More cooked studies hitting front page of newspapers today

[Beamslider]

vaping DANGER
Teenagers who start using e-cigarettes are twice as likely to become regular smokers within a year, study claims

Teens using e-cigarettes twice as likely to become regular smokers within a year

 

[Kent C]

Basically Fake News coming out of UC San Francisco from an associate Dentist of sexual harasser Stanton Glanz:

Association of Noncigarette Tobacco Product Use With Future Cigarette Smoking Among Youth

"Findings In this cohort study of the Population Assessment of tobacco and Health, ever and past 30-day use of electronic cigarettes, hookah (tobacco waterpipe), noncigarette combustible tobacco, or smokeless tobacco was associated with cigarette initiation within 1 year."

So it was for all 'noncigarette' use, not just ecigs... and...

"At 1-year follow-up, 469 (4.6%) of all baseline never-smoking youths had tried a cigarette and 219 (2.1%) had smoked a cigarette within the past 30 days. Cigarette ever use at follow-up was higher among youths who had ever used e-cigarettes (78 [19.1%])..."

So it isn't what the headline states - "twice as likely" - but 19.1% likely.

And I'm guessing Bill G, Karl Phillips, Siegel, Casaa, et al will have to say more about the 'methods' used in the study.

Plus:

http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj....email&utm_term=0_8d0d062dbd-a301cda732-876207

This is a study in July 2017 with a huge sampling:

"Table 2⇓ shows e-cigarette use by cigarette smoking status. Of 161 054 respondents to the 2014-15 survey, 104 788 were never smokers, 22 548 were current smokers, and 2136 recent quitters (those who quit for less than one year). Never smokers had the lowest rate for e-cigarette use: 2.0% had ever used them. Recent quitters had the highest ever use rate, 49.3%, which was even higher than that of current smokers, 38.2%.

 

[Letitia]

Sigh
Teens try most everything they're told not to do. Vaping doesn't have a damn thing to do with it one way or the other.

 

[dc99]

More BS. How do they get away with just plain made up BS. Ask the same teens how many have got high in that time period. Bet its more than 19%. Glanz should be in jail

 

[Bill Godshall]

Vapor prohibitionists at JAMA Pediatrics publish another DHHS funded junk gateway e-cig study by vaping opponents at UCSF, find teens who had ever used an e-cig, smokeless tobacco, hookah or cigar prior to baseline were more likely to smoke a cigarette (in the past 30 days) a year later than were teens who had hadn’t used any tobacco or vapor product prior to baseline. UCSF vaping opponents inappropriately excluded all baseline cigarette smokers from their intentionally deceptive study because they were most likely to be cigarette smokers a year later, tout their cherry picked findings to advocate even more cigarette protecting restrictions for very low risk vapor and smokeless tobacco products. Duped news media repeat bogus gateway claims as scientific evidence.
Youth Using Alternative Tobacco Products Are More Likely to Smoke 1 Year Later
Association of Noncigarette Tobacco Product Use With Future Cigarette Smoking Among Youth
E-cigarettes may be a gateway to smoking for teens, researchers say
Teens who start vaping are more likely to end up smoking, UCSF study finds

Brad Rodu reveals that 80% of teen cigarette smokers (cited in UCSF study above) had not used ANY tobacco or vapor product prior to baseline, and that UCSF authors failed (i.e. refused) to reveal that critically important finding in their study and press release, which deceitfully insinuated that e-cigs, smokeless tobacco, hookah and cigars are all gateways to cigarette smoking for teens.
Tobacco Truth: Tobacco Gateway Report Omits Important Information

In sum, the UCSF study found that "never smoking teens" who "ever used" an e-cig accounted for just 11 of 219 teens (i.e. 5%) who reported "past-30-day cigarette smoking" a year later, and that the percentage would have been far lower (i.e. 1%-2%) if the UCSF junk scientists hadn't unethically excluded all baseline "current smokers" and "ever smokers" from their junk study.

 

[Kent C]

tout their cherry picked findings to advocate even more cigarette protecting restrictions for very low risk vapor and smokeless tobacco products. Duped news media repeat bogus gateway claims as scientific evidence.

Brad Rodu reveals that 80% of teen cigarette smokers (cited in UCSF study above) had not used ANY tobacco or vapor product prior to baseline, and that UCSF authors failed (i.e. refused) to reveal that critically important finding in their study and press release

Thank you Bill!

 

[Beamslider]

I remember the Candy cigarettes from the 50s and 60s. The white sugar ones with the red tips. They were saying back then that they lead to kids smoking.

 

[Letitia]

I remember the Candy cigarettes from the 50s and 60s. The white sugar ones with the red tips. They were saying back then that they lead to kids smoking.

