Get your dumbrellas ready! The failed mechanic is about to gush again

[DrMA]

Highlights:
«this work must be very poor indeed because it was initially pitched to at least one US journal, which normally publishes anything hostile to e-cigarettes, and it was even rejected by them.»

«It is a weakness of the peer review system that the reasons why one journal rejected a paper are not available to the reviewers of the next journal that the authors try. This allows for ‘gullibility shopping’ – just keep going until you find editors and reviewers with either too little understanding or too much ideological bias. And there it is! Ready to be cited by every other unscrupulous academic, official and activist trying to prove that something much safer is somehow more dangerous.»

Who will be duped by error-strewn ‘meta-analysis’ of e-cigarette studies? « The counterfactual

 

[DC2]

I don't even know what to say...

 

[Kent C]

Flawed "meta-analysis" is how the EPA got their second hand smoke conclusion. Worked before, why not now?

 

[cigarbabe]

I won't even read his crap-o-la.
I've said what I thought via twitter!
C.B.

 

[DrMA]

Expert reaction:
"major failure of the peer review system" - R. West
"grossly misleading" - P. Hajek
"This review is not scientific" - Ann McNeil

expert reaction to meta-analysis looking at e-cigarette use and smoking cessation | Science Media Centre

 

[EBates]

Not to worry, I'm sure that all of the folks blasting the OP'd article will be rounded up, taken to the public square, staked and burned. This will be required in the name of Saving The Children.

 

[Falconeer]

...meanwhile some of us Old Rejects will simply ignore the crapology, stock up on bombproof fully mech mods, wire and cotton, take up the squonking and last be seen heading off down the trail raising a two fingered salute while trailing plumes of vapour toting large backpacks full of concentrated nic liquid....

 

[LaraC]

As Clive Bates put it (at the end of the "Counterfactual" link in DrMA's first post):

"It is one of many weaknesses of the peer review system that the reasons why one journal rejected a paper are not available to the reviewers of the next journal that the authors try. This allows for ‘gullibility shopping’: just keep going until you find editors and reviewers with either too little understanding or too much ideological bias that they will nod it through. And there it is: a peer reviewed paper ready to be cited by its own authjors every other unscrupulous academic, official and activist trying to prove that something much safer is somehow more dangerous."

So.... Lancet finally was the journal that embraced the Kalkhoran/Glantz meta-junk.

Lancet happens to also be the publication that stupidly tried to criticize Public Health England's excellent, well-researched report last year regarding the safety (95% less health risk) of e-cigarettes compared to combustible cigarettes.

Lancet and Glantz certainly do play well together. It figures.

 

[DrMA]

As Clive Bates put it (at the end of the "Counterfactual" link in DrMA's first post):

"It is one of many weaknesses of the peer review system that the reasons why one journal rejected a paper are not available to the reviewers of the next journal that the authors try. This allows for ‘gullibility shopping’: just keep going until you find editors and reviewers with either too little understanding or too much ideological bias that they will nod it through. And there it is: a peer reviewed paper ready to be cited by its own authjors every other unscrupulous academic, official and activist trying to prove that something much safer is somehow more dangerous."

So.... Lancet finally was the journal that embraced the Kalkhoran/Glantz meta-junk.

Lancet happens to also be the publication that stupidly tried to criticize Public Health England's excellent, well-researched report last year regarding the safety (95% less health risk) of e-cigarettes compared to combustible cigarettes.

Lancet and Glantz certainly do play well together. It figures.

Everyone reading this post should write a scathing complaint to Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Here http://www.thelancet.com/contact-us

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[Canadian_Vaper]

Gregory Conley from the AVA will be interviewed along with Stanton Glantz in a few hours, tune in! Starts in 20 mins..

Listen Live | KQED Public Media for Northern CA

12:30 Est.

 

[nicnik]

Gregory Conley from the AVA will be interviewed along with Stanton Glantz in a few hours, tune in! Starts in 20 mins..

Listen Live | KQED Public Media for Northern CA

12:30 Est.

Poorly done interviewing. Weak rebuttals to Glantz. Overall disappointing.

 

[LaraC]

Thanks for the link, Asylumsix. I listened. Sickening to hear Glantz pontificating.

