Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeSignificant flaws in this study
Posted by agooldy on 17 Jul 2016 at 03:03 GMT
It would have been helpful if the report had actually listed what kinds of e-liquid they used to perform the study. There is only mention that they used "two brands." This is important because there is going to be a hell of a difference between a Chinese-manufactured, chemical ridden brands from a gas station vs a premium e-liquid from a reputable US vendor. Out of the thousands of e-liquid brands available, testing only two brands (that may have been intentionally hand-picked) has the potential to be not only a highly biased study, but also a very flawed one.
For instance, if we're testing for "toxicity of lotions on skin" and we test only 2 out of the millions of brands of lotion on the market, you will undoubtedly get a flawed and intensely narrow result that can easily have been skewed to support an agenda.
Did anyone else actually read the content of the study? If I'm missing something that I'm not aware of, I'm open to being presented with add'l information, but from what I've just read, none of this data is conclusive enough to make a substantiated claim on the harmfulness of eliquids on an objective level.