A critique of a WHO-commissioned report and associated article on electronic cigarettes

[SupplyDaddy]

Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos posts another correction!


A critique of a World Health Organization-commissioned report and associated paper on electronic cigarettes - McNeill - 2014 - Addiction - Wiley Online Library

ABSTRACT The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently commissioned a report reviewing evidence on electronic cigarettes and making policy recommendations. A version of it was subsequently published as an academic paper. We identify important errors in the description and interpretation of the studies reviewed, and find many of its key conclusions misleading.
Free access for 1 month at: A critique of a World Health Organization-commissioned report and associated paper on electronic cigarettes - McNeill - 2014 - Addiction - Wiley Online Library

Didn't see this on ECF, figured some folks could use it.

 

[Kent C]

Thanks for posting. This is similar to the wikipedia talk page that Dr.MA is doing. In fact, he may want to submit it to wiki. No doubt both wiki and WHO will insist on using the most skewed view of the science with their own 'emotional marketing' phrasing that they accuse ecig and tobacco companies of using And, they don't see the simlilarity nor the projection taking place which is near definitional:

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.

Dr. F et al, make this rather clear, but I suspect that it won't be accepted.

 

[DrMA]

This is the same McNeill et al critique discussed at length both here and on wiki. It was published online earlier and now it's in print.

 

[Jman8]

This is similar to the wikipedia talk page that Dr.MA is doing. In fact, he may want to submit it to wiki. No doubt both wiki and WHO will insist on using the most skewed view of the science with their own 'emotional marketing' phrasing that they accuse ecig and tobacco companies of using

I would say enormously helpful to the Wiki page debate. It is unspinning the spin that was previously accepted as fact.

But in essence, this is what we vaping enthusiasts are up against: spin.

ANTZ want to spin every studied morsel of data into "full blown problem unless we strictly control this." While vaping enthusiasts take the time to comb through all the research, think critically on main points and sub-points and get to the meat of what's actually being purported. Then often rephrase that in way that makes actual sense and is workable policy going forward.

A statement as simple as: we don't know the long term data around safety of eCigs, is perfect example.

As long as "we don't know" is the working meme, then ANTZ get to make mountains out of molehills on perceived harm without once referencing scientific data. They can, sometimes do, but more often than not, actually don't. So, they spin little incidences of possible harm into "be careful parents, all these eCig batteries will one day explode. Which likely means your house will catch on fire or your child will be faceless from daring to use an eCig. This is not a question of 'if' the battery will explode, but more like 'when.' "

That's the spin that vaping enthusiasts are up against. No science needed for those assertions. General public then is lead to believe that those eCig thingamajigs are likely exploding fairly often on their users. Wow, I hope no one I know uses those. They are very dangerous!

And vaping enthusiasts who spends all of 30 minutes realizes it was very likely human error that led to exploding battery situation. And vaper who vapes for 1 or more years and makes many vaping friends, learns from first hand experience and proper (or normal) use of batteries, that zero batteries explode when they are around or any of their vaping buddies are around.

 

[Kent C]

It should be quite clear to anyone now, that "reason" will not work on ANTZ or their supporting politicians and media. When up against the philoosophy of "the end justify the means", then there is no amount of distortion of data that is too much, ad hominem of opponents, spinning the positive into a "dangerous" negative, fear/scaremongering, junking of the science - all are just "tools" in their toolbox to achieve their "ends".

And when you have most of major media operating from the same philosophy, then attempts to 'correct', tell the truth, appeal to reason are all rendered ineffective. This is the essence of my quote from Dr. Siegel, (on another thread) when he was a full blown ANTZ prior to opting for THR - basically, 'don't engage opponents in a debate on science, but atttack their funding sources, and attack them, not the issues they raise'.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't use reason, science, and the media outlets that are more objective - Reason, Forbes, Fox, Cato, and others, because that media is also being used more and more - the 'comments' seen on the lapdog media pieces reflect this

If there is one thing nearly certain, as can be evidenced in the "Outside" and other similar forums around the web - one almost never 'convinces' or affects one's ideological opponents. There are occasional true 'flip flops' - David Horowitz, Arianna Huffington, and others, but they are the exception.

The 'movement' in ideas is always in the people who come to those forums, threads for information rather than to participate - althought some may post a few comments. It's those and the fence sitters who are open to being convinced or persuaded by reason. And allies can gain new viewpoints and arguments from other allies. And opponents can find new ways to attack rational arguments. It's really what can make those threads and forums fun, when you can remain above that, and not get biased moderators involved who feel their own ideas threatened.

The "movement" that one gets with comments, emails, CTAs, etc. is, imo, worth it as long as changes can be made with those who make laws and regulations, or when more objective courts get involved, who aren't as influenced by politics and major media.

 

[DrMA]

The wiki ANTZ have already denied the presentation of McNeill. That war started here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#Consensus_for_adding_this
And was escalated to several community forums, including formal dispute resolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip...Electronic_cigarette.23Violation_of_consensus

The ANTZ argued that the position of WHO is such a reliable source that no other has enough weight to contradict it. Of course, WHO's position is basically an uncritical parroting of the glANTZ atrocity...