Kids smoke because they're told not too.

 

[stols001]

I remember those, and I liked them. And yet, they had no nicotine in them and I started smoking probably a decade or more later..... I'm quite sure that they played a HUGE role in my decision to start smoking. (BTW, I was 18 when I did start, so I was a never-smoker, pretty athletic teen who later started smoking.)

I couldn't begin to list the number of reasons teens or young adults start smoking but I have a feeling that "bravado" and "lack of critical reasoning skills" played a huge role in that, plus I had the very mistaken impression that it would be totally easy to quit... I have no idea where THAT idea came from, but I'm fairly certain it was related to the fact that I do remember my dad "quitting" smoking and picking butts out of the ashtrays in front of elevators then telling me, "Don't do that."

Yeah, he had a TOTALLY easy time of it.

I also don't think surveying teens in schools is really the best way to find out what is happening.... In my case, I would have to have been observed in the dead of night, in my natural habitat, which was quite often a really shady bar with a really bad Frank Zappa band that would let you in with a "mark" on your hand that was licked off with One swipe of the tongue, that and the alley between it and the really awful strip club next door that had a lot of rats where I would go to do even MORE dastardly things.

If I wasn't going to tell my parents about it, I was most certainly NOT going to report it to the government. I kinda have a feeling those "self-report" studies are trotted out in preparation for the next "Save the kids," restriction.

You know, I got a ton of the bad stuff out of the way when I was young and it was easy.... Kinda made things easier later on....

If you aren't offered the choice to make bad decisions you never learn anything and then when your first bad choice shows up it can be catastrophic. Just saying...

And no I don't think teens should smoke, but the more attention it is paid....??? The more exciting it is going to be. I wish it was illegal to use self-report in government funded studies, or at least if you do, have a "lie scale" which often does a decent job of telling the study that person is lying... at least some of the time.

Anna

 

[Bill Godshall]

The only thing their study really found was that among 9,909 never cigarette smoking teens at baseline, 11 ever users of an e-cigarette, 3 ever users of smokeless tobacco, 8 ever users of hookah, 7 ever users of a cigar, and 15 ever users of two or more OTP had smoked a cigarette a year later.

The 2014 NYTS found that 22% of teens (i.e. 6th-12th graders) had "ever smoked" a cigarette, and that 6.1% of teens (or 27.7% of ever cigarette smokers) had smoked a cigarette in the "past 30 days".

Had the UCSF study included "ever cigarette smokers" in their study, the number of
"ever cigarette smokers" at baseline would have been about 2,180 (9,909 x .22 = 2,180).

Assuming that 27.7% of those "ever cigarette smokers" became a "past 30 day" cigarette smoker a year later, 604 "ever smokers" (2,108 x .277 = 604) would have been current cigarette smokers (i.e. past 30 days) a year later.

So if the 2014 PATH and 2014 NYTS data were the same (in fact they were very similar), and if the UCSF researchers had appropriately included "ever cigarette smokers" in their study at baseline, there would be a total of
823 "current cigarette smokers" (219 + 604 = 823) a year later, including:
604 "ever cigarette smokers",
175 "never tobacco users",
11 "ever e-cigarette users",
3 "ever smokeless tobacco users",
8 "ever hookah users",
7 "ever cigar users, and
15 "ever users of two or more OTP"
823 total

Had UCSF activists ethically conducted their study, a correct press release headline would have said
"Study finds teens who "ever smoked" a cigarette are 55 times more likely than
never smoking teens who "ever used" an e-cigarette to become a "current cigarette smoker" the next year."

 

[Kent C]

"Study finds teens who "ever smoked" a cigarette are 55 times more likely than
never smoking teens who "ever used" an e-cigarette to become a "current cigarette smoker" the next year."

Thanks again, Bill, for the full story. Too bad journalists won't do that leg work...

 

[Kent C]

This all reminds me of an episode of The Orville - Majority Rules, where the crew goes to a planet where everything (including justice) is determined by up and down votes (via social media). A crew member is caught by locals (video) making what they consider to be lewd behavior to a statue of a pioneer of the planet.

So many downvotes gets one an 'attitude adjustment' which results in what is near to electroshock therapy to 'get their mind right'.

So the crew grabs a local girl, Lysella, for help. She helps them resurrect a more socially acceptable profile for the guy in trouble via social media - basically making up a bunch of lies that would be favorable, and stop the downvoting. Someone asks:

What if people try to corroborate all this information?

Lysella, with a roll of eyes look: Don't worry. They won't.

And this is what these junk scientists RELY upon, for the general public. Thankfully, we have people that Will look into their studies, dig deep and get the facts rather than the fake news headlines.