Consumer Reports - I am so disappointed; Parroting "controlled studies" and citing information they should have found before printing their very FIRST

[Don Robertson]

[h=1]I always thought Consumer Reports had the best group of research folks around. I am beginning to think I am too darned old to "think". They seem to simply 'parrot' that which we have read in one form or another and made it sound 'official'.

"Can E-Cigarettes Help You Quit Smoking? Don't Count On It." December 11, 2013[/h]
Electronic Cigarette | Nicotine | Smoking Cessation - Consumer Reports

BOTH the groups that "failed" consisted of individuals who "agreed to participate in a study" - NOT "individuals such as the new and successful here on ECF and elsewhere who had the desire to QUIT" - or so I interpret the article.**If so inclined - NEW and VETERAN VAPOR ALIKE - take some time and read the articles; you may find or reinforce information and you may find it useful in countering the claims of those who want to decide FOR US if we are allowed to continue vaping and defeating those horribles urges some may experience.

"Are e-cigarettes safe for the people around them? New research provides some reassurance, but much remains." Dec. 18, 2013

E-Cigarette | Electronic Cigarette Safety - Consumer Reports

A MIRACLE! One week later ..... they discover "new information many had read "elsewhere". Then they feel compelled to use the ever popular scare tactic when winding up their 'report'. This angers me as much as not reporting or 'polling" folks who have SUCCESSFULLY used e-cigarettes to at least begin the process becoming non-smokers.

"Bottom line: The Consumer Report article cites outside information suggesting there is evidence that vapor from e-cigarettes is most likely safer to inhale secondhand than cigarette smoke. You'll no doubt still see some folks who still want to and will no doubt rapidly "move away" - some with arms flailing or covering their nose and mouth while saying something you cannot understand because of the speed they are moving and their mouth being covered.

*** LINKS TO CONSUMER REPORTS WEB SITE WERE NOT FOUND BY ANY ILLEGAL METHOD; THE ARTICLES ARE EASILY FOUND - I BROKE NO RULES?.

Senile Old Man Don.........Tryin' to stay within the guidelines one day at a time. just want to spread the news old or mot; most likely 'old'..... but, searchin' didn't show these two articles. So I'm givin' 'em a shout out.

 

[StarsAndBars]

A fan of Consumer Reports here as well. The article from the http you listed seemed to be objective, just incomplete and overall unoriginal. I didn't find anything said that hasn't been said dozens of times.

As to the article in the hyperlink. The numbers certainly don't look favorable regarding the study performed, but I think we have to take a look at the devices used for the study. If the picture in the article represents the delivery device, the numbers aren't surprising. They really didn't have to go to the trouble of citing a study. They could have simply approached me with a picture of the device that was used in the study and asked "how many people do you think will stop smoking by using this device?" I would have told them 'maybe 1 out of 20.'

That being said, I doubt the good people at Consumer Reports have a clue what devices people use when they actually find success with electronic cigs. Had they given every participant a Reo Mod, or Privari, I submit the numbers would tip more than slightly.

I don't think Consumer Reports was too far out of line here. They just weren't able to factor in variables that would have been important to the outcome of their findings. Thanks for posting.

 

[BuGlen]

I don't put much faith in Consumer Reports because there were reports (in the '90s, I think) about how they favor the products of their paid advertisers. There were other reports that accused them of accepting "lab" fees for product reviews which lead to biased reports. I don't know that either of these accusations were validated at the time, but it makes sense if you tend to use the 'follow the money' logic as I do, so I haven't relied on any commercial publication for product reviews in quite a while.

 

[Kent C]

Consumer Reports, while almost always staffed with left leaning individuals, was able to maintain some semblance of objectivity until the invasion of Nadarites - namely Clarence Ditlow and Joan Claybrook (one of the rent seeking activists who made it into a gov' agency - NHTSA and the 'air bag' lady) of Public Citizen (a community organizer group) during the late 80's, who became board members of CU. Around that time I recall (as a subscriber) a blatantly political piece on some issue - seems like it was 'the homeless' but it may have been healthcare.... I dropped the subscription.

Consumer Distorts: The Consumer Reports <r> Watchdog

 

[Jay-dub]

They should have a better editor. I'm a stupids and I found spelling errors. I don't know why anyone who vaped would want a cig though. But everyone is different. Since vaping doesn't have the side-effects but still delivers my nic I am not only adamant about not wanting to quit but I'm considering upping my dosage.