Something that surprised me in the interview was that Glantz mentioned he had taught two classes in statistics. At least I think he said "taught." So, I googled Glantz and statistics. He has authored a textbook or two. Looked up one of the books to see what reviews on Amazon had to say about it - Primer of Biostatistics, Seventh Edition (Primer of Biostatistics (Glantz)

Got a chuckle reading these bits from a couple of the reviews:

"I minored in mathematics in undergrad and aced biostatistics there. This book has SO many mistake (class makes a game out of finding them) and I don't mean the grammatical ones. Where did this guy learn to write? Run-on sentences galore are compounded upon his misuse of terminology (i.e calling a group a "population" and failing to mention he changes his definition by chapter 3 on what that is)"


"This book showed up in my med school library today and I read most of it in about an hour. Not that I'm anything special in terms of reading speed, it's just not as dense as most stat books. That's a good thing, mostly - the author has an engaging writing style that's approachable. He goes over a large number of statistical tests, applying them to problems such as predicting martian weights for a given height. Yep, Martians. And plotonians, when the tobacco companies are forced to market further afield."


"To me, if you're looking to learn about biostatistics, I say keep looking. While the author does use examples that relate to living things, such as the effect cell phone radiation on rabbit sperm, it's got very little to do with the business of biostatistics."

 

[Canadian_Vaper]

Was surprised to hear stant say that he thinks it would be a good thing if all smokers switched to vaping, but hilarious to see him say they don't help smokers quit >.> Greg did a decent job for the amount of time he actually got to talk, bringing up cancer society's and other studies etc.

I'd just leave this here.

 

[DC2]

I don't know what shocks me more...

The depths to which Satan GlANTZ will sink to in order to push his agenda.
Or the fact that he is so certain it will work and feels comfortable doing whatever he wants.

The former shocks me less and less with each passing year.
But the latter shocks me more and more.

It's long since past time to take down the charlatans that run Tobacco Control.

 

[AndriaD]

I don't know what shocks me more...

The depths to which Satan GlANTZ will sink to in order to push his agenda.
Or the fact that he is so certain it will work and feels comfortable doing whatever he wants.

The former shocks me less and less with each passing year.
But the latter shocks me more and more.

It's long since past time to take down the charlatans that run Tobacco Control.

Frankly I'm surprised that no one has yet pushed Glantz in front of a bus.

Andria

 

[DC2]

Frankly I'm surprised that no one has yet pushed Glantz in front of a bus.

He's too fat to push?

I guess when you spend your time sitting behind a desk...
(desk murderers)

And eating whatever fits in your piehole whether it's good for you or not...
You can freely demonize nicotine while sucking down sugar and whatever else...

And nobody can push you in front of a bus.
Because you're too fat.

 

[AndriaD]

He's too fat to push?

I guess when you spend your time sitting behind a desk...
(desk murderers)

And eating whatever fits in your piehole whether it's good for you or not...
You can freely demonize nicotine while sucking down sugar and whatever else...

And nobody can push you in front of a bus.
Because you're too fat.

Or maybe they're afraid of the collateral damage that would result from a bus hitting something that gargantuan. And he's in SF, right? Maybe one of those trolley things... Or, given those terrifying hills in SF, someone could just upset him enough to get him to start rolling... he could roll all the way to the pier.

Frankly it just boggles my mind that someone that grossly obese has a single word to say about ANYTHING health-related... and that ANYONE takes it seriously... Yeah, he OBVIOUSLY knows about healthy habits... NOT.

Thank god for 39 yrs of smoking, and never becoming morbidly obese! Thank you nicotine!

Andria

 

[skoony]

My impression of people like Glantz and others employed in tobacco related jobs for the government is I think they believe they are heir' s apparent to any resulting head postings occurring as the result of any expansion of the burocracy stemming from the New regulations.
Mike

 

[WhiteHighlights]

It's sad to watch this trickle down. I expected it in the media, but I just received a newsletter from the American Academy of Health and Fitness with this as the lead article and it links to healthfinder .gov. I work for an athletic club. I hope the personal trainers, fitness instructors, swim and tennis coaches don't read this or else I'm going to have some long days explaining this crap.

 

[bigdancehawk]

My impression of people like Glantz and others employed in tobacco related jobs for the government is I think they believe they are heir' s apparent to any resulting head postings occurring as the result of any expansion of the burocracy stemming from the New regulations.
Mike

Why would he do that? He is being paid $330,000 by UCSF, not to mention whatever he makes on the side.