They were clear about what device and liquid was used, including the pertinent specs.
They were clear about the puffing regimen, including using realistic length & volume of puffs, and they reported air flow (very important).
3/4
They compared the effects to the effects of cigarette smoke.
They were realistic about the limitations of cell studies and didn't make broad generalizations about all vaping products.
4/4
Not a single policy recommendation was to be found----important in research that doesn't study policy.
All of these characteristics are routinely absent from Tobacco Control or body parts group or NIH-funded research. Incompetence or deceit? Either way it's unacceptable.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I smoked for a number of years. I liked it. I didn't want to quit, but for years I thought I should. I tried cold turkey, gum, patches. Didn't work for even a day.
2/4
I first heard about e-cigarettes late in 2009. I looked into them, but saw that ecigs containing nicotine were not legal in Canada. I knew they wouldn't work without nicotine, so I forgot about them.
3/4
In 2014 I saw this CBC piece. Nicotine vaping was a possibility after all. I didn't know anyone who vaped & the nearest vape shop was over 200 km away. I researched. A lot.
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.
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.