Can't tell if this is good news or bad news: Study of smoking cancer patients fuels e-cigarette debate
Another MSN Article.
- Thread starter TheProphet
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Studies, shmuddies, the waters it muddies...
Like me doing a study while relaxing near a pond...COPYRIGHTDMCA thrown into the pond do not swim while I vape. But they don't swim either when I don't vape.
Do I get some funding now for further studies ?
Like for a well-filled picnic basket for me and my SO , errr I mean research assistant, while we observe non-floating COPYRIGHTDMCA together ?
Like me doing a study while relaxing near a pond...COPYRIGHTDMCA thrown into the pond do not swim while I vape. But they don't swim either when I don't vape.
Do I get some funding now for further studies ?
Like for a well-filled picnic basket for me and my SO , errr I mean research assistant, while we observe non-floating COPYRIGHTDMCA together ?
Another problem with the study is that it used a binary definition of smoking. It seems no attempt was made to quantify the amount of cigarettes consumed.
This is a critical piece of info for dual-users (which includes all e-cig users studied, at least at the beginning).
But I guess what some of the critics are saying is that the study compared:
a) Smokers
with
b) Dual-Users
But totally ignored
c) Those who already transitioned completely to e-cigs.
(that wasn't very clear from the article, but I think "Those who have already failed" is their term for a dual-user?)
This is a critical piece of info for dual-users (which includes all e-cig users studied, at least at the beginning).
But I guess what some of the critics are saying is that the study compared:
a) Smokers
with
b) Dual-Users
But totally ignored
c) Those who already transitioned completely to e-cigs.
(that wasn't very clear from the article, but I think "Those who have already failed" is their term for a dual-user?)
They also didn't state what the equipment was. Was it a look alike or a tank, battery, and yummy flavored e-juice? That makes a big difference, at least it did to me.
Electronic cigarette use among patients with cancer: Characteristics of electronic cigarette users and their smoking cessation outcomes - Borderud - 2014 - Cancer - Wiley Online Library
Have to pay to get the study.... may be the reason for the ambiguity
I'm guessing that since the piece associates cancer with e-cigs without really telling how and why, then that was the point of the article - mere 'association'.
A more obvious point might be, if someone already has cancer and is still smoking - evidently getting cancer was not enough incentive - then why would they mess with the extra aspects of ecigs over smoking...... Depending on the prognosis, if dire, and if it were me, I'd likely come to the same conclusions. IOW, such results don't show too much about anything, imo.
If someone had lost both legs and had used the same wheelchair for 10 years with which they've become accustomed, and someone offered a 'new improved' wheelchair, if it wasn't that much different, they're likely say - no, I'm good....
Have to pay to get the study.... may be the reason for the ambiguity
I'm guessing that since the piece associates cancer with e-cigs without really telling how and why, then that was the point of the article - mere 'association'.
A more obvious point might be, if someone already has cancer and is still smoking - evidently getting cancer was not enough incentive - then why would they mess with the extra aspects of ecigs over smoking...... Depending on the prognosis, if dire, and if it were me, I'd likely come to the same conclusions. IOW, such results don't show too much about anything, imo.
If someone had lost both legs and had used the same wheelchair for 10 years with which they've become accustomed, and someone offered a 'new improved' wheelchair, if it wasn't that much different, they're likely say - no, I'm good....
The Methodology was OK, it's the conclusions reached that are bogus. E-cigs may not be the perfect answer for cancer survivors who are highly addicted to nicotine and have failed to quit using a variety of other methods. A rather exacting standard.
I'm the exception, I fit all their criteria and have been wildly successful using e-cigarettes to quit.
Electronic cigarette use among patients with cancer: Characteristics of electronic cigarette users and their smoking cessation outcomes - Borderud - 2014 - Cancer - Wiley Online Library
Have to pay to get the study.... may be the reason for the ambiguity
Seems the article was written using what they could glean for free, typical sloppy journalism.
