FDA CDC again grossly misrepresents NYTS e-cig youth usage data to deceive, scare and lobby for FDA deeming reg

[Bovinia]

I'm used to the usual diatribe, but it's definitely getting a lot louder and bigger

 

[Bill Godshall]

DrMA wrote

NYTS data are freely available for download and analysis.

The CDC has NOT made available any 2013 NYTS data except the cherry picked garbage they put in Monday's study and press release.

Similarly, the CDC didn't make available any 2012 NYTS data (except the cherry picked garbage they cited in Sept, Oct. and November of 2013 to smear e-cigs, cigars and hookah) until 2014.

Carl Phillips exposed some of CDC's most recent lies at

CDC refines their lies about kids and e-cigarettes
CDC refines their lies about kids and e-cigarettes | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

and at

CDC press release about e-cigarettes: blatant lying by government officials
CDC press release about e-cigarettes: blatant lying by government officials | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

 

[dragonpuff]

DrMA wrote



The CDC has NOT made available any 2013 NYTS data except the cherry picked garbage they put in Monday's study and press release.

Similarly, the CDC didn't make available any 2012 NYTS data (except the cherry picked garbage they cited in Sept, Oct. and November of 2013 to smear e-cigs, cigars and hookah) until 2014.

Carl Phillips exposed some of CDC's most recent lies at

CDC refines their lies about kids and e-cigarettes
CDC refines their lies about kids and e-cigarettes | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

and at

CDC press release about e-cigarettes: blatant lying by government officials
CDC press release about e-cigarettes: blatant lying by government officials | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

Excellent rebuttals from Carl Phillips, as always!

An excerpt:

So what did they find? They reported that according the 2013 NYTS, 263,000 never-smoking American youth, grades 6-12, had ever tried one puff of an e-cigarette. The lies start here. They describe this as “used e-cigarettes” even though no rational person would interpret “use” to mean “tried one puff ever”. The press release compounds this lie with the headline:

More than a quarter-million youth who had never smoked a cigarette used e-cigarettes in 2013

Um, no. Did you not read your own methods section. The results showed that in 2013, this many kids had ever tried an e-cigarette, not that they tried (let alone used) e-cigarettes in 2013. I never realized that you had to be an expert in epidemiology or econometrics (which these people clearly are not) to understand the concept of “ever”.

Yes!!! And the rest of it is just as scathing! Superb!

 

[mountaingal]

So what if kids try and use E-cigs? They are much better off than if they tried and used cigarettes with all those chemicals and additives.

 

[DrMA]

CDC nyts data is available for download thru 2012 here:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/surveys/nyts/?mobile=nocontent

2013 does not appear to be available yet, but likely can be solicited from CDC with a FOIA request.

 

[JustJulie]

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/08/in-cdc-fda-e-cigarette-study-probably.html

 

[Kent C]

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/08/in-cdc-fda-e-cigarette-study-probably.html

To reach this conclusion, the CDC-FDA re-defined “probably not” to mean “yes, I will.” Adolescents who answered “probably not” to either of the two questions were classified as intending to smoke.

sigh.....

 

[DrMA]

To reach this conclusion, the CDC-FDA re-defined “probably not” to mean “yes, I will.” Adolescents who answered “probably not” to either of the two questions were classified as intending to smoke.

sigh.....

Yeah, I thought that was an interesting policy on the part of the gubmint. I'll have to inform my wife about that

 

[2coils]

So what if kids try and use E-cigs? They are much better off than if they tried and used cigarettes with all those chemicals and additives.

I have always said.....I wish e-cigs were around when I was 13, when I started smoking! Though, one can't expect a politician or health organization to use this train of thought. On the other hand, lying through their teeth is acceptable to them

 

[Bill Godshall]

Since my old computer cannot download the large NYTS survey data sets from 2011 or 2012, it would be helpful if someone could obtain and post the corresponding percentages of "never smokers" and "ever smokers" in grades 6-12 who reported "ever use" and "past 30 day use" in 2011 and 2012 (so that an objective comparison can be made to the newly released 2013 NYTS data.

