If you smoke cigarettes and vape (use e-cig), and are at least 18 years old, you may be eligible to participate in a research study by University of Southern California investigators examining smoking and vaping. Compensation is available.
Become a Patron!
USC Vaping & Smoking Research Study
- Thread starter uscvaping&smokingstudy
- Start date
put up a link
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
Your School Also Did This ANTI-VAPING Study Correct?
https://news.usc.edu/67718/e-cigarette-smoke-found-to-contain-toxic-metals/
https://news.usc.edu/67718/e-cigarette-smoke-found-to-contain-toxic-metals/
I'd like to think I speak for all of us when I say I'm so glad you're on our side.
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
So you are here to "help us"? You are ANTZ
http://www.universityherald.com/art...oxic-elements-cigarettes-california-smoke.htm
http://www.universityherald.com/art...oxic-elements-cigarettes-california-smoke.htm
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
"While secondhand smoke created by electronic cigarettes is for the most part less harmful than that emitted by their tobacco-burning cousins, it still puts toxins into surrounding air, a study has found.
Secondhand smoke emitted by e-cigarettes was found to have only a tenth of the harmful particles found in tobacco smoke, and almost zero levels of organic carcinogens, but concentrations of some harmful toxic metals were determined to be appreciably higher, the researchers say.
E-cigarette secondhand smoke was found to contain the toxic element chromium, not present in traditional cigarettes, and nickel in levels four times greater than normal cigarettes, researchers at the University of Southern California are reporting in the Journal of Environmental Science, Processes and Impacts."
Secondhand "smoke" emitted by e-cigarettes?
Smoke?
Yea, you're here to do us a favor right?
Help us out huh?
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...ul-second-hand-smoke-full-of-toxic-metals.htm
Secondhand smoke emitted by e-cigarettes was found to have only a tenth of the harmful particles found in tobacco smoke, and almost zero levels of organic carcinogens, but concentrations of some harmful toxic metals were determined to be appreciably higher, the researchers say.
E-cigarette secondhand smoke was found to contain the toxic element chromium, not present in traditional cigarettes, and nickel in levels four times greater than normal cigarettes, researchers at the University of Southern California are reporting in the Journal of Environmental Science, Processes and Impacts."
Secondhand "smoke" emitted by e-cigarettes?
Smoke?
Yea, you're here to do us a favor right?
Help us out huh?
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...ul-second-hand-smoke-full-of-toxic-metals.htm
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
PhD Program in Health Behavior Research - University of Southern California
October 2, 2012 ·
Stanton Glantz, Professor of Medicine and Director of the UC San Francisco Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education is seeking a postdoctoral fellow interested in conducting research on how the tobacco industry was has worked to influence of the tobacco industry on the scientific process, particularly as it relates to efforts to regulate secondhand smoke and cigarette design. Data collection will involve researching written records (including tobacco industry documents) and reviewing associated scientific literature, which often involves toxicology, physiology or biostatistics.
Strong analytical and writing skills are important. This position is for one to three years and suitable for an individual with a life sciences or statistical background who is looking to gain research experience as a postdoctoral fellow in work with high public policy relevance. Stipend is on the NIH scale, currently ranging from approximately $39,264 to $49,884, depending on years of postdoctoral experience.
Send a letter describing your interests and experience and writing samples of your work to Stanton Glantz, Box 1390, University of California, 530 Parnassus Ave., San Francisco, CA 91413-1390, or email to [email protected].
"UCSF is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. The University undertakes affirmative action to assure equal employment opportunity for underutilized minorities and women, for persons with disabilities, and for covered veterans. www.ucsf.edu"
University of California, San Francisco | www.ucsf.edu
The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is a leading university dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and...
ucsf.edu
- Stanton Glantz is the enemy
Lets hear it for the suddenly silent uscvaping&smokingstudy
I don't smoke anymore. I haven't picked up one cigarette since I started vaping. I have been doing just fine with breaking cigarettes, thanks to vaping. I don't appreciate control freak "nanny state" bs telling me what I can do with my body. Why do you think Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and tax loving politicians, are having a field day? Because the people haven't got ticked off enough, that's why. Don't tell me how I can't have my vape, and I won't tell you to _ _ _ _ off.