+1 ^^^This^^^
The article struck me as a malicious, underhanded attempt to create subliminal association between ecigs and cancer by putting together the "ecig" and "cancer" buzzwords in the title and splattering the nonsense all over the media.
My first thought on it, and likely many others some of whom wouldn't have the sense to realize it
With West and Hayek (since WE know those guys - not many will, unfortunately) trashing the study - it's about the only conclusion to which one can come.
That's because, according to ANTZ/government orthodoxy, all smoking habits are exactly the same. There is no practical difference between someone who chain smokes three packs a day and a casual smoker who has one or two cigarettes a week.
So e-cigs may not be the perfect answer...
...but they are an answer.
But it's certainly a better answer than continued smoking.
Cuz no matter how crooked or straight, neutral or biased a study may be :
Can't 'study' away the fact, that tobacco smoke contains a good number of known carcinogens which are absent in vapor...
...but they are an answer.
But it's certainly a better answer than continued smoking.
Cuz no matter how crooked or straight, neutral or biased a study may be :
Can't 'study' away the fact, that tobacco smoke contains a good number of known carcinogens which are absent in vapor...
I finally got ahold of the full-text study - it was a pita to obtain! I wasn't able to get to it by searching for it through my university's database; I had to go through the university (to log in), then go to Wiley online, go into their "oncology" category, find the Cancer journal, and then and only then was I able to search for the article directly! I've never had such a hard time finding a journal article when I know the author's name. It's as if they deliberately made it difficult to find...
That said, I only read through it once so far, but what really stuck out to me was that 66% of their e-cig using patients were lost to follow up! Only 34% of those who never used an e-cig were lost. Of those who remained, there was very little difference in daily number of cigarettes smoked between the two groups. They didn't say if any of the e-cig users they had left no longer smoked, but it's safe to say that likely they were all dual users.
Interestingly, the way they conducted the study was by putting smokers in a "tobacco cessation program", in which they were linked up with counselors by phone to support them in quitting smoking and collect data at the same time. This is probably why they lost so many patients to follow up - if you are cured of your affliction (i.e. smoking addiction), then why would you bother staying in the treatment program?? In fact, they don't mention any quitters at all in their final analysis. They probably all took off after they quit. If they had told patients they were collecting data for a study as well (presumably they did not), some of the quitters would have answered the phone.
Basically, in the end this study compares smokers with cancer to dual users with cancer, and says absolutely nothing about the e-cig's ability to help people reduce or quit smoking, since all of those patients were "lost". Totally bogus and biased.
That said, I only read through it once so far, but what really stuck out to me was that 66% of their e-cig using patients were lost to follow up! Only 34% of those who never used an e-cig were lost. Of those who remained, there was very little difference in daily number of cigarettes smoked between the two groups. They didn't say if any of the e-cig users they had left no longer smoked, but it's safe to say that likely they were all dual users.
Interestingly, the way they conducted the study was by putting smokers in a "tobacco cessation program", in which they were linked up with counselors by phone to support them in quitting smoking and collect data at the same time. This is probably why they lost so many patients to follow up - if you are cured of your affliction (i.e. smoking addiction), then why would you bother staying in the treatment program?? In fact, they don't mention any quitters at all in their final analysis. They probably all took off after they quit. If they had told patients they were collecting data for a study as well (presumably they did not), some of the quitters would have answered the phone.
Basically, in the end this study compares smokers with cancer to dual users with cancer, and says absolutely nothing about the e-cig's ability to help people reduce or quit smoking, since all of those patients were "lost". Totally bogus and biased.
Last edited:
You're forgetting how a clinician's worldview works. If someone leaves your study, they no longer exist. In fact, they never existed in the first place.
Nice find, dragonpuff. Your explanation could very well be true, however I'm of a more cynical view. I'm guessing the 66% that were "lost" may have actually been "misplaced intentionally" because the data they represented did not quite fit the pattern they were looking for.
- Status
Similar threads
