Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Nah, a frank and candid discussion of statistics.
For the record, I don't buy the 95% or more safer than cigarettes. There are no data to support that claim, which was made by consensus not clinical evidence. That said, I do view it as markedly safer than cigarettes, but by how much will only be known with long term observation, and we're nowhere close to having that information available. It could be 99% safer, or only 70% safer, maybe even just 50% safer, but regardless is more than sufficient to support its use as a harm reduction method of a tobacco substitute.
I don't need to back off my words because I'm right and you're full of crap. If all studies that have been done showed vaping to be 95% or more better than smoking the correct wording would be AT LEAST. Since that is not the case the correct wording is UP TO. To say vaping is AT LEAST 95% safer than smoking cigarettes is as untrue and dangerous as saying that vaping is as bad or worse than smoking cigarettes. Learn the meaning of the words you're saying.
check this one -
it was not just the theoretical number. PHE is the UK’s top health protection agency and employs 5,000 staff who are mostly scientists, researchers, and public health professionals. And, as he mentioned in this video, 5% was including the social risks, actual number is even less than that.
Did other kids hit you a lot in your childhood? I know I would. Like at least 95% sure.
check this one -
it was not just the theoretical number. PHE is the UK’s top health protection agency and employs 5,000 staff who are mostly scientists, researchers, and public health professionals. And, as he mentioned in this video, 5% was including the social risks, actual number is even less than that.
Did other kids hit you a lot in your childhood? I know I would. Like at least 95% sure.
So you're now a proven liar. You have one study that says 95% safer. That doesn't support AT LEAST when there are other studies that say less. You obviously didn't go to school. Learn the meaning of what you're saying.
the conclusion of at least 95% safer was made on a number of researches made by PHE's staff.
You never proved your words and just started to swear which is not cool. If you keep on doing it I'll just put you on ignore mode. Looks like won't be missing anything important.
You never proved your words and just started to swear which is not cool. If you keep on doing it I'll just put you on ignore mode. Looks like won't be missing anything important.
That was only 1 study and doesn't support the statement of AT LEAST. There are other studies that show it's not a 95% reduction.You're a dangerous ignorant liar. You don't know the meaning of what you're saying.the conclusion of at least 95% safer was made on a number of researches made by PHE's staff.
You never proved your words and just started to swear which is not cool. If you keep on doing it I'll just put you on ignore mode. Looks like won't be missing anything important.
As far as you hitting me, you being from the UK you probably do need some dental work.
Oh, oh. International boundaries crossed. Not far from...
Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.
Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.
Not sure if you picked-up on something that was said in the Video you posted. But it is Fundamental as to How that 5% Naked Statistic of Harm was derived.
At around 4:42... "We made an assessment of each of these [Harm] criteria, both how much more harmful it was, and How Important that Harm was."
What Mr. Dockrell is saying is that they Applied Weighted Averages to individual harm components to arrive at an Composite Index Score.
This, in and of Itself, is Problematic. And introduces a High Degree of Subjectivity.
What weighted Average should be Applied to say the Risk of Serious Burn Injury from smoking in bed? Or what weighted Average should be applied to the Social-Economic Harm from the High Price of Smoking verses a Lower Cost of Use of an e-Cigarette?
Also remember, the Composite Index Only considered Harm as to what a Cigarette can Cause. So if there is Harm associated with e-Cigarettes alone, that wasn't included in the Index.
Don't get Me wrong. I Firmly believe that e-Cigarettes can (withing a Normal Distribution of use) poses a Significant Harm reduction over Moderate to Habitual Smoking.
But I'm Not going to Place a Blanket Statistic using Weighted Averages to come up with some Delta Percentage that applies to All e-Cigarettes for All e-Cigarette users under All Conditions.
Still waiting for that link, Don.
And disappointed that you're diving into attacking members instead of bringing data to the discussion.
I haven’t had enough coffee this morning for this folderal. In the US come May, it won’t matter if it’s at least/up to 4%,, 44%, or 104% safer than smoking because what is likely to keep people vaping won’t get approved.
Sure it is, all ppl are different. One can smoke 2 packs/day for 30+ years and still be relatively healthy but many will die during the same "journey" from one reason or another but mostly because of the smoking related health complications.
Same with vaping but in case of vaping, the data gathered during these years (5+ years from the original 95% safer statement) was showing that the relevant harm (subjective and objective) is still less than 5% comparing to the original smokes.
don't get too close tho, might be contagious. Up to 95% but still
I want to see the faces of the "moms against vaping" when pretty soon they'll start catching their kids smoking cigs instead.
I think you are Missing the Bigger Picture here.
Look I didn't start this BS. We all have read other studies and I'm not searching to post garbage we all know is out there. 1 study does not prove the blanket statement of AT LEAST. The CDC was saying vaping is more dangerous than smoking. That fortunately is changing as more info that most vapers understood is being proven. The point being I don't believe the UK study is the absolute definitive study just as I don't believe the CDC about anything. Do I believe vaping is safe? No. Do I believe vaping is safer than smoking cigarettes? Yes. Is playing with a diamondback safe? No. Is playing with a diamondback safer than playing with a green mojave? Yes.
Similar threads
- Locked
