Dr Siegel's comments about this study: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/09/new-study-claims-to-have-found-that-e.html
Another MSN Article.
- Thread starter TheProphet
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
"To be valid, the study needs to examine e-cigarette smokers who have not tried these products before and are trying them for the first time in an attempt to quit smoking. Otherwise, the study cannot truly claim to draw conclusions about how helpful e-cigarettes are for smoking cessation among cancer patients."
Ding! ♪ (Jeopardy style)
I want to add one more thing about the study that I caught my second or third time reading it. This, when combined with the data on those who dropped from the study, explains everything. I'm honestly shocked I overlooked this before...
When the authors describe their methods for analysis:
"Abstinence rates were calculated with 2 methods for handling missing data: 1) a modified intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, assuming all participants lost to follow-up were smoking; and 2) complete case analysis (CCA), in which participants lost to follow-up were eliminated from the analysis. Consistent with recommendations for handling missing data when reporting cessation outcomes, we report both ITT and CCA results because they represent, respectively, the full range of conservative and liberal interpretations of smoking abstinence outcomes."
So if they analyzed the data by including all who dropped from the study and assuming they still smoked, and by not including those who dropped at all... then why didn't they conduct an analysis including those who dropped from the study assuming they all quit???
Oh yeah... because that would have distorted their results, making it impossible for them to come to a clear-cut, undeniable conclusion. If they had run this analysis, since so many who dropped from the study were vapers, it would have suggested that vaping helps people quit smoking. But that's not the angle they were going for...
And, of course, at various points throughout the study when discussing their results it is very unclear which analysis they are referring to.
When the authors describe their methods for analysis:
"Abstinence rates were calculated with 2 methods for handling missing data: 1) a modified intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, assuming all participants lost to follow-up were smoking; and 2) complete case analysis (CCA), in which participants lost to follow-up were eliminated from the analysis. Consistent with recommendations for handling missing data when reporting cessation outcomes, we report both ITT and CCA results because they represent, respectively, the full range of conservative and liberal interpretations of smoking abstinence outcomes."
So if they analyzed the data by including all who dropped from the study and assuming they still smoked, and by not including those who dropped at all... then why didn't they conduct an analysis including those who dropped from the study assuming they all quit???
Oh yeah... because that would have distorted their results, making it impossible for them to come to a clear-cut, undeniable conclusion. If they had run this analysis, since so many who dropped from the study were vapers, it would have suggested that vaping helps people quit smoking. But that's not the angle they were going for...
And, of course, at various points throughout the study when discussing their results it is very unclear which analysis they are referring to.
Last edited:
Another bull.... media report and/or "study."
It pretty much says don't use ecigs because ecig bad, but use gums, patches and meds (Chantix or Zyban which is a very very bad drug).
It also goes on to say that ecigs don't help people quit their nicotine addiction (no .... sherlock, people vape nicotine).
So if I understand this correctly, inhaling a chemical found in the above methods of smoking cessation is bad, but using them orally = good. Does it not say on pretty much every juice site that direct skin contact with nicotine is bad, yet the FDA approves of this delivery method.
For once in my life I'd like to know who sponsored the research, it should be publicly made knowledge.
Still don't see how a 1 year long research project can declare a winner. I honestly think all the different vendors of anything ecig should pool money and start their own research.
I've talked to multiple doctors, including oncologists, lung specialists and they all say the same thing to me. If its in stuff we have been using since 1940, and our body can rid of it safely, go nuts.
www .inquisitr. com/1493884/e-cigarettes-wont-help-smokers-quit-says-new-study/
It pretty much says don't use ecigs because ecig bad, but use gums, patches and meds (Chantix or Zyban which is a very very bad drug).
It also goes on to say that ecigs don't help people quit their nicotine addiction (no .... sherlock, people vape nicotine).
So if I understand this correctly, inhaling a chemical found in the above methods of smoking cessation is bad, but using them orally = good. Does it not say on pretty much every juice site that direct skin contact with nicotine is bad, yet the FDA approves of this delivery method.
For once in my life I'd like to know who sponsored the research, it should be publicly made knowledge.
Still don't see how a 1 year long research project can declare a winner. I honestly think all the different vendors of anything ecig should pool money and start their own research.
I've talked to multiple doctors, including oncologists, lung specialists and they all say the same thing to me. If its in stuff we have been using since 1940, and our body can rid of it safely, go nuts.
www .inquisitr. com/1493884/e-cigarettes-wont-help-smokers-quit-says-new-study/
Last edited by a moderator:
Yup.... e cigs are cutting into the big pharma's profits, so they're gonna do what they can to soil the idea of e cigs.
Hope they DID point out how some of the patients may have gotten their cancer in the first place...like from smoking or so...
Instrumentalising or even downright abusing cancer patients - who got more than enough on their plate already - to further one's own political/financial agenda... I find that disgusting, though not surprising
Instrumentalising or even downright abusing cancer patients - who got more than enough on their plate already - to further one's own political/financial agenda... I find that disgusting, though not surprising
PG has been approved by FDA for inhalation for a long, long time. It is used in inhalers that hospitals hand out to smoking patients. Hospitals use it in their ventilation systems as a "germizide". It is used in asmatics inhalers. Chantix has killed over 500 people up to last year. Believe it's Johnson & Johnson that makes the "Quik Mist" sold in Europe which has ALL the ingredients our vape juice has PLUS 10 more. Junk science even hits supposed top notch health deliverers as well as proponents of health research, i.e. American Lung Assn., American Heart Assn., American Cancer Assn., etc. All bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical industy. Why "cure" a disease when you make more money treating it?