CDC 2013 NYTS found that 6.9% of youth “ever smokers” reported trying an e-cig in the "past 30 days" compared to just .3% of "never smokers".
It also found that 20.2% of "ever smokers" reported "ever use" of an e-cig compared to just .9% of "never smokers".

Konstantinos Farsilinos informed me that in 2012, the NYTS found that .2% of "never smokers" reported "past 30 day use" of an e-cig, and that .8% of "never smokers" reported "ever use" of an e-cig, which indicates that just .1% of "never smokers" tried an e-cig in 2013 (as .8% had already 'ever used" an e-cig or before 2012).

When calculating the 263,000 youth who reported "ever use" of an e-cig in 2013, it appears that CDC also made a math error (or perhaps it too was intentional) by multiplying the .9% of youth (who claimed to have "ever used" an e-cig in the survey) by the total number of US youth in grades 6-12 (i.e. 29.2 million), including all ever smokers (.009 x 29.2M = 262,800), instead of multiplying by the number of "never smoker" youth.

Although CDC didn't reveal the percentage of youth who were "never smokers" nor the percentage who were "ever smokers", it is likely that about 10% of youth in the survey were "ever smokers". If it was 10%, the CDC's 263,000 estimate should have been 26,300 fewer.

 

[bigdancehawk]

I don't know how they got that up to 263,000, but I think they must have included some 12 year olds. However you slice the numbers, the survey didn't ask how many were regular or frequent users, which is obviously the most important thing to find out. So, as it stands, the survey merely shows that kids will try stuff. Didn't we already know that?

It is extremely dishonest and deliberately misleading to call a kid who took a single puff 3 years ago a "user."

Furthermore, as Carl Phillips and others have pointed out, the survey didn't measure an alarming increase in young e-cigarette "ever" users. That's because they keep counting the same population group. To illustrate the fallacy, assume for the sake of simplicity that there are 100 kids in each of the seven grades in the survey group. Further assume that last year twenty 10th graders took a few puffs on an e-cigarette and never took one after that. The CDC does a survey and reports that 2.9% of the kids have used e-cigs. When the 10th graders graduate to 11th grad, they are still counted as "ever" users. Then 20 of the new 10th graders take a few puffs and never take a puff after that. Then this year the CDC asks the kids the same question as last year, i.e,, "Have you ever used an e-cig, even if only once?" Of course, 40 kids now say "yes," and the CDC issues an alarming press release claiming e-cig use has doubled from 2.8% to 5.6%.

EDIT: That's bad enough, but the the press, evidently incapable of distinguishing propaganda and lies from facts, publishes these claims in sensationalist headlines without getting input from anyone who knows how to properly review the underlying methodology or data.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Farsalininos provided the following data from 2011 and 2012 NYTS, demonstrating that CDC's study and press release lied about their estimates of "never smokers" who "ever used" and e-cig.

"Never smokers" who reported "ever use" of an e-cig
2011 - .4%
2012 - .8%
2013 - .9%

While the NYTS found that "ever use" of e-cigs by "never smoker" increased 2.25 times (from .4% to .9%) from 2011 to 2013, CDC falsely claimed the number of "never smokers" who "ever used" an e-cig tripled from 79,000 to 263,000.

Also, the only way 79,000 could have "ever used" in 2011 was if two thirds of the 29.4 million youth (in grades 6-12) were "never smokers".
(79,000/.004 = 19,750,000)

And the only way 263,000 "never smokers" could have "ever used" an e-cig in 2013 was if ALL of the 29.22 million youth (in grades 6-12) were "never smokers".
(263,000/.009 = 29,222,222)

Clearly, both numbers are wrong.

Also, KF provided the following NTYS numbers.

"Never smokers" who reported "past 30 day" e-cig use
2011 - .2%
2012 - .2%
2013 - .3%

"Ever smokers" who reported "past 30 day" e-cig use
2011 - 2.8%
2012 - 7.0%
2013 - 6.9%

"Ever smokers" who reported "ever use" of an e-cig
2011 - 8.7%
2012 - 22.2%
2013 - 20.2%

 

[DrMA]

Well, this ^^^^ settles it then. Not only are the CDC and FDA staff involved in malicious and criminal public health malpractice by distorting the data and lying about the analyses, they also demonstrate monumental incompetence and stupidity in their inability to do basic arithmetic.

