Positive Guardian article

[Postmodern Smoking]

A positive article in the Guardian to start the New Year: www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2017/jan/02/ill-say-it-again-e-cigarettes-are-still-far-safer-than-smoking

"I’ll say it again: E-cigarettes are still far safer than smoking" - Professor Linda Bauld

[Bobsbeer]

Ongoing research can help with this, and 2016 has seen the start of important studies, many commissioned by Cancer Research UK, which will tell us more in the future.

And one in the eye to those who don't support Cancer Research UK. Sorry nay sayers. Pi$$ off and take a chill pill.

[car147]

If you read the comments in the post it just goes to show how many are "Brainwashed" in this country to believe what the media or Government say is gospel, Comments like how can it be safe to smoke all those chemicals in ecigs lol... i really pity some folk!

[striker42]

Jan 2, 2017 18:30:14 GMT Bobsbeer said:

Ongoing research can help with this, and 2016 has seen the start of important studies, many commissioned by Cancer Research UK, which will tell us more in the future.

And one in the eye to those who don't support Cancer Research UK. Sorry nay sayers. Pi$$ off and take a chill pill.

For a forum that prides itself on friendliness and being helpful,  your last two statements are neither. If you so wish those who don't share your opinion should piss off, then it will be no problem for me to go and settle elsewhere. You've made your feelings clear on more than one occasion in the past, but tonight Bobsbeer you've shown what a sad and childish individual you really are. Maybe you are to be pitied more than laughed at.

[gill2009]

Jan 2, 2017 18:30:14 GMT Bobsbeer said:

Ongoing research can help with this, and 2016 has seen the start of important studies, many commissioned by Cancer Research UK, which will tell us more in the future.

And one in the eye to those who don't support Cancer Research UK. Sorry nay sayers. Pi$$ off and take a chill pill.

  Not nice 

[Bobsbeer]

No it wasn't nice and intentionally so. I recall a discussion a while back when some felt that Cancer Research UK should not be engaging in vaping related research. Obviously I am not alone in my point of view.

Childish I don't think so. I'm quite happy to have a discussion based on fact and intelligent argument. Yes I have made my feelings very clear regarding Cancer Research UK funding vaping research. More the merrier in my view, and I see no problem with that.

The author of the quote highlighted above clearly has no problem with CR UK funding that research either. In my opinion CR UK should support vaping related research. It has every chance of reducing cancer, so I see no reason why not. As I said earlier in the previous thread, it is small minded to exclude vaping research funding by CR UK. It has every chance to reduce the incidence of cancer and that is the important point.

By all means disagree with me, but expect a robust response if you do. Sad, I don't think so. Childish, possibly. Pitied? Maybe. But only by those of a closed and narrow mind.

[sydsut]

The original argument was over a sociological research paper funded by CR in which parents were to be asked on there feelings about their kids vaping. It's not science and will not lead to any breakthroughs in treatment or prevention of Cancer, and many felt on here, rightly IMO that the money should be spent only on Scientific Research. The above article doesn't mention what the research is on vaping, certainly more is needed on vapour production and what's in it and how it affects our bodies. A sociological study will provide nothing new I fear.

[Bobsbeer]

While I tend to agree with you sydsut, you have to answer the question; what is scientific research? I would have to disagree that sociological research is not scientific. In my view, it is the method rather than the question, that qualifies it to be scientific. The previous thread was about feelings and views of parents regarding their children vaping. Surely a greater understanding of views is important and adds to the body of knowledge. Addiction is more than just a chemical reaction. Combatting that addiction will require research into both the physical and the sociological aspects of that addiction, which in our case is nicotine.

Yes I agree that a through understanding of the chemical reactions is important, but we must not blinker ourselves. Maybe it's just me, but smoking is not just inhalation of nicotine via combusting tobacco, or e-juice. It is also a habit. It is also a frame of mind. How many of us lit a cigarette after a meal? How many of us lit a cigarette before putting the dog out in a morning? How many of us fought the urge to roll a cigarette when we started vaping? I did. I smoked rollups, and it took a while to get past the urge to roll a fag, even though I got my nicotine elsewhere.

Smoking is as much sociological as it is about chemistry. So research to reduce smoking needs to encompass all aspects or it is doomed to fail.

Lets face it. Vaping gives us choice. We have the choice to vape what nicotine strength we choose. You didn't get that from the tobacco companies. I smoked roll-ups, and I got whatever nicotine BT decided I should have. I also got a whole bunch of other shit. I still get a whole bunch of other shit, but in lesser amounts. I'm happy to believe the British medical view that I am getting 95% less other shit. Maybe it will be proved wrong or right. That is for research to discover, and I am quite happy for CR UK to help fund that research.