If it comes out of California, or NY...you already have me suspicious, especially if it is from a college. You are fed propaganda with a funnel, not a spoon.
If it comes out of California, or NY...you already have me suspicious, especially if it is from a college. You are fed propaganda with a funnel, not a spoon.
Last edited:
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to clarify that although we do conducting research studies on smoking & vaping at the University of Southern California, our study is not associated with Dr. Sioutas's or Dr. Glantz's work or any research conducted at USC on the toxins that electronic cigarettes may release into the environment. We are not anti-vaping, we simply want to understand the relation between cigarettes and electronic cigarettes, because the use of electronic cigarettes has rapidly increased in prevalence in recent years. Our studies are completely voluntary and provide compensation. We are looking for people who smoke and vape. If anyone is interested you can sign up online at http://smokingstudy.usc.edu/ or email us at [email protected] or call us at 323-442-2598 for more information.
I just wanted to clarify that although we do conducting research studies on smoking & vaping at the University of Southern California, our study is not associated with Dr. Sioutas's or Dr. Glantz's work or any research conducted at USC on the toxins that electronic cigarettes may release into the environment. We are not anti-vaping, we simply want to understand the relation between cigarettes and electronic cigarettes, because the use of electronic cigarettes has rapidly increased in prevalence in recent years. Our studies are completely voluntary and provide compensation. We are looking for people who smoke and vape. If anyone is interested you can sign up online at http://smokingstudy.usc.edu/ or email us at [email protected] or call us at 323-442-2598 for more information.
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
Sorry but there is no relation between cigarettes and vaping.
Except if you mean the cure for cigarettes.
Just as how you consider us to be guilty by association because Big Tobacco makes 2 brands of junk gas station cigalikes that don't work.
You are guilty by association by the dinosaurs in Tobacco Control that you keep as company.
"Our studies are completely voluntary and provide compensation" <--- This is a tobacco control method of dancing around the truth.
What EXACTLY are your studies going to be looking for?
What " toxins that electronic cigarettes may release into the environment" are you looking for?
We want the truth for a change.
Your cronies have been lying to smokers to keep them on taxes for too long.
Except if you mean the cure for cigarettes.
Just as how you consider us to be guilty by association because Big Tobacco makes 2 brands of junk gas station cigalikes that don't work.
You are guilty by association by the dinosaurs in Tobacco Control that you keep as company.
"Our studies are completely voluntary and provide compensation" <--- This is a tobacco control method of dancing around the truth.
What EXACTLY are your studies going to be looking for?
What " toxins that electronic cigarettes may release into the environment" are you looking for?
We want the truth for a change.
Your cronies have been lying to smokers to keep them on taxes for too long.
Hi everyone! I just want to clarify something on this subject. I'm actually doing this study at USC and I smoke and vape and they are NOT against vaping or smoking...that is not their motive at all. I promise you. Others at USC may have done studies on vaping, but this particular one is not against vaping or smoking at all. I'm an avid vaper and the people there are great and wonderful and have NO problem with anyone who vapes or smokes. Hope this clarifies it for some of u!!!!
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
Let's see, you signed up 3 minutes ago and this is your first post.
You all are going to have to try a little harder.
How about answering these questions without dancing around the truth like a Glantz puppet?
What EXACTLY are your studies going to be looking for?
What " toxins that electronic cigarettes may release into the environment" are you looking for?
You all are going to have to try a little harder.
How about answering these questions without dancing around the truth like a Glantz puppet?
What EXACTLY are your studies going to be looking for?
What " toxins that electronic cigarettes may release into the environment" are you looking for?
Hi! Actually no word of a lie I'm in LA doing the study. They are not looking for toxins in the vapors. I'll tell u a bit about what I do when I'm in the study as they can't respond to u I'm sure. They checking my emotions and physical state after I vape and smoke. I do questionaire's about random shit and sit there. I promise you they are not against vaping at all. Ask me anything you want, if I know the answer I'll tell u!!!
