Prue Talbot conducts study on ECF posts, grossly misrepresents facts

[pmos69]

For those who haven't done so already, there's a proper survey needing participants right now by Dr Farsalinos.

Details please see here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...s-new-survey-pls-participate.html#post9198395

 

[Anon63]

"V"is for vaping,

I took up vaping because my wife has incurable breast cancer, this woman wants my children to be orphans!

Burn the WITCH - "no lets build a bridge out of her"

 

[Racehorse]

Imagine doing a study without ever actually seeing the subject. The people doing the study NEED to be researched!!

Well, I"m not entirely sure that is a fair statement. It appears that *our side* is doing that too:

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/component/content/article?id=80

I think we can all agree that surveys are not "studies" in the true sense of the medical world.

Nevertheless, I imagine that surveys can be useful to at least define parameters about what should be studied.

Not sure, however, that any research or studies, unless funded entirely by 3rd independent parties (those who have zero financial gain in the outcomes) can truly be taken seriously (by me) due to conflict of interest.

In the purest clinical sense, I believe that conducting a study funded by the ecig industry itself is going to have diminished credibility, in the same way that Talbot's does since it is conducted and funded by ANTZ.

There seems to be a lot of posts remarking about who is funding research---- so I thought to be intellectually honest---- one would have to hold "our side" to the same standards and scrutiny, wouldn't we?

At least, that would be my desire.

 

[Anon63]

Its just an essay - until it is held up for peer review - then it may/may not gain some genuine scientific credibility,
up to that point its just words on paper.

 

[2coils]

Well, I"m not entirely sure that is a fair statement. It appears that *our side* is doing that too:

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/component/content/article?id=80

I think we can all agree that surveys are not "studies" in the true sense of the medical world.

Nevertheless, I imagine that surveys can be useful to at least define parameters about what should be studied.

Not sure, however, that any research or studies, unless funded entirely by 3rd independent parties (those who have zero financial gain in the outcomes) can truly be taken seriously (by me) due to conflict of interest.

In the purest clinical sense, I believe that conducting a study funded by the ecig industry itself is going to have diminished credibility, in the same way that Talbot's does since it is conducted and funded by ANTZ.

There seems to be a lot of posts remarking about who is funding research---- so I thought to be intellectually honest---- one would have to hold "our side" to the same standards and scrutiny, wouldn't we?

At least, that would be my desire.

I agree about credibility issues when not conducted by a 3rd party. My problem with this.... a total fishing expedition. This was an involuntary study done on us. One can only imagine how many questionable posts were counted as part of this study. Furthermore, a Newb to vaping who had a health concern when they started, might have concluded later on that e-cigs had no part in their original concern. Just my opinion, this was too broad of a study to warrant any credibility.

EDIT: From Bills post...While some positive health effects were reported, a significant proportion of the data showed a correlation with e-cigarette use and onset of adverse health effects. There are thousands of us here that have reported no negative effects. How was this reflected??

 

[flintlock62]

Does she weigh the same as a duck?

"V"is for Vaping,

I took up vaping because my wife has incurable breast cancer, this woman wants my children to be orphans!

Burn the WITCH - "no lets build a bridge out of her"

 

[zoiDman]

... I could use some suggestions, if anyone has any.

Contact her Department/Division Office and ask when she might be on campus.

 

[Anon63]

I suspect she is fishing for work. With the Antis scratching around for mud to sling, where there is none.
They are likely to drop a bundle of cash her way to follow up these fairy stories. I can see it was a cynical effort
on her part to use unscientific methods, as she knows there is no real evidence she can work with.

There are lots of big pots of cash allocated to negative science on this - I am sure there are many more
ambitious people trying to work out how to corner some of it.

 

[CES]

DC, the best way to set up an appointment with a university researcher without office hours is to email or call them directly. (unless you want to try to catch her at the end of her class)

 

[DC2]

DC, the best way to set up an appointment with a university researcher without office hours is to email or call them directly. (unless you want to try to catch her at the end of her class)

Yeah, I figure if I call her she will want to know why I want to meet with her.

 

[CES]

Because you're interested in her research...why else?

 

[DC2]

Because you're interested in her research...why else?

Her research appears to be mostly in relation to stem cell biology, and I seriously doubt I could BS my way through that.
But maybe if I tell her I am interested in her work on electronic cigarettes she might not hang up on me.

She has one class on Friday afternoons, which is a seminar in Stem Cell Biology for graduate students.
Maybe I could catch her after class, although I imagine I'd get all of 10 seconds with her.

I've never met a real ANTZ before.
Well, at least not one that revealed themselves to me.

I just want to look her in the eyes and ask her why, although she's probably dead inside and her eyes are just black holes.

 

[Petrodus]

I just want to look her in the eyes and ask her why, although she's probably dead inside
and her eyes are just black holes.

She's not stupid. She knows the Truth.
Just like politicians ... her core values are for sale.

Since "the Prude" monitors the ECF ..
I suggest she knows your looking for a face-to-face ...
So the odds are she's not going to grant your wish
to publicly expose her corrupt black-heart.

 

[DC2]

She's not stupid. She knows the Truth.
Just like politicians ... her core values are for sale.

Since "the Prude" monitors the ECF ..
I suggest she knows your looking for a face-to-face ...
So the odds are she's not going to grant your wish
to publicly expose her corrupt black-heart.

I hope she is reading this, or at the very least her graduate students.
The ones she sent out to mine this forum to spin her lies.

 

[CES]

It's be interesting to talk to her about methods, and ethics....

I wonder what the university institutional review board (IRB) would have to say about using ECF information without permission. Technically any human subjects research, including questionnaires, require informed consent and IRB approval.

 

[Luisa]

It's be interesting to talk to her about methods, and ethics....

I wonder what the university institutional review board (IRB) would have to say about using ECF information without permission. Technically any human subjects research, including questionnaires, require informed consent and IRB approval.

At that nutty University,she probably had their blessings.

 

[bombastinator]

The metals thing I can definitely believe. Quality control has not exactly been an industry watch word. I wonder if she tried to normalize for age and the fact that most folks here are long time former smokers?

 

[djsvapour]

Who is this woman? What is her problem.

I've seen the 4 "major" observations related to the SALE and USE of e-cigarettes - I don't see how things like cartomiser disposal, e-cig instructions/warnings, leaking, etc. are a substantial barrier to safe vaping.

and why do people keep saying this?; "Nothing is known, however, about the chemicals present in the aerosolized vapors emanating from e-cigarettes."

What do we NOT know about? We know about PG, we know about nicotine - rather than banning e-cigs why don't the anti lobby PROVE what the problems are.

 

[Petrodus]

Who is this woman? What is her problem.

I've seen the 4 "major" observations related to the SALE and USE of e-cigarettes - I don't see how things like cartomiser disposal, e-cig instructions/warnings, leaking, etc. are a substantial barrier to safe vaping.

and why do people keep saying this?; "Nothing is known, however, about the chemicals present in the aerosolized vapors emanating from e-cigarettes."

What do we NOT know about? We know about PG, we know about nicotine - rather than banning e-cigs why don't the anti lobby PROVE what the problems are.

Those opposed to e-smoking don't have to prove anything ...
They make up Lies and do Junk Science ... and then we
have to do the science to prove they're Lying.
Then they make up more Lies and the cycle repeats.

 

[djsvapour]

Those opposed to e-smoking don't have to prove anything ...
They make up Lies and do Junk Science ... and then we
have to do the science to prove they're Lying.
Then they make up more Lies and the cycle repeats.

It would seem that way. As the product already exists, you'd hope that one scientist vs another would not be enough to stop it's sale.