[sydsut]

Jan 3, 2017 0:12:19 GMT Bobsbeer said:

While I tend to agree with you sydsut , you have to answer the question; what is scientific research? I would have to disagree that sociological research is not scientific. In my view, it is the method rather than the question, that qualifies it to be scientific. The previous thread was about feelings and views of parents regarding their children vaping. Surely a greater understanding of views is important and adds to the body of knowledge. Addiction is more than just a chemical reaction. Combatting that addiction will require research into both the physical and the sociological aspects of that addiction, which in our case is nicotine.

Yes I agree that a through understanding of the chemical reactions is important, but we must not blinker ourselves. Maybe it's just me, but smoking is not just inhalation of nicotine via combusting tobacco, or e-juice. It is also a habit. It is also a frame of mind. How many of us lit a cigarette after a meal? How many of us lit a cigarette before putting the dog out in a morning? How many of us fought the urge to roll a cigarette when we started vaping? I did. I smoked rollups, and it took a while to get past the urge to roll a fag, even though I got my nicotine elsewhere.

Smoking is as much sociological as it is about chemistry. So research to reduce smoking needs to encompass all aspects or it is doomed to fail.

Lets face it. Vaping gives us choice. We have the choice to vape what nicotine strength we choose. You didn't get that from the tobacco companies. I smoked roll-ups, and I got whatever nicotine BT decided I should have. I also got a whole bunch of other shit. I still get a whole bunch of other shit, but in lesser amounts. I'm happy to believe the British medical view that I am getting 95% less other shit. Maybe it will be proved wrong or right. That is for research to discover, and I am quite happy for CR UK to help fund that research.

The main criteria for the scientific method is that it is repeatable. If I add catalyst A to compound B and get result C then another person using the same method should be able to repeat it anywhere and get the same result. Sociology doesn't pass this yardstick test as if you ask 1000 people who they're going to vote for in an election, say, it will change from day to day and as the pollsters have found out over the last few years, here and in the States, the buggers are more often wrong than right.

And why do you insist in calling vaping smoking? There is no combustion hence no smoke. You're just carrying on the ANTZ predilection for confusing the two, which clouds the issue.

Your last two sentences I can thoroughly agree with, but asking mum and dad how they feel at little Johnnie's or Jennie's vaping won't make the day we can cure it come any closer.

Sorry but as a cancer victim myself and having had an operation, which removed the tumour, and followed by 6 months of chemo at the Beatson in Glasgow, a very harrowing experience watching young and old with Cancers much worse than mine, slowly diminish and perhaps die before you're eyes, I make no apology for hoping all the cash to be spent solely on  Scientific Research.

[Perpetua]

Bobsbeer, everyone . . . . we have until now refrained from ' moderating ' involvement on this thread, as you all know we encourage frank and lively discussion where Members have the freedom to express their opinions on the forum, whether anyone else agrees with those or not. This is not a kindergarten after all, but a cyber space for mature people to partake in conversation on any topic that they choose to - within reason of course!

However, there is a distinct difference between " robust " remarks which are calculated to be inflammatory and respectful disagreement. If you can't post a point of view without taking into account others feelings, then it's a pretty poor do in my world of debate.

This thread is firmly on our radar, please bear my comments in mind when making any further posts - otherwise we will step in for the sake of harmony.

Thank you

Mandy

[Bobsbeer]

Scientific research is not just about chemical reactions etc. I see no reason why sociological research cannot be scientific. It's about the methods being adopted. It is a systematic approach to questions and problems through objective and accurate observation, collection and analysis of data. Then it needs to show as you say, that the results can be repeated. Assuming the methods being adopted are systematic, objective and as far as possible unbiased, the research can be described as scientific in it's approach and should be repeatable.

As I said earlier, smoking and vaping are more than just inhalation of nicotine, and other substances. To some extent it is ritualistic, it's also a habit. That aspect has nothing to do with the ingested chemicals, although the brain is a complex organ and may well be implicated. To study the effects of smoking and vaping on us mere mortals we need a wide understanding of the issues. If our cravings for nicotine were satisfied with just nicotine, then NRT patches and lozenges would be 100% effective. They aren't as we all know. Clearly there is more to smoking and vaping than just nicotine. There is a sociological aspect.

