This got off to an extremely weak start. The middle of this century stuff is a complete cop-out, and it completely ignores the fact that much is known already.
Khara seemed to have a good handle of the state of the evidence most of the time. To me, the notion that e-cigarettes should only be a last resort looks unethical though.
Underrated point: most conclusions about vaping are based on what's known about smoking. Bad idea imo.
4/
Zawertailo appears to be incapable of telling the difference between high quality research (e.g. Hajek) and utter junk (e.g. diacetyl).
Her comments on the intentionally misleadingly-named EVALI were good, though.
5/
Selby has a way of sounding 100% reasonable and then drifting off into anti-scientific fringe-land.
His use of the word "addictive" was too often inappropriate.
He has a bad habit of assuming that if he doesn't know something, then nobody knows. It's not always true.
6/
Forgot to mention:
It was suggested that 2 decades of use was enough to know the health effects of vaping. That time will arrive this decade, not in the middle of this century.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A compilation of preprints, peer-reviewed studies, and datasets documenting SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19 patients' smoking status - only the ones with at least 1000 patients.