I Just got the results from a study I participated in out of curiosity. Just thought I'd post it if anyone is interested in reading it.
https://keck.usc.edu/vapers-show-cancer-associated-biological-changes-similar-to-smokers/
Why did it take so long to get to this comment: “generally at much lower levels, in electronic cigarettes’ vapor.”
The whole article basically says that vaping alters your body in the same way as cigarettes until that one little comment about how it’s at a much lower level. These kind of articles suck.
Why?
Simple. Funding.
Dirty little secret of academic papers - the people writing them will present the results in the way they expect those who fund their research would want. When the people writing your grants are happy with your work, they're more likely to fund you next year. (Also, some thought is put into framing the results in a way to make specific publications more likely to accept a paper, so you've goy multiple sets of biases you're trying to appeal to.) When these biases (as well as any preexisting beliefs of the author) synch up, results can be distorted based on how they're presented, like here.
Yep, it was funded by the TRDRP and you just have to read the last paragraph on page 2 of http://www.trdrp.org/files/2020-call-for-applications.pdf to find out what kind of research is expected to get funded.
Ah, yes, but beyond that, you need to consider the results the funding authority wants to see. While insurance companies would like information that would enable them to cut costs (whether by reducing the frequency or size of claims, or by enabling them to reject claims), most funding is provided by organizations with some sort of agenda... And unfortunately, most of the research on vaping is funded by enemies of vaping, specifically BigPharma and the antismoker NGOs.
Also, peer reviews to cement the papers are biased in the same way. There's been outsider studies done proving the insular tendencies of academia.
Scientific journals are also shit, and have become "Pay to win" in a way. They extort you to pay out a ton of money to them so they green light your paper, and then you get a golden ticket to have the potential to make huge sums of money from patents and selling your information. It's kind of like an MLM scheme to be honest.
I'm gonna wanna read the actual study now because the article about the study was so cursorily written.
I used to smoke. A lot of vapers did. I'd like to see what divergence of this data exists between vapers who quit smoking versus vapers who didn't smoke.
Additionally, I want to know which chemical in vapor science has determined to be cancer-causing.
I am all about the harm reduction of vaping. It's why I switched. I am happy to have a serious think about vaping versus quitting it all if the data says I'm still being exposed to carcinogens with this new hobby. Any of my hobbies, actually, from getting high to grilling up a delicious steak. I just don't want to be blinded by my own ignorance nor that of some half-assed research.
The guy also sent me the study in pdf if you want it.
Because propaganda and funding. These days the majority "science" is a circle jerk where opinion, appearances, and reputation matter more than facts in a majority of the circles. They skew data and/or present it in a way to push agendas. They play with the findings and spin/semantics to still be "technically honest", but paints a different picture of the actual findings.
Science has become a religion. It's fell away from it's basic roots of just cold hard facts and not being swayed by interests/politics. Now the zealots fight not to just study and understand things, but it's rather an attempt to gather ammo to fortify their arguments.
Ego, hubris, and agendas have sullied true science.
AND the vaper cohort were not never smokers. only tobacco free for 6 months.
confound much?
Well I'm assuming its non smokers, then smokers to vape, and just smokers. I got into the study as a vape user only.
You never smoked? I contacted the author and he said the only prequisite for the vaper only was that they were tobacco free for 6 months. Not never smoked.