An analysis of the first two sentences of an article in a medical journal:
Commentary “Electronic Cigarettes”, and the psychobiogical problems of continued nicotine dependency in E-cigarette ‘vapers’.
Starting with the title: there appears to be a typo - a missing "on" after Commentary, or a colon perhaps. Then, getting past the first couple of words, a fleeting acquaintance with the topic would reveal that vapers routinely reduce their nicotine consumption as the final smoking event recedes in time. Cigarette smoking causes cigarette and nicotine dependency and tolerance to nicotine. Consumption of pure nicotine, as in vaping, does neither; so vapers have to reduce the strength consumed, regularly, in order to avoid OD, as tolerance gradually reduces with time.
Shame the author doesn't have a clue about the subject; but this appears almost compulsory in social sciences these days, so let's move on.
The giant clanger (or clangers?) in the title is followed by two mistakes in the first fairly brief sentence. This doesn't bode well for the success of the rest... [No, old son, ecigs were invented so the inventor and his tens of millions of beneficiaries now and hundreds of millions in the future could keep on 'smoking' but without the death sentence; and whether something works or not determines its ultimate survival since every consumer product has an ultimate regulator: the market. If it's not fit for purpose it dies.] No one cares about your artificial, expensive and very silly attempts at measuring 'success' as it's far simpler and harsher than that in the real world.
Reading on, sentence #2 has three errors in its brief but spectacularly erroneous existence. Error #1: vaping does not facilitate continued tobacco smoking, because (a) the vast majority of ecig use is dual-use since most people don't quit on day 1 and it might take weeks (or months) to quit smoking; (b) therefore dual-use is the norm; (c) it leads to smoking cessation as vaping is a highly successful route to smoking cessation and QED this means dual-use; and (d) since vaping is currently the leading route to smoking cessation, it follows that dual-use is the most successful way to quit smoking (in the UK anyway). These points may or may not hold true in the California lie factory - it's hard to tell due to the volume of manure issuing from that direction. On the other hand, these lies come from Swansea not San Francisco.
Luckily we are very poor in the UK so the temptations of corruption are far less prevalent than in the USA, resulting in our public health liars lying less. At least that's what I think the reason is. However since this concerns a UK liar (or plank-thick f***wit) we must bite our tongues and soldier on. In fact this article reveals an interesting avoidance of the best, most current and most honest (real) science on vaping and smoking, which comes from the UK; it appears based on the best lies instead, which originate in the American lie factory. The mighty dollar has a lot to answer for.
Tell me, is it a principle of science that if you can't find any local facts to back your argument, despite the best in the world currently being available there, and everything available in your own country refutes every single point in your argument, you go to Calcutta or California to dig up some propaganda that suits your case? Ah - this explains a lot.
Mistake #2 in sentence #2 is that (in the UK) we don't have any child or youth vaping problem, as measured by honest and efficient statistics. The US may be different in many respects, one of which is the continual claims that significant numbers of children are regular vapers, partly because the stats are owned by the least reliable people. It seems unlikely that the data confirm the claims, made by equally unreliable people, that there is an epidemic of youth vaping without prior smoking. And if such an epidemic does exist in the USA, and it's almost exclusively in youth smokers, prior smokers, or those who would have smoked if they hadn't found vaping - then it's a Good Thing by any normal person's definition of the term. No smoking = no disease and death and poverty related to smoking and no addiction (you can't become dependent on nicotine without tobacco). Vaping is cheap and harmless by comparison.
Mistake #3 in sentence #2 is the spurious claim of nicotine dependency, with its twin implications that dependency can exist without tobacco and that such dependency is or will be caused by vaping. Since there isn't even a single clinical trial that demonstrates a single person has become dependent on pure nicotine unless they have consumed tobacco, we can strike this claim as well.
Why isn't there even a single published clinical trial of nicotine's potential for dependency with never-smokers? Because there is no such thing as clinically measurable nicotine dependency without tobacco consumption. It's easy enough to measure, after all - but no one has ever found any.
Numerous published clinical trials of nicotine's benefit for multiple medical conditions exist, but since they have to use never-smokers and non-smokers (duh - of course) and no one ever showed the slightest sign of dependence, despite the administration of large doses of nicotine - equivalent to 15 cigarettes a day - for up to 6 months, we can strike nic dependency off the record unless it is delivered in a tobacco vehicle; the 9,600 other compounds in tobacco and its smoke identified to date clearly play an important role in the brain chemistry change. Without tobacco, there is no such thing as nicotine dependency.
The first two sentences were such horrendous crap I couldn't read any further. It was impossible to complete the first paragraph, never mind the whole steaming pile of manure.
Is this what science has become? A catalogues of lies, misrepresentation and propaganda on such a scale that two sentences are enough to make anyone vomit.
I couldn't read any further - perhaps you are tougher than me and can eat any amount of excrement without severe and paralysing emesis, figuratively speaking.
Let me know if things improve or you have to commit suicide rather than dig any further into this steaming pile of faeces (caution: anyone on Chantix should not proceed further into the article) - hardened coprophiles only past this point.