 

[Don Robertson]

I know of no "paid advertisers: in Consumer Reports". Perhaps another - but my printed edition has none whatsoever and they stress this in each edition.Their labs are massive and they have published many photos over the years. What they DO use for "statistics" is member input such as, "How did it perform? Repairs? Satisfied? Buy another and so on. I have always felt those could be 'slanted' even though it would take a large number of bad responses to do so.

I wrote them a letter in December and suggested that if they have a genuine interest in e-cigarettes that investigate the many other "types" beyond the eJoy "style" and provided references to web sites I felt showed a variety of atomizers AND explained the function of same. I have yet to hear back from them - but, if they are truly interested enough to publish two articles in one month I would hope they will see there is far more to this than they have covered thus far.

Senile Old Man Don

 

[r77r7r]

Was a follower for years. Became increasingly perplexed about their choices and the way they viewed the consumer.

Shame is that they Can do great work, they just don't seem to "get" that we're Human.

And they seem to consider themselves and their work Too highly.

 

[Don Robertson]

Consumer Reports, while almost always staffed with left leaning individuals, was able to maintain some semblance of objectivity until the invasion of Nadarites - namely Clarence Ditlow and Joan Claybrook (one of the rent seeking activists who made it into a gov' agency - NHTSA and the 'air bag' lady) of Public Citizen (a community organizer group) during the late 80's, who became board members of CU. Around that time I recall (as a subscriber) a blatantly political piece on some issue - seems like it was 'the homeless' but it may have been healthcare.... I dropped the subscription.

Consumer Distorts: The Consumer Reports <r> Watchdog

KENT I have to agree on this one. I lived in California. My business was (and remains in family hands) in California. In the early years we had many corporate credit cards (not so today) and the tabs could run quite high. One month the cumulative bill was paid late - beyond the grace period. It was a tidy amount - but it was indeed late and the fault on our end.

Short story associated with this part of your article; Even though they are in the article - I'll "x-out the names of the attorney's just for the sake of not potentially breaking a "rule" here: "Two of CU's biggest benefactors have been attorneys xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx of San Francisco. The xxxxxxxxxxx's (who are now divorced) developed a lucrative practice suing financial institutions under an obscure California law that prohibits many late fees for credit cards. These class actions often net millions for the xxxxxxxxxxx's, but the actual class members are eligible for only a few dollars apiece in compensation, so a lot of the money goes unclaimed."

We received 11% of the actual amount we paid in 'late fees'. The $1.5 million CU received to me anyway was for being the 'whistle-blower'. I thought of it differently back then; think of a drunken sailor who is really ticked off and knows a LOT of bad words. That would be me.

Thanks for the memories!

Senile Old Man Don

 

[wv2win]

I don't put much faith in Consumer Reports because there were reports (in the '90s, I think) about how they favor the products of their paid advertisers. There were other reports that accused them of accepting "lab" fees for product reviews which lead to biased reports. I don't know that either of these accusations were validated at the time, but it makes sense if you tend to use the 'follow the money' logic as I do, so I haven't relied on any commercial publication for product reviews in quite a while.

Consumer Reports accepts no advertisements at all.

If they would have done a "real world" test/study like they do for their car, tire, TV, etc studies with basic, mid-level, high-end equipment, they would have provided a better analysis and a better outcome in the article. They are not there, yet. And maybe never will be.

 

[BuGlen]

I know of no "paid advertisers: in Consumer Reports". Perhaps another - but my printed edition has none whatsoever and they stress this in each edition.Their labs are massive and they have published many photos over the years. What they DO use for "statistics" is member input such as, "How did it perform? Repairs? Satisfied? Buy another and so on. I have always felt those could be 'slanted' even though it would take a large number of bad responses to do so.

I wrote them a letter in December and suggested that if they have a genuine interest in e-cigarettes that investigate the many other "types" beyond the eJoy "style" and provided references to web sites I felt showed a variety of atomizers AND explained the function of same. I have yet to hear back from them - but, if they are truly interested enough to publish two articles in one month I would hope they will see there is far more to this than they have covered thus far.

Senile Old Man Don

Consumer Reports accepts no advertisements at all.

If they would have done a "real world" test/study like they do for their car, tire, TV, etc studies with basic, mid-level, high-end equipment, they would have provided a better analysis and a better outcome in the article. They are not there, yet. And maybe never will be.

It is quite possible that either it was just a false accusation or that it was another consumer review publication that was being referenced. I couldn't find anything on Google that supports my statement, so I'll humbly admit that I was just wrong.