenda.

I've spotted at least two articles that put that org's speculations to rest just in the short time I've been here. Now: Either they have an agenda, in which case nothing rational or factual anybody can say will make a whit of difference in the outcome of their "study," or they've spent no time whatsoever researching existing data on the subject, in which case one might reasonably question their competence as researchers.

Like I said: ICBW, but, TBH, this comes across like a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" kind of a thing.

 

[OBDave]

@Time - good point, and I believe you're right about this study perhaps asking less important questions than ought to be asked first.

@pulsevape - also good points about vapers being receptive to science when it comes to researching vape-related materials. I still think that as a population we get a little paranoid and act like we've got something to hide when anyone who doesn't actively vape expresses an interest in anything vape-related. I'm not following you down the rabbit hole on climate change denial or genetically modified organisms - the science is 99% in on both of those and it appears the liberals and conservatives have each got one right and the other dead wrong.

@vuJim - it does indeed look like this study has a predetermined conclusion, for the exact reasons you mention. I'm interested as to whether the OP can convincingly rebut the what the evidence seems to suggest. If she can't, I assume she'll tuck tail and run. However, I may never know whether she's done that or simply thrown up her hands in exasperation, concluding we're all a bunch of crazy wingnuts with nothing useful to say even if we agreed to talk.

 

[pulsevape]

@Time - good point, and I believe you're right about this study perhaps asking less important questions than ought to be asked first.

@pulsevape - also good points about vapers being receptive to science when it comes to researching vape-related materials. I still think that as a population we get a little paranoid and act like we've got something to hide when anyone who doesn't actively vape expresses an interest in anything vape-related. I'm not following you down the rabbit hole on climate change denial or genetically modified organisms - the science is 99% in on both of those and it appears the liberals and conservatives have each got one right and the other dead wrong.

@vuJim - it does indeed look like this study has a predetermined conclusion, for the exact reasons you mention. I'm interested as to whether the OP can convincingly rebut the what the evidence seems to suggest. If she can't, I assume she'll tuck tail and run. However, I may never know whether she's done that or simply thrown up her hands in exasperation, concluding we're all a bunch of crazy wingnuts with nothing useful to say even if we agreed to talk.

Facisim is politiaclly popluar once again as it was in the 1930s...the idea ....the thought that the "science is 99%in" is not thinking...it's a cliche a slogan created by the wealthiest and most powerfull people in the world...science is never "in" science is never 99% anything....the very idea is anti-intellectual it is saying we don't need to think to question our assumptions...it is what Galelleo faced what Darwin faced......

 

[OBDave]

I see...so the science is also not in on how babies are made, and the stork philosophy is still fully plausible. Got it.

fat fingered flubs courtesy dumb mobile phone

 

[pulsevape]

I see...so the science is also not in on how babies are made, and the stork philosophy is still fully plausible. Got it.

fat fingered flubs courtesy dumb mobile phone

You are being totally dishonest and it doesn't bother you one little bit being dishonest, you believe either your moral paltitudes give you the right to be dishonest, or the simple fact the faceless power of the borg to punish dissent makes you right... IPCC has been caught in not a couple,not a few dozen, but in hundreds of acts of outright lying,manipulating dat,afalsifying data, supressing scientific dissent,threatening people......this is less like a scientific body and more like an inquistional witchunt....and this doesn't disturb you...this doesn't give you reason to pause, this doesn't give you reason to even question the borg.By the way when know so much about how babies are made we know what sex they are long before they are born....They can't even tell you what the weather is going to be like next thursday.so much for your 99% science.....when do you start sacrificing virgins in a volcano....
Personally I do not find it at all implausable that man's activity has affected the atmoshpere to a harmfull degree...I do stop and question any body of politically appointed and govermental/corporate funded self appointed "experts" that tell me science is 99% in and has to use jackbooted iron fisted coersion and not science to prove their point.

 

[Time]

I see...so the science is also not in on how babies are made, and the stork philosophy is still fully plausible. Got it.

fat fingered flubs courtesy dumb mobile phone

That's going a bit far. Science is a mixture of facts and theories. Today is no different than two thousand years ago. Scientists are finding that what they believed to be true based on the facts they had yesterday are not true based on the additional facts they have today.

