Glantz has already posted criticism of the Drexel study
- Thread starter Tache
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Do you think they would allow comments that contradicted their opinion?
Anyway heres Michael Siegels take on Stans take on the report.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/
It's in the update.
Anyway heres Michael Siegels take on Stans take on the report.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/
It's in the update.
I'd love to see this prat busted and find out how much money is being paid to him from his pimps BT and BP.
OP,
Most everything SG writes qualifies as junk science, and usually
Please break the link to his comments.
Most everything SG writes qualifies as junk science, and usually
Please break the link to his comments.
Dr. Farsalinos has already posted his comment:
Anti-tobacco activists fail to realize the meaning of research and make some
Anti-tobacco activists fail to realize the meaning of research and make some
I especially like comment by Farsalinos:
"Once again, they mis-present the study by Schripp and coworkers, and go to the point of saying that 2 in 10,000 will develop cancer. What Schripp said in his study was that formaldehyde was detected before the volunteer started using the e-cigarette. Thus, he concluded that formaldehyde originated from the normal exhaled breath of the volunteer. So, James Repace is suggesting that just by sitting in the same room with another person you have a higher chance of developing cancer!!"
"Once again, they mis-present the study by Schripp and coworkers, and go to the point of saying that 2 in 10,000 will develop cancer. What Schripp said in his study was that formaldehyde was detected before the volunteer started using the e-cigarette. Thus, he concluded that formaldehyde originated from the normal exhaled breath of the volunteer. So, James Repace is suggesting that just by sitting in the same room with another person you have a higher chance of developing cancer!!"
This cycle will continue until definitive, bulletproof studies (more than one, with repeatable results each time) are done and accepted by the major medical publications. Until then it'll be, "Yay Us! Boo Them!", ad nauseam.
Not until it goes in front of a judge and a court of law determines it, just like it did in 2009 when the FDA lost their case and the court determined that the FDA didn't have the authority to hold shipments of ecigs from other countries as it is not a medical device. The more credible studies we have, the more evidence there is that the lies being spread by the FDA and the ANTZ have no scientific basis.
They're opening a can of worms because the way I read it is that they claim that cancer is contagious from just sitting next to one of the 2 of 10,000!?! It is really an insult to our intelligence if they think we give them any credibility from that statement.
i'm going to read the cited blog posts shortly, but my first thought on seeing a cancer related statistic of 2 in 10,000 was: how awesome would that be if only 2 in 10,000 people got cancer?!
Reality check: approx. one-third of all people living in developed countries will develop some kind of cancer in their lifetime, and the biggest risk factor is aging. Just saying.
Reality check: approx. one-third of all people living in developed countries will develop some kind of cancer in their lifetime, and the biggest risk factor is aging. Just saying.
I too felt this was the biggest take from his response. We had to figure that all of the ANTZ would put their POO POO on this quickly. I love the pic of the BULL posted earlier too!!!LMFAO!
Last edited:
Glantz can't claim he didn't ask for it...
Glantz vs. Burstyn – hardly a fair fight | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
Glantz vs. Burstyn – hardly a fair fight | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
Not even then. Their own second hand smoke study came to the opposite conclusion they claim. They were even called out on it by the UK press. They continued telling the lie until the people accepted it as the truth. Now nobody dares bring up the second hand smoke study or they'll get painted as a nut case.
They need to be exposed for what they are. It needs to be repeated just as loudly and as often as they do until the fact that they are bought and paid for becomes accepted as the truth by the general population and they have no more credibility. They are making this easy by being against things like bans for minors, they're destroying their own credibility and making people question why.
Carl Phillips: rebutteur* par excellence! Not only it this an outstanding commentary, there are some deep belly laughs among the gems! I recommend it to everyone.
*I made that word up.
*I made that word up.
Excellent read! I feel like I may have actually gained an IQ point after reading that.
Snicker. I can't help but think of that wonderful story "The Emperor's New Clothes"......"but he doesn't have any clothes on, Mom"......
Dr. Phillips really tore Glantz up. Was good to read!! WAY TO GO!! He pretty much beat him up with Glantz's own words!! Definitely good to have Dr. Phillips going to battle with us! Thank You!!
Last edited:
Oh no! I share an office with 2 other people!! I'm going to get cancer!! LOL HAHAHA
James Repace seems to have 2 braincells, and, they're playing hide-and-seek in his head! LOL
James Repace seems to have 2 braincells, and, they're playing hide-and-seek in his head! LOL
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
