Does your child vape? Looking for UK parents to interview

[Bobsbeer]

Nov 18, 2016 2:38:55 GMT striker42 said:

No need for sorry's Bobsbeer and no need to back pedal either. Your narrow minded comment was made directly in relation to your previous statement about people withdrawing their support for CRUK. After some more thought, another couple of things have ruffled my feathers regarding this research.

Firstly I'm not back peddling. You appear to have read my comment incorrectly.

While the name would suggest that they ONLY research cancer, I would also argue that research looking to avoid the risk of cancer is also a legitimate line of research for CRUK to support, and cancer prevention is one of their stated aims. Yes it is small minded and I would also add narrow minded to only look at cancer that is already developed, albeit a very worthwhile cause.

I said it was narrow minded to only look at developed cancer. I stand by that as I feel that all research to avoid cancer is a legitimate area of research for a cancer charity.

Nov 18, 2016 2:38:55 GMT striker42 said:

1. Why have CRUK waited until now, right at the very start of the first of the TPD directives coming into force, to decide to conduct research into the possibility that vaping is the best way forward in the fight for smokers to give up the weed. Where were they when we all were fighting against the TPD ? For me they're a little late to the party.

I'm not sure they have waited till now. They haven't commissioned this research, they would have been approached for funding, so would have looked at the merits and purpose as part of their application process. So they haven't waited till now to decide on this research. I'm sure they receive many applications for funding, some they accept and others they turn down. I don't know how long the process is, but I'm sure it will be a fairly lengthy process and the application was probably made many months ago. However if you are so concerned about it, you should ask them directly why they support this

Nov 18, 2016 2:38:55 GMT striker42 said:

2. The EU parliament and the public at large, wouldn't take on board the findings of research conducted by at least 15 of the worlds top Professors/Doctors/Scientists. What would give you the impression that the public opinion would change on the findings of a university research, should the result of said research be positive for vaping.
Oh, and I can see a headline for publishing the findings
"Cancer research UK fund study into under age vaping"
Certainly puts vaping on a pedestal and shows it in a good light ................. Not !

Perhaps you should wait till the research is published before making sweeping statements about how the press may receive this research. However by your argument all research should be stopped because the Daily Fail may write a bad headline about vaping, and or politicians ignore it anyway. Are you so worried about how the press perceive vaping? Surely the only way to tackle the anti brigade and poor public perception is more research, not less. Prove the naysayers wrong with evidence, not rhetoric.

[Greg]

I fail to understand why some are saying there's no logic to link cancer and vaping and therefore why would a cancer charity back research on vaping.

Surely it's better to prevent than cure

It seems there a view the only people allowed to carry out studies on vaping are bonified die hard vapers and anyone who doesn't vape or is not part of the vaping community isn't allowed to carry out research just in case said research is misrepresented by them or others.

The epitome of narrow mindedness in a nutshell

[car147]

[richarduel]

There's been a lot of discussion here - as ever, it's always good and healthy to have a bit of a debate. GunJack good to hear from you again, I transcribed your interview not so long ago

Broadly speaking, I would align myself with what Bobsbeer has expressed, both in terms of my view towards the role of the research and the manner in which CRUK would accept and fund this kind of research.

I'm sorry to hear that lobeydosser feels this is a cockamamie project. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion (as we all are), but I think you do a slight disservice to the sociology of health when you dismiss this kind of research. There are, of course, biological and medical determinants to health, but to ignore the psychosocial determinants is a dangerous game. lobeydosser, you've pointed out that you feel there should be research into why the majority of smokers have not switched to vaping in spite of the overwhelming evidence in support of vaping relative safety and smoking cessation efficacy. I am fairly certain that the answer to this question lies in understanding the psychosocial barriers to vaping. Indeed, the interviews that I carry out with non-vaping parents (who may be smokers) goes some way to explaining why this may be the case.

Again, I'm sorry that people feel they should no longer support CRUK as a result of this research. All I would say is that CRUK do specify publically that they fund this research - it would be a matter for anyone making a donation to look into what their chosen charity spends money on in more detail.

I'm also somewhat concerned that there is a misunderstanding of what this research is aiming to address. Some members continue to express that we are trying to link vaping with cancer and that this research is not intended to help parents or children who are smoking. I would categorically contest this. Other users such as sydsut and domesticextremist have expressed valid views that regardless of the outcomes of this research, certain media and influential groups may seek to twist the results. I completely understand where you're coming from. But this logic is too defeatist, in my opinion. Should we not carry out/fund any research into vaping because it could be misconstrued? I would suggest that we need to continue building up an evidence base, as scientific evidence holds more power than anecdotal evidence in the eyes of policymakers. Whether that should be the case is a debate for another day. But, with the current state of affairs, I believe it is the case.

There's a few comments that I haven't responded to here - I'll address this in the next couple of days.

Richard

[richarduel]

Nov 17, 2016 23:36:46 GMT pipeman01 said:

TL DR...

2 of my children vape, one is 26 and the other 31.... does that help?

Hi pipeman01,

Thanks for getting in touch.

At the moment we're looking for parents of children aged 11 to 18, so you wouldn't currently be eligible.

I appreciate the interest

[domesticextremist]

Nov 22, 2016 13:15:12 GMT richarduel said:

Other users such as sydsut and domesticextremist have expressed valid views that regardless of the outcomes of this research, certain media and influential groups may seek to twist the results. I completely understand where you're coming from. But this logic is too defeatist, in my opinion. Should we not carry out/fund any research into vaping because it could be misconstrued? I would suggest that we need to continue building up an evidence base, as scientific evidence holds more power than anecdotal evidence in the eyes of policymakers. Whether that should be the case is a debate for another day. But, with the current state of affairs, I believe it is the case.


