Anti-THR Lies: The comparative risk of e-cigarettes — numbers, nonsense, and innumeracy

[BuGlen]

Another great article posted today by Dr. Carl Phillips, this time about the PHE 95% number and why it's actually bogus. He gives and excellent break down of the types of risks assessed in the studies used in the analysis and why they do not correlated to one another, nor do they support the 95% safer estimate. Toward the end of the article he reiterates that based on all that is known, the 5% risk estimate is actually much lower.

The comparative risk of e-cigarettes — numbers, nonsense, and innumeracy | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

 

[Stubby]

Another related article by Carl on why it is a bad idea to play along with junk science. It is a bad idea to defend junk science, even if it appears on the surface to be a temporary advantage. Defending this study will come back and bite vaping advocates.

More on the ecig advocates’ descent toward junk science | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

 

[DrMA]

Carl makes a few interesting points, but they are highly academic otherwise. In practice, science plays no role in determining the path policy, rather the PR spin put on it. Whereas I agree that having good science on your side of the argument is morally right, it means nothing in terms of convincing the public or politicians to do the right thing. Therefore, I will gladly set aside the minor hair-splitting over the 95% figure in the PHE report and continued to promote it as THE single biggest, most influential development on the pro-vaping side since advocacy began.

 

[Kent C]

Carl makes a few interesting points, but they are highly academic otherwise.

I'd describe it differently.

.... although on this issue, I tend to agree. :- ) It's a bit like saying - there's a 95% chance that ecigarettes will not kill you. For comparison skydiving has a 99.993% success rate :- )

 

[Stubby]

Carl makes a few interesting points, but they are highly academic otherwise. In practice, science plays no role in determining the path policy, rather the PR spin put on it. Whereas I agree that having good science on your side of the argument is morally right, it means nothing in terms of convincing the public or politicians to do the right thing. Therefore, I will gladly set aside the minor hair-splitting over the 95% figure in the PHE report and continued to promote it as THE single biggest, most influential development on the pro-vaping side since advocacy began.

I'd describe it differently.

.... although on this issue, I tend to agree. :- ) It's a bit like saying - there's a 95% chance that ecigarettes will not kill you. For comparison skydiving has a 99.993% success rate :- )

You are really missing the main point. Supporting badly done science because it goes along with your agenda is always a bad idea. Now you are picking and choosing which junk science to support and which to attack. Getting caught up in that type of game is not going to have a good outcome. By doing so the vaping community has lost all integrity and trust. That is something we do (did) have, unlike the tobacco control industry. You are never going to win playing on their level. They have to much money and power to make believe we can be successful at their game.

 

[Kent C]

You are really missing the main point. Supporting badly done science because it goes along with your agenda is always a bad idea. Now you are picking and choosing which junk science to support and which to attack. Getting caught up in that type of game is not going to have a good outcome. By doing so the vaping community has lost all integrity and trust. That is something we do (did) have, unlike the tobacco control industry. You are never going to win playing on their level. They have to much money and power to make believe we can be successful at their game.

My comment - "I tend to agree" was with Carl. I thought my subsequent comment and the skydiving analogy would make that clear :- )