I would venture to say, VU folks, that we shouldn't be quick to judge a group doing a study on cigs and vaping. Although I agree with you on the fact that these folks need to be transparent about what their motives are seeing as they are new to VU and their first post is about a vaping/smoking study, I wouldn't be quick to judge them as ANTI or otherwise. We always talk about how we need more groups to do studies on vaping so we can better understand it and its effects. But I've noticed that in the same breath we are damning a lot of those who are doing any studies with a remote chance of saying there are negative effects as ANTI-vaping and out to get it banned, etc. So if the research proves vaping is bad for us, are we suddenly going to stop vaping? We're all grown adults and those of us who have smoked before know that we will continue on our rhythm; hasn't stopped smokers from smoking despite all the damning evidence against it, and i'd venture to say it wont stop vapers from vaping either. If you want to participate in the study, by all means. If you don't, that's within your right as well. VU is pretty good at sniffing out BS or biased studies when we see em, so let them do the study. We can only judge after we see what the findings produce.
That being said, @pwgnikki and @uscvaping&smokingstudy , please elaborate on what exactly your study is aimed at finding because you are using verbiage that isn't all that clear; while you say you're not anti-vaping, you've already brought up "toxins that may be released into the environment" which there isn't any definitive proof that there are any released in any significant quantity to warrant such as statement. It would benefit your case greatly if you were to be transparent with the VU population, as we don't seem to like it when people start poking around as you have been.
That being said, @pwgnikki and @uscvaping&smokingstudy , please elaborate on what exactly your study is aimed at finding because you are using verbiage that isn't all that clear; while you say you're not anti-vaping, you've already brought up "toxins that may be released into the environment" which there isn't any definitive proof that there are any released in any significant quantity to warrant such as statement. It would benefit your case greatly if you were to be transparent with the VU population, as we don't seem to like it when people start poking around as you have been.
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
I would venture to say, VU folks, that we shouldn't be quick to judge a group doing a study on cigs and vaping. Although I agree with you on the fact that these folks need to be transparent about what their motives are seeing as they are new to VU and their first post is about a vaping/smoking study, I wouldn't be quick to judge them as ANTI or otherwise. We always talk about how we need more groups to do studies on vaping so we can better understand it and its effects. But I've noticed that in the same breath we are damning a lot of those who are doing any studies with a remote chance of saying there are negative effects as ANTI-vaping and out to get it banned, etc. So if the research proves vaping is bad for us, are we suddenly going to stop vaping? We're all grown adults and those of us who have smoked before know that we will continue on our rhythm; hasn't stopped smokers from smoking despite all the damning evidence against it, and i'd venture to say it wont stop vapers from vaping either. If you want to participate in the study, by all means. If you don't, that's within your right as well. VU is pretty good at sniffing out BS or biased studies when we see em, so let them do the study. We can only judge after we see what the findings produce.
That being said, @pwgnikki and @uscvaping&smokingstudy , please elaborate on what exactly your study is aimed at finding because you are using verbiage that isn't all that clear; while you say you're not anti-vaping, you've already brought up "toxins that may be released into the environment" which there isn't any definitive proof that there are any released in any significant quantity to warrant such as statement. It would benefit your case greatly if you were to be transparent with the VU population, as we don't seem to like it when people start poking around as you have been.
Google "Stanton Glantz electronic cigarettes" and tell me why HIS SCHOOL needs to be doing studies on vaping?
Really Google that shit then come back and tell me what % of a chance it will be a pro vaping study.
