Look out. University of California is one of Hillary Clinton's biggest donors.Well stated and I agree.
I feel that way about the University of California, San Francisco.
They harbor and lend credence to this miscreant.
Look out. University of California is one of Hillary Clinton's biggest donors.Well stated and I agree.
I feel that way about the University of California, San Francisco.
They harbor and lend credence to this miscreant.
If dear emma and the review board allow this type ill-informed and dangerous research to pass into a "respected medical journal" without challenge, speaks volumes about the ethics involvedBTW - There is an Old Saying...
"If You Don't Like something at the Circus. Don't Yell at the Clowns. Yell at the Ringleader."
emma.grainger@lancet.com
This came up before, here. These CNN "ireports" are test runs to see if there's enough support for CNN to want to go with them. When this one first appeared, they were asking people to vote on it, which is how it works. It looks like this one did not make the cut:
Strange way to do journalism (if it even can be called journalism).
And the choices:What do you think of this story?
Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
BTW, this story was submitted by a freelance writer:-Awesome!
-Put this on TV!
-Almost!
-Needs work.
-This submission violates iReport's community guidelines
Biography
Paul Fitzgerald is a freelance writer. His work appears in a large number of newspapers and magazines around the world. He is also the President and CEO of salt & Pepper Media Inc, a global public relations firm
The only way to ever make sense of Glantz's arguments is to recognize he is constantly searching for new holes in vaping's "armor". He is looking for anything and everything to attack vaping and keep negative headlines in the news.The only way I can see to make sense of Glantz's argument is if he truly views vaping to be the same as smoking. If so, then what he's really balking about is that people aren't putting down the vape 12 weeks or so after the last cigarette.
Agreed. To state that vaping makes it harder to quit smoking is so absurd on so many levels. It is clear that Glantz and his like are not objectively looking at the facts. They are only propaganda machines, and damn good ones at that.For 28% more non-vape users to quit, at least 28% would need to quit. ANY study with a >28% quit success rate should be big news by itself, from what I know about such things.
That could be true but from my experience; eCigs helped me quit and my VW Club that I belong to.
I think Stan may have overlooked all the people who had no intention of EVER quitting who ended up quitting shortly after finding vaping. Me for one.
Me three!Same for me !
Look out. University of California is one of Hillary Clinton's biggest donors.
Not a whole lot of relief, for me.What a relief, thank you.
But while the conclusion is surprising, so is the number of academics who have criticised the paper.
One was Ann McNeill, professor of tobacco addiction at Kings College London, whose own research is included in Glantz's analysis.
"This review is not scientific," she wrote on the Science Media Centre website.
"The information… about two studies that I co-authored is either inaccurate or misleading… I believe the findings should therefore be dismissed.
Another point is that the studies vary in the way they measure how often people use e-cigarettes. "Some only assessed whether a person had ever tried an e-cigarette or if they had tried one recently, not whether they were using it regularly or frequently," Bauld says.
This has been the big difference between my previous quits, and this one. I know I won't relapse.Another part of the deception is that quitting is not the issue. Relapse is the issue. As we all know ecigs protect against relapse.