Are you certain that there are no internal earth factors at play that we don't understand yet? Are you certain that there are no external solar system/universe factors at play that we don't understand yet?

Your example itself is full of unanswered questions.

When an agenda is present, as there is with antivaping groups, it's not uncommon for science to be manipulated. Just like I find claims that cow farts are contributing to climate change to be agenda driven.

At any rate, I don't hold the same idea that you seem to that the conclusions drawn are based on all the facts. Man is not nearly as intelligent as people tend to believe despite some who put themselves on a pedestal. It's been my experience, having read a good many subjects, that scientific consensus isn't always correct and leads to many many years of incorrect conclusions because scientists won't challenge the consensus and actually ridicule those that do. Lot's of history has shown that very observation.

 

[surrogatekey]

For me, the most objectionable part is the bit about "threaten[ing] tobacco denormalization efforts that are intended to make smoking socially unacceptable." That may be on someone's agenda, but it's certainly not on mine, and that being a central tenet of the research (I'd like to hear Rachelle comment specifically on what the emphasis is on this facet of the end report) it certainly does make me nervous about contributing.

Thanks for asking about this. I'm going to use this to respond to this plus some other stuff that I have seen in this thread. It got long, so I tried to divide it up a little -

So, tobacco denormalization. There are a couple different aspects to this. Concerns about vaping 'threatening tobacco denormalization' among young people are a major feature of the literature on vaping that is coming from the public health community. (Since I saw some references to this phrase in other comments, I want to mention that "the public health community" here = dominant perspectives in public health as a whole. The Center for Critical Public Health tends to highlight alternative perspectives on public health issues.) Specifically, the public health community is concerned that vaping will make nicotine use more popular in such a way that cigarette smoking will become 're-glamorized.'

Right now there is a lack of empirical investigation into this concern. Our study will look at this concern in light of the perspectives of vapers, (esp. young vapers), who are the experts in their own experiences + have insight into this question that other people don't have.

Another aspect of tobacco denormalization that I'm hearing in the comments here is about the ethics of tobacco denormalization efforts. If you are concerned only with reducing smoking at the population-level, then tobacco denormalization in general appears to be a very effective approach. But there is a pretty big range of views on the ethics of these efforts and their outcomes, just as there is a big range of tobacco denormalization processes, practices, and intents behind them. Two of our Center’s projects focus on the stigmatization of smoking (associated with some kinds of tobacco denormalization) and its consequences.

As a researcher, I would not want to share my personal point of view on this here and then ask people about related topics for a study. Of course I have opinions, but my job here would be about understanding the views of people here.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Another thing I wanted to address that came up in some of the comments has to do with reasons for the process we have for doing an online focus group on a forum. So this next bit is about that process and why we use it.

Our process follows ethics requirements that come from our Institutional Review Board (IRB). At most academic and research institutions, all research involving people must meet requirements set by the institution's IRB.

When a researcher wants to ask a group of people focus group-type questions in an online space, our IRB treats it much like an in-person focus group. In an in-person focus group, we generally introduce ourselves, say something about the topic of conversation, give people a way to contact us directly, and say something about what we will do to protect participants' identities in research publications.

With an in-person focus group, we usually know participants' real names. So to protect their identity, we don't use their real names in research publications.

With an online focus group, identity is a little weirder. People who participate in publicly accessible online forums usually know that their comments are available to just about anyone, and lots of people use pseudonyms. But some usernames are easily attached to a real name - like I use "surrogatekey" as a username a lot, and if you google "surrogatekey" you will see it linked to "Rachelle Annechino" pretty quickly. Our IRB tries to take that into account for online focus groups.

We do not ever ask participants in an online focus group to post their names, email addresses, phone numbers, or any other personally identifying information to a forum thread.