Also required Stanton Glantz reading:
Conclusion of New Glantz Study on Electronic Cigarettes is Junk Science
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/conclusion-of-new-glantz-study-on.html
Glantz Tells Public There is No Question that E-Cigarettes are a Gateway to Smoking, But Today's Monitoring the Future Data Show the Opposite
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/12/glantz-tells-public-there-is-no.html
Study Blows Out of the Water the Claim that Substantially Reducing Cigarette Smoking Has No Health Benefits
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/02/study-blows-out-of-water-claim-that.html
Glantz Review Article is Little More than an Unscientific Hatchet Job on E-Cigarettes
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/05/glantz-review-article-is-little-more.html
CDC and Glantz Misinformation Campaigns on Electronic Cigarettes are Working: Media Disseminating False Conclusions to Public
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/cdc-and-glantz-misinformation-campaigns.html
My (Censored) Response to Stan Glantz's Contention that Electronic Cigarettes are Causing Youth to Smoke More Heavily
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/my-censored-response-to-stan-glantzs.html
I want to clarify that our research is not looking into toxins that may be released by electronic cigarettes, I was trying to say that we are not associated with professors who may be doing research on that topic at USC, I apologize if I was unclear about that. I completely understand the need for us to be more transparent about our research; however because it is an ongoing study and we do need to maintain the scientific integrity of it, therefore we cannot disclose everything about it unless someone participates. I can disclose that is a very exploratory research study, meaning that we don't necessarily know a lot about vaping and simply want to understand more about how vaping might lead to changes in smoking behavior or vice versa.
You guys are aware that public universities are pretty big, right? And that USC is one of the bigger ones on that already-big scale, even just considering its medical school...I'm not vouching for @uscvaping&smokingstudy at all here, I genuinely have no idea what they're up to, and the vagueness of the posts isn't helping a lot - perhaps there's some sort of 'mission statement' type language outlining the the study that could be shared, which would be helpful to us all.
What I will say is that it seems a bit paranoid to express such a devout belief that because one employee of a massive university has conducted some bad science (and, being familiar with the assertions made, I'll offer the opinion that it's bad science rather than good science that happens to make vaping look bad) the entire school is something to be scared of/hostile toward. And I don't think that paranoia necessarily reflects us in the best light possible, either.
What I will say is that it seems a bit paranoid to express such a devout belief that because one employee of a massive university has conducted some bad science (and, being familiar with the assertions made, I'll offer the opinion that it's bad science rather than good science that happens to make vaping look bad) the entire school is something to be scared of/hostile toward. And I don't think that paranoia necessarily reflects us in the best light possible, either.
I may just be the guy who likes to give the benefit of the doubt; that's just me, and if you know anything about me, I like to hear both sides to a story. These folks have now stated twice that they have no association with Dr. Glantz, so again, let em have at it with their study. I'd be interested to see what they find and will gladly engage in discussion once whatever facts they find are presented.
@WARCHOP37 I completely agree with everything u said. I agree with you completely that there are no toxins released when vaping...although I do both smoke and vape this study is more on how u feel mentally and emotionally after u smoke and vape rather then on the toxins or chemistry of it all. Seeing as I'm doing the study not once have i had to answer or be tested about any chemical or toxin in my body I'm simply answering questions on my mental and emotional state when I smoke or vape and when I don't. I hope that makes sense and clears it up a bit for you. I'm pretty sure that the actual USC Study people can't respond to you otherwise they would have by now.I would venture to say, VU folks, that we shouldn't be quick to judge a group doing a study on cigs and vaping. Although I agree with you on the fact that these folks need to be transparent about what their motives are seeing as they are new to VU and their first post is about a vaping/smoking study, I wouldn't be quick to judge them as ANTI or otherwise. We always talk about how we need more groups to do studies on vaping so we can better understand it and its effects. But I've noticed that in the same breath we are damning a lot of those who are doing any studies with a remote chance of saying there are negative effects as ANTI-vaping and out to get it banned, etc. So if the research proves vaping is bad for us, are we suddenly going to stop vaping? We're all grown adults and those of us who have smoked before know that we will continue on our rhythm; hasn't stopped smokers from smoking despite all the damning evidence against it, and i'd venture to say it wont stop vapers from vaping either. If you want to participate in the study, by all means. If you don't, that's within your right as well. VU is pretty good at sniffing out BS or biased studies when we see em, so let them do the study. We can only judge after we see what the findings produce.
