E-cigarette use is Glantzily associated with cardiovascular disease...

[somdcomputerguy]

E-cigarette use is associated with cardiovascular disease... in the same way that statins cause myocardial infarction!!

ecigarette-research.org | E-Cigarette Research

www.ecigarette-research.org

 

[no|ah]

...the study itself HAD DATA on the temporality of events and in fact most e-cigarette users had (sic) initated use AFTER they developed a myocardial infarction. Strangely, Prof Glantz and his colleagues failed to examine and report this information.

Sure sounds like cherry picking data to fit his desired narrative. Good on them for calling him out.

 

[dog man]

It makes no sense..If the data is coming from fresh new vapers AFTER a long time of Cigs. then and only then is there any common sense to this BUT If the data is based on long term vapers, that data falls off drastically .. Cherry picking is an understatement... Instead I call it out as a "Bold Faced Lie!""

 

[bombastinator2]

The bit I like is the making up whole new words.

Glantzily.​

Is this a misspelling or was it made up to mean something? In which case it must be what this seems to be: “obfuscated BS done for profit”? The really sad bit is there are people who actually believe this. Not the people who advance them generally, but poor saps misled into doing so.

The starting quote is I think the killer here
“E-cigarette use is associated with cardiovascular disease... in the same way that statins cause myocardial infarction!!”
statins are used to prevent heart attacks. Which is what a myocardial infarction is.

This is the obfusticated bit. Use of industrial jargon that actually means something other than implied

So what it really says is “e-cigarettes have the same chance of giving you a heart attack as drugs designed to prevent heart attacks”

So slim to none. Yet it is presented in a way that implies the reverse. Classic BS. That cigarette companies do not have the best interests of people at heart and will mislead and lie to advance their own agenda should not be news.

 

[somdcomputerguy]

The bit I like is the making up whole new words.

Glantzily.​

Is this a misspelling or was it made up to mean something?

I spent seconds and seconds to come up with that new word..

 

[no|ah]

The starting quote is I think the killer here
“E-cigarette use is associated with cardiovascular disease... in the same way that statins cause myocardial infarction!!”
statins are used to prevent heart attacks. Which is what a myocardial infarction is.

This is the obfusticated bit. Use of industrial jargon that actually means something other than implied

So what it really says is “e-cigarettes have the same chance of giving you a heart attack as drugs designed to prevent heart attacks”

So slim to none. Yet it is presented in a way that implies the reverse. Classic BS. That cigarette companies do not have the best interests of people at heart and will mislead and lie to advance their own agenda should not be news.

I can understand how someone could skim it, misunderstand, and take it the wrong way.

In the title of the article (similar to the title of this thread) the author was being cute with words while also heavily criticizing Glantz.

I took the title ("E-cigarette use is associated with cardiovascular disease... in the same way that statins cause myocardial infarction!!") to mean "it's only associated as much as a statin!! (because Glantz deliberately ignored and misrepresented data to fit his desired outcome)."

Hope that makes sense.

 

[DPLongo22]

E-cigarette use is associated with cardiovascular disease... in the same way that statins cause myocardial infarction!!

ecigarette-research.org | E-Cigarette Research

www.ecigarette-research.org

Hasn't he founded something better to do by now?

Golf, maybe. ANYTHING, for cryin' out loud.

 

[bombastinator2]

I can understand how someone could skim it, misunderstand, and take it the wrong way.

In the title of the article (similar to the title of this thread) the author was being cute with words while also heavily criticizing Glantz.

I took the title ("E-cigarette use is associated with cardiovascular disease... in the same way that statins cause myocardial infarction!!") to mean "it's only associated as much as a statin!! (because Glantz deliberately ignored and misrepresented data to fit his desired outcome)."

Hope that makes sense.

I don’t think we disagree.

 

[no|ah]

I don’t think we disagree.

I don't think we do either.

I must have misinterpreted your comment and taken it a different way than you intended; I thought it indicated there was confusion and that it could be helpful to offer an explanation/clarification, but it seems I was mistaken and it was unnecessary.

My apologies for the confusion.