So here is the introductory blurb we would use when opening an online focus group thread here:

I am a researcher at the Center for Critical Public Health (criticalpublichealth.org), a nonprofit public health research center. We are conducting a study about the use of electronic cigarettes and vaping devices. We’re trying to learn more about people’s thoughts and opinions regarding their use. We would like to ask this group a few questions about vaping. Please only participate in the discussion if you are 18 years of age older. We may use some of your comments when we publish the results of our research, but none of the comments we quote will include your username. Please be aware, however, that someone reading one of our research publications might still be able to link your comment to your username through an online search. Finally, please do not use harassing, degrading, or intimidating language. If you do use such language, we will refer to the forum’s terms of service and take appropriate action. If you have any comments or questions, you can contact me by PM. My contact information can also be found on our Center’s website.

(Please note that we will not use any quotes from *this* thread in research publications. I'm just pasting this here so people can check out the kind of blurb that we would post at the beginning of an online focus group thread.)

Our IRB also worries a lot about people flaming each other online, so that's the reason for the stuff in there about "harassing language." Different online communities have different standards for that, but if one participant said something to another participant in the thread that seemed like a clear breach of community standards here, I could bring it to the attention of a moderator.

Of course just about anyone can visit an online forum, read people's comments, and quote them, so it might seem strange that we do this. It's an IRB thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that answers some questions.

I can't ever promise anyone that a study's results will be what they want to hear. What I can promise is that everyone on this research team is committed to listening to what people have to say with respect and an open mind, everyone on this research team is committed to telling the truth about what we find in this study, and no one on this team hates vapers or vaping.

 

[pulsevape]

Thanks for asking about this. I'm going to use this to respond to this plus some other stuff that I have seen in this thread. It got long, so I tried to divide it up a little -

So, tobacco denormalization. There are a couple different aspects to this. Concerns about vaping 'threatening tobacco denormalization' among young people are a major feature of the literature on vaping that is coming from the public health community. (Since I saw some references to this phrase in other comments, I want to mention that "the public health community" here = dominant perspectives in public health as a whole. The Center for Critical Public Health tends to highlight alternative perspectives on public health issues.) Specifically, the public health community is concerned that vaping will make nicotine use more popular in such a way that cigarette smoking will become 're-glamorized.'

Right now there is a lack of empirical investigation into this concern. Our study will look at this concern in light of the perspectives of vapers, (esp. young vapers), who are the experts in their own experiences + have insight into this question that other people don't have.

Another aspect of tobacco denormalization that I'm hearing in the comments here is about the ethics of tobacco denormalization efforts. If you are concerned only with reducing smoking at the population-level, then tobacco denormalization in general appears to be a very effective approach. But there is a pretty big range of views on the ethics of these efforts and their outcomes, just as there is a big range of tobacco denormalization processes, practices, and intents behind them. Two of our Center’s projects focus on the stigmatization of smoking (associated with some kinds of tobacco denormalization) and its consequences.

As a researcher, I would not want to share my personal point of view on this here and then ask people about related topics for a study. Of course I have opinions, but my job here would be about understanding the views of people her

-------------------------------------------------------------

Another thing I wanted to address that came up in some of the comments has to do with reasons for the process we have for doing an online focus group on a forum. So this next bit is about that process and why we use it.

Our process follows ethics requirements that come from our Institutional Review Board (IRB). At most academic and research institutions, all research involving people must meet requirements set by the institution's IRB.

When a researcher wants to ask a group of people focus group-type questions in an online space, our IRB treats it much like an in-person focus group. In an in-person focus group, we generally introduce ourselves, say something about the topic of conversation, give people a way to contact us directly, and say something about what we will do to protect participants' identities in research publications.

With an in-person focus group, we usually know participants' real names. So to protect their identity, we don't use their real names in research publications.

With an online focus group, identity is a little weirder. People who participate in publicly accessible online forums usually know that their comments are available to just about anyone, and lots of people use pseudonyms. But some usernames are easily attached to a real name - like I use "surrogatekey" as a username a lot, and if you google "surrogatekey" you will see it linked to "Rachelle Annechino" pretty quickly. Our IRB tries to take that into account for online focus groups.

We do not ever ask participants in an online focus group to post their names, email addresses, phone numbers, or any other personally identifying information to a forum thread.

