Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal • Hacker News Board

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#71

Post by techrat » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:41 AM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #52

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

Yeah there's the interesting issue of popcorn lung, which comes from inhaling a certain chemical, diethyl. I don't think it's in juul.

The 'popcorn' issue is pretty much linked to one artificial flavor... Diacetyl... anything that involves a buttery taste. Often found in microwave popcorn, hence popcorn lung.

Custards, a popular group of vape flavors, was the main source of it.

The catch?

Diacetyl is also a byproduct of cigarette smoking.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408444.2014.88...

The risk was not considered to be noteworthy among cigarette smokers and food workers who had higher exposure to the chemical diacetyl...

> Further, because smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis obliterans, our findings are inconsistent with claims that diacetyl and/or 2,3-pentanedione exposure are risk factors for this disease.

So basically... vaping causes popcorn lung = FUD.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#72

Post by grasshopperpurp » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:42 AM UTC

uniqueuid wrote: post #37

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

Congratulations on your father's change of habit, I hope he continues to recover and has a long life! That aside, the collective balance is: - how many cigarette smokers will switch (benefit) - how many people will start vaping instead of smoking (benefit) - how many people will switch from vaping to smoking (harm) - how many people will start vaping but wouldn't have started smoking (harm) Perhaps someone with exper…

Isn't it also about the amount of harm or benefit for each?

The articles I saw (years ago) claimed that vaping was a gateway to smoking, but the data showed that vaping just replaced smoking for teens. That is, once e-cigs became available, the same amount of teens were doing one or the other, but more were using e-cigs than cigarettes. So, if the amount of teens doing one or the other remained stable, but e-cig use largely replaced cigarette use, I think you have to consider the teens using the e-cigs. If you removed e-cigs as an option, would they smoke cigarettes or abstain altogether? It seems to me that they'd be more likely (as a group) to smoke cigarettes.

Disclaimer: I switched from smoking to vaping in 2013 and haven't smoked a cigarette since. I use unflavored e-liquid for a few reasons, but, as I understand it, inhaling flavorings meant to be ingested is the primary health risk with vaping. Last I checked, this issue was still under debate.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#73

Post by jlund-molfese » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:43 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #65

symlinkk wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t know that vaping is harmful. It’s addictive, yes, but not necessarily harmful.

If something is addictive (as in actually creating a physical and mental dependence on continued use in significant number of people) - why would you not classify that as harmful?

I mean, coffee is an addictive stimulant which isn’t usually classified as harmful.

Vaping might have social and physiological benefits which outweigh the harm also.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#74

Post by sva_ » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:44 AM UTC

This study is pretty interesting:

> Smoking Trajectories of Adult Never Smokers 12 Months after First Purchase of a JUUL Starter Kit

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/png/ajhb/2021/0000...

The survey conveniently only asked about cigarette or "Juul" use, take note how it doesn't ask if users switched to a different vaping product.

Though the study was described as

> “JUUL customer online survey about JUUL vapor products, vaping and smoking.”

Makes me wonder if they conveniently left out some questions to get their p-value right.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#75

Post by blackbear_ » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:45 AM UTC

wccrawford wrote: post #13

ud_0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scientism has become the state religion and companies are paying for indulgences. I was unfamiliar with that term and googled it: it's described as " excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques ". I'm struggling a bit to understand how a belief in the importance of scientific knowledge and techniques equates to a religious mindset. In an ideal world, I would absolutely prefer my government…

I'm not who you replied to, but I've experienced this with some of my friends. Some people believe in science. They don't take the facts and understand them, they just say "Science says this is true. Anyone who disagrees needs to be shouted down." They will shame people for expressing any doubt against a "scientific consensus". This is actually the opposite of science. For instance, the Theory of Gravity. I know peop…

> Some people believe in science. [...] This is actually the opposite of science.

Adding to this, belief in science actually means believing in the _process_ of scientific discovery, i.e. believing that _eventually_ the "truth" will be discovered.

As you correctly point out, questioning the current consensus is a fundamental part of the process, but not all challenges to scientific knowledge are legitimate. Many (most?) concerns you hear in the mainstream media are not legitimate but based on logical fallacies, strawmen, ad hominem attacks, etc. I found this list [1] quite useful to guard against such unfounded attacks.

[1] http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#76

Post by afavour » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:48 AM UTC

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

I think if Juul was marketed as a smoking cessation product I’d have no problem with it. But it’s marketed as a lifestyle product and a ton of young people with no history of smoking have started vaping as a result.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#77

Post by dmurray » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:49 AM UTC

smolder wrote: post #61

totalZero wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the arguments against the flavored juices are hysterical/hypocritical given the variety of flavors of liquor one can find. I would assume a significant difference in impact between putting flavor substances in your lungs and putting flavor substances in your esophagus/stomach.

I think the argument they are referring to is the one that because there were tasty flavors, the products were targeting youth... as if adults do not enjoy tasty flavors. That's one way regulators rationalized bans on vaping products. No one is making similar arguments to ban tasty liquor. I haven't ruled out that they were trying to target youth with their products, but having nice juice flavors is the furthest thin…

> No one is making similar arguments to ban tasty liquor.

People do make these arguments, and they catch on from time to time. There was a moral panic about alcopops in the 1990s in the UK [0]. They weren't banned by regulators but several supermarket chains stopped selling them.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23502892

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#78

Post by esseeayen » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:49 AM UTC

Wait, as someone overseas who hasn’t seen any of the Juul advertising what are some of the examples of them “blatantly advertising to children”? Is it just the fact that they are making flavoured nicotine products or has it been more nefarious than that. As an adult I kind of like some of the flavoured tobacco products from smoking shisha (argile, hookah etc) and they have had flavours forever and not been in the spotlight to marketing to children?

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#79

Post by RickJWagner » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:50 AM UTC

ud_0 wrote: post #10

blfr wrote: post #4

Scientism has become the state religion and companies are paying for indulgences. At least they made it open access. At first I thought they bought out the entire issue so that people couldn't read it.

> Scientism has become the state religion and companies are paying for indulgences. I was unfamiliar with that term and googled it: it's described as " excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques ". I'm struggling a bit to understand how a belief in the importance of scientific knowledge and techniques equates to a religious mindset. In an ideal world, I would absolutely prefer my government…

I think it's the belief that whatever science currently says is final. And it's heresy to question the findings.

We do see some of that in some of today's arguments, I think.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#80

Post by replicatorblog » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:50 AM UTC

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

Ecigs are likely one of the most impactful public health interventions of the last 50 years. They provide a substitute that is less dangerous and pleasurable which keeps compliance high.

Juul and their competitors were genius product managers paired with irresponsible to the point of malevolent product marketers.

I would like someone to do a "Years of life saved" calculation that tallies the expected years save by switching smokers to vaping balanced against those who were attracted by vaping who eventually went to smoking. My guess is even with the new entrants the years of life saved would be extraordinary.