Richard

Fair play to you for coming back and fighting your corner.

In response to your question : Should we not carry out/fund any research into vaping because it could be misconstrued?

No, of course not, it's a bit too simplistic.

Those doing research need to be very careful about the topic areas they choose, especially in relation to social subjects and particularly in relation to subjects involving children, As you recognise, unless very carefully presented (and reported higher up the scientific media chain), the results can be twisted in the retail press to mean precisely the opposite of what has been discovered. I think we've all already seen too many examples of this in the tabloids to deny that it can happen.

I would welcome much more research on vaping, but ahead of any possible involvement of children it might make more sense to look into the many millions now who have successfully quit tobacco via vaping (especially those who failed using other NRT), in addition to more research on the flavourants and the effects of passing the e-juice over a heated metal coil, which I'm sure must induce some chemical changes in the constituents.

So by all means do your research, but I don't accept that there is any pressing need to look into children vaping at this stage.

[GunJack]

Nov 22, 2016 17:06:52 GMT domesticextremist said:

I don't accept that there is any pressing need to look into children vaping at this stage.

Have to disagree with this one tbh...especially when we're bombarded with studies from over the pond where they keep trying to prove the gateway theory even when their data doesn't show it. My son went from smoking to vaping at 16 and if studies like this can help show that this is the real gateway for youth, I'm all for it as the policy makers may, just may, pay attention and get more on board than they have been so far

[GunJack]

P.s domesticextremist Dr. Farsalinos has been looking at flavourings in light of another study...check out some of the links in the vapers.org thread for info

[domesticextremist]

Nov 22, 2016 23:58:37 GMT GunJack said:

Nov 22, 2016 17:06:52 GMT domesticextremist said:

I don't accept that there is any pressing need to look into children vaping at this stage.

Have to disagree with this one tbh...especially when we're bombarded with studies from over the pond where they keep trying to prove the gateway theory even when their data doesn't show it. My son went from smoking to vaping at 16 and if studies like this can help show that this is the real gateway for youth, I'm all for it as the policy makers may, just may, pay attention and get more on board than they have been so far

Fair enough, I'm just basing it on my own observations. Whereas previously it was not uncommon to see under-18s with a cigarette, I have yet to see an obviously under age vaper.
I do see many twenty somethings with vaping kiit, so if vaping is a gateway, it may well be a gateway away from tobacco.
Perhaps a study that would emphasise this would be helpful, though it would still need careful presentation and reporting.

[Bobsbeer]

I agree with GunJack on this one. Nearly everyday we hear about research damming vaping because it is perceived as aimed at children due to the many flavours available such as bubblegum, which is regularly mentioned. The usual mantra is that kids are drawn to vaping via "bubblegum" flavour juice and then think hey I want to smoke the real thing and take up smoking. The gateway hypothesis. The more research that can be done to look into this aspect the better. We all know what we want to believe and that is that kids are swapping to vaping from having already tried smoking. This hopefully is the correct gateway hypothesis. But hoping and belief are not empirical evidence. We need hard evidence to debunk the myths that the anti brigade constantly trot out. Which headline is more sensational? Kids smoke because of bubblegum, or kids stop smoking because of bubblegum? To get the right answer we need research.

To me vaping is a way out of smoking. Smoking causes cancer. Vaping reduces cancer risk. Therefore open season for all cancer charities to fund research designed to get to the truth behind those statements.

[lobeydosser]

Nov 16, 2016 12:04:49 GMT richarduel said:

Hi everyone,

Our research team at the University of East London is currently working on a Cancer Research UK funded project that explores parent/carer views of their children’s possible/actual use of e-cigarettes.

Many of you have already completed our survey. With your help, we now have around 500 survey responses and this phase of the study is still ongoing.

In the meantime, we have also been interviewing parents/carers about their views towards children using e-cigarettes. Right now, we are trying to interview UK parents/carers whose children use or have used e-cigarettes. The interviews are completely anonymous and confidential, and last around 1 hour. We are able to interview you face-to-face in London or via telephone. We can interview at any convenient time, including evenings and weekends.

All interviewees are given/sent £15 love2shop vouchers following the interview.

If this interests you and your child is aged 11-18 years old, please PM me or send me an email to [e-mail].

Thanks for helping out!

Richard Greenhill
Research Assistant
University of East London

As has been said by a number of members on this topic, there are different views for and against this survey.

However, all topics start with an original letter and while we may meander away from the core topic, all opinions should relate back to the original letter.

I have highlighted those words on the original latter which I am most concerned about and considering the large amount of anti-vaping media coverage that we have been subjected to in recent years, anyone now attempting to gather information on the behaviour of parents of 11 to 18 year old children on whether their children vape has to be viewed with the deepest suspicion.

If these interviews are "completely anonymous and confidential" where are they going to send your 15 quid reward to?

No, I would suggest reading the small print and use a bit of common sense before anyone responds to this request.

[Saferciggie]

OOH this is a hotbed, For what its worth If one of mine was smoking I would have to encourage them to vape instead based on my own health improvements. On the other hand though as vapers we have seen the so called experts systematically trying to destroy vaping to protect big corporations which is where the distrust lays and any such survey could be used as another nail in the coffin to further push the negative agenda. Generally any positives are ignored to justify its demonization. If e cigs had not hit tobacco revenue so hard because its works it would have gone by completely unoticed