Anyways, that battle is lost and it's unlikely the result would change if the discussion were reopened. In a minor victory on another battle, McNeill's critique was finally introduced in this related article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes

 

[Jman8]

The wiki ANTZ have already denied the presentation of McNeill. That war started here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#Consensus_for_adding_this
And was escalated to several community forums, including formal dispute resolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip...Electronic_cigarette.23Violation_of_consensus

I don't see it as entirely resolved. Just another example from the talk page (endless editing) where there is split consensus, and thus determined as not able to be included (yet).

Anyways, that battle is lost and it's unlikely the result would change if the discussion were reopened. In a minor victory on another battle, McNeill's critique was finally introduced in this related article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes

I'd much prefer all usage sub-topics for eCigs occur off the main article page. I realize ANTZ leaning editors stand in way of this, but also think pro-vape leaning editors want this as well. All kind of new to me, and all gets old pretty fast. I've made my position clear on talk page, and as long as other editors want to continue the back and forth / split consensus, I feel vindicated that the article is labeled as 'neutrality of this article is disputed.'

 

[KFarsalinos]

The wiki ANTZ have already denied the presentation of McNeill. That war started here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#Consensus_for_adding_this
And was escalated to several community forums, including formal dispute resolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip...Electronic_cigarette.23Violation_of_consensus

The ANTZ argued that the position of WHO is such a reliable source that no other has enough weight to contradict it. Of course, WHO's position is basically an uncritical parroting of the glANTZ atrocity...

Anyways, that battle is lost and it's unlikely the result would change if the discussion were reopened. In a minor victory on another battle, McNeill's critique was finally introduced in this related article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes

The "weigh" of the WHO or anyone else is useless when you talk about scientific facts. The only existing risk is that of being discredited if you distort scientific facts. And such a risk is a problem that the WHO will face, sooner or later. There is some previous history for it, e.g. the flu vaccination frenzy few years ago.

 

[pennysmalls]

We apparently need someone with the required "weight" to call them out on it, and soon.

 

[Kent C]

We apparently need someone with the required "weight" to call them out on it, and soon.

Basically what the OP's article does.

 

[pennysmalls]

I thought so too, but according to the mess over at wiki the weight was what was being questioned in terms of this article. I know nothing about weight in reviews and articles, this is the first I've heard of it, so I don't understand how all of this works but I got to thinking if the weight of the OP's articles is being questioned maybe there are others who can post a similar critique who's weight wouldn't be questioned.

 

[pennysmalls]

Unless the authors of the OP's article are the only ones who can do the critique because it was their info being distorted.

 

[Kent C]

I thought so too, but according to the mess over at wiki the weight was what was being questioned in terms of this article. I know nothing about weight in reviews and articles, this is the first I've heard of it, so I don't understand how all of this works but I got to thinking if the weight of the OP's articles is being questioned maybe there are others who can post a similar critique who's weight wouldn't be questioned.

No such animal exists Or if there is, on our side, the media would beat it down to where no one would know.

 

[pennysmalls]

Great. A girl can dream.....

 

[Kent C]

Great. A girl can dream.....

I, too, look for the day that will change

 

[Jman8]

The "weigh" of the WHO or anyone else is useless when you talk about scientific facts.

The weight is (or was) the issue as WHO is seen as primary resource on health matters (and scientific backing) whereas your report was seen as peanuts.

I agree with your assessment, but also think if shoe was on the other foot, and WHO strongly endorsed eCigs, that some vaping enthusiasts would prop this up because of perceived weight.

 

[skoony]

so the bottom line is they have paid staff to do these things and we do not?
mike

 

[Jman8]

For me, the bottom line is because society in general, and science more specifically, thinks the smoking debate (aka dogma) is settled, then ANTZ leaning entities always have that as fallback position, especially if a new activity (vaping) is in any way connected to that (i.e. smoking cessation).

 

[DC2]

For me, the bottom line is because society in general, and science more specifically, thinks the smoking debate (aka dogma) is settled, then ANTZ leaning entities always have that as fallback position, especially if a new activity (vaping) is in any way connected to that (i.e. smoking cessation).

I can't agree that your tactics will work quickly enough...
But I applaud your efforts regardless.

 

[WhiteHighlights]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I thought of all the misinformation we're dealing with in this thread. My sister sent this quote to me and I loved the last line:

She calls herself a science writer, but this is not the writing of a person who understands science. There is hardly a word of truth in it. It’s a classic example of pseudoscientific propaganda, an appalling farrago of false statements and fallacious arguments.

It made me think of a few people we're up against. FWIW, the quote is from a critique of an article written on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. The issues seemed eerily similar including someone trying to advance their cause by cherry picking data, ignoring evidence to the contrary, and citing outdated debunked studies. Does that sound familiar to you?