Scott, I'm going to use some portions of your post as a springboard, my comments are _not_ directed at you personally sir.
Well, yes, of _course_ these studies will be done whether or not you or I want them to be done. If the studies on analog smoking were limited to "opt-in" only, we might be still thinking that they were safe.
Let's start with the first sentence. No, the study will not "be done" by us, it will be done by the people who know about statistics, controls, and [hopefully] medical data collection from imperfect humans. 'We' will be the guinea pigs, to be studied by those doing the study. But there is even a problem with that assertion, see below.
[Big edit, left this out: It would take many, many, 'many' years to discover all the even "possible" adverse reactions.]
And who is to decide when someone has an adverse reaction, and where do we get the data? A doctor? That seems like a logical choice, doesn't it.
Well, right there you've eliminated all the people who don't go see a doctor every time they have a friggin BUMP on their skin from the study.
I think we have to automatically exclude Canadians and Brits for obvious reasons. Hell I'd go for an exam every day too, if I lived there. Just for fun
I guess before I get off-topic it just comes down to this:
- Those who smoke e-cigs usually have access to the internet (or money), therefore we can assume a certain level of income (however small). Those without internet access, well, if they can pay Smoking Everywhere's prices in malls, well they have it ok too.
- Predominately WHINERS would get reported in a so-called "study" if only doctors' data was to be used. If someone had a SMALL skin reaction I sure wouldn't expect them to go to a doctor, and _certainly_ not to the E.R. But the low-life's do here in the USA. And in socialized countries I understand it's expected. Either way, the whiners get counted manyfold.
- Those who choose to smoke e-cigs rather than analogs likely think they have something to live for. Otherwise, why quit? Hint: this right there eliminates all folks with critical illnesses who smoke who might have otherwise given up the things. Also keep in mind those who may be depressed, crazed, you name it. That's important if you compare it with deaths.
- Those who don't care about your study anyway aren't going to respond, and that further skews the numbers. If you start your study by targeting smokers and/or those who used to smoke, these are folks who have been targeted by the government recently for extremely high taxes, or those who are fed up with being prisoners in their own environment. They are not going to participate unless they feel they can vent. A researcher's job is not for that, so you can guess.
And I'm sure you all have not forgotten: YOU ALL USED TO SMOKE! So your medical condition may actually have to do with *gasp*... the smoking?
Wow a revelation! *gasp* "Nah man I quit smoking a year ago!" <--- As the guy dies. E-smokes the cause of death? Who knows. YOU certainly don't. Neither do I.
So, out of allllllll those things (and more that I haven't thought of), I know there are people that can compensate for such things, an issue at a time. Great people who are good at what they do. But with all those, which seem to converge at a point? I'm not in the business, but that point of the cone is too fine to paint a picture of the entire population.
Faced with this _limited_ group of people, limited time, next-to-no-data and no way to get it really, there just isn't a good way to do it "by the end of the day".
(Ummm... oops, I guess this is a bit off topic from doctors)
Took a few minutes to read about it (no clue what site) and wrote out a script based on the dosing information he read. (Unfortunately, the pharmacy couldn't fill it as written as they were packaged in kits, so they called him and he faxed over another one).