"When e-cigarette smokers first enrolled, they were more dependent on nicotine, had more prior quit attempts, and were more likely to be diagnosed with lung, or head and neck cancers, according to IANS Live. At a later followup stage, the report stated that e-cigarette users were just as likely to still be smoking as conventional smokers."
I'm a little confused on this line in the article. Can someone offer clarification? Are they trying to imply that using e-cigs causes these cancers? I'm sorry, maybe I'm having trouble reading this properly. If someone could explain this too me that would be great.
I'm a little confused on this line in the article. Can someone offer clarification? Are they trying to imply that using e-cigs causes these cancers? I'm sorry, maybe I'm having trouble reading this properly. If someone could explain this too me that would be great.
If big tobacco companies can get away with falsifying and suppressing damaging reports and pharmaceutical companies can deny issues such as with Thalidomide
we can expect a s**tstorm of misinformation over e cigs. The governments will just sit back and rake in the tax pounds/dollars
we can expect a s**tstorm of misinformation over e cigs. The governments will just sit back and rake in the tax pounds/dollars
In other words another fixed study that worked. It netted the Tobacco Control Industry more FUD headlines with (being nice) "questionable science" that got cancer involved.
We need to find some propagandists for our side that are half as good as TCI after their 3+ decades of practice.
We need to find some propagandists for our side that are half as good as TCI after their 3+ decades of practice.
When the authors describe their methods for analysis:
"Abstinence rates were calculated with 2 methods for handling missing data: 1) a modified intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, assuming all participants lost to follow-up were smoking; and 2) complete case analysis (CCA), in which participants lost to follow-up were eliminated from the analysis. Consistent with recommendations for handling missing data when reporting cessation outcomes, we report both ITT and CCA results because they represent, respectively, the full range of conservative and liberal interpretations of smoking abstinence outcomes." [No it doesn't represent the "full range" as you point out]
So if they analyzed the data by including all who dropped from the study and assuming they still smoked, and by not including those who dropped at all... then why didn't they conduct an analysis including those who dropped from the study assuming they all quit???
Oh yeah... because that would have distorted their results, making it impossible for them to come to a clear-cut, undeniable conclusion. If they had run this analysis, since so many who dropped from the study were vapers, it would have suggested that vaping helps people quit smoking. But that's not the angle they were going for...
And, of course, at various points throughout the study when discussing their results it is very unclear which analysis they are referring to.
More lying to justify their goals.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-yourselves-public-health-4.html#post14211182
There is a reason why links, such as the one posted, needs breaking: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...g-links-junk-science-other-rubbish-posts.html
Here's an interesting discussion about the process, problems, and merit of the scientific peer-review process:
Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science | David Colquhoun | Science | theguardian.com
Quite apart from the value judgements from each of the parties involved, I commend the fact that the media outlet published full commentaries from all parties involved in the debate: the critique, the original authors, and the journal editor. If we could get such a debate going in our field, I think we could see large and immediate improvement in the quality of the papers published. Imagine a forum where publications could be critiqued openly, authors could come to defend their research, and journal editors to explain their oversight of the peer-review and defend their ultimate decision to accept particular studies. As it stands right now, journals publishing ANTZ propaganda are nothing more than closed echo chambers for the self-same dogma. They rarely allow publication of critiques or responses, and never defend editorial choices or the peer- review process.
Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science | David Colquhoun | Science | theguardian.com
Quite apart from the value judgements from each of the parties involved, I commend the fact that the media outlet published full commentaries from all parties involved in the debate: the critique, the original authors, and the journal editor. If we could get such a debate going in our field, I think we could see large and immediate improvement in the quality of the papers published. Imagine a forum where publications could be critiqued openly, authors could come to defend their research, and journal editors to explain their oversight of the peer-review and defend their ultimate decision to accept particular studies. As it stands right now, journals publishing ANTZ propaganda are nothing more than closed echo chambers for the self-same dogma. They rarely allow publication of critiques or responses, and never defend editorial choices or the peer- review process.
Don't even know what to say! Disgusted! Vaping has helped me quit within a week of starting to vape! I have tried the nicotine gum, tried cold turkey, considered the chantix, then said forget it and continued to smoke. Through the years I always wished there was an easier way offered to me and I would have done it. Was tied to the cigarette for 28 years and vaping helped me throw them out in 6 days. You tell me something else out there that can do that!
NEWSFLASH: "Terminal lung cancer patients, who have no reason to quit smoking, are more likely to keep smoking. Story at 11."
You can send e-mails (ostroffj@mskcc.org) with your opinions to the author of this dumb paper - Jamie Ostroff, PhD
[QUOTE="THE STUDY";14214185]...between 2012 and 2013[/QUOTE]
got to remember - even at that time there was still PEG and other crap in name brand eliquids. - untill eliquid is "regulated" i dont think this war on ecigs will stop. - perhaps the one part of the industry that BT will end up trying to dominate since batteries/mods/tanks/drippers are ever evolving.
got to remember - even at that time there was still PEG and other crap in name brand eliquids. - untill eliquid is "regulated" i dont think this war on ecigs will stop. - perhaps the one part of the industry that BT will end up trying to dominate since batteries/mods/tanks/drippers are ever evolving.
- Status
Similar threads