BTW, I hope somebody has enough access to the media drones to publicize this glaring error in a press release and demand CDC-FDA admit the error and revise their calculations. It's unlikely they'll revise their lying and fabricated interpretation, but the arithmetic error is incontrovertible.

 

[dragonpuff]

Also, the only way 79,000 could have "ever used" in 2011 was if two thirds of the 29.4 million youth (in grades 6-12) were "never smokers".
(79,000/.004 = 19,750,000)

And the only way 263,000 "never smokers" could have "ever used" an e-cig in 2013 was if ALL of the 29.22 million youth (in grades 6-12) were "never smokers".
(263,000/.009 = 29,222,222)

Clearly, both numbers are wrong.

Interesting. This is far beyond a statistical fudge; the CDC flat out lied about the numbers.

Is there any way to get that out in the open? We're going to be hearing that 263,000 number for a long time, and I'd like to see some balance in the reporting (i.e. to hear reporters say "some criticize how the CDC came up with these figures"). Is there any way we can penetrate the media/corporate forcefield and make our voice heard here? At least, if nothing else, we can plant the seed of doubt in people's minds if there were even slightly balanced reporting.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Interesting. This is far beyond a statistical fudge; the CDC flat out lied about the numbers.

Is there any way to get that out in the open? We're going to be hearing that 263,000 number for a long time, and I'd like to see some balance in the reporting (i.e. to hear reporters say "some criticize how the CDC came up with these figures"). Is there any way we can penetrate the media/corporate forcefield and make our voice heard here? At least, if nothing else, we can plant the seed of doubt in people's minds if there were even slightly balanced reporting.

I have no idea how to secure fair reporting. It's not my field. All I know how to do is post comments and write letters to the editor--not terribly effective, I'm afraid.

 

[Kent C]

I see no 'Triples' in any stat.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Interesting. This is far beyond a statistical fudge; the CDC flat out lied about the numbers.

Is there any way to get that out in the open? We're going to be hearing that 263,000 number for a long time, and I'd like to see some balance in the reporting (i.e. to hear reporters say "some criticize how the CDC came up with these figures"). Is there any way we can penetrate the media/corporate forcefield and make our voice heard here? At least, if nothing else, we can plant the seed of doubt in people's minds if there were even slightly balanced reporting.

I shamelessly stole from Bill's post and posted it as a comment on about a dozen sites.

 

[csardaz]

Survey says ... "do you think you will" and the headlines come up as "intend to".

To me, "think" doesn't convey intention strongly enough to substitute "Intend" in its place more like "expect".

I sent CDC an e-mail asking where to get the 2013 data. Where would you get data like ..... hrmm how many US kids are in grade X? I suppose theres also how many US kids are X years old. I have no clue what drop-out rates are - How many 17 year olds aren't in any grade at all?

 

[csardaz]

Here are some inquiries against the 2012 dataset
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/blogs/csardaz/6651-some-queries-against-2012-nyts-data.html

150 kids tried an ecig but never tried a cig
62% of kids who ever tried an ecig think they will try a cig in next year
76% of kids who tried an ecig in last 30 days think they will try a cig in next year
74% of kids who tried an ecig in last 30 days - are also current smokers once a month to daily ..... so something close to 74% out of that 76% above would
expect to try cigs again.

Kids who tried an ecig in the last month - but didn't smoke cigs this month - think they will try a cig in next year = 25%

9.29% of kids smoke cigs (in last month)
14.44% Smoked tobacco (in last month) across cigs, pipes, cigars, bidi, hookah not including smokeless and ecig - actual combustable smoke rate

 

[DrMA]

Excellent work, csardaz. Thank you.

So, we can have an answer to the age question: how many "kids" in the survey are actually adults (18+)? Well, for 2012 it's 2124, or 8.6%.