VAPERS NEEDED FOR RESEARCH STUDY

[LouisLeBeau]

That much Was on part 1 of the Personal Data of the Study.
Lots of questions involving Equipment, Nic levels, Amount of Daily use, etc.
Several questions for Dual users, amounts Daily, etc.

Remember, a study can not be so Casual as to become meaningless, nor so in Depth as to lose sight of the intended goal.

This Study is About - Enjoyable E-cig Use

I am disappointed, From the minimal interest - exposed in this thread, at the Lack of Member Participation. Any change to even Possibly portray vaping in a Better Light should be a Goal worth attempting to achieve.

I'm hoping that the study is being conducted, at the very least, to find truths. I am not however, extremely optimistic that this is the case at this point.

My reason for saying that, is that the project administrator is one Eric Soule. Googling this person led me to this article, where Mr. Soule was a member of a team that attended a vape convention, to surreptitiously measure the air quality in the presence of a large number of vapers by sneaking in and concealing air monitoring equipment. While I will link to the article at the end of this, I find this particular paragraph especially troubling:

"
The researchers misleadingly characterized the droplets they observed as PM2.5 — which refers to particles (i.e., tiny solid bits) of size less than 2.5 microns, which are believed to cause health risk independent of their chemistry due to their size — and likened them to smoke (which is the dominant source of real PM2.5). As has been noted numerous times by quite a few commentators since Igor Burstyn and I pointed it out more than two years ago, e-cigarettes do not produce particles, they produce droplets (i.e., tiny liquid bits), which have entirely different health implications. There is no reason to believe that droplet size matters. Some instruments cannot tell the difference between particles and droplets, but this does not make them the same. I have explained this in easily-understood terms several times; I recommend this one, and see also here. (Also note that the health claims about actual PM2.5 are rather more tenuous than is usually portrayed in public health discussions, as I pointed out in the first of those three links, but that does not matter since this is not about actual PM2.5.)

The authors then go further and call for policy actions which could not possibly have been supported by any result this research could have produced. In particular, in spite of having generated no information about health risks, and in spite of having studied only an extreme environment which tells us nothing about normal settings, their conclusion statement demanded, “establishing policies that prohibit ECIG [sic] use anywhere combustible cigarette use is prohibited.” "

The article itself:
Serious ethical concerns about public health research conduct; the case of vape convention air quality measurement

I will continue to participate in the study. They will surely find enough to fill their quota either way, and at least I am forearmed with the above information, to look for potentially misleading or loaded questions that could be used to our detriment.

Mr. Kershaw, @SmokeyJoe have you personally, or someone that you consider competent to do so, vetted this study, the administrators, and the purpose?

 

[crxess]

So far - First Research section - No issue with survey
1) Personal information not threatening to individual identification(as if I care)
2) Brain Storming - How vaping has a positive effect(during/immediately after)

2 More Sections to go in Following weeks. May be tailored according to Section 1 responses, who knows.

Craigs List Solicitation:

Are you 18 years of age or older?
Have you used an electronic cigarette/electronic vaping device in the past month?

We are looking for vapers to describe their experiences with vaping, including positive, exciting, and enjoyable aspects of vaping in an online study. Participants will be compensated for their time.

For more information, email vaperspective@vcu.edu

Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Psychology

A few other Venues have been used, all carrying the same basic text.

 

[LouisLeBeau]

The only trend that I saw in the questions, that I will watch for a skewed outcome from, is the questions regarding smoking cigarettes, where the response if the answer is "none" or "I did not smoke" asks for the number 999 to be put in, instead.

Assuming some will either ignore or not comprehend this, I am reasonably certain there WILL be answers of 0, from a very small minority. This COULD allow for a statement from the study to read as such "Of the vaping respondents, over 98% indicated a number of cigarettes consumed in the past 30 days greater than 0". Hmm.... NO tinfoil hat, just making an observation.

Just can't really see why 0 would not be the desired response, in the case of no cigarettes consumed. Maybe the OP could elucidate..