That being said, @pwgnikki and @uscvaping&smokingstudy , please elaborate on what exactly your study is aimed at finding because you are using verbiage that isn't all that clear; while you say you're not anti-vaping, you've already brought up "toxins that may be released into the environment" which there isn't any definitive proof that there are any released in any significant quantity to warrant such as statement. It would benefit your case greatly if you were to be transparent with the VU population, as we don't seem to like it when people start poking around as you have been.
By the way, @uscvaping&smokingstudy - I certainly wouldn't be scared to participate in your research, but I don't smoke and haven't for almost two years, an accomplishment (along with a drastic reduction in nicotine consumption) that I credit entirely to vaping. If you ever want to do a study on people who've successfully quit and stayed quit, I'd consider signing up...
We are in the process of launching another study on vaping and we are looking for people who either only vape or who mostly vape, I can keep you updated once we start, if you are still interested in learning more about it.
Roguexx
Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
The cheap gas station ecig. Is how I started. No cigs man this is easy. Come to find out vuse. By rj Reynolds. Contains 48mg nic a cartridge. No wonder it was easy. As soon as I found this out snapped it in half and picked up my isti k and having looked back. Every study that uses vuse. Or blu to compare ecig is flawed imo
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
I see the "other" forum shut you guys down:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...663795-usc-smoking-vaping-research-study.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...663795-usc-smoking-vaping-research-study.html
To be perfectly fair, that "other" forum probably requires those posting studies to become a verified study posting member, with appropriate fees to be paid. Else, prepare to be moved on.
Here's another study not funded by millions of taxpayer dollars. It's a study and opinions done by real Doctor's and researchers, not by high school and college students with no real world experience and don't know shit in the first place.
Last edited:
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
The problem I see is that even if this study is about how vaping is the best thing since frosted flakes.
This forum is mostly experienced vapers and new vapers who are trying really hard to quit smoking and make the full transition to vaping as soon as humanly possible.
I know a couple of dual users who may smoke every once in a while to relieve extreme stress.
But the chances of finding a smoker and vaper who want to keep doing both that live close enough to San Francisco on this forum are going to be next to impossible.
You may get lucky and find a person who comes by through Google and sees it but I don't see a normal daily member who will be interested.
Good luck and I will be watching to see this future study and believe me I would love to be the first one to call you out as an ANTZ liar who tried tricking good people into being part of an anti vaping study.
I hope this is on the up and up.
This forum is mostly experienced vapers and new vapers who are trying really hard to quit smoking and make the full transition to vaping as soon as humanly possible.
I know a couple of dual users who may smoke every once in a while to relieve extreme stress.
But the chances of finding a smoker and vaper who want to keep doing both that live close enough to San Francisco on this forum are going to be next to impossible.
You may get lucky and find a person who comes by through Google and sees it but I don't see a normal daily member who will be interested.
Good luck and I will be watching to see this future study and believe me I would love to be the first one to call you out as an ANTZ liar who tried tricking good people into being part of an anti vaping study.
I hope this is on the up and up.
.
Last edited:
I don't think the University of Southern California is in San Francisco.
...
I hope you're right, but I guess we'll see - I'm suspicious of anything courting dual-users.
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
http://vapingunderground.com/threads/new-active-member-badges-come-to-vu.65701/
I agree it shouldn't say "new member" some moderators who don't post unless they have to but have been very active since the forum opened in June have a "new member" badge
CDZVaper
Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Wanna know how it (vaping) relates to smoking behavior? After 22 years of smoking at least a pack a day, I dropped cigarettes the moment I bought my first vaping device.
My study says vaping is better because I dont smoke cigarettes anymore.
Hi all. This study aims to understand whether vaping helps people reduce their smoking. We realize that a lot of smokers start vaping because it in order to cut down on their smoking, but the research on this topic is all uncontrolled survey research. We are doing a experimental laboratory study to determine whether vaping reduces desire to smoke. We would be grateful to any one who smokes and started vaping that might be interested in volunteering for our study. Compensation for your time is available. See vapingstudy.usc.edu or call 323-442-2598 if you are interested. Thanks for your attention.
