Directionally accurate but too superlative. I’d modify them to be
Nicotine is marginally harmful when ingested via vapes/electronic cigarettes, in the same ballpark as any number of harmful things people do daily with no furor about them, and exponentially less harmful than tobacco cigarettes.
There is an overwhelmingly strong financial and social motivation for scientists and governments to hide this fact. I don’t believe anyone is literally conspiring in the sense of an evil mastermind plan, just a confluence of factors that make it unfeasible to release a study with conclusions contrary to the narrative.
The substance exhaled is effectively just water vapor. That’s not a backtrack, that was my original claim.
Also if you plan on doing that thing where you keep narrowing and narrowing the focus of the conversation until you can do a gotcha like “aha! You said they ‘are studying’ but in fact they completed this study in the past therefore they ‘have studied’ it which makes you a liar and everything you say wrong” then that’s just trolling and there’s no point to this conversation at all.
Yes. They cited “Unpublished studies from our laboratory” which is nothing. Being charitable, they actually did all the work and then just decided for the hell of it to not publish.
As I said in my post:
Their model is convincing enough: nicotine activates certain signaling pathways which starts a cascade effect causing out of control cell proliferation (aka cancer). But the first domino in that chain is literally “trust me, bro” with no published experimental data.
Usually, as part of the scientific method, one conducts preliminary testing and uses that as a prompt for further research. Things like a two tailed t-test, for example, can’t tell you the direction of change but only that there is a change.
Or, you notice a pattern while doing other research, and then start another experiment to do proper statistical analysis.
The claim of “faking research” is an extremely serious one, and may be considered libelous.
Regarding nicotine only being mildly harmful, would you care to address any of the numerous studies I linked earlier to address that claim?
I gave all that information in the exhaustive post you didn’t read: “Nicotine as a mitogenic stimulus for pancreatic acinar cell proliferation”, Chowdhury, doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i46.7428
Directionally accurate but too superlative. I’d modify them to be
Nicotine is marginally harmful when ingested via vapes/electronic cigarettes, in the same ballpark as any number of harmful things people do daily with no furor about them, and exponentially less harmful than tobacco cigarettes.
There is an overwhelmingly strong financial and social motivation for scientists and governments to hide this fact. I don’t believe anyone is literally conspiring in the sense of an evil mastermind plan, just a confluence of factors that make it unfeasible to release a study with conclusions contrary to the narrative.
The substance exhaled is effectively just water vapor. That’s not a backtrack, that was my original claim.
To clarify again, before I address any of your other claims -
Is:
“Nicotine as a mitogenic stimulus for pancreatic acinar cell proliferation”, Chowdhury, doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i46.7428
the study which you claim faked data? If not, which study do you claim faked data?
Also if you plan on doing that thing where you keep narrowing and narrowing the focus of the conversation until you can do a gotcha like “aha! You said they ‘are studying’ but in fact they completed this study in the past therefore they ‘have studied’ it which makes you a liar and everything you say wrong” then that’s just trolling and there’s no point to this conversation at all.
Yes. They cited “Unpublished studies from our laboratory” which is nothing. Being charitable, they actually did all the work and then just decided for the hell of it to not publish.
As I said in my post:
Usually, as part of the scientific method, one conducts preliminary testing and uses that as a prompt for further research. Things like a two tailed t-test, for example, can’t tell you the direction of change but only that there is a change.
Or, you notice a pattern while doing other research, and then start another experiment to do proper statistical analysis.
The claim of “faking research” is an extremely serious one, and may be considered libelous.
Regarding nicotine only being mildly harmful, would you care to address any of the numerous studies I linked earlier to address that claim?