 

[DC2]

I'm ramped and should soon receive an email for Part I of the study.
I just have a hard time believing the questions will provide for my situation.

I've been vaping for 7 years.

I have a cigarette whenever I feel like it because they hold no power over me now.
That comes out to about once or twice a year.

I stopped using nicotine in my vape about 9 weeks ago.
Not because I wanted to though, but because of the insurance bandits.

I used nicotine over Easter through...
Because I forgot my gear at home and had to buy a Vuse...

I don't need nicotine, but I wish I could continue using it for the health benefits.
As for vaping though, yeah, I MUST vape when drinking.

Otherwise I can take it or leave it.
The nicotine, the vaping, all of it.

I doubt there is any study made by any human that will cover my situation.
Or allow me to express it in a way that the researchers can grasp.

But really, isn't that true for damn near every study ever made about anything?

 

[sofarsogood]

I have a cigarette whenever I feel like it because they hold no power over me now. That comes out to about once or twice a year.

What you describe is mostly overlooked, even by vapers. Since I stopped smoking 18 months ago I've smoked 3 cigarettes. One was simply a test. The other two were to prove to a brother of mine that I had 100% control of smoking, no danger of relapse. Control is not the same thing as quitting. (I should know because one of my relapses was after 10 years.) I don't smoke any more because it doesn't interest me but I might smoke one if it helps somebody important to me.

I helped my boss's boss's boss get started vaping. He's still dual using. I'm bugging him to take me out for a smoke and I'll smoke one of his to demonstrate the control thing. Whether you like smoking or not,, who doesn't want to be in control?

The purpose of this study has not been disclosed. That's good cause for mistrust. I suspect they are fishing for never smokers and dual users. If I was participating in the study, and I was one of those, I would just lie, like the public health people do.

 

[LouisLeBeau]

In 4 years, I've gotten drunk enough to think that a cigarette was a good idea twice. I did not however, phone any old girl friends, or post to facebook, so I have that going for me...

 

[sofarsogood]

In 4 years, I've gotten drunk enough to think that a cigarette was a good idea twice. I did not however, phone any old girl friends, or post to facebook, so I have that going for me...

Alcohol has never been a theme in my life. For many years my rule is, I only drink other people's expensive scotch. Now I finally have cigarettes in about the same place.

 

[LouisLeBeau]

Hmm.. maybe the plot thickens.
Public health snoopers detect vapour aerosol at vape conference and fake a particulates scare « The counterfactual

Another member of the University of Virginia team that snuck the air monitoring equipment into the vape convention to measure "particulates" in that VERY atypical environment, was a Sarah Maloney. The invitation email I received was from a "Sarah", no last name given.

Following the rest of the links in the first link I provided, paints an equally grim picture of the "science" utilized in achieving that teams conclusion, based on the air quality of a VAPE convention, that Ecigs should be banned anywhere that regular tobacco cigarettes are. Most damning of all that is so damning, is the title to that study "Electronic cigarette use and indoor air quality in a natural setting"
Electronic cigarette use and indoor air quality in a natural setting -- Soule et al. -- Tobacco Control

Since when does an indoor vape convention, constitute anything close to what could possibly be considered "a natural setting".

Maybe Soule, Mahoney, et al. feel bad about this intentionally misleading charade of a "study", and have simply left this "Study" gift outside our gates to make amends. Let's bring it in.. how nice.

 

[Vaperepav]

Hi, we just sent you an email regarding the study!

We have a couple of staff members interested in participating!

 

[sincerelysasquatch]

It's a trap. Look at their bull.... page:
Center for the Study of Tobacco Products - Index page
all their "studies" paint a very negative light on vaping.

 

[LouisLeBeau]

The initial invitation email includes a link and 5 digit pin. When I clicked on the link, I was first brought to a page that had, in the lower left corner, some info. The one bit that I took note of was "Project Administrator: Eric Soule" While I was prepared with Snipping Tool to take images of the questionnaire if I saw anything questionable, I clicked through to the next page before it occurred to me to take a snap of that page. I can't get that page back again, with any method I have tried.

