I can’t read this stupid website on my phone. The content keeps shifting up and down for some weird reason, and like every other bloated website it asks me allow cookies as soon as I visit it. So frustrating......
Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
81–90 of 400 posts
Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
#82Earlier 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?
Caffeine?
Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Some supermarkets not selling them didn't last very long.
The government increased the tax on alcopops several times, but in the 00s the big drink companies started promoting Swedish i.e. sugary cider. Now your 1990s alcopop has some ös in the name and 10% added apple juice.
Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, nicotine addiction is a debatable topic as nicotine itself is actually not addictive as a compound.
Any source for that claim? I can only say from the personal experience that people I know and I used to be addicted to nicotine (not only in tobacco products)
Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
#85My 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…
Just think, the science isn't in for vapes. But it is in for rna vaccines!
Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
#86> But a Tuesday New York Times article on the subject contained a fascinating nugget midway through, which could be described as a buried lede (journalese for putting the most explosive part of a story in the middle of the piece). I’m going to come down on the opposite side and say that a garbage journal that nobody reads publishing garbage research for money isn’t news. Though it is certainly a good example of why y…
> I’m going to come down on the opposite side and say that a garbage journal that nobody reads publishing garbage research for money isn’t news.
It’s a test to see what they could get away with. If this wasn’t a story then juul would move up to a non-garbage journal and try again.
Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
We have pretty reasonable models for how gravity might work. A suggestion that there may be a yet undiscovered mechanism for gravity isn't useful to science. It's imaginative perhaps, but without a piece of math, or a suggestion for an experiment by which to test it, it's just science fiction. Ideas are cheap.
> A suggestion that there may be a yet undiscovered mechanism for gravity isn't useful to science.
How do you know the impact of something that's undiscovered? Also how do discover new things but by looking where others aren't?
Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
#88Earlier 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?
> 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?
You want to classify sugar as harmful? It's physiologically addictive (go a few days without carbs altogether and tell us how it goes).
What about caffeine?
Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal
#89> Pretty much all the articles take the Juul party line that e-cigarettes help convert smokers away from combustible tobacco products, and thus aid public health. Pretty much none of the articles mention that Juul and other vaping companies make their money by attracting countless new people to nicotine addiction. Well maybe it's because Juul bought the journal or maybe the researchers found no correlation between Ju…
This has been a hot topic of research in the public health community, and from more legitimate researchers there is still a lot of debate. However this kind of move is striking in it's similarity to the known tried and tested maneuvers of the tobacco industry to undercut public understanding of the risks with their products. This is the 21st century equivalent of attempting to disprove the links between smoking and c…
It's similar but not what I'd call equivalent, because the risks of smoking and vaping are different and differently understood in their respective PR battles. The science is still out on how safe vaping is in the long term, but apart from liquids having certain additives like diethyl that are known to be unsafe now, it appears to be reasonably safe.
The undercutting of understanding the risks of cigarettes was happening when the risks would have been blatantly obvious to researchers, unlike with current vaping products. So while the PR technique is similarly appalling, the context is different.