10
Vaping study I participated in a year or so ago
submitted over 5 years ago by xijtix

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/

Comments
Sort
9 points
 
by UnappreciatedRobotover 5 years agoI have no idea what I'm doing

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.

9 points
 
by juthincover 5 years agoI improved Grack and all I got was this lousy flair

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.

3 points
 
by UnappreciatedRobotover 5 years agoI have no idea what I'm doing

Yep, I agree 100%. It’s just super annoying when articles like this are published because we know that most people only read the headline

3 points
 
by stabloggerover 5 years ago

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.

2 points
 
by juthincover 5 years agoI improved Grack and all I got was this lousy flair

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.

1 points
 
by TwoSpoonSallyover 5 years ago

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.

1 points
 
by righteous__userover 5 years ago

Word playa. You absolutely know when Chantix was in the trial stages that they used the suicides as a net positive. Look who's not smoking anymore!

5 points
 
by ILikePralinesNowover 5 years ago

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.

3 points
 
by xijtixover 5 years ago

The guy also sent me the study in pdf if you want it.

2 points
 
by ILikePralinesNowover 5 years ago

Yes please! I would really like to see that. The link in the article lead to a paywall.

1 points
 
by chocolatecoveredmethover 5 years ago

I’d love to see this as well if it’s cool.

3 points
 
by xijtixover 5 years ago

Beats me. Not going to change my habits but was curious. Good to know it's much lower.

2 points
 
by TwoSpoonSallyover 5 years ago

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.

1 points
 
by ravin187over 5 years ago

AND the vaper cohort were not never smokers. only tobacco free for 6 months.

confound much?

1 points
 
by xijtixover 5 years ago

Well I'm assuming its non smokers, then smokers to vape, and just smokers. I got into the study as a vape user only.

1 points
 
by ravin187over 5 years ago

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.

1 points
 
by xijtixover 5 years ago

I didn't look too deep into it but yeah me personally I've only ever vaped never smoked cigs.

1 points
 
by xijtixover 5 years ago

I have the actual study if you want to give it a read. Just shoot me over an email and I'll send it.

Site copyright © 2025 DIY Compendium. Data courtesy of Reddit.