If anyone is about to initially click that link for the first time, would you be so kind as to get a screen capture of that first page? Or maybe we get an affirmation from the OP that Eric Soule is indeed the Project Administrator for this study? THANK you!

 

[Oliver]

I'm hoping that the study is being conducted, at the very least, to find truths. I am not however, extremely optimistic that this is the case at this point.

My reason for saying that, is that the project administrator is one Eric Soule. Googling this person led me to this article, where Mr. Soule was a member of a team that attended a vape convention, to surreptitiously measure the air quality in the presence of a large number of vapers by sneaking in and concealing air monitoring equipment. While I will link to the article at the end of this, I find this particular paragraph especially troubling:

"
The researchers misleadingly characterized the droplets they observed as PM2.5 — which refers to particles (i.e., tiny solid bits) of size less than 2.5 microns, which are believed to cause health risk independent of their chemistry due to their size — and likened them to smoke (which is the dominant source of real PM2.5). As has been noted numerous times by quite a few commentators since Igor Burstyn and I pointed it out more than two years ago, e-cigarettes do not produce particles, they produce droplets (i.e., tiny liquid bits), which have entirely different health implications. There is no reason to believe that droplet size matters. Some instruments cannot tell the difference between particles and droplets, but this does not make them the same. I have explained this in easily-understood terms several times; I recommend this one, and see also here. (Also note that the health claims about actual PM2.5 are rather more tenuous than is usually portrayed in public health discussions, as I pointed out in the first of those three links, but that does not matter since this is not about actual PM2.5.)

The authors then go further and call for policy actions which could not possibly have been supported by any result this research could have produced. In particular, in spite of having generated no information about health risks, and in spite of having studied only an extreme environment which tells us nothing about normal settings, their conclusion statement demanded, “establishing policies that prohibit ECIG [sic] use anywhere combustible cigarette use is prohibited.” "

The article itself:
Serious ethical concerns about public health research conduct; the case of vape convention air quality measurement

I will continue to participate in the study. They will surely find enough to fill their quota either way, and at least I am forearmed with the above information, to look for potentially misleading or loaded questions that could be used to our detriment.

Mr. Kershaw, @SmokeyJoe have you personally, or someone that you consider competent to do so, vetted this study, the administrators, and the purpose?

"vetted"? No, I've not vetted it as such. My personal opinion is that a study with the broad research goals as stated by the authors would be much better with ECF members engaging.

Thanks, though, for doing the due-dil, @LouisLeBeau - the vape convention air quality measurement study was appalling, and a big ethical failing. It utterly beats me why it was done surreptitiously and not with the consent of the organisers.

 

[LouisLeBeau]

"vetted"? No, I've not vetted it as such. My personal opinion is that a study with the broad research goals as stated by the authors would be much better with ECF members engaging.

Thanks, though, for doing the due-dil, @LouisLeBeau - the vape convention air quality measurement study was appalling, and a big ethical failing. It utterly beats me why it was done surreptitiously and not with the consent of the organisers.

That conscientious vapers should participate, so that we have a view from the INSIDE, is exactly the reason I will continue to participate.

There is nothing in any of the material, as stated, that leads me to believe that this study is slanted, has any preconceived conclusion in search of supporting data, or is in any way anything other than an unbiased gathering of information.

That Mr. Soule is project administrator, however, DOES give us valid reason for some concern and skepticism. Both for the ethics (or lack thereof) of which, that were called out by CASAA's own lead scientist Carl Phillips, and the Science (again, lack thereof) concerns cited by Clive Bates in that very troubling "study" of air quality. Perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect Mr. Soule and team to distance themselves completely from vape related projects, yet, but ultimately we have to lie in the beds we have made for ourselves and this study does not get to start off on anything resembling a promising footing.