In order to reduce the incidence of smoking, the approach needs to encompass the chemical and sociological properties inherent with the activity. Therefore understanding both aspects is important and worthy of study. The same applies to vaping. Vaping in many ways satisfies the chemical dependence and the habit aspects, which from a personal perspective, is what has kept me from returning to smoking. Being able to understand the why is surely a worthy endeavour. The result will be a reduction in cancer incidence, which is just as worthy a goal as a cure in my view. As long as the research is conducted in a scientific manner I have no issues with it, or who funds it. As with all research, the end result is knowledge, and that has to be good for all.

[lobeydosser]

One of the problems that I had regarding yon topic about Parents and their Children vaping was that for any child to vape, their parents or some other adult would have had to buy the child (or at least an under 18 years of age) the vaping equipment for them to use.
That is against the law.
So for any Parent to take part in that "scientific survey" they would have to admit to breaking the law.

[striker42]

Jan 3, 2017 1:51:15 GMT sydsut said:

Jan 3, 2017 0:12:19 GMT Bobsbeer said:

The main criteria for the scientific method is that it is repeatable. If I add catalyst A to compound B and get result C then another person using the same method should be able to repeat it anywhere and get the same result. Sociology doesn't pass this yardstick test as if you ask 1000 people who they're going to vote for in an election, say, it will change from day to day and as the pollsters have found out over the last few years, here and in the States, the buggers are more often wrong than right.

And why do you insist in calling vaping smoking? There is no combustion hence no smoke. You're just carrying on the ANTZ predilection for confusing the two, which clouds the issue.

Your last two sentences I can thoroughly agree with, but asking mum and dad how they feel at little Johnnie's or Jennie's vaping won't make the day we can cure it come any closer.

Sorry but as a cancer victim myself and having had an operation, which removed the tumour, and followed by 6 months of chemo at the Beatson in Glasgow, a very harrowing experience watching young and old with Cancers much worse than mine, slowly diminish and perhaps die before you're eyes, I make no apology for hoping all the cash to be spent solely on  Scientific Research.

On the explanation above sydsut, this is cancer research UK funding sociological study rather than a scientific study. At the end of the day it will serve nothing more than allow University students to complete a part of their course, at the expense of cancer research UK.

Your last paragraph is hard hitting and true. It's sad to watch the demise of people due to lack of funding for treatment that is available through scientific research.

[Bobsbeer]

Sadly there will never be enough funding for the research. However CRUK do their utmost into looking at all aspects of cancer as evidenced from their website. A stance I wholeheartedly approve and support.

Research to inform cancer prevention is important and for this reason CRUK has paid close attention to how the research and policy landscape on e-cigarettes is developing. We’d like to see more and better quality studies on e-cigarettes which is why we’ve driven some important activities to inform e-cigarette research. But more needs to be done.

The research they fund is wide and varied, but all adds to the body of knowledge around smoking and vaping.

New CRUK funded studies
CRUK has also funded a range of important new studies on e-cigarettes through our Population Research Committee (PRC) and our Tobacco Advisory Group (TAG). For example:
Lynne Dawkins and colleagues from London South Bank University have a new PRC funded study. They aim to examine whether puffing patterns change when the nicotine concentration in e-liquid varies, and the implications of this for toxicant exposure amongst users.

Lion Shahab at University College London and colleagues have recently completed a TAG funded study examining exposure to nicotine and tobacco-related toxicants in long term users of nicotine-containing products that is now being prepared for publication.

Amanda Amos from Edinburgh University and team have a TAG funded qualitative study which looks at young adults’ understanding and experience of e-cigarettes. This is making good progress and has recruited smoking and non-smoking participants who have used and not used e-cigarettes with the aim of developing a more sophisticated understanding of the drivers of experimentation or regular use.

Laura Jones from the University of Birmingham has another TAG funded study examining parents’ perceptions and experienced of using e-cigarettes in the home when young children are present, and two other research teams supported by TAG are examining e-cigarette use amongst smokers accessing stop smoking services.

medium.com/@crukresearch/growing-the-research-evidence-on-e-cigarettes-768c7f5a23ff#.f9lhg4hpp

[djs]

Since I last wrote about e-cigarettes in this column one year ago, headlines about the dangers of these devices have continued to appear and show no sign of abating. The result is clear. More people believe today, compared with a year ago, that e-cigarettes are as harmful as smoking. In fact these incorrect perceptions have risen year on year, from fewer than one in ten adults in Great Britain in 2013 to one in four this past summer. Surveys of smokers show similar patterns, with an increasing proportion believing that e-cigarettes are more or equally harmful than tobacco.

Now, that is quite shocking.
2013 - 1 in 10 thought vaping was as harmful.
2016 - 1 in 4 now think vaping is as harmful.

Amazing just how much damage the media can inflict by printing sensationalist nonsense to sell papers rather than care about people's health.

Daily Mail? Are you there?