So here is the introductory blurb we would use when opening an online focus group thread here:

I am a researcher at the Center for Critical Public Health (criticalpublichealth.org), a nonprofit public health research center. We are conducting a study about the use of electronic cigarettes and vaping devices. We’re trying to learn more about people’s thoughts and opinions regarding their use. We would like to ask this group a few questions about vaping. Please only participate in the discussion if you are 18 years of age older. We may use some of your comments when we publish the results of our research, but none of the comments we quote will include your username. Please be aware, however, that someone reading one of our research publications might still be able to link your comment to your username through an online search. Finally, please do not use harassing, degrading, or intimidating language. If you do use such language, we will refer to the forum’s terms of service and take appropriate action. If you have any comments or questions, you can contact me by PM. My contact information can also be found on our Center’s website.

(Please note that we will not use any quotes from *this* thread in research publications. I'm just pasting this here so people can check out the kind of blurb that we would post at the beginning of an online focus group thread.)

Our IRB also worries a lot about people flaming each other online, so that's the reason for the stuff in there about "harassing language." Different online communities have different standards for that, but if one participant said something to another participant in the thread that seemed like a clear breach of community standards here, I could bring it to the attention of a moderator.

Of course just about anyone can visit an online forum, read people's comments, and quote them, so it might seem strange that we do this. It's an IRB thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that answers some questions.

I can't ever promise anyone that a study's results will be what they want to hear. What I can promise is that everyone on this research team is committed to listening to what people have to say with respect and an open mind, everyone on this research team is committed to telling the truth about what we find in this study, and no one on this team hates vapers or vaping.

WHO funds you.

 

[vuJim]

Thanks for asking about this. I'm going to use this to respond to this plus some other stuff that I have seen in this thread.

Thanks for the explanations, Rachelle.

WHO funds you.

Is that a question or an assertion?

 

[pulsevape]

Thanks for the explanations, Rachelle.


Is that a question or an assertion?

question.

 

[OBDave]

WHO funds you.

Ripped from website in OP's signature:

This research is supported by funds from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP), grant number 24RT-0019. The content provided here is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of TRDRP.

Ripped from http://trdrp.org/funding-opportunities/index.html which is TRDRP's funding-related page:

The Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of California (TRDRP) offers a unique source of funding that supports investigators at all eligible California institutions who are engaged in research that directly contributes to the elimination of smoking and tobacco use and mitigates its human and economic costs in California.

There's nothing immediately jumping out there about e-cigs, but feel free to peruse the (quite easily obtained) funding source link. My assumption (and it's only an assumption) is that "smoking and tobacco use" probably includes vaping products.

 

[Model_A_Ford]

Anything you say can and will be used against you.

 

[surrogatekey]

Ripped from website in OP's signature:

This research is supported by funds from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP), grant number 24RT-0019. The content provided here is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of TRDRP.

Ripped from http://trdrp.org/funding-opportunities/index.html which is TRDRP's funding-related page:

The Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of California (TRDRP) offers a unique source of funding that supports investigators at all eligible California institutions who are engaged in research that directly contributes to the elimination of smoking and tobacco use and mitigates its human and economic costs in California.

There's nothing immediately jumping out there about e-cigs, but feel free to peruse the (quite easily obtained) funding source link. My assumption (and it's only an assumption) is that "smoking and tobacco use" probably includes vaping products.

Thanks for answering this - yeah, that's the funder -

 

[pulsevape]

I got as far as "California"...nuff said.

 

[Lost]

Ripped from website in OP's signature:
This research is supported by funds from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP), grant number 24RT-0019. The content provided here is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of TRDRP.
Ripped from http://trdrp.org/funding-opportunities/index.html which is TRDRP's funding-related page:

Oh dearest Dave. For some stupid reason, I read through this whole, painful thread... getting quite worked up in the process. Then you swoop in with your magnificent closer.

Can we appoint you as the Official Sniffer-Outer of Bad Uncomfortable Things?

You know how you feel after sitting through an incredibly good/intense movie? Not exactly dizzy. Not entirely transformed. For a while, you just feel... different. Seriously, I feel different right now.