We can hope that Mr. Soule is looking to redeem himself from his previous questionable behavior, methodologies and outrageously improbable conclusions, and achieve a .500 batting average on the second at bat. Leopards and their spots and all, he is going to have to put this one over the fence of Good Science to achieve that endeavor. A second 3 count should put him squarely On The Bench with regard to vape studies if he cannot.

 

[sofarsogood]

Has there been disclosure of who is funding thie study? These days you can get government money to find what's wrong with vaping. If you find good in vaping your grant money will dry up and you'll be working at Taco Bell. I hope somebody who is participating will copy and paste all the questions. Anybody here remember Funkenwagles porch? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out where this is headed.

There is a neuro science professor posting in another thread. I suggest a study to see if vapers get better grades. He said he could NEVER get that approved at his school because of anti nicotine politics.

 

[LouisLeBeau]

Has there been disclosure of who is funding thie study? These days you can get government money to find what's wrong with vaping. If you find good in vaping your grant money will dry up and you'll be working at Taco Bell. I hope somebody who is participating will copy and paste all the questions. Anybody here remember Funkenwagles porch? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out where this is headed.

There is a neuro science professor posting in another thread. I suggest a study to see if vapers get better grades. He said he could NEVER get that approved at his school because of anti nicotine politics.

During the initial phone call, they invite questions. One of mine was "Who is funding this study" and the answer was "The National Institute of Health" any others? "No". The NIH is funded by the American taxpayers, and in this study at least, the requester for the study, appears to be the FDA.

 

[Robino1]

During the initial phone call, they invite questions. One of mine was "Who is funding this study" and the answer was "The National Institute of Health" any others? "No". The NIH is funded by the American taxpayers, and in this study at least, the requester for the study, appears to be the FDA.

I wonder if this one is part of those grants that were being handed out to study vaping....

 

[sofarsogood]

During the initial phone call, they invite questions. One of mine was "Who is funding this study" and the answer was "The National Institute of Health" any others? "No". The NIH is funded by the American taxpayers, and in this study at least, the requester for the study, appears to be the FDA.

Bravo Louis, you asked the right question. The first post in this thread should have said government funded study for the benefit of the FDA. We are people, not lab specimens. We are citizens, not enemies of the state. If they want to learn something from us in this forum the way they do that is disclose their agenda and engage in conversation. (I'd love some give and take with government policy makers here, out in the open.) Instead they come here and snoop and persuade people to disclose personal information they might not get if the participant knew it is going straight to the government, worst of all the FDA. Government spies.

 

[b.m.]

Bravo Louis, you asked the right question. The first post in this thread should have said government funded study for the benefit of the FDA. We are people, not lab specimens. We are citizens, not enemies of the state. If they want to learn something from us in this forum the way they do that is disclose their agenda and engage in conversation. (I'd love some give and take with government policy makers here, out in the open.) Instead they come here and snoop and persuade people to disclose personal information they might not get if the participant knew it is going straight to the government, worst of all the FDA. Government spies.

I agree.I did get the phone call,but i missed it at the time.I'm starting to think it may be a good thing that i never returned that call.Seeing the stuff that has been coming up here,like if you didn't smoke any cigarettes enter 999 instead of 0,and now hearing it's info going to the FDA,sounds like a no win situation with the info they get being twisted to suit what they want it to say.

 

[crxess]

"vetted"? No, I've not vetted it as such. My personal opinion is that a study with the broad research goals as stated by the authors would be much better with ECF members engaging.

Thanks, though, for doing the due-dil, @LouisLeBeau - the vape convention air quality measurement study was appalling, and a big ethical failing. It utterly beats me why it was done surreptitiously and not with the consent of the organisers.

Because it was Funded by the FDA (IIRC)


* Note: Study Participation Appreciation Gift (Part 1) $10 Virtual Visa, must be made of Unobtainium. Unable to collect. Email questioning validity - unanswered

 

[Vaslovik]

I don't trust this at all, not doing it.

I can just see everything put into it twisted and spun in a new "study" that proves vaping is bad for you, and even worse than smoking, and proven by long-time vapers it will be claimed.

I will have nothing to do with this.