There is no source to the study, the link doesn’t work.
Also even if I read the study, it is not a sure thing that their mistake is obvious, and I’ve seen dozens of studies that were done correctly that show there are no known carcinogens in the vapor of e-cigs.
Or rather the ones that are detected are way less than 1% of a cigarette, which means vaping similar to smoking 20 cigarettes per day, will expose you to the equivalent of 0.2 cigarette. The biggest number being the formaldehyde we exhale naturally.
So please just piss off with you knee jerk ignorance.
I’ve studied the issue plenty, I don’t need to read yet another flawed study, I’ve seen plenty of those already.
Here’s the link in the article, that you said you couldn’t find.
Look i see what you are doing. You half read a few studies 10 years ago now recent science is beneath you. Its obvious, and I want you to know its obvious.
Weird since no major carcinogens are present, why do you think this image with no source and no reference to the actual findings is worth more than the plethora of studies that showed no carcinogens both before e-cigs was a thing, and in the early days of e-cig.?
What exactly are those early signs? Being alive maybe? This is not a link to an actual research paper, this is just bullshit, come back when you have a link to the actual study.
I’ve read dozens of actual studies, and I have (mostly) learned how to read them, and acknowledge when there are things that are beyond the scope of my knowledge because I don’t have a 5-7 year education on the issue. And then I search for info on those issues.
Really Ḯve spend hundreds of hours investigating this thoroughly, and I am an educated guy, the snippet you show is only evidence to me of low info reaction.
The part about inflammation is especially weird since PG, a common basis of e-juice is PROVEN to be anti inflammatory. DNA damage begin to happen from the day we are born, so without qualification that statement while obviously true, is equally obviously worthless.
I wonder if you have any actual knowledge on the subject whatsoever, because you act like one of the unknowing sheep this may very well be supposed to target.
Are you actually reading my messages or just getting a vibe and running with it or what? That picture wasn’t meant to be scientific evidence it was simply to demonstrate the falseness of your point about the actual scientific paper not being linked in the article.
I can tell you are defensive about being treated as stupid which isnt what time trying to do. Actually read what my comments say please.
OK so where is the actual scientific paper?
I don̈́t really care that much about journalistic interpretation, because their knowledge is generally sub par, and their reporting sometimes even decidedly misrepresentative.
I’d much rather read the actual paper. I have even seen papers where the conclusion is contradictory to their own results in their research!!! Which to me indicate a paid for conclusion.
No skin in the argument, I just came to the comments trying to find the study because that link is broken for me. If it’s working for you, would you mind linking it here? I can’t find the specific one being referenced thru the miasma of google being absolute garbage and it being a recent enough publication that the academic DBs I have access to seemingly don’t have that issue yet.
Can you not see how biased and untrustworthy you sound? You effectively admitted to not even reading this study.
There is no source to the study, the link doesn’t work.
Also even if I read the study, it is not a sure thing that their mistake is obvious, and I’ve seen dozens of studies that were done correctly that show there are no known carcinogens in the vapor of e-cigs.
Or rather the ones that are detected are way less than 1% of a cigarette, which means vaping similar to smoking 20 cigarettes per day, will expose you to the equivalent of 0.2 cigarette. The biggest number being the formaldehyde we exhale naturally.
So please just piss off with you knee jerk ignorance.
I’ve studied the issue plenty, I don’t need to read yet another flawed study, I’ve seen plenty of those already.
Here’s the link in the article, that you said you couldn’t find.
Look i see what you are doing. You half read a few studies 10 years ago now recent science is beneath you. Its obvious, and I want you to know its obvious.
Weird since no major carcinogens are present, why do you think this image with no source and no reference to the actual findings is worth more than the plethora of studies that showed no carcinogens both before e-cigs was a thing, and in the early days of e-cig.?
What exactly are those early signs? Being alive maybe? This is not a link to an actual research paper, this is just bullshit, come back when you have a link to the actual study.
I’ve read dozens of actual studies, and I have (mostly) learned how to read them, and acknowledge when there are things that are beyond the scope of my knowledge because I don’t have a 5-7 year education on the issue. And then I search for info on those issues.
Really Ḯve spend hundreds of hours investigating this thoroughly, and I am an educated guy, the snippet you show is only evidence to me of low info reaction.
The part about inflammation is especially weird since PG, a common basis of e-juice is PROVEN to be anti inflammatory. DNA damage begin to happen from the day we are born, so without qualification that statement while obviously true, is equally obviously worthless.
I wonder if you have any actual knowledge on the subject whatsoever, because you act like one of the unknowing sheep this may very well be supposed to target.
Are you actually reading my messages or just getting a vibe and running with it or what? That picture wasn’t meant to be scientific evidence it was simply to demonstrate the falseness of your point about the actual scientific paper not being linked in the article.
I can tell you are defensive about being treated as stupid which isnt what time trying to do. Actually read what my comments say please.
OK so where is the actual scientific paper?
I don̈́t really care that much about journalistic interpretation, because their knowledge is generally sub par, and their reporting sometimes even decidedly misrepresentative.
I’d much rather read the actual paper. I have even seen papers where the conclusion is contradictory to their own results in their research!!! Which to me indicate a paid for conclusion.
Go to the guardian article from the OP. Find the link that was in the image I posted. Its pretty close to the top.
No skin in the argument, I just came to the comments trying to find the study because that link is broken for me. If it’s working for you, would you mind linking it here? I can’t find the specific one being referenced thru the miasma of google being absolute garbage and it being a recent enough publication that the academic DBs I have access to seemingly don’t have that issue yet.
(splash screen at the broken link)