Almost everyone I have talked to started vaping to QUIT smoking. They make a switch, and don't look back. Smoking does reduce the desire to smoke. Why do you think it has taken off like it has? For those who want to get off of cigarettes, and this is their best chance. For some people the flavor is what makes the difference. For some it is clouds. For a lot of people it is a mixture of both. You can visit vaping forums to see just how many people it has helped, and make your study off of that. There would be more people vaping, but the propaganda by Big Tobacco, and Big Pharma has scared them. It is still growing, and will continue to do so. When people hear the truth, and they WILL eventually, even more people will make the switch. So if Big T and P are that worried, they should back innovation, not try to kill it. They could invest. Big Tobacco could make some great NET juices, if they wanted to. But we don't want the added chemicals, like they did to cigarettes. We don't want to flop from one frying pan to another. They can either get on the train, or get left behind in the dust.
Actually USC is in Los Angeles and I'm actually an avid smoker and vaper. I do both and am not looking to quit smoking anytime soon. I love vaping as well. The study is on the up and up and is not against vaping I really don't get what the big deal is with u pertaining to this particular study??? Yes I agree with past studies done at USC they were trying to prove shit about vaping which is just like I said ...shit, but not this one. I've been doing this for over 5 weeks now and never once has the word toxins been mentioned or have I been questioned about them. That's all I've got to say on this...it's getting kinda old by now. Enjoy your vaping forum...
Not really sure what that was supossed to mean....
The bottom line is that if a smoker has any inkling of a desire to quit, vaping can be an invaluable tool - it was for many of us, and some of us quitters have become militant in defending our right to continue on our chosen path of non-smoking, just as many other ex-smokers are militant in their attacks on people who still smoke.
Maybe there are people who became dual-users with no intention to quit smoking, and who've continued to smoke while vaping and have remained perfectly happy with their choice. That's fine. What's dismaying to those of us who have actually quit is that those who continue to smoke are being used by the anti-tobacco lobby as proof that vaping has no value as a cessation aid. It's short-sighted in that the study authors generally don't consider that people who never wanted to quit smoking don't end up quitting and it thus reflects poorly on those of us who do/did quit due to vaporizer use, but that's really the fault of poorly-designed studies, not their participants.
Maybe there are people who became dual-users with no intention to quit smoking, and who've continued to smoke while vaping and have remained perfectly happy with their choice. That's fine. What's dismaying to those of us who have actually quit is that those who continue to smoke are being used by the anti-tobacco lobby as proof that vaping has no value as a cessation aid. It's short-sighted in that the study authors generally don't consider that people who never wanted to quit smoking don't end up quitting and it thus reflects poorly on those of us who do/did quit due to vaporizer use, but that's really the fault of poorly-designed studies, not their participants.
You said "how u feel mentally and emotionally after u smoke and vape", and I said your avatar says it all. Enjoy your study
Scuba-Matt
Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
First off the statement in the study has it wrong. All the people I know that started to vape did so to quit smoking, not cut back on smoking. Second off your study has already been answered millions of times over. Every person I know that vapes, never looked back once they started vaping. Vaping is the best tool to help a smoker quit. You don't need a funded study to see vaping works. The proof is in forums like these and millions of reformed smokers worldwide. Myself, I haven't touched a cigarette since I started vaping over two years ago. I do believe your research has a underlying purpose to hurt vapers. Not to help. Are we suspicious of studies like these? Hell yes we are. Look around at the light the media has shed on vaping. All full of lies and false or manipulated studies to make vaping look as bad or worse than smoking cigarettes. Most funded by R.J. Reynolds tobacco to protect their market. And R.J. Reynolds lobbyists pulling the strings of local governments to pass laws to ban vaping as we know it. Who is footing the bill for this study? Some grant hidden under a trust name set up by RJR?
Well seeing as u were so stuck on my avatar I changed it just for u...At least I don't hide behind a comical stick figure and actually put my real pic up...just saying of course...and thanks I am enjoying the study...I do enjoy research and getting paid for my time Robert B.
Welcome back
Hi Robert B! Sorry I can't be on this forum 24/7 I kinda have a life and all! I can't be sitting in front of my computer commenting every minute of the day! Do you like my avatar better now?